CC 2019-03-26_10a Brisco-Halcyon Project Status Update_Attachments 1-10ATTACHMENT 1
BRISCO-HALCYON ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS PROJECT
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
In 2001, a Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) was
completed to develop alternatives to improve operation of the Brisco-Halcyon
Road Road Interchange Modifications Project. The project moved from the PSR-
PDS phase to the Project Approval and Environmental Determination (PA&ED).
During PA&ED development, additional alternatives were identified and analyzed.
January 2005, City Council approved a contract with Wood Rogers to complete
the project report and environmental documents for the Brisco-Halycon Road
Interchange Modifications Project.
April 25, 2006 City Council approved Cooperative Agreement with the Caltrans for
development of the Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project through
PA&ED.
June 3, 2008 City Council approved Cooperative Agreement Amendment No. 1
with the Caltrans to extend the agreement for development of the Brisco-Halcyon
Road Interchange Modification Project through PA&ED
Alternatives were presented to the City Council at the August 12, 2008 meeting.
The City Council selected an alternative and directed staff and the City Council
Subcommittee to pursue approval and funding through the San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments (SLOCOG) and Caltrans. In May of 2009, the City Council
approved Contract Amendment No. 4 with Wood Rodgers, Inc. for preparation of
the design exception fact sheets for the Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange
Modifications Project PA&ED in the amount of $17,500. Additionally, the Council
authorized the Mayor to send a letter to Caltrans regarding opposition to requests
for further analysis and urging support for the City's preferred alternative.
In August 2009, Caltrans and the City were at an impasse, each agency preferred
different project design alternatives and believed other design alternatives were
not viable. Planning Company Associates, that was later renamed Point C, LLC,
was contracted to assist in determining a design solution to the Brisco impasse
and develop strategies to achieve project approval.
On May 11, 2010, the Council approved Contract Amendment No. 5 with Wood
Rodgers to include alternative 3B that placed ramps at Old Ranch Road and
continue an update of environmental studies and the PA&ED project. However, it
was subsequently determined that this alternative had a fatal flaw due to the grade
separation between U.S. 101 and Old Ranch Road.
ATTACHMENT 2
On October 26, 2010, the Council approved Alternative 4 to be included in the
PA&ED. Alternative 4 involves moving the Brisco northbound on-ramp and offramp
to Rodeo Drive. Additionally, the Council approved the preparation of supporting
information and design exception fact sheets to provide the public an opportunity
to comment at the Traffic Commission and neighborhood meetings.
The Traffic Commission considered the project alternatives on January 10, 2011
and a well-attended neighborhood meeting was held on February 24, 2011.
Project accomplishments include completion of the Purpose and Need document,
established performance criteria and the traffic analysis with concurrence from
Caltrans District 5 Traffic Operations.
In April 2011, the Council approved Amendment No. 6 with Wood Rodgers to
update environmental studies and continue preparation of the PA&ED documents.
Caltrans reviews required more revisions and effort than was anticipated for
Amendment No. 6.
November 22, 2011 City Council approved Cooperative Agreement Amendment
No. 2 with the Caltrans to extend the agreement for development of the Brisco-
Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project through PA&ED.
Draft funding recommendations for the project were approved at the February,
2012 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Board of Directors meeting.
In March 2012, the California Transportation Commission programmed $5.6
million in construction funding for the project. City Council Approved an
Amendment No. 3 to the Cooperative Agreement to extend the agreement for
development of the Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project through
PA&ED; Plan, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) and Right of Way (R/W)
phases
In May 2012, the Council approved Amendment No. 7 with Wood Rodgers for an
additional not to exceed amount of $103,820 in order to complete all technical
studies and prepare final design exception fact sheets.
In April 2013, the City Council Brisco Interchange Subcommittee, staff and
consultants met with Caltrans staff and learned that additional design and
amended technical studies were necessary for approval of design exception fact
sheets.
In December 2013, Caltrans, Consultants and staff met in Sacramento to review
comparison interchanges, and geometries for Alternative 4 and what would be
needed for approval of design exceptions. The result of the meeting was the
identification of Alternative 4C. However, additional information to reduce design
ATTACHMENT 2
speed on West Branch, as well as to develop an alternative intersection treatment
was determined necessary to finalize feasibility.
In March 2014, the City Council approved a revised intersection treatment for
Alternative 4C to include a roundabout (RAB) and consultant contracts to complete
necessary studies.
During 2014, consultants prepared conceptual geometries and design standards
compliance documents for Alternative 4 with a signalized intersection and with a
roundabout. This included an independent peer review by Kittelson and Associates
for the preliminary RAB design as requested by Caltrans District 5. Additionally, a
revised Advance Planning Study for the structure to carry the planned on-ramp
over Brisco Road in Alternative 4 was revised and the Preliminary Drainage Report
was updated and the Stormwater Data Report prepared. Finally, several technical
studies were revised including the Natural Environment Study, the Jurisdictional
Waters Assessment, the Conceptual Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, the
Archaeological Survey Report, the Historic Property Survey Report and Historical
Resources Evaluation Report, the Noise Study, Visual Impact Assessment, Air
Quality Study Report, Water Quality Assessment Report, Paleontological
Evaluation Report. The Community Impact Assessment is in progress. The Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has also been drafted. All of this work
was required to complete the draft Project Report and Environmental Study.
In August 2014, an additional $1,000,000 was recommended by SLOCOG to the
California Transportation Commission (CTC} for the construction phase of the
project to increase the total grant funding to $6.6 million.
In September 2014, City staff met with the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG) to go over the project schedule and verify that grant
funding status was unchanged.
In November 2014, Design Exception Fact Sheets were submitted to Caltrans.
In January 2015, the Brisco Subcommittee met with Caltrans and SLOCOG
officials. During the meeting Caltrans staff outlined remaining concerns with
Alternative 4C. A Project Development Team (PDT) meeting was determined
necessary to determine final alternatives that will go out for public review.
At City Council's meeting on March 10, 2015 Council authorized the continued
inclusion of Alternate 1 and Alternative 4C RAB and removed from consideration
the Alternative 4C Traffic Signal from Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange
Modification Project Approval and Environmental Determination (PA&ED) report.
On April 2, 2015 a series of project meetings were held that included a design
review meeting with Caltrans, Brisco Subcommittee Meeting, and a Brisco
ATTACHMENT 2
Stakeholders Meeting to provide updated information concerning the project and
obtain input. At the April 2, 2015 Design Review Meeting with Caltrans the meeting
focused on Alternative 4C RAB in order to look at alternatives to improve sight
distance for the northbound off-ramp. Based on Caltrans' input the design was
revised. The main feature of the revised design is that it lowered the RAB
approximately five feet in order to provide northbound off-ramp users vision of the
entire RAB. This revised design was submitted to Caltrans on April 19, 2015.
Caltrans reviewed this revised design and provided comments back to the City on
May 20, 2015. In order to mitigate concerns regarding stopping sight distance on
Alternative 4C RAB, the Caltrans design team and staff conducted a series of
meetings to develop additional design detail. The revised design greatly enhanced
sight stopping distance and final exhibits were transmitted to Caltrans on June 17,
2015.
On June 23, 2015 the City Council directed staff to pursue a test closure of the US
101 northbound on and off ramps at Brisco Road for the purposes of better defining
benefits and impacts to traffic flow.
On September 8, 2015 City Council Approved Test Closure Plan with test closure
beginning on September 21 and ending on November 30, 2015.
On September 29, 2015 the beginning of Test Closure is delayed due to rain until
September 29, 2015. US 101 northbound on and off - ramps at Brisco Road closed
on this date.
On October 27 2015 City Council unanimously votes to extend Test Closure
termination date from December 7, 2015 to January 11, 2016.
On December 4, 2015 Brisco Subcommittee meets to discuss Test Closure
termination date. Subcommittee decides to schedule a Brisco Project update on
the January 12, 2016 City Council agenda, including discussion of a future
potential closure through project construction.
On October 16, 2017 draft PA&ED documents are submitted to Caltrans for review.
On December 7, 2017 Comments regarding the draft PA&ED are received from
Caltrans.
A PDT meeting was held on January 19, 2018 to discuss draft PA&ED comments
and develop a path forward for approval of the draft documents.
On January 16, 2018 a PDT meeting was held to discuss Caltrans comments and
to final draft documents for Caltrans approval.
On March 21, 2018, the California Transportation Commission allocated funding
allowing for several infrastructure projects on the California Central Coast to
ATTACHMENT 2
continue moving forward, including $6,624,000 for the US 101/Brisco Road
Interchange Project.
On April 2 2018 Caltrans approves draft project report and draft environmental
documents. These documents are now available for public review and comment
starting April 12, 2018.
On April 26, 2018 a public workshop was held regarding the public review of the
environmental documents. City Staff, consultants and Caltrans were in attendance
to work with the public, address concerns and answer questions.
On April 27, 2018 a subcommittee meeting involving City Staff was held to update
subcommittee on project status and public workshop.
A PDT meeting held on August 18, 2018 to review public comments from the public
workshop and to discuss steps forward.
On January 30, 2019 a Brisco subcommittee meeting was held with City Staff,
Consultants, and Caltrans to familiarize new subcommittee members on the
project, project status and steps forward.
On February 13, 2019 City staff held a public information meeting to inform the
public on project history status and steps forward.
ATTACHMENT 2
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
ii
Vicinity Map
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
iv
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
2. RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................................. 2
3. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 2
3A. Project History ..................................................................................................................... 2
3B. Community Interaction ........................................................................................................ 3
3C. Existing Facility ................................................................................................................... 3
4. PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................................. 5
4A. Problem, Deficiencies, Justification .................................................................................... 5
4B. Regional and System Planning ............................................................................................. 5
4C. Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................ 6
Existing and Forecast Traffic Operations without Improvements ...........................................6
Intersection Operations ...........................................................................................................6
Intersection Queues .................................................................................................................7
Freeway Mainline Operations .................................................................................................8
Freeway Ramp Junction Operations .......................................................................................9
Freeway Weaving Operations ................................................................................................11
Existing Conditions Collision Analysis ..................................................................................11
5. ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................... 14
5A. Viable Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 14
5A.1 Build Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................... 14
Proposed Engineering Features ............................................................................................14
Intersection Operations .........................................................................................................15
Intersection Queues ...............................................................................................................16
Freeway Mainline Operations ...............................................................................................16
Freeway Ramp Junction Operations .....................................................................................17
Freeway Weaving Operations ................................................................................................18
Collision Analysis – Alternative 1..........................................................................................18
Design Standards Risk Assessment – Alternative 1 ...............................................................18
Park and Ride Facilities ........................................................................................................20
Utility and Other Owner Involvement ....................................................................................20
Highway Planting ..................................................................................................................20
Erosion Control .....................................................................................................................20
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
v
Noise Barriers ........................................................................................................................21
Non-Motorized and Pedestrian Features...............................................................................21
Needed Roadway Rehabilitation and Upgrading ..................................................................22
Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................22
Right-of-Way Data .................................................................................................................22
5A.2 Build Alternative 4C ........................................................................................................ 22
Proposed Engineering Features ............................................................................................22
Intersection Operations .........................................................................................................23
Intersection Queues ...............................................................................................................24
Freeway Mainline Operations ...............................................................................................25
Freeway Ramp Junction Operations .....................................................................................25
Freeway Weaving Operations ................................................................................................26
Year 2035 Roundabout Operations Analysis .........................................................................26
Intersection Operations .........................................................................................................26
Queuing ..................................................................................................................................27
Collision Analysis – Alternative 4C .......................................................................................27
Park and Ride Facilities ........................................................................................................29
Utility and Other Owner Involvement ....................................................................................29
Highway Planting ..................................................................................................................30
Erosion Control .....................................................................................................................30
Noise Barriers ........................................................................................................................30
Non-Motorized and Pedestrian Features...............................................................................31
Needed Roadway Rehabilitation and Upgrading ..................................................................31
Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................31
Right-of-Way Data .................................................................................................................31
5A.3 No-Build Alternative ....................................................................................................... 31
5B. Rejected Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 32
6. CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRING DISCUSSION ............................................................... 32
6A. Hazardous Waste ............................................................................................................... 32
6B. Value Analysis ................................................................................................................... 33
6C. Resource Conservation ....................................................................................................... 33
6D. Right-of-Way Issues .......................................................................................................... 33
6E. Environmental Issues ......................................................................................................... 34
Wetlands and Floodplains .....................................................................................................34
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
vi
Other Environmental Issues ...................................................................................................35
6F. Air Quality Conformity ...................................................................................................... 35
6G. Title VI Considerations ...................................................................................................... 35
6H. Noise Abatement Decision Report ..................................................................................... 35
7. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................................. 40
7A. Public Hearing Process ...................................................................................................... 40
7B. Route Matters ..................................................................................................................... 40
7C. Permits ................................................................................................................................ 40
7D. Cooperative Agreement ..................................................................................................... 41
7E. Transportation Management Plan ...................................................................................... 41
7F. Potential for Construction Phasing ..................................................................................... 41
8. FUNDING, PROGRAMMING AND ESTIMATE ................................................................. 41
9. REVIEWS ................................................................................................................................ 43
10. PROJECT PERSONNEL....................................................................................................... 43
11. ATTACHMENTS .................................................................................................................. 44
A. Vicinity Map
B. Alternative 1 Concept Layout Drawings, Profiles, and Superelevation Diagrams
C. Alternative 4C Concept Layout Drawings, Profiles, and Superelevation Diagrams
D. Planning Study for Brisco Road Undercrossing Widening and Grand Avenue
Overcrossing Widening
E. Preliminary Estimates of Project Cost
F. Draft Environmental Document – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
G. Draft Environmental Document – Environmental Assessment
H. Right-of-Way Data Sheets
I. Traffic Management Plan Data Sheet
J. Storm Water Data Report Cover Sheet
K. Cooperative Agreement
L. Risk Management Plan
M. Distribution List
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report identifies improvements to the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road Interchange on U.S. Route 101
(US 101) in the city of Arroyo Grande (City), in San Luis Obispo County, CA and improvements to
the Grand Avenue Interchange immediately to the south. These improvements are expected to address
existing congestion on Brisco Road at the Brisco Road Undercrossing and the predicted growth
occurring in accordance with the City’s General Plan. The current interchange is inadequate to
accommodate the anticipated 2035 traffic demand. Current capital cost, based on Alternative 4C
Roundabout, is estimated at $20.31 million, which includes $5.08 million for right of way acquisition
and $15.24 million for construction. Current capital cost, based on Alternative 1, is $11.01 million for
construction, which includes $1.65 million for right of way acquisition and $9.37 million for
construction. The project has been assigned the Project Development Category 3, since it is interchange
reconstruction requiring a superseding Freeway Agreement. This project was initiated by the City of
Arroyo Grande. The improvements are to be funded with a combination of local funds and State
Transportation Improvement Program funding.
Both build alternatives would remove the existing northbound US 101 ramps at Brisco Road to
eliminate the very tight spacing between the northbound ramp intersection and the adjacent Brisco
Road/West Branch Street intersection. Alternative 1 would improve the northbound ramps at the
adjacent Grand Avenue interchange and Camino Mercado interchange. Alternative 4C would replace
the northbound ramps at Rodeo Drive and West Branch Street, which would require realignment of
West Branch Street. Both alternatives would realign the southbound on-ramp from Grand Avenue to
improve the operation of the signalized ramp intersection on Grand Avenue. Additional State right of
way will be required for the realignment of the southbound on-ramp from Grand Avenue for either
alternative. For Alternative 1, right of way would also be required for the westbound Grand Avenue
widening as it approaches the Grand Avenue Overcrossing and for the West Branch Street widening
adjacent to St. Patrick’s Catholic School. For Alternative 4C, additional State right of way would be
required for the new northbound ramps and ramp intersection with West Branch Street at Rodeo Drive.
The City would acquire right of way from the County of San Luis Obispo and private land owners for
the realignment of West Branch Street.
Approval of this Draft Project Report does not constitute approval of any alternative, it merely approves
public circulation of the Draft Environmental Document. The approval of a specific project alternative
will occur after the completion of the environmental process, during which all public and agency
comments will be considered.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
2
Project Limits
05-SLO-101
13.1/14.6
Number of Alternatives 3 Total:
Alternative 1, Alternative 4C, and No-build Alternative
Current Cost
Estimate:
Escalated Cost Estimate
(3% per year to FY 20/21):
Capital Outlay Support Alternative 1 $3,811,364
Alternative 4C $4,822,900
Alternative 1: $4,289,724
Alternative 4C: $5,711,957
Capital Outlay Construction Alternative 1: $9,367,900
Alternative 4C: $15,237,800
Alternative 1: $10,543,654
Alternative 4C: $17,150,278
Capital Outlay Right-of-Way Alternative 1: $1,645,000
Alternative 4C: $5,075,000
Alternative 1: $1,806,000
Alternative 4C:$5,580,000
Funding Source 20.XX.075.600 STIP, Local
Funding Year Fiscal Year 2020/2021
Type of Facility Freeway
Number of Structures Alternative 1 proposes one bridge widening and four retaining
walls, and two soundwalls.
Alternative 4C proposes one bridge structure, two soundwalls,
and five retaining walls.
Environmental Determination
or Document
CEQA – Initial Study/ Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
NEPA – Environmental Assessment
Legal Description IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, IN ARROYO
GRANDE, ON ROUTE 101 FROM 0.15 MILE SOUTH
OF THE GRAND AVENUE OC TO 0.03 MILE SOUTH
OF THE OAK PARK OC
Project Development
Category
3
2. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this Draft Project Report be approved. It is recommended that the Draft
Environmental Document be approved for public circulation, and that an opportunity for a public
hearing be offered regarding the alternatives for improvements to the Brisco Road interchange
described in this Draft Project Report. It is further recommended that a cooperative agreement for the
construction phase be prepared and executed during the Plans, Specifications, and Engineer’s Estimate
(PS&E) phase.
3. BACKGROUND
3A. Project History
In September 2001, the City completed a Caltrans Project Study Report (Project Development Support)
(PSR [PDS]), which developed alternatives to improve the operation of the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road
Interchange on US 101 in Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California (refer to Figures 1 and
2). The approved PSR (PDS) originally identified five alternatives (including the “No-Build”
alternative) and recommended four of the alternatives (three “build” alternatives, Alternatives 1, 2, and
5, and the “no-build” alternative) for further evaluation.
In 2007, Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 were analyzed as part of the Project Approval and Environmental
Document (PA&ED) phase. All three alternatives proposed closure of the northbound on- and off-
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
3
ramps at Brisco Road in the center of Arroyo Grande and improvements to the adjacent US 101
interchanges at Grand Avenue and/or Camino Mercado. Alternative 2 (a variant of Alternative 1,
described below) and Alternative 5 (realignment of West Branch Street so that it intersects with East
Grand Avenue at the northbound on-ramp location) were dropped from further consideration after
completion of several technical Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analyses and revisions of the
project “purpose and need” statements. Alternative 5 was modified to have a northbound on- and off-
ramp to US 101 from West Branch Street opposite Old Ranch Road. This Alternative was named
Alternative 3. Two additional alternatives derived from Alternative 3 and were called Alternative 3A
and 3B. Alternative 3A and 3B were similar to Alternative 3. The differences were limited to design
features such as horizontal curve radii, superelevation rates, ramp geometrics and local road curvature.
After completing detailed engineering and environmental study Alternative 3A and 3B were dropped
from consideration due to unapprovable nonstandard design features due to existing terrain and close
proximity to US 101.
In 2010, Alternative 4 was formally added for consideration and studied in detail. Alternative 4 was
similar to Alternative 4C and included realignment of West Branch Street and new northbound ramps
from West Branch Street opposite Rodeo Drive. The new intersection was proposed to be controlled
using a new traffic signal. It also included removal of the existing northbound Brisco Road ramps.
After numerous design meeting and consultation with Caltrans and the City, Alternative 4A, 4B, and
4C were developed with intention to incrementally improve and in some cases remove design
exceptions. Alternative 4C was chosen as the design that balances the needs and requirements of both
Caltrans and the City. At this time, the roundabout was added as an intersection treatment option at the
West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive/NB US 101 Ramps intersection. After Alternative 4C was revised to
include a roundabout, the version of Alternative 4C with the traffic signal was dropped from
consideration.
Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C are described in more detail below, are now being carried forward for
review. Alternative 1 proposes closure of the northbound Brisco Road on- and off-ramps and
modifications to the adjacent interchanges at Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado. Alternative 4C
proposes closure of the Brisco Road on- and off-ramps and modifications to the Grand Avenue
interchange, and also proposes construction of new US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at an
adjacent location to replace the ramps being removed at Brisco Road. Alternative 4C includes a single-
lane roundabout at the intersection of the proposed northbound on- and off-ramps and the local road
system.
3B. Community Interaction
This project is sponsored by the City. The City has formed a “stakeholder” group comprised of
residents and business owners in the vicinity of the project. That stakeholder group has met with the
City staff several times to refine alternatives and develop support for the project. Various aspects of
the project alternatives have also been presented and discussed at several public City Council meetings.
3C. Existing Facility
US 101 is a freeway that generally runs in a southeasterly to northwesterly direction through the project
area (between East Grand Avenue and Oak Park Boulevard) and provides regional access connecting
the City with other parts of the County and State. Within the City, US 101 forms full-access
interchanges with Oak Park Boulevard, Brisco Road/Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue/East Branch
Street. Through the study area, US 101 is functionally classified as an Urban and Rural Principal
Arterial in a flat and urban setting. In the project area it consists of four 12-foot lanes and 5 foot inside
shoulders and 8 foot outside shoulders. Throughout the District 5 sub-segment it has a median width
of 36 feet to 75 feet and a right of way width of 200 feet to 400 ft. The posted speed limit throughout
the project limits is 65 mph. There are no auxiliary lanes at the existing weaving sections between the
interchanges within the project limits, except between the southbound Halcyon Road on-ramp and the
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
4
Grand Avenue off-ramp. The existing weaving length between the Grand Avenue northbound on-ramp
and the Brisco Road northbound off-ramp is 1,580 feet. The existing weaving length between the
Brisco Road northbound on-ramp and the Camino Mercado northbound off-ramp is 1,140 feet. The
existing weaving length between the El Camino Real southbound on-ramp (near North 12th Street,
north of Oak Park Boulevard) and the Halcyon Road southbound off-ramp is 5,295 feet. The existing
weaving length at the auxiliary lane between the Halcyon Road southbound on-ramp and the Grand
Avenue southbound off-ramp is 1,050 feet.
East Grand Avenue is a major four-lane east-west arterial roadway that serves the City. To the west
of its full-access diamond-type interchange with US 101, East Grand Avenue extends as West Grand
Avenue to the City of Grover Beach and the Pacific coastline. The Grand Avenue Overcrossing carries
a 10-foot median left-turn lane, 11-foot inner through lanes, 12-foot outer through lanes and 5-foot
sidewalks. The posted speed limit on East Grand Avenue is 35 mph.
El Camino Real is a two-to-three-lane frontage road west (south) of US 101, through the City, from
west of the Oak Park Boulevard interchange to the East Grand Avenue interchange. El Camino Real
provides access between US 101 and local businesses located south of the freeway. The posted speed
limit is 35 mph south of Brisco Road intersection and 45 mph north of Brisco Road.
Halcyon Road is a two- to four-lane north-south roadway that connects between State Route 1 (SR 1)
in the unincorporated community of Halcyon to the south, and US 101. The posted speed limit is 35
mph.
Brisco Road to the southwest of the project area is a two-lane connector roadway that links US 101
with East Grand Avenue to the west of Halcyon Road. Hook ramps to/from SB US 101 at Halcyon
Road and diagonal ramps to/from NB US 101 at Brisco Road together form a full-access interchange
with US 101, approximately 3,000 feet north of the US 101/East Grand Avenue interchange. Between
the El Camino Real intersection and the northbound (NB) US 101 ramps intersection, Brisco Road
passes under US 101 at the Brisco Road Undercrossing structure. The undercrossing provides 33 feet
of roadway width between a barrier on the west side and a curb and 6-foot sidewalk on the east side,
which is currently striped to provide two 11-foot-wide lanes in the northbound direction and a single
11-foot-wide lane in the southbound direction. The undercrossing originally provided a vertical
clearance of 15’-0” over Brisco Road, but subsequent maintenance paving has reduced the vertical
clearance; the vertical clearance is currently signed as 14’-8”. Brisco Road terminates at a “T”
intersection with West Branch Street immediately adjacent to the NB US 101 diagonal ramps. The
posted speed limit is 35 mph.
West Branch Street is a frontage road east (north) of US 101, through the City, connecting between
the Oak Park Boulevard and East Grand Avenue interchanges. West Branch Street east of Rodeo Drive
has a two-lane cross-section with painted median. To the west of Rodeo Drive, West Branch Street
varies from a three- to five-lane section. To the north, West Branch Street terminates at Oak Park
Boulevard, and to the south, West Branch Street terminates at the East Grand Avenue. West Branch
Street provides access between US 101 and local businesses located north of the freeway. The posted
speed limit on West Branch Street is 40 mph. The St. Patrick’s School is located immediately east of
the West Branch Street and Brisco Road intersection and as a result, West Branch Street is signed as a
school zone with 25 mph “when children are present” signage between Old Ranch Road and Brisco
Road. The City is currently conducting a study to evaluate installation of two bus stops that would be
located on West Branch Street at the driveway to the South County Government Center. A component
of this study will determine if a speed limit reduction to 35 mph on West Branch Street is appropriate.
Rancho Parkway is a 3-lane north-south arterial that intersects with West Branch Street just south of
the Five Cities shopping center. It has left-turn lanes in the median at driveways and intersections, and
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
5
has two southbound lanes approaching West Branch Street. The posted speed limit on Rancho Parkway
is 35 mph.
Rodeo Drive, Old Ranch Road and Vernon Street are minor north-south local streets that intersect
with West Branch Street within the study area. The posted speed limit on Rodeo Drive is 25 mph. The
posted speed limit on Old Ranch Road is 30 mph. The posted speed limit on Vernon Street is 25 mph.
Camino Mercado is a two-lane collector street that connects West Branch Street to Rancho Parkway
along the north side of the Five Cities shopping center. It provides a separate left-turn lane at its
approach to West Branch Street, opposite the northbound US 101 hook ramp pair. The posted speed
limit on Camino Mercado is 30 mph.
Oak Park Boulevard is a five-lane north-south roadway that connects between the City to the north
and the City of Grover Beach and the community of Oceano to the south. Oak Park Boulevard forms
a full-access interchange with US 101 approximately 4,500 feet north of the US 101/Brisco Road-
Halcyon Road interchange, incorporating the northbound hook ramps at Camino Mercado/West
Branch, a northbound diagonal on-ramp from Oak Park Blvd, and a southbound hook ramp pair to El
Camino Real near North 12th Street. The posted speed limit east of the Oak Park Boulevard interchange
is 40 mph. The posted speed limit west of the interchange is 25 mph.
4. PURPOSE AND NEED
4A. Problem, Deficiencies, Justification
The purpose of the project is to provide congestion relief, alleviate queuing, and improve the traffic
operations of the regional and local street system in the vicinity of US 101. The purpose is also to
continue to accommodate access to existing and planned local development. To achieve this stated
purpose to an adequate degree this project should:
Provide direct access from US 101 to and from the commercial, governmental, and recreational
facilities along West Branch Street.
Reduce congestion and queuing at the Brisco Road undercrossing intersections and along
Grand Avenue.
The project is needed to correct existing operational deficiencies in the project area. Increasing traffic
demand due to increasing development in and around the city, lack of alternative routes, limited freeway
crossing opportunities, and non-standard existing roadway geometrics combine to cause escalating
congestion and safety concerns within the project area. The level of service at the ramp intersections
of the Brisco Road and Halcyon Road interchanges are forecast to deteriorate to unacceptable levels by
year 2020. The purpose of the project is to maximize the efficiency of the existing State and local
roadway systems to better serve the needs of commuter traffic within the city. Existing interchange
and ramp spacing on US 101 do not meet current standards. Ramp closures and associated
improvements to adjacent interchanges have been evaluated as a means of improving traffic operations.
Therefore, the purpose of the project is also to correct ramp and mainline operations on US 101 at the
US 101/Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange to improve traffic flow and enhance safety for the local and
interregional movement of people and goods.
4B. Regional and System Planning
This section considers both the route designations for US 101 within the project limits as well as
consistency with regional and system planning documents.
Systems Identification. Within the project limits, US 101 has the following federal, state, and goods
movement designations:
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
6
In the federal functional classification system, US 101 is a “Principal Arterial” and is on the National
Highway System (NHS). Facilities included on the NHS are considered essential for interstate and
regional commerce, travel, and national defense. US 101 is classified as a Strategic Highway Network
(STRAHNET) route by the Department of Defense. US 101 is a designated National Truck Network
route for STAA trucks.
In the state classification system, US 101 designations also reflect the route’s importance to
interregional people and goods movement. US 101 is on the Freeway and Expressway System, and is
a High Emphasis and Focus Route on the Caltrans Interregional Road System, and a State Highway
Extra Legal Load (SHELL) route.
State Planning. Caltrans District 5’s Transportation Concept Report (TCR, 2014) for US 101 Segment
4 extending northwest from the State Route 166 East Interchange to the South Higuera Street
Interchange the transportation concept is an ultimate six-lane freeway. For that segment of US 101,
which contains the project area, it recommends “operational improvements such as auxiliary lanes and
interchange modifications.” This project is consistent with the TCR and will construct all features at
their ultimate location to accommodate a full standard six-lane facility.
Regional Planning. The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) updated its Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) in 2016. The improvements considered in this Draft Project Report (DPR)
are identified in the RTP. The 2016 RTP shows $6,624,000 programmed for construction in fiscal year
20/21.
Local Planning. The City’s General Plan transportation element does not identify any changes to the
freeway access. The City participates with SLOCOG in future traffic modeling, and the SLOCOG
2035 traffic model does not assume any change to the location of freeway ramps in Arroyo Grande.
Therefore, Alternative 4C, which replaces the northbound ramps at Brisco Road near their current
location, is more consistent with local planning than Alternative 1.
Transit Operator Planning. As part of the planning for Alternative 4C, a public bus stop and park and
ride lot would be added at the northwest corner of West Branch Street and Rodeo Drive. No other
impact on the facilities or operations of the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) are
anticipated as a result of either project alternative. The City has coordinated with RTA regarding this
project.
4C. Traffic Operations
Existing and Forecast Traffic Operations without Improvements
Two types of “Level of Service” (LOS) are used to describe the operational characteristics in this report.
Mainline or arterial LOS includes speed between intersections as well as the approach delay at
signalized intersections. It is calculated by direction for each segment along an arterial. Intersection
LOS reports average delay, which includes all approaches at that intersection.
The year 2005-07 traffic counts are higher than the 2009 counts, the 2005-07 traffic counts have been
used in this analysis to conservatively quantify existing conditions’ traffic operations. Therefore, the
term “Existing” conditions refers to a reasonable worst-case traffic operating condition that occurred
between the years 2004 and 2012.
Intersection Operations
Table 1 presents existing study intersection traffic operations under current intersection geometrics and
control, with no improvements.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
7
Table 1. Existing Intersection Traffic Operations
Intersection: Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(Sec/Veh) LOS Delay
(Sec/Veh) LOS
West Branch St/Camino Mercado/US 101 NB Ramps Signal 29.5 C 26.6 C
Brisco Road/El Camino Real Signal 18.9 B 35.1 D
Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps Signal 21.4 C 28.1 C
Brisco Road/West Branch St Signal 18.5 B 17.0 B
Halcyon Road/El Camino Real/US 101 SB Ramps Signal 39.5 D 29.7 C
Grand Avenue/US 101 SB Ramps Signal 21.1 C 31.3 C
Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Ramps Signal 13.3 B 16.4 B
Rodeo Drive/West Branch St TWSC 10.0 A 11.0 B
Grand Avenue/West Branch St TWSC 22.4 C 57.8 E
Notes:
1. “Average” control delays (in seconds/vehicle) are indicated for signal-controlled intersections. “Worse-Case” control delays (in
seconds/vehicle) are indicated for Two-Way-Stop-Control (TWSC) intersections.
The Grand Avenue/West Branch Street Intersection is currently operating at LOS “E” in the PM peak
hour with stop control. The Brisco Road/El Camino Real signalized intersection is currently operating
at LOS “D” in PM peak hour, and the remaining study intersections currently operate at LOS “C” or
better in both peak hours.
Year 2035 “No-Build” intersection traffic operations, assuming existing facilities under Year 2035
traffic volumes, are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Year 2035 “No-Build” Intersection Traffic Operations
# Intersection: Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(Sec/Veh) LOS Delay
(Sec/Veh) LOS
4 West Branch St/Camino Mercado/NB US 101
Ramps Signal 32.4 C 38.4 D
5 Brisco Road/El Camino Real Signal 39.0 D 130.0 F
6 Brisco Road/NB US 101 Ramps Signal 24.7 C 37.1 D
7 Brisco Road/West Branch St Signal 16.8 B 27.1 C
8 Halcyon Rd/El Camino Real/SB US 101 Ramps Signal 46.1 D 42.7 D
9 Grand Avenue/SB US 101 Ramps Signal 28.5 C 71.1 E
10 Grand Avenue/NB US 101 Ramps Signal 21.7 C 17.4 B
11 Rodeo Drive/West Branch St TWSC 11.3 B 13.2 B
13 Grand Avenue/West Branch St TWSC 257.3 F OVFL F
Notes:
1. “Average” control delays (in seconds/vehicle) are indicated for signal-controlled intersections. “Worse-Case” control delays (in
seconds/vehicle) are indicated for Two-Way-Stop-Control (TWSC) intersections.
3. OVFL indicates delays greater than 999.9 seconds/vehicle
The Brisco Road/El Camino Real, Grand Avenue/US 101 Southbound Ramps, and Grand
Avenue/West Branch Street intersections are projected to operate LOS “E” or worse in at least one peak
hour in Year 2035 under “No-Build” conditions. The remaining study intersections are projected to
operate at LOS “C” or better in 2035.
Intersection Queues
Table 3 presents existing study intersection traffic operations under current intersection geometrics and
control, with no improvements, in both current year and design year.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
8
Table 3. Existing and Year 2035 “No-Build” Maximum Queues
Intersection Direction
“No-Build” Available
Storage (ft)
Existing
Peak Hr Max Queue (ft)
No-Build Year 2035 Peak Hr
Max Queue (ft)
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
Camino
Mercado/NB
US 101 Ramps
Eastbound 67 1,700 49(39) 48(170) 95(157) 69(234)
Westbound 1,200 1,200 72(212) 150(272) 90(303) 201(290)
Northbound 850 250 170(228) 33(22) 180(284) 44(43)
Southbound 100 630 13(21) 43(44) 27(82) 62(64)
Brisco Road/
El Camino Real
Eastbound 150 3,180 23(58) 152(207) 31(161) 146(379)
Westbound 190 570 300 22(92) 38(88) 100(40) 26(95) 24(42) 4(13)
Northbound 2,000 150 269(323) 25(26) 451(535) 27(31)
Southbound 190 179(192) 467(398)
Brisco Road/
NB US 101
Ramps
Westbound 720 220 143(101) -(-) 190(116) 0(0)
Northbound 190 190 194(241) 9(102) 307(269) 123(197)
Southbound 35 159(202) 307(712)
Brisco Road/
West Branch St.
Eastbound 830 830 65(92) 0(66) 79(162) 0(165)
Westbound 125 600 94(92) 45(95) 152(172) 76(185)
Northbound 35 35 137(147) 18(7) 108(554) 4(32)
Grand
Avenue/SB
US 101 Ramps
Eastbound 170 650 45(281) -(-) 146(423) 0(0)
Northbound 2,000 124(350) 362(565)
Southbound 175 600 19(56) 229(339) 33(84) 438(511)
Grand
Avenue/NB
US 101 Ramps
Westbound 525 200 165(204) 55(25) 351(314) 34(35)
Northbound 150 600 55(108) 8(5) 91(59) 62(5)
Southbound 450 148(288) 400(460)
Grand Avenue/
West Branch St.
Eastbound 750 25(91) 192(OVLF)
Northbound 85 200 6(16) -(-) 11(60) -(-)
Southbound 200 -(-) -(-)
Notes:
1. Maximum Queues are 95th Percentile Queues.
2. xxx(yyy) = Maximum AM Peak hour (PM Peak Hour) Queues. Values in bold font exceed available storage.
3. Brisco Road and Grand Avenue are regarded as N-S streets, El Camino Real, West Branch Street and US 101 On/Off Ramps are regarded as E-
W.
4. - = Queues are considered to be negligible, OVFL = Queues much greater than available storage.
Queues that exceed available storage are currently seen at the Brisco Road/El Camino Real, Brisco
Road/Northbound Ramps and Brisco Road/West Branch Street intersections. The close spacing of
these intersections and the confined width on Brisco Road under the freeway undercrossing structure
render it impractical to provide additional storage. The queue backup from one intersection interferes
or blocks operations at the adjacent intersections, so the acceptable Levels of Service shown in Table
1 for these intersections are not achieved in practice.
Queues that exceed available storage are also currently seen on the southbound off-ramp to Grand
Avenue and on Grand Avenue southwest bound at the northbound ramps intersection in the evening
peak hour.
By 2035 all of the existing queue overflows are forecast to be exacerbated, and queues to exceed
available storage at a few additional locations, including a significant queue overflow on West Branch
Street at its intersection with Grand Avenue in the evening peak hour.
Freeway Mainline Operations
Table 4 summarizes existing conditions’ freeway mainline operations with the existing four-lane
freeway mainline cross-section.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
9
Table 4. Existing Freeway Mainline (4 Lanes) Traffic Operations
US 101 Mainline Segment Direction
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS
Just South of East Grand Avenue I/C Southbound 14.4 B 25.8 C
Northbound 22.5 C 12.6 B
Between Grand Ave I/C and Brisco Rd - Halcyon
Rd I/C
Southbound 13.3 B 24.7 C
Northbound 22.8 C 14.4 B
Between Brisco Rd - Halcyon Rd I/C and Oak Park
Blvd. I/C
Southbound 14.3 B 26.8 D
Northbound 25.5 C 15.6 B
Just North of Oak Park Blvd I/C Southbound 15.2 B 33.5 D
Northbound 24.3 C 17.3 B
Notes: pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane
All US 101 mainline directional segments currently operate at LOS “D” or better during the AM and
PM peak hour periods.
Table 5 summarizes forecast Year 2035 freeway mainline operations with the existing four-lane
freeway cross-section, as well as the planned future six-lane freeway.
Table 5. Year 2035 “No-Build” Freeway Mainline Traffic Operations
US 101 Mainline
Segment Direction
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
4-Lane Mainline 6-Lane Mainline 4-Lane Mainline 6-Lane Mainline
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS
Just South of Grand
Ave I/C
Southbound 21.2 C 13.8 B Ovrfl F 24.9 C
Northbound 35.7 E 21.6 C 19.3 C 12.6 B
B/w Grand Ave I/C
and Brisco – Halcyon
Rd I/C
Southbound 19.7 C 12.8 B Ovrfl F 24.2 C
Northbound 38.5 E 22.5 C 22.0 C 14.3 B
B/w Brisco – Halcyon
Rd. and Oak Park
Blvd I/C
Southbound 21.1 C 13.7 B Ovrfl F 25.7 C
Northbound Ovrfl F 24.4 C 23.0 C 15.0 B
Just North of Oak
Park Blvd. I/C
Southbound 23.1 C 15.1 B Ovrfl F 32.8 D
Northbound 42.8 E 23.6 C 23.3 C 15.2 B
Notes: pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane B/w = between Ovrfl = Density Overflow conditions (density > 45 pc/mi/ln)
All US 101 mainline directional segments are projected to operate at LOS “E” or worse conditions in
peak hour periods in Year 2035 with the existing four-lane freeway mainline cross-section. The US 101
northbound mainline segments are generally projected to operate at LOS “E” or worse conditions in
morning peak hour periods, and the US 101 southbound mainline segments are projected to operate at
LOS “F” conditions under evening peak hour periods in 2035, with the existing four-lane mainline
cross-section. All US 101 mainline directional segments are projected to operate at LOS “D” or better
conditions in year 2035 with the planned future six-lane freeway mainline cross-section.
Freeway Ramp Junction Operations
Table 6 summarizes existing freeway mainline-ramp junction operations with the existing four-lane
freeway mainline cross-section and single-lane ramp entrance/exits.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
10
Table 6. Existing (2010) Ramp Junction Traffic Operations
US 101 Mainline-Ramp Junction Junction
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln)
LO
S
US 101 SB On-Ramp from East Grand Avenue Merge 16.0 B 27.1 C
US 101 NB Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue Diverge 26.3 C 15.7 B
US 101 NB On-Ramp from East Grand Avenue Merge 26.1 C 17.8 B
US 101 SB Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue Diverge 16.4 B 28.8 D
US 101 SB On-Ramp from Halcyon Road Merge 11.6 B 22.7 C
US 101 NB Off-Ramp to Brisco Road Diverge 26.7 C 17.6 B
US 101 NB On-Ramp from Brisco Road Merge 28.0 D 18.5 C
US 101 SB Off-Ramp to Halcyon Road Diverge 17.5 B 30.9 D
US 101 NB Off-Ramp to Camino Mercado Diverge 30.9 D 19.4 B
US 101 NB On-Ramp from Camino Mercado Merge 26.2 C 17.6 C
Notes: pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane
All study ramp junctions are currently operating at LOS “D” or better conditions during both AM and
PM peak hour periods.
Table 7 summarizes forecast Year 2035 ramp junction operations without the improvements identified
for either project build alternative, with either the existing four-lane freeway cross-section or the
planned future six-lane freeway cross-section.
Table 7. Year 2035 “No-Build” Ramp Junctions Traffic Operations
US 101 Mainline-
Ramp Junction
Junction
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
4-Lane Mainline 6-Lane Mainline 4-Lane Mainline 6-Lane Mainline
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS
US 101/East Grand Avenue I/C
US 101 SB On-Ramp Merge 22.6 C 15.7 B 39.3 E 26.1 C
US 101 NB Off-Ramp Diverge 37.9 E 26.4 C 23.0 C 17.4 B
US 101 NB On-Ramp Merge 36.2 E 26.4 C 23.9 C 17.5 B
US 101 SB Off-Ramp Diverge 17.2 B 11.1 B 36.9 E 22.5 C
US 101/Brisco Rd – Halcyon Rd I/C
US 101 SB On-Ramp Merge 17.4 B 11.2 B 34.8 D 24.1 C
US 101 NB Off-Ramp Diverge 39.4 E 33.0 D 25.8 C 23.7 C
US 101 NB On-Ramp Merge 39.8 E 33.0 D 25.7 C 18.7 B
US 101 SB Off-Ramp Diverge 24.8 C 18.7 B 44.6 F 30.1 D
US 101 Northbound Ramps to/from West Branch Street/Camino Mercado
US 101 NB Off-Ramp Diverge 43.1 E 40.5 E 27.4 C 20.2 C
US 101 NB On-Ramp Merge 37.3 E 23.4 C 25.1 C 17.0 B
Notes: pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane
The US 101 southbound on-ramp from Halcyon Road is projected to operate at LOS “D” or better
conditions in Year 2035 with the existing four-lane mainline cross-section. The remaining study ramp
junctions are projected to operate at LOS “E” or worse conditions in one or both peak hours in Year
2035, with the existing four-lane freeway mainline cross-section. In general, all of the US 101
northbound ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS “E” or worse conditions in the AM peak
hour period in 2035, and all of the US 101 southbound ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS
“E” or worse conditions in the PM peak hour period in 2035.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
11
With the planned future six-lane mainline section, all ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS
“D” or better conditions in peak hours in 2035, with the exception of the US 101 northbound off-ramps
to Brisco Road and Camino Mercado, which are projected to operate at LOS “E” in AM peak hours,
and the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Grand Avenue, which is projected to continue to operate at
LOS “E” in PM peak hours.
Freeway Weaving Operations
The results of the existing freeway weaving segment analysis (using the Leisch methodology outlined
in the Highway Design Manual) are summarized in Table 8. An existing auxiliary lane connects the
southbound on-ramp from Halcyon Road with the off-ramp to Grand Avenue.
Table 8. Existing (2010) US 101 Mainline Weaving Segments Traffic Operations
US 101 Mainline Weaving Segment Weaving
Distance
Vw (pcph) LOS
AM PM AM PM
Grand Ave NB On-Ramp and Brisco Rd NB Off-Ramp 1,580 ft 582 607 A A
Brisco Rd NB On-Ramp and Camino Mercado NB Off-Ramp 1,140 ft 705 569 D B
El Camino Real SB On-Ramp and Halcyon Rd SB Off-Ramp 6,120 ft 538 758 ORW ORW
Halcyon Rd SB On-Ramp and Grand Ave SB Off-Ramp 1,050 ft 347 741 A B
Note: Vw = Weaving Volume; pcph = Passenger Cars Per Hour, ORW = Out of Realm of Weaving
LOS is the composite (overall weaving section) level of service
The study mainline weaving segments on US 101 are currently operating at LOS “D” or better
conditions during peak hour periods.
The results of the “No-Build” weaving segment analysis for year 2035 are shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Year 2035 “No-Build” US 101 Mainline Weaving Segment Operations
US 101 Mainline Weaving Segment Weaving
Distance
Vw (pcph) LOS
AM PM AM PM
Grand Ave NB On-Ramp and Brisco Rd NB Off-Ramp 1,580 ft 923 944 E C
Brisco Rd NB On-Ramp and Camino Mercado NB Off-Ramp 1,140 ft 872 723 F D
El Camino Real SB On-Ramp and Halcyon Rd SB Off-Ramp 6,120 ft 760 1,069 ORW ORW
Halcyon Rd SB On-Ramp and Grand Ave SB Off-Ramp 1,050 ft 558 974 B D
Note: Vw = Weaving Volume, pcph = Passenger Cars Per Hour, ORW = Out of Realm of Weaving
LOS is the composite (overall weaving section) level of service
All study weave segments are projected to operate at LOS “D” or better in peak hours in year 2035
under “No-Build” conditions, except the northbound weave segments would operate at LOS “E” or
worse in morning peak hours.
Existing Conditions Collision Analysis
Traffic Analysis Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) collision data for US 101
mainline and ramps between Fair Oaks Avenue and North Oak Park Boulevard interchanges was
obtained from Caltrans District 5 for the most recently available three year period of April 1, 2012 to
March 31, 2015. This data has been summarized and analyzed below.
US 101 Mainline
The US 101 freeway mainline collision rates are summarized in Table 10.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
12
Table 10. Collision Rates for US 101 Mainline Lanes (4/1/2012 to 3/31/2015)
Collision Rates per million vehicle miles
Location/Description Actual Average
Fatal F + I Total Fatal F + I Total
US 101 Mainline Segment from Fair Oaks I/C thru
Oak Park Blvd I/C - PM 12.8 to 14.6 0.000 0.21 0.62 0.005 0.24 0.72
Number of Collisions/Significance
Location/Description Total Fatal Inj F+I Multi-
Veh Wet Dark P K/I
US 101 Mainline Segment from Fair Oaks I/C thru
Oak Park Blvd I/C - PM 12.8 to 14.6 68 0 23 23 48 5 21 0/37
Notes: PM = Post-Mile, F+I = Fatal+Injury, P K/I = Persons Killed/Injured
As shown in Table 10, there were zero actual “Fatal” collisions in the three year study period. The
“Fatal + Injury” and “Total” collisions were below the statewide average rates for similar facilities. The
study segments of US 101 experienced a total number of 68 collisions over the three-year study data
period. Zero “Fatal” and 23 “Injury” collisions were reported.
US 101 Ramps
The US 101 ramp collision rates are summarized in Table 11.
Table 11. Collision Rates for US 101 Ramps within Study area (4/1/2012 to 3/31/2015)
Collision Rates per million vehicle miles
Location/Description PM Actual Average
Fatal F + I Total Fatal F + I Total
SB Off-Ramp to Fair Oaks Ave 12.930 0.000 0.00 1.04 0.003 0.35 1.01
NB Off-Ramp to Grand Avenue 13.060 0.000 0.35 0.70 0.003 0.35 1.01
SB On-Ramp from Grand Ave 13.100 0.000 0.00 0.24 0.002 0.22 0.63
NB On-Ramp from Grand Ave 13.314 0.000 0.00 0.47 0.002 0.22 0.63
SB Off-Ramp to Grand Ave 13.320 0.000 0.29 0.86 0.003 0.35 1.01
SB On-Ramp from Brisco Rd 13.560 0.000 0.00 0.29 0.001 0.13 0.46
NB Off-Ramp to Brisco Rd 13.640 0.000 0.00 1.00 0.003 0.35 1.01
SB Off-Ramp to Brisco Rd 13.680 0.000 0.38 0.95 0.003 0.24 0.84
NB On-Ramp from Brisco Rd 13.920 0.000 0.00 0.45 0.002 0.22 0.63
NB Off-Ramp to Camino Mercado 14.181 0.000 0.31 1.23 0.003 0.24 0.84
NB On-Ramp from Camino
Mercado 14.304 0.000 0.00 0.70 0.001 0.13 0.46
Number of Collisions/Significance
Location/Description PM Total Fatal Inj F+I Multi-
Veh Wet
SB Off-Ramp to Fair Oaks Ave 12.930 3 0 0 0 3 0
NB Off-Ramp to Grand Avenue 13.060 2 0 1 1 1 0
SB On-Ramp from Grand Ave 13.100 1 0 0 0 0 0
NB On-Ramp from Grand Ave 13.314 3 0 0 0 2 0
SB Off-Ramp to Grand Ave 13.320 3 0 1 1 2 1
SB On-Ramp from Brisco Rd 13.560 1 0 0 0 1 0
NB Off-Ramp to Brisco Rd 13.640 3 0 0 0 2 0
SB Off-Ramp to Brisco Rd 13.680 5 0 2 2 1 0
NB On-Ramp from Brisco Rd 13.920 2 0 0 0 1 0
NB Off-Ramp to Camino Mercado 14.181 4 0 1 1 0 0
NB On-Ramp from Camino
Mercado 14.304 2 0 0 0 1 0
Notes: PM = Post-Mile, F+I = Fatal+Injury, P K/I = Persons Killed/Injured
Actual rates that exceed the corresponding statewide average rates are indicated in bold.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
13
As shown in Table 11, there were zero actual “Fatal” collisions on all study ramps during the three year
study period. The US 101 southbound off-ramp to Fair Oaks Avenue and the northbound on-ramp
from Camino Mercado had “Total” actual collision rates that exceeded their respective statewide
average rates during the three year period between 4/1/2012-3/31/2015. The US 101 southbound off-
ramp to Brisco Road and the US 101 northbound off-ramp to Camino Mercado had “Fatal + Injury”
and “Total” actual collision rates that exceeded their respective Statewide averages during the three
year period between 4/1/2012 and3/31/2015. However, none of these four US 101 ramps had “Fatal +
Injury” or “Total” collision rates that were double the average rates (or higher) for similar facilities.
TSAR data was obtained for these four US 101 ramps for the three year period between 4/1/2012 and
3/31/2015 and is discussed below.
The TASAS Selective Accident Retrieval (TSAR) data for the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Fair
Oaks Avenue shows a total of three collisions, none of which resulted in an injury. All three collisions
occurred during the day and were “broadside” collisions with the primary collision factor listed as
“failure to yield”. All three collisions were listed as occurring on a local street near the ramp
intersection. Five total vehicles were involved in the three collisions, two vehicles were making a
southbound left turn from the off-ramp onto eastbound Fair Oaks Avenue, while three vehicles were
proceeding straight going eastbound on Fair Oaks Avenue. Only vehicles were struck during the
collisions.
The TSAR data for the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Brisco Road shows a total of five collisions,
two of which resulted in an injury. Three of the collisions occurred during the day and two of the
collisions occurred at night. One collision was a “sideswipe”, three were “hit object”, and one was an
“overturn”. The primary collision factors listed for the five collisions included one “influence alcohol”,
three “improper turn”, and one “other violation”. One of the collisions was listed as occurring at the
ramp exit, two were listed as occurring on the ramp itself, and two were listed as occurring on a local
street near the ramp intersection. Additionally, two of the collisions occurred beyond the left shoulder,
two occurred beyond the right shoulder, and the other did not specify. Five total vehicles were involved
in the five collisions, one was proceeding straight, two ran off the road, one was making a left turn, and
one was slowing/stopping. Four of the five vehicles were traveling southbound and one was travelling
northbound. Objects struck during the five collisions include one light or signal pole, one utility pole,
one traffic sign/sign post, one wall (except sound wall), and two dikes or curbs.
The TSAR data for the US 101 northbound off ramp to Camino Mercado shows a total of four
collisions, one of which resulted in an injury. Two of the collisions occurred during the day and two of
the collisions occurred at night. Three of the collision were “hit object” collisions, while the other did
not specify. All four collisions had “improper turn” listed as the primary collision factor. Two of the
collisions were listed as occurring at the ramp exit and two were listed as occurring on a local street
near the ramp intersection. Additionally, one collision occurred beyond the left shoulder, one occurred
in both the right lane and shoulder, and two occurred beyond the right shoulder. Four total vehicles and
one bicycle were involved in the four collisions, one was proceeding straight, three were making a right
turn, and one ran off the road. Two of the vehicles were traveling northbound, one was travelling
southbound, and one was travelling westbound. Objects struck during the four collisions include one
light or signal pole, one traffic sign/sign post, and one guardrail. One of the collisions was listed as a
collision between two vehicles.
The TSAR data for the US 101 northbound on-ramp from Camino Mercado shows a total of
two collisions, none of which resulted in an injury. Both of the collisions occurred during the
day. One of the collisions was a “sideswipe” and one was a “hit object” collision. The primary
collision factors listed for the two collisions were “influence alcohol” and “improper turn”,
respectively. One of the collisions was listed as occurring on the ramp itself, while the other
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
14
was listed as occurring on a local street near the ramp intersection. Additionally, one collision
was listed as occurring beyond the right shoulder and the other was listed as occurring in the
right lane. Two total vehicles were involved in the two collisions, both headed in the
northbound direction. One was making a left turn and one was noted as backing up when the
collision happened. One collision was listed as involving a vehicle driving over an
embankment, while the other was listed as a collision between two vehicles.
5. ALTERNATIVES
5A. Viable Alternatives
Two build alternatives are being studied to address the project need and purpose (Alternatives 1 and
4C). The two proposed project build alternatives include closure of the existing northbound ramps at
Brisco Road; Alternative 4C also includes construction of new US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps
at an adjacent location to replace the ramps being removed at Brisco Road. In a previous iteration, for
Alternative 4C, there were two variations. The difference between the two variations was the design
configuration at West Branch/Rodeo Drive/US 101 ramp intersection. One variation proposed a traffic
signal and the other variation proposed a roundabout intersection. The Alternative 4C variation with
the traffic signal was dropped from consideration. The two build alternatives are detailed below:
5A.1 Build Alternative 1
Proposed Engineering Features
Alternative 1 proposes the removal of the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road northbound on- and off-
ramps and improvements to the adjacent East Grand Avenue/US 101 interchange located to the
south and Camino Mercado/US 101 intersection to the north, as shown in Attachment B.
Alternative 1 would be constructed over a period of 160 to 200 working days. Alternative 1
includes the following design elements:
Construction of an additional left-turn lane on the northbound off-ramp at the East Grand
Avenue/US 101 northbound ramps intersection and provision of an exclusive right-turn lane
on the westbound approach.
Relocation of the US 101 southbound on-ramp at East Grand Avenue to opposite the existing
US 101 southbound off-ramp approach, and associated traffic signal phasing modifications.
This will also include installation of a double 54-inch concrete pipe culvert to carry storm water
under the realigned ramp.
Widening Grand Avenue, including the Grand Avenue Overcrossing, through both ramp
intersections to provide standard lane, shoulder and sidewalk widths. See Attachment D for
the Grand Avenue Overcrossing Advance Planning Study.
Reconstruct US 101 SB lane and shoulder to provide 15’-0” vertical clearance to the Grand
Avenue Overcrossing.
Improvements to the northbound US 101 on-ramp/Camino Mercado/West Branch Street
intersection. These improvements include widening and restriping the northbound West
Branch Street approach to provide a second northbound left-turn lane to the US 101 northbound
on-ramp and modifying the northbound on-ramp to provide dual receiving lanes that merge to
a single lane with a 950+ foot auxiliary lane on northbound US 101. Provisions for future ramp
metering would be provided on the US 101 northbound on-ramp.
Closure and removal of US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and removal of
the associated traffic signal equipment.
At the Brisco Road/El Camino Real intersection, restriping to provide for one exclusive left-
turn lane and one shared through-right lane for the southbound Brisco Road undercrossing
approach to El Camino Real. With this improvement, the existing Brisco Road three-lane
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
15
undercrossing will be re-striped to accommodate two southbound lanes and one northbound
lane. At the Brisco Road/West Branch Street intersection, one left-turn lane and one shared
left-right turn pocket (at least 100 feet long) will be constructed for the northbound approach.
Preliminary operational analysis indicates that the existing three-lane undercrossing, with the
above-noted restriping modifications, will provide acceptable operating conditions at the
intersections with El Camino Real and West Branch Street.
Permanent storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be constructed
within the City owned portion of this alternative.
Slopes along Northbound ramp at Brisco Road will be removed and will be re-graded to blend
with adjacent slopes and revegetate with plantings similar to what is present along the freeway
fringes and interchange areas.
The areas to both sides of the realigned southbound on-ramp from Grand Avenue will be re-
graded to blend with the adjacent slopes. Revegetation will include plantings similar to what
is existing along the freeway fringes and in the interchange areas.
Any slopes or other areas along the highway (non-jurisdictional) that are impacted by
construction will be revegetate within similar species that currently exist.
Lower the US 101 pavement in the vicinity of the Grand Avenue Overcrossing to provide
15’-0” minimum vertical clearance.
Construction of soundwalls on the southbound side of US 101 between the Oak Park Boulevard
Interchange and Stonecrest Drive and between the Halcyon on-ramp and the Grand Avenue
off-ramp. The soundwalls would be constructed at the existing Caltrans right of way boundary
and would not preclude the ultimate six-lane configuration of US 101.
Intersection Operations
As shown in Table 12, all intersections of Alternative 1 would operate at LOS “D” or better in peak
hours through year 2035, except the intersection of West Branch Street with Grand Avenue, which
would break down, leading to extensive queuing on West Branch Street. Forecast traffic volumes
are also shown in the project’s Traffic Report.
Table 12. Year 2035 “Alternative 1” Intersection Levels of Service
Intersection Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(Sec/Veh) LOS Delay
(Sec/Veh) LOS
Camino Mercado/US 101 NB Ramps/West Branch St. Signal 29.0 C 47.1 D
Brisco Road/El Camino Real Signal 22.8 C 43.1 D
Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps - Does not Exist
Brisco Road/West Branch St Signal 20.7 B 13.2 B
Halcyon Road/US 101 SB Ramps/El Camino Real Signal 43.0 D 33.4 C
Grand Avenue/US 101 SB Ramps Signal 13.7 B 23.1 C
Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Ramps Signal 19.4 B 17.5 B
Rodeo Drive/West Branch Street TWSC 12.1 B 11.8 B
Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street TWSC 11.1 B 18.5 C
Grand Avenue/West Branch Street TWSC 304.4 F OVFL F
Notes:
1. “Average” control delays (in seconds/vehicle) are indicated for signal-controlled intersections. “Worse-Case” control delays
(in seconds/vehicle) are indicated for Two-Way-Stop-Control (TWSC) intersections.
2. OVFL indicates delays greater than 999.9 seconds/vehicle
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
16
Intersection Queues
Table 13 presents forecast peak hour maximum queues in peak hours in design year 2035.
Table 13. Alternative 1 Forecast Year 2035 Peak Hour Maximum Queues
Intersection Direction
“Alternative 1”
Available Storage (ft)
“Alternative 1” Year 2035 Peak
Hr Max Queue (ft)
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
Camino Mercado/NB US 101 Ramps
(West Branch St regarded as N-S)
Eastbound 100 1,700 105
(147) 98 (367)
Westbound 1,200 1,200 719
(764) 55 (32)
Northbound 850 250 345
(473) 81 (63)
Southbound 100 630 32 (71) 77 (79)
Brisco Road/El Camino Real
Eastbound 150 3,180 53 (110) 221 (368)
Westbound 190 570 300 36 (86) 47 (97) - (17)
Northbound 150 2,000 35 (68) 377 (428) 27 (31)
Southbound 290 290 190
(469) 156 (181)
Brisco Road/West Branch St.
Eastbound 830 830 114 (196) - (73)
Westbound 125 600 176
(112) 180 (114)
Northbound 290 75 262
(240) - ( - )
Grand Avenue/SB US 101 Ramps
Eastbound 125 650 169
(403) 73 (54)
Northbound 2,000 277 (532)
Southbound 200 600 122
(198) 231 (94)
Grand Avenue/NB US 101 Ramps
Westbound 425 175 236
(183) 58 (116)
Northbound 350 600 187
(139) 62 ( - )
Southbound 200 100 271 (297) 181
(189)
Grand Avenue/West Branch St.
Eastbound 750 206 (OVFL)
Northbound 85 200 11 (129) - ( - )
Southbound 200 - ( - )
Notes:
1. Maximum Queues are 95th Percentile Queues.
2. xxx(yyy) = Maximum AM Peak hour (PM Peak Hour) Queues. Values in bold font exceed available storage.
3. Brisco Road and Grand Avenue are regarded as N-S streets, El Camino Real, West Branch Street and US 101 On/Off Ramps are
regarded as E-W.
4. - = Queues are considered to be negligible, OVFL = Queues much greater than available storage.
Queues that exceed available storage are forecast in at least one peak hour at the following
locations:
In the left-turn lane on the off-ramp to Camino Mercado.
In the left-turn lane on Brisco Road under US 101, approaching El Camino Real.
In the left-turn lane on westbound (WB) West Branch Street to SB Brisco Road.
In the left-turn lanes on NB Brisco Road to WB West Branch Street.
In the left-turn lane on the southbound (SB) off-ramp to Grand Avenue.
On Grand Avenue approaching the northbound (NB) ramps intersection from the
Village.
On eastbound (EB) West Branch Street approaching Grand Avenue.
Freeway Mainline Operations
Table 14 summarizes the forecast traffic operations in the freeway mainline lanes in design year
2035 with Alternative 1 geometrics with the existing four-lane freeway mainline cross-section as
well as the planned future six-lane cross-section.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
17
Table 14. Year 2035 “Alternative 1” Conditions: Freeway Mainline Traffic Operations
US 101 Mainline
Segment Direction
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
4-Lane Mainline 6-Lane Mainline 4-Lane Mainline 6-Lane Mainline
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS
Just South of Grand
Ave
Southbound 21.2 C 13.8 B Ovrfl F 24.9 C
Northbound 35.7 E 21.6 C 19.3 C 12.6 B
Between Grand Ave
& Brisco – Halcyon
Rd
Southbound 19.7 C 12.8 B Ovrfl F 24.2 C
Northbound 35.8 E 21.6 C 21.0 C 13.7 B
Between Brisco –
Halcyon Rd & Oak
Park Blvd
Southbound 21.1 C 13.7 B Ovrfl F 25.7 C
Northbound 35.8 E 21.6 C 21.0 C 13.7 B
Just North of Oak
Park Blvd
Southbound 23.1 C 15.1 B Ovrfl F 32.8 D
Northbound 42.6 E 23.6 C 23.3 C 15.2 B
Notes: pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane Ovrfl = Density Overflow conditions (density > 45 pc/mi/ln)
All study US 101 mainline directional segments are projected to operate at LOS “E” or worse in
peak hours in 2035 with the existing four-lane mainline cross-section. With the planned future six-
lane mainline cross-section, LOS “D” or better operations are projected for “Alternative 1” in peak
hours in Year 2035.
Freeway Ramp Junction Operations
Table 15 summarizes Year 2035 freeway-ramp junction operations with the existing four-lane
freeway mainline cross-section and “Alternative 1” ramp and auxiliary lane configurations.
Table 15. Year 2035 “Alternative 1” Ramp Junction Traffic Operations
US 101 Mainline-
Ramp Junction
Junction
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
4-Lane Mainline 6-Lane Mainline 4-Lane Mainline 6-Lane Mainline
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS
US 101/East Grand Avenue I/C
US 101 SB On-Ramp Merge 22.6 C 15.7 B 39.3 E 26.1 C
US 101 NB Off-Ramp Diverge 37.9 E 26.4 C 23.0 C 17.8 B
US 101 NB On-Ramp Merge 34.9 D 24.0 C 22.9 C 17.0 B
US 101 SB Off-Ramp Diverge 17.2 B 11.1 B 36.9 E 22.5 C
US 101 Southbound Ramps to/from Halcyon Rd/El Camino Real
US 101 SB On-Ramp Merge 17.4 B 11.2 B 34.8 D 24.1 C
US 101 SB Off-Ramp Diverge 24.8 C 18.7 B 44.6 F 30.1 D
US 101 Northbound Ramps to/from Camino Mercado/West Branch Street
US 101 NB Off-Ramp Diverge 38.4 E 26.6 B 25.2 C 19.2 B
US 101 NB On-Ramp Merge 37.6 E 25.6 C 24.9 C 18.1 B
Notes: pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane
With “Alternative 1” the southbound on-ramp from Halcyon Road and the northbound on-ramp
from Grand Avenue are projected to operate at LOS “D” or better in 2035 with the existing four-
lane freeway cross-section. The remaining study ramp junctions are projected to operate at LOS
“E” or worse conditions in peak hour periods in 2035 with the existing four-lane freeway mainline
cross-section. With the planned future six-lane mainline section, all ramp junctions are projected
to operate at peak hour LOS “D” or better in 2035. The ultimate six –lane facility is identified in
the Caltrans District 5’s Transportation Concept Report (TCR, 2014) for US 101 Segment 4
extending northwest from the State Route 166 East Interchange to the South Higuera Street
Interchange the transportation concept is an ultimate six-lane freeway. For that segment of US 101,
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
18
which contains the project area, it recommends “operational improvements such as auxiliary lanes
and interchange modifications.” This project is consistent with the TCR and will construct all
features at their ultimate location to accommodate a full standard six-lane facility. The ultimate six-
lane US 101 mainline project does not meet the purpose and need of this project and would be
constructed at a later date.
Freeway Weaving Operations
The results of the weaving segment analysis (using the Leisch methodology outlined in the
Highway Design Manual) for Alternative 1 are shown in Table 16.
Table 16. Year 2035 “Alternative 1” US 101 Weaving Segment Operations
US 101 Mainline Weaving Segment Weaving
Distance
Vw (pcph) LOS
AM PM AM PM
Grand Ave NB On-Ramp & Camino Mercado NB Off-Ramp 4,350 ft 1,028 1,166 ORW ORW
Oak Park Blvd SB On-Ramp & Halcyon Rd SB Off-Ramp 6,120 ft 760 1,069 ORW ORW
Halcyon Rd SB On-Ramp & Grand Ave SB Off-Ramp* 1,050 ft 558 974 B D
Note: Vw = Weaving Volume pcph = Passenger Cars Per Hour, ORW = Out of Realm of Weaving
LOS is the composite (overall weaving section) level of service
* with two through lanes on mainline plus one auxiliary lane.
All study weaving segments on US 101 are projected to operate at peak hour LOS “D” or better
conditions in 2035 with Alternative 1, with the existing four-lane mainline section plus auxiliary
lanes.
Collision Analysis – Alternative 1
As shown in Table 11 in the Collision Analysis section, the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Fair
Oaks Avenue, southbound off-ramp to Brisco Road, northbound off-ramp to Camino Mercado, and
northbound on-ramp from Camino Mercado all had actual “Fatal + Injury” and/or “Total” collision
rates that exceeded their respective statewide average rates. This section discusses how Alternative
1 would modify these ramps.
The project does not propose improvements to the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Fair Oaks
Avenue or the southbound off-ramp to Brisco Road. The project’s traffic analysis does not require
operational improvements at these locations. At the southbound off-ramp to Fair Oaks Avenue the
average total collision rate is 1.01 and the actual total is 1.04 with no injuries or fatalities. The
southbound off-ramp to Brisco Road is a type L-6 interchange (hook ramp) with minimal spacing
between US 101 and the parallel frontage road, El Camino Real. There are no sight obstructions
for vehicles existing the freeway. The average total collision rate is 0.84 and the actual is 0.95 with
no fatalities and there were two injuries.
At the northbound off-ramp to Camino Mercado the average total collision rate is 0.84 and the
actual is 1.23 with no fatalities and on injury. All four collisions indicated “improper turn” and the
movement at the time of the collision, indicating they occurred at the ramp intersection. At the
northbound on-ramp from Camino Mercado the average total collision rate is 0.46 and the actual
is 0.70 with no fatalities or injuries and the cause was also “improper turn”. Alternative 1 would
improve the ramp intersection by adding a second northbound left-turn lane and a second receiving
lane on the on-ramp with conduit placed for future ramp metering. The traffic signal would be
modified using current standards. These improvements would be beneficial with regard to
collisions at the ramp intersection.
Design Standards Risk Assessment – Alternative 1
The following table includes the advisory and mandatory exceptions to design standards associated
with Alternative 1. Caltrans has provided a probability of approval and justification for probability
rating for each design exception.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
19
Table 17. Design Standards Risk Assessment – Alternative 1
Alt
1
M or
A
Location
Design Standard from Highway
Design Manual Tables 82.1A 82.1B
Probability
of Design
Exception
Approval
(None, Low,
Med., High)
Justification
for
Probability
Rating
A Brisco Road
Undercrossing
105.2 Minimum Sidewalk Width –
Not Next to a Building
low 4’ SW, 6’ on both approaches,
no shoulder, low speeds,
reduce lane width to 11’ to get
6’ SW, AASHTO applies to
local roads. Excessive cost.
A Brisco Road 105.5 New Construction, Two Curb
Ramp Design
high Peds can only cross in one
direction.
A SB Grand Avenue On-ramp 202.5(1) Superelevation
Transition
high Restrictive situation, rate does
not exceed 6% per 100’.
Excessive cost.
A NB Camino
Mercado On-
Ramp
202.5(1) Superelevation Transition
high Widening of existing hook
ramp. Excessive cost
A SB Grand Avenue
On-Ramp
202.5(2) Superelevation Runoff
high Restrictive situation, rate does
not exceed 6% per 100’.
Excessive cost.
A NB Camino
Mercado On-
Ramp
202.5(2) Superelevation Runoff
high Widening of existing hook
ramp. Excessive cost.
A SB Grand Avenue
On-ramp
204.4 – 2 Percent and Greater
high Restrictive conditions,
Excessive cost.
A NB Grand Avenue
Off-ramp
204.4 – Less than 2 Percent
high Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost, widening of
existing ramp. Excessive cost
A NB Camino
Mercado On-ramp
204.4 – Less than 2 Percent
high Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost, widening of
existing ramp.
A NB Camino
Mercado On-ramp
204.4 - 2 Percent and Greater
high Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost, widening of
existing ramp
A SB Grand Avenue
On-ramp
504.2(2) Freeway Entrance and
Exit Standards
high Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost.
M SB Grand Avenue
On-ramp
202.2 Standards for Superelevation
– Max Rate
high Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost.
Meets comfort speed
M NB Grand Ave.
Off-ramp
202.2 Standards for Superelevation
– Max Rate
high Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost, widening of
existing ramp.
Meets comfort speed.
M NB Camino
Mercado On-ramp
202.2 Standards for Superelevation
– Max Rate
high Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost, widening of
existing ramp.
Meets comfort speed
M SB Grand Avenue
On-ramp
203.2 Standards for Curvature –
Minimum Radius
high Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost.
M NB Camino
Mercado On-ramp
203.2 Standards for Curvature –
Minimum Radius
high Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost, widening of
existing ramp.
M West Branch
Street at Camino
Mercado Ramp
203.2 Standards for Curvature –
Minimum Radius
high Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost, widening of
existing ramp.
A SB Grand Avenue
On-ramp
304.1 Side Slopes 4:1 or Flatter
high Reduces Ag land acquisition.
M Brisco Road
Undercrossing
308.1 Cross Section Standards for
City Streets and County Roads
without Connection to State
Facilities
high AASHTO applies to local roads.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
20
Alt
1
M or
A
Location
Design Standard from Highway
Design Manual Tables 82.1A 82.1B
Probability
of Design
Exception
Approval
(None, Low,
Med., High)
Justification
for
Probability
Rating
M Grand Avenue
Overcrossing
309.2 Vertical Clearance – Major
Structures
high APS shows 14’10”, exist is
14’11”, need to get 15’0”
clearance as stated in this
section of the DPR, history of
hits.
M US101 501.3 Interchange Spacing high Traffic Operations concurs with
this proposal.
M Brisco Rd/ Halcyon
Rd I/ C
504.7 Minimum Weave Length
high Traffic Operations concurs with
this proposal.
M NB Brisco Rd
Ramps
502.2 Isolated Off-Ramps and
Partial Interchanges
high Traffic Operations concurs with
this proposal.
M Grand Avenue at
El Camino Real
504.3(3) Distance Between Ramp
Intersections and Local Road
Intersections
high Traffic Operations concurs with
this proposal.
M Grand Avenue at
West Branch
Street
504.3(3) Distance Between Ramp
Intersections and Local Rd Intersections
high Traffic Operations concurs with
this proposal.
Fact Sheets documenting the exceptions to design standards outlined above have been prepared and
will be processed for approval if Alternative 1 is selected as the build alternative.
Park and Ride Facilities
Alternative 1 does not propose to construct any new Park and Ride facilities, and will have no effect
on any existing or proposed Park and Ride Facilities.
Utility and Other Owner Involvement
Utility facilities in the project area include PG&E overhead electrical power lines, Charter
Communications overhead cable TV lines, AT&T overhead telephone lines, City underground
water and sewer lines, Gas Company underground gas lines, and a San Luis Obispo County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District underground potable water line in West Branch Street and
Brisco Road. The proposed changes in grade at underground utility locations is minimal for
Alternative 1, so only adjustments of manhole covers or valve covers with no relocation of
underground utilities is anticipated. Some limited relocation of overhead utility facilities may be
required. Relocation of PG&E and AT&T facilities would be subject to the company Freeway
Master Agreements and may include project cost depending on prior rights and liability
determination. A 50% project share has been applied to non-City owned utilities. A Utility
Information Sheet is included in Attachment H.
Highway Planting
This interchange modification project is planned to replace existing landscape planting in kind.
The area where the existing northbound ramps at Brisco Road will be contour graded to blend with
the adjacent terrain and planted. The area where the existing southbound on-ramp from Grand
Avenue will be realigned will be contour graded to blend with the adjacent terrain and planted. The
areas where existing planting is impacted for the widening of the northbound off-ramp to Grand
Avenue, Grand Avenue near the ramp intersections, and the northbound ramps and West Branch
Street intersection with Camino Mercado will be widened will be re-planted. This will require
modification or replacement of existing irrigation systems where impacted. Highway planting will
be as directed by the District Landscape Architect.
Erosion Control
All areas disturbed by construction of the project will be stabilized with the application of erosion
control, except for any areas planted/mulched in accordance with approved highway planting plans.
Where embankment slopes will be graded at 4:1 or flatter, erosion control (hydroseed) will be
sufficient. Such an erosion control will incorporate compost, a seed mix consisting of native
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
21
grasses and wildflowers and stabilizing emulsion. Where embankment slopes will be steeper than
4:1, an erosion control blanket will be considered.
Noise Barriers
Noise modelling was performed in the Noise Study Report (NSR) for Alternative 1 and Alternative
4C, based on noise measurements and forecast traffic volumes. Modeling for future year (2035)
traffic conditions predicts that noise levels will exceed the noise abatement criteria (NAC) at 41
receptors with (or without) for Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C for the project. As a result of an
increase in NAC, noise abatement must be considered for Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C. The
dominant noise source within the project limits is US 101.
For Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C based on the Noise Study Report Predicted Future Noise
Levels and Noise Barrier Analysis Tables, neither alternative would result in noise impacts greater
than 12 dBA when compared to existing conditions.
An analysis was performed to determine the benefits of various heights of concrete masonry noise
barriers (NB) ranging from six feet to 16 feet in two-feet increments to reduce the noise from
US 101. The results for Alternative 1 are summarized in Table 1 and the results for Alternative 4C
are summarized in Table 2. In total, two noise barriers were analyzed. They included:
NB-2, a sound wall approximately 1,700-feet long along the right of way line of the southbound
on-ramp from Halcyon Road, the auxiliary lane and the southbound off-ramp to Grand Avenue
between the freeway mainline and the adjacent residences, churches and Montessori school;
and
NB-3, a sound wall approximately 2,900-feet long along the north side of El Camino Real from
east of Stonecrest Drive to Oak Park Boulevard between the freeway mainline and the adjacent
residences.
The noise barrier locations and sensitive receptors are depicted in Figures 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3 in the
NSR. To be considered acoustically feasible, any noise barrier would need to achieve a minimum
reduction of 5 dB. Based on the modeling conducted, NB-2 and NB-3 of the noise barriers
evaluated would be considered acoustically feasible at some heights for some receptors. In
addition, barriers should be designed to intercept the line-of-sight from the exhaust stack of a truck
to the first tier of receivers, as required by the Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1100.
Furthermore, Caltrans’ acoustical design goal is that a barrier must be predicted to provide at least
7 dB of noise reduction at one benefited receptor. This design goal applies to any receptor and is
not limited to impacted receptors.
NB-1 and NB-4 are not carried forward because the noise barrier would not achieve the minimum
reduction of 5 dB.
Refer to Section 6H: Noise Abatement Decision Report for additional information.
Non-Motorized and Pedestrian Features
Alternative 1 will replace sidewalks where existing sidewalks are impacted by construction.
Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Grand Avenue and on the non-freeway side of West Branch
Street and El Camino Real. Sidewalk is provided on the east side of Brisco Road between El
Camino Real and West Branch Street. Curb ramps and crosswalks will be provided to connect
sidewalks at all roadway crossings. Pedestrian signals for crosswalks will be provided at signalized
intersections. Bicycle lanes will be provided where practical on portions of City streets modified
by this project. Alternative 1 would widen the Grand Avenue Overcrossing to provide standard 12-
foot-wide travel lanes, eight-foot shoulders, and six-foot sidewalks, which would provide upgraded
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. There are currently no bicycle facilities on the Grand Avenue
Overcrossing.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
22
Needed Roadway Rehabilitation and Upgrading
Alternative 1 includes the widening of traffic lanes and shoulders to standard width on Grand
Avenue at the intersections with freeway ramps, and widens the Grand Avenue Overcrossing. The
shoulders on the US 101 ramps to be widened by Alternative 1 (NB off-ramp to Grand Avenue, SB
on-ramp to Grand Avenue, and NB off-ramp to Camino Mercado) will be widened to standard
width. The pavement of Brisco Road under the Brisco Road Undercrossing will be cold-planed or
reconstructed on a lower profile as necessary to provide standard 15’-0” minimum vertical
clearance. The profile of the SB US 101 lanes will be lower to provide 15’-0” vertical clearance to
the Grand Avenue Overcrossing.
Cost Estimates
The capital cost of Alternative 1 is estimated to be $11,012,900. This includes $7,185,900 in
roadway items cost, $2,182,000 in structure items cost, and $1,645,000 in right of way costs.
See Attachment E for a full description of each alternative probable cost.
Right-of-Way Data
The right-of-way impacts of Alternative 1 include the acquisition of approximately 25,600 square
feet of additional State right of way for the realignment of the southbound on-ramp from Grand
Avenue and for a right-turn lane to the northbound on-ramp on Grand Avenue. An additional 2,900
square feet of City right of way and 2,854 square feet of temporary construction easements would
be acquired for the widening of Grand Avenue east of the interchange, at the corner of Brisco Road
and El Camino Real, and of West Branch Street at its intersection with Brisco Road. The total
permanent right of way acquisition is 0.654 Acres and the total temporary construction easement
area is 0.07 Acres.
It is anticipated that the City will perform the right of way acquisition through a qualified consultant
with Caltrans oversight. The City will be responsible for utility coordination, relocations and
modifications. A right-of-way data sheet is incorporated in Attachment H.
5A.2 Build Alternative 4C
Proposed Engineering Features
Alternative 4C proposes closure of the US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and
construction of new northbound ramps and an adjacent intersection to intersect with West Branch
Street across from Rodeo Drive. This intersection would include a single-lane roundabout, as
shown on Attachment C. Alternative 4C would be constructed over a period of 160 to 200
working days. Alternative 4C includes the following design elements:
Closure of US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and removal of the associated
traffic signal equipment.
Construction of new US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps to intersect with West Branch
Street across from Rodeo Drive (The street name is being changed to Grace Lane as part of this
project), and installation of a single-lane roundabout at the West Branch Street/Rodeo
Drive/US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps intersection.
Realignment of West Branch Street to provide separation between the ramps intersection and
the mainline. Retaining walls will be required along the north side of West Branch Street and
between the Rodeo Drive off-ramp and West Branch Street.
Construction of a new bridge adjacent to the Brisco Road undercrossing to carry the northbound
Rodeo Drive on-ramp onto US 101. See Attachment D for the Brisco Road Undercrossing
Widening Advance Planning Study.
Construction of US 101 northbound mainline auxiliary lanes between the on-ramp from Grand
Avenue and the off-ramp to Rodeo Drive, and between the on-ramp from Rodeo Drive to the
off-ramp to Camino Mercado.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
23
Construction of a left-turn lane for the eastbound West Branch Street approach to the County
Government Center driveway.
Reconstruction of Brisco Road between El Camino Real and West Branch Street to provide
15’0” vertical clearance at the Brisco Road undercrossing. Restriping of the Brisco Road/El
Camino Real intersection, to provide for one exclusive left-turn lane and one shared through-
right lane for the westbound Brisco Road approach to El Camino Real. With this improvement,
the existing Brisco Road three-lane undercrossing will accommodate two westbound lanes and
one eastbound lane. Furthermore, the northbound El Camino Real approach will be modified
to include a single left, through and a right-turn lane.
Relocation of the southbound US 101 on-ramp at East Grand Avenue to opposite the existing
off-ramp, and associated traffic signal modifications.
Reconstruction of Rodeo Drive on a new alignment and profile to intersect West Branch Street
opposite the Rodeo Drive ramps.
Reconstruction of the existing Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection north of the ramps to
provide a larger radius curve on Grace Lane. This will convert Grace Lane to a “through street”
and Rodeo Drive to a “side street”. A retaining wall or cut slope will be required at the
realigned intersection.
Directional signage at the Rodeo Drive/James Way intersection.
A Park-and-Ride lot with landscaping will be constructed on the City-owned lot between the
West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive intersection and St. Patrick’s School.
Relocation of a temporary building and reconfiguration of parking at the Library/County
Government Center. The project would remove approximately 46 existing parking spaces from
the County Government Center and would construct a new parking lot on the same parcel with
46 new parking spaces. Handicap parking spaces and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
accessibility would be provided.
Bus pull-out and pedestrian access improvements along Rodeo Drive in front of St. Patrick’s
school.
Permanent storm water treatment best management practices (BMPs) will be considered for
implementation. This is expected to include bio-strips or bio-swales, if feasible.
Slopes along northbound ramp at Brisco Road will be removed and will be re-graded to blend
with adjacent slopes and revegetated with plantings similar to what is present along the freeway
fringes and interchange areas.
The areas to both sides of the realigned southbound on-ramp from Grand Avenue will be re-
graded to blend with the adjacent slopes. Revegetation will include plantings similar to what
is existing along the freeway fringes and in the interchange areas.
Any slopes or other areas along the highway (non-jurisdictional) that are impacted by
construction will be revegetated within similar species that currently exist.
Construction of soundwalls on the southbound side of US 101 between the Oak Park Boulevard
Interchange and Stonecrest Drive and between the Halcyon on-ramp and the Grand Avenue
off-ramp. The soundwalls would be constructed at the existing Caltrans right of way boundary
and would not preclude the ultimate six-lane configuration of US 101.
Intersection Operations
As shown in Table 18, all intersections of Alternative 4C would operate at LOS “D” or better in
peak hours through year 2035, except the intersection of West Branch Street with Grand Avenue,
which would break down, leading to extensive queuing on West Branch Street. Forecast traffic
volumes are shown in the Project Traffic Report.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
24
Table 18. Year 2035 “Alternative 4C” Intersection LOS
Intersection Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(Sec/Veh) LOS Delay
(Sec/Veh) LOS
Camino Mercado/NB US 101 Ramps/West Branch St. Signal 29.7 C 42.0 D
Brisco Road/El Camino Real Signal 20.6 C 48.0 D
Brisco Road/West Branch Street Signal 14.8 B 15.9 B
Halcyon Road/SB US 101 Ramps/El Camino Real Signal 38.7 D 34.5 C
Grand Avenue/SB US 101 Ramps Signal 10.6 B 22.7 C
Grand Avenue/NB US 101 Ramps Signal 16.5 B 12.3 B
Grace Ln (Rodeo Dr)/NB US 101 Ramps/West Branch
St. RAB3 See Below N/A See Below N/A
Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street TWSC 10.4 B 11.4 B
Grand Avenue/West Branch Street TWSC 57.3 F OVFL F
Notes:
1. “Average” control delays (in seconds/vehicle) are indicated for signal-controlled intersections. “Worse-Case” control delays (in
seconds/vehicle) are indicated for Two-Way-Stop-Control (TWSC) intersections.
2. OVFL indicates delays greater than 999.9 seconds/vehicle
3. Roundabout alternative may be considered variant of this alternative and is discussed in subsequent section of this report
Intersection Queues
Table 19 presents forecast peak hour maximum queues in peak hours in design year 2035.
Table 19. Alternative 4C Forecast Year 2035 Peak Hour Maximum Queues
Intersection Direction
“Alternative 4C”
Available Storage (ft)
“Alternative 4C” Year 2035
Peak Hr Max Queue (ft)
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
Camino Mercado/NB US 101 Ramps
(West Branch St regarded as N-S)
Eastbound 100 1,700 88 (111) 67 (245)
Westbound 1,200 1,200 77 (285) 168
(431)
Northbound 850 250 180
(360) 44 (52)
Southbound 100 630 28 (75) 64 (83)
Brisco Road/El Camino Real
Eastbound 150 3,180 45 (122) 209
(379)
Westbound 190 570 300 36 (74) 79 (78) 94 (70)
Northbound 150 2,000 33 (73) 369
(468)
Southbound 290 290 165
(481) 49 (239)
Brisco Road/West Branch St.
Eastbound 830 830 108
(217) - (182)
Westbound 125 600 144
(200) 90 (114)
Northbound 290 75 150
(137) - ( - )
Grand Avenue/SB US 101 Ramps
Eastbound 125 650 142
(379) 50 (45)
Northbound 2,000 242
(479)
Southbound 200 600 53 (135) 49 (123)
Grand Avenue/NB US 101 Ramps
Westbound 525 200 348
(330) 34 (37)
Northbound 350 600 144
(103) 68 (110)
Southbound 450 251 (33)
Notes:
1. Maximum Queues are 95th Percentile Queues.
2. xxx(yyy) = Maximum AM Peak hour (PM Peak Hour) Queues. Values in bold font exceed available storage.
3. Brisco Road and Grand Avenue are regarded as N-S streets, El Camino Real, West Branch Street and US 101 On/Off Ramps
are regarded as E-W.
4. - = Queues are considered to be negligible, OVFL = Queues much greater than available storage.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
25
Queues that exceed available storage are forecast in at least one peak hour at the following
locations:
In the left-turn lane on the NB off-ramp to Camino Mercado.
In the left-turn lane on Brisco Road under US 101, approaching El Camino Real.
In the left-turn lane on WB West Branch Street to SB Brisco Road.
In the left-turn lane on the SB off-ramp to Grand Avenue.
On EB West Branch Street approaching Grand Avenue.
Note that, in comparison to Alternative 1 (see Table 13), queue overflows occur at fewer locations,
and are generally less severe where they do occur.
Freeway Mainline Operations
Table 20 summarizes the forecast traffic operations in the freeway mainline lanes in design year
2035 with Alternative 4C geometrics with the existing four-lane freeway mainline cross-section as
well as the planned future six-lane cross-section.
Table 20. Year 2035 “Alternative 4C” Conditions: Freeway Mainline Traffic Operations
US 101 Mainline
Segment Direction
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
4-Lane Mainline 6-Lane Mainline 4-Lane Mainline 6-Lane Mainline
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS
Just South of Grand
Ave
Southbound 21.2 C 13.8 B Ovrfl F 24.9 C
Northbound 35.7 E 21.6 C 19.3 C 12.6 B
Between Grand Ave
& Brisco – Halcyon
Rd
Southbound 19.7 C 12.8 B Ovrfl F 24.2 C
Northbound 38.5 E 22.5 C 22.0 C 14.3 B
Between Brisco –
Halcyon Rd & Oak
Park Blvd
Southbound 21.1 C 13.7 B Ovrfl F 25.7 C
Northbound Ovrfl F 24.4 C 23.0 C 15.0 B
Just North of Oak
Park Blvd
Southbound 23.1 C 15.1 B Ovrfl F 32.8 D
Northbound 42.8 E 23.6 C 23.3 C 15.2 B
Notes: pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane Ovrfl = Density Overflow conditions (density > 45 pc/mi/ln)
All study US 101 mainline directional segments are projected to operate at LOS “E” or worse in
peak hours in 2035 with the existing four-lane mainline cross-section. With the planned future six-
lane mainline cross-section, LOS “D” or better operations are projected for “Alternative 4C in peak
hours in Year 2035. The ultimate six-lane facility is identified in the Caltrans’ District 5
Transportation Concept Report (TCR, 2014) for US 101 Segment 4 extending northwest from the
State Route 166 East Interchange to the South Higuera Street Interchange the transportation concept
is an ultimate six-lane freeway. For that segment of US 101, which contains the project area, it
recommends “operational improvements such as auxiliary lanes and interchange modifications.”
This project is consistent with the TCR and will construct all features at their ultimate location to
accommodate a full standard six-lane facility. The ultimate six-lane US 101 mainline project
does not meet the purpose and need of this project and would be constructed at a later date.
Freeway Ramp Junction Operations
Table 21 summarizes Year 2035 freeway-ramp junction operations with the existing four-lane
freeway mainline cross-section and “Alternative 4C” ramp and auxiliary lane configurations.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
26
Table 21. Year 2035 “Alternative 4C” Ramp Junction Traffic Operations
US 101 Mainline-
Ramp Junction
Junction
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
4-Lane Mainline 6-Lane Mainline 4-Lane Mainline 6-Lane Mainline
Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS Density
(pc/mi/ln) LOS
US 101/East Grand Avenue I/C
US 101 SB On-Ramp Merge 22.6 C 15.7 B 39.3 E 26.1 C
US 101 NB Off-Ramp Diverge 37.9 E 26.4 C 23.0 C 17.4 B
US 101 NB On-Ramp Merge 32.9 D 21.7 C 20.6 C 14.4 B
US 101 SB Off-Ramp Diverge 17.2 B 11.1 B 36.9 E 22.5 C
US 101/Brisco - Halcyon Rd I/C
US 101 SB On-Ramp Merge 17.4 B 11.2 B 34.8 D 24.1 C
US 101 NB Off-Ramp Diverge 32.9 D 26.5 C 19.3 B 17.2 B
US 101 NB On-Ramp Merge 32.6 D 20.7 C 18.5 B 11.5 B
US 101 SB Off-Ramp Diverge 24.8 C 18.7 B 44.6 F 30.1 D
US 101 Northbound Ramps to/from Camino Mercado/West Branch Street
US 101 NB Off-Ramp Diverge 31.4 D 28.8 D 20.4 C 13.2 B
US 101 NB On-Ramp Merge 34.4 D 20.9 C 22.1 C 14.3 B
Notes: pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per lane
With “Alternative 4C” all ramp junctions at the Brisco-Halcyon interchange are projected to
operate at LOS “D” or better in 2035 with the existing four-lane freeway cross-section except at
the southbound off-ramp to Halcyon Road. The northbound on-ramp from Grand Avenue and both
ramps at Camino Mercado are projected to operate at LOS “D” or better in 2035 with the existing
four-lane freeway cross-section. The remaining study ramp junctions are projected to operate at
LOS “E” or worse conditions in peak hour periods in 2035 with the existing four-lane freeway
mainline cross-section. With the planned future six-lane mainline section, all ramp junctions are
projected to operate at peak hour LOS “D” or better in 2035.
Freeway Weaving Operations
The results of the weaving segment analysis (using the Leisch methodology outlined in the
Highway Design Manual) for Alternative 1 are shown in Table 22.
Table 22. Year 2035 “Alternative 4C” US 101 Weaving Segment Operations
US 101 Mainline Weaving Segment Weaving
Distance
Vw (pcph) LOS
AM PM AM PM
Grand Ave NB On-Ramp & Rodeo Dr NB Off-Ramp* 940 ft 923 944 C B
Rodeo Dr NB On-Ramp & Camino Mercado NB Off-Ramp* 1,660 ft 872 723 C A
El Camino Real SB On-Ramp & Halcyon Rd SB Off-Ramp 6,120 ft 760 1,069 ORW ORW
Halcyon Rd SB On-Ramp & Grand Ave SB Off-Ramp* 1,050 ft 558 974 B D
Note: Vw = Weaving Volume pcph = Passenger Cars Per Hour, ORW = Out of Realm of Weaving
LOS is the composite (overall weaving section) level of service
* with two through lanes on mainline plus one auxiliary lane.
All study weaving segments on US 101 are projected to operate at peak hour LOS “D” or better
conditions in 2035 with Alternative 4C, with the existing four-lane mainline section plus auxiliary
lanes.
Year 2035 Roundabout Operations Analysis
Intersection Operations
The proposed roundabout was analyzed under year 2035 AM and PM peak hour conditions using
the Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Design and Research Aid (SIDRA) Standard method.
The Alternative 4C Roundabout Operations Analysis was submitted to Caltrans in May 2014. The
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
27
following results summarize 2035 roundabout operations. Table 23 presents the resulting
intersection LOS.
Table 23. Year 2035 Intersection Level of Service
As shown in Table 23, the Branch Street/Rodeo Drive/US 101 NB Ramps roundabout intersection
is projected to operate at worst case approach LOS “B” under year 2035 AM and PM peak hour
conditions.
Queuing
Table 24 summarizes the projected queue lengths of each approach under Year 2035 AM and PM
peak hour conditions.
Table 24. Year 2035 Queue Lengths
As shown in Table 24, year 2035 AM and PM peak hour queues are not projected to exceed the
available storage lengths.
Collision Analysis – Alternative 4C
As shown in Table 11 in the Collision Analysis section, the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Fair
Oaks Avenue, southbound off-ramp to Brisco Road, northbound off-ramp to Camino Mercado, and
northbound on-ramp from Camino Mercado all had actual “Fatal + Injury” and/or “Total” collision
rates that exceeded their respective statewide average rates. Alternative 4C does not propose
improvements to these ramps. The project’s traffic analysis does not require operational
improvements at these locations. At the southbound off-ramp to Fair Oaks Avenue the average total
collision rate is 1.01 and the actual total is 1.04 with no injuries or fatalities. The southbound off-
ramp to Brisco Road is a Type L-6 interchange (hook ramp) with minimal spacing between US 101
and the parallel frontage road, El Camino Real. There are no sight obstructions for vehicles existing
the freeway. The average total collision rate is 0.84 and the actual is 0.95 with no fatalities and
there were two injuries. Camino Mercado is also a Type L-6 interchange (hook ramps) with
minimal spacing between US 101 and the parallel frontage road, West Branch Street. The average
total collision rate for the NB Camino Mercado off-ramp is 0.84 and the actual is 1.23 with no
fatalities and one injury. The NB Camino on-ramp average total collision rate is 0.46 and the actual
is 0.70 with no fatalities or injuries.
Intersection Control Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
v/c* Delay*
(sec/veh) LOS* v/c* Delay*
(sec/veh) LOS*
Branch St/Rodeo Dr/
US 101 NB Ramps Roundabout 0.72 10.1 B 0.62 11.5 B
*Worst case approach Volume/Capacity ratio (v/c), delay, and LOS are reported using Sidra Intersection 6, Sidra Standard Method.
Intersection: Unit AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour)
EBT WBT NBT SBT
Branch St/Rodeo Dr/
US 101 NB Ramps
95th Percentile Queue
Length (ft.) 275 (200) 100 (150) 75 (75) 50 (50)
Available storage (ft.) 525 300 950 500
Notes: The reported 95% Queue Lengths are computed using Sidra Intersection 6.
The Eastbound & Westbound approaches are representative of Branch St. The Northbound approach is representative of US 101 NB Off-
Ramp. The Southbound approach is representative of Rodeo Dr.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
28
Table 25. Design Standards Risk Assessment – Alternative 4C
Alt
4C
M or
A
Alternative
Location
Design Standard from
Highway
Design Manual Tables 82.1A
&
82.1B
Probability
of
Design
Exception
Approval
(None, Low,
Medium,
High,)
Justification
for
Probability
Rating
A Brisco Road
Undercrossing
105.2 Minimum Sidewalk
Width –
Not Next to a Building
low 4’ SW, 6’ on both
approaches, no
shoulder, low speeds,
reduce lane width to
11’ to get 6’ SW,
AASHTO applies to
local roads
A Brisco Road 105.5 New Construction, Two
Curb
Ramp Design
high Peds can only cross in
one direction
A SB Grand Avenue
On-ramp
204.4 – 2 Percent and Greater
high Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost
A SB Grand Avenue
On-ramp
202.5(1) Superelevation
Transition
high Restrictive situation,
rate does not exceed
6% per 100 ft
Excessive cost
A NB Rodeo Drive
On-ramp
202.5(1) Superelevation
Transition
high Restrictive situation
Excessive cost
A SB Grand Avenue
On-Ramp
202.5(2) Superelevation
Runoff
high Restrictive situation,
rate does not exceed
6% per 100 ft
Excessive cost
A NB Rodeo Drive
Off-ramp
202.5(2) Superelevation
Runoff
high Restrictive situation,
Excessive cost
A
NB Rodeo Drive
On-ramp 202.5(2)
Superelevation Runoff
high Restrictive situation,
Excessive cost
A Rodeo Drive 204.4 – Less than 2 Percent high Excessive cost
M SB Grand Avenue
On-Ramp
202.2(1) Standards for
Superelevation – Max Rate
high Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost.
Meets comfort speed
M NB Rodeo Drive
On-ramp
202.2(1) Standards for
Superelevation – Max Rate
high Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost.
Meets comfort speed
M NB Rodeo Drive
Off-ramp
SB Grand Avenue
On-ramp
202.2(1) Standards for
Superelevation – Max Rate
203.2 Standards for Curvature
–
Minimum Radius
high
Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost
M NB Rodeo Drive
On-ramp
203.2 Standards for Curvature
–
Minimum Radius
high Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
29
Alt
4C
M or
A
Alternative
Location
Design Standard from
Highway
Design Manual Tables 82.1A
&
82.1B
Probability
of
Design
Exception
Approval
(None, Low,
Medium,
High,)
Justification
for
Probability
Rating
M NB Rodeo Drive
Off-ramp
203.2 Standards for Curvature
–
Minimum Radius
high Restrictive conditions,
excessive cost
A SB Grand Avenue
On-ramp
304.1 Side Slopes 4:1 or Flatter
high Reduces Ag land
acquisition
M Brisco Road
Undercrossing
308.1 Cross Section Standards
for
City Streets and County Roads
without Connection to State
Facilities
high AASHTO applies to
local roads
M US 101 501.3 Interchange Spacing high Traffic Operations
concurs with this
proposal
M Rodeo
Drive/Halcyon Rd
I/C
504.7 Minimum Weave Length
high Traffic Operations
concurs with this
proposal
M Rodeo Drive
Ramps
504.8 Access Rights Opposite
Ramp
Terminals
high Traffic Operations
concurs with this
proposal
M Grand Avenue
504.3(3) Distance Between
Ramp
Intersections and Local Road
Intersections
high Traffic Operations
concurs with this
proposal
Fact Sheets documenting the exceptions to design standards outlined above have been prepared and
will be processed for approval if Alternative 4C is selected as the build alternative.
Park and Ride Facilities
Alternative 4C will include the construction of a City-owned Park and Ride lot adjacent to the
Rodeo Drive/NB US 101 ramps/West Branch Street intersection. It is anticipated that this lot will
provide approximately 25 parking places. Alternative 4C will have no effect on any existing Park
and Ride Facilities. No maintenance agreement with Caltrans will be required for the Park and
Ride Lot. The Park and Ride Lot is provided in Alternative 4C as requested by the City and
SLOCOG. Alternative 4C realigns Rodeo Drive and constructs new ramps that would provide
convenient access between US 101 and the Park and Ride Lot. The City owned parcel between
Rodeo Drive and St. Patrick’s School provides the space to construct the Park and Ride Lot.
Alternative 1 does not present the same opportunity or right of way for a Park and Ride Lot.
Utility and Other Owner Involvement
Utility facilities in the project area include PG&E overhead electrical power lines, Charter
Communications overhead cable TV lines, AT&T overhead telephone lines, City underground
water and sewer lines, Gas Company gas lines, and a San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District underground potable water line in West Branch Street and Brisco
Road. The proposed changes in grade where West Branch Street and Rodeo Drive will be relocated
and the new northbound ramps will be constructed will be sufficiently significant that underground
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
30
utilities will require relocation. Elsewhere, the changes in grade at underground utility locations is
minimal, so only adjustments of manhole covers or valve covers with no relocation of underground
utilities is anticipated. Some limited relocation of overhead utility facilities may be required.
Relocation of PG&E and AT&T facilities would be subject to the company Freeway Master
Agreements and may include project cost depending on prior rights and liability determination. A
50% project share has been applied to non-City owned utilities. A Utility Information Sheet is
included in Attachment H.
Highway Planting
This interchange modification project is planned to provide highway planting at the planned
northbound ramps at Rodeo Drive and West Branch Street, where the existing northbound ramps
at Brisco Road will be removed, and to replace existing landscape planting impacted by the project
in kind. This will require installation, modification, or replacement of irrigation systems where
impacted.
Erosion Control
All areas disturbed by construction of the project will be stabilized with the application of erosion
control, except for any areas planted/mulched in accordance with approved highway planting plans.
Where embankment slopes will be graded at 4:1 or flatter, erosion control (hydroseed) will be
sufficient. Such an erosion control will incorporate compost, a seed mix consisting of native
grasses and wildflowers and stabilizing emulsion. Where embankment slopes will be steeper than
4:1, an erosion control blanket will be considered.
Noise Barriers
Noise modelling was performed in the NSR for Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C, based on noise
measurements and forecast traffic volumes. Modeling for future year (2035) traffic conditions
predicts that noise levels will exceed the NAC at 41 receptors with (or without) for Alternative 1
and Alternative 4C for the project. As a result of an increase in NAC, noise abatement must be
considered for Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C. The dominant noise source within the project
limits is US 101.
For Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C based on the Noise Study Report Predicted Future Noise
Levels and Noise Barrier Analysis Tables, neither alternative would result in noise impacts greater
than 12 dBA when compared to existing conditions.
An analysis was performed to determine the benefits of various heights of concrete masonry noise
barriers (NB) ranging from six feet to 16 feet in two-feet increments to reduce the noise from
US 101. The results for Alternative 1 are summarized in Table 1 and the results for Alternative 4C
are summarized in Table 2. In total, two noise barriers were analyzed. They included:
NB-2, a sound wall approximately 1,700-feet long along the right of way line of the
southbound on-ramp from Halcyon Road, the auxiliary lane and the southbound off-ramp
to Grand Avenue between the freeway mainline and the adjacent residences, churches and
Montessori school; and
NB-3, a sound wall approximately 2,900-feet long along the north side of El Camino Real
from east of Stonecrest Drive to Oak Park Boulevard between the freeway mainline and
the adjacent residences.
The noise barrier locations and sensitive receptors are depicted in Figures 7-1, 7-2 and 7-3 in the
NSR. To be considered acoustically feasible, any noise barrier would need to achieve a minimum
reduction of 5 dB. Based on the modeling conducted, NB-2 and NB-3 of the noise barriers
evaluated would be considered acoustically feasible at some heights for some receptors. In
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
31
addition, barriers should be designed to intercept the line-of-sight from the exhaust stack of a truck
to the first tier of receivers, as required by the Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1100.
Furthermore, Caltrans’ acoustical design goal is that a barrier must be predicted to provide at least
7 dB of noise reduction at one benefited receptor. This design goal applies to any receptor and is
not limited to impacted receptors.
NB-1 and NB-4 are not carried forward because the noise barrier would not achieve the minimum
reduction of 5 dB.
Refer to Section 6H: Noise Abatement Decision Report for additional information.
Non-Motorized and Pedestrian Features
Alternative 4C will replace sidewalks where existing sidewalks are impacted by construction.
Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Grand Avenue and Rodeo Drive, and on the non-freeway
side of West Branch Street and El Camino Real. Sidewalk is provided on the east side of Brisco
Road between El Camino Real and West Branch Street. Curb ramps and crosswalks will be
provided to connect sidewalks at all roadway crossings. Pedestrian signals for crosswalks will be
provided at signalized intersections. Bicycle lanes will be provided where practical on portions of
City streets modified by this project.
Needed Roadway Rehabilitation and Upgrading
Alternative 4C includes the widening of traffic lanes and shoulders to standard width on Grand
Avenue at the southbound freeway ramps intersection, but does not include widening the Grand
Avenue Overcrossing. The shoulders on the southbound US 101 on-ramps from Grand Avenue to
be widened by Alternative 4C will be widened to standard width. The pavement of Brisco Road
under the Brisco Road Undercrossing will be reconstructed on a lower profile if necessary to
provide standard 15’-0” minimum vertical clearance. This project is not planned to modify or
rehabilitate the mainline lanes of US 101.
Cost Estimates
Alternative 4C probable cost estimate is $20,312,800 which is composed of $14,237,200 in
roadway items costs, $1,000,600 in structure items costs, and $5,075,000 in right of way costs.
See Attachment E for a full description of each alternative probable cost.
Right-of-Way Data
The right-of-way impacts of Alternative 4C include the acquisition of approximately 25,400 square
feet of additional State right of way for the realignment of the southbound on-ramp from Grand
Avenue, and the acquisition of 120,300 square feet of additional State right of way for the new
northbound ramps and ramp intersection at Rodeo Drive and West Branch Street. An additional
113,800 square feet of City right of way and 18,755 square feet of temporary construction
easements will be acquired for the realignment of West Branch Street adjacent to the ramp
intersection, widening at the corner of Brisco Road and El Camino Real, and of West Branch Street
at its intersection with Brisco Road, and realignment of the Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection.
The total permanent right of way acquisition is 5.96 Acres and the total temporary construction
easement area is 0.43 Acres.
It is anticipated that the City will perform the right of way acquisition through a qualified consultant
with Caltrans oversight. The City will be responsible for utility coordination, relocations and
modifications. A right-of-way data sheet is incorporated in Attachment H.
5A.3 No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative proposes no improvements to existing facilities. No additional lanes or
improvements would be added to the subject intersections, and existing and future congestion,
circulation, capacity and control would not be relieved.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
32
5B. Rejected Alternatives
In 2007, Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 were analyzed as part of the Project Approval and Environmental
Determination (PA&ED) phase. All three alternatives proposed closure of the northbound on- and off-
ramps at Brisco Road in the center of Arroyo Grande and improvements to the adjacent US 101
interchanges at Grand Avenue and/or Camino Mercado. Alternative 2 (a variant of Alternative 1,
described below) and Alternative 5 (realignment of West Branch Street so that it intersects with East
Grand Avenue at the northbound on-ramp location) were dropped from further consideration after
completion of several technical Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analyses and revisions of the
project “purpose and need” statements. Alternative 5 was modified to have a northbound on- and off-
ramp to US 101 from West Branch Street opposite Old Ranch Road. This Alternative was named
Alternative 3. Two additional alternative derived from Alternative 3 and were called Alternative 3A
and 3B. Alternative 3A and 3B were similar to Alternative 3. The differences were limited to design
features such as horizontal curve radii, superelevation rates, ramp geometrics and local road curvature.
After completing detailed engineering and environmental study Alternative 3A and 3B were dropped
from consideration due to unapprovable nonstandard design features due to existing terrain and close
proximity to US 101.
In 2010, Alternative 4 was formally added for consideration and studied in detail. Alternative 4 was
similar to Alternative 4C and included realignment of West Branch Street and new northbound ramps
from West Branch Street opposite Rodeo Drive. The new intersection was proposed to be controlled
using a new traffic signal. It also included removal of the existing northbound Brisco Road ramps.
After numerous design meeting and consultation with Caltrans and the City, Alternative 4A, 4B, and
4C were developed with intention to incrementally improve and in some cases remove design
exceptions. Alternative 4C was chosen as the design that balances the needs and requirements of both
Caltrans and the City. At this time, the roundabout was added as an intersection treatment option at the
West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive/NB US 101 Ramps intersection. After Alternative 4C was revised to
include a roundabout, the version of Alternative 4C with the traffic signal was dropped from
consideration.
6. CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRING DISCUSSION
6A. Hazardous Waste
An Initial Site Assessment (ISA) Phase 1 investigation that was prepared in January 2016 addressed
hazardous waste for this project.
Based on the data gathered and reviewed during this ISA, recognized environmental conditions (RECs)
that have impacted, or pose a significant environmental threat to the project area were not identified.
Based on the findings of the ISA, the following potential environmental concerns shall be further
evaluated:
The presence of underground storage tanks (USTs) and the former cases for releases from the USTs
near Grand Avenue and Highway 101, and historic the Texaco Station at 999 El Camino Real
(intersection of Halcyon and El Camino Real).
Aerially deposited lead (ADL) may be present in soil adjacent to Highway 101.
The concrete used to construct bridges within the project area may contain asbestos.
The paint used on the railings may contain lead.
The pole-mounted transformers may contain polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB).
Gas transmission lines are located within the project area.
Chemically-treated wood posts will be removed.
Yellow traffic striping.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
33
Based on the information gathered and reviewed during preparation of this ISA, the potential appears
low for hazardous materials to be encountered during the project, and as such, the potential impact to
the overall project scope, cost, and schedule from hazardous materials is expected to be low. If aerially
deposited lead is discovered the soil containing Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL) within Caltrans right
of way must be handled, stored, placed onsite, or disposed in accordance with the "Soil Management
Agreement for Aerially Deposited Lead-Contaminated Soils" between Caltrans and the Department of
Toxic Substance Control Board (DTSC) effective July 2016. This applies to that portion of the project
within Caltrans right of way only.
6B. Value Analysis
No value analysis study was conducted for this project because little potential for significant savings
due to value analysis was identified. The project consists of improvements to existing interchanges
without replacement of major structures. The total estimated project cost is estimated to be less than
$50 million, so a formal value analysis process is not required.
6C. Resource Conservation
The construction of the interchange improvements is expected to reduce congestion on Brisco Road
and queue backups on the off-ramps, which will result in the more efficient use of fuel. Street lights
and traffic signal faces and will utilize light emitting diodes to minimize energy use. Where existing
Portland cement concrete or asphalt concrete will be removed during project construction it will be
recycled or salvaged for future use.
6D. Right-of-Way Issues
The construction of either alternative will not require the removal of any residence. Both alternatives
will require permanent right of way acquisition from agricultural lands where the southbound on-ramp
from Grand Avenue is to be realigned. Both alternatives will also require a small area of right of way
acquisition and a temporary construction easement from Brisco’s Hardware to improve the curb return
at the southwest corner of the Brisco Road/El Camino Real intersection.
Alternative 4C will require acquisition of portions of parking lots at the South County Government
Center. Approximately 46 existing parking spaces would be removed. A new parking lot would be
constructed on the County parcel that would include 46 parking spaces, including handicap spaces and
ADA accessibility. The modular building that houses the County Agriculture Department would be
relocated to a different location on the same parcel (South County Government Center).This project
alternative would construct retaining wall along the edge of the Government Center parcel for the
relocation of West Branch Street, which will require both permanent and temporary right of way
acquisition.
Alternative 4C would construct retaining walls along the edge of the athletic field of St. Patrick’s School
for the relocation of West Branch Street, which will require both permanent right of way acquisition
and temporary construction easements. The private school facilities at St. Patrick’s School are not open
to public use.
Alternative 1 would require permanent right of way and temporary construction easements from the
Shell and Chevron gas stations immediately east of the US 101/Grand Avenue northbound ramps
intersections to accommodate the widening of Grand Avenue. The acquisition from the Shell Station
would likely require modification to the row of gas pumps nearest Grand Avenue and canopy that
covers the pumps. The row of gas pumps nearest Grand Avenue would potentially be removed.
The proposed project does not have potential for future airspace leases.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
34
6E. Environmental Issues
The Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An Environmental Assessment
(EA) has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The
attached IS/MND is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposal. The attached EA is the
appropriate NEPA document for the proposal.
Wetlands and Floodplains
Wetlands
An assessment of jurisdictional features was conducted to determine the extent of impacts to
wetlands within the project area (SWCA 2017). No jurisdictional wetlands were delineated within
the project area and no other isolated or adjacent wetland areas were identified within the project
area. The project area does not occur within the Coastal Zone, so a one-parameter wetland
delineation is not necessary for compliance with the California Coastal Act.
The assessment of jurisdictional features identified three drainages within the project area that may
qualify as other waters of the U.S. (non-wetlands). These drainage ditches have a nexus with
Arroyo Grande Creek, which is considered a water of the U.S. due to its connectivity to the Pacific
Ocean. The three drainages rank low in terms of function and value. This is indicative of their
relatively small size and floodwater storage capacity, low vegetation density (especially along the
beds of the drainages), moderate groundwater discharge and low recharge capacity, and low
biological diversity.
The project is not expected to impact jurisdictional wetlands, but may impact other waters of the
U.S. Mitigation has been identified to reduce potential impacts.
Floodplains
A Location Hydraulic Study was prepared by Wood Rodgers, Inc. in December, 2015.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map indicates that
floodplains are present on the northwestern and southeastern ends of the project area. In the
northwest, Meadow Creek and the East Fork of Meadow Creek converge near the intersection of
West Branch Street and North Oak Park Boulevard with Zone AE and Zone X floodplains. In
addition, a Zone A drainage is located between West Branch Street and US 101 from a detention
pond east of Camino Mercado to the Meadow Creek confluence. In the southeast, Arroyo Grande
Creek east of Grand Avenue contains Zone A, AE, and X floodplains. Zone A and AE floodplains
have a one percent chance of annual flooding while Zone X floodplains generally have a 0.2% to
one percent chance of annual flooding.
The Location Hydraulic Study has documented that the proposed features in both project
alternatives have no impact to floodplains. In Alternative 1 near Camino Mercado northbound on-
ramp, the construction of proposed retaining wall does not cause any impact in the conveying
capacity of 101 Tributary Creek. The design flow through the creek remains below the base of
proposed retaining wall.
Similarly, in Alternative 4C, near East Grand Avenue southbound on-ramp, the extension of culvert
necessitated by the ramp modification does not increase the 100 year water surface elevation on
either end of the culvert. The location hydraulics study shows that the extended culvert will be
inlet controlled and the water surface elevation at the head of the culvert is estimated to be 105.33
ft (NAVD 88) which is well below any surrounding facilities in the area. More details can be found
in the location hydraulics study report.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
35
In summary, neither of the proposed alternatives would place any housing within a 100-year flood
zone. Based on County mapping, small areas of disturbance near the northbound US 101 ramp
intersections at Camino Mercado and Grand Avenue would occur within areas designated as within
the 100-year flood zone. However, these disturbances are minor and do not warrant any new or
substantially different consequences that would impede or redirect flood flows. On-site drainage
patterns would be controlled as described above. The project would not create a new use that
expose additional people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from flooding,
including flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam.
Other Environmental Issues
All potential impacts are less than significant with mitigation as described in the project’s Draft
Environmental Document. The following factors would be potentially affected by the project and
include compliance measures in the project’s mitigation and monitoring program: Agricultural
Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources and Paleontology, Hazards and
Hazardous Waste, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Transportation
and Traffic, and Public Service.
Under NEPA, the project will have No Significant Impact (FONSI – Finding of No Significant
Impact).
Additional information can be found in Attachment F and Attachment G, the project’s Draft
Environmental Documents.
6F. Air Quality Conformity
Each project alternative is fully compatible with the design concept and scope described in the current
regional transportation plan.
Additionally, each Alternative for this project is compatible with the current Federal Regional
Transportation Improvement Program (FRTIP) which the San Luis Obispo County Council of
Governments has determined to conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality.
Neither alternative would add additional capacity for through traffic on US 101.
6G. Title VI Considerations
Alternatives for this project make provisions for low mobility and minority groups.
Alternative 1 would widen the Grand Avenue Overcrossing, providing eight-foot shoulders and six-
foot bicycle lanes. These features upgrade the structure and provide accessible access across US 101.
Alternative 4C would provide a bus turn-out on West Branch Street to improve the public transit system.
Alternative 4C would construct a park-and-ride lot to encourage carpooling and an ADA accessible
parking lot at the County Government Center, which would provide access to the public library.
Both project alternatives include curb ramps, sidewalks, and pedestrian crossing signals to provide
accessible continuation of access between the residential areas and the current and planned shopping
areas. Paved shoulders on city streets will be provided for bicycle use where feasible in the project
area.
6H. Noise Abatement Decision Report
This section presents the results of the Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR), dated December
2016 by Wood Rodgers, Inc. The NADR is an evaluation of the reasonableness and feasibility of
incorporating noise abatement measures into this project. The NADR constitutes the preliminary
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
36
decision on noise abatement measures to be incorporated into the Draft Environmental Document
(DED); and is required for Caltrans to meet the conditions of Title 23 Code of Federal regulations, Part
772 in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration noise standards.
The NSR for this project was prepared by Sam Silverman of Terry A. Hayes Associates in October
2016.
The Noise Study Report identified two identical locations for Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C where
noise impacts are predicted to occur. The first location is referred to as NB-2, and includes the area
west of US 101 between the southbound Halcyon Road on-ramp and the southbound Grand Avenue
off-ramp. The second location is referred to as NB-3 and is located west of US 101 between the Oak
Park Boulevard interchange and Stonecrest Drive. The following table is a summary of key information
from the Noise Study Report.
Table 26. Summary of Barrier Evaluation for Alternative 1 from NSR
Barrier
Location
Station
Height
(feet)
Acoustically
Feasible?
Number of
Benefited
Receptors
Reasonable
Allowance
per
Receptor
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Sta. “A”
709+80 to
726+00
6 Yes 4 $80,000 $320,000
NB-2
ES, SB 101
Halcyon on-
ramp to Grand
off-ramp
8 Yes 9 $80,000 $720,000
10 Yes 12 $80,000 $960,000
12ab Yes 16 $80,000 $1,280,000
14 Yes 16 $80,000 $1,280,000
16 Yes 16 $80,000 $1,280,000
RW, next to El
Camino Real
Stonecrest Dr to
Oak Park Blvd.,
S of 101
Sta. “A”
748+80 to
777+80
6a Yes 11
$80,000 $800,000
NB-3
8b Yes 17
$80,000 $1,360,000
10 Yes 19
$80,000 $1,520,000
12 Yes 21
$80,000 $1,680,000
14 Yes 21
$80,000 $1,680,000
16 Yes 21 $80,000 $1,680,000
ES = edge of shoulder
RW = right of way limit line for US 101
a Minimum height needed to break the line of sight between 11.5-foot truck stack and first row receptor per NSR.
b minimum height needed to achieve 7 dB noise reduction design goal per NSR.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
37
Table 27. Summary of Barrier Evaluation for Alternative 4C from NSR
Barrier
Location
Station
Height
(feet)
Acoustically
Feasible?
Number of
Benefited
Receptors
Reasonable
Allowance
per Receptor
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Sta. “A”
709+80 to
726+00
6 Yes 7 $80,000 $560,000
NB-2
ES, SB 101
Halcyon on-
ramp to Grand
off-ramp
8 Yes 10 $80,000 $800,000
10 Yes 13 $80,000 $1,040,000
12ab Yes 16 $80,000 $1,280,000
14 Yes 16 $80,000 $1,280,000
16 Yes 16 $80,000 $1,280,000
RW, next to El
Camino Real
Stonecrest Dr to
Oak Park Blvd.,
S of 101
Sta. “A”
748+80 to
777+80
6a Yes 9
$80,000 $720,000
NB-3
8b Yes 16
$80,000 $1,280,000
10 Yes 20
$80,000 $1,600,000
12 Yes 20
$80,000 $1,600,000
14 Yes 20
$80,000 $1,600,000
16 Yes 20 $80,000 $1,600,000
ES = edge of shoulder
RW = right of way limit line for US 101
a Minimum height needed to break the line of sight between 11.5-foot truck stack and first row receptor per NSR.
b minimum height needed to achieve 7 dB noise reduction design goal per NSR.
The project considered masonry soundwalls to mitigate project noise levels. Below, Table 28 compares
total reasonable allowance versus the estimated construction cost for Alternative 1. If the constructed cost
is below the total reasonable allowance, the wall height was a considered improvement feature of the
project.
Table 28. Summary of Abatement Key Information, Alternative 1
Barrier
Barrier
Length
(feet)
Height
(feet)
Number of
Benefited
Receptors
Barrier Face
Surface
Area
(sq feet)
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Cost Less
than
Allowance?
NB-2 1,700
6 4 10,200 $320,000 $204,000 Yes
8 9 13,600 $720,000 $272,000 Yes
10 12 17,000 $960,000 $340,000 Yes
12ab 16 20,400 $1,280,000 $408,000 Yes
14 16 23,800 $1,280,000 $476,000 Yes
16 16 27,200 $1,280,000 $544,000 Yes
NB-3 2,900
6a 11 17,400 $880,000 $348,000 Yes
8b 17 23,200 $1,360,000 $464,000 Yes
10 19 29,000 $1,520,000 $580,000 Yes
12 21 34,800 $1,680,000 $696,000 Yes
14 21 40,600 $1,680,000 $812,000 Yes
16 21 46,400 $1,680,000 $928,000 Yes
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
38
Used Caltrans Cost Data from 2013 and 2014 for item #518201 Masonry Block Wall and 2015 item #582001 Sound
Wall (Masonry Block) at $20/SQFT average.
a Minimum height needed to break the line of sight between 11.5-foot truck stack and first row receptor per NSR.
b Minimum height needed to achieve 7 dB noise reduction design goal per NSR
The project considered masonry soundwalls to mitigate project noise levels. Below, Table 29 compares
total reasonable allowance versus the estimated construction cost for Alternative 1. If the constructed cost
is below the total reasonable allowance, the wall height was a considered improvement feature of the
project.
Table 29. Summary of Abatement Key Information, Alternative 4C
Barrier
Barrier
Length
(feet)
Height
(feet)
Number of
Benefited
Receptors
Barrier Face
Surface
Area
(sq feet)
Total
Reasonable
Allowance
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Cost Less
than
Allowance?
NB-2 1,700
6 7 10,200 $560,000 $204,000 Yes
8 10 13,600 $800,000 $272,000 Yes
10 13 17,000 $1,040,000 $340,000 Yes
12ab 16 20,400 $1,280,000 $408,000 Yes
14 16 23,800 $1,280,000 $476,000 Yes
16 16 27,200 $1,280,000 $544,000 Yes
NB-3 2,900
6a 9 17,400 $720,000 $348,000 Yes
8b 16 23,200 $1,280,000 $464,000 Yes
10 20 29,000 $1,600,000 $580,000 Yes
12 20 34,800 $1,600,000 $696,000 Yes
14 20 40,600 $1,600,000 $812,000 Yes
16 20 46,400 $1,600,000 $928,000 Yes
Used Caltrans Cost Data from 2013 and 2014 for item #518201 Masonry Block Wall and 2015 item #582001 Sound
Wall (Masonry Block) at $20/SQFT average.
a Minimum height needed to break the line of sight between 11.5-foot truck stack and first row receptor per 2016
NSR.
b minimum height needed to achieve 7 dB noise reduction design goal per NSR.
Alternative 1
For NB-2, a concrete masonry sound wall 12 feet-high and approximately 1,700-feet long is the
recommended noise barrier. A 12-foot high sound barrier breaks the line of sight between an 11.5-
foot truck stack and first row receptor, it meets the Caltrans goal of 7 dB noise reduction, and it
would benefit more residences per construction dollar than the others, with a cost of $25,500 per
receptor. The 12-foot high wall also benefits 16 receptors, which is the highest number of potential
benefited receptors as shown in the NSR.
For NB-3, a concrete masonry sound wall 8-feet high and approximately 2,900-feet long is the
recommended noise barrier. An 8-foot high sound barrier breaks the line of sight between an 11.5-
foot truck stack and first row receptor, it meets the Caltrans goal of 7 dB noise reduction, and it
would benefit more residences per construction dollar than the others, with a cost of $27,300 per
receptor.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
39
Alternative 4C
For NB-2, a concrete masonry sound wall 12-feet high and approximately 1,700-feet long is the
recommended noise barrier. A 12-foot high sound barrier breaks the line of sight between an 11.5-
foot truck stack and first row receptor, it meets the Caltrans goal of 7 dB noise reduction, and it
would benefit more residences per construction dollar than the others, with a cost of $25,500 per
receptor. The 12-foot high wall also benefits 16 receptors, which is the highest number of potential
benefited receptors as shown in the NSR.
For NB-3, a concrete masonry sound wall 10-foot high and approximately 2,900-feet long is the
recommended noise barrier. An 8-foot high sound barrier breaks the line of sight between an 11.5-
foot truck stack and first row receptor and it meets the Caltrans goal of 7 dB noise reduction. The
8-foot and 10-foot sound barriers have the same estimated cost/benefited receptor of $29,000. The
10-foot high sound barrier would benefit four additional receptors (20 total) as compared to the 8-
foot high sound barrier (16 total) without an increase in estimated cost/receptor. Therefore, the 10-
foot high sound barrier was chosen to benefit the maximum number of receptors.
Nonacoustical factors related to the feasibility of the soundwalls have been considered. A
significant nonacoustical factor relating to the feasibility of noise abatement is the visual impact
that large sound walls NB-2 and NB-3 would have in the project area. The walls would block the
views of adjacent residential and commercial landscaped areas, and also have the potential to
provide an attractive substrate for graffiti. However, the area immediately adjacent to the walls is
public street (El Camino Real) and there is a reasonable distance between the proposed walls and
the existing residences further to the south, these issues are anticipated to be moderate.
The shadowing effect that the sound walls would have on the vegetation in the freeway right of
way on the north side of those walls may reduce the vigor of that vegetation. Again, this issue is
expected to be minor to moderate.
Neither NB-2 nor NB-3 would affect sight distances for motorists on US 101, a ramp, or any local
roadway and neither wall is expected to affect safety. Neither wall is expected to require significant
additional maintenance, compared to the existing fence and landscaping in the same location. Also,
neither wall is anticipated to require utility relocations.
The soils in the project area generally have adequate bearing strength, so geotechnical
considerations are not anticipated to be significant for their design or construction.
The sound walls will tend to block inter-visibility between El Camino Real and adjacent residences
and traffic on the freeway. This can be considered beneficial, but the visibility of the residences
and their yards would be blocked from the southbound freeway, so any criminal activity would be
more difficult to observe, potentially decreasing security. The net effect upon security is not likely
to be significant.
Secondary effects of abatement may have the potential to result in secondary effects on cultural
resources, scenic views, hazardous materials, biology or other resources. The proposed NB-2 noise
barrier along the right of way line between the southbound Halcyon Road on-ramp and the
southbound Grand Avenue off-ramp will replace an existing six-foot chain-link fence in the same
location. It is not anticipated to result in secondary effects on cultural resources, hazardous
materials, or biology because technical studies have not indicated their presence at the wall
location. The taller wall may tend to attract graffiti on the public side. The sound wall would reduce
the intervisibility between the freeway and adjacent land uses, which include primarily multi-family
residential and commercial properties and an existing park and ride lot. The view from El Camino
Real to the east across US 101 would be obscured and would result in loss of view of landscaped
areas and portions of the City. The view from West Branch Street to the west across US 101 would
continue to be shielded by existing landscaping resulted in minimal loss of view.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
40
The proposed NB-3 noise barrier along the right of way line between the Oak Park Boulevard
Overcrossing and east of Stonecrest Drive would replace a 6-foot chain-link fence in the same
location. It is not anticipated to result in secondary effects on cultural resources, hazardous
materials, or biology because technical studies have not indicated their presence at the wall
location. The tall wall may tend to constitute a substrate for graffiti on either the public side of the
wall. The wall would be located at an elevation of approximately 12-17 feet higher than the
elevation of US 101, so views would be minimally impacted from US 101. The view from El
Camino Real to the east across US 101 would be obscured and would result in loss of view of
landscaped areas and portions of the City. The view from West Branch Street to the west across
US 101 would continue to be shielded by existing landscaping resulted in minimal loss of view.
The preliminary noise abatement decision presented in this report is based on preliminary project
alignments and profiles, which may be subject to change. As such, the physical characteristics of
noise abatement described herein also may be subject to change. If pertinent parameters change
substantially during the final project design, the preliminary noise abatement decision may be
changed or eliminated from the final project design. A final decision to construct noise abatement
will be made upon completion of the project design.
The preliminary noise abatement decision presented here will be included in the draft
environmental document, which will be circulated for public review.
7. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
7A. Public Hearing Process
A public hearing is recommended for this project. It should be scheduled during the public circulation
of the draft environmental document to present the viable alternatives for public comment.
7B. Route Matters
Neither project build alternative requires new connection approval. Both Alternatives would require a
superseding Freeway Agreement.
7C. Permits
This project will be constructed by the City under an encroachment permit from Caltrans. The following
table provides the additional required permits.
Table 30. Summary of Required Permits
Responsible Agency Applicable Permit or Authorization
City of Arroyo Grande CEQA Lead Agency Environmental Clearance/Adoption
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Encroachment Permit
Environmental Clearance
Superseding Freeway Agreement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 Programmatic Biological Opinion for
California red-legged frog
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)/
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Clean Water Act §401 Water Quality Certification
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Clean Water Act §404 Nationwide Permit
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) Construction Permits, if necessary
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
41
7D. Cooperative Agreement
A Cooperative Agreement between the City and Caltrans has been prepared for the PS&E and Right of
Way phases of the project, and is Attachment K to this DPR. A Cooperative Agreement for the
construction phase will be negotiated in the PS&E phase. The cooperative agreement defines the
responsibilities of each agency for this project, and defines the funding sources and amounts for each
phase. In general, the City will be responsible for the preparation of the PS&E, and Caltrans will
provide review. The City will be responsible for all aspects of the right of way phase and construction
phase, except that Caltrans will provide source inspections for construction materials. Caltrans will
require reimbursement for material source inspection from the City. Caltrans will provide independent
quality assurance.
7E. Transportation Management Plan
A Transportation Management Plan Data Sheet/Checklist has been developed and will be implemented
in order to maintain acceptable levels of service and safety during all work activities for this project. It
is anticipated that most of the project construction can be accomplished with staged construction and
planned detours.
Possible TMP strategies and elements that would help mitigate traffic impacts for this project are a
public awareness campaign; which may include media releases, telephone hotline, public meetings, and
a web site, changeable message signs, construction area signs, and lane/ramp closure charts that limit
lane closures to periods of lower traffic demand.
Draft Transportation Management Plans are provided as Attachment I.
7F. Potential for Construction Phasing
It is possible that project construction would be conducted in two or more phases, as funding becomes
available. The realignment of the southbound US 101 on-ramp from Grand Avenue has the potential to
be separated from the other features of either build alternative and constructed on an independent
schedule. If phased construction occurs, Phase 1 would likely consist of all modifications proposed
under either build alternative, except for the proposed realignment of the US 101 southbound on-ramp
at East Grand Avenue to opposite the existing US 101 southbound off-ramp approach.
Because the potential need for phased development is uncertain at this time, the analysis anticipates
that all construction would occur in a single phase. This approach assumes that all construction-related
impacts would occur within a single phase. Project phasing will be determined prior to approval of the
project's environmental documents."
8. FUNDING, PROGRAMMING AND ESTIMATE
Funding/Scheduling
The project is to be funded through a combination of state and local sources. The estimated costs for
project development and construction, based on Alternative 1, are shown in Table 31. The estimated
costs for project development and construction, based on Alternative 4C, are shown in Table 32. The
City has paid for project development thus far, and is also contributing local funds (e.g., development
fees or sales tax program) to the construction of this project. It has been determined that this project is
eligible for Federal-aid funding. The estimated project schedule is shown in Table 33.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
42
Table 31. Alternative 1 - Capital and Support Cost Summary
Project Cost
Component
Funding
Source
Fiscal Years
Totals
Prior Years 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2020/21
PA&ED Local $1,504,000 $1,504,000
RSHA $452,320 $30,000 $482,320
PS&E Local $ 900,000 $900,000
R/W Capital Local $1,645,000 $1,645,000
R/W Support Local $200,000 $200,000
Construction
Capital
Local $2,743,900 $2,743,900
STIP $6,624,000 $6,624,000
Construction
Support Local $925,044 $925,044
Subtotal RHSA $ 452,320 $30,000 $482,320
Subtotal STIP $6,624,000 $6,624,000
Subtotal Local $ 1,504,000 $ 900,000 200,000 $5,313,944 $7,917,944
$12,454,220
Note: Construction Capital costs and Right of Way Capital costs are current.
Escalating the Construction Capital ($9,367,900) and Right of Way Capital ($1,645,000) by 3%
per year to funding year 2020/2021 results in an escalated Construction Capital of $10,543,654 and
escalated Right of Way Capital of 1,806,000 per the attached Right of Way Data Sheet (RWDS).
This results in an escalated total funding cost of $12,349,654.
Table 32. Alternative 4C - Capital and Support Cost Summary
Project Cost
Component
Funding
Source
Fiscal Years
Totals
Prior Years 2015/16 2016
/17 2017/18 2018/19 2020/21
PA&ED Local $1,504,000 $1,504,000
RSHA $452,320 $30,000 $482,320
PS&E Local $1,280,000 $1,280,000
R/W Capital Local $5,075,000 $5,075,000
R/W Support Local $250,000 $250,000
Construction
Capital
Local $8,613,800 $8,613,800
STIP $6,624,000 $6,624,000
Construction
Support Local $1,556,580 $1,556,580
Subtotal RHSA $452,320 $30,000 $482,320
Subtotal STIP $6,624,000 $6,624,000
Subtotal Local $1,504,000 $1,280,000 $250,000 $15,245,380 $16925,780
$25,109,300
Note: Construction Capital costs and Right of Way Capital costs are current.
Escalating the Construction Capital ($15,237,800) and Right of Way Capital ($5,075,000) by 3%
per year to funding year 2020/2021 results in an escalated Construction Capital of $17,150,278 and
escalated Right of Way Capital of 5,580,000 per the RWDS. This results in an escalated total
funding cost of $22,730,278.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
43
Table 33. Estimated Project Schedule
Project Milestones Milestone Date
(Month/Day/Year)
Milestone
Designation
(Target/Actual)
BEGIN ENVIRONMENTAL M020 07/01/2005 A
CIRCULATE DED EXTERNALLY M120 06/15/2018 T
PA & ED M200 04/01/2019 T
PROJ PS&E M380 05/03/2021 T
RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION M410 08/02/2021 T
READY TO LIST M460 10/01/2021 T
FUND ALLOCATION M470 12/03/2021 T
HEADQUARTERS ADVERTISE M480 01/03/2022 T
AWARD M495 04/01/2022 T
APPROVE CONTRACT M500 06/03/2022 T
CONTRACT ACCEPTANCE M600 10/02/2023 T
END PROJECT M800 11/01/2024 T
The schedule and cost for completion of the Right of Way and PS&E phases are based on the
assumption that the City and its consultants will perform right of way activities, prepare the plans,
specifications & estimate, and administer the construction contract. Caltrans will provide Independent
Quality Assurance for work done by the City and its consultants.
9. REVIEWS
The conceptual geometric design of this project was reviewed by John Fouche of Caltrans District 5 Design
and Paul Gennaro, Headquarters Design Reviewer, and concurred in November, 2015.
10. PROJECT PERSONNEL
The following personnel have been involved in the development of this Draft Project Report:
Teresa McClish (City Project Manager) (805) 473-5420
Arroyo Grande, Director of Community Development
Robin Dickerson, PE (City Project Engineer) (805) 473-5441
Arroyo Grande, City Engineer
Paul Valadao, PE (Caltrans Project Manager) (805) 549-3016
Caltrans District 5
Mark Rayback, PE (Consultant Team Manager) (916) 440-9519
Wood Rodgers, Inc.
Luke Fuson, PE (Consultant Project Engineer) (916) 326-5426
Wood Rodgers, Inc.
05 – SLO – 101, PM 13.1/14.6
44
Jon Claxton (Environmental Analysis) (805) 543-7095
SWCA Environmental Consultants
John Fouche, PE (Caltrans Design Manager) (805) 549-3330
Caltrans District 5
Allison Donatello (Caltrans Environmental Planner) (805) 542-4685
Caltrans
11. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Alternative 1 Concept Layout Drawings, Profiles, and Superelevation Diagrams
C. Alternative 4C Concept Layout Drawings, Profiles, and Superelevation Diagrams
D. Planning Study for Brisco Road Undercrossing Widening and Grand Avenue
Overcrossing Widening
E. Preliminary Estimates of Project Cost
F. Draft Environmental Document – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
G. Draft Environmental Document – Environmental Assessment
H. Right-of-Way Data Sheets
I. Traffic Management Plan Data Sheet
J. Storm Water Data Report Cover Sheet
K. Cooperative Agreement
L. Risk Management Plan
M. Distribution List
_____________________________________________________________ Attachment A – Vicinity Map
_____________________________________________________________ Attachment B – Alternative 1 Concept Layout Drawings, Profiles, and Superelevation Diagrams
_____________________________________________________________ Attachment C – Alternative 4C Concept Layout Drawings, Profiles, and Superelevation Diagrams
_____________________________________________________________ Attachment D – Planning Study for Brisco Road Undercrossing Widening and Grand Avenue Overcrossing Widening
X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE
Revised - December 3, 2007
RCVD BY:IN EST:
OUT EST:01/16/2017
BRIDGE:BRISCO ROAD UC (WIDEN)BR. No.:49-0154 DISTRICT:5
TYPE:PC/PS SLAB RTE:101
CU:CO:SLO
EA:PM:
LENGTH:53.00 FT WIDTH:36.00 FT AREA (SF) =1,908
DESIGN SECTION:Wood Rodgers
# OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.1
PRICES BY :G. Murdock / D. Slavin COST INDEX:
PRICES CHECKED BY :D. Pecchia DATE:5/1/12 (1/16/17)
QUANTITIES BY:G. Murdock DATE:5/1/2012
ITEM NO.CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
043733 FURNISH PC/PS CONC SLAB (S IV-36)-SF 511 $60.00 $30,660.00
043733 FURNISH PC/PS CONC SLAB (S IV-48)-SF 1,254 $60.00 $75,240.00
043736 ERECT PC/PS CONC SLAB -EA 9 $3,500.00 $31,500.00
129000 TEMPORARY RAILING (TYPE K)-LF 120 $30.00 $3,600.00
192003 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE)F CY 292 $95.00 $27,740.00
193003 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE)F CY 488 $105.00 $51,240.00
510051 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING F CY 87 $500.00 $43,500.00
510053 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE F CY 189 $1,100.00 $207,900.00
510086 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, APPROACH SLAB (N-
30S)F CY 78 $825.00 $64,350.00
511130 INJECT CRACK (EPOXY)-LF 63 $90.00 $5,670.00
519100 JOINT SEAL (MR = 2")P LF 73 $105.00 $7,665.00
520102 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE)P-F LB 70,700 $1.35 $95,445.00
839725 CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 736)F LF 137 $120.00 $16,440.00
SUBTOTAL $660,950
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD $66,095
ROUTING MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$72,705
1. DES SECTION SUBTOTAL BRIDGE ITEMS $799,750
2. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - NORTH CONTINGENCIES (@ 20%) $159,950
3. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - CENTRAL BRIDGE TOTAL COST $959,699
4. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - SOUTH COST PER SQ. FOOT $502.99
5. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - WEST BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.)$40,920
6. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WORK BY RAILROAD OR UTILITY FORCES
GRAND TOTAL $1,000,619
COMMENTS: BUDGET ESTIMATE AS OF 1/16/17 $1,001,000
Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction *
Escalation Rate per Year 3.0%
Years Beyond Escalated Years Beyond Escalated
Midpoint Budget Est.Midpoint Budget Est.
1 $1,031,000 4 $1,127,000
2 $1,062,000 5 $1,161,000
3 $1,094,000
* Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual
construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not
replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually.
X GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE ADVANCE PLANNING ESTIMATE
Revised - December 3, 2007
RCVD BY:IN EST:
OUT EST:01/16/2017
BRIDGE:GRAND AVENUE OC (WIDEN)BR. No.:49-0176 DISTRICT:5
TYPE:CIP/PS BOX RTE:101
CU:CO:SLO
EA:05-0A3700 PM:
LENGTH:166.33 FT WIDTH:23.08 FT AREA (SF) =3,839
DESIGN SECTION:Wood Rodgers
# OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :1 EST. NO.1
PRICES BY :G. Murdock COST INDEX:
PRICES CHECKED BY :D. Pecchia DATE:7/3/12 (1/16/17)
QUANTITIES BY:G. Murdock DATE:07/03/2012
CONTRACT ITEMS TYPE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT
129000 TEMPORARY RAILING (TYPE K)-LF 600 $30.00 $18,000.00
192003 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE)F CY 549 $95.00 $52,155.00
193003 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE)F CY 967 $105.00 $101,545.50
480501 JACKING SUPERSTRUCTURE -LS 2 $25,000.00 $50,000.00
490601 16" CAST-IN-DRILLED-HOLE CONC PILING -LF 1,320 $105.00 $138,600.00
510051 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING F CY 153 $500.00 $76,650.00
510053 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE F CY 400 $1,100.00 $439,450.00
510065 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, PIER COLUMN F CY 39 $900.00 $34,740.00
510086 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, APPROACH SLAB F CY 196 $825.00 $161,370.00
519100 JOINT SEAL (MR = 2")P LF 266 $105.00 $27,930.00
520102 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE)P-F LB 170,968 $1.35 $230,806.80
833032 CHAIN LINK RAILING (TYPE 7)P-F LF 503 $105.00 $52,815.00
839724A CONCRETE BARRIER (TYPE 732SW) F LF 503 $180.00 $90,540.00
SUBTOTAL $1,474,602
TIME RELATED OVERHEAD $147,460
ROUTING MOBILIZATION ( @ 10 % )$162,206
1. DES SECTION SUBTOTAL BRIDGE ITEMS $1,784,269
2. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - NORTH CONTINGENCIES (@ 20%) $356,854
3. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - CENTRAL BRIDGE TOTAL COST $2,141,123
4. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - SOUTH COST PER SQ. FOOT $557.67
5. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN - WEST BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.)$40,920
6. OFFICE OF BRIDGE DESIGN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WORK BY RAILROAD OR UTILITY FORCES
GRAND TOTAL $2,182,043
COMMENTS: BUDGET ESTIMATE AS OF 1/16/17 $2,182,000
Escalated Budget Estimate to Midpoint of Construction *
Escalation Rate per Year 3.0%
Years Beyond Escalated Years Beyond Escalated
Midpoint Budget Est.Midpoint Budget Est.
1 $2,247,000 4 $2,454,000
2 $2,314,000 5 $2,528,000
3 $2,383,000
* Escalated budget estimate is provided for information only, actual
construction costs may vary. Escalated budget estimates provided do not
replace Departmental policy to update cost estimates annually.
_____________________________________________________________ Attachment E – Preliminary Estimates of Project Cost
District-County-Route 05 - SLO - 101
PM 13.1-14.6
EA 05-OA3700
Program Code
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Section 1 Earthwork Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost
Roadway Excavation 10,228 CY $15.00 $153,420
Imported Borrow 16,000 CY $20.00 $320,000
Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000
Develop Water Supply
Pavement Removal 60,067 SF $1.50 $90,101
Subtotal Earthwork $588,521
Section 2 Pavement Structural Section*
PCC Sidewalk ( 4" Depth) 168 CY $350.00 $58,800
PCC Curb&Gutter 164 CY $400.00 $65,600
Asphalt Concrete 5,365 Ton $90.00 $482,850
Minor Concrete (Median Paving)23 CY $400.00 $9,200
Aggregate Base 8,070 CY $45.00 $363,150
Cold Plane AC 1,643 SQYD $1.50 $2,465
Subtotal Pavement Structural Section $982,065
Section 3 Drainage
Project Drainage and Treatment 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000
Subtotal Drainage $200,000
* Reference sketch showing typical pavement structural section elements of the roadway. Include
(if available) T.I., R-Value and date when tests were performed.
Wood Rodgers Alternative 1 Page 2 of 6
PM 13.1-14.6
EA 05-OA3700
Program Code
Section 4 Specialty Items Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost
Retaining Walls 6,627 SF $100.00 $662,700
Barriers 1,766 LF $40.00 $70,640
Guardrail 700 LF $25.00 $17,500
Noise Barriers 1 LS $872,000.00 $872,000
Highway Planting 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000
Replacement Planting 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000
Irrigation Modification 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000
Place AC Dike
Facilities
Erosion Control 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000
Utility Relocation 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000
Water Pollution Control 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000
Hazardous Waste Mitigation Work 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000
Environmental Mitigation 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000
Resident Engineer Office Space 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000
Construction Staking
Temporary Railing (Type K)1,500 LF $20.00 $30,000
Crash Cushion Modules
Subtotal Specialty Items $2,257,840
Section 5 Traffic Items
Lighting 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000
Modify Traffic Signal 4 LS $125,000.00 $500,000
Traffic Signals 1 EA $200,000.00 $200,000
Overhead Sign Structures
Roadside Signs 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
Pavement delineation 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000
Traffic Control Systems 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000
Traffic Management Plan 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,000
Subtotal Traffic Items $860,000
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1-5 $4,888,400
Wood Rodgers Alternative 1 Page 3 of 6
PM M) 13.1-14.6
EA 05-OA3700
Program Code
Section 6 Minor Items
Subtotal Sections 1-5 $4,888,400 x 5% $244,420
TOTAL MINOR ITEMS $244,400
Section 7 Roadway Mobilization
Subtotal Sections 1-5 $4,888,400
Minor Items $244,400
Sum $5,132,800 x 10% $513,280
TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION $513,300
Section 8 Road Additions
Supplemental
Subtotal Sections 1-5 $4,888,400
Minor Items $244,400
Sum $5,132,800 x 10% $513,280
Contingencies *
Subtotal Sections 1-5 $4,888,400
Minor Items $244,400
Sum $5,132,800 x 20% $1,026,560
TOTAL ROADWAY ADDITIONS $1,539,800
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $7,185,900
(Total of Sections 1-8)
ESTIMATE PREPARED BY
WOOD RODGERS Lucas Fuson PHONE #DATE
.
* Use appropriate percentage per Chapter 3-50 of Project Development Procedures Manual: PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%.
(916) 326-5426 January 19, 2017
Wood Rodgers Alternative 1 Page 4 of 6
District-County-Route 05 - SLO - 101
PM 13.1-14.6
EA 05-OA3700
Program Code
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Bridge Name Grand Ave OC (widen)
Structure Type CIP/PS box-girder
Width (out to out) - (ft)2 x 11.54 ft
Span Length - (ft)166.33
Total Area - (ft^2)3,839
Footing Type (pile/spread)CIDH pile
Cost Per ft^2
(incl. 10% mobilization and
25% contingency)$557.67
Total Cost for Structure $2,141,123
SUBTOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS $2,141,123
Related Costs:Remove railings and sidewalks $40,920
SUBTOTAL RELATED ITEMS $40,920
TOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS $2,182,000
COMMENTS:
Widen existing RC Box Girder bridge by 11.5 feet on both sides with Box girder cast high
and jacked down to final position. Columns cast through superstructure in final position.
ESTIMATE PREPARED BY
WOOD RODGERS Gerard Murdock PHONE # (916) 326-5394 DATE March 08, 2016
(Print Name)
(If appropriate, attach additional pages and backup)
Wood Rodgers Alternative 1 Page 5 of 6
District-County-Route 05 - SLO - 101
PM 13.1-14.6
EA 05-OA3700
Program Code
III. RIGHT OF WAY
Acquisition, incl excess lands & damages to remainder $1,381,000 Area's subject to change when existing
Utility Relocation (Project share)$100,000 R/W boundaries are defined
Clearance/Demolition $0
RAP $100,000
Title and Escrow Fees, SB 1210 Expense $50,000
Environmental Permit Fees $14,000
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY $1,645,000
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WORK $0
COMMENTS
ESTIMATE PREPARED BY
BENDER ROSENTHAL Michael Lahodny PHONE # (916) 978-4900 DATE January 19, 2017
(Print Name)
(If appropriate, attach additional pages and backup.)
Wood Rodgers Alternative 1 Page 6 of 6
District-County-Route 05 - SLO - 101
PM 13.1-14.6
EA 05-OA3700
Program Code
I. ROADWAY ITEMS
Section 1 Earthwork Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost
Roadway Excavation 93,000 CY $10.00 $930,000
Imported Borrow
Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000
Develop Water Supply
Pavement Removal 135,000 SF $1.50 $202,500
Subtotal Earthwork $1,192,500
Section 2 Pavement Structural Section*
PCC Sidewalk ( 4" Depth) 320 CY $350.00 $112,000
PCC Curb 700 CY $350.00 $245,000
Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A)13,500 Ton $90.00 $1,215,000
Minor Concrete 360 CY $350.00 $126,000
Aggregate Base 20,625 CY $45.00 $928,125
Subtotal Pavement Structural Section $2,626,125
Section 3 Drainage
Project Drainage and Treatment 1 LS $800,000.00 $800,000
Subtotal Drainage $800,000
* Reference sketch showing typical pavement structural section elements of the roadway. Include
(if available) T.I., R-Value and date when tests were performed.
Wood Rodgers Alternative 4C Page 2 of 6
PM 13.1-14.6
EA 05-OA3700
Program Code
Section 4 Specialty Items Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Section Cost
Retaining Walls 24,600 SF $80.00 $1,968,000
Barriers 108 LF $40.00 $4,320
Guardrail 600 LF $25.00 $15,000
Noise Barriers 1 LS $988,000.00 $988,000
Highway Planting 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000
Replacement Planting 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000
Irrigation Modification 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000
Place AC Dike 2,500 LF $4.00 $10,000
Erosion Control 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000
Utility Relocation 1 LS $300,000.00 $300,000
Water Pollution Control 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000
Hazardous Waste Mitigation Work 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000
Environmental Mitigation 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000
Resident Engineer Office Space 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000
Construction Staking
Temporary Railing (Type K)5,000 LF $20.00 $100,000
Crash Cushion Modules
Subtotal Specialty Items $4,235,320
Section 5 Traffic Items
Lighting 1 LS $150,000.00 $150,000
Modify Traffic Signal 2 LS $100,000.00 $200,000
Traffic Signals 1 EA $200,000.00 $200,000
CantIlever Guide Sign 1 EA $400,000.00 $400,000
Roadside Signs 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000
Ramp Metering System
Traffic Control Systems 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000
Traffic Management Plan 1 LS $80,000.00 $80,000
Pavement delineation 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000
Subtotal Traffic Items $1,190,000
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1-5 $10,043,900
Wood Rodgers Alternative 4C Page 3 of 6
PM M) 13.1-14.6
EA 05-OA3700
Program Code
Section 6 Minor Items
Subtotal Sections 1-5 $10,043,900 x 5% $502,195
TOTAL MINOR ITEMS $502,200
Section 7 Roadway Mobilization
Subtotal Sections 1-5 $10,043,900
Minor Items $502,200
Sum $10,546,100 x 10% $1,054,610
TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION $1,054,600
Section 8 Road Additions
Supplemental
Subtotal Sections 1-5 $10,043,900
Minor Items $502,200
Sum $10,546,100 x 5% $527,305
Contingencies *
Subtotal Sections 1-5 $10,043,900
Minor Items $502,200
Sum $10,546,100 x 20% $2,109,220
TOTAL ROADWAY ADDITIONS $2,636,500
TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS $14,237,200
(Total of Sections 1-8)
ESTIMATE PREPARED BY
WOOD RODGERS PHONE #DATE
.
* Use appropriate percentage per Chapter 3-50 of Project Development Procedures Manual: PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%.
(916) 326-5426Luke Fuson January 19, 2017
Wood Rodgers Alternative 4C Page 4 of 6
District-County-Route 05 - SLO - 101
PM 13.1-14.6
EA 05-OA3700
Program Code
II. STRUCTURES ITEMS
Bridge Name Brisco Rd UC (Widen)
Structure Type PC/PS Slab
Width (out to out) - (ft)36
Span Length - (ft)53
Total Area - (ft^2)1,908
Footing Type (pile/spread)Spread
Cost Per ft^2
(incl. 10% mobilization and
25% contingency)$502.99
Total Cost for Structure $959,699
SUBTOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS $959,699
Related Costs:Remove portion of existing UC $40,920
SUBTOTAL RELATED ITEMS $40,920
TOTAL STRUCTURES ITEMS $1,000,600
COMMENTS:
ESTIMATE PREPARED BY
WOOD RODGERS Gerard Murdock, SE PHONE # (916) 326-5394 DATE January 19, 2017
(Print Name)
(If appropriate, attach additional pages and backup)
Wood Rodgers Alternative 4C Page 5 of 6
District-County-Route 05 - SLO - 101
PM 13.1-14.6
EA 05-OA3700
Program Code
III. RIGHT OF WAY
Acquisition, incl excess lands & damages to remainder $4,416,000
Utility Relocation (Project share)$300,000
Clearance/Demolition $35,000
RAP $250,000
Title and Escrow Fees, SB 1210 Expense $60,000
Environmental Permit Fees $14,000
TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY $5,075,000
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WORK $0
COMMENTS
ESTIMATE PREPARED BY
BENDER ROSENTHAL Michael Lahodny PHONE # (916) 978-4900 DATE January 19, 2017
(Print Name)
(If appropriate, attach additional pages and backup.)
Wood Rodgers Alternative 4C Page 6 of 6
_____________________________________________________________ Attachment F – Draft Environmental Document – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
INITIAL STUDY/ PROPOSED
MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, California
05-SLO-101-PM 13.1/14.6; EA 05-0A370
Project ID 0500000008
February 2018
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION February 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 3 of 134
Project: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Lead Agency: The City of Arroyo Grande is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the federal
lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A separate NEPA
compliance document has been prepared and is circulating concurrently with this
IS/MND.
Document Availability:
• City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
• Arroyo Grande Library
800 West Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
• California Department of Transportation, District 5
50 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
• http://www.arroyogrande.org/
• http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist05/projects/
Project Description:
Operational deficiencies at the northbound US 101 on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road, and nearby
intersections, currently cause severe congestion at the Brisco Road undercrossing, resulting in queue
spillover onto adjacent roadways, particularly West Branch Street. The purpose of the proposed Brisco-
Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project is to provide congestion relief, alleviate queuing, and
improve the traffic operations of the regional and local street system in the vicinity of US 101. The
purpose is also to continue to accommodate access to existing and planned local development along
West Branch Street and El Camino Real in the City. To achieve this stated purpose, the project should
seek to provide direct access from US 101 to and from the commercial, governmental and recreational
facilities along West Branch Street and El Camino Real and to reduce congestion and queuing at the
Brisco Road undercrossing intersections and along Grand Avenue. The project would be designed such
that it would not preclude the ultimate widening of US 101 or future improvements at any of the
affected intersections within the project area.
The City of Arroyo Grande, in coordination with Caltrans, proposes modifications and improvements to
the US 101 interchanges at Brisco-Halcyon Road, Grand Avenue, and/or Camino Mercado in the City of
Arroyo Grande. The City and Caltrans have discussed numerous project design alternatives over the last
decade, many of which were determined to be infeasible due to geographical limitations or traffic
conditions. Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C, described in more detail below, have been carried forward
for a review that is more detailed.
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION February 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 4 of 134
Alternative 1 proposes closure of the northbound US 101 on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and
modifications to the adjacent interchanges at Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado. Alternative 4C
proposes closure of the on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and modifications to the Grand Avenue
interchange, and also proposes construction of new US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps and a new US
101 ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection at an immediately adjacent location to replace
the ramps being removed at Brisco Road. The new intersection of the new on- and off-ramps and the
local road system would consist of a single lane roundabout.
Summary Document Preparation:
Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Arroyo Grande (the
City) has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed project and finds that these documents reflect the independent
judgment of the City. The City, as lead agency, also confirms that the project mitigation measures
detailed in these documents are feasible and will be implemented as stated in the IS/MND.
______________________________________ February 2, 2018
Prepared by: Emily Creel, JD Date
SWCA Environmental Consultants, Environmental Planner
______________________________________ February 2, 2018
Reviewed by: Teresa McClish, AICP Date
Community Development Director
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION February 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 5 of 134
Table of Contents:
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Introduction and Regulatory Guidance..................................................................................................... 7
Lead Agency .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Agency Roles ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Environmental Compliance Documentation ............................................................................................. 8
Purpose and Document Organization ....................................................................................................... 8
Summary of Findings................................................................................................................................. 8
2. Project Description ................................................................................................................................ 9
Project Location ........................................................................................................................................ 9
Project Background and Purpose .............................................................................................................. 9
Project Description.................................................................................................................................. 12
Other Required Public Agency Approvals ............................................................................................... 22
Related Projects ...................................................................................................................................... 22
3. Environmental Checklist ..................................................................................................................... 23
Project Information ................................................................................................................................. 23
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................................... 24
Determination ......................................................................................................................................... 24
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................... 25
4. Environmental Issues .......................................................................................................................... 26
I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................. 26
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................................... 27
III. Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 34
IV. Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................... 39
V. Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 46
VI. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................... 50
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................... 52
VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................... 55
IX Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 61
X. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................................ 69
XI. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................. 78
XII. Noise ................................................................................................................................................. 79
XIII. Population and Housing ................................................................................................................... 82
XIV. Public Services ................................................................................................................................. 84
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION February 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 6 of 134
XV. Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 88
XVI. Transportation/Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 89
XVII. Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................................... 93
5. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................................... 95
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .................................................................................. 97
7. References ........................................................................................................................................ 131
Appendices:
Appendix A. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form NRCS-CPA-106 and Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment (LESA) Worksheets
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION February 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 7 of 134
1. Introduction
Introduction and Regulatory Guidance
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the City of Arroyo
Grande (the City) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed Brisco-Halcyon Road
Interchange Modifications Project. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §21000 et seq., and the State CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15000 et seq.
An Initial Study is conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on
the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15063). If there is substantial evidence that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064(a). However, if the lead agency determines that revisions in
the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant mitigate the potentially significant
effects to a less-than-significant level, a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared instead of an
EIR (CEQA Guidelines §15070). The lead agency prepares a written statement describing the reasons a
proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why an EIR
need not be prepared. This IS/MND conforms to the content requirements under CEQA Guidelines
§15071.
Lead Agency
The lead agency is the public agency with primary approval authority over the proposed project. In
accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15051(b)(1), "the lead agency will normally be an agency with
general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited
purpose.” The lead agency for the proposed project is the City of Arroyo Grande for compliance with
CEQA and Caltrans is the lead agency for compliance with NEPA (a separate NEPA document has been
prepared and is being separately circulated, as discussed below). The contact person for the CEQA lead
agency is:
Teresa McClish, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Arroyo Grande
300 E. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
T: (805) 473-5420
E: tmcclish@arroyogrande.org
Agency Roles
The City of Arroyo Grande has taken on the role of implementing all phases of this project and therefore
is managing the scope, cost and schedule of each project component. The California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) as the owners and operators of the highway facility must review and authorize
all proposed modifications.
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION February 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 8 of 134
Environmental Compliance Documentation
Separate environmental documents have been prepared: this Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration that complies with CEQA and state environmental laws, and an Environmental
Assessment (EA) that complies with NEPA and other federal environmental laws.
Purpose and Document Organization
The purpose of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed
project. Mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the project to eliminate or
reduce any potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
This document is organized as follows:
1. Introduction – This chapter provides an introduction to the project and describes the purpose
and organization of this document.
2. Project Description – This chapter describes the background and scope of the project, all
proposed project components, and identifies project objectives.
3. Environmental Checklist – This chapter summarizes the project and the environmental issues to
be considered, and describes the process for evaluation of environmental impacts.
4. Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Measures – This chapter explains the
environmental setting for each environmental issue area, identifies the significance of potential
environmental impacts, and evaluates the potential impacts identified in the CEQA
Environmental (Initial Study) Checklist. Mitigation measures are incorporated, where
appropriate, to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
5. Mandatory Findings of Significance – This chapter identifies and summarizes the overall
significance of any potential impacts to natural and cultural resources, cumulative impacts, and
impact to humans, as identified in the Initial Study.
6. Summary of Mitigation Measures – This chapter summarizes the mitigation measures
incorporated into the project as a result of the Initial Study.
7. References – This chapter identifies the references and sources used in the preparation of this
IS/MND.
Summary of Findings
Section 3 of this document contains the Environmental (Initial Study) Checklist that identifies the
potential environmental impacts (by environmental issue) and contains a brief discussion of each
potential impact that would result from implementation of the proposed project.
In accordance with §15064(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be
prepared if the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment after the inclusion
of mitigation measures in the project. Based on the available project information and the environmental
analysis presented in this document, there is no substantial evidence that, after the incorporation of
identified mitigation measures, the proposed project would have a significant effect on the
environment. It is proposed that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with the
CEQA Guidelines.
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION February 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 9 of 134
2. Project Description
Project Location
The proposed project extends along an approximately 1.5-mile stretch of U.S. Highway 101 (US 101) in
the city of Arroyo Grande. The project corridor begins just north of Arroyo Grande Creek (near the
Grand Avenue overpass) and extends northwest toward the City of Pismo Beach. It includes the
northbound US 101 intersections at Grand Avenue, Brisco Road, and Camino Mercado (refer to Figures 1
and 2).
The city of Arroyo Grande is situated in southwestern San Luis Obispo County, in the Arroyo Grande
Valley, approximately 15 miles south of the city of San Luis Obispo and 10 miles north of the Santa
Barbara County line.
Project Background and Purpose
Operational deficiencies at the northbound US 101 on- and off-ramp/Brisco Road intersection, and
nearby intersections, currently cause severe congestion at the Brisco Road undercrossing, resulting in
queue spillover onto adjacent roadways. The purpose of the project is to provide congestion relief,
alleviate queuing, and improve the traffic operations of the regional and local street system in the
vicinity of US 101 in the city. The purpose is also to continue to accommodate access to existing and
planned local development.
The project is needed to correct existing operational deficiencies in the project area. Increasing traffic
demand due to increasing development in and around the city, lack of alternative routes, limited
freeway crossing opportunities, and non-standard existing roadway geometrics combine to cause
escalating congestion and safety concerns within the project area. The levels of service at the
northbound and southbound ramp intersections of the Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange are forecast to
deteriorate to unacceptable levels by year 2020.
Existing interchange and ramp spacing along US 101 in the project area do not meet current standards.
Ramp closures and associated improvements to adjacent interchanges have been evaluated as a means
of improving traffic operations. The project is needed to maximize the efficiency of the existing State
and local roadway systems to better serve the needs of commuter traffic within the city.
To achieve the project purpose to an adequate degree this project should:
• Provide direct access from US 101 to and from the commercial, governmental, and recreational
facilities along West Branch Street;
• Reduce congestion and queuing at the Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange and along East Grand
Avenue; and,
• Correct ramp and mainline operation on US 101 at the Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange.
The City of Arroyo Grande (City), in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), proposes modifications and improvements to the US 101 intersections at Brisco-Halcyon
Road, Grand Avenue, and/or Camino Mercado in the City of Arroyo Grande. Numerous design
alternatives have been discussed over the last decade, many of which were determined to be infeasible
due to traffic issues or geographical limitations. Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C, described in more
detail below, are now being carried forward for more detailed review.
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION February 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 10 of 134
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION February 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 11 of 134
Figure 2. Project Location Map
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION February 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 12 of 134
Alternative 1 proposes closure of the northbound US 101 on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and
modifications to the adjacent interchanges at Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado. Alternative 4C
proposes closure of the on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and modifications to the Grand Avenue
interchange, and also proposes construction of new US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps and a new US
101 ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection at an immediately adjacent location to replace
the ramps being removed at Brisco Road. This intersection would include a single-lane roundabout.
The project has been presented before the Arroyo Grande City Council and Traffic Commission in various
meetings since 2009. The City held a public meeting in the spring of 2011 to allow community members
the opportunity to discuss and comment on the project. The meeting was publicly noticed and very well
attended, with an estimated 80 to 100 community members attending. The main concern expressed by
community members was increased traffic on Rodeo Drive (although traffic projections and modeling
indicate that no increase in traffic on Rodeo Drive would occur). The City has established a Council Sub-
Committee for the project, which meets on a periodic basis with local and regional stakeholders.
Project Description
Two build alternatives are being considered to address the project objectives (Alternatives 1 and 4C).
Both are considered equally in this Initial Study to provide the City decision makers with the CEQA
documentation and environmental clearances necessary should they decide to approve either
alternative. Both build alternatives would require a superseding Freeway Agreement between Caltrans
and the City of Arroyo Grande.
The two build alternatives are detailed below and shown in Figures 3a, 3b, and 3c.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 proposes the removal of the US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and
improvements to the adjacent East Grand Avenue interchange to the south and the Camino Mercado
intersection to the north. Alternative 1 includes the following design elements, which are shown on
Figure 3a:
• Construction of an additional left-turn lane on the northbound off-ramp at the East Grand
Avenue/US 101 northbound ramps intersection and provision of an exclusive right-turn lane on
the westbound approach.
• Relocation of the US 101 southbound on-ramp at Grand Avenue to opposite the existing US 101
southbound off-ramp approach, and associated traffic signal phasing modifications. This would
also include installation of a double 54-inch concrete pipe culvert to carry storm water under
the realigned ramp.
• Widening of East Grand Avenue, including the East Grand Avenue overcrossing through both
ramp intersections, to provide 12-foot lanes, eight-foot shoulders, and six-foot sidewalks, which
would provide upgraded pedestrian and bicycle facilities. There are currently no bicycle facilities
on the Grand Avenue Overcrossing.
• Reconstruction of the southbound US 101 pavement under the Grand Avenue overcrossing on a
lower profile to provide 15’0” vertical clearance under the bridge.
• Improvements to the northbound US 101 on-ramp/Camino Mercado/West Branch Street
intersection. These improvements include widening and restriping the northbound West Branch
Street approach to provide a second northbound left-turn lane to the US 101 northbound on-
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION February 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 13 of 134
ramp and modifying the northbound on-ramp to provide dual receiving lanes that merge to a
single lane with a 950+-foot auxiliary lane on northbound US 101. Provisions for future ramp
metering would be provided on the US 101 northbound on-ramp.
• Closure and removal of US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and removal of the
associated traffic signal equipment.
• Reconstruction of Brisco Road between El Camino Real and West Branch Street on a lower
profile to provide 15’0” vertical clearance at the Brisco Road undercrossing.
• At the Brisco Road/El Camino Real intersection, restriping to provide for one exclusive left-turn
lane and one shared through-right lane for the southbound Brisco Road undercrossing approach
to El Camino Real. With this improvement, the existing Brisco Road three-lane undercrossing
would be re-striped to accommodate two southbound lanes and one northbound lane. At the
Brisco Road/West Branch Street intersection, one left-turn lane and one shared left-right turn
pocket (at least 100 feet long) would be constructed for the northbound approach. Preliminary
operational analysis indicates that the existing three-lane undercrossing, with the above-noted
restriping modifications, would provide acceptable operating conditions at the Brisco Road
intersections with El Camino Real and West Branch Street.
• Permanent storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be constructed
within the City-owned portion of this alternative.
• No permanent storm water treatment BMPs would be constructed within the Caltrans-owned
portions of this alternative. Fill at the northwest quadrant of the US 101/Grand Avenue
interchange would cover part of an existing bio-strip. Hydroseed and compost would be placed
to restore the existing bio-strip.
• Slopes along the area of the northbound ramps at Brisco Road would be re-graded to blend with
adjacent slopes and revegetated with plantings similar to what is present along the freeway
fringes and interchange areas.
• The areas to both sides of the realigned southbound on-ramp at Grand Avenue would be re-
graded to blend with adjacent slopes. Revegetation would include plantings similar to what is
existing along the freeway fringes and in the interchange areas.
• Any slopes or other areas along the highway or local roadways that are impacted by
construction would be re-vegetated with species similar to those that currently exist in adjacent
areas.
Alternative 4C
Alternative 4C proposes closure of the US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and
construction of new northbound on- and off-ramps and a new intersection to intersect with West
Branch Street across from Grace Lane. This intersection would include a single-lane roundabout.
Alternative 4C includes the following design elements, which are shown on Figures 3b and 3c:
• Relocation of the US 101 southbound on-ramp at Grand Avenue to opposite the existing US 101
southbound off-ramp approach, and associated traffic signal phasing modifications. This would
also include installation of a double 54-inch concrete pipe culvert to carry storm water under
the realigned ramp.
• Reconfiguration of the existing Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection to provide a larger radius
curve on Grace Lane that would convert Grace Lane to a “through street” and Rodeo Drive to a
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION February 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 14 of 134
“side street.” Rodeo Drive currently acts as the “through” street and continues south/west to
connect to West Branch Street. With the proposed reconfiguration, Grace Lane would become
the “through” street and extend south/west from the intersection to West Branch Street. Rodeo
Drive would become a residential “side” street and terminate at the reconfigured Grace
Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection (refer to Figure 3). This modification would result in a street
name change from Rodeo Drive to Grace Lane between the Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive
intersection and West Branch Street. A retaining wall or cut slope would be required at the
reconfigured intersection, which would be visible from the roadway.
• Closure and removal of the US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and removal of
the associated traffic signal equipment.
• Construction of new US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps to intersect with West Branch Street
across from Grace Lane (formerly Rodeo Drive), and installation of a single-lane roundabout at
the new US 101 northbound ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection.
• Realignment of West Branch Street to provide greater separation between the new US 101
northbound ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection and the US 101 mainline.
Retaining walls would be required along the north side of West Branch Street and between the
Grace Lane off-ramp and West Branch Street, which would be visible from the roadway.
• Reconstruction of Grace Lane (formerly Rodeo Drive) on a new alignment and profile to
intersect West Branch Street opposite the proposed US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at
Grace Lane.
• At the Brisco Road/El Camino Real intersection, restriping to provide for one exclusive left-turn
lane and one shared through-right lane for the southbound Brisco Road undercrossing approach
to El Camino Real. With this improvement, the existing three-lane Brisco Road undercrossing
would be re-striped to accommodate two southbound lanes and one northbound lane. The
westbound El Camino Real approach would be modified to include a single left, through, and a
right-turn lane.
• Reconstruction of Brisco Road between El Camino Real and West Branch Street on a lower
profile to provide 15’0” vertical clearance at the Brisco Road undercrossing.
• Construction of a new bridge adjacent to the Brisco Road undercrossing to carry the US 101
northbound on-ramp at Grace Lane onto US 101.
• Construction of auxiliary lanes between the US 101 northbound on-ramp at East Grand Avenue
and the northbound off-ramp at Grace Lane, and between the northbound on-ramp at Grace
Lane to the northbound off-ramp at Camino Mercado.
• Construction of a left-turn lane for the eastbound West Branch Street approach to the Arroyo
Grande Library/South County Regional Center driveway.
• Directional signage at the Rodeo Drive/James Way intersection to reflect street name change to
Grace Lane.
• Relocation of a modular building and reconfiguration of parking at the Arroyo Grande
Library/South County Regional Center. The project would remove approximately 46 existing
parking spaces from the South County Regional Center and would construct a new parking lot on
the same parcel with 46 new parking spaces. Handicap parking spaces and ADA accessibility
would be provided.
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION February 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 15 of 134
• Development of a bus pull-out and pedestrian access improvements along Grace Lane (formerly
Rodeo Drive) in front of St. Patrick’s school.
• Permanent storm water treatment BMPs would be considered for implementation. This is
expected to include design pollution prevention infiltration type BMPs or bio-strips or bio-
swales, if feasible.
• Slopes along the area of the northbound ramps at Brisco Road would be re-graded to blend with
adjacent slopes and revegetated with plantings similar to what is present along the freeway
fringes and interchange areas.
• The areas to both sides of the realigned southbound on-ramp at Grand Avenue would be re-
graded to blend with the adjacent slopes. Revegetation would include plantings similar to what
is existing along the freeway fringes and in the interchange areas.
• Any slopes or other areas along the highway or local roadways that are impacted by
construction would be re-vegetated with species similar to those that currently exist in adjacent
areas.
• Construction of soundwalls on the southbound side of US 101 between the Oak Park Boulevard
Interchange and Stonecrest Drive and between the Halcyon Road on-ramp and the Grand
Avenue off-ramp. The soundwalls would be constructed at the existing Caltrans right of way
boundary and would not preclude the ultimate six-lane configuration of US 101.
Although not needed to meet the project purpose and need, Alternative 4C would also provide
additional improvements to increase alternative transportation facilities in the City.
• A Park-and-Ride lot with landscaping would be constructed on the City-owned lot between the
proposed US 101 northbound ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection and St.
Patrick’s school. The Park and Ride Lot would include approximately 22-26 spaces and is
expected to serve workers commuting to north San Luis Obispo County, Diablo Canyon Power
Plant, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Maria. The bus stop would continue to be located on Grace
Lane, not inside the Park and Ride Lot.
The Park and Ride Lot opportunity evolved during preliminary design for Alternative 4C in response to
public comment received during stakeholder outreach efforts during its development, including those
with San Luis Obispo County, SLOCOG, and St. Patrick’s School. The Park and Ride Lot was included in
Alternative 4C when it was identified that Rodeo Drive would be realigned eastward at the area adjacent
to the City-owned vacant lot, along with other access revisions included for the County-owned property
east of the proposed roundabout and St. Patrick’s property to the west. Additionally, SLOCOG has
commented that a Park and Ride Lot located at this location is desired to work with the existing lot
located at the southbound ramps at Halcyon.
This location was included in the San Luis Obispo County Highway 101 Bus Rapid Transit Applications
Study (SLOCOG 2013) as a potential location for a Park and Ride Lot and SLOCOG has indicated strong
support for the Park and Ride Lot component under Alternative 4C. It is not anticipated that removal of
the Park and Ride Lot would substantially reduce costs of Alternative 4C, due to the remaining need for
and extent of construction in the vicinity to realign Rodeo Drive and property access drives.
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION February 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 16 of 134
Surface Disturbance
The project would result in a maximum disturbance of approximately 13.75 acres and up to 1.71 acres of
new impervious surface area. Estimated areas of soil disturbance and new impervious surface areas
under each design alternative are shown in Table 1, below.
Table 1. Soil Disturbance and Impervious Surface Areas
Design Alternative Disturbed Soil Area (acres) New Impervious Surface Area (acres)
Alternative 1 5.47 1.04
Alternative 4C 13.75 1.71
Source: Caltrans Draft Appendix E Long Form Storm Water Data Report (Wood Rodgers 2016)
Construction Access and Staging
Construction access would be facilitated along existing roadways within the project area, with traffic
controls implemented as appropriate. All staging is currently proposed to take place within existing
right-of-way areas or on adjacent publicly-owned parcels.
Construction is expected to last between 160 and 200 working days, or approximately 9 months for
Alternative 1 and 12 months for Alternative 4C and spanning one rainy season.
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 17 of 134
Figure 3a. Alternative 1
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 18 of 134
This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 19 of 134
Figure 3b. Alternative 4C
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 20 of 134
This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 21 of 134
Figure 3c. Alternative 4C Detail
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 22 of 134
Other Required Public Agency Approvals
Project construction and implementation would require the City to obtain permits and other forms of
approval from various federal and state agencies. These authorizations may be issued in the form of
regulatory permits, agreements, or other forms of environmental review/approval. Authorizations will
likely include numerous requirements for environmental compliance, which will be enforced through
construction monitoring, documentation, and reporting. As proposed, the project is expected to require
authorizations/permits from the following agencies:
Table 2. Agency Permits/Authorizations
Responsible Agency Applicable Permit or Authorization
City of Arroyo Grande CEQA Lead Agency Environmental Clearance/Adoption
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Encroachment Permit
Compliance with NEPA
Superseding Freeway Agreement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 Programmatic Biological Opinion for
California red-legged frog
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)/
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
Clean Water Act §401 Water Quality Certification
Construction General Permit
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Clean Water Act §404 Nationwide Permit
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
(APCD) Construction Permits, if necessary
Related Projects
The proposed project is not related to any other past, present, or future planned projects.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 23 of 134
3. Environmental Checklist
Project Information
Project Title: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications
Project
Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arroyo Grande
300 East Brach Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Contact Person & Telephone Number: Teresa McClish, Community Development Director
(805) 473-5420
Project Location: US 101, postmile 13.1 to 14.6, Arroyo Grande,
California
Project Sponsor Names & Addresses: City of Arroyo Grande
300 East Brach Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
General Plan Designation: Multiple
Zoning: Multiple
Description of Project: Modifications to northbound US 101 ramp
intersections at Brisco Road, Grand Avenue, and/or
Camino Mercado, and adjacent roadway
improvements
Surrounding Land Uses & Setting: Regional commercial, retail, and community facilities
adjacent to US 101.
Approval Required from Other Public Agencies: Caltrans, SWRCB/RWQCB, USFWS, USACE, CDFW,
APCD
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 24 of 134
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages:
Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that, although the original scope of the proposed project COULD have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect because revisions/mitigations to the
project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or its functional equivalent will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment. However, at least one impact has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document, pursuant to applicable legal standards, and has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, as described in the
report's attachments. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze
only the impacts not sufficiently addressed in previous documents.
I find that, although the proposed project could have had a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an
earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or
mitigated, pursuant to an earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, all impacts have been avoided or mitigated to a less-than-
significant level and no further action is required.
______________________________________
Teresa McClish, AICP Date
Community Development Director
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 25 of 134
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1. A brief explanation, adequately supported by the information sources cited, is required for all
answers, except "No Impact.” A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact does not apply to the project being evaluated (e.g.,
the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where
it is based on general or project-specific factors (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must consider the whole of the project-related effects, both direct and indirect,
including off-site, cumulative, construction, and operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist
answers must indicate whether that impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate when there is
sufficient evidence that a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change may occur in any
of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project that cannot be mitigated
below a level of significance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries, an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
4. A "Mitigated Negative Declaration" (Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated) applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures, prior to declaration of
project approval, has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR (including a General Plan) or
Negative Declaration [CCR, Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, § 15063(c)(3)(D)].
References to an earlier analysis should:
a) Identify the earlier analysis and state where it is available for review.
b) Indicate which effects from the environmental checklist were adequately analyzed in
the earlier document, pursuant to applicable legal standards, and whether these effects
were adequately addressed by mitigation measures included in that analysis.
c) Describe the mitigation measures in this document that were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and indicate to what extent they address site-specific
conditions for this project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate references to information sources for potential
impacts into the checklist or appendix (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances, biological
assessments). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should include an
indication of the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. A source list should be appended to this document. Sources used or individuals contacted
should be listed in the source list and cited in the discussion.
8. Explanation(s) of each issue should identify:
a) the criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate the significance of the impact
addressed by each question; and,
b) the mitigation measures, if any, prescribed to reduce the impact below the level of
significance.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 26 of 134
4. Environmental Issues
I. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
Southern San Luis Obispo County is characterized by both urban built environments and open space
areas that maintain a rural identity between communities and seek to prevent urban sprawl (i.e.,
“community separators”). The project area encompasses a disturbed urbanized landscape within the
City of Arroyo Grande on rolling terrain at an elevation of approximately 120 to 240 feet. The project
site contains substantial public infrastructure, transportation facilities, and is surrounded by intensive
commercial, retail, mixed use, and community facility development adjacent to the US 101 corridor.
Vegetation within the project area includes primarily landscaping/ornamental vegetation, with minimal
amounts of agriculture, ruderal (disturbed), riparian, and freshwater marsh vegetation associated with
channelized drainages that bisect the area.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
Discussion
a) – c): For CEQA purposes, a scenic vista is generally defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive
views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. A substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista would occur if the proposed project would significantly degrade the scenic landscape as
viewed from public roads or other public areas. The project corridor extends through a highly urbanized
area comprised of substantial development and infrastructure and is not considered a scenic vista.
The project site is visible from numerous public roadways throughout the project corridor, including US
101, West Branch Street, Rodeo Drive, Brisco Road, Halcyon Road, Grand Avenue, El Camino Real,
Camino Mercado, and Rancho Parkway. The number of viewers would be very high due to high vehicular
use of this area. The project would modify and/or replace existing transportation infrastructure of
relatively low visual quality with similar transportation facilities and components. The new intersection
and Park and Ride lot proposed under Alternative 4C would be the most visually prominent features of
the proposed project and would be located in a currently vacant lot. These features would generally be
consistent with the level and types of development in surrounding areas. All improvements would
predominantly be built at grade and would not protrude into the skyline or block views due to a rise in
elevation.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 27 of 134
Short-term construction activities would create visual impacts in the project area associated with the
presence of construction equipment, earthwork activities, detour signage, etc. However, these impacts
would be temporary in nature and limited to the construction period (currently estimated to be
between 9 to 12 months).
US 101 in the project vicinity is designated as an “Eligible State Scenic Highway – Not Officially Listed” by
the California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Visual quality of the project area is dominated by
extensive urban development and road and highway infrastructure. There are no scenic rock
outcroppings or historic buildings in the project vicinity that would be damaged as a result of project
development. Both build alternatives would require removal of a mature eucalyptus tree adjacent to the
Brisco Road undercrossing; however, widening of the existing infrastructure would not substantially
change the existing urban setting, would be minimally visible, and would not significantly degrade the
view. Disturbed areas adjacent to the modified infrastructure would be revegetated with native species
and softscape vegetation, consistent with surrounding areas.
Solid (sound) wall design is required to go through the City’s Architectural Review Committee, and
design details must include stepped design and/or natural looking rock finish (shotcrete or equivalent).
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d): The project proposes removal and replacement of existing traffic and safety lighting in the
project corridor to accommodate roadway modifications and improvements. The new US 101
ramps/West Branch Street/Grace Lane intersection and Park and Ride lot proposed under Alternative 4C
would also add new sources of traffic and safety lighting in the project area. Construction of the project
may also require the use of additional temporary lighting during construction activities.
The project is proposed in a highly urbanized area predominantly comprised of roadway and highway
infrastructure, and includes substantial sources of existing light and glare, including standard traffic and
pedestrian signals, safety lighting, and outdoor lighting associated with adjacent land uses. The lighting
proposed in relation to the project would not substantially differ from existing conditions. In addition,
compliance with applicable Municipal Code standards in Section 16.48.090, including shielding of
outdoor lighting and measures to minimize light trespass onto adjacent properties and glare, would
further reduce the potential for significant impacts.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
No significant impacts to aesthetic resources were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are
necessary.
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Environmental Setting
The California Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) classify
agricultural lands into five categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique
Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Farmland of Local Potential. Non-farmlands are classified
as Grazing Land, Urban and Built Up Land, Other Land, or Water. The project area encompasses a small
area of Prime Farmland south of the Grand Avenue interchange.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 28 of 134
The Williamson Act of 1965 is the state’s principal policy for the preservation of agricultural, open-space,
and rangeland. The program encourages landowners to work with local governments to protect
important farmland and open space in exchange for tax benefits. As land is restricted to agricultural and
compatible open-space uses under the Williamson Act, it is assessed for property taxes at a rate
consistent with its actual use, rather than the potential value of the land. No portion of the project area
is currently subject to a Williamson Act contract.
The Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan identifies the
importance of avoiding and/or mitigating for the loss of prime farmland soils and of conserving non-
prime agriculture uses and natural resource lands. The City’s policies also recognize the importance of
allocation and conservation of ground and surface water resources for agricultural uses and the need to
minimize potential urban and fringe area development that would divert such resources away from
agricultural uses.
Two parcels located at the southeastern end of the project area are Prime Farmland and currently
support the production of row crops (APN# 006-311-067 and 006-311-076). These parcels are not
subject to an agricultural preserve or Williamson Act contract; however, they are zoned for Agricultural
land use.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220)g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
* In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model for use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 29 of 134
Discussion
a) – b): Based on current design/right-of-way estimates, both build alternatives would require the
acquisition of approximately 0.58 acre (25,314 square feet) of land zoned for agriculture use for the
project right of way. The area to be acquired includes approximately 0.37 acres of Prime Farmland and
0.29 acres of land currently in agricultural production (not all areas of Prime Farmland are currently in
active agricultural use). Based on current estimates, approximately 0.37 acre of prime farmland would
be acquired into the State right of way to accommodate the proposed realignment of the southbound
US 101 on-ramp at Grand Avenue under Alternatives 1 and 4C. This amount comprises approximately
0.4% of total agricultural lands within the City of Arroyo Grande.
Agricultural uses within the project area consist of vegetable crops southeast of the Grand Avenue
interchange. The estimated average value of vegetable crops in San Luis Obispo County is approximately
$7,269.00 per acre, based on 2012 San Luis Obispo County Crop Report harvested acreage and yield
totals (San Luis Obispo County 2013). The proposed project would impact two parcels currently
supporting vegetable crops. The acquisition under either alternative would be permanent.
The Arroyo Grande General Plan identifies any conversion of prime farmland as a potentially significant
impact and requires that loss of prime agricultural soils be avoided or mitigated. An exception to the
requirement that prime soils be avoided is provided for necessary public facilities. The City has
determined that roadways fall within the public facilities exception and, because they are an allowed
use on agricultural parcels, do not constitute a conversion of agricultural land that must be avoided
pursuant to the General Plan.
Because of the project location adjacent to existing highway infrastructure, surrounding development
patterns, and existing protections in place through City and County plans and policies, the conversion is
not likely to lead to additional development or conversion of farmland in this area. The project would
not conflict with the agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts of any adjacent parcels, which have
historically operated in similar proximity to the US 101 and other local roadways.
No secondary impacts are expected as the project would not bisect or cut off existing agricultural areas,
leaving portions unviable for agricultural uses, and would not create a new use that does not currently
exist adjacent to the agricultural parcels. A portion of the state right of way to be acquired in this area
will act as a buffer between the on-ramp and existing agricultural activities; no additional buffer area is
required or necessary to protect adjacent farmlands.
USDA Farmland Conversion Impact Rating System
The NRCS was consulted regarding the project, and potential agricultural impacts were analyzed
pursuant to the USDA’s Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects using Form NRCS-
CPA-106. The USDA Farmland Impact Rating System rates the value of potential impacted farmlands
using a point system based on specific site assessment criteria. Applying the point system, the project
was scored at 52 points out of a possible 260 points for both build alternatives (refer to Appendix A).
Although there are different build alternatives, proposed improvements at the southbound US 101
Grand Avenue on-ramp are the same; therefore, impacts on adjacent agricultural resources would be
the same under both alternatives.
Based on the USDA’s rating system, if the project results in a combined score of 160 or less, the land is
not subject to the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) and the agency is not required
to consider alternatives that would avoid or lessen the impacts (USDA 2012). Therefore, a score of 160
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 30 of 134
under this rating system is typically used as the point at which impacts are considered significant.
Because the project rating is less than 160, the conversion of agricultural land is considered mitigable to
less than significant through implementation of identified mitigation measures.
California Department of Conservation, California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model
Potential effects on agricultural resources as a result of the proposed project were also analyzed under
the California Department of Conservation’s (CDC) Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model
(1997). The LESA Model is a point-based approach for rating the relative importance of agricultural land
resources based upon specific measurable features. The Model was developed to provide lead agencies
with an optional methodology to ensure that potentially significant effects associated with agricultural
land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process.
Based on the CDC’s LESA Model, the proposed project would result in a LESA score of 25.7, which
indicates farmland impacts that are not considered significant. The project’s rating below the threshold
under both the LESA Model and the USDA Farmland Conversion Impact Rating System is largely a
reflection of the project’s proposed location within the heavily urbanized area of central Arroyo Grande
and the extent of existing non-agricultural development throughout the project area. The LESA Model
includes the following thresholds of significance.
Table 3. California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds
Total LESA Score Scoring Decision
0 to 39 points Not considered significant
40 to 59 points Considered significant ONLY if Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points
60 to 79 points Considered significant UNLESS Land Evaluation or Site Assessment
subscore is less than 20 points
80 to 100 points Considered significant
The project’s rating below the threshold under both rating systems is largely a reflection of the extent of
existing development at the site and the site’s landlocked position within the heavily urbanized area of
central Arroyo Grande. Additional information and graphics regarding the project’s scores and the
USDA’s rating system and CDC LESA Model processes are provided in Appendix A.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 31 of 134
Figure 4. Agricultural Setting Map
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 32 of 134
This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 33 of 134
The project would be required to comply with the requirements of the City’s Agriculture, Conservation
and Open Space Element, Policy Ag1-4.2, and Right-to-Farm provisions of the City’s Development Code
(Section 16.12.170(F), Agricultural Land Conversion). There is an exception in the General Plan for
necessary public facilities. The City has determined that roadways fall within the public facilities
exception and, because they are an allowed use on agricultural parcels and do not constitute a
conversion of agricultural land that must be avoided pursuant to the General Plan. Compensation for
loss of agricultural revenue is not an environmental impact under CEQA. However, the City would be
required to compensate the affected landowner consistent with City and Caltrans policies.
The loss of prime farmland would be mitigated consistent with the City’s General Plan and Agriculture,
Conservation, and Open Space Element. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation.
c) – d): There is no forestland in San Luis Obispo County.
Therefore, no impacts would occur.
e): The proposed project would expand existing transportation infrastructure adjacent to an
intensive agricultural use. No secondary impacts are expected as the project does not bisect or cut off
existing agricultural areas, leaving portions unviable for agricultural uses, and would not create a new
incompatible use that does not currently exist adjacent to the agricultural parcels. The portion of the
state right of way to be acquired will act as a buffer between the on-ramp and adjacent agricultural
activities. Transportation and agriculture are generally compatible land uses and no additional buffer
area is required or necessary to protect adjacent farmlands.
The proposed project would not create a permanent increase in demand for groundwater; impacts on
agricultural water supplies associated with construction related water demands would be minimal.
Alternative 4C would require relocation of the San Luis Obispo County Agriculture Department building.
However, the County has indicated that relocation of the modular structure is feasible and there is
adequate space on the same parcel to accommodate the relocated structure. Permanent impacts would
be minimal and would not result in the loss or conversion of agricultural lands within the County.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact
To minimize the potential significant impacts to agricultural resources, the following mitigation
measures would be implemented.
AG/mm-1 Farmland impacts shall be minimized in accordance with the City’s Agriculture,
Conservation and Open Space Element, Policy Ag1-4.2, and Development Code Section
16.12.170(F). Permanent protection of prime farmlands shall be provided in the form of a
perpetual agriculture or conservation easement. The agricultural or conservation easement shall
protect lands at a 1:1 ratio if within the City limits, or at a 2:1 ratio if outside of the City limits but
within the City’s area of environmental concern. The land shall be comparable in soil quality to
the land being converted to non-agricultural uses and shall have an adequate water supply to
support agricultural use that is also protected in the agricultural conservation easement,
farmland deed restriction, or other document evidencing the permanent agricultural protection.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 34 of 134
As an alternative to the permanent conservation easement, the City may elect to pay in-lieu fees
if the City Council determines that the payment of fees provides a superior opportunity to satisfy
the goals and policies of the General Plan, in accordance with the Development Code (Section
16.12.170).
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts to Agriculture and Forestry would be less
than significant.
III. Air Quality
Environmental Setting
This section is largely based on information provided in the Air Quality Study prepared for the project
(Terry A. Hayes and Associates, Inc. [TAHA] 2017).
San Luis Obispo County is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin, which also includes Santa Barbara
and Ventura Counties. The climate of the basin area is strongly influenced by its proximity to the Pacific
Ocean. Airflow around and within the basin plays an important role in the movement and dispersion of
pollutants. The speed and direction of local winds are controlled by the location and strength of the
Pacific High pressure system and other global weather patterns, topographical factors, and circulation
patterns that result from temperature differences between the land and the sea.
The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has developed and updated their CEQA
Air Quality Handbook (2012) to evaluate project specific impacts and help determine if air quality
mitigation measures are needed, or if potentially significant impacts could result. To evaluate long-term
emissions, cumulative effects, and establish countywide programs to reach acceptable air quality levels,
the APCD has prepared and adopted a Clean Air Plan.
The County’s air quality is measured by multiple ambient air quality monitoring stations, including four
APCD operated permanent stations, two state-operated permanent stations, two special stations, and
one station operated by Tosco Oil Refinery for monitoring Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) emissions.
San Luis Obispo County is in non-attainment status for ozone (O3), respirable particulate matter (PM10)
and vinyl chloride under the California Air Resource Board (CARB) standards. The County is in attainment
status for all other applicable CARB standards.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the
population groups and the activities involved. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has identified
the following typical groups who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14, the
elderly over 65 years of age, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases.
Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-
term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Sensitive
receptors near the project area include nearby residences, Saint Patrick’s Catholic School, Arroyo
Grande Montessori School, and Valley View Adventist Academy.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 35 of 134
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
* Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied on to make these determinations.
Discussion
a): The project would replace/improve existing infrastructure and does not propose a new or
increased use in the project area. The proposed use is consistent with the general level of development
anticipated and projected in the Clean Air Plan as well as other applicable regional and local planning
documents. It would improve the function of state and local transportation systems in the project area,
thereby reducing congestion and generally benefitting air quality. Therefore, the proposed project
would not conflict with or otherwise obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Plan.
Impacts would be less than significant.
b) – d): Construction Impacts. During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due
to the release of particulate emissions (airborne dust) and other pollutants generated by excavation,
grading, hauling, and various other activities related to construction. Site preparation and roadway
construction would involve clearing, cut-and-fill activities, grading, removing or improving existing
roadways, and paving roadway surfaces.
All construction vehicles and equipment would be required to be equipped with the State-mandated
emission control devices pursuant to State emission regulations and standard construction practices.
Project construction is estimated to last between approximately 9 and 16 months. After construction is
complete, all construction-related impacts would cease. Short-term construction emissions would be
further reduced with the implementation of standard dust and diesel particulate matter (DPM)
suppression measures outlined within the APCD rules and regulations. Caltrans Standard Specifications
for Construction (Section 10 and 18 [Dust Control] and Section 39-3.06 [Asphalt Concrete Plants]) would
also be adhered to.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 36 of 134
The Air Quality Study prepared for the project included detailed construction emissions. Those emission
calculations have been updated to account for a 2018 start year instead of a 2016 start year. As shown
in Table 4, both alternatives would exceed the Tier 1 threshold for reactive organic gases + nitrogen
oxides but neither alternative would exceed the Tier 2 threshold. In addition, Alternative 4C would
exceed the Tier 1 threshold for diesel particulate matter but would not exceed the Tier 2 threshold.
Based on the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, standard mitigation and Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) would be implemented to reduce potential effects on nearby sensitive receptors.
Site disturbance would occur within an area designated as non-attainment for fugitive dust. Therefore,
in order to prevent a dust nuisance and contribute to fugitive dust generation, standard dust control
mitigation set out in APCD regulations would be implemented. In addition, the project is located within
1,000 feet of potentially sensitive receptors (residences), who may be adversely affected by exposure to
DPM emitted by construction equipment. Based on the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, standard
mitigation and BACT would be implemented to reduce potential effects on nearby sensitive receptors.
Table 4. Construction Emissions
Pounds Per Day Tons Per Quarter
ROG + NOX
DPM ROG + NOX DPM Dust (PM10)
Alternative
Alternative 1 86 2.8 2.8 0.09 0.25
Alternative 4C 115 3.7 3.8 0.12 0.49
Threshold 137 7 Tier 1 - 2.5
Tier 2 - 6.3
Tier 1 - 0.13
Tier 2 - 0.32 2.5
Source: Terry A. Hayes Associates Inc., 2017.
Therefore, construction related impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Operational Impacts. A regional operational emissions analysis was completed based on peak hour
delay. Both proposed build alternatives would decrease vehicle delay and congestion within the project
area, resulting in lower emission rates. Therefore, modeled regional emissions under both project
alternatives would be less than baseline conditions in years 2015 and 2035. Therefore, the build
alternatives would result in beneficial long-term air quality impacts in the project area.
Operational impacts would be less than significant.
Exposure to Pollutants. A carbon monoxide hotspot analysis was completed based on Caltrans guidance.
The analysis indicated that the proposed project would not generate a carbon monoxide hotspot.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the ARB. Under the
CARB Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations, prior to any grading activities a geologic evaluation should be conducted to determine if
NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must
be filed with the APCD. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements
outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and
an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 37 of 134
Based on Technical Appendix 4.4 of the APCD’s CEQA Handbook, the project site is within a location of
potentially occurring NOA; therefore, compliance with the Asbestos ATCM would be required and
standard mitigation would apply.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
e): Construction of the proposed project would generate odors associated with construction
smoke/dust and equipment exhaust and fumes. Excavated and demolition materials may also contain
objectionable odors within unearthed materials. The proposed construction activities would not differ
significantly from those resulting from any other type of construction project. Any effects would be
short-term in nature and limited to the construction phase of the project. Therefore, the project would
not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact
To minimize the potential significant impacts to air quality, the following mitigation measures would be
implemented.
AQ/mm-1 Prior to issuance of construction permits, the following measures shall be
incorporated into the construction phase of the project and shown on all applicable plans:
Construction Equipment
a. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s
specifications;
b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to
bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors,
auxiliary power units, with CARB-certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version
suitable for use off-road);
c. Maximize to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment meeting the
CARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply
with the State Off-Road Regulation;
d. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification
standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road
Regulation;
e. Construction or trucking companies with fleets that 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;
f. All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall
be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and
operators of the 5-minute idling limit;
g. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall be avoided to the maximum
extent feasible;
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 38 of 134
h. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors to
the maximum extent feasible;
i. Electrify equipment when feasible;
j. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and,
k. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as
compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane, or biodiesel.
Best Available Control Technology
l. Further reduce emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on-
road compliant engines;
m. Repower equipment with the cleanest engines available; and,
n. Install California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies. These strategies are listed
at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm.
AQ/mm-2 Upon application for construction permits, all required PM10 measures shall be
shown on applicable grading or construction plans, and made applicable during grading and
construction activities as described below.
a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust
from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph);
c. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible;
d. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed;
e. 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;
f. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month
after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and
watered until vegetation is established;
g. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved
chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD;
h. 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;
i. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved
surface at the construction site;
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 39 of 134
j. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load
and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code §23114;
k. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash
off trucks and equipment leaving the site; and,
l. 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, construction and
building plans; and the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive
dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20% opacity, and to prevent transport of dust off-site.
Their duties shall include monitoring the effectiveness of the required dust control measures (as
conditions dictate), and shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in
progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD
Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
AQ/mm-3 Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a geologic
evaluation of naturally occurring asbestos of the project site to the APCD. If naturally occurring
asbestos is present onsite, the applicant shall comply with all requirements outlined in the
Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations. These requirements may include, but are not limited to: 1) an
Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan that shall be approved by the APCD prior to construction, and 2)
an Asbestos Health and Safety Program. Prior to development on the 30-acre portion of the site,
the applicant shall submit a Naturally Occurring Asbestos Construction and Grading Permit
Exemption Request Form to the APCD.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts to air quality would be less than significant.
IV. Biological Resources
Environmental Setting
The following section is based on the Natural Environment Study prepared for the project (SWCA 2017).
The majority of the project site contains disturbed areas, such as the US 101 road surface and other
roads, medians, and developments. Vegetative communities present within the area include ruderal
(disturbed), landscaped areas (mainly ornamental groundcover and planted trees), riparian, and man-
made drainage ditches. While no jurisdictional wetlands were delineated within the project area,
drainages within the site have the potential to be considered “other waters of the U.S.” under U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) definitions. These three drainage ditches were identified as having a
significant nexus with Arroyo Grande Creek. Some of the drainages are vegetated by riparian vegetation
and an herbaceous and/or shrubby understory; others are unvegetated or minimally vegetated with
forbs, weeds, and/or species characteristic of freshwater marsh.
Wildlife corridors are not present in the project area.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 40 of 134
Based on the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), an online species list approved by U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and biologist professional knowledge and local experience, 60 special-
status plant species, 42 special-status animal species, and 10 sensitive habitats were considered for
potential to occur within the project corridor.
Of these species that were considered, the following were determined to have potential habitat
conditions within the project corridor based on a desktop review prior to conducting the field surveys:
Gambel’s watercress (Nasturtium gambelii), black-flowered figwort (Scrophularia atrata), San
Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum), saline clover (Trifolium depauperatum var.
hydrophilum), south-central California steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (steelhead), California
red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), white-tailed kite
(Elanus leucurus), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), purple martin
(Progne subis), and other nesting birds.
Surveys for special-status animal species were limited to protocol California red-legged frog surveys with
a focus on a drainage ditch leading to Arroyo Grande Creek (referred to as Excavated Ditch #3). These
surveys were conducted in 2006 and 2007. The findings of the study were negative and habitat within
the project area was considered poor habitat for California red-legged frog.
Some of the drainage ditches within the BSA are tributaries to Arroyo Grande Creek and occur within
the south-central California coast steelhead critical habitat unit defined as Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit
3310 – (xv) Oceano Hydrologic Sub-area 331031. Based on surveys taken in March 2006 and between
March 2007 and August 2007 (eight surveys total) within the project area, it is determined that the
project site does not contain the constituent elements of critical habitat. Essential spawning sites,
rearing sites, suitable water quality, migration corridors, and proper estuarine parameters were not
observed within the project area.
A revised critical habitat designation for California red-legged frog was also finalized on March 17, 2010.
The project area does not occur within a designated California red-legged frog critical habitat unit.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modification, on any species identified
as a sensitive, candidate, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 41 of 134
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands, as defined by §404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion
a): Plant Species. Marginal freshwater marsh habitat for Gambel’s watercress occurs within the
beds of the drainage ditches in the project area, but this species was not observed during appropriately
timed floristic surveys performed in 2005, 2006, 2011, and 2014. The much more common watercress
(Nasturtium officinale) was observed. Marginal riparian habitat for black-flowered figwort occurs within
the project area, but this species was not observed during appropriately timed floristic surveys. This
species typically occurs on calcareous or diatomaceous soils, which were not observed in the project
area. Marginal habitat for saline clover and San Bernardino aster occurs in some of the drainage
bottoms/beds within the project area, but these species were not observed during appropriately timed
floristic surveys.
Heavy equipment operation and disturbance of areas with vegetation associated with the interchange
improvements have the potential to lead to injury or mortality of native plant species; however, the
project area is not located near any known extant sensitive plant species populations. No impacts to
Gambel’s watercress, black-flowered figwort, saline clover, or San Bernardino aster are expected.
Wildlife Species. No steelhead were observed within any of the drainage ditches within the project area.
The open or concrete-lined on-site ditches convey seasonal flows and offer no habitat for fish species. In
addition, there is no opportunity for migration from Arroyo Grande Creek to these drainage ditches, due
to steep drops or other impassable barriers.
Because there is no potential for steelhead occurrence within the project area, there would be no effect
to this species. Heavy equipment operation and disturbance of the drainage ditches associated with the
interchange improvements have the potential to impact areas of extremely marginal habitat quality.
Introduction of sediment into the drainages leading to Arroyo Grande Creek could conceivably be
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 42 of 134
carried downstream, which could adversely impact water quality and spawning habitat for steelhead;
however, this will be mitigated through the use of appropriate silt/erosion controls.
While a search of the CNDDB yielded 65 known occurrences of California red-legged frogs within a
seven-quadrangle search area, only two California red-legged frog occurrences have been recorded
within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project site (CNDDB 2006). To determine the potential for
occurrence of the California red-legged frog within the project area, an assessment of the habitat was
conducted following the USFWS Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California
Red-legged Frogs (USFWS 2005). A California Red-legged Frog Site Assessment Report was submitted to
the Ventura USFWS office on April 4, 2006 (Morro Group 2006). As recommended by USFWS Fish and
Wildlife Biologist Mark Elvin (2006), surveys for California red-legged frog were conducted within the
project area with a focus on Excavated Ditch 3, beginning on March 7, 2007, and ending on August 7,
2007. Eight surveys were conducted, and no California red-legged frogs were observed during any of the
survey efforts.
Habitats within the project area and within 1 mile of the BSA are highly fragmented due to urban
development, US 101, and other roads. While California red-legged frogs have the potential to occur
within large areas of good to excellent quality habitat with riparian and emergent vegetative cover,
suitable water quality, and minimal disturbance, these conditions do not occur within the project area. It
is extremely unlikely that California red-legged frogs inhabit the drainage ditches within the project
area, which are minimally vegetated to non-vegetated, typically convey only seasonal stormwater flows,
and subjected to considerable disturbance (e.g., right next to road edges). Dispersal to these areas from
habitats outside of the project area would be difficult due to the extensive network of roads and urban
development existing in and near project area.
Therefore, the proposed project would have no effect on California red-legged frog. Water quality
degradation within the drainage ditches leading to Arroyo Grande Creek could result from concrete
spills, fuel spills, or excessive project-related sedimentation, which could indirectly adversely affect the
species; however, these effects will be avoided or minimized through identified BMPs. Introduction of
sediment into the drainages leading to Arroyo Grande Creek could conceivably be carried downstream,
which could adversely impact water quality, and foraging and breeding habitat for California red-legged
frog, but this will be mitigated through the use of appropriate silt/erosion controls.
Project construction may result in the temporary loss of vegetation that provides potential breeding and
foraging habitat for a number of protected bird species. The removal of vegetation could directly impact
bird nests and eggs or young residing in nests. Indirect impacts could also result from noise and
disturbance associated with construction, which could alter perching, foraging, and/or nesting
behaviors. While temporary loss of trees supporting potential nesting habitat would result from tree
trimming or removal, any trees removed would be mitigated by planting new trees. Although there is
marginal nesting habitat within riparian and landscaped trees and man-made structures within the
project area, no nesting birds were observed during field surveys in 2005, 2006, 2011, and 2014. The
implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures such as appropriate timing of vegetation
removal, pre-activity surveys, and exclusion zones will reduce the potential for adverse effects to nesting
bird species.
Therefore, potential impacts to sensitive species would be less than significant with mitigation.
b): Old Ranch Road Drainage and Excavated Ditches 1, 2, and 3 (as well as an additional drainage
adjacent to the southbound off-ramp at Grand Avenue outside of the project study area) can be
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 43 of 134
considered tributaries to Arroyo Grande Creek and occur within the south-central California coast
steelhead critical habitat unit defined as Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit 3310 – (xv) Oceano Hydrologic Sub-
area 331031. It has been determined these drainages do not contain the constituent elements of critical
habitat. Essential spawning sites, rearing sites, suitable water quality, migration corridors, and proper
estuarine parameters were not observed within the project area. These drainages are man-made,
ephemeral, and function to convey storm water runoff, and they do not provide any suitable steelhead
habitat. Arroyo Grande Creek and its tributaries do not occur within a designated California red-legged
frog critical habitat unit. Therefore, impacts to critical habitat would be less than significant.
Riparian habitat occurs in scattered locations within the project area, mostly in or adjacent to the on-site
drainage ditches. The areas of riparian habitat are relatively small and fragmented. These riparian areas
do not provide adequate continuity and are too close in proximity to traffic disturbance to be
considered a substantial riparian migratory corridor within the project area. However, the proposed
project has the potential to impact riparian areas within the project area. Mitigation would be
implemented to minimize effects on riparian habitat to less than significant levels.
Therefore, impacts on riparian or sensitive habitat areas would be less than significant with mitigation.
c): An assessment of jurisdictional features was conducted to determine the extent of impacts to
wetlands within the project area (SWCA 2017). No jurisdictional wetlands were delineated within the
project area and no other isolated or adjacent wetland areas were identified within the project area.
The project area does not occur within the Coastal Zone, so a one-parameter wetland delineation is not
necessary for compliance with the California Coastal Act.
The assessment of jurisdictional features identified three drainages within the project area that may
qualify as other waters of the U.S. (non-wetlands). These drainage ditches have a nexus with Arroyo
Grande Creek, which is considered a water of the U.S. due to its connectivity to the Pacific Ocean. The
three drainages rank low in terms of function and value. This is indicative of their relatively small size
and floodwater storage capacity, low vegetation density (especially along the beds of the drainages),
moderate groundwater discharge and low recharge capacity, and low biological diversity.
The project is not expected to impact jurisdictional wetlands, but may impact other waters of the U.S.
Mitigation has been identified to reduce potential impacts.
Potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
d): The project site does not contain wildlife corridors due to the extent of urban development.
Proposed improvements would modify or replace similar existing infrastructure, and would not interfere
with the movement of species. In addition, the project would not disturb drainages or streams suitable
for fish migration.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
e): The City has coordinated with the USFWS, CDFW, and NOAA Fisheries, and has implemented
mitigation measures designed to avoid existing marginal habitat areas and resources to the extent
possible. The project would not interfere with the natural function of project area habitats and
disturbed areas would be restored after project construction. Therefore, the project would not be in
conflict with any applicable policies protecting biological resources or environmentally sensitive
habitats.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 44 of 134
Impacts would be less than significant.
f): The project is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other habitat conservation plan.
No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact
To minimize the potential significant impacts to biological resources, the following mitigation measures
would be implemented.
BIO/mm-1 Prior to project implementation, the City shall retain a qualified biological
monitor(s) approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to ensure compliance with
mitigation measures within the project environmental documents. Monitoring shall occur
throughout the length of construction or as directed by the regulatory agencies. Monitoring may
be reduced to part time once construction activities are underway and the potential for
additional impacts are reduced.
BIO/mm-2 During project activities, the biological monitor(s) shall coordinate with federal,
state, and local agencies and the construction contractor to ensure construction schedules
comply with biological mitigation requirements.
BIO/mm-3 The project site shall be clearly flagged or fenced so that the contractor is aware
of the limits of allowable site access points and disturbance. Areas within the designated project
site that do not require regular access shall be clearly flagged as off-limit areas to
avoid/discourage unnecessary damage to sensitive habitats within and near the project site.
BIO/mm-4 During project activities, any work that must occur within drainage ditches shall
be conducted when they do not contain flowing water, if possible.
BIO/mm-5 Erosion control measures shall be implemented during construction. Temporary
sediment control BMPs (i.e., temporary large sediment control barrier) shall be installed in
appropriate areas to prevent introduction of silt/sediment to aquatic areas within the project
area. At a minimum, temporary sediment control BMPs shall be checked and maintained on a
daily basis during the rainy season throughout the construction period. The contractor shall also
apply adequate dust control techniques, such as site watering, in areas where necessary during
construction.
BIO/mm-6 During project activities, the cleaning and refueling of equipment and vehicles
shall occur only within a designated staging area and at least 100 feet away from a concentrated
flow of storm water if performed within a flood plain, or 50 feet if outside of a flood plain. This
staging area shall conform to Best Management Practices (BMPs) applicable to attaining zero
discharge of stormwater runoff. At a minimum, all equipment and vehicles shall be checked and
maintained on a daily basis to ensure proper operation and avoid potential leaks or spills.
BIO/mm-7 All project-related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to project
sites shall be cleaned-up immediately. Spill prevention and clean-up materials shall be on-site at
all times during construction.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 45 of 134
BIO/mm-8 The biological monitor(s) shall ensure that the spread of introduction of invasive
exotic plant species will be avoided to the maximum extent possible. When practicable, invasive
exotic plants in the project site shall be removed and properly disposed.
BIO/mm-9 During construction, trash shall be contained, removed from the work site, and
disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction debris shall be removed
from work areas.
BIO/mm-10 If feasible, removal of trees shall be scheduled to occur in the fall and winter
(between September 1 and February 15), after fledging and before the initiation of the nesting
season.
BIO/mm-11 If trees must be removed from February 15 to September 15, a qualified biologist
shall be retained to conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting bird species within the project
site.
BIO/mm-12 If active nests are observed, the applicant shall either: 1) wait for such nesting
birds to fledge and leave the project site; 2) establish 100-foot exclusion zones around active
nests, where construction will not be allowed in these exclusion zones until young have fledged;
or 3) consult with the appropriate resource agencies for guidance prior to site disturbance.
BIO/mm-13 During construction, the project will make all reasonable efforts to limit the use
of imported soils for fill. Soils currently existing on-site should be used for fill material. If the use
of imported fill material is necessary, the imported material must be obtained from a source that
is known to be free of invasive plant species; or the material must consist of purchased clean
material such as crushed aggregate, sorted rock, or similar.
BIO/mm-14 To avoid the spread of invasive species, the contractor shall:
a. Stockpile topsoil and redeposit the stockpiled soil on the slopes after construction of the
new bridge is complete; or
b. Transport the topsoil to a certified landfill for disposal.
c. Prepare a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP), which shall include
restoration planting plans that emphasize the use of native species expected to occur in
the area.
d. The necessary HMMP would incorporate an invasive species control program.
e. All erosion control materials including straw bales, straw wattles, or mulch used on-site
must be free of invasive species seed.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts to biological resources would be less than
significant.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 46 of 134
V. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
This section is largely based on the information provided in the Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) and
Supplemental ASR prepared for the project (Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. 2012 and
2014); Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) and Supplemental HPSR prepared for the project (JRP
Historical Consulting, LLC 2012 and 2014); and Paleontological Evaluation Report (PER) prepared for the
project (SWCA 2014).
The project vicinity was inhabited by speakers of the Obispeño language of the Chumash language
family. The entire project area was surveyed for archaeological resources through preparation of the
ASR and Supplemental ASR. No cultural materials were identified during surveys conducted during
preparation of either report. The HPSR and Supplemental HPSR further concluded that no historic
architectural resources are present within the project site.
According to geologic mapping by Hall (1973), the project area is underlain by the following geologic
units, in approximate ascending stratigraphic order: 1) Pliocene Pismo Formation; 2) Plio-Pleistocene
Paso Robles Formation; 3) Quaternary older sand dune deposits (Pleistocene); and 4) Quaternary alluvial
deposits (Holocene). Museum collection records maintained by the Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County (LACM) indicate that at least seven fossil localities yielding scientifically significant
vertebrate specimens have been documented as close as 10 miles from the project area and within
Quaternary-age deposits, the Paso Robles Formation, and the Pismo Formation (McLeod 2011). In
addition, the University of California Museum of Paleontology has documented 11 fossil localities in the
Pismo Formation yielding at least 27 individual vertebrate specimens as well as an undisclosed number
of invertebrates. No fossil specimens were discovered during field surveys conducted in preparation of
the PER.
The combined results of the literature review and museum records search indicate that the project area
is, in part, underlain by geologic units determined to have a high paleontological resource potential
(sensitivity). Therefore, project-related ground disturbances in previously undisturbed paleontologically
sensitive geologic units may result in an adverse impact to nonrenewable fossil resources unless proper
mitigation measures are implemented.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in §
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 47 of 134
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074?
Discussion
a) – b): The entire project area has been the subject of multiple records searches and intensive
pedestrian surveys, and no recorded prehistoric or historic resources were identified within the project
study area. The project area is heavily disturbed and comprised largely of engineered/artificial fill
material. Therefore, potential for disturbance of unknown sub-surface archaeological resources is low.
However, portions of the project would require excavation in areas of native soil or at depths in
subsurface areas containing native soils. If native surfaces are disturbed, there would be the potential
for disturbance of unknown buried cultural materials. Standard mitigation has been proposed to ensure
impacts to any unknown resources that may be encountered during project development would be
minimized.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c): The combined results of the literature review and museum records search indicate that the
project area is, in part, underlain by geologic units determined to have a high paleontological resource
potential (sensitivity). The project site is largely comprised of engineered fill associated with
development of US 101, where presence of paleontological resources is very low. However, areas of the
project site would be located in native soils or areas of minimal disturbance. Therefore, project-related
ground disturbances in previously undisturbed paleontologically sensitive geologic units may result in an
adverse impact to nonrenewable fossil resources unless proper mitigation measures are implemented.
Excavation plans have been developed for both Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C showing specific areas
where excavations are expected to occur to a depth of greater than 1.5 feet or within previously
undisturbed areas of paleontologically sensitive formations and excavations that are expected to occur
within existing fill or at a depth of less than 1.5 feet. Mitigation is identified to minimize the potential for
disturbance of paleontological resources to less than significant levels.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
d): No human remains are known to exist within the project area outside of formally delineated
cemeteries, and the likelihood for unknown remains to exist is very low due to the extent of previous
disturbance at the site. In addition, based on the archaeological survey, there is no evidence indicating
presence of burial sites within the affected area. However, the discovery of unknown human remains is
always a possibility during ground disturbances. Protocol for properly responding to the inadvertent
discovery of human remains is identified in the State of California Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5. This code section states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The
County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 48 of 134
prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which
will determine and notify a most likely descendant. The potential for discovery of unknown buried
human remains at the site is low, and compliance with existing state law requirements would minimize
adverse impacts.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with the disturbance of human remains would be less than
significant.
e): The Native American Heritage Commission was notified of the initial proposed project in a letter
sent by consultant staff to Rob Wood, dated September 15, 2005. The letter requested a records search
of the sacred lands files and a list of local Native American contacts with whom consultant staff could
communicate concerning the project. In a letter dated November 12, 2005, Wood responded that the
records search indicated that no Native American sacred sites were known in the immediate area. A list
of Native American individuals/organizations that may have knowledge of local cultural resources was
provided. These individuals/organizations were notified of the project by letter (dated November 29,
2005) and asked to express any concerns they might have regarding Native American cultural sites
within the project area. Follow-up telephone contacts were conducted by consultant staff on January 2,
2006.
Comments were offered by several individuals. Julie Lynn Tumamait and Diane Napoleone felt they did
not have any specific knowledge of this area. Ms. Tumamait suggested that we speak with someone
who knows the area and can prove local lineal descent, such as Lei Lynn Odom. Ms. Odom feels that the
general area is sensitive for cultural resources and recalls that bowl fragments have been found in the
vicinity. She also noted that there are two historic-period cemeteries in the area; her great-grandmother
Rosario Cooper is buried in the Catholic cemetery. Mona Tucker also remarked on the presence of
historic-period cemeteries in the area and recommended that a monitor be involved in the project.
Additional contact was made with the Native American Heritage Commission on August 10, 2011
updating them on project changes and requesting a current search of the sacred lands files and a list of
local Native American contacts. Program Analyst Katy Sanchez responded in a letter dated August 11,
2011 that the records search identified no known Native American cultural resources in the immediate
project vicinity. A list of Native American contacts with potential knowledge of the area was provided.
Additional letters of notification were mailed to these individuals/groups on August 23, 2011 to update
them on the project.
Responses received included a telephone call from Obispeño Chumash Peggy Odom on September 1,
2011. Ms. Odom noted that she observed site deposit and bowl mortars well to the south of the project
area. Based on mission record information, she has been informed that her ancestors Rosario Cooper
and two aunts are buried in the old cemetery north of the highway and east of Camino Mercado.
Northern Chumash Tribal spokesman Fred Collins also called to discuss the project. On September 13,
2011 Jones spoke with Mr. Collins in detail about the project Area of Potential Effects, prior surveys, and
current negative survey results. He also has relatives buried in the old cemetery and is concerned that
no impacts are planned for this location. An email from Mona Tucker, current Tribal Chair for yak tityu
tityu – Northern Chumash, was received on October 14, 2011. The communication reiterated her
families concerns with the rich Chumash cultural of the general southern San Luis Obispo County area
and stated the need to protect cultural resources in this sensitive area.
In addition to ongoing consultation that the City has conducted throughout the project development
phase (since 2005), the City complied with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 by sending a Notice of Opportunity to
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 49 of 134
Consult to all Native American tribes that have provided notice to the City regarding consultation under
AB 52 in July 2017. The results of consultation that the City has been engaged in since 2005 identified
the general project area as sensitive for cultural resources and several potential sites and cultural
resources in the project vicinity. These resources are considered tribal cultural resources.
The project area is heavily disturbed and comprised largely of engineered/artificial fill material and no
known tribal cultural resources exist within the proposed area of disturbance. Therefore, potential for
disturbance of unknown sub-surface tribal cultural resources is low. However, portions of the project
would require excavation in areas of native soil or at depths in subsurface areas containing native soils.
If native surfaces are disturbed, there would be the potential for disturbance of unknown buried tribal
cultural materials. Standard mitigation has been proposed to ensure impacts to any unknown tribal
cultural resources that may be encountered during project development would be minimized.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact
To minimize the potential significant impacts to cultural resources, the following mitigation measures
would be implemented.
CUL/mm-1 If a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface
earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease
until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the uncovered resource requires further
study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be included in every grading and
construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered
resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of
Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California
Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural
resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, glass, ceramic, wood, or shell artifacts;
fossils; or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites.
If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare
and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those
categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall also perform
appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the appropriate
Information Center and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.
CUL/mm-2 A qualified paleontologist will be retained to prepare a paleontological
mitigation plan for the proposed project and supervise monitoring of construction excavations.
CUL/mm-3 All project-related ground disturbances which may disturb geologic units that
are considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity (i.e., previously undisturbed Quaternary
older sand dune deposits, or any portions of the Paso Robles and Pismo Formations) will be
monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. However, the frequency of
monitoring may be reduced at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist if the disturbed
geologic units are determined to have a low potential to yield significant fossils resources upon
further examination of the geologic units during grading operations. Based on the excavation
plans provided for both Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C, portions of the project area will involve
the placement of fill material, shallow excavation in previously-filled areas, or only surficial
excavations of less than 1.5 feet in depth. These excavation areas will not require paleontological
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 50 of 134
monitoring. However, the portions of Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C that are expected to
require excavations greater than 1.5 feet in depth or to any depth in previously undisturbed
areas of geologically sensitive formations, as designated in the PER (SWCA 2014) should be
monitored full-time by a qualified paleontologist.
CUL/mm-4 Paleontological resource monitoring will include inspection of exposed rock units
during active excavations within sensitive geologic deposits. The monitor will have authority to
temporarily divert grading away from exposed fossils to professionally and efficiently recover the
fossil specimens and collect associated data. All efforts to avoid delays in project schedules will
be made. Monitors will be equipped with the necessary tools for the rapid removal of fossils and
retrieval of associated data to prevent construction delays. This equipment will include handheld
global positioning system receivers, digital cameras, and cellular phones, as well as a tool kit
containing specimen containers and matrix sampling bags, field labels, field tools (e.g., awls,
hammers, chisels, shovels, etc.), and plaster kits.
CUL/mm-5 At each fossil locality, field data forms will be used to record pertinent geologic
data, stratigraphic sections will be measured, and appropriate sediment samples will be
collected and submitted for analysis.
CUL/mm-6 Recovered fossils will be prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified
experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and reposited in a designated paleontological
curation facility. The qualified paleontologist will prepare a paleontological mitigation and
monitoring report to be filed with the City of Arroyo Grande, as lead agency, and the repository.
The report will include, but will not be limited to, a discussion of the results of the mitigation and
monitoring program, an evaluation and analysis of the fossils collected (including an assessment
of their significance, age and geologic context), an itemized inventory of fossils collected, a
confidential appendix of locality and specimen data with locality maps and photographs, an
appendix of curation agreements and other appropriate communications, and a copy of the
project-specific paleontological mitigation plan.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts to cultural resources would be less than
significant.
VI. Geology and Soils
Environmental Setting
The proposed project is located within the Coast Ranges province, which is characterized by its many
elongate mountain ranges and valleys extending 600 miles along the coast of California from the Oregon
border south to the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County. The Arroyo Grande Valley (and the
southern Cienega Valley portion) is located near the intersection of the California coastal ranges and the
Los Angeles ranges. The project area extends along the base of the coastal foothill terraces that abut the
extensive dune fields bordering the Pacific Ocean, and the sloping foothill topography of much of the
project area gives way to old stabilized sand dunes to the southwest. The project area encompasses an
urbanized landscape within the City of Arroyo Grande on rolling terrain at an elevation of approximately
100 to 140 feet.
Soils within the project area are generally channery sandy clay loams to sandy loams with a portion of
Xererts-Xerolls-Urban land complex. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has mapped twelve soil series
within the project vicinity (SCS 1984), including map unit (MU) 115 – Chamise shaly loam, 9 to 15
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 51 of 134
percent slopes; 116 – Chamise shaly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes; 117 – Chamise shaly sandy clay
loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes; 126 – Corralitos variant loamy sand, 175 – Mocho silty clay loam, 184 –
Oceano sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes; 189 – Pismo loamy sand, 194 – Riverwash, 210 – Still gravelly sandy
clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes; 216 – Tierra sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes; and 221 – Xererts-
Xerolls-Urban land complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes.
Arroyo Grande is located in a geologically complex and seismically active region. Seismic, or earthquake
related, hazards have the potential to result in significant public safety risks and widespread property
damage. Two of the direct effects of an earthquake include the rupture of the ground surface along the
trend or location of a fault, and ground shaking that results from fault movement. Other geologic
hazards that may occur in response to an earthquake include liquefaction, seismic settlement, and
landslide.
The US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey was used
to estimate the erodibility of the project site. The erosion factor within the project area was in the lower
third of the range for erodibility.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State
Geologist for the area, or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication
42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable, as a result of the
project and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 52 of 134
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal
systems, where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Discussion
a) – d): The project is located in an area with multiple geological characteristics that could contribute to
unstable earth / soil conditions, including compressible/collapsible soils, high groundwater elevation,
moderate liquefaction potential, and moderately high potential for seismic activity, ground shaking, and
seismic settlement. The placement of structures within these soil conditions creates the risk for
structure instability, damage, failure, and/or collapse.
Development of the project would be required to meet or exceed the most current requirements of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which have been
developed to establish the minimum requirements necessary for design to safeguard the public health,
safety, and general welfare through structural strength, stability, access, and other standards. Seismic
design is based on Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), Version 1.7 (Caltrans SDC April 2013).
Roadway, pedestrian and bicycle path elements would comply with the 2011 edition of AASHTO’s “A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” and relevant City standards.
Compliance with AASHTO, Caltrans, and other applicable standards would typically indicate that risks to
people and structures, including those related to unstable soil conditions, were properly safeguarded
against. The project does not propose development of any habitable structures; therefore, no risk of
injury or death as a result of damage or collapse of a habitable structure would occur. Through
compliance with applicable standards, the structural components of the project would be designed to
withstand anticipated seismic and geologic stresses according to current established engineering
practices.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e): The project does not propose installation of any septic disposal system.
Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
No significant impacts related to geology or soils were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are
necessary.
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Setting
Greenhouse gases (GHG) are any gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere, and are
different from the criteria pollutants discussed in Section III, Air Quality, above. The primary GHGs that
are emitted into the atmosphere as a result of human activities are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 53 of 134
nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. These are most commonly emitted through the burning of
fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), agricultural practices, decay of organic waste in landfills, and a
variety of other chemical reactions and industrial processes (e.g., the manufacturing of cement).
Carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG and is estimated to represent approximately 80-90% of the
principal GHGs that are currently affecting the earth’s climate. According to the ARB, transportation
(vehicle exhaust) and electricity generation are the main sources of GHG in the state.
The passage of AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006), recognized the need to reduce
GHG emissions and set the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal for the State of California into law.
The law required that by 2020, State emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels. This is to be
accomplished by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from significant sources via regulation, market
mechanisms, and other actions. Subsequent legislation (e.g., SB97-Greenhouse Gas Emissions bill)
directed the ARB to develop statewide thresholds.
In March 2012, the APCD approved thresholds for GHG emission impacts, and these thresholds have
been incorporated into the APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook. APCD determined that a tiered process
for land use development projects was the most appropriate and effective approach for assessing the
GHG emission impacts. The tiered approach includes three methods, any of which can be used for any
given project:
1. Qualitative GHG Reduction Strategies (e.g. Climate Action Plans): A qualitative threshold that is
consistent with AB 32 Scoping Plan measures and goals; or,
2. Bright-Line Threshold: Numerical value to determine the significance of a project’s annual GHG
emissions; or,
3. Efficiency-Based Threshold: Assesses the GHG impacts of a project on an emissions per capita
basis.
For most projects, the Bright-Line Threshold of 1,150 Metric Tons CO2/year (MT CO2e/yr) will be the
most applicable threshold. The APCD thresholds are for a project’s amortized construction and
operational-related GHG emissions. In addition to the land use development threshold options
proposed above, a bright-line numerical value threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e/yr was adopted for
stationary source (industrial) projects.
It should be noted that projects that generate less than the above-mentioned thresholds will also
participate in emission reductions because air emissions, including GHGs, are under the purview of the
California Air Resources Board (or other regulatory agencies) and will be “regulated” by either CARB, the
Federal Government, or other entities. For example, new vehicles will be subject to increased fuel
economy standards and emission reductions, large and small appliances will be subject to more strict
emissions standards, and energy delivered to consumers will increasingly come from renewable sources.
Other programs that are intended to reduce the overall GHG emissions include Low Carbon Fuel
Standards, Renewable Portfolio standards and the Clean Car standards. As a result, even the emissions
that result from projects that produce fewer emissions than the threshold will be subject to emission
reductions.
Under CEQA, an individual project’s GHG emissions will generally not result in direct significant impacts.
This is because the climate change issue is global in nature. However, an individual project could be
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 54 of 134
found to contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact. Projects that have GHG emissions
above the noted thresholds may be considered cumulatively considerable and require mitigation.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Discussion
a – b): The project proposes circulation and transportation infrastructure improvements that would
alleviate traffic congestion on US 101 and the local roadway system. Project-related traffic would be
limited to construction activities and the project would require limited amounts of electricity for traffic
and safety lighting, etc. A greenhouse gas analysis was completed pursuant to Caltrans guidelines (TAHA
2017). The build alternatives would result in less GHG emissions than no-build conditions in 2015 and
2035 (TAHA 2017). In addition, certain project components would partially offset greenhouse gas
emissions, such as bicycle/pedestrian improvements, additional landscaping, and the roundabout and
Park and Ride lot proposed under Alternative 4C.
California has passed several pieces of legislation in the past few years aimed at dealing with GHG
emissions and climate change. Executive Order S-3-05 set a goal to reduce California’s GHG emissions to:
(1) 2000 levels by 2010; (2) 1990 levels by 2020; and (3) 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. These goals
were reinforced in 2006 with the passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) which set forth the same emission
reduction goals and further mandated that the CARB create a plan, including market mechanisms, and
develop and implement rules to achieve “real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse
gases.” Executive Order S-01-07 set forth California’s low carbon fuel standard, which requires the
carbon intensity of the state’s transportation fuels to be reduced by 10% by 2020. In addition, Senate Bill
97 (SB 97) required amendments to the CEQA Guidelines to address GHG emissions; the amendments
were put into effect on March 18, 2010.
The project would not exceed adopted GHG thresholds applied by the APCD and is not anticipated to
generate significant GHG emissions due to the minimal short-term traffic generated, limited energy use,
and the beneficial impact on traffic operations and congestion. The project would not conflict with the
statewide regulations listed above.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
No significant impacts related to GHGs were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are
necessary.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 55 of 134
VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Setting
Based on a search of the California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor database and
the State Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker system, there are several environmental cleanup
sites within the project area. All sites have been determined completed and closed, indicating that the
site has been remediated to the satisfaction of regulatory agency staff. There is also a current Cleanup
Program Site within 0.5 mile of the project area at the northbound US 101 ramps/Grand Avenue
intersection. The site is related to pending cleanup of gasoline and other contaminants discovered
during underground storage tank removal in 1988.
The project area is a major transportation corridor supporting millions of trips over previous decades. It
is highly likely that the surface soils along these roadways are affected by deposition of contaminants,
including aerial lead, oils, fuels, and other lubricants.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and/or accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials, substances, or waste into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites, compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5, and, as a result, create a
significant hazard to the public or environment?
e) Be located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport? If so, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 56 of 134
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death from wildland fires, including
areas where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion
a) – c): Although US 101 and local roadways within the project area are commonly used for the routine
transport of potentially hazardous materials, the proposed project would not significantly change
existing land uses or cause a routine or permanent increase in the transport of hazardous substances
within the project area. No change in the transport or handling of hazardous materials within proximity
to adjacent schools would occur outside of construction activities.
Oils, gasoline, lubricants, fuels, and other potentially hazardous substances would be used and stored
on-site during construction activities. Should a spill or leak of these materials occur during construction
activities, sensitive resources within the project vicinity could be adversely affected. Such activities
would also occur in close proximity to Saint Patrick’s School and other sensitive adjacent land uses.
However, such use would be short-term and subject to standard requirements for the handling of
hazardous materials. Mitigation would be implemented to ensure potential impacts were reduced to
less than significant.
The Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (Haro 2017) prepared for the project identified two sites
that may have residual contamination that could impact the project area: the Arroyo Grande Shell gas
station located at 222 Grand Avenue and the Chevron USA gas station at 251 Grand Avenue. The Shell
station has a long history of releases and cleanup for petroleum related contaminants. While the site
has been deemed closed by the Central Coast RWQCB, a notation in the case file states:
“Residual soil and groundwater wastes continues to underlie the site that could pose an
unacceptable risk under certain site development activities such as site grading,
excavation, or de-watering. The County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health
Services (EHS) and appropriate local planning and building departments must be notified
prior to any changes in land use, and site redevelopment. Future site disturbance could
require worker health and safety protection, and restrictions on the disposal of soil and
groundwater. The levels of residual wastes and any associated risks are expected to
diminish with time. Additionally, EHS may also require additional assessment and
remediation if the property is proposed to be redeveloped. Additional action by the EHS
may include, but is not limited to, a case review, further investigations, soil gas analysis,
remedial action, and human health risk assessment.”
The Chevron USA gas station was also the location of multiple investigations from underground storage
tanks releases. This site has also been closed to further action by the RWQCB. In this case, however, the
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 57 of 134
RWQCB did not place restrictions on future use or construction like those applied to the Shell station
(Haro 2017).
The project does not propose the use, storage or discharge of any hazardous substances during project
operation and would not change the existing land use of the project site or substantially increase the
potential use of hazardous materials in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would not create a
significant hazard to the public through foreseeable accident or upset. However, existing infrastructure
proposed to be demolished could include asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint, or
aerially deposited lead.
A previous analysis was conducted for the project (Kleinfelder 2006, 2007), which included limited
testing for asbestos and aerially deposited lead. The limited asbestos survey indicated asbestos was not
detected above the reporting limit; however, ACM may still occur in other untested areas of the project
area. The limited aerially deposited lead assessment identified soils containing lead in excess of
concentration thresholds to a depth of at least 1.5 feet below ground surface. In addition, paint used on
bridge railings and other built components within the project area proposed for demolition could
contain lead-based paint. Other identified hazards identified in the project area include gas transmission
lines, chemically-treated wood posts that could contain elevated concentrations of preservative
chemicals, pole-mounted transformers that may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs, a toxic
pollutant previously used in electrical components before being banned by the federal government in
1979), and yellow traffic striping paint that may contain lead.
A review of the U.S. Geological Survey map of the Arroyo Grande Northeast 7.5-Minute Quadrangle
indicates the majority of the project area is underlain by Holocene to late-Pleistocene-aged alluvial
deposits consisting of unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay, and old Pleistocene-eolian deposits. These
deposits are not likely to contain NOA (Haro 2017). The project is not located within an area identified as
having the potential to contain naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) based on the APCD’s NOA map.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with NOA are less than significant.
Disturbance and handling of these toxic substances can result in significant health impacts on workers or
other persons exposed to the substances. They can also damage adjacent habitats and contaminate
proximate soils, surfaces, and waters that receive stormwater runoff from within the project area. The
primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes and materials are the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). The purpose of CERCLA, often referred to as “Superfund,” is to identify
and clean up abandoned contaminated sites so that public health and welfare are not compromised.
The RCRA provides for “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous waste generated by operating entities.
Other federal laws include: the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) of 1992,
Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA),
Atomic Energy Act, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The California Hazardous Waste Control Law is administered by the California
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). DTSC has adopted
extensive regulations governing the generation, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes. These
regulations impose cradle-to-grave requirements for handling hazardous wastes in a manner that
protects human health and the environment. The Hazardous Waste Control Law regulations establish
requirements for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes. They prescribe management
practices for hazardous wastes; establish permit requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage,
disposal, and transportation; and identify hazardous wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 58 of 134
Hazardous waste is tracked from the point of generation to the point of disposal or treatment using
hazardous waste manifests.
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) is responsible for assuring
worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. Cal/OSHA assumes primary
responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations. Cal/OSHA hazardous materials
regulations include requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, hazardous
substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal/OSHA
has established the Asbestos Construction Standard and Lead Construction Standards to regulate all
construction work where exposure to asbestos may occur or where an employee may be occupationally
exposed to lead.
Caltrans requires that any encounter with an unknown hazardous contaminant during construction
follow the Caltrans Unknown Hazards Procedure. The procedure includes a stop work in the vicinity of
the find, field review by the Caltrans resident engineer or district construction hazardous waste
coordinator/district hazardous waste coordinator, and development of a hazardous waste investigation
and removal plan (if necessary).
Mitigation measures have been proposed to minimize the potential for exposure to unknown hazardous
contaminants, and to minimize potential impacts associated with ACM, lead-based paint, aerially
deposited lead, and other known hazards within the project area.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
d): There are no active hazardous material sites within the project boundary. No disturbance is
proposed within 0.5 mile of the nearest underground storage tank cleanup site, and project activities at
the northbound US 101 ramps/Grand Avenue intersection would be generally limited to minor lane
widening and restriping. Mitigation has been identified to ensure project-related activities do not
disturb proximate contaminated sites.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
e) – f): The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of any public
airport or private airstrip. The proposed project would not substantially change existing uses and would
not result in increased hazards related to air traffic.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
g): The project would improve existing transportation infrastructure to improve operation of US
101 and the local roadway network. The project would improve long-term access in the project vicinity
and adequate alternative access exists for emergency purposes during construction activities. The
project would not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
h): The proposed project is located in an urban area and would not expose people or structures to a
substantial risk of wildfires. The Arroyo Grande Fire Department is located less than 0.5 mile from the
project corridor and response times would be within acceptable levels.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 59 of 134
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact
To minimize the potential significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, the following
mitigation measures would be implemented.
HAZ/mm-1 Prior to construction, the City shall prepare a Hazardous Material Spill
Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan to minimize the potential for, and effects of, spills
of hazardous or toxic substances during construction of the project. The plan shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City Public Works Director, and shall include, at minimum, the
following:
a. A description of storage procedures and construction site maintenance and upkeep
practices;
b. Identification of a person or persons responsible for monitoring implementation of the
plan and spill response;
c. Identification of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented to ensure
minimal impacts to the environment occur, including but not limited to the use of
containment devices for hazardous materials, training of construction staff regarding
safety practices to reduce the chance for spills or accidents, and use of non-toxic
substances where feasible;
d. A description of proper procedures for containing, diverting, isolating, and cleaning up
spills, hazardous substances and/or soils, in a manner that minimizes impacts on surface
and groundwater quality and sensitive biological resources;
e. A description of the actions required if a spill occurs, including which authorities to
contact and proper clean-up procedures; and
f. A requirement that all construction personnel participate in an awareness training
program conducted by qualified personnel approved by the City Public Works Director.
The training must include a description of the Hazardous Materials Spill Prevention,
Control and Countermeasure Plan, the plan’s requirements for spill prevention,
information regarding the importance of preventing spills, the appropriate measures to
take should a spill occur, and identification of the location of all clean-up materials and
equipment.
HAZ/mm-2 Demolition of existing structures and/or infrastructure shall be conducted in
compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, including the requirements stipulated in the
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart M – asbestos
NESHAP). These requirements include, but are not limited to, notification to the APCD, an
asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector, and applicable removal and
disposal requirements of identified asbestos containing materials.
HAZ/mm-3 A Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be developed for the
project and subject to approval by Caltrans to ensure contaminated soils excavated during the
project construction are handled, stockpiled, and disposed of in accordance with federal, state,
and local regulations. Soils excavated during the project shall be tested for lead concentrations
and the Soil Management Plan shall establish a Reuse Screening Level for the excavated soils;
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 60 of 134
excavated soils with contaminant concentrations below the Reuse Screening Levels may be
reused during construction on the right-of-way, while soils with contaminant concentrations
exceeding the Reuse Screening Levels shall be managed as hazardous waste and disposed of at a
facility that accepts soil with the detected concentrations of contaminants. Special handling,
treatment, or disposal of aerially deposited lead in soils during construction activities within that
portion of the project within Caltrans right of way shall be consistent with the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control and Caltrans Soil Management Agreement for Aerially
Deposited Lead-Contaminated Soils (effective July 1, 2016).
HAZ/mm-4 Prior to initiation of construction, a Lead Compliance Plan shall be prepared by
the contractor to prevent or minimize worker exposure to lead from handling material
containing aerially-deposited lead (California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1532.1). This
plan shall also be required for work performed on painted structures. The contractor shall
prepare a written, project-specific Excavation and Transportation Plan establishing procedures
the contractor shall use for excavating, stockpiling, transporting, and placing (or disposing) of
material containing aerially deposited lead. The plan must conform to Department of Toxic
Substance Control and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. For
samples where lead levels exceed hazardous waste criteria, the excavated soil shall be either
managed or disposed of as a California hazardous waste or stockpiled and resampled to confirm
waste classification and potential utilization of Caltrans’ hazardous waste agreement to recycle
soil on site. The appropriate Caltrans Standard Special Provision shall be included in the Plans,
Specifications, and Estimate.
HAZ/mm-5 Built structures within the project area proposed for demolition or removal,
including all concrete, painted surfaces, and treated wood poles and soils at the base of poles,
shall be tested for asbestos containing material, lead-based paint, and petroleum hydrocarbons
and other wood preservative chemicals. Testing shall be conducted prior to initiation of
construction and estimates during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates phase of the project
shall include provisions for proper removal and disposal by a licensed contractor. Any identified
contaminants and toxic materials shall be handled, treated, and disposed of in accordance with
applicable rules and regulations.
HAZ/mm-6 The electrical company responsible for the electrical transformers present within
the project area shall be contacted to determine if the transformers contain polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). If the transformers contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), then they shall be
removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. Any identified
leaking transformers shall be considered a potential PCB hazard unless tested and shall be
handled accordingly.
HAZ/mm-7 The gas company responsible for the gas transmission pipelines located within
the project area shall be contacted to delineate the location of the gas transmission pipelines.
The location of the pipelines shall be shown on all project plans and specifications.
HAZ/mm-8 Underground Service Alert for Northern/Central California and Nevada (USA
North) shall be contacted prior to any subsurface excavation to determine the location of any
subsurface utility lines.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 61 of 134
HAZ/mm-9 Testing and removal requirements for yellow traffic striping and pavement
marking materials shall be performed in accordance with Caltrans Construction Policy Bulleting
99-2 (Caltrans Construction Manual Chapter 7-107E).
HAZ/mm-10 Any previously unknown hazardous waste or material encountered as part of
construction of the proposed project shall be handled, treated, and disposed of in accordance
with Caltrans Unknown Hazards Procedures.
HAZ/mm-11 Prior to any disturbance at or within 100 feet of the Arroyo Grande Shell Gas
Station located at 222 Grand Avenue, the City shall consult with the California Department of
Toxic Substances, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, County of San Luis Obispo
Environmental Health Department, and Caltrans Headquarters Hazardous Waste Management
Section regarding the potential disturbance of hazardous substances and materials at the site.
Prior to any disturbance at or within 100 feet of the Arroyo Grande Shell Gas Station, the City
shall prepare a Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste Management, Removal, and
Remediation Plan. The plan shall, at minimum, include worker health and safety protection
measures and restrictions on the disposal of excavated soil and groundwater. The plan shall
incorporate any additional assessment and remediation required by the California Department
of Toxic Substances, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, County of San Luis
Obispo Environmental Health Department, and Caltrans Headquarters Hazardous Waste
Management Section. The Plan shall include measures that ensure all hazardous materials
involvement would be coordinated with the appropriate federal, state, and local regulatory
agencies and all hazardous materials encountered would be removed, handled, and disposed of
in accordance with state and federal regulations.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials
would be less than significant.
IX Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting
This section is based on information provided in the Water Quality Assessment Report prepared for the
project (SWCA 2017).
Hydrology within the project area has been significantly altered by development and road construction.
Hardscape runoff from streets and buildings in the project area is diverted through a series of manmade
drainage ditches, detention basins, and culverts. There are three man-made ditches excavated in upland
areas to capture and direct urban runoff within the project area. The ditches consist of open v-shaped
channels with exposed soil/substrate or concrete lining. They convey runoff from US 101 and
surrounding roadways to the Old Ranch Road drainage and Arroyo Grande Creek. All surface waters
west of Rancho Parkway generally flow west, eventually draining into Meadow Creek and Pismo Lake
Ecological Reserve, while all surface waters east of Rancho Parkway generally drain east towards Arroyo
Grande Creek.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map indicates that floodplains are
present on the northwestern and southeastern ends of the project area. In the northwest, Meadow
Creek and the East Fork of Meadow Creek converge near the intersection of West Branch Street and
North Oak Park Boulevard with Zone AE and Zone X floodplains. In addition, a Zone A drainage is located
between West Branch Street and Highway 101 from a detention pond east of Camino Mercado to the
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 62 of 134
Meadow Creek confluence. In the southeast, Arroyo Grande Creek east of Grande Avenue contains Zone
A, AE, and X floodplains. Zone A and AE floodplains have a 1% chance of annual flooding while Zone X
floodplains generally have a 0.2% to 1% chance of annual flooding.
The project area is located in the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, in the Arroyo Grande Hydrologic Area, and
in the Oceano Hydrologic Sub-Area – Hydrologic Unit Number 310.31. The proposed project is located
primarily within the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed, approximately 7.5 miles below the Lopez Lake
Dam. US Geological Service quadrangle maps for Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande Northeast and Oceano,
California show two blue-line channels within the project area, one at the western end of the project
area near the Camino Mercado/West Branch Street intersection and another beginning just north of Old
Ranch Road in the northeastern portion of the project site. Road construction has altered the original
natural channels for these blue-line drainages, and flows are now contained by man-made channels,
detention basins, and culverts. The Camino Mercado drainage directs flows west through a culvert and
concrete v-ditch to Meadow Creek and the Pismo Lake Ecological Reserve. The Old Ranch Road drainage
diverts flows east via a culvert that passes under Grand Avenue before connecting to Arroyo Grande
Creek east of the project site (SWCA 2017).
The project area is underlain by the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, which underlies more than 280
square miles in the southwestern corner of San Luis Obispo County and the northwestern corner of
Santa Barbara County. In San Luis Obispo County, the Santa Maria Basin consists of the main basin
(Santa Maria) and three subbasins: Arroyo Grande Valley, Pismo Creek Valley, and Nipomo Valley. The
project area is within the Arroyo Grande Valley subbasin, which underlies approximately 3,860 acres.
The subbasin is drained by Arroyo Grande Creek and its tributaries from below Lopez Lake Dam to the
basin’s southern boundary at the Wilmar Avenue fault, which separates it from the main Santa Maria
Basin.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge,
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level that 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 alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial on- or off-site erosion or siltation?
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 63 of 134
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through 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 on- or off-site flooding?
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) Substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area,
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows within a 100-year flood hazard area?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death from flooding, including flooding
resulting from the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Discussion
a), c) – f): Based on the highway stormwater runoff data collected by the Caltrans Storm Water
Research and Monitoring Program, typical pollutants from California highways include heavy metals,
sediment, and litter. Caltrans has a well-developed stormwater program that, under most
circumstances, addresses all potentially significant impacts to water quality during storm events. This
program is primarily intended to comply with Caltrans Statewide NPDES Stormwater Permit and ensures
that all construction, design, and treatment best management practices (BMPs) are implemented and
comply with RWQCB requirements.
As traffic increases in the project area, the amount of pollutants originating from cars and trucks (i.e.,
tire and brake lining wear, litter, and spills during vehicle accidents) is also expected to increase. The
project would incorporate proposed design pollution prevention BMPs and temporary construction site
BMPs under both alternatives. Alternative 4C would also utilize permanent storm water treatment BMPs
if the required water quality volume cannot be infiltrated through design pollution prevention
infiltration type BMPs. The project design allows for the ease of maintaining all BMPs throughout the
period of construction. Construction activities can be phased to minimize soil-disturbing activities during
the rainy season and all disturbed soil areas would be paved or stabilized by the end of construction.
There is an existing permanent storm water treatment BMP within the project limits. Two biofiltration
swales are located on the southbound side of US 101 from postmile (PM) 13.35 to 13.61 and PM 13.19
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 64 of 134
to 13.29 (generally between the southbound Halcyon Road on-ramp and Grand Avenue overcrossing).
Under Alternative 1, fill at the northwest quadrant of the US 101/Grand Avenue interchange would
cover part of an existing bio-strip. Hydroseed and compost would be placed to restore the existing bio-
strip.
All constituents and parameters in nearby surface water bodies found to be elevated (compared to
background) or exceeding published water quality standards are potential concerns for the proposed
project. The proposed project will incorporate permanent design pollution prevention BMPs (and
permanent storm water treatment BMPs under Alternative 4C, if necessary) to the maximum extent
feasible to minimize the direct discharge of highway stormwater to adjacent waterways.
Permanent impacts to water quality could occur over months or years following construction of the
project. The primary causes of these impacts would be from increased stormwater runoff rates and
volumes, increased stormwater pollutant loads, changes in riparian and wetland areas, and spreading of
invasive plant species that could adversely affect riparian areas.
Construction of the project is expected to take between 9 and 12 months to complete and span at least
one rainy season. The exhaust from construction equipment contains hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen,
carbon monoxide, suspended particulate matter, and odors, which could have an effect on adjacent
waterways. Leaky construction equipment has the potential to drip or spill fuels, petroleum products,
and hydraulic fluids among other hazardous substances. The use of asphalt, concrete, and other harmful
chemicals during construction activities would also add to the potential of these substances entering
creek channels during activities in and near water bodies and wetlands or other jurisdictional USACE
waters within the project limits.
It is estimated that the largest percentage of construction pollutants would be sediment, construction
debris from demolished structures, and dust generated during excavation, grading, hauling, demolition,
and various other activities. The impacts of these activities would vary each day as construction
progresses and onsite conditions change. Potential sources of temporary surface water impacts include
construction materials, contaminants in the existing roadway, vehicle leaks, traffic accidents, and illegal
dumping. Temporary construction site stormwater BMPs will be implemented to minimize or eliminate
chemical releases to ground and surface waters.
Due to the urbanized nature of most drainage systems throughout the project corridor, many potential
opportunities exist for upgrading deficiencies and or enhancing impaired beneficial uses within the
project corridor. The proposed project would be subject to two separate National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Areas of the project within the Caltrans right-of-way
will be regulated consistent with the requirements of the Caltrans NPDES Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems (MS4) permit, and areas of the project within the City right-of-way would be regulated
consistent with the City’s NPDES MS4 permit.
The proposed project’s Project Scope Summary Report (PSSR) was signed on June 25, 2013. Therefore, it
is grandfathered under the new Caltrans NPDES permit (Order 2012-0011 DWQ). The new Caltrans
Permit Order No. 2012-0011 –DWQ, effective July 1, 2013, states, under the Project Planning and Design
section, that the new permit requirements only apply to new and redevelopment projects that have not
completed the project initiation phase. Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to the
requirements contained within the Caltrans 1999 NPDES Permit Order No. 99-DWQ-06.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 65 of 134
Standard temporary construction site and permanent design pollution prevention and Stormwater
BMPs will be utilized during and after construction of the project to control potential discharges of
pollutants to surface water. BMPs would be designed with the goal of controlling general gross
pollutants and/or sedimentation/siltation, depending on location. The required stormwater pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP) will address all the BMPs necessary to prevent water quality impacts during
construction of the project. In addition, buffers from sensitive resources such as wetlands and riparian
corridors would be established throughout the project area.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
b): The project would not create long-term water demand and would not deplete groundwater
supplies. Short-term construction related water demands would be served by the City’s non-potable
municipal water supply.
Impacts would be less than significant.
g) – i): The proposed project would not place any housing within a 100-year flood zone. Based on
County mapping, small areas of disturbance near the northbound US 101 ramp intersections at Camino
Mercado and Grand Avenue would occur within areas designated as within the 100-year flood zone.
However, no new or substantially different use would be developed that would impede or redirect flood
flows. On-site drainage patterns would be controlled as described above. The project would not create a
new use that would expose additional people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
from flooding, including flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
j): The project is not in an area that would be affected by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact
To minimize the potential significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality, the following
mitigation measures would be implemented.
HYD/mm-1 Prior to commencement of construction activities, the City shall prepare a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which shall include Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to be implemented and monitored prior to and during construction. The SWPPP would
include a Construction Site Monitoring Program that presents procedures and methods related
to the visual monitoring and sampling and analysis plans for non-visible pollutants, sediment and
turbidity, and pH.
HYD/mm-2 The City shall implement, at minimum, the following BMPs.
Temporary Construction Measures
a. All substantial ground disturbance shall be limited to the dry season or periods when
rainfall is not predicted to the extent feasible, to minimize erosion and sediment
transport to surface waters;
b. Disturbed areas shall be stabilized or re-vegetated prior to the start of the rainy season;
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 66 of 134
c. Impacts to vegetation shall be minimized. The work area shall be flagged to identify its
limits. Vegetation shall not be removed or intentionally damaged beyond these limits.
d. Construction materials and soil piles shall be placed in designated areas where they
could not enter storm drains due to spillage or erosion.
e. Waste and debris generated during construction shall be stored in designated waste
collection areas and containers away from watercourses, and shall be disposed of
regularly.
f. During construction, washing of concrete trucks, paint, equipment, or similar activities
shall occur only in areas where polluted water and materials can be contained for
subsequent removal from the site. Wash water shall not be discharged to the storm
drains, street, drainage ditches, creeks, or wetlands. Concrete washout area shall be
isolated from storm drains, and wash water and waste shall be removed from project
site. The location of the washout area shall be clearly noted at the construction site with
signs.
g. All fueling of heavy equipment shall occur in a designated area removed from on-site
drainages, such that any spillage would not enter surface waters. The designated
refueling area shall include a drain pan or drop cloth and absorbent materials to clean
up spills. The location of the fueling area shall be clearly noted at the construction site
with signs.
h. Vehicles and equipment shall be maintained properly to prevent leakage of
hydrocarbons and coolant, and shall be examined for leaks on a daily basis. All
maintenance shall occur in a designated offsite area. The designated area shall include a
drain pan or drop cloth and absorbent materials to clean up spills.
i. Any accidental spill of hydrocarbons or coolant that may occur on the construction site
shall be cleaned immediately. Absorbent materials shall be maintained on the
construction site for this purpose.
j. Temporary placement of fill shall be located outside of any drainage ways.
k. Adequate measures shall be applied to all disturbed portions of the project site to control
dust, such as daily watering or hydro-mulching until vegetation cover is well established.
l. Any fill or stockpiling that is to be left more than 30 days shall be hydro-seeded or
covered immediately upon completion of the fill or stockpiling work.
m. All fill material shall be “clean” and free of any potentially hazardous materials or
hazardous waste.
n. Rain Event Action Plan (REAP). Risk Level 2 projects are required to prepare a REAP,
which will describe projected storm information and list specific actions required to be
taken before predicted rain events.
o. Soil Stabilization Measures. Minimum soil stabilization measures for the project shall
include move-in/move-out erosion control, use of temporary hydraulic mulch on any
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 67 of 134
exposed disturbed soils, temporary covers to protect disturbed soil areas, and temporary
fencing to designate environmentally sensitive areas as outside of the work area limits.
Analysis of additional soil stabilization measures will continue during the design phase.
p. Sediment Control Measures. Minimum sediment control measures for the project shall
include temporary fiber rolls to minimize sediment-laden sheet flows and concentrated
flows from discharging offsite, and temporary drainage inlet protection to prevent
sediment from entering current or proposed storm drains. Investigation into additional
sediment control measures, including the use of sediment traps, will continue during the
design phase.
q. Tracking Controls. To prevent the tracking of mud and dirt off-site, stabilized
construction entrances and exits shall be placed at multiple points throughout the
project site. Street sweeping shall be implemented to remove any tracked sediment.
r. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. Concrete washout bins shall be
considered for all concrete-related work activities.
s. Job Site Management. The project’s proposed Construction Site Management includes
controlling potential sources of water pollution before they enter any stormwater
systems or watercourses and employee and subcontractor training, including the proper
selection, deployment, and repair of construction site BMPs used within the project site.
t. Stormwater Sampling and Analysis. Risk Level 2 projects are required to perform
stormwater sampling at all discharge locations during qualifying rain events. The
samples shall be analyzed for pH and turbidity, and subject to numeric action levels.
Permanent Design Measures
u. Downstream Effects Related to Potentially Increased Flows. Design pollution prevention
BMPs shall be incorporated to promote infiltration, maintain or restore pre-project
hydrology, as well as provide overall water quality improvement of discharges. Potential
water quality improvement measures include grading slopes to blend with natural
terrain and decrease the need for dikes, designing permanent drainage facilities that
mimic the existing drainage patterns of the area, constructing permanent vegetated
drainage ditches to decrease the velocity of discharge, and maintaining existing
vegetated areas to the extent feasible.
v. Alternative 4C would modify local drainage along the roadway by bisecting a roadside
ditch. Connectivity shall be maintained with a culvert crossing the north portion of the
proposed intersection.
w. Slope/Surface Protection Systems. The proposed side slopes to accommodate the new
improvements would be minor and would be 2:1 or flatter, consistent with existing
slopes, except for slopes adjacent to the realigned southbound US 101 on-ramp from
Grand Avenue, where slopes would be 4:1 (horizontal:vertical). Other slope/surface
protection items shall include slope paving, hydroseed, and move-in/move-out.
x. Concentrated Flow Conveyance Systems. Open vegetated conveyances would be
prioritized and utilized before lined and piped conveyances. Depending on the alternative
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 68 of 134
selected, new drainage inlets and culvert pipes will be necessary to convey runoff to
existing drainage ditches. There are currently no known existing areas of erosion or slope
failures at existing culvert crossings, so additional installation of flared end sections, rock
slope protection, or other outlet protection/velocity dissipation devices may not be
required. However, because the runoff will drain to existing or proposed natural
drainage ditches, calculations will be conducted during the design phase should show
that the increase in volume can be contained within the ditches and that the increase in
flow and velocity will not result in erosion or scour if the ditches are only vegetated and
lined with rock or other hard material.
y. Preservation of Existing Vegetation. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the
maximum extent possible. The project would result in minimal clearing or grubbing
because the majority of the project area is currently paved. Proposed roadway
improvements entail graded side slopes of 2:1 or flatter, except for slopes adjacent to
the realigned southbound US 101 on-ramp from Grand Avenue, where slopes would be
4:1 (horizontal:vertical [H:V]). Any slopes steeper than 2:1 (H:V) will be stabilized with
retaining walls, except the 4:1 slopes adjacent to the southbound US 101 on-ramp from
Grand Avenue, which would be stabilized with erosion control/landscaping.
Permanent Treatment Measures
z. Treatment BMP Strategy. Permanent treatment BMPs will be considered for Alternative
4C if design pollution prevention BMPs are not sufficient to infiltrate the water quality
volume. Onsite soils are most generally classified as HSG Type D. Based on this
information, it is estimated that soil amendments will be needed to achieve a 90%
infiltration ranking for biofiltration and infiltration devices under Alternative 4C.
Treatment for this project shall be to the maximum extent possible, and the project will
attempt to treat all added impervious areas, which varies based on the alternative
selected.
aa. Biofiltration Swales/Strips. Currently, vegetated ditches capture sheet flow and convey
runoff to Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek and Pismo Lake. Design pollution
prevention infiltration type BMPs will be prioritized for the project. However, under
Alternative 4C, infiltration will also occur at seven proposed biofiltration strips/swales.
Vegetation mixes appropriate for the biofiltration swales based on project climate and
location have not been determined at this time. However, biofiltration swales shall meet
100% treatment of the added impervious area.
Maintenance Treatment Measures
bb. The project will require drain inlet stenciling in areas where there is pedestrian access,
primarily at the Brisco Road undercrossing, on West Branch Street, and on Grace Lane.
Stenciling detail will follow the Caltrans Standard Plans for drain inlet stenciling. Other
types of maintenance BMPs, including maintenance vehicle pullouts, shall also be
considered during the design phase in coordination with the City and the Caltrans
Maintenance Area Manager.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts related to hydrology and water quality
would be less than significant.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 69 of 134
X. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Setting
The project corridor consists of a 1.6 mile stretch along US 101 within a highly urbanized area in the City
of Arroyo Grande. The project corridor extends from Grand Avenue and the Arroyo Grande Village Core,
through the large Five Cities regional shopping area adjacent to Brisco Road and Camino Mercado. Land
uses within the project area predominantly consist of US 101, local roadways, and related
traffic/circulation infrastructure (i.e., sidewalks, right of way, road shoulders, traffic signs and signals).
The delineated project area also includes portions of several adjacent parcels where right of way would
be acquired; land uses in these areas include agricultural row crops, private school recreational facilities,
and vacant disturbed lots. The project boundary includes the entire parcels on which Brisco’s Hardware
and the Arroyo Grande Library and San Luis Obispo County Agriculture Department buildings are
situated, due to the need to evaluate these parcels for architectural history resources per Caltrans
guidance (refer to Section V, Cultural Resources, above).
The parcels directly surrounding the proposed project area have experienced many new developments
in the past 10 years, most notably the development of 44 acres of land for the Five Cities regional
shopping center northwest of the US 101 ramps/Brisco Road interchange. This shopping center includes
a Walmart, Haggen supermarket, Office Max, Marshalls, Trader Joe’s, Chili’s Grill and Bar Restaurant,
and Regal movie theater, and draws customers from the surrounding communities. The Brisco Road/
Halcyon Road/ US 101 interchange serves as an important connection to these and other adjacent
commercial uses. Halcyon Road is a significant regional route to the communities of Grover Beach,
Oceano, and Nipomo.
Adjoining properties along the corridor have a variety of land use designations, including Community
Facilities (CF), Regional Commercial (RC), Agriculture (AG), Mixed Use (MU), Single Family Residential –
Medium Density (SFRMD), Single Family Residential – Low Density (SFRLD), and Conservation/Open
Space (C/OS) (refer to Figure 4 – Land Use Map, below). The parcels surrounding the project area are
zoned Public Facility (PF), RC, AG, Office Mixed-Use (OMU), Industrial Mixed-Use (IMU), Planned
Development (PD), Single Family (SF), Multi-Family (MF), Highway Mixed-Use (HMU), and Village Mixed-
Use (VMU). Land use categories are shown in Figure 5 and zoning categories are shown in Figure 6.
The largest designation of parcels adjacent to the project boundary is Community Facilities, with 13
parcels comprising approximately 97 acres (31%) designated for this use. Of these, four are currently
undeveloped. Existing uses on developed Community Facility parcels include St. Patrick’s Catholic
School, the Arroyo Grande Library, San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Department, the Arroyo Grande
Cemetery, Rancho Grande Park, Grace Bible Church, Hampton Inn, and the St. Patrick’s Cemetery. Other
significant adjacent land uses are Agriculture (two large parcels comprised of approximately 59 acres,
19%), Regional Commercial (14 parcels of 27 acres, 18%) and Conservation/Open Space (2 large parcels
of 51 acres, 16%). The Agriculture parcels are in active row crop production (refer to Agricultural
Resources, above), and the Conservation/Open Space parcels are undeveloped open space lands. The
Regional Commercial parcels accommodate three large shopping centers, with a K-Mart, Walmart,
Trader Joe’s, Office Max, Albertson’s, Marshalls, Regal Arroyo Grande Stadium movie theater complex,
and other large retail stores.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 70 of 134
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with the applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to, a general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion
a): The project would improve existing infrastructure within the City to improve the circulation
network of the US 101 and local roadway system. The project would not divide any portion of the City.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b): The San Luis Obispo Council of Government’s 2010 Regional Transportation Plan and City of
Arroyo Grande General Plan (Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space, Land Use, Circulation,
Economic Development, and Noise Elements) were reviewed for consistency with the proposed project.
Both project alternatives are generally consistent with applicable local and regional plans, including the
Regional Transportation Plan and the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan. The project would improve
efficiency of the local circulation system and would be designed to improve the interconnectedness
between transportation modes, delaying the need for capacity expansions, consistent with RTP policies.
The proposed project is identified in the Regional Transportation Plan as an “emerging issue” and
improvements to the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue interchanges are proposed to
improve capacity and congestion issues along this section of US 101.
The project is consistent with the growth strategies and goals of the Land Use Element. It is intended to
improve circulation infrastructure within the project area and would bring the circulation system
capacity into consistency with the intensity of surrounding land uses without compromising the integrity
of adjacent land uses. The project would also bring the project area into consistency with the policies
and standards of Caltrans, the Circulation Element, and the US 101 Transportation Concept Report,
which identifies a concept peak Level of Service (LOS) D for the segment of US 101 extending through
Arroyo Grande. Under build out conditions of the Arroyo Grande General Plan (year 2035), both
alternatives would attain a LOS D or better on all intersections within the project area with the
exception of Grand Avenue/West Branch Street, which is projected to operate at unsignalized LOS F
conditions under both build alternatives and the no project alternative. Although the Grand
Avenue/West Branch Street intersection is expected to operate at LOS F conditions under all
alternatives, worst-case movement delays at this intersection is substantially reduced under Alternative
4C.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 71 of 134
Figure 5. Land Use Map
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 72 of 134
This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 73 of 134
Figure 6. Zoning Map
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 74 of 134
This page intentionally left blank.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 75 of 134
Despite the general consistency discussed above, the proposed project alternatives would potentially
conflict with some applicable policies related to circulation interconnection, promotion of non-
motorized and pedestrian facilities, and/or convenient and well-designed parking facilities, if those
resources are not protected through final design of the proposed project. Both alternatives would
potentially interrupt or disrupt bike and pedestrian facilities and public transportation services within
the project corridor both through the construction period and permanently if project designs do not
adequately protect connectivity and convenience of existing and planned features. Both alternatives
would affect a small portion of the parking area at Brisco’s Hardware, at the corner of El Camino Real
and Brisco Road. Alternative 1 would also require the acquisition of portions of the Arroyo Grande Shell
and Chevron stations east of the Grand Avenue/US 101 interchange to accommodate the proposed
exclusive right-turn lane along East Grand Avenue. Alternative 4C would also require the acquisition of a
portion of the public parking associated with the County of San Luis Obispo Department of Agriculture
offices and Arroyo Grande Library. This acquisition is necessary to accommodate the new US 101
northbound ramps/West Branch Street/Grace Lane intersection.
Both alternatives would also potentially create conflicts with Land Use Element policies related to the
development of solid walls, i.e., sound or retaining walls. Both alternatives would require the installation
of several retaining walls (i.e., along West Branch Street and at the reconfigured Camino Mercado/US
101 northbound ramps, Grand Avenue/US 101 northbound ramps, and Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive
intersections). The Noise Study Report prepared for the project (refer to Section XII, Noise, below) also
analyzes the potential benefits and feasibility of noise barriers along the highway to minimize noise
effects on surrounding communities. These noise barriers, if required, would be for noise attenuation
purposes consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU12-3.2. If not required, there would be no potential
inconsistency.
Mitigation measures are identified below to ensure appropriate design elements will be incorporated to
ensure the interconnection of transportation systems, encouragement of non-motorized transportation
alternatives, design of convenient, well-designed aesthetic parking facilities, and consistency with
transportation and land use policies and goals. They also identify appropriate design and landscape
standards to ensure the project’s consistency with additional policy goals of the Land Use Element
related to solid walls.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c): There are no applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in
the project vicinity.
Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
To minimize potential significant impacts associated with inconsistency with policies and goals, the
following measures would be implemented.
LU/mm-1 Prior to initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare circulation and
traffic plans which shall incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public
transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways to the greatest extent feasible
through, at minimum, incorporation of crosswalks, sidewalks and bike lanes. All new public
transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways shall be ADA-compliant.
Temporary construction activities shall avoid conflict with bike and pedestrian access ways to the
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 76 of 134
greatest extent feasible. If construction activities will interfere with existing bike or pedestrian
routes, temporary access shall be provided to all areas of the project area. The plan shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction.
LU/mm-2 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare a Non-
Motorized / Public Transportation Plan in consultation with the City of Arroyo Grande Public
Works Department and the County Bicycle Advisory Committee. The plan shall include, at
minimum:
a. Designs for providing bicycle, pedestrian and car interaction along the project area that
would minimize conflicts through the use of striping, signage, lighting, bollards, etc.;
b. Examples of the signage, striping, lighting, designs, etc. for safe bicycle, pedestrian and
car interaction;
c. Methods for ensuring the project would not interfere in any way with existing or
proposed future bike and pedestrian lanes and paths, whether formal or informal,
particularly those associated with St. Patrick’s School, the Arroyo Grande Library, and
adjacent public buildings and facilities.
d. Methods for ensuring bike and pedestrian circulation to serve schools and public
facilities are made a priority consistent with policies of the Circulation Element.
e. Methods to ensure the project would not interfere, temporarily or long-term, in any way
with any routes, schedules, or operations of the RTA (Regional Transit Authority) stops at
Walmart and the Arroyo Grande Library.
f. Methods to ensure the project would not interfere in any way with the Park and Ride
parking lots located within the project area, including the lot on El Camino Real in
between Halcyon Street and Grand Avenue.
The plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction.
LU/mm-3 The project shall be designed to allow convenient and/or improved access to the
Regional Transit Authority stops along West Branch Street at the Arroyo Grande Library and
Walmart and the Park and Ride lots along El Camino Real. Construction activities shall not
interfere with or inhibit access or usability of the public transportation stops or parking lots and
shall take into account existing RTA and Park and Ride schedules and routes.
LU/mm-4 All proposed areas of disturbance shall be minimized to the greatest extent
feasible and shall be clearly marked on project design plans. All adjacent areas of disturbed
parcels shall be kept open for parking and customer use to the greatest extent feasible. No
adjacent portions of the parcels’ parking area shall be utilized for staging areas or equipment
storage.
LU/mm-5 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare a Parking
Plan, in consultation with the City of Arroyo Grande City Engineer, the owners of Brisco’s True
Value Hardware (APN# 077-051-019) and any other affected public or private property owners.
The Plan shall include:
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 77 of 134
a. Methods for ensuring all public parking associated with Brisco’s Hardware, the Arroyo
Grande Library and adjacent county public offices are protected from project impacts
and acquisitions and maintained to the maximum extent feasible;
b. A restriping and landscape design plan for the Brisco’s Hardware parking area, and any
City or County public facility areas that will be affected by the proposed project, which
shall be prepared in consultation with any affected private property owners, and be
prepared in compliance with the Arroyo Grande General Plan;
c. Measures to ensure visitor parking and use of these public facilities and private
businesses would not be deterred during construction of the project, to the maximum
extent feasible; and,
d. Requirements that upon completion of project construction, all adjacent disturbed
areas shall be restored to original conditions to the extent feasible.
The plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction.
LU/mm-6 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare a solid wall
design and landscape plan for the proposed project area that includes, at minimum, the
following provisions:
a. Design the walls with an aesthetic and graffiti proof treatment consistent with the
surrounding visual character and setting.
b. Design the walls to allow for landscape planting on any visible surface, as detailed in
subsections e. through i., below.
c. Plant vines or shrubs in front of the walls, as more particularly described in subsections e.
through i., below.
d. Treat or modify the existing walls to be visually consistent with the new walls.
e. Include large-scale trees, vines, shrubs, and bushes, as appropriate, along the base of
any retaining walls to help disguise the form and scale of the retaining walls.
f. Include shrub species on any walls and any wall benches to the greatest extent possible.
g. Select plant material for the retaining wall faces and benches which has informal
growing habits, and include species which will cascade over the steps/walls and help
hide visibility of wall geometry.
h. Select plant material for the retaining walls, benches or fences which, when seen from a
distance, is similar in color and shade to the majority of the vegetation on existing
slopes. Avoid plants with distinctive flower colors or vegetative characteristics.
i. Select plant material horticulturally appropriate for the site, which will result in long-
term survival with a minimum amount of maintenance once established.
j. Use of drought tolerant species shall be emphasized.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 78 of 134
k. The project plans shall include a water efficient drip irrigation system if necessary to
maximize the establishment and long-term success of the plantings.
l. The project plans shall include a “plant establishment” requirement which guarantees
the successful establishment of the planting and replacement of plants which fail.
m. The project plans shall include a long-term maintenance strategy and resource
commitment which ensures the ongoing success and effectiveness of the planting,
including replacement of plants which fail.
n. All drainage pipes shall be placed underground, including down-drains.
Solid wall design and landscaping plans shall be approved by the City Community Development
Director prior to the start of construction. Subsequent visual review of the walls by a consultant
approved by the City shall be required once final design of the walls has been completed.
With the incorporation of this measure, residual impacts to land use and planning would be less than
significant.
XI. Mineral Resources
Environmental Setting
The project site does not contain any known mineral resources.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that is or would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use
plan?
Discussion
a – b): There are no known mineral resources in the project area, and future extraction of mineral
resources is very unlikely due to the urbanized nature of the area.
Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would occur.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact
No impacts to mineral resources were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 79 of 134
XII. Noise
Environmental Setting
This section is based on the Noise Study Report prepared for the project (Terry A. Hayes Associates, Inc.
[TAHA] 2017). The Noise Study Report (NSR) follows the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit
Barrier Projects (Protocol) (Caltrans 2011). A field investigation was conducted to identify land uses that
could be subject to traffic and construction noise impacts from the proposed project. Noise-sensitive
land uses within the project area include residences and schools adjacent to the project corridor and the
Arroyo Grande Library. Short-term noise levels were measured at four representative locations to
document the existing noise environment and were used to calibrate the noise prediction model with
concurrent traffic counts. A total of 128 representative existing sensitive receivers were evaluated for
potential noise impacts resulting from the traffic along US 101.
The project area on the north side of Highway 101 includes a mix of large-scale commercial/retail
developments and a school site. The south side of Highway 101 includes commercial/light industrial
uses, schools, and a hotel. Single-family residences are located near Highway 101 south of El Camino
Real between North Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue.
Existing noise levels within the project area generally range from 38 to 76 decibels (dB) and US 101 was
the dominant noise source at each of the measurement locations (TAHA 2017). Predicted future noise
levels without the project were estimated to range from 45 to 77 dB. Based on the Noise Element of the
City’s General Plan, maximum allowable noise exposure from transportation noise sources is generally
60 dB for exterior areas (70 dB for playgrounds) and 45 dB for interior spaces (35 dB for theaters,
auditoriums, and music halls). Table 5 summarizes the results of the short-term noise monitoring
conducted in the project area.
Table 5. Short-term Noise Monitoring Results
Position Location Land Uses Start
time
Duration
(min.)
Measured
Leq
Number
of Auto
Number of
Trucks Observed
Speed
(mph) Medium Heavy
School
Building
St. Patrick’s
School School 9:40
a.m. 20 67.3 N/A N/A N/A 65
ST-3&4,
P
Bennett
Ave./El
Camino
Real
Residential/
School
11:10
a.m. 20 67.3 N/A N/A N/A 65
ST-5 O
Faeh
Ave./El
Camino
Real
Residential 11:45
a.m. 20 66.7 899 27 37 65
ST-5 CU El Camino
Real Residential 12:15
p.m. 20 69.1 N/A N/A N/A 65
Source: TAHA 2017.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 80 of 134
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Generate or expose people to noise levels in excess
of standards established in a local general plan or
noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or
federal standards?
b) Generate or expose people to excessive
groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels?
c) Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the project (above levels
without the project)?
d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project, in
excess of noise levels existing without the project?
e) Be located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport? If so, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) Be in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a) – d): Construction Impacts. During construction of the project, noise from construction activities may
intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. Construction
noise is regulated by Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-8.02, “Noise Control” which requires
the following: Do not exceed 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the job site activities from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. In
addition, the City’s Municipal Code creates an exception to noise standards for construction activities
occurring between 7:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on
Saturdays and Sundays. Therefore, the project will meet Caltrans Standard Noise Control Specifications,
and will also meet the City’s noise standards or be limited to the hours identified as acceptable in the
City’s municipal code for construction noise in excess of those noise standards.
Table 6 summarizes noise levels produced by construction equipment that is commonly used on
roadway construction projects. Construction activities would occur intermittently over approximately 9
to 12 months. Construction equipment is expected to generate noise levels ranging from 70 to 90 dB at
a distance of 50 feet, and noise produced by construction equipment would be reduced over distance at
a rate of about 6 dB per doubling of distance.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 81 of 134
Table 4. Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Maximum Noise Level (dBA at 50 feet)
Scrapers 89
Bulldozers 85
Heavy Trucks 88
Backhoe 80
Pneumatic Tools 85
Concrete Pump 82
Source: TAHA 2017.
Sensitive receptors (St. Patrick’s School, the Arroyo Grande Library, and adjacent residential areas) are
located within a couple hundred feet of construction activities. Therefore, the noise levels identified in
Table 6, above, would dissipate over that distance and be reduced by approximately 6 to 12 dB at the
location of the sensitive receptors. As directed by the City and/or Caltrans, the contractor will
implement appropriate additional noise reduction measures, if necessary, to ensure compliance with
Caltrans Standard Noise Control Specifications, including changing the location of stationary
construction equipment, turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, and/or
installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources.
Construction of the proposed project will generate temporary groundborne vibrations and increase
ambient noise levels; however, the project would meet Caltrans Standard Noise Control Specifications
and City noise standards, or the days and times of construction activities would be limited per the City’s
municipal code, which creates an exception to noise standards for construction activities occurring
between 7:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays
and Sundays. Construction noise would be short-term, intermittent, and partially overshadowed by local
traffic noise. Therefore, this temporary increase is not anticipated to exceed the City’s thresholds for
noise (TAHA 2017).
Therefore, construction related noise impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Impacts. The Noise Study Report prepared for the project determined that potential noise
impacts from the proposed project would not be substantial and would be largely consistent with
predicted noise levels in the area without the project (TAHA 2017). No increase in noise levels over
predicted no-project conditions over 2 decibels was identified at any nearby receiver. The 2 decibel
increase would be insignificant when compared to the transportation noise currently generated by
vehicles on US 101, the main noise source for this area. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise
of 1 to 2 dB are generally not perceptible.
Therefore, under CEQA, impacts associated with increased noise levels as a result of the project would
be less than significant.
Alternative 4C changes would affect the St. Patrick's Catholic School and the Arroyo Grande Library. The
roundabout would shift the intersection towards the library and away from the school, resulting in
marginally higher noise levels at the library and lower noise levels at the school. However, the change
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 82 of 134
would not be perceptible to the human ear and the NSR concluded that the intersection would not
result in noise impacts.
Other improvements associated with Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C, including restriping, signalization,
and realignment of specific intersections were not modeled due to their minimal impacts on the noise
environment when compared to the Route 101 travel lanes. For example, the realignment of the
southbound on-ramp at Grand Avenue will align that ramp with the southbound off-ramp, moving it
approximately 100 feet to the southwest, closer to potential sensitive receivers. However, it is not a
significant noise source when compared to the Route 101 travel lanes.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Although project development would not increase ambient noise levels above levels without the
project, current exceedances of City and Caltrans standards currently exist adjacent to the US 101
corridor due to highway traffic noise. Therefore, though not required under CEQA, the installation of
noise walls is being considered as part of the project per Caltrans’ federal protocol. Under NEPA 23 CFR
772, because the noise levels at nearby receivers already approaches or exceeds the noise abatement
criteria of 67 dBA, noise abatement would need to be considered.
e) – f): The project site is not within 2 miles of any public airport or private airstrip. The nearest airport is
the Oceano County Airport, located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the project site, and airport-
related noise at the project site would generally be dominated by highway and traffic noise sources.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact
No significant noise impacts were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.
XIII. Population and Housing
Environmental Setting
The City of Arroyo Grande’s population has grown from 3,291 in 1960 to 17,252, based on the 2010
Census. Population growth during the 1960s occurred rapidly, some years exceeding 12%. In the 1970s,
growth slowed to an average of 7%, falling still further in the 1980s to less than 2% from 1980 to 1990.
Annual population increases of less than 1% have been experienced since the 1990s. Growth in
surrounding areas (Nipomo, Nipomo Mesa) has outpaced all other areas of the County. Between 2000
and 2010, the population of Nipomo grew by 24.5%, compared to 12% in the total unincorporated
county and 8.5% in the county as a whole (U.S. Census).
According to the 2010 Census, Arroyo Grande’s population is 15.7% Hispanic and 84.3% not Hispanic. Of
the not Hispanic group, 85% are white, with the remaining 15% being African American, American
Indian, Asian, or Pacific Islander. Over 21% of the population is aged 18 years and under, 59% is between
18 and 65 years, and 20% is 65 years or older.
At the time of the 2010 Census, there were 7,628 housing units in the City of Arroyo Grande, an 822-unit
increase from 2000. The vast majority, 75%, are single-family units. The overall average household size
in Arroyo Grande is 2.41, with owner-occupied units averaging 2.45 persons per household and renter-
occupied units averaging 2.33 persons per household. This rate is relatively consistent with the 1990 city
average of 2.48, and slightly less than California’s average rate of 2.87 persons per household.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 83 of 134
There are no residences or residential uses within the project corridor; however, there are numerous
residences adjacent to the project corridor both north and south of US 101.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Discussion
a): Residential areas within Arroyo Grande are largely built-out and less than 3% of residentially-
zoned parcels in the City remain vacant and suitable for development (City of Arroyo Grande 2001; City
of Arroyo Grande 2011). There is currently some demand for additional residential development in the
City, evidenced by requests for conversion of non-residential classifications to residential designations
and increases in allowable densities. The proposed project could remove a potential obstacle to
increased residential development by reducing traffic congestion and potentially accommodating
additional access to residential areas or increased densities within the project vicinity. However,
increased development in this area is not an effect of the proposed project; rather, development
demand presently exists regardless of the project and residential development along Grace Lane and
West Branch Street is already occurring. In addition, although the demand for increased development
currently exists, recent population growth has been limited, declining by 0.5% between 2013 and 2014.
The goal of the project is to relieve congestion and safety issues associated with current conditions, and
the proposed project is designed to improve existing traffic conditions within the local road network and
US 101 interchanges at Brisco Road, Grand Avenue, and Camino Mercado. As with many other Caltrans
projects, the project is the result of development and growth already existing within the City of Arroyo
Grande and at the relevant intersections. The project is not expected to result in any significant direct,
indirect or cumulative growth- related impacts in the project area.
The project will not affect residential development or generate an increase in population. The project
makes improvements to or replaces existing roadways and intersections and does not connect or open
up areas of the urban fringe or other large undeveloped areas that are not currently accessible. The
project does not expand capacity on existing roadways to allow for greater volume of traffic; rather, it is
intended to more efficiently manage existing traffic levels. Therefore, it is best described as a reactive
measure to population growth.
Potential impacts would be less than significant.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 84 of 134
b) – c): The proposed project would not displace any residences or people and would not require the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
No significant impacts to population or housing resources were identified; therefore, no mitigation
measures are necessary.
XIV. Public Services
Environmental Setting
Fire Protection Services. The Five Cities Fire Authority was established on July 9, 2010 by a Joint Powers
Agreement between the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and the Oceano Community Services
District to provide fire protection services of these communities. Five Cities Fire Authority also provides
services to the Town of Halcyon and the Oceano Dunes State Vehicle Recreation Area. The Authority has
three stations: one in Arroyo Grande, one in Grover Beach, and one in Oceano. The Arroyo Grande
station (Station 1) is located at 140 Traffic Way and serves as the headquarters for the Authority and
serves the City of Arroyo Grande and the greater Arroyo Grande area. Station 1 is serviced directly by
the Grand Avenue interchange proposed for reconfiguration under both project alternatives. The
California Division of Forestry (CAL FIRE) provides fire protection to surrounding communities, as well as
back up support in Arroyo Grande. CAL FIRE has four substations in the area, at the following locations:
2391 Willow Road, Arroyo Grande; 450 Pioneer Road, Nipomo; 990 Bello Street, Pismo Beach; and, 2555
Shell Beach Road, Pismo Beach.
Police Protection Services. The cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach provide police services within
their respective city limits. The City of Arroyo Grande’s police station is located at 200 North Halcyon
Road, directly serviced by both the Grand Avenue and Brisco Road/Halcyon Road interchanges proposed
for reconfiguration under both project alternatives. In addition to the City police station, the San Luis
Obispo County Sheriff substation is located at 1681 Front Street in Oceano and provides backup support
within the City of Arroyo Grande. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) office located in San Luis Obispo
serves the south county including the City of Arroyo Grande. The response times of both the Sheriff
Department and CHP can be delayed due to the large coverage area.
Emergency Medical Services. The San Luis Ambulance South County sub-station, located at 201 Brisco
Road in Arroyo Grande, provides southern San Luis Obispo County residents paramedic services. There
are currently two units stationed at the South County substation, which provide South County residents
with emergency transportation to and from the Arroyo Grande Community Hospital located at 342
South Halcyon Road.
Schools. The project area is within the Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD). LMUSD covers 550
square miles and serves the adjoining communities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Nipomo, Oceano,
Pismo Beach, and Shell Beach. The district serves the City of Arroyo Grande with seven public schools,
including three elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school, and one adult school. The San
Luis Obispo County Office of Education (SLOCOE) oversees the Arroyo Grande Community School, a
public alternative school, within the city limits. In addition to these public schools, there are seven
private schools in the City of Arroyo Grande. One of them, St. Patrick’s Catholic School, is adjacent to the
project area.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 85 of 134
Parks. Ten City parks, a 26-acre sports complex, and a community garden are located within the City of
Arroyo Grande. One of these public park and recreation facilities, Rancho Grande Park, is located
directly adjacent to the project area delineated around the James Way / Rodeo Drive intersection
(where proposed development would be limited to new signage). Park facilities are further discussed in
Section XV, Recreation, below.
Libraries. The Arroyo Grande Library is located directly adjacent to the project area at 800 West Branch
Street. The branch library is one of 15 county libraries.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Result in significant environmental impacts from
construction associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, or the need
for new or physically altered governmental facilities, to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
Fire protection?
Police protection:
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion
a): The ramps/intersections proposed for construction under both project alternatives serve as
primary routes for emergency service calls. The project would result in improved circulation at the
subject intersections and along US 101; therefore, no permanent impacts to emergency facilities and
services would occur under either alternative. However, temporary impacts during construction may
have a short-term adverse effect on law enforcement, fire protection, ambulance services, and schools.
The Arroyo Grande Police station is located less than a mile from both the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road
and Grand Avenue interchanges. According to the Arroyo Grande Police Department (Sergeant Pryor,
personal communication 2007), proposed closures of the Brisco Road on- and off-ramps would not
result in a significant increase in response times during peak traffic times, and would result in decreased
traffic congestion in the vicinity of the Brisco Road underpass, thus improving response times to areas
east of US 101. Sergeant Pryor recommended implementation of measures to minimize short-term
construction delays in emergency response, namely construction traffic management. Over the long-
term, emergency responses would be improved because of better traffic flows at the Brisco
Road/Halcyon Road interchange.
According to City of Arroyo Grande Department of Building and Fire Department (Fire Captain Randy
Steffan, personal communication 2007), temporary closures of the Grand Avenue and Brisco Road
ramps may cause potentially significant impacts to fire response time goals outlined in City policy.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 86 of 134
Implementation of recommended measures would address this delay in emergency response. Long-
term emergency response would be improved under both alternatives because of better traffic flows at
the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road interchange and along US 101. However, permanent closure of the
northbound Brisco Road ramps under Alternative 1 would require re-routing of fire response routes to
the west side of the City, as the Fire Department would no longer be able to utilize US 101 to access the
Brisco Road undercrossing. Because alternative routes exist and both alternatives would result in
improved circulation at the Brisco Road Undercrossing, this impact is considered less than significant.
Ramps proposed for modification (Grand Avenue, Brisco Road) currently act as the primary highway
access points to and from the Arroyo Grande Community Hospital and the South County San Luis
Ambulance sub-station, which serves the hospital. Both the ambulance sub-station and the hospital are
within 1 mile of the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue interchanges. According to San Luis
Ambulance Operations Manager, temporary closure of Brisco Road on- and off-ramps during project
construction would not significantly affect ambulance response travel within Arroyo Grande, as
alternate routes could be used (Joe Peidalue, personal communication 2011). However, permanent
closure of the northbound Brisco Road ramps under Alternative 1 would eliminate a primary access way
used by the ambulance station to access the hospital and may result in some delays. Because alternative
routes exist and circulation at the Brisco Road Undercrossing would be improved under both
alternatives, this impact is considered less than significant.
Both of the Brisco Road ramps serve as primary routes for traffic to and from Oceanview Elementary
and St. Patrick’s School. The proposed closure of the northbound US 101 on- and off-ramps at Brisco
Road would divert northbound traffic heading to and from Oceanview Elementary, thus increasing
northbound traffic on West Branch Street, El Camino Real and the northbound US 101 on-ramps at Oak
Park and Camino Mercado. Although there would be temporary impacts during construction, the
permanent flow of school traffic would be improved as a result of either project alternative. Measures
have been recommended to minimize temporary construction impacts.
Both project alternatives would improve traffic flows at the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road interchange and
adjacent roadways. Alternative 4C would also have a beneficial effect on services (police, fire,
ambulance) and schools by maintaining existing highway access at Brisco Road. Short-term construction
impacts would be similar under both alternatives and minimized through implementation of
recommended measures.
No changes are proposed at the James Way/Rodeo Drive intersection other than new signage under
Alternative 4C; therefore, no impacts to Rancho Grande Park would occur. Alternative 4C would require
construction within and acquisition of a portion of the Arroyo Grande Library parcel into state and/or
local right of way. Access to the library may be temporarily impacted through the duration of
construction activities, though no permanent impacts to the facility would occur. Measures have been
recommended to minimize temporary construction impacts.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
To minimize potentially significant construction-related impacts on public services, the following
measures would be implemented:
PS/mm-1 All construction activities shall be planned so as to minimize inconvenience to
the traveling public, i.e., through minimization of the amount and duration of lane closures,
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 87 of 134
minimization of lane closures during peak traffic hours, and goals to complete project
construction without unnecessary delay. Public traffic traveling north on US 101 should be
rerouted, via highway signage, to use the Grand Avenue exit should the northbound ramps at
Brisco Road be closed temporarily, and vice versa.
PS/mm-2 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare a
Construction Timing, Access, and Circulation Plan, which shall include the following measures.
This plan shall be approved by the City Public Works Director prior to the start of construction
and made available for local residents to review and comment on prior to the onset of
construction activities.
a. Methods for ensuring permanent access to the commercial/retail centers north of the
Brisco Road/US 101 interchange is preserved and/or improved to the maximum extent
feasible through implementation of the proposed project.
b. A signage plan and other methods, if feasible, for increasing the visibility of business
blocked by construction activities and educating travelers that businesses adjacent to
the project corridor are to remain open during construction;
c. Clearly marked detour routes for alternate access to any businesses that are made
inaccessible or difficult to access due to construction activities;
d. Hours of haulage (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.);
e. Designation of truck routes that avoid residential areas to the extent possible;
f. Methods of traffic control on adjacent streets within the project area;
g. Adequate safety signage regarding traffic control;
h. Designated construction staging areas for construction personnel vehicles, supplies, and
equipment;
i. A telephone number for local residents to call if there are issues or complaints; and
j. Measures to resolve potential conflicts between construction activities and adjacent
businesses.
Business owners directly adjacent to the project area shall be directly notified of the availability
of and allowed to comment on the plan.
PS/mm-3 Traffic control plans affecting state facilities shall be reviewed and approved by
Caltrans, and traffic control plans affecting City facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Public Works Director, through consultation with affected emergency responders and service
providers (i.e., the police department, fire department, San Luis Ambulance, and Arroyo Grande
Hospital), prior to construction activities.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts associated with public services would be less
than significant.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 88 of 134
XV. Recreation
Environmental Setting
The City of Arroyo Grande supports various community and neighborhood parks, as well as multiple
designated bikeways and recreational paths. Recreational uses include a 26-acre sports complex that
offers lighted tennis courts, little league and softball fields, and soccer and football fields; ten city parks
that offer a variety of active and passive uses, including picnics, barbeques, playgrounds, and
entertainment areas; an off-leash dog park; and a community garden. There are also hiking and walking
trails along Arroyo Grande Creek and within the James Way Oak Habitat and Wildlife Preserve.
Rancho Grande Park is located adjacent to the project boundary at the James Way and Rodeo Drive
intersection. A portion of the James Way Oak Habitat and Wildlife Preserve is also located adjacent to
the project boundary (APN# No. 007-771-059); no changes are proposed for this area under either
alternative. Another recreational area, located east of the Brisco Road/US 101 ramps/West Branch
Street intersection, is a part of the private school facilities at St. Patrick’s School and is not open to
public use.
The San Luis Obispo County Bike Map identifies several “suggested bike routes” within Arroyo Grande,
including along West Branch Street and James Way within the project area (San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments 2011). Bike lanes are currently located along Rancho Parkway, approximately 0.25 mile
northwest of the Brisco Road/US 101 ramps/West Branch Street intersection, and along other portions
of James Way outside of the project area. Non-motorized vehicles, including bicycles, are prohibited
within the US 101 corridor through the project area.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities that
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion
a – b): No changes are proposed within the open space areas of APN# 007-771-059 or at the James
Way/Rodeo Drive intersection other than new signage under Alternative 4C; therefore, no impacts to
Rancho Grande Park or the James Way Oak Habitat and Wildlife Preserve would occur. The project does
not propose any changes along Rancho Parkway; therefore, no impacts to the Rancho Parkway bike path
would occur. Potential impacts to planned “suggested bike routes” within the project area are discussed
in Section XVI(g), Traffic/Transportation, below.
The recreational area, track and field associated with St. Patrick’s School is located approximately 300
feet northwest of the proposed US 101 ramps/West Branch Street/Grace Lane intersection. The new
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 89 of 134
intersection proposed under Alternative 4C would require acquisition of approximately 10,736 square
feet from the parcel on which the school and field are situated into the State and City right of way.
Based on preliminary design graphics, the proposed right-of-way acquisitions would impact usable areas
of the school field. There is an approximately 60- to 70-foot-wide buffer of vacant land and a fence
separating the maintained field area from West Branch Street. Most of the 10,736 square feet proposed
for right-of-way acquisition under Alternative 4C would be comprised of this buffer area. However,
approximately 350 square feet in the southernmost corner of the school field would be acquired to
accommodate the new alignment of West Branch Street, encroaching into the field approximately 10
feet past the fence line at the widest point.
The area to be acquired is adjacent to the fence line in the southernmost corner of the field and does
not contain any developed infrastructure or sports or recreational facilities (i.e., track, baseball backstop
and field). It would not split or segregate any portion of the field from the remainder and the loss of
lawn area is not expected to substantially affect the current capacity or use of the field.
The proposed project would not create a new use that would generate population growth or increase
demand on existing recreational facilities. Therefore, no deterioration of existing facilities would occur
as a result of the proposed project.
The proposed project would include connections and improvements to various public bike paths and
public walkways. These improvements would be located almost entirely within existing State and/or City
right of ways, adjacent to existing transportation facilities and urbanized areas. Development of these
features would not result in impacts above those associated with the project in general and discussed in
other sections of this IS/MND.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
No significant impacts to recreational resources were identified; therefore no mitigation measures are
necessary.
XVI. Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Setting
US 101 is a major freeway of statewide importance that traverses north-south through the Central
Coast. US 101 serves as the main travel route that connects San Luis Obispo County with San Francisco
to the north and Los Angeles to the south. According to 2013 Caltrans traffic volumes data, US 101
mainline carries an AADT of approximately 54,400 vehicles just south of the study interchange at Brisco
Road, and approximately 57,500 vehicles just north of the study interchange area. Trucks comprise
approximately 9% of the average daily traffic on US 101 through the study area.
East Grand Avenue is a major four-lane, east/west arterial roadway that extends through the main
downtown areas of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach. It provides an essential link between the Village of
Arroyo Grande and the residential and commercial areas located west of US 101. Halcyon Road is a two-
to four-lane roadway that connects US 101 to State Route 1. Halcyon Road provides connection from US
101 to Oceano, the Nipomo Mesa, the community of Halcyon and the Arroyo Grande Hospital. Brisco
Road is a two-lane roadway that links US 101 with East Grand Avenue. The southbound ramps at
Halcyon Road and the northbound ramps at Brisco Road form a full-access interchange with US 101,
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 90 of 134
approximately 3,000 feet north of the Grand Avenue interchange. West Branch Street is a two- to four-
lane facility that runs parallel to and east of US 101, connecting Oak Park Boulevard at the north end of
the City and Grand Avenue at the south end. West Branch Street provides access between US 101 and
the regional shopping center and local businesses located east of the freeway.
The Arroyo Grande Circulation Element specifies a LOS C or better on all streets and controlled
intersections. Where LOS D exists, policies in the Element direct the City to plan improvements to
achieve LOS C or better. The US 101 Transportation Concept Report identifies peak LOS D for the
segment of freeway through Arroyo Grande.
Most intersections within the project area currently operate at a LOS C or better, with the exception of
Brisco Road/El Camino Real (LOS D), Halcyon Road/El Camino Real/US 101 southbound ramps (LOS
D),and Grand Avenue/West Branch Street (LOS E). The US 101 mainline currently operates at a LOS D
between Brisco Road and the north boundary of the City. Other insufficient Levels of Service under the
City’s Circulation Element standard exist at various US 101 ramps, including the southbound off-ramp at
East Grand Avenue, the northbound on-ramp at Brisco Road, the southbound off-ramp at Brisco Road,
and the northbound off-ramp at West Branch Street (all of which operate at LOS D).
Public transportation facilities within the project area include Regional Transit Authority stops at the
Arroyo Grande Library, Walmart, and Arroyo Grande Shell Station and Park and Ride lots along El
Camino Real between Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Cause a substantial increase in traffic, in relation to
existing traffic and the capacity of the street system
(i.e., a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, individually or cumulatively, the level of
service standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Cause a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location, that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Contain a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or a
dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment) that would substantially increase
hazards?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 91 of 134
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
a), b), and g): This section is based largely on the Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and
Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers for the project (Wood Rodgers 2012).
In the year 2035, which is predicted to be the year the City reaches build out under the General Plan,
almost all intersections within the project area would operate at inadequate levels, with many
intersections operating at an LOS D or even F. The entire US 101 mainline and every US 101 on- and off-
ramp are estimated to operate at LOS E or worse by the year 2035, except for the southbound on-ramp
at Brisco Road (LOS D).
Under Alternative 1, the proposed project would maintain or improve traffic levels at all US 101
intersections within the project area including the Grand Avenue/US 101 southbound ramps
intersection, except for the West Branch Street/Old Ranch Road intersection which would degrade from
LOS B to C. No change to freeway mainline operations would occur, and slight improvements to freeway
mainline-ramp junction operations would result. Alternative 1 would also fragment the existing US 101
interchange at Brisco-Halcyon Road, by removing northbound ramps at Brisco Road, and maintaining
southbound ramps at Halcyon Road.
Short-term construction activities would likely cause increased congestion throughout the project area.
However, these impacts would be short-term and minimized to the extent feasible through adherence
to standard Caltrans road construction standards and BMPs contained in the Caltrans Standard
Specifications 2010 manual and City measures contained in the General Plan. Measures have been
recommended to minimize construction related traffic impacts.
Under Alternative 4C, the proposed project would improve all traffic levels at US 101 interchanges
within the project area, except for the West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive intersection, which would
degrade from LOS B to C. All study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better with the
exception of the Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection (LOS F). Although the Grand
Avenue/West Branch Street intersection would operate at LOS F conditions under all alternatives, worst-
case movement delays at this intersection is substantially reduced under Alternative 4C. No change to
freeway mainline operations would occur. Alternative 4C would improve levels of service at most
project area on- and off-ramps to LOS D or better, while three ramps would remain at LOS E and one at
LOS F (southbound off-ramp at West Branch Street/Camino Mercado). The anticipated future expansion
of the US 101 mainline through the project area would improve conditions on all ramps to LOS D or
better.
Because both alternatives would improve and/or maintain traffic conditions at all study area
intersections, along the entire US 101 mainline through Arroyo Grande, and at all on- and off-ramps
within the project area, impacts to traffic and level of service standards would be less than significant.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 92 of 134
Both proposed project alternatives are consistent with applicable local and regional transportation
plans, including the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan and 2014 Regional Transportation Plan. The
proposed project is identified in the Regional Transportation Plan as an “emerging issue” and
improvements to the Brisco-Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue interchanges are proposed to improve
capacity and safety issues along this section of US 101. The project is generally consistent with the
growth strategies and goals of the Land Use Element. It is intended to improve circulation infrastructure
within the project area and bring the circulation system capacity into consistency with the intensity of
surrounding land uses. The project would also bring the project area into consistency with the policies
and standards of Caltrans, the Circulation Element, and the US 101 Transportation Concept Report,
which identifies a concept peak LOS D for the segment of US 101 extending through Arroyo Grande.
Alternative 1 would require relocation of the RTA bus stop at the Arroyo Grande Shell Station to an
adjacent location, so that buses were not required to enter the proposed westbound exclusive right-
turn lane on Grand Avenue. Alternative 4C would include development of a new Park and Ride lot
adjacent to the new US 101 ramps/West Branch Street/Grace Lane intersection, consistent with
Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the RTP. Measures
have been incorporated (refer to Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-5 in Section X. Land Use and
Planning, above) to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity
with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including
measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to
the greatest extent feasible.
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c): The project would not affect local air traffic patterns. No impacts would occur.
d) – e): The project would improve the local transportation system by improving or replacing
infrastructure currently operating at unacceptable levels. Emergency access would be maintained at all
adjacent properties and congestion relief would improve emergency access throughout the City for
police, fire, and emergency protection services. The project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans
road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan. Therefore, no
dangerous design components would occur.
Potential impacts would be less than significant.
f): Project development would result in minimal impacts to the parking area of Brisco’s Hardware
under both design alternatives. Alternative 1 would also impact landscaping, signage, driveways, and
accessory components of the Arroyo Grande Shell and Chevron stations. Alternative 4C would also result
in the acquisition and conversion of a portion of the parking area for the Arroyo Grande Library and San
Luis Obispo County Department of Agriculture building. Approximately 46 parking spaces would be
removed to accommodate the new roundabout intersection and a new parking area behind the library
would be constructed to replace lost parking spaces.
Parking requirements by land use are identified in Municipal Code Section 16.56.060. Municipal Code
Section 16.56.050.1 allows for a discretionary parking reduction up to 20%. The City would replace all
lost parking spaces within the reconfigured parking lots to the extent feasible. Mitigation has been
identified (refer to Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-5 in Section X. Land Use and Planning, above) to
ensure impacts to parking are reduced to less than significant.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 93 of 134
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
To minimize potentially significant impacts to traffic and transportation facilities, the following measures
would be implemented:
Implement Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-5 and PS/mm-1 through PS/mm-3.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts associated with traffic and transportation
would be less than significant.
XVII. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting
The project site is located within the incorporated City Limits of Arroyo Grande. Utilities will be served
by both the City and other regional entities. The exact location of existing utility components,
infrastructure or systems in the project area, including water, sewer, natural gas, electric power, and
telecommunications has not yet been determined. However, any existing utility component or facility
that would be impacted by the project would be relocated or replaced in kind.
Water and wastewater services within the City are provided by the City Public Works Department. The
City has a franchise agreement with South County Sanitary Service for collection, diversion, and disposal
of solid waste and is served by the Cold Canyon Landfill located approximately 4 miles north of the City
in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County.
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment restrictions or
standards of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities?
Would the construction of these facilities cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 94 of 134
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) Result in a determination, by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project, that it has adequate capacity to service the
project’s anticipated demand, in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations as they relate to solid waste?
Discussion
a), e): The project does not propose use or development of any on-site wastewater disposal systems or
connection to any community wastewater system. The project would not include any use that would
require wastewater discharges, except for short-term construction activities that would be serviced by
on-site portable restroom and hand-washing facilities and/or existing facilities within the project area.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
b), d): The project does not propose any new use that would create demand for new water or
wastewater treatment facilities and would not require the construction or expansion of these facilities.
Short-term construction activities would be serviced by the City’s municipal water supply and portable
wastewater facilities and/or existing facilities within the project area.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
c): The project would not result in the need for new or expanded stormwater drainage or water
quality control facilities. The new infrastructure could alter surface slopes and drainage patterns within
the project area. These effects will be addressed in a drainage plan to avoid impacts to adjacent areas
and ensure that stormwater continues to flow along existing contours that drain naturally into the
existing stormwater drainage system.
The project would result in ground disturbance of 1 acre or more of ground disturbance; therefore, the
City would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to SWRCB
requirements. The project does not propose substantial changes in long-term use of the project area;
therefore, no permanent and substantially changed effects associated with discharge into or
contamination of surface waters would result above that which currently exists.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
f), g): Upon completion, operation and use of the project would not generate any solid waste.
Construction activities would result in the generation of solid waste materials, including cut volumes and
demolition of existing infrastructure. The proposed project will be served by the Cold Canyon Landfill,
which has adequate permitted capacity to serve the project.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 95 of 134
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
No significant impacts to utilities and service systems were identified; therefore no mitigation measures
are necessary.
5. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community; substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of an
endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals?
c) Have possible environmental effects that are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are
significant when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of possible future projects.
d) Cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a): The proposed project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment. Implementation of identified mitigation measures would ensure that the project would
not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The proposed project
would not contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions or significantly increase energy
consumption, and would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
b): The proposed project is designed to achieve the goal of the City to improve operations within the
highway and local roadway system. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 96 of 134
term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
c): Because the project does not propose a new or significantly different use than the existing use, the
project’s impacts would be limited in extent and duration and could be generally minimized through
application of standard control measures. The proposed project does not have impacts that would be
individually limited but cumulatively considerable with implementation of identified mitigation. There
are no proposed or planned projects in the area that would create similar impacts, which when
considered together with the project-related impacts would be considerable, or which compound or
increase other environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
d): The proposed project would not create environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project would improve existing infrastructure
providing beneficial impacts on existing traffic and circulation systems. Adverse project effects would
generally be limited to the construction phase of the project and minimized through standard mitigation
measures. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 97 of 134
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
Agricultural Resources
AG/mm-1 Farmland impacts shall be minimized in accordance with the
City’s Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element,
Policy Ag1-4.2, and Development Code Section 16.12.170(F).
Permanent protection of prime farmlands shall be provided in
the form of a perpetual agriculture or conservation easement.
The agricultural or conservation easement shall protect lands
at a 1:1 ratio if within the City limits, or at a 2:1 ratio if outside
of the City limits but within the City’s area of environmental
concern. The land shall be comparable in soil quality to the
land being converted to non-agricultural uses and shall have
an adequate water supply to support agricultural use that is
also protected in the agricultural conservation easement,
farmland deed restriction, or other document evidencing the
permanent agricultural protection.
As an alternative to the permanent conservation easement,
the City may elect to pay in-lieu fees if the City Council
determines that the payment of fees provides a superior
opportunity to satisfy the goals and policies of the General
Plan, in accordance with the Development Code (Section
16.12.170).
The City Engineer shall
submit
documentation
evidencing
compliance to the City
Community
Development Director
for verification prior
to construction.
Prior to issuance of
construction permits
City Engineer, City
Community
Development Director
Air Quality
AQ/mm-1 Prior to issuance of construction permits, the following
measures shall be incorporated into the construction phase of
the project and shown on all applicable plans:
Construction Equipment
a. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune
according to manufacturer’s specifications;
b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment,
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Prior to issuance of
construction permits
and throughout
construction activities
City Engineer
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 98 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes,
loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors,
auxiliary power units, with CARB-certified motor vehicle
diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road);
c. Maximize to the extent feasible, the use of diesel
construction equipment meeting the CARB’s Tier 2
certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel
engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation;
d. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007
or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty
diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road
Regulation;
e. Construction or trucking companies with fleets that 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;
f. All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for
more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the
designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind
drivers and operators of the 5-minute idling limit;
g. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall
be avoided to the maximum extent feasible;
h. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within
1,000 feet of sensitive receptors to the maximum extent
feasible;
i. Electrify equipment when feasible;
j. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered
equipment, where feasible; and,
k. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site
where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG),
liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
Best Available Control Technology
l. Further reduce emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and
Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on-road compliant engines;
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 99 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
m. Repower equipment with the cleanest engines available;
and,
n. Install California Verified Diesel Emission Control
Strategies. These strategies are listed at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm.
AQ/mm-2 Upon application for construction permits, all required PM10
measures shall be shown on applicable grading or
construction plans, and made applicable during grading and
construction activities as described below.
a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient
quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site.
Increased watering frequency would be required
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph);
c. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever
possible;
d. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed;
e. 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;
f. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at
dates greater than one month after initial grading should
be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed
and watered until vegetation is established;
g. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should
be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the
APCD;
h. 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;
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
Prior to issuance of
construction permits
and throughout
construction activities
City Engineer
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 100 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
i. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not
exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site;
j. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials
are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of
freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of
load and top of trailer) in accordance with California
Vehicle Code §23114;
k. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit
unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and
equipment leaving the site; and,
l. 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, construction and building plans; and the
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the
fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of
the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints,
reduce visible emissions below 20% opacity, and to prevent
transport of dust off-site. Their duties shall include monitoring
the effectiveness of the required dust control measures (as
conditions dictate), and shall include holidays and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress. The name and
telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading,
earthwork or demolition.
AQ/mm-3 Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit
a geologic evaluation of naturally occurring asbestos of the
project site to the APCD. If naturally occurring asbestos is
present onsite, the applicant shall comply with all
requirements outlined in the Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control
Submit geologic
evaluation and
documented
compliance with
ATCM to City
Prior to issuance of
construction permits
City Engineer, City
Community
Development
Department, APCD
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 101 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
Measures (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations. These requirements may include,
but are not limited to: 1) an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan
that shall be approved by the APCD prior to construction, and
2) an Asbestos Health and Safety Program. Prior to
development on the 30-acre portion of the site, the applicant
shall submit a Naturally Occurring Asbestos Construction and
Grading Permit Exemption Request Form to the APCD.
Community
Development
Department and APCD
Biological Resources
BIO/mm-1 Prior to project implementation, the City shall retain a
qualified biological monitor(s) approved by all involved
regulatory agencies to ensure compliance with mitigation
measures within the project environmental documents.
Monitoring shall occur throughout the length of construction
or as directed by the regulatory agencies. Monitoring may be
reduced to part time once construction activities are
underway and the potential for additional impacts are
reduced.
Retain biological
monitor, submit
weekly monitoring
reports documenting
compliance to City
Community
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of
construction permits
and throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Biological Monitor,
City Community
Development
Department
BIO/mm-2 During project activities, the biological monitor(s) shall
coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies and the
construction contractor to ensure construction schedules
comply with biological mitigation requirements.
Submit weekly
monitoring reports
documenting
compliance to City
Community
Development
Department
Throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Biological Monitor,
City Community
Development
Department
BIO/mm-3 The project site shall be clearly flagged or fenced so that the
contractor is aware of the limits of allowable site access points
and disturbance. Areas within the designated project site that
do not require regular access shall be clearly flagged as off-
limit areas to avoid/discourage unnecessary damage to
sensitive habitats within and near the project site.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Biological Monitor,
City Engineer, City
Community
Development
Department
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 102 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
Engineer shall
perform site
inspections
immediately prior to
construction and
periodically thereafter
to ensure compliance
with these
requirements.
BIO/mm-4 During project activities, any work that must occur within
drainage ditches shall be conducted when they do not contain
flowing water, if possible.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Contractor, City
Engineer, City
Community
Development
Department
BIO/mm-5 Erosion control measures shall be implemented during
construction. Temporary sediment control BMPs (i.e.,
temporary large sediment control barrier) shall be installed in
appropriate areas to prevent introduction of silt/sediment to
aquatic areas within the project area. At a minimum,
temporary sediment control BMPs shall be checked and
maintained on a daily basis during the rainy season
throughout the construction period. The contractor shall also
apply adequate dust control techniques, such as site watering,
in areas where necessary during construction.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform site
inspections
immediately prior to
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Contractor, City
Engineer, Biological
Monitor, City
Community
Development
Department
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 103 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
construction and
periodically thereafter
to ensure compliance
with these
requirements. Weekly
monitoring reports
documenting
compliance shall be
submitted to the City
Community
Development
Department
BIO/mm-6 During project activities, the cleaning and refueling of
equipment and vehicles shall occur only within a designated
staging area and at least 100 feet away from a concentrated
flow of storm water if performed within a flood plain, or 50
feet if outside of a flood plain. This staging area shall conform
to Best Management Practices (BMPs) applicable to attaining
zero discharge of stormwater runoff. At a minimum, all
equipment and vehicles shall be checked and maintained on a
daily basis to ensure proper operation and avoid potential
leaks or spills.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform site
inspections
immediately prior to
construction and
periodically thereafter
to ensure compliance
with these
requirements.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Contractor, City
Engineer, City
Community
Development
Department
BIO/mm-7 All project-related spills of hazardous materials within or
adjacent to project sites shall be cleaned-up immediately. Spill
prevention and clean-up materials shall be on-site at all times
during construction.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Contractor, City
Engineer, City
Community
Development
Department
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 104 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform site
inspections
immediately prior to
construction and
periodically thereafter
to ensure compliance
with these
requirements.
BIO/mm-8 The biological monitor(s) shall ensure that the spread of
introduction of invasive exotic plant species will be avoided to
the maximum extent possible. When practicable, invasive
exotic plants in the project site shall be removed and properly
disposed.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements. Weekly
monitoring reports
documenting
compliance shall be
submitted to the City
Community
Development
Department
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Biological Monitor,
City Engineer, City
Community
Development
Department
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 105 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
BIO/mm-9 During construction, trash shall be contained, removed from
the work site, and disposed of regularly. Following
construction, all trash and construction debris shall be
removed from work areas.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform site
inspections
immediately prior to
construction,
periodically
thereafter, and
following construction
to ensure compliance
with these
requirements. Weekly
monitoring reports
documenting
compliance shall be
submitted to the City
Community
Development
Department
Prior to, throughout
the duration of, and
following construction
activities
Contractor, Biological
Monitor, City
Engineer, City
Community
Development
Department
BIO/mm-10 If feasible, removal of trees shall be scheduled to occur in the
fall and winter (between September 1 and February 15), after
fledging and before the initiation of the nesting season.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Contractor, Biological
Monitor, City
Engineer, City
Community
Development
Department
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 106 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements. Weekly
monitoring reports
documenting
compliance shall be
submitted to the City
Community
Development
Department
BIO/mm-11 If trees must be removed from February 15 to September 15,
a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct pre-
construction surveys for nesting bird species within the
project site.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. If
necessary, retain
qualified biologist
approved by City
Community
Development
Director. Survey
reports documenting
compliance shall be
submitted to the City
Community
Development
Department.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Qualified Biologist,
City Community
Development
Department
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 107 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
BIO/mm-12 If active nests are observed, the applicant shall either: 1) wait
for such nesting birds to fledge and leave the project site; 2)
establish 100-foot exclusion zones around active nests, where
construction will not be allowed in these exclusion zones until
young have fledged; or 3) consult with the appropriate
resource agencies for guidance prior to site disturbance.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
Compliance during
construction within
the nesting season
shall be verified
through on-site
monitoring and
submittal of weekly
monitoring reports
documenting
compliance to the City
Community
Development
Department and any
additional regulatory
permitting agencies.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Biological Monitor,
City Engineer, City
Community
Development
Department
BIO/mm-13 During construction, the project will make all reasonable
efforts to limit the use of imported soils for fill. Soils currently
existing on-site should be used for fill material. If the use of
imported fill material is necessary, the imported material
must be obtained from a source that is known to be free of
invasive plant species; or the material must consist of
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Contractor, City
Engineer, City
Community
Development
Department
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 108 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
purchased clean material such as crushed aggregate, sorted
rock, or similar.
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements. If
imported fill is
necessary, the City
Engineer shall submit
documentation
evidencing
compliance to the City
Community
Development Director
for verification.
BIO/mm-14 To avoid the spread of invasive species, the contractor shall:
a. Stockpile topsoil and redeposit the stockpiled soil on the
slopes after construction of the new bridge is complete;
or
b. Transport the topsoil to a certified landfill for disposal.
c. The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP)
restoration planting plans must emphasize the use of
native species expected to occur in the area.
d. The necessary HMMP would incorporate an invasive
species control program.
e. All erosion control materials including straw bales, straw
wattles, or mulch used on-site must be free of invasive
species seed.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Contractor, City
Engineer, City
Community
Development
Department
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 109 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
Cultural Resources
CR/mm-1 If a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered
during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction
activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease until a
qualified archaeologist determines whether the uncovered
resource requires further study. A standard inadvertent
discovery clause shall be included in every grading and
construction contract to inform contractors of this
requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found
during construction shall be recorded on appropriate
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms
and evaluated for significance in terms of California
Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist.
Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not
limited to, stone, bone, glass, ceramic, wood, or shell artifacts;
fossils; or features including hearths, structural remains, or
historic dumpsites.
If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the
qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a
research design and archaeological data recovery plan that
will capture those categories of data for which the site is
significant. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate
technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it
with the appropriate Information Center and provide for the
permanent curation of the recovered materials.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
and construction
contracts shall be
reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Qualified
Archaeologist,
Contractor, City
Community
Development
Department
CR/mm-2 A qualified paleontologist will be retained to prepare a
paleontological mitigation plan for the proposed project and
supervise monitoring of construction excavations.
Retain qualified
paleontologist. The
paleontological
mitigation plan shall
be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Qualified
Paleontologist, City
Community
Development
Department
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 110 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
CR/mm-3 All project-related ground disturbances which may disturb
geologic units that are considered to have a high
paleontological sensitivity (i.e., previously undisturbed
Quaternary older sand dune deposits, or any portions of the
Paso Robles and Pismo Formations) will be monitored by a
qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis.
However, the frequency of monitoring may be reduced at the
discretion of the qualified paleontologist if the disturbed
geologic units are determined to have a low potential to yield
significant fossils resources upon further examination of the
geologic units during grading operations. Based on the
excavation plans provided for both Alternative 1 and
Alternative 4C, portions of the project area will involve the
placement of fill material, shallow excavation in previously-
filled areas, or only surficial excavations of less than 1.5 feet in
depth. These excavation areas will not require paleontological
monitoring. However, the portions of Alternative 1 and
Alternative 4C that are expected to require excavations
greater than 1.5 feet in depth or to any depth in previously
undisturbed areas of geologically sensitive formations, as
designated in the PER (SWCA 2014) should be monitored full-
time by a qualified paleontologist.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The
paleontological
mitigation plan shall
be reviewed by the
City for consistency
with these
requirements. Weekly
monitoring reports
documenting
compliance shall be
submitted to the City
Community
Development
Department.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Qualified
Paleontologist, City
Community
Development
Department
CR/mm-4 Paleontological resource monitoring will include inspection of
exposed rock units during active excavations within sensitive
geologic deposits. The monitor will have authority to
temporarily divert grading away from exposed fossils to
professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and
collect associated data. All efforts to avoid delays in project
schedules will be made. Monitors will be equipped with the
The paleontological
mitigation plan shall
be reviewed by the
City for consistency
with these
requirements. Weekly
monitoring reports
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Qualified
Paleontologist, City
Community
Development
Department
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 111 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
necessary tools for the rapid removal of fossils and retrieval of
associated data to prevent construction delays. This
equipment will include handheld global positioning system
receivers, digital cameras, and cellular phones, as well as a
tool kit containing specimen containers and matrix sampling
bags, field labels, field tools (e.g., awls, hammers, chisels,
shovels, etc.), and plaster kits.
documenting
compliance shall be
submitted to the City
Community
Development
Department.
CR/mm-5 At each fossil locality, field data forms will be used to record
pertinent geologic data, stratigraphic sections will be
measured, and appropriate sediment samples will be
collected and submitted for analysis.
The paleontological
mitigation plan shall
be reviewed by the
City for consistency
with these
requirements. Weekly
monitoring reports
documenting
compliance shall be
submitted to the City
Community
Development
Department.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
Qualified
Paleontologist, City
Community
Development
Department
CR/mm-6 Recovered fossils will be prepared to the point of curation,
identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate
analysis, and reposited in a designated paleontological
curation facility. The qualified paleontologist will prepare a
paleontological mitigation and monitoring report to be filed
with the City of Arroyo Grande, as lead agency, and the
repository. The report will include, but will not be limited to, a
discussion of the results of the mitigation and monitoring
program, an evaluation and analysis of the fossils collected
(including an assessment of their significance, age and
geologic context), an itemized inventory of fossils collected, a
confidential appendix of locality and specimen data with
locality maps and photographs, an appendix of curation
agreements and other appropriate communications, and a
The paleontological
mitigation plan shall
be reviewed by the
City for consistency
with these
requirements. Weekly
monitoring reports
documenting
compliance shall be
submitted to the City
Community
Development
Department. The
paleontological
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
and following the
discovery of any
recovered fossils
Qualified
Paleontologist, City
Community
Development
Department
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 112 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
copy of the project-specific paleontological mitigation plan. mitigation and
monitoring report
shall be submitted to
the City for approval
to ensure consistency
with these
requirements.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ/mm-1 Prior to construction, the City shall prepare a Hazardous
Material Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan to
minimize the potential for, and effects of, spills of hazardous
or toxic substances during construction of the project. The
plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
Public Works Director, and shall include, at minimum, the
following:
a. A description of storage procedures and construction site
maintenance and upkeep practices;
b. Identification of a person or persons responsible for
monitoring implementation of the plan and spill response;
c. Identification of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be
implemented to ensure minimal impacts to the
environment occur, including but not limited to the use of
containment devices for hazardous materials, training of
construction staff regarding safety practices to reduce the
chance for spills or accidents, and use of non-toxic
substances where feasible;
d. A description of proper procedures for containing,
diverting, isolating, and cleaning up spills, hazardous
substances and/or soils, in a manner that minimizes
impacts on surface and groundwater quality and sensitive
biological resources;
e. A description of the actions required if a spill occurs,
including which authorities to contact and proper clean-
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications and the
Hazardous Material
Spill Prevention,
Control and
Countermeasure Plan
shall be included with
the project plans.
Plans shall be
reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction.
Construction
personnel training
shall be confirmed by
the City Engineer prior
to construction by
review of appropriate
documentation of the
training, including a
list of the training
attendees. The City
Engineer shall
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Public Works
Director, City
Engineer, City
Community
Development Director
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 113 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
up procedures; and
f. A requirement that all construction personnel participate
in an awareness training program conducted by qualified
personnel approved by the City Public Works Director.
The training must include a description of the Hazardous
Materials Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure
Plan, the plan’s requirements for spill prevention,
information regarding the importance of preventing spills,
the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur, and
identification of the location of all clean-up materials and
equipment.
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
HAZ/mm-2 Demolition of existing structures and/or infrastructure shall
be conducted in compliance with applicable regulatory
requirements, including the requirements stipulated in the
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40
CFR 61, Subpart M – asbestos NESHAP). These requirements
include, but are not limited to, notification to the APCD, an
asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector,
and applicable removal and disposal requirements of
identified asbestos containing materials.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. Reports
documenting
compliance shall be
submitted to the City
Community
Development
Department. If
necessary, weekly
monitoring reports
documenting
compliance with
regulatory
requirements shall be
provided throughout
construction.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Engineer, City
Community
Development Director
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 114 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
HAZ/mm-3 A Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be
developed for the project and subject to approval by Caltrans
to ensure contaminated soils excavated during the project
construction are handled, stockpiled, and disposed of in
accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Soils
excavated during the project shall be tested for lead
concentrations and the Soil Management Plan shall establish a
Reuse Screening Level for the excavated soils; excavated soils
with contaminant concentrations below the Reuse Screening
Levels may be reused during construction on the right-of-way,
while soils with contaminant concentrations exceeding the
Reuse Screening Levels shall be managed as hazardous waste
and disposed of at a facility that accepts soil with the detected
concentrations of contaminants. Special handling, treatment,
or disposal of aerially deposited lead in soils during
construction activities within that portion of the project within
Caltrans right of way shall be consistent with the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control and Caltrans Soil
Management Agreement for Aerially Deposited Lead-
Contaminated soils (effective July 1, 2016).
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Engineer, City
Community
Development Director
HAZ/mm-4 Prior to initiation of construction, a Lead Compliance Plan
shall be prepared by the contractor to prevent or minimize
worker exposure to lead from handling material containing
aerially-deposited lead (California Code of Regulations, Title 8,
Section 1532.1). This plan shall also be required for work
performed on painted structures. The contractor shall prepare
a written, project-specific Excavation and Transportation Plan
establishing procedures the contractor shall use for
excavating, stockpiling, transporting, and placing (or
disposing) of material containing aerially deposited lead. The
plan must conform to Department of Toxic Substance Control
and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
regulations. For samples where lead levels exceed hazardous
waste criteria, the excavated soil shall be either managed or
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Engineer, City
Community
Development Director
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 115 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
disposed of as a California hazardous waste or stockpiled and
resampled to confirm waste classification and potential
utilization of Caltrans’ hazardous waste agreement to recycle
soil on site. The appropriate Caltrans Standard Special
Provision shall be included in the Plans, Specifications, and
Estimate.
HAZ/mm-5 Built structures within the project area proposed for
demolition or removal, including all concrete, painted
surfaces, and treated wood poles and soils at the base of
poles, shall be tested for asbestos containing material, lead-
based paint, and petroleum hydrocarbons and other wood
preservative chemicals. Testing shall be conducted prior to
initiation of construction and estimates during the Plans,
Specifications, and Estimates phase of the project shall include
provisions for proper removal and disposal by a licensed
contractor. Any identified contaminants and toxic materials
shall be handled, treated, and disposed of in accordance with
applicable rules and regulations.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Testing
reports shall be
provided to the City
and reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Engineer, City
Community
Development Director
HAZ/mm-6 The electrical company responsible for the electrical
transformers present within the project area shall be
contacted to determine if the transformers contain
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If the transformers contain
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), then they shall be removed
and disposed of in accordance with applicable rules and
regulations. Any identified leaking transformers shall be
considered a potential PCB hazard unless tested and shall be
handled accordingly.
Proof of compliance
with this measure
shall be provided to
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements, as
necessary.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Engineer, City
Community
Development Director
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 116 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
HAZ/mm-7 The gas company responsible for the gas transmission
pipelines located within the project area shall be contacted to
delineate the location of the gas transmission pipelines. The
location of the pipelines shall be shown on all project plans
and specifications.
Proof of compliance
with this measure
shall be provided to
the City prior to
construction. Plans
shall be reviewed by
the City for
consistency with this
measure prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements, as
necessary.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Engineer, City
Community
Development Director
HAZ/mm-8 Underground Service Alert for Northern/Central California and
Nevada (USA North) shall be contacted prior to any
subsurface excavation to determine the location of any
subsurface utility lines.
Proof of compliance
with this measure
shall be provided to
the City prior to
construction. Plans
shall be reviewed by
the City for
consistency with this
measure prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements, as
necessary.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Engineer, City
Community
Development Director
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 117 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
HAZ/mm-9 Testing and removal requirements for yellow traffic striping
and pavement marking materials shall be performed in
accordance with Caltrans Construction Policy Bulleting 99-2
(Caltrans Construction Manual Chapter 7-107E).
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. The
City Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Engineer, City
Community
Development Director
HAZ/mm-10 Any previously unknown hazardous waste or material
encountered as part of construction of the proposed project
shall be handled, treated, and disposed of in accordance with
Caltrans Unknown Hazards Procedures.
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. The
City Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Engineer, City
Community
Development Director
HAZ/mm-11 Prior to any disturbance at or within 100 feet of the Arroyo
Grande Shell Gas Station located at 222 Grand Avenue, the
City shall consult with the California Department of Toxic
Substances, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board, County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health
Department, and Caltrans Headquarters Hazardous Waste
Management Section regarding the potential disturbance of
hazardous substances and materials at the site. Prior to any
disturbance at or within 100 feet of the Arroyo Grande Shell
Gas Station, the City shall prepare a Hazardous
Materials/Hazardous Waste Management, Removal, and
Remediation Plan. The plan shall, at minimum, include worker
health and safety protection measures and restrictions on the
disposal of excavated soil and groundwater. The plan shall
incorporate any additional assessment and remediation
required by the California Department of Toxic Substances,
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, County of
San Luis Obispo Environmental Health Department, and
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Proof
of consultation and
Plans shall be
provided to the City
and reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Engineer, City
Community
Development Director
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 118 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
Caltrans Headquarters Hazardous Waste Management
Section. The Plan shall include measures that ensure all
hazardous materials involvement would be coordinated with
the appropriate federal, state, and local regulatory agencies
and all hazardous materials encountered would be removed,
handled, and disposed of in accordance with state and federal
regulations.
Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD/mm-1 Prior to commencement of construction activities, the City
shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), which shall include Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to be implemented and monitored prior to and during
construction. The SWPPP would include a Construction Site
Monitoring Program that presents procedures and methods
related to the visual monitoring and sampling and analysis
plans for non-visible pollutants, sediment and turbidity, and
pH.
Submit approved
SWPPP, as recorded in
the SWRCB Storm
Water Multiple
Application and
Report Tracking
System (SMARTS)
database, to the City
Department of Public
Works and
Community
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of
construction permits
City Engineer, City
Community
Development
Department
HYD/mm-2 The City shall implement, at minimum, the following BMPs.
Temporary Construction Measures
a. All substantial ground disturbance shall be limited to the
dry season or periods when rainfall is not predicted, to
minimize erosion and sediment transport to surface
waters;
b. Disturbed areas shall be stabilized or re-vegetated prior to
the start of the rainy season;
c. Impacts to vegetation shall be minimized. The work area
shall be flagged to identify its limits. Vegetation shall not
be removed or intentionally damaged beyond these
These requirements
shall be noted in plan
specifications. Plans
shall be reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform site
inspections
immediately prior to
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Engineer,
Contractor, City
Community
Development
Department
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 119 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
limits.
d. Construction materials and soil piles shall be placed in
designated areas where they could not enter storm drains
due to spillage or erosion.
e. Waste and debris generated during construction shall be
stored in designated waste collection areas and
containers away from watercourses, and shall be disposed
of regularly.
f. During construction, washing of concrete trucks, paint,
equipment, or similar activities shall occur only in areas
where polluted water and materials can be contained for
subsequent removal from the site. Wash water shall not
be discharged to the storm drains, street, drainage
ditches, creeks, or wetlands. Concrete washout area shall
be isolated from storm drains, and wash water and waste
shall be removed from project site. The location of the
washout area shall be clearly noted at the construction
site with signs.
g. All fueling of heavy equipment shall occur in a designated
area removed from on-site drainages, such that any
spillage would not enter surface waters. The designated
refueling area shall include a drain pan or drop cloth and
absorbent materials to clean up spills. The location of the
fueling area shall be clearly noted at the construction site
with signs.
h. Vehicles and equipment shall be maintained properly to
prevent leakage of hydrocarbons and coolant, and shall
be examined for leaks on a daily basis. All maintenance
shall occur in a designated offsite area. The designated
area shall include a drain pan or drop cloth and absorbent
materials to clean up spills.
i. Any accidental spill of hydrocarbons or coolant that may
occur on the construction site shall be cleaned
immediately. Absorbent materials shall be maintained on
the construction site for this purpose.
construction and
periodically thereafter
to ensure compliance
with these
requirements. The
City Engineer shall
perform site
inspections and/or
coordinate with
construction
personnel prior to
every predicted rain
event to ensure
temporary soil
stabilization BMPs and
temporary sediment
control BMPs have
been applied prior to
every predicted rain
event, consistent with
the Construction
General Permit.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 120 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
j. Temporary placement of fill shall be located outside of
any drainage ways.
k. Adequate measures shall be applied to all disturbed
portions of the project site to control dust, such as daily
watering or hydro-mulching until vegetation cover is well
established.
l. Any fill or stockpiling that is to be left more than 30 days
shall be hydro-seeded or covered immediately upon
completion of the fill or stockpiling work.
m. All fill material shall be “clean” and free of any potentially
hazardous materials or hazardous waste.
n. Rain Event Action Plan (REAP). Risk Level 2 projects are
required to prepare a REAP, which will describe projected
storm information and list specific actions required to be
taken before predicted rain events.
o. Soil Stabilization Measures. Minimum soil stabilization
measures for the project shall include move-in/move-out
erosion control, use of temporary hydraulic mulch on any
exposed disturbed soils, temporary covers to protect
disturbed soil areas, and temporary fencing to designate
environmentally sensitive areas as outside of the work
area limits. Analysis of additional soil stabilization
measures will continue during the design phase.
p. Sediment Control Measures. Minimum sediment control
measures for the project shall include temporary fiber
rolls to minimize sediment-laden sheet flows and
concentrated flows from discharging offsite, and
temporary drainage inlet protection to prevent sediment
from entering current or proposed storm drains.
Investigation into additional sediment control measures,
including the use of sediment traps, will continue during
the design phase.
q. Tracking Controls. To prevent the tracking of mud and dirt
off-site, stabilized construction entrances and exits shall
be placed at multiple points throughout the project site.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 121 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
Street sweeping shall be implemented to remove any
tracked sediment.
r. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
Concrete washout bins shall be considered for all
concrete-related work activities.
s. Construction Site Management. The project’s proposed
Construction Site Management includes controlling
potential sources of water pollution before they enter any
stormwater systems or water courses and employee and
subcontractor training, including the proper selection,
deployment, and repair of construction site BMPs used
within the project site.
t. Stormwater Sampling and Analysis. Risk Level 2 projects
are required to perform stormwater sampling at all
discharge locations during qualifying rain events. The
samples shall be analyzed for pH and turbidity, and
subject to numeric action levels.
Permanent Design Measures
u. Downstream Effects Related to Potentially Increased
Flows. Design pollution prevention BMPs shall be
incorporated to promote infiltration, maintain or restore
pre-project hydrology, as well as provide overall water
quality improvement of discharges. Potential water
quality improvement measures include grading slopes to
blend with natural terrain and decrease the need for
dikes, designing permanent drainage facilities that mimic
the existing drainage patterns of the area, constructing
permanent vegetated drainage ditches to decrease the
velocity of discharge, and maintaining existing vegetated
areas to the extent feasible.
v. Alternative 4C would modify local drainage along the
roadway by bisecting a roadside ditch. Connectivity shall
be maintained with a culvert crossing the north portion of
the proposed intersection.
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 122 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
w. Slope/Surface Protection Systems. The proposed side
slopes to accommodate the new improvements would be
minor and would be 2:1 or flatter, consistent with existing
slopes, except for slopes adjacent to the realigned
southbound US 101 on-ramp from Grand Avenue, where
slopes would be 4:1 (horizontal:vertical). Other
slope/surface protection items shall include slope paving,
hydroseed, and move-in/move-out.
x. Concentrated Flow Conveyance Systems. Open vegetated
conveyances would be prioritized and utilized before lined
and piped conveyances. Depending on the alternative
selected, new drainage inlets and culvert pipes will be
necessary to convey runoff to existing drainage ditches.
There are currently no known existing areas of erosion or
slope failures at existing culvert crossings, so additional
installation of flared end sections, rock slope protection,
or other outlet protection/velocity dissipation devices
may not be required. However, because the runoff will
drain to existing or proposed natural drainage ditches,
calculations will be conducted during the design phase
should show that the increase in volume can be contained
within the ditches and that the increase in flow and
velocity will not result in erosion or scour if the ditches
are only vegetated and lined with rock or other hard
material.
y. Preservation of Existing Vegetation. Existing vegetation
shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. The
project would result in minimal clearing or grubbing
because the majority of the project area is currently
paved. Proposed roadway improvements entail graded
side slopes of 2:1 or flatter, except for slopes adjacent to
the realigned southbound US 101 on-ramp from Grand
Avenue, where slopes would be 4:1 (horizontal:vertical).
Any slopes steeper than 2:1 (H:V) will be stabilized with
retaining walls, except the 4:1 slopes adjacent to the
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 123 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
southbound US 101 on-ramp from Grand Avenue, which
would be stabilized with erosion control/landscaping.
Permanent Treatment Measures
z. Treatment BMP Strategy. Permanent treatment BMPs will
be considered for Alternative 4C if design pollution
prevention BMPs are not sufficient to infiltrate the water
quality volume. Onsite soils are most generally classified
as HSG Type D. Based on this information, it is estimated
that soil amendments will be needed to achieve a 90%
infiltration ranking for biofiltration and infiltration devices
under Alternative 4C. Treatment for this project shall be
to the maximum extent possible, and the project will
attempt to treat all added impervious areas, which varies
based on the alternative selected.
aa. Biofiltration Swales/Strips. Currently, vegetated ditches
capture sheet flow and convey runoff to Arroyo Grande
Creek and Meadow Creek and Pismo Lake. Design
pollution prevention infiltration type BMPs will be
prioritized for the project. However, under Alternative 4C,
infiltration will also occur at seven proposed biofiltration
strips/swales. Vegetation mixes appropriate for the
biofiltration swales based on project climate and location
have not been determined at this time. However,
biofiltration swales shall meet 100% treatment of the
added impervious area.
Maintenance Treatment Measures
bb. The project will require drain inlet stenciling in areas
where there is pedestrian access, primarily at the Brisco
Road undercrossing, on West Branch Street, and on Grace
Lane. Stenciling detail will follow the Caltrans Standard
Plans for drain inlet stenciling. Other types of
maintenance BMPs, including maintenance vehicle
pullouts, shall also be considered during the design phase
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 124 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
in coordination with the City and the Caltrans
Maintenance Area Manager.
Land Use and Planning
LU/mm-1 Prior to initiation of construction activities, the City shall
prepare circulation and traffic plans which shall incorporate
and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit
facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways to
the greatest extent feasible through, at minimum,
incorporation of crosswalks, sidewalks and bike lanes. All new
public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian
access ways shall be ADA-compliant. Temporary construction
activities shall avoid conflict with bike and pedestrian access
ways to the greatest extent feasible. If construction activities
will interfere with existing bike or pedestrian routes,
temporary access shall be provided to all areas of the project
area. The plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to
the start of construction.
Plans shall be
reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City Public Works
Director prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Engineer, City
Public Works Director
LU/mm-2 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall
prepare a Non-Motorized / Public Transportation Plan in
consultation with the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works
Department and the County Bicycle Advisory Committee. The
plan shall include, at minimum:
a. Designs for providing bicycle, pedestrian and car
interaction along the project area that would minimize
conflicts through the use of striping, signage, lighting,
bollards, etc.;
b. Examples of the signage, striping, lighting, designs, etc. for
safe bicycle, pedestrian and car interaction;
c. Methods for ensuring the project would not interfere in
any way with existing or proposed future bike and
pedestrian lanes and paths, whether formal or informal,
particularly those associated with St. Patrick’s School, the
Plans shall be
reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City Public Works
Director prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
Prior to issuance of
construction permits
City Engineer, City
Public Works Director
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 125 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
Arroyo Grande Library, and adjacent public buildings and
facilities.
d. Methods for ensuring bike and pedestrian circulation to
serve schools and public facilities are made a priority
consistent with policies of the Circulation Element.
e. Methods to ensure the project would not interfere,
temporarily or long-term, in any way with any routes,
schedules, or operations of the RTA (Regional Transit
Authority) stops at Walmart and the Arroyo Grande
Library.
f. Methods to ensure the project would not interfere in any
way with the Park and Ride parking lots located within the
project area, including the lot on El Camino Real in
between Halcyon Street and Grand Avenue.
The plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the
start of construction.
LU/mm-3 The project shall be designed to allow convenient and/or
improved access to the Regional Transit Authority stops along
West Branch Street at the Arroyo Grande Library and Walmart
and the Park and Ride lots along El Camino Real. Construction
activities shall not interfere with or inhibit access or usability
of the public transportation stops or parking lots and shall
take into account existing RTA and Park and Ride schedules
and routes.
Project plans shall be
reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City Public Works
Director prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Engineer, City
Public Works Director,
Contractor
LU-mm-4 All proposed areas of disturbance shall be minimized to the
greatest extent feasible and shall be clearly marked on project
design plans. All adjacent areas of disturbed parcels shall be
kept open for parking and customer use to the greatest extent
feasible. No adjacent portions of the parcels’ parking area
Project plans shall be
reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City Public Works
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Engineer, City
Public Works Director,
Contractor
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 126 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
shall be utilized for staging areas or equipment storage. Director prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
LU/mm-5 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall
prepare a Parking Plan, in consultation with the City of Arroyo
Grande City Engineer, the owners of Brisco’s True Value
Hardware (APN# 077-051-019) and any other affected public
or private property owners. The Plan shall include:
a. Methods for ensuring all public parking associated with
Brisco’s Hardware, the Arroyo Grande Library and
adjacent county public offices are protected from project
impacts and acquisitions and maintained to the maximum
extent feasible;
b. A restriping and landscape design plan for the Brisco’s
Hardware parking area, and any City or County public
facility areas that will be affected by the proposed
project, which shall be prepared in consultation with any
affected private property owners, and be prepared in
compliance with the Arroyo Grande General Plan;
c. Measures to ensure visitor parking and use of these public
facilities and private businesses would not be deterred
during construction of the project, to the maximum
extent feasible; and
d. Requirements that upon completion of project
construction, all adjacent disturbed areas shall be
restored to original conditions to the extent feasible.
The plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the
start of construction.
Parking plans shall be
reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City Public Works
Director prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections during
construction and
following construction
to ensure compliance
with these
requirements.
Prior to, throughout
the duration of, and
following construction
activities
City Engineer, City
Public Works Director
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 127 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
LU/mm-6 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall
prepare a solid wall design and landscape plan for the
proposed project area that includes, at minimum, the
following provisions:
a. Design the walls with an aesthetic and graffiti proof
treatment consistent with the surrounding visual
character and setting.
b. Design the walls to allow for landscape planting on any
visible surface, as detailed in subsections e. through i.,
below.
c. Plant vines or shrubs in front of the walls, as more
particularly described in subsections e. through i., below.
d. Treat or modify the existing walls to be visually consistent
with the new walls.
e. Include large-scale trees, vines, shrubs, and bushes, as
appropriate, along the base of any retaining walls to help
disguise the form and scale of the retaining walls.
f. Include shrub species on any walls and any wall benches
to the greatest extent possible.
g. Select plant material for the retaining wall faces and
benches which has informal growing habits, and include
species which will cascade over the steps/walls and help
hide visibility of wall geometry.
h. Select plant material for the retaining walls, benches or
fences which, when seen from a distance, is similar in
color and shade to the majority of the vegetation on
existing slopes. Avoid plants with distinctive flower colors
or vegetative characteristics.
i. Select plant material horticulturally appropriate for the
site, which will result in long-term survival with a
minimum amount of maintenance once established.
j. Use of drought tolerant species shall be emphasized.
k. The project plans shall include a water efficient drip
irrigation system if necessary to maximize the
Plans shall be
reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City Public Works
Director prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections during
construction and
following construction
to ensure compliance
with these
requirements.
Prior to, throughout
the duration of, and
following construction
activities
City Engineer, City
Public Works Director
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 128 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
establishment and long-term success of the plantings.
l. The project plans shall include a “plant establishment”
requirement which guarantees the successful
establishment of the planting and replacement of plants
which fail.
m. The project plans shall include a long-term maintenance
strategy and resource commitment which ensures the
ongoing success and effectiveness of the planting,
including replacement of plants which fail.
n. All drainage pipes shall be placed underground, including
down-drains.
Solid wall design and landscaping plans shall be approved by
the City Community Development Director prior to the start of
construction. Subsequent visual review of the walls by a
consultant approved by the City shall be required once final
design of the walls has been completed.
Public Services
PS/mm-1 All construction activities shall be planned so as to minimize
inconvenience to the traveling public, i.e., through
minimization of the amount and duration of lane closures,
minimization of lane closures during peak traffic hours, and
goals to complete project construction without unnecessary
delay. Public traffic traveling north on US 101 should be
rerouted, via highway signage, to use the Grand Avenue exit
should the northbound ramps at Brisco Road be closed
temporarily, and vice versa.
Project plans shall be
reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City Public Works
Director prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections to ensure
compliance with these
requirements.
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
construction activities
City Engineer, City
Public Works Director
PS/mm-2 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall
prepare a Construction Timing, Access, and Circulation Plan,
which shall include the following measures. This plan shall be
Plans shall be
reviewed for
consistency with
Prior to and
throughout the
duration of
City Engineer, City
Public Works Director
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 129 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
approved by the City Public Works Director prior to the start
of construction and made available for local residents to
review and comment on prior to the onset of construction
activities.
a. Methods for ensuring permanent access to the
commercial/retail centers north of the Brisco Road/US
101 interchange is preserved and/or improved to the
maximum extent feasible through implementation of the
proposed project.
b. A signage plan and other methods, if feasible, for
increasing the visibility of business blocked by
construction activities and educating travelers that
businesses adjacent to the project corridor are to remain
open during construction;
c. Clearly marked detour routes for alternate access to any
businesses that are made inaccessible or difficult to
access due to construction activities;
d. Hours of haulage (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.);
e. Designation of truck routes that avoid residential areas to
the extent possible;
f. Methods of traffic control on adjacent streets within the
project area;
g. Adequate safety signage regarding traffic control;
h. Designated construction staging areas for construction
personnel vehicles, supplies, and equipment;
i. A telephone number for local residents to call if there are
issues or complaints; and
j. Measures to resolve potential conflicts between
construction activities and adjacent businesses.
Business owners directly adjacent to the project area shall be
directly notified of the availability of and allowed to comment
on the plan.
these requirements by
the City Public Works
Director prior to
construction. The City
Engineer shall
perform periodic site
inspections during
construction and
following construction
to ensure compliance
with these
requirements.
construction activities
INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 130 of 134
Mitigation
Measure Requirements of Measure Compliance Method Verification Timing Responsible Party
PS/mm-3 Traffic control plans affecting state facilities shall be reviewed
and approved by Caltrans, and traffic control plans affecting
City facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Public Works Director, through consultation with affected
emergency responders and service providers (i.e., the police
department, fire department, San Luis Ambulance, and Arroyo
Grande Hospital), prior to construction activities.
Plans affecting City
facilities shall be
reviewed for
consistency with
these requirements by
the City Public Works
Director prior to
construction.
Caltrans-approved
plans affecting state
facilities shall be
provided to the City
prior to construction.
Prior to construction
activities
City Public Works
Director
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 131 of 134
7. References
American Farmland Trust. 2002. Mitigation of Farmland Loss. American Farmland Trust, prepared for
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service.
Arroyo Grande, California Income, Earnings, and Wages Data. 2011. Available at: www.city-
data.com/income/income-Arroyo-Grande-California.html. Accessed on October 11, 2011.
California Department of Conservation. 2008. 2008 Field Report – San Luis Obispo County. California
Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
————. 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, San Luis Obispo County Important
Farmland 2008. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection.
————. 2009. San Luis Obispo County, 2006-2008 Land Use Conversion. California Department of
Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection.
California Department of Finance. 2011. Table E-1 City/County Population Estimates with Annual
Percentage Change. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/view.php. Accessed on August 4, 2011.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1997. Community Impact Assessment – Caltrans
Environmental Handbook Volume 4. Department of Transportation, Cultural Studies Office.
————. 2006. Guidance for Preparers of Growth-Related, Indirect Impact Analyses. Department of
Transportation.
California Employment Development Department. 2011. California Labor Market Information,
Employment by Industry. Available at:
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localareaprofileqsresults.asp?selecte
darea=San+Luis%20+Obispo+County&selectedindex=1&menuchoice=localareapro&state=true&
geogarea=0604000079&countyname=. Accessed on September 1, 2011.
————. 2011. San Luis Obispo County Profile. Available at:
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaProfileQSResults.asp?select
edarea=San+Luis+Obispo+County&selectedindex=40&menuChoice=localAreaPro&state=true&g
eogArea=0604000079&countyName. Accessed on August 4, 2011.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. General Plan Update – Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element.
City of Arroyo Grande, California.
————. 2001. General Plan Update – Circulation Element. City of Arroyo Grande, California.
————. 2001. General Plan Update – Economic Development Element. City of Arroyo Grande,
California.
————. 2001. General Plan Update – Land Use Element. City of Arroyo Grande, California.
————. 2001. General Plan Update – Parks and Recreation Element. City of Arroyo Grande, California.
————. 2001. General Plan Update – Safety Element. City of Arroyo Grande, California.
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 132 of 134
————. 2003. General Plan Update – Housing Element. City of Arroyo Grande, California.
————. 2009. Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Project – Five Year Implementation Plan (2009-10
through 2013-14). City of Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency.
————. 2009. Land Use Map. City of Arroyo Grande, Community Development Department.
————. 2010. Development Code. Available at:
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=16194&stateId=5&stateName=California.
Accessed on August 11, 2011.
————. 2010. Zoning Map. City of Arroyo Grande, Community Development Department.
————. 2011. City Parks. Available at: http://www.arroyogrande.org/city-hall/city-
departments/recreation-and-maintenance-services/parks/city-parks/. Accessed on August 15,
2011.
County of San Luis Obispo Department of Agriculture and Weights and Measures. 2010. Reflections -
2010 Annual Report. San Luis Obispo County Department of Agriculture and Weights and
Measures.
County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building. 2014. San Luis Obispo County General
Plan – Housing Element 2014-2019. San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and
Building. June 17, 2014.
————. 2003. San Luis Bay Area Plan – Inland. County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and
Building.
————. 2006. San Luis Obispo County General Plan – Economic Element. County of San Luis Obispo
Department of Planning and Building and Economic Advisory Committee.
————. 2009. San Luis Obispo County General Plan – Housing Element 2009-2014. County of San Luis
Obispo Department of Planning and Building.
County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works. 2005. County Bikeways Plan – 2005 Update.
Bicycle Advisory Committee, Department of Public Works.
Economic Vitality Corporation of San Luis Obispo County. 2011. Economic Impact Studies. Available at:
http://www.sloevc.org. Accessed on August 23, 2011.
Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. 2016. Supplemental Archaeological Survey Report for
the Highway 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project, Arroyo Grande, San
Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation.
————. 2012. Archaeological Survey Report for the Highway 101 Brisco/Halcyon/Grande I/C
Modifications Project, Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the
California Department of Transportation.
Haro Environmental. 2017. Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment – Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange
Modifications Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for Wood Rodgers.
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 133 of 134
JRP Historical Consulting, LLC. 2016. Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report. Prepared for the
California Department of Transportation.
————. 2012. Historic Property Survey Report. Prepared for the California Department of
Transportation.
San Luis Obispo County Council of Governments (SLOCOG). 2010. SLOCOG 2010 Regional Transportation
Plan and Preliminary Sustainable Communities Strategy. San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments.
————. 2015. 2014 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy: Connecting
Communities. San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. April 2015.
San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare. 2010. San Luis Obispo County Bike Map – South County. Available
at: www.rideshare.org. Accessed on August 23, 2011.
SWCA, Inc. 2017. Community Impact Assessment – Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification
Project, City of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California
Department of Transportation.
————. 2017. Jurisdictional Assessment for the US 101/Brisco-Halcyon & Grand Avenue Interchange
Modifications, San Luis Obispo, California. Prepared for Wood Rodgers, Inc.
————. 2017. Natural Environment Study – Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project, City
of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California Department of
Transportation.
————. 2014. Paleontological Evaluation Report – Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification
Project, City of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California
Department of Transportation.
————. 2017. Paleontological Evaluation Report Addendum – Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange
Modification Project, City of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the
California Department of Transportation.
————. 2014. Visual Impact Assessment – Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project, City
of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California Department of
Transportation.
————. 2017. Visual Impact Assessment Addendum – Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification
Project, City of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California
Department of Transportation.
————. 2017. Water Quality Assessment Report – Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification
Project, City of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California
Department of Transportation.
Terry A. Hayes Associates, Inc. 2017. Air Quality Study, US 10/Brisco-Halcyon & Grand Avenue
Interchange Modifications. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation.
INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION January 2018
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 134 of 134
Terry A. Hayes Associates, Inc. 2017. Noise Study Report, US 101/Brisco-Halcyon & Grand Avenue
Interchange Modifications. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation.
United States Census Bureau. 2011. 2010 Census Summary File 1, Arroyo Grande, California. Available at:
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml. Accessed on July 12,
2011.
United States Department of Transportation. 1996. Community Impact Assessment – A Quick Reference
for Transportation. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration.
University of California Santa Barbara Economic Forecast Project. 2009. San Luis Obispo County
Economic Outlook 2009. Santa Barbara Economic Forecast Project.
————. 2010. San Luis Obispo County Economic Outlook 2010. Santa Barbara Economic Forecast
Project.
————. 2011. San Luis Obispo County Economic Outlook 2011. Santa Barbara Economic Forecast
Project.
Wood Rodgers. 2012. Technical Memorandum: PA&ED Phase Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis. September 7, 2012. Prepared by Narayanan, Ravi, P.E., T.E., and Nessar, Nawid, P.E.,
T.E.
————. 2014. Branch St/Rodeo Dr/US 101 NB Ramps Intersection – Roundabout Traffic Operations
Analysis. Prepared for: City of Arroyo Grande. May 7, 2014.
————. 2016. Caltrans Draft Appendix E Long Form – Storm Water Data Report. March 2016.
_____________________________________________________________ Attachment G – Draft Environmental Document – Environmental Assessment
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
On U.S. Highway 101 in the City of Arroyo Grande from
Grand Avenue to Oak Park Boulevard
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT 5-SLO-101 (PM 13.1/14.6)
City of Arroyo Grande
Project ID 0500000008
Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
State of California Department of Transportation
The environmental review, consultation, and any other actions required by applicable Federal
environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by Caltrans pursuant to 23 USC
327 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 23, 2016 and executed by FHWA and
Caltrans.
March 2018
General Information About This Document
What’s in this document:
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), as assigned by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the City of Arroyo Grande, has prepared this
Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which
examines the potential environmental impacts of alternatives being considered for the proposed project
in the City of Arroyo Grande, in San Luis Obispo County, California. The Environmental Assessment
explains why the project is being proposed, the alternatives being considered for the project, the existing
environment that could be affected by the project, potential impacts of each of the alternatives, and
proposed avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures.
Concurrent but separate CEQA review:
The City of Arroyo Grande has prepared an Initial Study (IS) in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to assess the potential environmental impacts of the project
alternatives under CEQA requirements. Although the IS includes a similar environmental analysis to this
Environmental Assessment, the IS is subject to a separate public review and approval processes being
conducted by the City of Arroyo Grande. For more information on the IS or CEQA process, you should
contact Teresa McClish, Director of Community Development, at 300 East Branch Street, (805) 473-
5420, or tmcclish@arroyogrande.org.
What you should do:
• Please read this document. Additional copies of the document and related technical studies are
available for review at the Caltrans District 5 office at 50 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, 93401, and at the following libraries:
o City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department at 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo
Grande, California, 93420
o Arroyo Grande Library at 800 West Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, California 93420.
• The document can also be downloaded at the following website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d5
• Attend the Public Workshop. A Public Workshop is scheduled on April 26th at the Arroyo Grande
City Council Chamber, 215 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420.
• We welcome your comments. If you have any comments regarding the proposed project, please
attend the public hearing and/or send your written comments to Caltrans no later than May 12,
2018, via U.S. Mail or email as follows:
Jason Wilkinson
Senior Environmental Planner
California Department of Transportation
50 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov
What happens next:
After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies, Caltrans, as assigned by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the City of Arroyo Grande will respond
to comments, prepare the final environmental decision document and may: 1) give environmental
approval to the proposed project, 2) do additional environmental studies, or 3) abandon the project. If the
project is given environmental approval and funding is obtained, part or all of the project can be designed
and constructed.
For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document can be made available in Braille, in large print, on
audiocassette, or on computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or write to
Caltrans, Attn: Jason Wilkinson, Senior Environmental Planner, 55 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401;
(805) 542-4663 (Voice), or use the California Relay Service 1 (800) 735-2929 (TTY), 1 (800) 735-2929 (Voice), or
711.
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment ii
This page intentionally left blank
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment iii
Summary
NEPA Assignment
California participated in the “Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot
Program” (Pilot Program) pursuant to 23 USC 327, for more than five years,
beginning July 1, 2007, and ending September 30, 2012. MAP-21 (P.L. 112-141),
signed by President Obama on July 6, 2012, amended 23 USC 327 to establish a
permanent Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program. As a result, the
Department entered into a Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to 23 USC 327
(NEPA Assignment MOU) with FHWA. The NEPA Assignment MOU became
effective October 1, 2012, and was renewed on December 23, 2016 for a term of five
years. In summary, the Department continues to assume FHWA responsibilities
under NEPA and other federal environmental laws in the same manner as was
assigned under the Pilot Program, with minor changes. With NEPA Assignment,
FHWA assigned and the Department assumed all of the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) Secretary's responsibilities under NEPA. This assignment
includes projects on the State Highway System and Local Assistance Projects off of
the State Highway System within the State of California, except for certain
categorical exclusions that FHWA assigned to the Department under the 23 USC 326
CE Assignment MOU, projects excluded by definition, and specific project
exclusions.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in conjunction with the City
of Arroyo Grande (City), proposes to make modifications to the U.S. Highway 101
(U.S. 101) interchanges at Brisco-Halcyon Road, East Grand Avenue, and/or Camino
Mercado in the City of Arroyo Grande. Two build alternatives and the No-Build
Alternative are being analyzed in this Environmental Assessment. Alternative 1
proposes closure of the northbound U.S. 101 on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and
modifications to the adjacent interchanges at East Grand Avenue and Camino
Mercado to accommodate the re-directed traffic. Alternative 4C also proposes closure
of the U.S. 101 on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road, but would replace these ramps and
the ramp intersection at Brisco Road with new on- and off-ramps and a new ramp
intersection immediately adjacent to the existing location. The No-Build Alternative
would maintain existing conditions and no improvements to existing facilities would
occur. The No-Build Alternative is analyzed to provide a baseline against which the
environmental effects of the build alternatives can be compared.
The potential impacts of the project are summarized below and discussed in further
detail in this environmental assessment.
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment iv
Summary of Potential Impacts from Alternatives
Potential Impact Alternative 1 Alternative 4C No-Build
Alternative
Land Use
Consistency
with the City
of Arroyo
Grande
General Plan
Inconsistent with
Land Use Element
policy to avoid
construction of
solid walls;
consistent with all
other plans.
Inconsistent with
Land Use Element
policy to avoid
construction of
solid walls;
consistent with all
other plans.
Inconsistent with
policies intended
to accommodate
future growth.
Consistency
with regional
plans and
policies
Inconsistent with
2014 Regional
Transportation
Plan policy to
improve
connectivity
between U.S. 101
and frontage roads
by closing a point
of connection at
Brisco Road
ramps. Consistent
with all other plans
and policies.
Consistent with
plans and policies.
Inconsistent with
policies intended
to accommodate
future growth.
Farmlands
Would convert
approximately 0.58
acre of farmland.
Would convert
approximately 0.58
acre of farmland.
No impact
Relocations
and Real
Property
Acquisition
Businesses
Impacted
Partial acquisitions
at 6 businesses
and 2 vacant
parcels for a total
of 0.59 acre;
businesses would
remain open.
Partial acquisitions
at 4 businesses, 1
community facility,
and 5 vacant
parcels for a total
of 6 acres;
relocation of
County Dept. of
Agriculture building
within same
parcel; businesses
would remain
open.
No impact
Utility service
relocation
Adjustments to
manhole covers
and valve covers;
no relocation of
underground
utilities; limited
relocation of
overhead utilities.
Relocation of
underground and
overhead utilities.
No impact
Emergency Services
Short-term delays;
long-term benefit
due to reduced
congestion.
Short-term delays;
long-term benefit
due to reduced
congestion.
No impact
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Facilities
Improved
bike/pedestrian
access across
U.S. 101 at the
Additional
improvements
associated with
new Park and Ride
No impact
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment v
Summary of Potential Impacts from Alternatives
Potential Impact Alternative 1 Alternative 4C No-Build
Alternative
Grand Avenue
overcrossing;
relocation of RTA
bust stop on Grand
Avenue; modified
bus stop locations.
lot; modified bus
stop locations.
Visual/Aesthetics No impact. No impact. No impact
Hydrology and Floodplain
No substantial
affect or change to
hydrology or
drainage patterns
in the project area.
No substantial
affect or change to
hydrology or
drainage patterns
in the project area.
No impact
Water Quality and Storm Water
Runoff
1.04 acres
permanent
increase in
impervious
surface.
1.71 acres
permanent
increase in
impervious
surface.
Treatment
measures to
reduce pollutant
loading of roadway
runoff would not be
implemented.
Paleontology
Minimal excavation
required in
sensitive areas.
Substantial
excavation
required in
sensitive areas.
No impact
Hazardous Waste and Materials
Gas service
stations at U.S.
101/Grand Avenue
may contain
hazardous
waste/materials
and contaminated
soil/groundwater.
Gas service
stations at U.S.
101/Grand Avenue
may contain
hazardous
waste/materials
and contaminated
soils/groundwater.
No impact
Air Quality
Project area is in
attainment of all
federal standards.
Project area is in
attainment of all
federal standards.
No impact
Noise
Increase of at least
1 decibel at 14
receptors; noise
abatement being
considered in form
of sound walls.
Increase of at least
1 decibel at 23
receptors; noise
abatement being
considered in form
of sound walls.
No impact
Natural Communities
Temporary
impacts to 0.002
acre of riparian
habitat near Brisco
Road/El Camino
Real intersection.
Permanent impact
to 0.024 acre and
temporary impact
to 0.096 acre of
riparian habitat
near Brisco
Road/El Camino
Real intersection,
Grace Lane/Rodeo
Drive intersection,
and south of West
Branch Street.
No impact
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment vi
Summary of Potential Impacts from Alternatives
Potential Impact Alternative 1 Alternative 4C No-Build
Alternative
Wetlands and Other Waters
Permanent
impacts to 0.02
acre and
temporary impacts
to 0.15 acre of
Federal Other
Waters.
Permanent
impacts to 0.05
acre and
temporary impacts
to 0.15 acre of
Federal Other
Waters.
No impact
Animal Species Potential impacts
to migratory birds.
Potential impacts
to migratory birds. No impact
Threatened and Endangered
Species
Consultation with
U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service for
the potential to
affect California
red-legged frog;
project not likely to
adversely affect
California red-
legged frog.
Consultation with
U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service for
the potential to
affect California
red-legged frog;
project not likely to
adversely affect
California red-
legged frog.
No impact
Construction
Short-term
increase in noise,
traffic, dust,
congestion,
detours, delays for
approximate 9-
month-long
construction
period. Night work
and lane closures
would be required.
Short-term
increase in noise,
traffic, dust,
congestion,
detours, delays for
approximate 12-
month-long
construction
period. Night work
and lane closures
would be required.
No impact
Cost (escalated to the
anticipated 2020/2021
construction period)
Right of Way Capital
Construction Capital
Total
$1.8 million
$10.5 million
$12.3 million
$5.6 million
$17.1 million
$22.7 million
None
The City of Arroyo Grande is the project proponent for this project and the lead
agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). FHWA’s
responsibility for environmental review, consultation, and any other actions required
by applicable federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been,
carried out by Caltrans pursuant to 23 United States Code Section 327 (23 USC 327)
and the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 23, 2016, and executed by
FHWA and Caltrans. The project would be funded by a combination of State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP – a multi-year capital improvement
program of transportation projects funded by the federal Transportation Investment
Fund and other sources) and local funding sources.
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment vii
While this project is subject to the requirements of both the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and CEQA, separate environmental documents have been
prepared, one that complies with NEPA and another that complies with CEQA. This
Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of NEPA and other
federal environmental laws. Compliance with CEQA and state environmental laws is
provided in an Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration which will
be approved for public circulation by the City.
After receiving comments from the public and reviewing agencies, final
environmental documents will be prepared for compliance with NEPA and CEQA.
The lead agencies may prepare additional environmental and/or engineering studies to
address comments. The final environmental documents will include responses to
comments received on the Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Initial Study
and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and will identify the preferred
alternative. If the decision is made to approve the project, Caltrans will decide
whether to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or require an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act and the City will decide whether to approve a Mitigated
Negative Declaration or require an Environmental Impact Report to be prepared for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act . A Notice of Availability
(NOA) of the FONSI will be sent to the affected units of federal, state, and local
government, and the State Clearinghouse in compliance with Executive Order 12372.
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment viii
Table of Contents
Summary .............................................................................................................................. iii
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. viii
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... x
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1 Proposed Project ......................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................. 1
1.2.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2.2 Need ................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Project Description ................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Project Alternatives ............................................................................................... 6
1.4.1 Build Alternatives ........................................................................................... 6
1.4.2 No-Build (No-Action) Alternative ............................................................... 16
1.5 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................. 16
1.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion ...................... 18
1.6.1 Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Alternatives ................................................................ 20
1.7 Permits and Approvals Needed ........................................................................... 20
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance,
Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures ......................................................... 23
2.1 Human Environment ........................................................................................... 24
2.1.1 Land Use ....................................................................................................... 24
2.1.2 Farmland ....................................................................................................... 36
2.1.3 Community Character and Cohesion ............................................................ 38
2.1.4 Relocations and Real Property Acquisition .................................................. 48
2.1.5 Utilities and Emergency Services ................................................................. 56
2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ...................... 59
2.1.7 Visual/Aesthetics .......................................................................................... 72
2.2 Physical Environment .......................................................................................... 89
2.2.1 Hydrology and Floodplain ............................................................................ 89
2.2.2 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff ....................................................... 94
2.2.3 Geology, Soils, Seismicity and Topography .............................................. 103
2.2.4 Paleontology ............................................................................................... 112
2.2.5 Hazardous Waste and Materials ................................................................. 119
2.2.6 Air Quality .................................................................................................. 126
2.2.7 Noise ........................................................................................................... 133
2.3 Biological Environment ..................................................................................... 143
2.3.1 Natural Communities .................................................................................. 143
2.3.2 Wetlands and Other Waters ........................................................................ 146
2.3.3 Animal Species ........................................................................................... 151
2.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................... 154
2.4 Construction Impacts ......................................................................................... 157
2.5 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 167
Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination .................................................................. 169
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment ix
3.1 Public Scoping ................................................................................................... 169
3.2 Agency Consultation ......................................................................................... 170
3.2.1 Native American Consultation ................................................................... 170
3.2.2 Local Historical Society / Historic Preservation Group ............................. 170
Chapter 4 List of Preparers ...................................................................................... 171
Chapter 5 Distribution List ...................................................................................... 177
Appendix A Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f): No-
Use Determinations ........................................................................................... 183
Appendix B Title VI Policy Statement .................................................................... 185
Appendix C Summary of Relocation Benefits ........................................................ 187
Appendix D NRCS CPA 106 Form ......................................................................... 191
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Species Lists .......................... 193
Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary ..................... 207
Appendix G List of Technical Studies ..................................................................... 221
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment x
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity Map .......................................................................................... 4
Figure 1-2 Project Location Map ........................................................................................ 5
Figure 1-3 Alternative 1 ...................................................................................................... 9
Figure 1-4 Alternative 4C .................................................................................................. 13
Figure 1-5 Alternative 4C Detail ....................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.1-1 Farmlands ..................................................................................................... 39
Figure 2.1-2 Land Use Map ............................................................................................... 43
Figure 2.1-3 Zoning Map .................................................................................................. 45
Figure 2.1-4 Estimated Right-of-Way Acquisitions, Alternative 1 ................................... 51
Figure 2.1-5 Estimated Right-of-Way Acquisitions, Alternative 4C ................................ 53
Figure 2.1-6 Levels of Service for Two-Way Intersections .............................................. 62
Figure 2.1-7 Levels of Service for Freeways .................................................................... 63
Figure 2.1-8 Levels of Service for Signalized Intersections ............................................. 64
Figure 2.1-9 KVA and Context Photo Locations .............................................................. 74
Figure 2.1-10 Context Photo 1: U.S. 101 southbound, looking toward Brisco Road
Undercrossing ............................................................................................. 75
Figure 2.1-11 Context Photo 2: Rodeo Drive looking southwest toward U.S. 101 and
project area ................................................................................................. 75
Figure 2.1-12 Context Photo 3: U.S. 101 heading southbound at Grand Avenue exit ..... 76
Figure 2.1-13 Context Photo 4: Grand Avenue looking northeast toward the southbound
ramps intersection and the Village of Arroyo Grande beyond ................... 76
Figure 2.1-14 Context Photo 5: View southwest along Grand Avenue as it crosses over
U.S. 101 ...................................................................................................... 77
Figure 2.1-15 Key Viewing Area 1 – Alternatives 1 and 4C ............................................ 79
Figure 2.1-16. Key Viewing Area 2 – Alternative 1 ......................................................... 82
Figure 2.1-17 Key Viewing Area 2 – Alternative 4C ....................................................... 83
Figure 2.1-18 Key Viewing Area 3 – Alternative 1 .......................................................... 85
Figure 2.1-19 Additional Photo-Simulations of the Alternative 4C Roundabout – West
Branch Street Looking East ........................................................................ 87
Figure 2.1-20 Additional Photo-Simulations of the Alternative 4C Roundabout – West
Branch Street Looking West ...................................................................... 88
Figure 2.1-21 Additional Photo-Simulations of the Alternative 4C Roundabout – Rodeo
Drive Looking South .................................................................................. 89
Figure 2.2-1 Flood Zone Map ........................................................................................... 91
Figure 2.2-2 Geologic Map ............................................................................................. 105
Figure 2.2-3 Soils Map .................................................................................................... 107
Figure 2.2-4 Fault Map .................................................................................................... 111
Figure 2.2-5 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Geologic Map ....................................... 115
Figure 2.2-6 Paleontological Sensitivities Map ............................................................... 116
Figure 2.2-7 Noise Levels of Common Activities ........................................................... 135
Figure 2.2-8 Noise Sensitive Receptor and Barrier Locations (1 of 3) ........................... 140
Figure 2.2-9 Noise Sensitive Receptor and Barrier Locations (2 of 3) ........................... 141
Figure 2.2-10 Noise Sensitive Receptor and Barrier Locations (3 of 3) ......................... 142
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment xi
List of Tables
Summary of Potential Impacts from Alternatives ............................................................... iv
Table 1-1 Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................. 17
Table 1-2 Agency Authorizations/Permits ........................................................................ 20
Table 2.1-1 Land Use and Zoning within the Project Boundary ....................................... 25
Table 2.1-2 City of Arroyo Grande Land Uses ................................................................. 26
Table 2.1-3. Development Surrounding the Proposed Project .......................................... 28
Table 2.1-4 Project Consistency with Regional and Local Plans and Policies ................ 31
Table 2.1-5 Farmland Acquisitions in Acres ..................................................................... 37
Table 2.1-6 Block Group Level Demographic Data ......................................................... 42
Table 2.1-7 Real Property Acquisitions ............................................................................ 49
Table 2.1-8 Existing Traffic Conditions (2011) ................................................................ 65
Table 2.1-9 Intersection Operations, Year 2035 ............................................................... 68
Table 2.1-10 Freeway Mainline Operations, Year 2035 ................................................... 68
Table 2.1-11 Freeway Mainline-Ramp Junction Operations, Year 2035 .......................... 69
Table 2.1-12 U.S. 101 Mainline Weaving Segment Operations, Year 2035 .................... 69
Table 2.1-13 Key Viewing Area Locations ....................................................................... 73
Table 2.2-1 Net New Impervious Surface Areas ............................................................. 100
Table 2.2-2 Geologic Units in the Project Area .............................................................. 113
Table 2.2-3 State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources ... 129
Table 2.2-3 State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources ... 130
Table 2.2-3 State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources ... 131
Table 2.2-4 Noise Abatement Criteria ............................................................................. 134
Table 2.2-5 Summary of Increased and Decreased Noise Levels ................................... 138
Table 2.3-1 Proposed Impacts to USACE Jurisdictional Areas (Other Waters) ............. 149
Table 2.3-2 Proposed Impacts to RWQCB Jurisdictional Areas (Waters of the State) .. 150
Table 2.3-3 Proposed Impacts to CDFW Jurisdictional Areas (Alternatives 1 and 4) .... 150
Table 2.4-1 Construction Equipment Noise .................................................................... 160
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment xii
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 1
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
1.1 Introduction
The Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as assigned by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the City of Arroyo Grande, proposes to
construct auxiliary lanes and interchange improvements at U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101)
interchanges at Brisco-Halcyon Road, Grand Avenue, and Camino Mercado. The total
length of the project is 1.5 miles from post mile 13.1 to 14.6. Figures 1-1 and 1-2 show the
project vicinity and project location.
The cost of the project (escalated to the anticipated 2020/2021 construction period) is
estimated to be $12.3 million for Alternative 1 and $22.7 million for Alternative 4C. This
project is included in the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments’ (SLOCOG’s) 2016
Regional Transportation Improvement Plan. Funding of the project is proposed to come
from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects
funded by the federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local
transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the
regional funding agency for the STIP.
1.2 Purpose and Need
1.2.1 Purpose
The purpose of the project is to maximize the efficiency of the existing State and local
roadway systems to better serve the needs of commuter traffic within the city. The project
proposes to correct ramp and mainline operations on U.S. 101 at the Brisco-Halcyon Road
interchange and improve traffic flow for the local and interregional movement of people
and goods. The project would also to continue to accommodate access to existing and
planned local development as follows:
• Provide congestion relief
• Alleviate queuing
• Improve the traffic operations of the regional and local street system in the vicinity of
U.S. 101 in the City of Arroyo Grande; and
• Continue to accommodate access to existing and planned local development.
To achieve this stated project purpose to an adequate degree, this project should:
• Provide direct access from U.S. 101 to and from the commercial, governmental, and
recreational facilities along West Branch Street; and
• Reduce congestion and queuing at the Brisco-Halcyon Road undercrossing
intersections and along East Grand Avenue.
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 2
1.2.2 Need
The proposed modifications are needed to correct existing operational deficiencies in the
project area. Lack of intermodal opportunities, such as park and ride lot facilities,
integrated bus stops, and increased transit services are needed to reduce vehicular travel.
Increasing traffic demand due to increasing development in and around the city, lack of
alternative routes, limited freeway crossing opportunities, and non-standard existing
roadway geometrics combine to cause escalating congestion and safety concerns within
the project area. The levels of service at the northbound and southbound ramp
intersections of the Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange are forecast to deteriorate to
unacceptable levels by year 2020.
Existing Levels of Service (LOS) in the project area operate at unacceptable conditions
(LOS “D” or worse) at the following intersections:
• Brisco Road/El Camino Real: LOS “D” in the PM peak hour
• Halcyon Road/El Camino Real/U.S. 101 southbound on-ramps: LOS “D” in the
AM peak hour
• Grand Avenue/West Branch Street: LOS “E” in the PM peak hour.
Without improvements, six intersections within the project area are projected to operate at
unacceptable conditions by the Year 2035:
• West Branch St/Camino Mercado/ U.S. 101 northbound ramps: LOS “D” in the
PM peak hour
• Brisco Road/El Camino Real: LOS “D” in the AM peak hours and LOS “F” in the
PM peak hour
• Brisco Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps: LOS “D” in the PM peak hour
• Halcyon Road/El Camino Real; U.S. 101 southbound ramps: LOS “D” in the AM
and PM peak hours
• Grand Avenue/ U.S. 101 southbound ramps: LOS “E” in the PM peak hour
• Grand Avenue/West Branch Street: LOS “F” in the AM and PM peak hours.
Federal Highway Administration regulations require projects to have what is referred to as
“logical termini” and “independent utility.” Logical termini refers to the logical
designation of project limits and requires that the end points for the transportation
improvement project be reasonably related to the project’s scale, scope, purpose and need.
The project limits must not be so narrowly defined that they restrict the meaningful
consideration of alternatives. Independent utility means that the project has independent
significance or purpose; it would be a usable and reasonable expenditure/effort even if no
additional transportation improvements are made in the area.
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 3
The proposed project limits are identified in Figure 1-2, below, and include a 1.5 mile
stretch of U.S. 101 through the City of Arroyo Grande, including U.S. 101 ramp
intersections at Brisco-Halcyon Road, Camino Mercado, and Grand Avenue. The end
points (termini) are logical in that the project purpose is to resolve traffic congestion
issues in the vicinity of U.S. 101 in the City of Arroyo Grande and the project area
includes the impacted intersections. The project intersections also serve as the primary
accessways to the important commercial, retail, recreational, and governmental uses
adjacent to the U.S. 101 mainline that the project is intended to accommodate.
This project also has independent utility in that both Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C
would provide congestion relief and meet accessibility and planning objectives, regardless
of the development of any additional transportation improvements in the area.
1.3 Project Description
This section describes the proposed action and the project alternatives that were developed
to meet the project purpose and need while avoiding or minimizing environmental
impacts. The project is located along U.S. 101 in the City of Arroyo Grande in
southwestern San Luis Obispo County. The total length of the project is 1.5 miles.
Within the limits of the proposed project, U.S. 101 is a 4-lane divided freeway that forms
full-access interchanges within the City of Arroyo Grande at Oak Park Boulevard, Brisco-
Halcyon Road, and Grand Avenue. The purpose of the project is to provide congestion
relief, alieve queuing, and improve the traffic operations of the regional and local street
system in the vicinity of U.S. 101 in the City of Arroyo Grande through the construction
of auxiliary lanes and interchange modifications.
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 4
Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity Map
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 5
Figure 1-2 Project Location Map
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 6
1.4 Project Alternatives
Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C have been included for more detailed review in this
Environmental Assessment. Both build alternatives will require a new Freeway
Agreement between Caltrans and the City of Arroyo Grande due to the proposed closure
of the existing U.S. 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road.
1.4.1 Build Alternatives
Common Design Features of the Build Alternatives
Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C both propose closure and removal of the U.S. 101
northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and modifications to one or more adjacent
roadways and ramp intersections to accommodate existing and anticipated future traffic
demands. Design measures proposed under both alternatives include the following:
• Closure and removal of U.S. 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and
removal of the associated traffic signal equipment.
• Reconstruction of Brisco Road between El Camino Real and West Branch Street to
provide 15-foot vertical clearance at the Brisco Road undercrossing.
• Relocation of the U.S. 101 southbound on-ramp at Grand Avenue from its existing
location to opposite the existing U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp approach, and
associated traffic signal phasing modifications. This would include installation of a
double 54-inch concrete pipe culvert to carry storm water under the realigned ramp.
• The areas to both sides of the realigned southbound on-ramp at Grand Avenue would
be re-graded to blend with adjacent slopes. Revegetation would include plantings
similar to what is existing along the freeway fringes and in the interchange areas.
• Any slopes or other areas along the highway or local roadways that are impacted by
construction would be re-graded to blend with adjacent slopes and re-vegetated with
species similar to those that currently exist in adjacent areas.
Unique Features of the Build Alternatives
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 includes the following unique design elements, which are shown on Figure
1-3:
• Construction of an additional left-turn lane on the northbound off-ramp at the East
Grand Avenue/U.S. 101 intersection and construction of an exclusive right-turn lane
on the westbound approach to the northbound on-ramp.
• Widening of East Grand Avenue overcrossing between both ramp intersections to
provide 12-foot-wide lanes, eight-foot-wide shoulders, and six-foot-wide sidewalks.
• Reconstruction of the southbound U.S. 101 pavement under the East Grand Avenue
overcrossing on a lower profile to provide 15’0” vertical clearance under the bridge.
• Improvements to the northbound U.S. 101 on-ramp/Camino Mercado/West Branch
Street intersection. These improvements include widening and restriping the
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 7
northbound West Branch Street approach to provide a second northbound left-turn
lane to the U.S. 101 northbound on-ramp and modifying the northbound on-ramp to
provide two receiving lanes that merge to a single lane with a 950+-foot auxiliary
lane. The U.S. 101 northbound on-ramp would be designed to provide for future ramp
metering.
• The southbound Brisco Road undercrossing approach to El Camino Real would be
restriped to create one exclusive left-turn lane and one shared through-right lane. The
existing Brisco Road three-lane undercrossing would be restriped to accommodate two
southbound lanes and one northbound lane. At the Brisco Road/West Branch Street
intersection, one left-turn lane and one shared left-right turn pocket would be
constructed for the northbound approach.
• Permanent storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be
constructed within the City-owned portion of this alternative.
• No permanent storm water treatment BMPs would be constructed within Caltrans-
owned portions of this alternative. Fill at the northwest quadrant of the U.S.
101/Grand Avenue interchange would cover part of an existing bio-strip. Hydroseed
and compost would be placed to restore the existing bio-strip.
• Adjustments of manhole covers or valve covers with no relocation of underground
utilities are anticipated. Some limited relocation of overhead utility facilities may be
required.
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 8
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 9
Figure 1-3 Alternative 1
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 10
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 11
Alternative 4C
Alternative 4C proposes to move the northbound ramps and ramp intersection at
Brisco Road with new ramps and a new intersection to intersect with West Branch
Street across from Grace Lane. The new northbound ramps/Grace Lane intersection
would include a single-lane roundabout. Alternative 4C includes the following unique
design elements, which are shown on Figures 1-4 and 1-5:
• Construction of new U.S. 101 northbound on- and off-ramps that would connect
to the new single-lane roundabout at the Grace Lane/West Branch Street
intersection.
• Reconfiguration of the existing Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection to provide a
larger radius curve on Grace Lane that would convert Grace Lane to a through
street and Rodeo Drive to a stop-controlled side street. With the proposed
reconfiguration, Grace Lane would extend south/west from the intersection to
West Branch Street. Rodeo Drive would terminate at the reconfigured Grace
Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection (refer to Figure 1-4). This modification would
result in a street name change from Rodeo Drive to Grace Lane between the
Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection and West Branch Street. A retaining wall or
cut slope would be required at the reconfigured intersection.
• Realignment of West Branch Street to provide greater separation between the new
U.S. 101 northbound ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection and the
U.S. 101 mainline. Retaining walls would be required along the north side of
West Branch Street and between the Grace Lane off-ramp and West Branch
Street.
• Reconstruction of Grace Lane (formerly Rodeo Drive) on a new alignment and
profile to intersect West Branch Street opposite the proposed U.S. 101
northbound on- and off-ramps at Grace Lane.
• At the Brisco Road/El Camino Real intersection, restriping to provide for one
exclusive left-turn lane and one shared through-right lane for the southbound
Brisco Road undercrossing approach to El Camino Real. The existing three-lane
Brisco Road undercrossing would be restriped to accommodate two southbound
lanes and one northbound lane. The westbound El Camino Real approach would
be modified to include a single left-turn lane, through lane, and a right-turn lane.
• Construction of a new bridge spanning Brisco Road as part of the new U.S. 101
northbound on-ramp at Grace Lane onto U.S. 101.
• Construction of auxiliary lanes between the U.S. 101 northbound on-ramp at East
Grand Avenue and the northbound off-ramp at Grace Lane, and between the
northbound on-ramp at Grace Lane to the northbound off-ramp at Camino
Mercado.
• Construction of a left-turn lane for the eastbound West Branch Street approach to
the Arroyo Grande Library/South County Regional Center driveway.
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 12
• Directional signage at the Rodeo Drive/James Way intersection to reflect street
name change to Grace Lane.
• Relocation of a modular building and reconfiguration of parking at the Arroyo
Grande Library/South County Regional Center. The project would remove
approximately 46 existing parking spaces from the South County Regional Center
and would construct a new parking lot on the same parcel with 46 new parking
spaces. Handicap parking spaces and ADA accessibility would be provided.
• Development of a bus turn-out and pedestrian access improvements along Grace
Lane (formerly Rodeo Drive) in front of St. Patrick’s school.
• Permanent storm water treatment BMPs would be considered for implementation.
This is expected to include design pollution prevention infiltration type BMPs or
bio-strips or bio-swales, if feasible.
• Construction of soundwalls on the southbound side of U.S. 101 between the Oak
Park Boulevard Interchange and Stonecrest Drive and between the Halcyon Road
on-ramp and the Grand Avenue off-ramp. The soundwalls would be constructed
at the existing Caltrans right-of-way boundary and would not preclude the
ultimate six-lane configuration of U.S. 101.
• The proposed changes in grade at West Branch Street and Grace Lane and where
the new northbound ramps would be constructed will require relocation of
underground utilities. Elsewhere, the changes in grade at underground utility
locations is not substantial, so only adjustment of manhole covers or valve covers
is anticipated. Some limited relocation of overhead utility facilities may also be
required.
• While exact area estimates for construction easements for Alternative 4C are not
yet available, it is anticipated that temporary easements would be needed in the
following locations: (1) at the St. Patrick’s school athletic field during
construction of the retaining wall along the north side of West Branch Street; (2)
at the Arroyo Grande Library/South County Regional Center for construction of
the retaining walls along the proposed southerly extension of Grace Lane
(currently Rodeo Drive) and West Branch Street; and (3) at the vacant privately-
owned Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 007-011-041 for reconfiguration of the
Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection.
Alternative 4C includes development of a new Park and Ride lot adjacent to the
proposed roundabout intersection. The Park and Ride lot has been provided in
Alternative 4C as requested by the City of Arroyo Grande and SLOCOG. Alternative
4C realigns Rodeo Drive and constructs new ramps that would provide convenient
access between U.S. 101 and the Park and Ride lot. The City-owned parcel between
Rodeo Drive and St. Patrick’s School provides the space to construct the Park and
Ride lot.
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 13
Figure 1-4 Alternative 4C
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 14
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 15
Figure 1-5 Alt ernative 4C Detail
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 16
Alternative 4C would also provide additional improvements to increase alternative
transportation facilities in the City.
• A Park and Ride lot with landscaping would be constructed on the City-owned lot
between the proposed U.S. 101 northbound ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street
intersection and St. Patrick’s school. The Park and Ride lot would include
approximately 22-26 spaces and is expected to serve workers commuting to north San
Luis Obispo County, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Maria.
The bus stop would continue to be located on Grace Lane, not inside the Park and
Ride lot.
The Park and Ride lot opportunity evolved during preliminary design for Alternative 4C
in response to public comment received during stakeholder outreach efforts during its
development, including those with San Luis Obispo County, SLOCOG, and St. Patrick’s
School. The Park and Ride lot was included in Alternative 4C when it was identified that
Rodeo Drive would be realigned eastward at the area adjacent to the City-owned vacant
lot, along with other access revisions included for the County-owned property east of the
proposed roundabout and St. Patrick’s property to the west. Additionally, SLOCOG has
commented that a Park and Ride lot located at this location is desired to work with the
existing lot located at the southbound ramps at Halcyon.
This location was included in the San Luis Obispo County U.S. 101 Bus Rapid Transit
Applications Study (SLOCOG 2013) as a potential location for a Park and Ride lot and
SLOCOG has indicated strong support for the Park and Ride lot component under
Alternative 4C. It is not anticipated that removal of the Park and Ride lot would
substantially reduce costs of Alternative 4C, due to the remaining need for and extent of
construction in the vicinity to realign Rodeo Drive and property access drives.
1.4.2 No-Build (No-Action) Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would maintain existing conditions within the project area. No
proposed modifications or improvements to existing U.S. 101 ramps, intersections,
adjacent local roadways, or public transportation facilities would occur.
1.5 Comparison of Alternatives
The proposed build alternatives are summarized in Table 1-1.
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 17
Table 1-1 Comparison of Alternatives
Project Component Alternative 1 Alternative 4C
U.S. 101/Brisco-Halcyon Road
Ramps Intersections
• Removal of northbound Brisco
Road on- and off-ramps
• Restriping/reconfiguration of
Brisco Road/El Camino Real
intersection and
undercrossing
• Removal of northbound Brisco
Road on- and off-ramps
• Construction of new
northbound on- and off-ramps
at adjacent location along
West Branch Street
• Construction of new
roundabout intersection at
northbound ramps/West
Branch Street/Grace Lane
intersection.
• Realignment of Rodeo Drive
to meet new roundabout
intersection and re-name to
Grace Lane.
U.S. 101/Grand Avenue
Intersections
• Restriping/reconfiguration of
northbound ramps intersection
• Realignment of southbound
on-ramp
• Realignment of southbound
on-ramp
U.S. 101/Camino Mercado
Intersection
• Restriping/reconfiguration at
northbound ramps intersection • N/A
Brisco Road/El Camino Real
Intersection
• Restriping/reconfiguration of
intersection
• Restriping/reconfiguration of
intersection
U.S. 101 auxiliary lanes
• New northbound auxiliary lane
between Brisco-Halcyon Road
and Camino Mercado
• New northbound auxiliary lane
between Grand Avenue and
Camino Mercado
Rodeo Drive • N/A
• Reconfiguration and
realignment of Rodeo Drive to
meet new roundabout
intersection
• Rename to Grace Lane
Pedestrian/Bicycle/Transit
Improvements
• Widening of Grand Avenue to
provide improved
bike/pedestrian access
• Relocation of Grand Avenue
RTA stop
• New Park & Ride lot adjacent
to new roundabout
intersection
Parking • N/A
• New Park & Ride lot adjacent
to new roundabout
intersection
• New parking lot in rear of
Arroyo Grande Library to
replace parking area to be
acquired
Cost (escalated to anticipated
2020/2021 construction period) • $12.3 million • $22.7 million
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 18
After the public circulation and comment period, all comments will be considered, and
Caltrans, in cooperation with the City of Arroyo Grande, will select a preferred alternative
and will make the final determination of the project’s effect on the environment. If it is
determined that the action does not significantly impact the environment, a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) will be issued in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
1.6 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further
Discussion
As part of the project development process, representatives from the City of Arroyo
Grande and the California Department of Transportation followed a process of screening
alternatives to identify alternatives to be carried forward for further study in the
environmental document. Numerous variations of different build alternatives have been
developed for the project over the 15-year planning phase of the project, and the following
criteria were used to determine which alternatives would be evaluated in the draft
environmental document:
Criterion 1: How well does the alternative address the deficiencies identified and the
objectives of this project?
Criterion 2: Does the alternative meet City and State design standards, avoid
operational and safety problems, and meet driver expectations?
Criterion 3: Does the alternative avoid potentially adverse impacts to adjacent
properties and land uses?
Criterion 4: Does the alternative avoid adverse impacts to the environment?
Criterion 5: Which alternative would provide the most benefits for the least financial
expenditure?
Based on a lengthy analysis of the project alternatives under these criteria, Alternative 1
and Alternative 4C are being carried forward for review.
The project has undergone an extensive planning process and many design alternatives
have been considered. Many variations of five different project alternatives have been
previously evaluated through a preliminary comparison of each alternative against several
major project criteria. Major project features used for alternative evaluation include
projected traffic effects, project cost, feasibility of project design, and potential
environmental impacts. Most build alternatives were found to be infeasible due to
geographical limitations at the site (i.e., not enough space to design required road
improvements) or unresolved traffic issues (i.e., the alternatives either created conditions
that caused additional congestion or failed to ease the existing and projected future
congestion levels that necessitated this project).
In September 2001, a Project Study Report was completed, which developed alternatives
to improve the operation of the Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange on U.S. 101 in Arroyo
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 19
Grande. The approved document initially identified five alternatives and recommended
four of the alternatives (three “build” alternatives, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, and the “No-
Build” Alternative) for further evaluation.
In 2007, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 were analyzed further. All three alternatives proposed
closure of the U.S. 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road in the center of
Arroyo Grande and improvements to the adjacent U.S. 101 interchanges at Grand Avenue
and/or Camino Mercado. Alternative 2 (a variant of Alternative 1, described below) and
Alternative 5 (which proposed realignment of West Branch Street so that it intersects with
East Grand Avenue at the northbound on-ramp location) were dropped from further
consideration after completion of several technical Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analyses and detailed engineering design study.
Alternative 2 proposed to construct an overcrossing that would span U.S. 101 at Rodeo
Drive. This alternative would remove the northbound U.S. 101 ramps at Brisco Road. To
construct a new overcrossing, El Camino Real and West Branch Street would need to be
reconstructed on higher profiles and retaining walls would be required to avoid impacts to
the cemetery and to minimize right-of-way requirements. This Alternative would require
approval of mandatory and advisory design standards for vertical clearance,
superelevation, and vertical curve length. Alternative 2 had a substantially higher cost
than Alternative 1 and 5. Therefore, Alternative 2 was dropped from further consideration.
Alternative 5 was modified to have a northbound on- and off-ramp to U.S. 101 from West
Branch Street opposite Old Ranch Road. This Alternative was named Alternative 3. Two
additional alternatives were eventually derived from Alternative 3: Alternative 3A and 3B.
Alternative 3B was eventually dropped from consideration after completing detailed
engineering and environmental study. Alternatives 5, 3, 3A, and 3B where shown to be
infeasible after completing detailed engineering design study, due to physical constraints
which would have led to unapprovable nonstandard design features.
In 2010, Alternative 4 was formally added for consideration and studied in detail.
Alternative 4 was similar to Alternative 4C and included realignment of West Branch
Street and new northbound ramps from West Branch Street opposite Rodeo Drive. The
new intersection was proposed to be controlled using a new traffic signal. It also included
removal of the existing northbound Brisco Road ramps. After numerous design meeting
and consultation with Caltrans and the City, Alternative 4A, 4B, and 4C were developed
with intention to incrementally improve and in some cases remove design exceptions.
Alternative 4C originally proposed two treatment options at the new U.S. 101 northbound
ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection: a signalized intersection and a single-
lane roundabout. In 2015, the signalized intersection option was dropped primarily
because actual observed speeds and the existing signed speed limit were greater than
achievable design speed (the design speed was proposed as 35 mph, lower than the posted
speed of 40 mph). The Alternative 4C signalized treatment option also created potential
sight distance issues due to the current configuration of West Branch Street. In order for
the signalized option to be viable, West Branch Street would have to be reconstructed with
traffic calming features incorporated and speeds would need to be confirmed with a speed
survey. Alternative 4C (roundabout) was ultimately chosen as the design that best
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 20
balanced the needs and requirements of both Caltrans and the City, and Alternatives 4A,
4B, and 4C (signalized) were dropped from further consideration.
1.6.1 Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Alternatives
Although Transportation System Management and Transportation Demand Management
measures alone could not satisfy the purpose and need of the project, the following
Transportation System Management and Transportation Demand Management measures
have been incorporated into the build alternatives for this project:
• Alternative 1:
o Auxiliary lanes
o Traffic signal phasing modifications
o Turning lanes
o Bike and pedestrian lanes
• Alternative 4C:
o Auxiliary lanes
o Traffic signal phasing modifications
o Turning lanes
o Park and Ride lot
o Bus turn-out for use by the public transit system
o Pedestrian access improvements
1.7 Permits and Approvals Needed
The following permits, reviews, and approvals would be required for project construction:
Table 1-2 Agency Authorizations/Permits
Agency Permit/Approval Status
City of Arroyo Grande, Caltrans,
and California Transportation
Commission (CTC)
Freeway Agreement (for closure
of the existing U.S. 101
northbound ramps at Brisco
Road)
Execution and approval by CTC
required prior to project
construction
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS)
Section 7 Programmatic
Biological Opinion for California
red-legged frog
Consultation with USFWS will
occur prior to publication of the
final environmental document
State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) / Regional
Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB)
Clean Water Act Section 401
Water Quality Certification
Will be required prior to
completion of the final design
specifications
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 21
Table 1-2 Agency Authorizations/Permits
Agency Permit/Approval Status
State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) / Regional
Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB)
Construction General Permit Will be required during
construction
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE)
Clean Water Act Section 404
Nationwide Permit
Obtain after Jurisdictional
Determination approval and prior
to completion of the final design
specifications
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW)
Section 1602 Streambed
Alteration Agreement
Will be required prior to
completion of the final design
specifications
Utility providers Notice/Agreement for utility
relocation
Agreements with affected utility
providers will be required prior to
project construction
San Luis Obispo Air Pollution
Control District (SLOAPCD)
Construction permits, if
necessary
Will be required prior to project
construction if determined
necessary by SLOAPCD
Chapter 1 Proposed Project
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 22
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 23
Chapter 2 Affected Environment,
Environmental Consequences,
and Avoidance, Minimization,
and/or Mitigation Measures
This chapter of the EA analyzes the affected environment, environmental consequences,
and avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures of the proposed project. All
short-term construction related impacts are discussed in Section 2.4, Construction
Impacts.
As part of the scoping and environmental analysis done for the project, the following
environmental issues were considered, but no adverse impacts were identified. So, there is
no further discussion of these issues in this document.
• Coastal Zone: No portion of the project area or the City of Arroyo Grande is within
the Coastal Zone. No impacts would occur.
• Wild and Scenic Rivers: No wild and scenic rivers are located in San Luis Obispo
County. No impact would occur.
• Parks and Recreational Facilities: No public parks or recreational facilities or
Section 4(f) resources (public parks, public recreational facilities, wildlife and
waterfowl refuges, and historic sites) will be impacted by this project, see Appendix A
“Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4(f): No-Use
Determination”. Alternative 4C would permanently acquire approximately 350 square
feet in the southernmost corner of the St. Patrick’s sports field area; however, as this is
a private recreational facility with no public access.
• Growth: The proposed project has been identified in regional planning documents as
a necessary improvement in response to traffic congestion resulting from local and
regional growth that has already occurred. The project improvements would be located
in an urbanized area of Arroyo Grande surrounding the U.S. 101 corridor. The
proposed project would support the future planned development of these areas
consistent with local plans and policies, but no excess capacity would result that
would encourage redevelopment of the project area beyond what is currently planned.
The likelihood of growth-related effects is low due to the nature of the project, low
historic growth rates, the extent of existing development in the project study area,
existing constraints on future development, and existing ease of accessibility
(Community Impact Assessment 2018).
• Timberlands: There are no timberlands located in San Luis Obispo County. No
impacts would occur (refer to Community Impact Assessment 2018).
• Environmental Justice: No low-income or minority populations were identified
within the project study area. The project will not cause disproportionately high and
adverse effects on any minority or low-income populations (Community Impact
Assessment 2018). The Title VI Policy Statement is included in Appendix B.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 24
• Cultural Resources: The background research, consultation, and field surveys
conducted for the project area identified no historical or archaeological resources
within or adjacent to the project area (Archaeological Survey Report, August 2012;
Supplemental Archaeological Survey Report, January 2016; Historic Property Survey
Report, June 2012; and Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report, February
2016).
• Tribal Cultural Resources: In addition to ongoing Native American consultation that
the City has conducted throughout the project development phase (since 2005), the
City complied with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 by sending a Notice of Opportunity to
Consult to all Native American tribes that have provided notice to the City regarding
consultation under AB 52 in July 2017. The results of consultation that the City has
been engaged in since 2005 identified the region as sensitive for cultural resources and
several potential sites and cultural resources in the project vicinity. These resources
are considered tribal cultural resources. However, the project area is heavily disturbed
and comprised largely of engineered/artificial fill material and no known tribal cultural
resources exist within the proposed area of disturbance.
• Plant Species: No protected plant species were found within the project footprint
(Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Natural Environment Study
[SWCA 2018]). No impacts would occur.
• Invasive Species: The project area consists almost entirely of disturbed developed
areas that will remain disturbed by the development of the proposed project after
construction. Invasive species currently exist throughout the project area (e.g.,
iceplant; refer to Table 1 in the Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications
Project Natural Environment Study [SWCA 2018]). In compliance with the Executive
Order (EO) on Invasive Species, EO 13112, the landscaping and erosion control
included in the project will not use species listed as invasive. All equipment and
materials will be inspected for the presence of invasive species and cleaned if
necessary.
2.1 Human Environment
2.1.1 Land Use
Information in this section comes from the 2018 Community Impact Assessment prepared
for the project.
Existing and Future Land Use
The project area consists of a 1.5-mile stretch along U.S. 101 within an urban area. The
majority of the project boundary is comprised of state (Caltrans) or local (City) right-of-
ways and do not have a particular land use category or zoning designation. However,
adjoining parcels support a variety of existing land uses within a range of City
designations. Land use categories and zoning designations of parcels within the project
boundary are listed in Table 2.1-1 and shown in Figures 2.1-2 and 2.1-3.
The large majority of the project boundary is located within state and local rights of way
(approximately 69%); the only other predominant land use category within the project
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 25
boundary is Community Facilities, comprising 21.38%. The project boundary includes
small portions of parcels within other land use categories, as reflected in Table 2.1-1.
Several large parcels within the Community Facilities designation support St. Patrick’s
Catholic School, the Arroyo Grande Library/South County Regional Center, San Luis
Obispo County Agricultural Department, and the Arroyo Grande cemetery. There are also
several large parcels designated Regional Commercial that accommodate three large
shopping centers north along West Branch Street, including a K-Mart, Walmart, Trader
Joe’s, Office Max, Albertson’s, Marshalls, Regal Arroyo Grande Stadium 10 movie
theater complex, and other large retail stores. These and other commercial and retail
businesses along the project boundary draw regional customers from the surrounding
communities of Shell Beach, Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, Oceano, Halcyon, and Nipomo.
Table 2.1-1 Land Use and Zoning within the Project Boundary
Designation Total Acres % of Project
Boundary
State or Local Right-of-Way (no designations) 61.9 69%
Land Use Categories
Single Family Residential – Low Density 2.13 2.4
Single Family Residential – Low Medium Density 0.31 0.35
Single Family Residential – Medium Density 0.05 0.06
Agriculture 2.06 2.31
Conservation / Open Space 0.69 0.77
Community Facilities 19.06 21.38
Mixed-Use 2.77 3.11
Village Core 0.01 0.01
Regional Commercial 0.10 0.11
Land Use Subtotal (Excluding Right of Way) 27.2 31%
LAND USE TOTAL (Including Right of Way) 89.1 100%
Zoning Designations
Multi-Family Residential 0.47 0.53
Residential Suburban 0.05 0.06
Planned Development 3.26 3.66
Agriculture 2.06 2.31
Public Facility 18.36 20.60
Highway Mixed-Use 0.72 0.81
Village Mixed-Use 0.12 0.14
Industrial Mixed-Use 2.00 2.24
Regional Commercial 0.11 0.12
Zoning Subtotal (Excluding Right of Way) 27.2 31%
ZONING TOTAL (Including Right of Way) 89.1 100%
Source: Community Impact Assessment 2018.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 26
The City of Arroyo Grande’s primary land uses are residential, ranging from large-lot
single-family homes to multi-family apartment buildings, with supporting commercial,
agricultural, and open space uses (Community Impact Assessment 2018). Large
Community Facility and Regional Commercial uses are designated along the U.S. 101
corridor through the City. Parcels along Grand Avenue (another important regional
connector route through the City) support extensive Mixed Use designations west of U.S.
101 and Village Core/Mixed Use designations within the historic downtown village east
of U.S. 101. Open Space uses are generally located in the hills in the northern portion of
the City and important intensive agricultural areas extend along the south and southeast
perimeter of the City.
Land uses within the City are listed in Table 2.1-2 and land use and zoning designations
are shown in Figures 2.1-2 and 2.1-3.
Table 2.1-2 City of Arroyo Grande Land Uses
Land Use Category Acres % of City Area
Residential Uses
SFR – Very Low Density 46.3 1.5
SFR – Low Density 352.8 11.4
SFR – Low Medium Density 582.6 18.8
SFR – Medium Density 543.9 17.6
MFR – Medium High Density 153.4 5.0
MFR – High Density 43.1 1.4
MFR – Very High Density 5.4 0.2
Subtotal 1,727.5 55.9
Other Uses
Agriculture 345.8 11.2
Conservation/Open Space 308.8 10.0
Community Facilities 368.2 11.9
Mixed Use 198.4 6.4
Village Core 51.2 1.6
Office Professional 30.7 1.0
Regional Commercial 60.3 2.0
Subtotal 1,363.4 44.1
TOTAL 3,090.9 100
Source: Community Impact Assessment 2018.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 27
Those parcels directly surrounding the proposed project site have experienced heavy
development in the past 20 years, most notably the development of 44 acres of land for a
large-scale shopping center northwest of the U.S. 101/Brisco Road intersection. This
shopping center includes a Walmart, Albertson’s, Office Max, Marshalls, Trader Joe’s, In-
and-Out Burger, and Chili’s Grill and Bar Restaurant, and draws customers from the
surrounding communities. In addition, approximately 20 acres on the west side of U.S.
101 and fronting El Camino Real are currently underutilized, comprised of vacant land,
trailer storage, light industrial uses, and some retail. The City anticipates that this area is
likely to develop and re-develop, intensifying over time. The U.S. 101 interchange at
Brisco-Halcyon Road serves as an important connection to these existing and intensifying
commercial, industrial, and retail areas.
A 19-lot residential subdivision along Grace Lane has been approved and is currently
being constructed. All public improvements have been installed and accepted, and 16
units have been constructed and are occupied. A regional recreational center is planned
for one of the vacant Community Facility parcels at West Branch Street/Old Ranch Road
and has been entitled through a development agreement.
The City of Arroyo Grande encompasses approximately 3,707 total acres. Approximately
1,728 acres (or 47%) are designated for residential uses. Most of the land within the city
limits designated for residential use has been developed. Based on the Vacant Sites
Inventory prepared in conjunction with the Arroyo Grande Housing Element Update,
approximately 58.23 acres, or 3.4%, of residential lands are currently vacant and remain
suitable for development. The Inventory also identifies more than 50 acres of additional
growth sites, including several Mixed Use parcels that could accommodate additional
residential growth and other opportunity sites where existing development does not equal
the maximum density allowances and infill development would be possible if pursued by
the property owners. Because of the limited residential growth capacity within the
existing General Plan land use designations (less than 4%), the City receives requests to
rezone existing residential land to higher densities and/or convert non-residential land uses
to residential designations (Community Impact Assessment 2018).
Areas just south of the City (Nipomo, Nipomo Mesa) have experienced higher levels of
growth than all other parts of the County in the last 10 years and contribute to existing
traffic congestion within the project area. Growth in Nipomo outpaced all other areas of
the County between 2000 and 2010, growing by 24.5% compared to 12% in the total
unincorporated county and 8.5% in the county as a whole [U.S. Census]). The San Luis
Obispo County Housing Element also identifies Nipomo (along with San Miguel, Los
Osos, and Cambria) as an area of potential substantial future residential growth due to the
availability of vacant and underutilized land; though, it is uncertain how existing water
supply issues and other constraints will limit new development in this area in the future
(Community Impact Assessment 2018).
Table 2.1-3 outlines currently pending or proposed projects within the project study area.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 28
Table 2.1-3. Development Surrounding the Proposed Project
No. Address / APN # What is Proposed Status
1 1177 Ash Street 4 1-bedroom residential units Approved
2 South Courtland Street /
077-131-053 & 077-131-055
36-unit apartment complex on 1.63
acres Complete
3 880 Oak Park Boulevard /
007-771-076; -065; -053
New 70-bed convalescent facility and
independent living on 1.8 acres Approved
4 Grace Lane 15 single-family homes and 4
apartments on 30 acres
Mostly
constructed, 2
lots remain
5 Farroll Avenue 65 townhouses on 10 acres Complete
6 May Street 7 residential lots Under
Construction
7 189 Brisco Road Construction of 4 residential units Approved
8 South Courtland Street and
Ash Street 47 townhouses on 5 acres Complete
9 James Way and La Canada /
007-781-024 15 single-family homes Approved
10 East Cherry Avenue and Myrtle
Street / 007-565-004 28 single-family homes
Under
construction,
nearing
completion
11 579 Camino Mercado 60-unit senior condominium complex
and 3,000 SF recreation center Complete
12 Fair Oaks Avenue and Woodland
Drive / 006-572-010
Residential subdivision, 30
townhouses on 5.5 acres Complete
13 451 Hidden Oak Road /
007-070-017
Ten lot single-family subdivision on
11 acres Approved
14 415 E. Branch Street /
007-203-018
Residential subdivision and
Creekside Mixed use, 24
townhouses and 13,000 SF
retail/office building on 2.78 acres
Approved
15 Huasna Rd / 007-861-018 &
007-751-004 12 residential lots Under
Construction
16 Corbett Canyon / 007-031-038 &
007-791-034 11 residential lots Approved
17 SW corner of S. Elm Street and The
Pike / 077-332-027
18 townhouses and five studio
apartments on 1.27 acres Complete
18 250 Ridgeview Way / 007-241-024 3 residential lots Under
Construction
19 379 Alder Street / 077-204-008 4 residential lots Approved
20 Pine Street / 077-171-020 2 residential lots Approved
21 Pearwood Avenue / 007-471-018 8 residential lots Approved
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 29
Table 2.1-3. Development Surrounding the Proposed Project
No. Address / APN # What is Proposed Status
22 Old Ranch Road / 007-011-052
through -056
4 residential lots and 1 public facility
lot Complete
23 150 El Camino Real / 006-311-081 &
006-311-020
6,000 sq. ft. commercial building for
use as mattress store Complete
24 1390 West Branch Street /
007-771-078
3,650 sq. ft. Panera Bread with drive-
thru Complete
25 1173 Fair Oaks Avenue Addition of 8 units to existing
apartment complex Pending
26 SW Corner of East Grand Avenue &
Courtland Street / 077-131-052, -054
36 residences & 15,000 sq. ft.
commercial
Under
Construction
27 East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way
/ 007-621-079
51 new residences, cultural center,
unknown commercial development Approved
28 159 Brisco Road Construction of 4 residential units Approved
29 383 Alder Street / 077-204-009 4 residential lots Pending
30 The Heights at Vista del Mar
Annexation, General Plan
Amendment and Prezoning for new
22 unit residential subdivision
Approved
31 Fair Oaks Avenue and Woodland
Drive 50,000 sq. ft. medical office building Under
Construction
32 325 E. Branch Street 51-room boutique hotel Under
Construction
33 382 Halcyon Construction of 20 residential units Pending
34 1029 Ash Street Construction of 7 single family
homes Approved
35 727 El Camino Real 3,150 sq. ft. Popeye’s restaurant with
drive-thru Pending
36 345 S. Halcyon 4,975 sq. ft. hospital expansion Under
Construction
37 184 Brisco Road Construction of 8 residential units Pending
Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs
Regional planning documents of San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
and the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan (including the Agriculture, Conservation and
Open Space Element, Land Use Element, Circulation Element, and Economic
Development Element) were reviewed for consistency with the proposed project. The
following sections identify specific policies within these plans that relate, either directly or
indirectly, to the proposed transportation improvement project.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 30
2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
SLOCOG’s 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2014
RTP/SCS) delineates a set of regional transportation goals, policies, and actions intended
to guide development of the planned transportation systems in the region and address the
relationship of transportation and land use policies and practices. The Sustainable
Communities Strategy creates a greater emphasis and integration of land use, resources,
and community health in the plan.
The project area is identified as an “emerging issue” in the 2014 RTP/SCS. The 2014
RTP/SCS identifies the proposed Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
as an improvement project planned in the short-term horizon to address capacity concerns
at the Brisco Road and Grand Avenue interchanges.
Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element of the City of Arroyo
Grande General Plan
The Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element recognizes agricultural and open
space uses as resources that are irretrievable and/or irreplaceable, and that contribute to
overall public health, safety and welfare beyond their provision of basic necessities such
as food, fiber and livelihood.
Land Use Element of the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
The Land Use Element generally discusses the benefit of growth within the City, but also
recognizes that the location, scale, and nature of operation of new developments can
create compatibility issues, such as noise, traffic, lighting, and other problems.
Circulation Element of the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
The Circulation Element establishes objectives and policies to manage traffic and
circulation patterns within the city, maintain appropriate levels of service on all streets,
encourage alternative modes of transportation, ensure compatibility between land use
decisions and transportation, and coordinate planning and funding options.
Economic Development Element of the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
The Economic Development Element addresses strategies to support businesses proposing
appropriate projects within the scope of the General Plan. It is consistent with other City
or Chamber of Commerce initiated plans, including the Business Development Marketing
Strategy.
Environmental Consequences
Compatibility with surrounding land use patterns was assessed through review and
comparison of the project alternatives to existing land uses, applicable land use
designations, zoning designations, and the Arroyo Grande Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed project is a roadway improvement project that would modify existing
transportation facilities predominantly located within existing state and local right-of-way.
The proposed improvements would be similar in nature to existing facilities and
compatibility of adjacent parcels would generally remain the same. Neither build
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 31
alternatives would conflict with existing zoning or land use designations of on-site or
adjacent parcels and the site-specific land uses (Community Impact Assessment 2018).
Each of the project alternatives were compared to the applicable regional and local plans
and policies to determine if environmental consequences would occur as a result of
potential inconsistencies with future planning goals and policies related to the project area.
The project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies is summarized in Table 2.1-4.
Table 2.1-4 Project Consistency with Regional and Local
Plans and Policies
Policy Alternative 1 Alternative 4C
(Roundabout) No Build Alternative
2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: U.S. 101 Improvement
Strategies
New and/or improved
Park and Ride lots at 12
locations totaling 262
new spaces.
Consistent: Alternative
1 does not propose new
or improved Park and
Ride lots; however, the
project would not
adversely affect existing
Park and Ride facilities.
Consistent: Alternative
4C would provide a new
Park and Ride lot along
Grace Lane.
Not Consistent: The
No Build Alternative
would not provide new
or improved Park and
Ride lots.
Establish policies that
ensure shorter-term
improvements are
constructed to be
supportive of longer-
term improvement (i.e.,
interchange
modifications will not
preclude future
widening of U.S. 101).
Consistent: Alternative
1 would support long-
term improvements and
future U.S. 101
widening.
Consistent: Alternative
4C would support long-
term improvements and
future U.S. 101
widening.
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not preclude long-term
improvements and
future U.S. 101
widening.
Support bicycle and
pedestrian
improvements that will
encourage non-
motorized circulation
along and near the U.S.
101 corridor.
Consistent: Alternative
1 would not adversely
affect existing bicycle
and pedestrian facilities
and would provide
standard sidewalks
along Grand Avenue,
improving pedestrian
facilities in the project
area.
Consistent: Alternative
4C would not adversely
affect existing bicycle
and pedestrian facilities
and would provide
pedestrian access
improvements to St.
Patrick’s School and
the Arroyo Grande
Library/South County
Regional Center.
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not adversely affect
existing bicycle and
pedestrian facilities or
preclude future
improvements or
additions to those
facilities.
Extend the length of on-
and off-ramps and
additional ramp-to-ramp
auxiliary lanes to
reduce restrictions and
improve flow to
maintain efficient
operations on U.S. 101
in the most congestion
prone areas (Arroyo
Grande/Pismo, San
Consistent: Alternative
1 would provide new
auxiliary lanes and
reconfigure U.S. 101
interchanges to improve
operations and flow on
U.S. 101.
Consistent: Alternative
4C would provide new
auxiliary lanes and
reconfigure U.S. 101
interchanges to improve
operations and flow on
U.S. 101.
Not Consistent: The
No Build Alternative
would not extend ramps
or add auxiliary lanes to
reduce restrictions and
improve flow.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 32
Table 2.1-4 Project Consistency with Regional and Local
Plans and Policies
Policy Alternative 1 Alternative 4C
(Roundabout) No Build Alternative
Luis Obispo,
Atascadero/Templeton
areas)
Continue to evaluate
opportunities to fill gaps
in the frontage road
system to maximize
safe operation,
multimodal use
including non-motorized
modes, and provide
local connectivity off the
U.S. 101 mainline.
Not Consistent:
Alternative 1 would
maintain frontage roads
in the project area but
would remove the
northbound ramps at
Brisco Road without
replacing them,
removing a point of
local connectivity off the
U.S. 101 mainline. It
would also fragment the
Brisco Road-Halcyon
Road intersection, by
preserving southbound
on- and off-ramps at
Halcyon Road but
closing northbound
ramps at Brisco Road.
Consistent: Alternative
4C would maintain
frontage roads in the
project area and
replace the removed
ramps at Brisco Road
with new northbound
ramps and a new
intersection, improving
local connectivity off of
the U.S. 101 mainline.
Not Consistent: The
No Build Alternative
would not make
improvements to
maximize safe
operations and flows.
Existing deficiencies
would continue to
worsen.
Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element of the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
Ag1: Avoid and or
mitigate loss of prime
farmland soils and
conserve non-prime
Agriculture use and
natural resource lands.
Consistent: Alternative
1 would require
acquisition and
conversion of
approximately 0.37
acres of Prime
Farmland into the state
right-of-way. The
project would be
subject to the City of
Arroyo Grande
Development Code,
which requires
permanent
conservation of
comparable farmlands
to mitigate farmland
impacts.
Consistent: Alternative
4C would require
acquisition and
conversion of
approximately 0.37
acres of Prime
Farmland into the state
right-of-way. The
project would be
subject to the City of
Arroyo Grande
Development Code,
which requires
permanent
conservation of
comparable farmlands
to mitigate farmland
impacts.
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not impact agricultural
uses or convert
farmland soils.
Ag1-1.2: Public facilities
are permitted on
agricultural and natural
resource land when
required by health,
safety, or welfare of the
public.
Consistent: Farmland
impacts would be
necessary under
Alternative 1 to
accommodate the
proposed realignment
of the southbound U.S.
101 on-ramp at Grand
Avenue, a public facility
improvement proposed
Consistent: Farmland
impacts would be
necessary under
Alternative 4C to
accommodate the
proposed realignment
of the southbound U.S.
101 on-ramp at Grand
Avenue, a public facility
improvement proposed
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not impact agricultural
uses or convert
farmland soils.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 33
Table 2.1-4 Project Consistency with Regional and Local
Plans and Policies
Policy Alternative 1 Alternative 4C
(Roundabout) No Build Alternative
to improve traffic and
circulation conditions in
the project area.
to improve traffic and
circulation conditions in
the project area.
Ag4: Support continued
economic viability of
agriculture as a
specialized site-specific
industry.
Consistent: Affected
landowners would be
compensated for
agricultural lands
acquired for state right-
of-way uses consistent
with Caltrans policies
and federal regulations.
Consistent: Affected
landowners would be
compensated for
agricultural lands
acquired for state right-
of-way uses consistent
with Caltrans policies
and federal regulations.
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not impact agricultural
uses or farmland soils
and would not affect
economic viability of
agriculture.
Land Use Element of the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
LU11: 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.
Consistent: Alternative
1 would not require a
change in adjacent land
uses or affect
jurisdictional
boundaries with
adjacent communities.
Consistent: Alternative
4C would not require a
change in adjacent land
uses or affect
jurisdictional
boundaries with
adjacent communities.
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not require a change in
adjacent land uses or
affect jurisdictional
boundaries with
adjacent communities.
LU11-3: Intensity of
land use and area
population shall be
limited to that which can
be supported by the
area's resource base,
as well as circulation
and infrastructure
systems.
Consistent: Alternative
1 would not induce
growth or intensify land
uses. Alternative 1
would improve
circulation infrastructure
to accommodate past
and planned future
growth in the project
area.
Consistent: Alternative
4C would not induce
growth or intensify land
uses. Alternative 4C
would improve
circulation infrastructure
to accommodate past
and planned future
growth in the project
area.
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not induce growth or
intensify land uses in
the project area.
LU12-3.2: Minimize the
installation of solid walls
along area roadways
unless they are needed
for a specific screening,
safety, or noise
attenuation purpose.
Where feasible, provide
instead a landscaped
berm or wide, open
area with informal
clusters of trees,
defined by split rail or
similar fencing.
Not Consistent:
Alternative 1 would
require the installation
of several retaining
walls along West
Branch Street and at
the modified Camino
Mercado and Grand
Avenue intersections.
The project may also
require the installation
of noise barriers to
reduce traffic noise
levels that would
exceed Caltrans
standards.
Not Consistent:
Alternative 4C would
require the installation
of several retaining
walls along West
Branch Street and at
the modified Grace
Lane/Rodeo Drive
intersection. The
project may also require
the installation of noise
barriers to reduce traffic
noise levels that would
exceed Caltrans
standards.
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not require the
installation of any solid
walls.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 34
Table 2.1-4 Project Consistency with Regional and Local
Plans and Policies
Policy Alternative 1 Alternative 4C
(Roundabout) No Build Alternative
LU12-3.3: Where
construction of a solid
wall that will be visible
along a public street is
necessary, provide
landscaping such as
trees, shrubs, or vines
to soften the
appearance of the wall,
and to reduce undue
glare, heat, and
reflection.
Consistent:
Avoidance,
minimization, and
mitigation measures are
identified in the Visual
Impact Assessment
prepared for the project
that would require
preparation of a
landscaping plan
consistent with this
policy.
Consistent:
Avoidance,
minimization, and
mitigation measures are
identified in the Visual
Impact Assessment
prepared for the project
that would require
preparation of a
landscaping plan
consistent with this
policy.
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not require the
installation of any solid
walls.
LU12-7.3: Parking
facilities should be
convenient, well-
designed, usable,
aesthetically attractive,
landscaped (with large
shade trees), and
comply with City design
standards and
guidelines.
Consistent:
Avoidance,
minimization, and
mitigation measures are
identified that would
require design of
reconfigured and
replacement parking
areas consistent with
this policy.
Consistent:
Avoidance,
minimization, and
mitigation measures are
identified that would
require design of
reconfigured and
replacement parking
areas consistent with
this policy.
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not impact parking
facilities.
Circulation Element of the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
CT2: Attain and
maintain Level of
Service (LOS) ‘C’ or
better on all streets and
controlled intersections.
Consistent: Alternative
1 would significantly
improve traffic
conditions and improve
LOS within the project
area consistent with this
policy.
Consistent: Alternative
4C would significantly
improve traffic
conditions and improve
LOS within the project
area consistent with this
policy.
Not Consistent: The
No Build Alternative
would not improve
unacceptable levels of
service within the
project area, which
would continue to
worsen.
CT3: Maintain and
improve existing “multi-
modal” circulation and
transportation systems
and facilities, to
maximize alternatives
to new street and
highway construction.
Consistent: Alternative
1 would integrate
existing public and
alternative
transportation facilities
and would not
affect/restrict potential
future expansions.
Consistent: Alternative
4C would integrate
existing public and
alternative
transportation facilities
and would provide
improved facilities,
including a new bus
pull-out and Park and
Ride lot along Grace
Lane.
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not affect or restrict
existing or potential
future public and
alternative
transportation systems.
CT3-3: Promote non-
motorized bike and
pedestrian circulation
facilities to serve all
areas of the City and
linking with regional
systems, with priority
coordination with
Consistent: Alternative
1 would integrate
existing public, non-
motorized and
alternative
transportation facilities
and would provide
improved bike and
Consistent: Alternative
4C would integrate
existing non-motorized
facilities and would
improve pedestrian
facilities and public
transportation
connections near St.
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not affect or restrict
existing or potential
future public, non-
motorized and
alternative
transportation systems.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 35
Table 2.1-4 Project Consistency with Regional and Local
Plans and Policies
Policy Alternative 1 Alternative 4C
(Roundabout) No Build Alternative
school, park, transit,
and major public
facilities.
pedestrian facilities
along Grand Avenue.
Patrick’s School and
Arroyo Grande
Library/South County
Regional Center.
CT3-3.1: Improve bike
lanes and sidewalks
serving all school,
parks, and selected
transit and community
facilities as priority
system, including
neighborhood
connections in addition
to conventional streets.
Consistent: Alternative
1 would integrate
existing bike and
pedestrian facilities and
would improve facilities
along Grand Avenue.
Consistent: Alternative
4C would integrate
existing bike and
pedestrian facilities
within the project area
and would also add
new facilities and
connections at St.
Patrick’s School
(sidewalks, bus pull-
out).
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not affect or restrict
existing or potential
future bike and
pedestrian facilities.
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.
Consistent: Measures
are identified that would
ensure Alternative 1
would be compatible
with existing
transportation
infrastructure and
facilities. The project
would improve
congestion and air
quality in the project
area and would be
consistent with existing
and planned land uses.
Consistent: Measures
are identified that would
ensure Alternative 4C
would be compatible
with existing
transportation
infrastructure and
facilities. The project
would improve
congestion and air
quality in the project
area and would be
consistent with existing
and planned land uses.
Alternative 4C would
also improve public,
bike, and pedestrian
transportation.
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not affect or restrict the
compatibility or
complementary
relationship between
circulation systems or
existing and planned
land uses.
CT4-2: Utilize the
circulation system as a
positive element of
community design,
including street trees
and landscaped
parkways and medians,
special streetscape
features in Mixed Use
corridors and Village
Core, undergrounding
of utilities, particularly
along major streets.
Consistent: Measures
have been identified
that would ensure the
proposed transportation
improvements are a
positive element of
community design (i.e.,
compliance with
recommendations in
Visual Impact
Assessment, such as
preparation of a
landscape plan).
Consistent: Measures
have been identified
that would ensure the
proposed transportation
improvements are a
positive element of
community design (i.e.,
compliance with
recommendations in
Visual Impact
Assessment, such as
preparation of a
landscape plan).
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not affect community
design.
Economic Development Element of the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
ED3: Encourage and
support the retention
and expansion of
Consistent: Alternative
1 would require
acquisition of
Consistent: Alternative
4C would require
acquisition of
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 36
Table 2.1-4 Project Consistency with Regional and Local
Plans and Policies
Policy Alternative 1 Alternative 4C
(Roundabout) No Build Alternative
Agriculture business
activities.
agricultural lands;
however, agricultural
businesses would
remain operational and
landowners would be
compensated as
required by federal
laws.
agricultural lands;
however, agricultural
businesses would
remain operational and
landowners would be
compensated as
required by federal
laws.
not affect agricultural
business activities.
ED4: Protect and
promote the overall
commercial service and
retail business sectors
of the local economy.
Consistent: Alternative
1 would improve traffic
congestion in the
regionally significant
commercial and retail
areas within Arroyo
Grande.
Consistent: Alternative
4C would improve
traffic congestion in the
regionally significant
commercial and retail
areas within Arroyo
Grande. It would also
improve commuter
accessibility and
connection through the
new ramps at Grace
Lane.
Consistent: The No
Build Alternative would
not directly affect
commercial or retail
business sectors.
Congestion would
continue to affect these
areas in the City.
Both build alternatives would be consistent with most applicable regional and local plans
and policies, including the transportation policies and land use patterns set out in the
Arroyo Grande General Plan. The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy: U.S. 101 Improvement Strategies (RTP/SCS) identifies the project
area as an emerging issue area and identifies modifications at the Brisco-Halcyon Road
interchange as a future project needed in the short term to address capacity concerns. The
No Build alternative would be inconsistent with policies intended to accommodate past
and future growth.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No adverse impact to land use would occur under either build alternative. The proposed
project and roundabout alternative would be compatible with most applicable plans and
policies. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures would be
required.
2.1.2 Farmland
Regulatory Setting
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Farmland Protection Policy Act
(FPPA, 7 United States Code [USC] 4201-4209; and its regulations, 7 Code of the Federal
Regulations (CFR) Ch. VI Part 658) require federal agencies, such as the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), to coordinate with the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) if their activities may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 37
indirectly) to nonagricultural use. For purposes of the Farmland Protection Policy Act,
farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local
importance.
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the 2018 Community Impact Assessment prepared
for the project.
Much of the agricultural land uses within the project area consists of vegetable crops. The
estimated average value of vegetable crops in San Luis Obispo County is approximately
$7,884.40 per acre, based on harvested acreage and yield totals in San Luis Obispo
County’s 2013 Annual Crop Report (San Luis Obispo County 2014).
The project boundary includes portions of two parcels designated for agricultural use that
currently support the production of row crops (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APN Nos.]
006-311-067 and 006-311-076; refer to Figure 2.1-1). Neither parcel is subject to a
Williamson Act contract or protected by an agricultural or conservation easement.
Environmental Consequences
Based on current design/right-of-way estimates, both build alternatives would require the
acquisition of approximately 0.58 acre (25,314 square feet) of farmland, including
approximately 0.37 acre of Prime Farmland. Table 2.1-5 shows the amount of land that
would be acquired from each parcel.
Table 2.1-5 Farmland Acquisitions in Acres
APN Zoning Designation Total Parcel Size Total Area to be
Acquired
006-311-067 Agriculture 33.75 0.46
006-311-076 Agriculture 24.86 0.12
Total -- 58.61 0.58
The amount of Prime Farmland to be acquired makes up approximately 0.4% of total
Prime Farmland within the City of Arroyo Grande. The proposed project would impact
approximately 0.29 acre of vegetable crops, resulting in a total loss of agricultural revenue
of approximately $2,286.48 per year. The right-of-way acquisition under both alternatives
would be permanent.
The project would not bisect any agricultural parcel or leave adjacent areas unsuitable for
continued agricultural use.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was consulted and a Farmland
Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor-Type Projects (Form NRCS-CPA-106) was
completed for the project (refer to Appendix D). The rating form provides a way to assess
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 38
the extent of farmland impacts based on federally established criteria. The project was
scored at 52 points out of a possible 260.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
When designing the alternatives, an effort was made to minimize impacts to farmland by
proposing a design that would require the smallest possible project footprint. The slope
ratio is such that a lesser area is used for highway right of way than would be required
with a shallower slope.
2.1.3 Community Character and Cohesion
Regulatory Setting
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, established that the
federal government use all practicable means to ensure for all Americans safe, healthful,
productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 United States Code
[USC] 4331[b][2]). The Federal Highway Administration in its implementation of NEPA
(23 USC 109[h]) directs that final decisions on projects are to be made in the best overall
public interest. This requires taking into account adverse environmental impacts, such as
destruction or disruption of human-made resources, community cohesion and the
availability of public facilities and services.
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the 2018 Community Impact Assessment prepared
for the project.
The project boundary serves as an important regional and community corridor connecting
large residential areas on both sides of U.S. 101 to the large commercial areas adjacent to
the highway. Brisco Road provides a U.S. 101 highway crossing in the center of Arroyo
Grande, and Halcyon Road serves as a mid-town passageway for many commuters
working or shopping at major retailers or along the Grand Avenue commercial areas. The
only other highway crossings are at Oak Park Boulevard, at the northern boundary of the
City, and Grand Avenue, in the southern portion of the City. Halcyon Road is also highly
utilized by the Arroyo Grande police station and San Luis Ambulance facility located on
or adjacent to Halcyon Road.
The project is located along the heavily urbanized U.S. 101 corridor that supports
regionally important commercial areas within the City of Arroyo Grande. Businesses
within the project area rely on U.S. 101, Brisco Road, West Branch Street and other
surrounding roadways for access and business visibility.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 39
Figure 2.1-1 Farmlands
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 40
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 41
Both El Camino Real and West Branch Street serve as frontage roads to U.S. 101 through
the project area and are lined with commercial/retail, light industrial, and mixed-use
properties and associated parking areas. West Branch Street provides access to two
regionally important commercial centers, which are occupied by several large box stores
including Walmart, a large grocery store space (currently vacant), Trader Joe’s, Office
Max, and Marshalls. These areas have experienced tremendous growth over the last ten
years, and the businesses are generally well established. These commercial centers serve
residents of Arroyo Grande and the extended south County population as well as non-local
freeway traffic.
There are also multiple light industrial, commercial, and mixed use businesses adjacent to
El Camino Real that predominantly serve local area residents, including ABC Tax and
Bookkeeping, A&G Self Storage, Aqua Systems, Meir Brothers Landscape Products,
Pacific Shore Stones, Brisco True Value Hardware, Beach Front Auto Service, Country
Kitchen Café, Aloha Inn, and DeBlauw Real Estate.
Grand Avenue provides access to Arroyo Grande’s historic downtown village and the
commercial/business center along West Grand Avenue. Businesses near the U.S.
101/Grand Avenue interchange include Chevron and Shell gas stations, and Coast Motors.
Important community facilities in proximity to the project area include the Arroyo Grande
Library/South County Regional Center, a County Department of Agriculture modular
building, the Arroyo Grande cemetery, and St. Patrick’s School.
After a period of rapid population growth in the 1960s, the City of Arroyo Grande’s
population growth slowed to an average of 7% in the 1970s, falling still further in the
1980s to less than 2%. According to the U.S. Census, Arroyo Grande grew 10.2%
between 1990 and 2000 and 8.8% between 2000 and 2010. Between the years 2013 and
2014 the population in Arroyo Grande is estimated to have decreased by 0.5%, from
17,415 to 17,334 (California Department of Finance, Table E-1, 2014). Current estimates
by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) in their 2005 Regional
Transportation Plan estimate that the City’s population will be approximately 19,302
residents by 2025, based on an annual growth rate of 1% (Arroyo Grande 2013).
No minority or low-income populations were identified in the project area. According to
the 2010 Census, 85.3% of Arroyo Grande’s population is white. In Arroyo Grande,
84.3% of the population is not Hispanic and 15.7% is Hispanic. The project boundary
extends through Census Tracts 118, 119.01, and 119.02 (which comprise a large portion
of the City). Table 2.1-6 compares block group level demographic information within or
adjacent to the project boundary to the City and County as a whole.
Figures 2.1-2 and 2.1-3, Land Use Map and Zoning Map, show current land use
designations and zoning in the City of Arroyo Grande.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 42
Table 2.1-6 Block Group Level Demographic Data
Geographic
Location
Total
Population
Race Census Tract No. Block Group White Black or African American American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Some Other Race Two or More Races 118
1 1,431 1,286 1 0 73 0 13 58
2 1,928 1,910 0 0 0 0 0 18
3 600 598 1 0 0 0 0 1
119.01 2 1,567 1,280 8 4 93 0 107 75
119.02 1 1,760 1,364 21 14 261 0 49 51
Block Group
Subtotal 7,286 88.3% 0.4% 0.3% 5.9% 0% 2.3% 2.8%
Arroyo Grande
Subtotal 17,252 76.9% 0.7% 0.4% 3.2% <0.01% 0.1% 2.9%
San Luis Obispo
County Subtotal 269,637 71.1% 1.9% 0.5% 3.0% 0.1% 0.3% 2.3%
Source: 2010 U.S. Census data.
Within the City, median incomes are generally consistent with those in the County as a
whole. According to the 2000 Census, 4.3% of the population of Arroyo Grande (191
families) was considered to be below the poverty level. According to the 2010 Census, the
poverty level in the City rose to 6.4% (262 families) (Arroyo Grande 2013).
San Luis Obispo County’s economy is based largely on tourism and education; as a result,
government, leisure and hospitality, and trade are important industries in the county. The
service providing industry is the largest in the County and provided 92,300 jobs in San
Luis Obispo County in August 2014 (EDD 2014).
The agricultural industry is one of the most important economic contributors in the
County. Despite persistent drought and variable weather conditions, the value of
agricultural commodities produced in the County reached a record high of $960,710,000
in 2013, an 11% increase over 2012 and the fourth year in a row total commodity values
have reached record highs. Preservation of the County’s existing agricultural resources is
a high priority of local governments.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 43
Figure 2.1-2 Land Use Map
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 44
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 45
Figure 2.1-3 Zoning Map
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 46
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 47
At the State and local level, unemployment rates have steadily decreased with the
recovery from the recession since unemployment peaked in 2010. Over the last 5 years,
the annual average unemployment rate for the City and County were consistently lower
than unemployment rates in California as a whole. City and County rates ranged from
around 10% in 2010 to just over 6% in 2014, compared to 12.4% and 8.5% in California
as a whole.
The median family income in the City of Arroyo Grande is $63,802 per the 2010 Census
(2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates). According to the 2000
Census, 4.3% of the population of Arroyo Grande (191 families) was considered to be
below the poverty level. According to the 2010 Census, the poverty level in the City rose
to 6.4% (262 families) (Arroyo Grande 2013).
Environmental Consequences
The project would not adversely affect community character or cohesion. The project
would not split neighborhoods or divide an existing community. The proposed
improvements to existing roadways would improve cross-city connections along Brisco-
Halcyon Road and accessibility to community or recreational facilities in the project area.
The project is designed to improve the safety and flow of traffic on the existing
transportation network and would not isolate or separate residences from community
facilities.
The majority of proposed modifications (approximately 70%) would occur within existing
local and state rights of way. The project does not constitute an adverse change to land
uses within the project boundary and would not conflict with adjacent uses.
The City and Five Cities Community Services Foundation currently have plans to develop
a community recreation center adjacent to the project area at Old Ranch Road and West
Branch Street. Based on conditions set out in a Development Agreement, the community
recreation center is conditioned upon the improved access that would be provided by the
proposed Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project prior to being able to
proceed. Both build alternatives would facilitate development of the planned recreational
center. The No-Build Alternative would require a new traffic study and environmental
document that would likely identify a significant and unavoidable traffic impact.
Both build alternatives propose pedestrian improvements compliant with the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) adjacent to St. Patrick’s School. Alternative 4C also proposes
the development of an additional Park and Ride lot at the northwest corner of the new
U.S. 101 ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection and public transportation
improvements and a new bus pull-out along the proposed extended portion of Grace Lane.
These improvements would enhance public connectivity to the community facilities
within the project boundary.
The project would not result in the loss of any housing units or require right-of-way
acquisitions of any residential parcels. Based on traffic studies completed for the project,
no increased traffic or other impacts on residential areas in proximity to the project
boundary would occur. The project would not interfere with recent housing developments
along Grace Lane and would support planned growth in the region in accordance with
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 48
local and regional plans. The project would not negatively impact housing or substantially
reduce the available housing stock in the study area.
The proposed project would provide community benefits by improving traffic flow in the
project study area and would not adversely affect community populations, housing, or
cohesion.
The No-Build Alternative would maintain existing conditions and would not directly
affect population, housing, or community cohesion in the study area. No change in
accessibility or potential site-specific uses would occur; however, the No-Build
Alternative would prevent development of the planned community recreational center
along West Branch Street due to access requirements set out in the project’s Development
Agreement. Existing traffic issues and congestion currently serve as a constraint to
development and the project is considered necessary to accommodate past and planned
future growth in the area. Without the proposed project to implement the necessary
improvements, traffic and circulation conditions would continue to degrade, potentially
preventing development the planned community recreational center and constraining use
of other important community facilities in the project area, such as the Arroyo Grande
Library, County of San Luis Obispo Department of Agriculture building, and Arroyo
Grande Cemetery.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
When designing the alternatives, an effort was made to enhance community character and
cohesion by proposing a design that would be compatible with surrounding facilities and
considering recent and planned community growth in the city.
2.1.4 Relocations and Real Property Acquisition
Regulatory Setting
Caltrans’s Relocation Assistance Program (RAP) is based on the Federal Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (as amended)
and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 24. The purpose of the RAP is to
ensure that persons displaced as a result of a transportation project are treated fairly,
consistently, and equitably so that such persons will not suffer disproportionate injuries as
a result of projects designed for the benefit of the public as a whole. Refer to Appendix C
for a summary of Relocation Benefits.
All relocation services and benefits are administered without regard to race, color,
national origin, or sex in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (42 United
States Code [USC] 2000d, et seq.). Please see Appendix B for a copy of Caltrans’s Title
VI Policy Statement.
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the 2018 Community Impact Assessment prepared
for the project.
The project area consists of existing city or state rights of way and portions of several
adjacent privately or publicly owned parcels. Of the 12 parcels comprising a portion of the
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 49
project boundary adjacent to an area of proposed modifications, five are currently vacant
(or used as a natural drainage area), two are in active agriculture, four support private
businesses (St. Patrick’s school, Brisco’s True Value Hardware, the Arroyo Grande Shell
gas station, and the Arroyo Grande Chevron gas station), and one is the site of the County
Department of Agriculture building and Arroyo Grande Library/South County Regional
Center.
Environmental Consequences
The proposed project would not require any full acquisitions. Each of the necessary right-
of-way acquisitions would be partial acquisitions, limited almost exclusively to disturbed
road shoulder areas or parking/sidewalk areas immediately adjacent to the existing public
road right of way. The acquisitions would not alter existing land uses or land use patterns,
nor would they alter long-range development concepts. Proposed improvements in right-
of-way acquisition areas under both build alternatives would be compatible with
surrounding land uses because the operation and function of project area roadways and
alignments would not be substantially altered (although local roadway alignments would
be modified to accommodate the new intersection under Alternative 4C).
The project would require the following partial acquisitions of real property:
Table 2.1-7 Real Property Acquisitions
Alternative Residential Business Community
Facilities Vacant Parcel Total
Alternative 1 0 6 partial
acquisitions 0 2 partial
acquisitions
8 partial
acquisitions
Alternative 4C 0 4 partial
acquisitions
1 partial
acquisition
5 partial
acquisitions
10 partial
acquisitions
No-Build 0 0 0 0 0
The proposed project would not result in any residential displacements under either build
alternative.
Alternative 1 is expected to require permanent partial right-of-way acquisitions at eight
parcels for a total of 0.65 acre (28,484 square feet). Permanent right-of-way impacts of
Alternative 1 include the acquisition of approximately 0.59 acre (25,600 square feet) of
additional State right of way for the realignment of the southbound on-ramp from Grand
Avenue and for a right-turn lane to the northbound on-ramp on Grand Avenue. An
additional 0.07 acre (2,900 square feet) of additional City right of way would be acquired
for the widening of Grand Avenue east of the interchange, at the corner of Brisco Road
and El Camino Real, and of West Branch Street at its intersection with Brisco Road.
Of the eight affected parcels, two are currently vacant, two support agricultural row crops,
and four support private businesses (Brisco’s True Value Hardware, St. Patrick’s School,
Arroyo Grande Shell gas station, and Arroyo Grande Chevron gas station). Alternative 1
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 50
would require on-site reconfiguration/relocation of gas pumps, a gas canopy, entryway
improvements, and landscaping at the Arroyo Grande Shell gas station; however, full
business displacement and relocation to another site is not expected to be necessary.
Alternative 1 would also require reconfiguration of the landscaped area and Arroyo
Grande gateway/welcome signage northeast of the Grand Avenue/U.S. 101 northbound
ramps intersection. There is adequate space to relocate the sign in the same area; however,
approximately 1,900 square feet of landscaping would be removed. Alternative 1 would
not result in any direct impacts to the St. Patrick’s school recreational area; a small right-
of-way acquisition would be necessary in this area to accommodate lane modifications at
the West Branch Street/Brisco Road intersection, but impacted areas would be outside of
the school’s fence line in the existing road shoulder.
Alternative 4C would require permanent partial right-of-way acquisitions at 10 parcels
and a portion of the City’s existing right of way (into the State right of way) for a total of
6 acres (259,460 square feet). Permanent right-of-way impacts of Alternative 4C include
the acquisition of approximately 0.58 acre (25,400 square feet) of additional State right of
way for the realignment of the southbound on-ramp from Grand Avenue, and the
acquisition of 2.8 acres (120,300 square feet) of additional State right of way for the new
northbound ramps and ramp intersection at Grace Lane and West Branch Street. An
additional 2.6 acres (113,800 square feet) of City right of way will be acquired for the
realignment of West Branch Street adjacent to the ramp intersection, widening at the
corner of Brisco Road and El Camino Real, and of West Branch Street at its intersection
with Brisco Road, and realignment of the Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection.
Of the 10 affected parcels, five are currently vacant (four are privately-owned and one is
City-owned), two support agricultural row crops, two support private businesses (Brisco’s
True Value Hardware and St. Patrick’s School), and one is a County-owned parcel that
includes the Arroyo Grande Library/South County Regional Center and a modular County
Department of Agriculture building. Alternative 4C would require on-site relocation of the
modular County Department of Agriculture building to an adjacent location. There is
adequate undeveloped area at the County parcel to accommodate the relocated structure
and the City plans to relocate the structure to an adjacent portion of the same parcel (i.e.,
approximately 200-500 feet northeast of the currently location). The City has consulted
with the County regarding the potential need for relocation of the structure, and the
County has indicated that the modular structure type would be suitable for relocation and
relocation would be feasible, though the County is concerned with short-term interruption
of services. No relocation to another site would be necessary.
The largest right-of-way acquisition under Alternative 1 would be at the two large
agricultural parcels southwest of the U.S. 101 southbound ramps/Grand Avenue
intersection (totaling 25,314 square feet, or approximately 0.58 acre). Alternative 4C
would require the same agricultural parcel acquisitions (0.58 acre) and would also require
acquisitions at the location of the proposed new northbound U.S. 101 ramps/Grace
Lane/West Branch Street intersection (approximately 0.7 acre at the vacant City parcel
and 1.8 acres at the County parcel).
Right-of-way acquisitions under both alternatives are shown in Figures 2.1-4 and 2.1-5.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 51
Figure 2.1-4 Estimated Right-of-Way Acquisitions, Alternative 1
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 52
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 53
Figure 2.1-5 Estimated Right-of-Way Acquisitions, Alternative 4C
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 54
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 55
Alternative 1 would impact access, sidewalks, and landscaping at Brisco’s True Value
Hardware; access, sidewalks, landscaping, signage, and a row of gas pumps and canopy at
the Arroyo Grande Shell gas station; and access, sidewalks, landscaping, and signage at
the Arroyo Grande Chevron gas station.
Alternative 4C would impact sidewalks, access, and landscaping at Brisco’s True Value
Hardware and access, parking, landscaping, and signage at the Arroyo Grande
Library/South County Regional Center. The City parcel is currently vacant and the City
has no alternate plans for use of the parcel other than development of the proposed
project. The City plans on reconfiguring and replacing parking spaces at a 1:1 ratio on
adjacent undeveloped portions of the County parcel.
Alternative 1 would require an additional 0.07-acre temporary construction easement for
the widening of Grand Avenue east of the interchange, at the corner of Brisco Road and El
Camino Real, and of West Branch Street at its intersection with Brisco Road. Under
Alternative 4C, approximately 0.43 acre (18,755 square feet) of temporary construction
easements will be necessary for the realignment of West Branch Street adjacent to the
ramp intersection, widening at the corner of Brisco Road and El Camino Real, and of
West Branch Street at its intersection with Brisco Road, and realignment of the Grace
Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection. Temporary easements are anticipated at the St. Patrick’s
school athletic field during construction of the retaining wall along the north side of West
Branch Street and on the County parcel for construction of the retaining walls along the
proposed extension of Grace Lane (currently Rodeo Drive) and West Branch Street. The
construction of the cut slope or retaining wall on APN 007-011-041 to reconfigure the
Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection would also require a temporary construction
easement. All staging is currently proposed to take place within existing right-of-way
areas or on adjacent publicly owned parcels.
The No-Build Alternative would not provide any transportation improvements or roadway
modifications. No real property acquisitions or relocations would be necessary.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Prior to initiation of construction, the City would be required to obtain all required right-
of-way. It is anticipated that the City will perform the right-of-way acquisition (likely
through a qualified consultant) with Caltrans oversight. Property acquisition and
relocation activities will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) of 1970 (Public
Law 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894). The Uniform Act mandates that certain relocation services
and payments be made available to eligible residents, businesses, and non-profit
organizations displaced by the project. The Uniform Act provides uniform and equitable
treatment by federal or federally assisted programs of persons displaced from their homes,
businesses, or farm, and establishes uniform and equitable land acquisition policies. Refer
to Appendix C for a summary of Relocation Benefits.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 56
2.1.5 Utilities and Emergency Services
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the 2018 Community Impact Assessment prepared
for the project.
Utilities
Utility facilities in the project area include Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E)
overhead electrical power lines, Charter Communications overhead cable television lines,
AT&T overhead telephone lines, City underground water and sewer lines, Gas Company
underground gas lines, and a San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District underground potable water line in West Branch Street and Brisco
Road.
Water and wastewater services within the City are provided by the City Public Works
Department. The City relies on surface and groundwater sources for its water supply. The
surface water comes from a treatment plant at Lopez Lake, which provided 87% of the
City’s total supply in 2013 (Arroyo Grande 2014). The groundwater comes from City
wells, primarily in the Arroyo Grande Plain of Tri-Cities Mesa sub-basin of the Santa
Maria Groundwater Basin. The City also pumps from two wells in the Pismo Formation, a
distinct deep aquifer at the northeastern section of the City (Arroyo Grande 2012).
The City owns and maintains 70 miles of sewer main servicing approximately 5,700
residences and 400 commercial/institutional establishments. The sewer collection system
is connected to a trunk sewer system and wastewater treatment plant that is owned and
operated by the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) (City of
Arroyo Grande 2014).
Electricity throughout the County is provided by PG&E. PG&E operates a local planning
office at 4325 Higuera Street in the City of San Luis Obispo and operates the San Luis
Obispo substation on the corner of Orcutt Road and Johnson Avenue. Natural gas
throughout the County is provided by Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas).
Emergency Services
The City of Arroyo Grande provides police and fire protection services within the city
limits. The City of Arroyo Grande’s police station is located at 200 North Halcyon Road
and is directly accessed by Halcyon Road, Grand Avenue, El Camino Real, and the U.S.
101 interchanges at Brisco-Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue. The Arroyo Grande Police
station is located less than a mile from both the Brisco-Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue
interchanges. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) office located in San Luis Obispo
also serves the south county including the City of Arroyo Grande. The response times of
both the Sheriff Department and California Highway Patrol can be delayed due to the
large coverage area.
Arroyo Grande’s Fire Department is located at 140 Traffic Way and is accessed directly
by the Grand Avenue interchange. The Arroyo Grande Fire Department is located less
than 1 mile from the U.S. 101 interchanges at Brisco-Halcyon Road and Grande Avenue.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 57
The California Division of Forestry (CAL FIRE) provides fire protection to surrounding
communities, as well as back up support to Arroyo Grande.
The San Luis Ambulance South County substation, located at 201 Brisco Road in Arroyo
Grande, provides paramedic services to southern San Luis Obispo County residents. There
are currently two units stationed at the South County substation, which provide South
County residents with emergency transportation to and from the Arroyo Grande
Community Hospital located at 342 South Halcyon Road. Both the ambulance substation
and the hospital are within 1 mile of the Brisco-Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue
interchanges.
Environmental Consequences
Utilities
The urbanized project area includes substantial existing utility systems and components,
including infrastructure for water, sewer, natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications.
Affected utility providers include: PG&E (transmission and overhead power poles and gas
lines), Charter Communications, The Gas Company, Southern California Gas Company,
SBC Pacific Bell, AT&T telephone (underground).
Alternative 1 would require only minor grade changes at underground utility locations, so
no relocation of underground utilities is anticipated. Alternative 1 would require some
limited relocation of PG&E overhead electrical power lines, Charter Communications
overhead cable television lines, AT&T overhead telephone lines and adjustments to
surface-level manhole covers or valve covers of underground utilities (City underground
water and sewer lines, Gas Company underground gas lines, and San Luis Obispo County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District underground potable water line).
Alternative 4C would require grade changes at the location of the new U.S. 101
northbound ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection and along the realigned
sections of West Branch Street and Grace Lane. These grade changes will require
relocation of underground utilities (City underground water and sewer lines, Gas
Company underground gas lines, and San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District underground potable water lines in Brisco Road). In other areas of
the proposed project, the grade changes would not be substantial. Therefore, no additional
underground utility relocations would be necessary, though adjustments to surface-level
manhole covers or valve covers is anticipated. Some limited relocation of overhead utility
facilities would also be required under Alternative 4C (PG&E overhead electrical power
lines, Charter Communications overhead cable television lines, AT&T overhead telephone
lines).
Any existing utility facilities or components that would be impacted by the project would
be relocated or replaced. Responsibility for the cost of any required
relocations/replacements between the City and/or utility provider would be determined by
existing agreements or law. No substantial or long-term impacts would occur.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 58
Emergency Services
The ramps/intersections proposed for modification under both project build alternatives
serve as primary routes for emergency service calls. The project would result in improved
circulation at these intersections and along U.S. 101 and other local roadways; therefore,
permanent effects on emergency facilities and services would be beneficial under either
build alternative.
According to the Arroyo Grande Police Department, closures of the Brisco Road on- and
off-ramps under Alternative 1 would not significantly increase in response times during
peak traffic times, and would result in decreased traffic congestion in the vicinity of the
Brisco Road underpass, thus improving response times to areas east of U.S. 101. Sergeant
Pryor recommended implementation of measures to minimize short-term construction
delays in emergency response under both alternatives, namely construction traffic
management.
According to the Fire Department, temporary closures of the Grand Avenue and Brisco
Road ramps may cause impacts to fire response time goals outlined in City policy. Long-
term emergency response would be improved under both build alternatives because of
improved traffic flows at the Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange and along U.S. 101.
However, permanent closure and removal of the northbound U.S. 101 ramps at Brisco
Road, as proposed under Alternative 1, would require re-routing of fire response routes to
the west side of the City, as the Fire Department would no longer be able to utilize U.S.
101 to access the Brisco Road undercrossing.
Grand Avenue and Brisco Road currently act as the primary highway access points to and
from the Arroyo Grande Community Hospital and the South County San Luis Ambulance
substation, which serves the hospital. According to San Luis Ambulance, closure of the
northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road, as proposed under Alternative 1, would not
adversely affect ambulance response travel within Arroyo Grande, as alternate routes
could be used. However, permanent closure of the ramps would eliminate a primary
access way used by the ambulance station to access the hospital and may result in some
minor delays.
Temporary closure of the on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road during project construction
would cause short-term traffic delays for emergency service providers. Long-term
emergency response would generally be improved under both build alternatives due to
improved traffic flows at the Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange. However, the permanent
closure of on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road under Alternative 1 would eliminate a
primary access way used by San Luis Ambulance to access the Arroyo Grande Hospital
and cause traffic delays for emergency providers. Because alternative routes exist and the
project would generally improve circulations at the Brisco Road undercrossing and other
state and local roadways within the City, delays are expected to be minor. No substantial
impacts on emergency services would occur under Alternative 1. Alternative 4C would
maintain access from U.S. 101 at the new northbound on- and off-ramps at Grace Lane;
therefore, no permanent re-routing of police, fire, or emergency services would be
necessary as indicated under Alternative 1, further reducing potential impacts.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 59
The No-Build Alternative would not provide any improvements within the project
boundary; therefore, no direct effects on community facilities, emergency services, or
utilities would occur.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Utilities
Affected utilities would be relocated or replaced. The City will be responsible for utility
coordination, relocations, and modifications. Coordination with utility providers would
start during the preliminary engineering phase of the project and continue through final
design and construction to avoid adverse impacts to existing utilities and traffic during
construction. Any short term and limited service interruptions of known utilities would be
scheduled well in advance, with appropriate notification provided to users. No additional
measures are necessary.
Emergency Services
Long-term emergency response would be improved under both build alternatives because
of improved traffic flows at the Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange and along U.S. 101.
Short-term construction impacts associated with road closures and detours would be
minimized through implementation of measures recommended in Section 2.1.5, Traffic
and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. No additional measures are
necessary.
2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Regulatory Setting
Caltrans, as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), directs that full
consideration should be given to the safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists
during the development of federal-aid highway projects (see 23 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] 652). It further directs that the special needs of the elderly and the
disabled must be considered in all federal-aid projects that include pedestrian facilities.
When current or anticipated pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic presents a potential conflict
with motor vehicle traffic, every effort must be made to minimize the detrimental effects
on all highway users who share the facility.
In July 1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued an Accessibility
Policy Statement pledging a fully accessible multimodal transportation system.
Accessibility in federally assisted programs is governed by the USDOT regulations (49
CFR Part 27) implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 United States Code
[USC] 794). FHWA has enacted regulations for the implementation of the 1990
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including a commitment to build transportation
facilities that provide equal access for all persons. These regulations require application of
the ADA requirements to Federal-aid projects, including Transportation Enhancement
Activities.
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the following reports prepared for the project:
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 60
• Technical Memorandum: Project Approval & Environmental Determination (PA&ED)
Phase Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis (Originally prepared: July 29,
2011; Updated: September 7, 2012);
• Branch Street/Rodeo Drive/U.S. 101 Northbound Ramps Intersection – Roundabout
Traffic Operations Analysis (May 2014);
• Community Impact Assessment (February 2018).
Temporary construction impacts are discussed in Section 2.4, Construction Impacts.
Existing Roadways
The project area (refer to Figure 1-2) comprises the study area for the transportation and
traffic analysis. Major roadways in the project area include U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101),
Grand Avenue, Brisco Road, Halcyon Road, West Branch Street, and El Camino Real,
which are described in the following paragraphs.
U.S. 101 is a major freeway of statewide importance that traverses north-south through
Arroyo Grande and most of the coastal counties of California. U.S. 101 serves as the main
travel route that connects San Luis Obispo County with San Francisco to the north and
Los Angeles to the south. According to 2013 Caltrans traffic volumes data, U.S. 101
mainline carries an annual average daily traffic (AADT) of approximately 54,400 vehicles
just south of the Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange, and approximately 57,500 vehicles
just north of the interchange area. Trucks comprise approximately 9% of the average daily
traffic on U.S. 101 through the study area.
East Grand Avenue is a major four-lane, east/west arterial roadway that extends through
the main downtown areas of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach. It provides an essential
link between the historic downtown village of Arroyo Grande and the residential and
commercial areas located west of U.S. 101.
Brisco Road is a two-lane roadway that links U.S. 101 with East Grand Avenue to the
southwest. The northbound ramps at Brisco Road and the southbound ramps at Halcyon
Road form a full-access interchange with U.S. 101, approximately 3,000 feet north of the
Grand Avenue interchange.
Halcyon Road is a two- to four-lane roadway that connects U.S. 101 to Grande Avenue in
the City of Arroyo Grande and to State Route (SR) 1 further south in the community of
Oceano. Halcyon provides connection from U.S. 101 to Oceano, the Nipomo Mesa, the
community of Halcyon and the Arroyo Grande Hospital.
West Branch Street is a two- to four-lane roadway that runs parallel to U.S. 101 as the
eastern frontage road, connecting Oak Park Boulevard at the north end of the City and
Grand Avenue at the south end. West Branch Street provides regional access from U.S.
101 and local access from the north and south sides of the City to and from the regional
shopping center and commercial services within the project area.
El Camino Real is a two-lane roadway that runs parallel to U.S. 101 as the western
frontage road, connecting Oak Park Boulevard at the north end of the City and Grand
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 61
Avenue at the south end. El Camino Real extends through a dense commercial, light
industrial, and retail area and provides regional and local access to these uses along the
U.S. 101 corridor. Cross-highway connections in the City between West Branch Street
and El Camino Real are provided at Oak Park Boulevard, Brisco Road, and Grand
Avenue.
Levels of Service
Motor vehicle traffic congestion is generally expressed in terms of Level of Service
(LOS), a qualitative measure of traffic levels. LOS A through C indicates free-flowing
traffic with little delay. LOS D and E indicate worsening congestion, and LOS F indicates
essential grid lock, or stopped conditions. Figures 2.1-6 through 2.1-8 summarize standard
LOS categories.
The Circulation Element of the Arroyo Grande General Plan specifies a standard of LOS
C or better on all streets and controlled intersections. Where LOS D exists, policies in the
Circulation Element direct the City to plan improvements to achieve LOS C or better. U.S.
101’s existing and proposed concept peak LOS is D, which is used as the minimum
acceptable LOS for this facility for this project.
Most intersections within the project area currently operate at a LOS C or better, with the
exception of the Brisco Road/El Camino Real (LOS D), Halcyon Road/El Camino
Real/U.S. 101 southbound ramps (LOS D), and Grand Avenue/West Branch Street (LOS
E) intersections.
All U.S. 101 mainline directional segments in the project area currently operate at LOS D
or better during the AM and PM peak hour periods.
U.S. 101 ramp junctions within the project area currently operate at LOS D or better
conditions during the AM and PM peak hour periods.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 62
Figure 2.1-6 Levels of Service for Two-Way Intersections
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 63
Figure 2.1-7 Levels of Service for Freeways
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 64
Figure 2.1-8 Levels of Service for Signalized Intersections
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 65
Existing Traffic Conditions
Existing traffic conditions during peak AM and PM hours for project area intersections,
the U.S. 101 mainline, and U.S. 101 ramp junctions were calculated in 2011 and are
shown in Table 2.1-8.
Table 2.1-8 Existing Traffic Conditions (2011)
Intersections
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay* LOS Delay* LOS
West Branch Street/Camino Mercado/U.S. 101 northbound
ramps
29.5 C 26.6 C
Brisco Road/El Camino Real 18.9 B 35.1 D
Brisco Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramps 21.4 C 28.1 C
Brisco Road/West Branch Street 18.5 B 17.0 B
Halcyon Road/El Camino Real/U.S. 101 southbound ramps 39.5 D 29.7 C
Grand Avenue/U.S. 101 southbound ramps 21.1 C 31.3 C
Grand Avenue/U.S. 101 northbound ramps 13.3 B 16.4 B
Rodeo Drive/West Branch Street 10.0 A 11.0 B
Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street 9.3 A 9.8 A
Grand Avenue/West Branch Street 22.4 C 57.8 E
U.S. 101 Mainline Segments
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Density
pc/mi/
ln**
LOS
Density
pc/mi/
ln**
LOS
Just south of the Grand Avenue interchange (southbound) 14.4 B 25.8 C
Just south of the Grand Avenue interchange (northbound) 22.5 C 12.6 B
Between Grand Avenue interchange and Brisco Road-
Halcyon Road interchange (southbound) 13.3 B 24.7 C
Between Grand Avenue interchange and Brisco Road-
Halcyon Road interchange (northbound) 22.8 C 14.4 B
Between Brisco Road-Halcyon Road interchange and Oak
Park Boulevard interchange (southbound) 14.3 B 26.8 D
Between Brisco Road-Halcyon Road interchange and Oak
Park Boulevard interchange (northbound) 25.5 C 15.6 B
Just north of the Oak Park Boulevard interchange
(southbound) 15.2 B 33.5 D
Just north of the Oak Park Boulevard interchange
(northbound) 24.3 C 17.3 B
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 66
Table 2.1-8 Existing Traffic Conditions (2011)
U.S. 101 Mainline Ramp Junction
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Density
pc/mi/
ln**
LOS
Density
pc/mi/
ln**
LOS
Southbound on-ramp from Grand Avenue (merge) 16.0 B 27.1 C
Northbound off-ramp to Grand Avenue (diverge) 26.3 C 15.7 B
Northbound on-ramp from Grand Avenue (merge) 26.1 C 17.8 B
Southbound off-ramp to Grand Avenue (diverge) 16.4 B 28.8 D
Southbound on-ramp from Halcyon Road (merge) 11.6 B 22.7 C
Northbound off-ramp to Brisco Road (diverge) 26.7 C 17.6 B
Northbound on-ramp from Brisco Road (merge) 28.0 D 18.5 C
Southbound off-ramp to Halcyon Road (diverge) 17.5 B 30.9 D
Northbound off-ramp to Camino Mercado (diverge) 30.9 D 19.4 B
Northbound on-ramp from Camino Mercado (merge) 26.2 C 17.6 C
Source: PA&ED Phase Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis (Wood Rodgers 2012)
* Delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. Average control delays are indicated for signal-controlled intersections; worst-
case control delays are indicated for two-way-stop-control intersections.
** Pc/mi/ln = passenger cars per mile per hour.
Traffic Accident Rates
Accident rates on the U.S. 101 mainline through the project area are below statewide
averages. In the April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015 study period there were no fatal
collisions. However, the southbound Fair Oaks off-ramp, the southbound Halcyon Road
off-ramp, and the northbound Camino Mercado on- and off-ramps had actual accident
rates that exceeded the statewide average.
Public Transportation Facilities
Public transportation facilities within the project area include Regional Transit Authority
stops at the Arroyo Grande Library/South County Regional Center, Walmart, and Arroyo
Grande Shell gas station. Park and Ride lots also exist on El Camino Real (between
Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue) and at Walmart. The Regional Transit Authority
(RTA) provides intercommunity public transportation via bus service in San Luis Obispo
County and beyond.
Bicycle Facilities
Bike facilities within or adjacent to the project boundary include bike lanes along Camino
Mercado and Rancho Parkway. Additional bike lanes in the City are located along
portions of James Way, outside of the project boundary. There are also several “suggested
bike routes” within Arroyo Grande indicated on the San Luis Obispo County Bike Map,
including routes along West Branch Street, Oak Park Boulevard, and remaining portions
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 67
of James Way. Non-motorized vehicles, including bicycles, are prohibited within the U.S.
101 corridor through the project boundary.
Environmental Consequences
Existing Roadways and Levels of Service
In the year 2035 (the year the City anticipates reaching build out under the General Plan),
a majority of intersections within the project area would operate at inadequate levels
during peak hours (AM and/or PM) under the No-Build Alternative, with many
intersections operating at an LOS D or even F. Every U.S. 101 mainline segment and
every U.S. 101 on- and off-ramp junction in the project area are estimated to operate at
LOS E or worse by the year 2035, except for the southbound on-ramp at Halcyon Road,
which is predicted to operate at LOS D.
Under year 2035 conditions, Alternative 1 would substantially improve traffic conditions
at project area intersections except West Branch Street/Old Ranch Road, which would
degrade from LOS B to LOS C (still within acceptable levels). Alternative 1 would
maintain freeway mainline and slightly improve mainline-ramp junction operations. No
change to freeway mainline operations over No-Build conditions would occur, and slight
improvements to freeway mainline-ramp junction operations would result.
Alternative 1 would impact existing parking and entryways at Brisco’s True Value
Hardware and the Shell and Chevron gas stations on East Grand Avenue. Parking would
be reconfigured and replaced on-site and no substantial impact would occur.
Under year 2035 conditions, Alternative 4C would improve traffic levels at all project
area intersections within the project area. The new U.S. 101 northbound ramps/Grace
Lane/West Branch Street roundabout intersection are projected to operate at LOS A at
completion of construction (estimated year 2015) and LOS B under year 2035 conditions.
No change to freeway mainline operations over No-Build conditions would occur and
Alternative 4C would improve mainline-ramp junction operations. The new ramps at
Grace Lane are projected to operate at LOS B. The anticipated future six-lane mainline
through the project area would improve conditions on all ramps to LOS D or better.
Alternative 4C would impact parking and entryways at Brisco’s True Value Hardware and
the Arroyo Grande Library/South County Regional Center. Parking at Brisco’s True
Value Hardware would be reconfigured and replaced on-site. Approximately 46 parking
spaces at the Arroyo Grande Library/South County Regional Center would be converted
into the project right-of-way to accommodate the new U.S. 101 northbound ramps/Grace
Lane/West Branch Street intersection. The City would replace lost parking spaces in
undeveloped portions of the same parcel; therefore, no substantial impact would occur.
The proposed project would provide long-term circulation benefits throughout the project
area, including improved levels of service at project area intersections and U.S. 101 ramp
junctions over the No-Build Alternative. No change in U.S. 101 mainline operations in the
project area would occur under either project alternative. Access to existing uses within
the project area would be maintained and/or improved through the proposed transportation
improvements and impacts to parking would be minimized through replacement parking.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 68
Therefore, no substantial effects on access, circulation, or parking within the project area
would occur under either project alternative. Tables 2.1-9 through 2.1-12 provide
comparative information on projected traffic operations under Alternative 1, Alternative
4C, and the No-Build Alternative.
Table 2.1-9 Intersection Operations, Year 2035
Intersection
AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS
No-
Build Alt 1 Alt 4C No-
Build Alt 1 Alt 4C
W Branch Street/Camino Mercado/NB Ramps C C C D D D
Brisco Road/El Camino Real D C C F D C
Brisco Road/NB Ramps C n/a n/a D n/a n/a
Brisco Road/W Branch St B B B C B B
Halcyon Road/El Camino Real/SB Ramps D D D D C C
Grand Avenue/SB Ramps C B B E C C
Grand Avenue/NB Ramps C B B B B B
Rodeo Drive/W Branch Street B B n/a B B n/a
West Branch Street/Grace Lane/NB ramps n/a n/a B n/a n/a B
Old Ranch Road/W Branch Street B B B B C B
Grand Avenue/W Branch Street F F F F F F
Source: PA&ED Phase Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis (Wood Rodgers 2012) and Branch St/Rodeo Dr/U.S.
101 NB Ramps Intersection – Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis (Wood Rodgers 2014).
Table 2.1-10 Freeway Mainline Operations, Year 2035
Segment Direction
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
4-Lane Mainline LOS 4-Lane Mainline LOS
No-
Build Alt 1 Alt 4C No-
Build Alt 1 Alt 4C
South of Grand Avenue
SB C C C F F F
NB E E E C C C
Grand Avenue to Brisco Road /
Halcyon Road
SB C C C F F F
NB E E E C C C
Brisco Road / Halcyon Road to
Oak Park
SB C C C F F F
NB F n/a F C n/a C
North of Oak Park SB C C C F F F
NB E E E C C C
Source: PA&ED Phase Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis (Wood Rodgers 2012) and Branch St/Rodeo Dr/U.S.
101 NB Ramps Intersection – Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis (Wood Rodgers 2014).
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 69
Table 2.1-11 Freeway Mainline-Ramp Junction Operations, Year 2035
Segment
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
4-Lane Mainline LOS 4-Lane Mainline LOS
No-
Build Alt 1 Alt 4C No-
Build Alt 1 Alt 4C
U.S. 101/East Grand Avenue Interchange
U.S. 101 SB On-Ramp - Merge C C C E E E
U.S. 101 NB Off-Ramp - Diverge E E E C C C
U.S. 101 NB On-Ramp - Merge E D D C C C
U.S. 101 SB Off-Ramp - Diverge B B B E E E
U.S. 101/Brisco Road-Halcyon Road Interchange
U.S. 101 SB On-Ramp – Merge B B B D D D
U.S. 01 NB Off-Ramp – Diverge E n/a D C n/a B
U.S. 101 NB On-Ramp – Merge E n/a D C n/a B
U.S. 101 SB Off-Ramp – Diverge C C C F F F
U.S. 101/West Branch Street/Camino Mercado Interchange
U.S. 101 NB Off-Ramp – Diverge E E D C C C
U.S. 101 NB On-Ramp – Merge E E D C C C
Source: PA&ED Phase Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis (Wood Rodgers 2012) and Branch St/Rodeo Dr/U.S.
101 NB Ramps Intersection – Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis (Wood Rodgers 2014).
Table 2.1-12 U.S. 101 Mainline Weaving Segment Operations,
Year 2035
Mainline Weaving Segment
AM Peak Hour LOS PM Peak Hour LOS
No-
Build Alt 1 Alt
4C
No-
Build Alt 1 Alt
4C
Grand Ave NB On-Ramp and Brisco Road NB
Off-Ramp
E ORW D C ORW B
Brisco Road NB On-Ramp and Camino
Mercado NB Off-Ramp
F n/a D D n/a B
El Camino Real SB On-Ramp and Camino
Mercado NB Off-Ramp
ORW ORW ORW ORW ORW ORW
Halcyon Road SB On-Ramp and Grand
Avenue SB Off-Ramp
B B B D D D
*ORW = Out of Realm of Weaving, meaning weaving conditions are a technical non-issue (exceeds LOS A)
Source: PA&ED Phase Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis (Wood Rodgers 2012) and Branch St/Rodeo Dr/U.S.
101 NB Ramps Intersection – Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis (Wood Rodgers 2014).
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 70
Public Transportation and Bicycle Facilities
Both build alternatives would require modifications to bus stop locations and could
conflict with existing public transportation and/or bicycle and pedestrian facilities if those
facilities are not preserved through construction and design of the proposed project.
Alternative 1 would require relocation of the existing Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
bus stop in front of the Arroyo Grande Shell gas station to a nearby adjacent location, as
the right lane in front of the Shell station is proposed to be converted to an exclusive right-
turn lane and buses must have the option of staying off of the U.S. 101 on-ramp. The bus
stop currently consists of a sign only and could easily be relocated to an adjacent area.
Therefore, no substantial impacts associated with the relocation are anticipated.
Alternative 4C would provide beneficial improvements to the existing public transit
facilities through development of an additional Park and Ride lot at the northwest corner
of the proposed U.S. 101 ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection and
pedestrian improvements adjacent to St. Patrick’s school. No relocation of the Regional
Transit Authority bus stop on East Grand Avenue would be required.
Both build alternatives would require modifications to bicycle and pedestrian facilities and
could conflict with existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as those along Camino
Mercado, or future planned routes and facilities such as the planned bike path along West
Branch Street. The project does not propose any changes along Rancho Parkway;
therefore, no impacts to the Rancho Parkway bike path would occur.
Alternative 1 proposes widening the East Grand Avenue bridge overcrossing over U.S.
101 to provide standard bike lanes and sidewalks. The widened structure would improve
bike and pedestrian facilities and connections across the bridge. If not considered in
project design then proposed restriping/lane reconfiguration at the U.S. 101/Camino
Mercado intersection could interfere with future development of the bike path planned
along West Branch Street.
Alternative 4C would not widen the East Grand Avenue bridge overcrossing and would
not improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities along East Grand Avenue. No modifications
are proposed along Rancho Parkway or at the U.S. 101/Camino Mercado intersection that
would affect use of existing bike lanes. However, if not properly designed, development
of the project could adversely affect planned bike and pedestrian improvements in the
project area, including the bike path planned along West Branch Street.
Under the No-Build Alternative, no improvements or modifications would occur. No
impacts to project area access, circulation, parking, public transportation, or bicycle and
pedestrian facilities would occur. However, existing unacceptable conditions would not be
improved and would continue to degrade, adversely affecting transportation and
circulation within the project area over time.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Both build alternatives would improve and/or maintain traffic conditions within the study
area and along the U.S. 101 mainline through Arroyo Grande. Therefore, no substantial
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 71
adverse impacts to traffic or the existing circulation system would occur. Potential adverse
impacts on alternative transportation facilities and parking would be avoided or minimized
through implementation of recommended measures. Additional traffic management plan
strategies and elements that would help mitigate traffic impacts for this project include a
public awareness campaign (which may include media releases, telephone hotline, public
meetings, and a website), changeable message signs, construction area signs, and
lane/ramp closure charts that limit lane closures to periods of lower traffic demand.
TRA/mm-1 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare a
Non-Motorized / Public Transportation Plan in consultation with the City
of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department and the County Bicycle
Advisory Committee. The plan shall include, at minimum:
a. Designs for providing bicycle, pedestrian and car interaction along
the project area that would minimize conflicts through the use of
striping, signage, lighting, bollards, etc.;
b. Examples of the signage, striping, lighting, designs, etc. for safe
bicycle, pedestrian and car interaction;
c. Methods for ensuring the project would not interfere in any way
with existing or proposed future bike and pedestrian lanes and
paths, whether formal or informal, particularly those associated
with St. Patrick’s School, the Arroyo Grande Library, and adjacent
public buildings and facilities.
d. Methods for ensuring bike and pedestrian circulation to serve
schools and public facilities are made a priority consistent with
policies of the Circulation Element.
e. Methods to ensure the project would not interfere, temporarily or
long-term, in any way with any routes, schedules, or operations of
the RTA (Regional Transit Authority) stops at Walmart and the
Arroyo Grande Library.
f. Methods to ensure the project would not interfere in any way with
the Park and Ride parking lots located within the project area,
including the lot on El Camino Real in between Halcyon Street and
Grand Avenue.
TRA/mm-2 The project shall be designed to allow convenient and/or improved access
to the Regional Transit Authority stops along West Branch Street at the
Arroyo Grande Library and Walmart and the Park and Ride lots along El
Camino Real. Construction activities shall not interfere with or inhibit
access or usability of the public transportation stops or parking lots and
shall take into account existing RTA and Park and Ride schedules and
routes.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 72
TRA/mm-3 The City and Caltrans shall coordinate with affected local businesses to
ensure that all lost parking spaces are reconfigured and replaced.
Replacement should be at a 1:1 ratio if feasible. At minimum, parking shall
be replaced in an amount consistent with City regulations and reconfigured
and replacement parking shall be designed consistent with the Land Use
Element of the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan.
2.1.7 Visual/Aesthetics
Regulatory Setting
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, establishes that the
federal government use all practicable means to ensure all Americans safe, healthful,
productive, and aesthetically (emphasis added) and culturally pleasing surroundings (42
United States Code [USC] 4331[b][2]). To further emphasize this point, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), in its implementation of NEPA (23 USC 109[h]),
directs that final decisions on projects are to be made in the best overall public interest
taking into account adverse environmental impacts, including among others, the
destruction or disruption of aesthetic values.
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the Visual Impact Assessment (November 2016)
and Visual Impact Assessment Addendum (January 2017) prepared for the project.
Temporary construction impacts are discussed in Section 2.4, Construction Impacts.
Southern San Luis Obispo County is characterized by urban built environments and open
space areas that maintain the rural identity between communities and serve as a boundary
to prevent urban sprawl. The project area encompasses an urbanized area within the City
of Arroyo Grande on rolling terrain at an elevation of approximately 120 to 240 feet. The
approximately 1.5-mile-long project corridor extends through an area of medium intensity
urban development and relatively mature trees and landscaping within the City of Arroyo
Grande.
Along the affected portion of U.S. 101, the general character of the area is retail-industrial
commercial, with interspersed vacant or less developed (i.e., cemetery) community
facility parcels and adjacent residential neighborhoods. The prominent commercial setting
is generally consistent within the project area and no atypical visual features are present.
The overall area is flat west/south of U.S. 101 with rolling hills on the east/north side. The
most noticeable features in the project vicinity are the U.S. 101 mainline, interchanges and
associated components, the community cemetery to the west/south of U.S. 101, and the
large retail complexes, community buildings, and St. Patrick’s School to the east/north of
U.S. 101. At the south end of the project corridor, the visually-distinctive downtown
Village of Arroyo Grande is visible in the intermediate distance. The northbound U.S. 101
ramps/East Grand Avenue intersection serves as a visual “gateway” to the downtown
Village of Arroyo Grande, including City signage and landscaped areas northeast of the
intersection.
The proposed project is not located in a visually “Sensitive Resource Area” or “scenic
resource view shed” as defined by the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan. The project is
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 73
not within any City, County, or State designated scenic road or highway. The existing
visual quality of the project area is considered moderate to low due to the nature of
surrounding businesses and busy intersections, the lack of substantial topographical
interest, and the variation between natural landscape forms and man-made structures of
contrasting types (i.e., highway bridges versus commercial centers).
The greatest number of potential viewers of the project would be from public roadways in
the project area, including U.S. 101, Grand Avenue, West Branch Street, Brisco Road, and
Grace Lane. Daily trips along these roadways, and the number of potential viewers (which
is likely to exceed 100,000 per day), would be high.
Environmental Consequences
A Visual Impact Rating and analysis were completed for the project. The visual impacts
of the project were determined by assessing the visual resource change due to the project
and predicting viewer response to that change.
Visual resource changes were evaluated based on the following three criteria:
• Vividness – the visual power or memorability of landscape components as they
combine in striking and/or distinctive visual patterns.
• Intactness – the visual integrity of the landscape and its freedom from non-typical
encroaching elements. A high level of intactness can be present in well-kept urban and
rural landscapes, as well as in natural settings.
• Unity – the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape considered
as a whole. It frequently attests to the careful design of individual manmade
components in the landscape.
Anticipated viewer response was determined through consideration of two elements:
viewer sensitivity and viewer exposure. These elements combine to form a method of
predicting how the public might react to visual changes brought about by a highway
project.
Because it is not feasible to analyze all the views in which the proposed project would be
seen, three key viewpoints were selected that most clearly display the visual effects of the
project. Key views also represent the primary viewer groups that would potentially be
affected by the project. The key viewing area locations are listed in Table 2.1-13, below,
and shown on Figure 2.1-9. Context photos are provided in Figures 2.1-10 through 2.1-14
to reflect the visual setting.
Table 2.1-13 Key Viewing Area Locations
KVA Location
1 From Brisco Road looking North toward the proposed project site
2 From Rodeo Drive looking southwest toward the project site
3 From Grand Avenue looking northeast toward Arroyo Grande
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 74
Figure 2.1-9 KVA and Context Photo Locations
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 75
Figure 2.1-10 Context Photo 1: U.S. 101 southbound, looking toward Brisco Road Undercrossing
Figure 2.1-11 Context Photo 2: Rodeo Drive looking southwest toward U.S. 101 and project area
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 76
Figure 2.1-12 Context Photo 3: U.S. 101 heading southbound at Grand Avenue exit
Figure 2.1-13 Context Photo 4: Grand Avenue looking northeast toward the southbound ramps intersection
and the Village of Arroyo Grande beyond
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 77
Figure 2.1-14 Context Photo 5: View southwest along Grand Avenue as it crosses over U.S. 101
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 78
Key Viewing Area 1
Existing Views
The most substantial feature in this existing view is the U.S. 101 bridge/undercrossing
at Brisco Road. The vividness of this view is moderate, given the hill in the
background and the mature eucalyptus trees. The intactness rating is moderately low
because of the variation between the natural landscape forms and the large presence
of man-made structures of contrasting types (highway bridge versus commercial
center). The unity rating is moderate considering the nature of the surrounding
businesses and the busy intersection. There are no substantial diverse elements (refer
to Figure 2.1-15, Existing Conditions).
Proposed Views – Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C
Proposed modifications at this location are the same under both build alternatives;
therefore, visual impacts would be the same under Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C.
As seen from this viewpoint, the most visible change would be the relocation of the
traffic signal equipment, sidewalk and landscaping at the southwest corner of El
Camino Real and Brisco Road approximately 5 to 10 feet to the west. The same or
substantially similar traffic signal equipment and landscaping features would be
developed at the adjacent location. Another visible change from this view would be
the removal of traffic signal equipment, undercrossing signage, and some mature
eucalyptus trees at the Brisco Road on- and off-ramps. This is seen through the small
window created by the undercrossing structure and above the U.S. 101 bridge.
Otherwise, the view maintains its existing condition. These changes would not
adversely affect vividness, intactness, or unity of the existing view. Therefore, the
visual resource change due to the project at this viewing location would be minor
(refer to Figure 2.1-15, Simulation).
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 79
Existing Conditions: Brisco Road facing east toward Brisco Road/101 undercrossing
Simulation of Alternatives 1 and 4C
(Removal of eucalyptus trees above freeway undercrossing and relocation of sidewalk, traffic signal equipment and landscaping at left edge
approximately 5-10 feet to the west, upon completion of construction and restoration/replanting of the site)
Figure 2.1-15 Key Viewing Area 1 – Alternatives 1 and 4C
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 80
Key Viewing Area 2
Existing Views
This view from east of U.S. 101 on Rodeo Drive is of moderate to relatively low
visual quality. The freeway itself is a large part of the mid-ground, with disturbed,
undeveloped land in the foreground, and a mixed commercial and residential
neighborhood beyond. The existing trees are uniform in nature and there is little
substantial topographical interest from this view. The visual intactness rating is low to
medium given the prominence of the freeway and the undeveloped area east of the
freeway. The unity rating is also low to medium because the landscape is already
broken by the existing road and varying land uses (refer to Figure 2.1-16, Existing
Conditions).
Proposed Views – Alternative 1
Viewed from this location and angle, the proposed project will create a slight
improvement in the unity of the scene. Removal of the on- and off-ramps at Brisco
Road would create a larger landscaped area between U.S. 101 and the frontage roads.
A soundwall (noise barrier) could be constructed on the east side of U.S. 101,
between the mainline and northbound on- and off-ramps at the Brisco Road
undercrossing. This barrier would be visible from KVA 2 in the landscaped area
between the mainline and northbound ramps, but views from West Branch Street to
the east would continue to be shielded by existing landscaping resulting in a minimal
loss of view. However, if during final design conditions have substantially changed,
noise abatement and the construction of soundwalls may not be necessary. The final
decision on noise abatement will be made upon completion of the project design and
the public involvement process. Therefore, this project element is not included in the
simulation of Alternative 1 from KVA 2. Otherwise the views from this location
would remain the same (refer to Figure 2.1-16, Simulation).
Proposed Views – Alternative 4C
The view of Alternative 4C from this viewing area represents the most substantial
change in visual conditions associated with the project. The development of the new
on- and off-ramps and ramps/West Branch Street/Grace Lane intersection would be
directly visible from this location and would dominate the new view. This alternative
would also require the addition of several retaining walls (anticipated to consist of
standard masonry block walls) and includes development of a new Park and Ride lot
adjacent to the new intersection. Alternative 4C also proposes a new parking lot to
replace spaces at the County-owned parcel that would be impacted by the new
roundabout.
While the project would substantially increase the number and extent of paved
elements in this area, these developments would not constitute an adverse change in
the visual quality of the view because of the existing inconsistency in land uses
(urban development and the undeveloped vacant lot), consistency of the proposed
elements with the existing freeway infrastructure, and the currently moderate to low
visual quality at this location. The proposed changes would slightly decrease
vividness of the view by incorporating roadway infrastructure, a new parking area,
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 81
landscaping, and design elements in currently disturbed grassy areas. Visual
intactness would slightly decrease as the prominence of the existing freeway is
increased with the new freeway elements. Although this alternative would remove
one of the soft scape land uses from this view (i.e., the vacant City-owned parcel) and
decrease another (the rear portion of the disturbed County-owned parcel), visual unity
would increase with the addition of the new intersection, associated traffic facilities,
parking areas, and retaining walls in that those elements would be visually compatible
with the existing freeway (refer to Figure 2.1-17, Simulation).
A soundwall (noise barrier) could be constructed on the east side of U.S. 101,
between the mainline and northbound on- and off-ramps at the Brisco Road
undercrossing. This barrier would be visible from KVA 2 in the landscaped area
between the mainline and northbound ramps, but views from West Branch Street to
the east would continue to be shielded by existing landscaping resulting in a minimal
loss of view. However, if during final design conditions have substantially changed,
noise abatement and the construction of soundwalls may not be necessary. The final
decision on noise abatement will be made upon completion of the project design and
the public involvement process. Therefore, this project element is not included in the
simulation of Alternative 4C from KVA 2.
The proposed project elements are similar to those in the surrounding environment
and the impacts resulting from an increase in unnatural elements (i.e., retaining walls,
sound walls, parking areas) would be minimized through design techniques and
compliance with City policies. Wall design is required to go through the City’s
Architectural Review Committee, and design details must include stepped design
and/or natural looking rock finish (shotcrete or equivalent). No significant adverse
impact on visual resources would occur
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 82
Existing Conditions: Rodeo Drive facing west toward Brisco Road/101 underpass and off-ramp
Simulation of Alternative 1
(Removal of off-ramp, slightly increasing landscaped shoulder area between West Branch Street and the freeway, and removal of eucalyptus
trees on north (near) side of undercrossing upon completion of construction and restoration/replanting of the site)
Figure 2.1-16. Key Viewing Area 2 – Alternative 1
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 83
Existing Conditions: Rodeo Drive facing west toward Brisco Road/101 underpass and off-ramp
Simulation of Alternative 4C
(Existing vacant lot would be replaced by new on- and off-ramps, U.S. 101 ramps/West Branch Street/Grace Lane intersection, Park and Ride
lot, and retaining walls at left and right edge to accommodate new infrastructure)
Figure 2.1-17 Key Viewing Area 2 – Alternative 4C
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 84
Key Viewing Area 3
Existing Views
This view from Grand Avenue just east of the U.S. 101 overcrossing facing northeast
into the Village of Arroyo Grande is of moderate visual quality. Grand Avenue is a
large part of the mid-ground, with landscaped areas on both sides of the roadway.
Vividness is moderate with the various urban and mature tree elements creating a
somewhat memorable entry into the village. Intactness and unity are moderate to low
because of the signs and signals that tend to dominate the near view (refer to Figure
2.1-18, Existing Conditions).
Proposed Views – Alternative 1
Viewed from this location and angle, the proposed project would increase the width
of Grand Avenue, including through the ramp intersections on both sides of the
overcrossing. This would cause the road and sidewalks to be moved into the
landscaped areas on both sides of Grand Avenue. The proposed project would also
create slightly perceptible changes by re-striping the travel lanes and reducing the
amount of landscaping on the far side of the northbound off-ramp.
These improvements, which would widen existing infrastructure but would not
introduce new elements that are not currently present, would be minimally visible and
would not adversely degrade the view. The existing view is currently dominated by
road and highway infrastructure in the foreground. Vividness of the area would
remain generally the same. Visual intactness would not change as the prominence of
the existing roadway is currently substantial and the proposed improvements do not
introduce additional encroaching elements. Although this alternative would remove
portions of the soft scape land uses from this view (i.e., the landscaped areas), visual
unity would also remain the same, in that the additional elements would be visually
compatible with the existing roadway (refer to Figure 2.1-18, Simulation).
Alternative 1 would result in the relocation of the City gateway sign and loss of
approximately 1,900 square feet of landscaping at the northeast corner of the
northbound U.S. 101/East Grand Avenue intersection. The reconfiguration would not
result in a substantial change in views from surrounding roadways (refer to Figure
2.1-18); however, local viewers will have an adverse response to the reduction in the
size of the signage/landscaped area.
Proposed Views – Alternative 4C
There is no change between existing conditions and Alternative 4C at this viewing
location.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 85
Existing Conditions: View along Grand Avenue looking northeast toward the Village of Arroyo Grande
Simulation of Alternative 1
(Widening of Grand Avenue at the ramp intersection and barely perceptible restriping and addition of extra turn lanes on off-ramp and west-bound
Grand Avenue to access on-ramp)
Figure 2.1-18 Key Viewing Area 3 – Alternative 1
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 86
The varying project impacts would be visible from U.S. 101 and several local
roadways in the project vicinity (Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane, West Branch Street,
Grand Avenue). The view duration would fluctuate based on the amount of traffic
present and direction of travel; however, the longest view could be up to 90 seconds
for vehicles stopped in traffic, and the shortest as little as two to five seconds. The
most visible changes would include removal of the northbound on- and off-ramps at
Brisco Road and associated traffic signals, the addition of auxiliary lanes, the
realignment of the southbound on-ramp from Grand Avenue, and the addition of on-
and off-ramps and a new roundabout interchange under Alternative 4C. Visually
important components proposed under Alternative 4C also include additional parking
areas and several large retaining walls and sound walls that would block views and
potentially degrade existing visual character and quality.
Soundwalls would be located at an elevation of approximately 12-17 feet higher than
the elevation of U.S. 101, so views would be minimally impacted from U.S. 101. The
view from El Camino Real to the east across U.S. 101 would be obscured and would
result in loss of view of landscaped areas and portions of the City. The view from
West Branch Street to the west across U.S. 101 would continue to be shielded by
existing landscaping resulted in minimal loss of views. Soundwall locations are
shown in Figures 2.2-8, 2.2-9, and 2.2-10.
Viewers of the project site would have varying sensitivities regarding changes to the
visual environment, but are generally expected to have low to moderate expectations
due to the generally disturbed urban character of the area, the moderate to low
existing visual quality of the project area, the presence of the freeway, and the lack of
scenic view corridors in the area. Local planning policies do not identify any specific
visual resources within the project limits, nor is the project visible from any local or
state designated scenic roadways. The project would not block or adversely affect
views of the surrounding hills, coastal resources, or any local scenic vista. Figures
2.1-19 through 2.1-21 include additional photo-simulations approaching the
Alternative 4C roundabout.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Potential adverse impacts on visual resources would be avoided or minimized through
implementation of required landscape plans and compliance with City design
standards and requirements. No adverse impacts would occur.
If during final design conditions have substantially changed, noise abatement and the
construction of soundwalls may not be necessary. The final decision on noise
abatement will be made upon completion of the project design and the public
involvement process.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 87
Figure 2.1-19 Additional Photo-Simulations of the Alternative 4C
Roundabout – West Branch Street Looking East
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 88
Figure 2.1-20 Additional Photo-Simulations of the Alternative 4C
Roundabout – West Branch Street Looking West
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 89
Figure 2.1-21 Additional Photo-Simulations of the Alternative 4C
Roundabout – Rodeo Drive Looking South
2.2 Physical Environment
2.2.1 Hydrology and Floodplain
Regulatory Setting
EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) directs all federal agencies to refrain from
conducting, supporting, or allowing actions in floodplains unless it is the only
practicable alternative. Requirements for compliance are outlined in 23 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR 650) Subpart A.
To comply, the following must be analyzed:
• The practicability of alternatives to any longitudinal encroachments.
• Risks of the action.
• Impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values.
• Support of incompatible floodplain development.
• Measures to minimize floodplain impacts and to preserve/restore any beneficial
floodplain values affected by the project.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 90
The base floodplain is defined as “the area subject to flooding by the flood or tide
having a one percent chance of being exceeded in any given year.” An encroachment
is defined as “an action within the limits of the base floodplain.”
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the Location Hydraulics Study (February
2016) prepared for the project.
The project area includes softly rolling terrain south of U.S. 101 with more aggressive
hills and elevation changes north of the highway. The Project is located in the Arroyo
Grande Creek and Meadow Park Creek watersheds. Arroyo Grande Creek generally
flows in a westerly direction and crosses U.S. 101 approximately 700 feet (0.15 mile)
south of the Grand Avenue overcrossing. It flows southward and then turns to the
west, passing south of Oceano, California. Meadow Park Creek crosses U.S. 101 at
Oak Park Boulevard. Meadow Park Creek wraps around the north side of the city of
Grover Beach and drains southward inside of the coastal dunes. Meadow Park Creek
meets Arroyo Grande Creek at a combined mouth where they both discharge into the
Pacific Ocean near the Oceano County Airport.
U.S. 101 Tributary Creek is identified on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) between the northbound Camino
Mercado on-ramp and West Branch Street that drains to Meadow Park Creek. The
Flood Insurance Rate Map identifies this tributary in Zone A Special Flood Hazard
Area (refer to Figure 2.2-1). Zone A refers to 100-year flood areas where the base
flood elevations and flood hazard have not been determined.
There is a detention basin north of West Branch Street approximately 350 feet east of
the West Branch Street/Camino Mercado intersection. An existing culvert conveys
flows from the drainage basin and other local runoff under West Branch Street into
the median strip between West Branch Street and the northbound U.S. 101 off-ramp
at Camino Mercado. A second culvert system conveys this flow and any additional
local runoff under the northbound U.S. 101 on- and off-ramps at Camino Mercado
into U.S. 101 Tributary Creek. U.S. 101 Tributary Creek runs parallel to the
northbound on-ramp at Camino Mercado as a concrete lined roadside ditch for
approximately 0.2 mile. Flows are then conveyed to a box culvert under Oak Park
Boulevard that also drains another drainage basin at the northeast corner of the West
Branch Street/Oak Park Boulevard intersection. The total flow that U.S. 101
Tributary Creek can potentially receive is governed by the capacity of the existing
culvert systems.
Arroyo Grande Creek is within Zone AE Special Flood Hazard Area. Zone AE refers
to 100-year flood areas where the base flood elevations have been determined. There
are also small areas of Zone A and Zone X (the 500-year flood zone area) near the
southbound on-ramp from Grand Avenue at the edge of the Zone AE along Arroyo
Grande Creek.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 91
Figure 2.2-1 Flood Zone Map
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 92
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 93
There is an unnamed tributary to Arroyo Grande Creek that is conveyed under Grand
Avenue through an existing culvert approximately 75 feet southwest of the existing U.S.
101 southbound ramp/Grand Avenue intersection. A concrete-lined drainage ditch carries
the flows parallel to the southbound on-ramp approximately 800 feet to Arroyo Grande
Creek.
Environmental Consequences
The large majority of the project site is located outside of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood zone. However, small portions of the 100-
year flood zone exist near the northbound U.S. 101 on-ramp from Camino Mercado and
the southbound U.S. 101 on-ramp from Grand Avenue. Project-related disturbances and
modifications in these areas could affect hydrology and floodplains in the vicinity.
Modifications are proposed along the northbound on-ramp from Camino Mercado
adjacent to the U.S. 101 Tributary Creek as a part of Alternative 1. The on-ramp would be
widened to provide two receiving lanes and a 950-foot auxiliary lane would be developed
on northbound U.S. 101. A retaining wall would be constructed along the northeast side of
the on-ramp to allow the widening to occur without filling the bottom of the creek.
However, the proposed retaining wall would encroach into the left bank of the creek.
The Location Hydraulic Study prepared for the project (February 2016) evaluated the
potential impact of the encroachment and any change in the carrying capacity of the creek.
Hydraulic modeling showed that under maximum flow conditions, the water surface
elevation in the creek would remain below the foot of the proposed retaining wall.
Therefore, no effect on the hydraulic performance of the creek would occur as a result of
the retaining wall. This volume of flow would result in high velocity flows within the
creek; however, because the entire length of the creek is lined with concrete, it is not
susceptible to erosion.
The limiting factor for the creek’s conveyance capacity was determined to be a segment of
West Branch Street adjacent to the right bank of the creek that dipped to a lower elevation,
where the creek would break out onto West Branch Street.
Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C propose realignment of the southbound U.S. 101 on-
ramp from Grand Avenue in areas designated within the 100-year flood zone.
Realignment of the ramp would require lengthening the existing double barrel 56-inch
culvert that conveys flows under Grand Avenue parallel to the on-ramp by approximately
193 feet. The proposed changes would not impact the effective flow area of Arroyo
Grande Creek and, therefore, would not impact the Arroyo Grande Creek base floodplain
elevation. However, lengthening the culvert has the potential to reduce culvert capacity,
which could increase base floodplain levels upstream of the culvert (northwest of the
Grand Avenue/southbound ramps intersection).
It is estimated that a watershed of approximately 315 acres drains into the culvert,
including a portion of U.S. 101 and areas on both sides of the highway (flows from the
north side of U.S. 101 are conveyed through an existing culvert underneath the highway
into this culvert system). Hydraulic modeling showed that the watershed area generates
approximately 330 cubic feet per second of flow during a 100-year storm event.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 94
100-year storm flows under existing conditions and under the proposed project were
modeled to determine if the culvert extension would limit flow capacity or affect the
upstream water surface elevation. Modeling results showed that flows and the upstream
water surface elevations would be the same under both scenarios (105.33 feet). The water
surface elevation would be lower than any structures of interest in surrounding areas;
therefore, no risk of flooding or damage to structures would exist.
Other project modifications and disturbances would not substantially affect or change
hydrology or drainage patterns in the project area. Impervious surfaces would continue to
drain into the existing stormwater system. No adverse floodplain encroachment, as
defined in 23 CFR 650.105, would occur as a result of the project. No risk to life or
property or emergency access or evacuation facilities would occur.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Neither build alternative would result in a significant floodplain encroachment. No
adverse impact to hydrology or floodplains would occur under either build alternative.
Therefore, no measures are required.
2.2.2 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff
Regulatory Setting
Federal Requirements
Clean Water Act
In 1972, Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, making the addition
of pollutants to the waters of the United States (U.S.), from any point source unlawful
unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit. This act and its amendments are known today as the Clean
Water Act (CWA). Congress has amended the act several times. In the 1987 amendments,
Congress directed dischargers of storm water from municipal and industrial/construction
point sources to comply with the NPDES permit scheme. The following are important
CWA sections:
• Sections 303 and 304 require states to issue water quality standards, criteria, and
guidelines.
• Section 401 requires an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any
activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. to obtain certification from
the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the act. This is most
frequently required in tandem with a Section 404 permit request (see below).
• Section 402 establishes the NPDES, a permitting system for the discharges (except for
dredge or fill material) of any pollutant into waters of the U.S. Regional Water Quality
Control Boards (RWQCB) administer this permitting program in California. Section
402(p) requires permits for discharges of storm water from industrial/construction and
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s).
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 95
• Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredge or fill material
into waters of the U.S. This permit program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE).
The goal of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation’s waters.”
The USACE issues two types of 404 permits: General and Standard permits. There are
two types of General permits: Regional permits and Nationwide permits. Regional permits
are issued for a general category of activities when they are similar in nature and cause
minimal environmental effect. Nationwide permits are issued to authorize a variety of
minor project activities with no more than minimal effects.
Ordinarily, projects that do not meet the criteria for a Nationwide Permit may be permitted
under one of the USACE’s Standard permits. There are two types of Standard permits:
Individual permits and Letters of Permission. For Standard permits, the USACE decision
to approve is based on compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines (U.S. EPA Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 40
Part 230), and whether the permit approval is in the public interest. The Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines (Guidelines) were developed by the U.S. EPA in conjunction with the USACE,
and allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system (waters of the
U.S.) only if there is no practicable alternative which would have less adverse effects. The
Guidelines state that USACE may not issue a permit if there is a least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) to the proposed discharge that would have
lesser effects on waters of the U.S. and not have any other adverse environmental
consequences. According to the Guidelines, documentation is needed that a sequence of
avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures has been followed, in that order.
The Guidelines also restrict permitting activities that violate water quality or toxic effluent
standards, jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, violate marine sanctuary
protections, or cause “significant degradation” to waters of the U.S. In addition, every
permit from the USACE, even if not subject to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, must
meet general requirements. See 33 CFR 320.4. A discussion of the LEDPA determination,
if any, for the document is included in the Wetlands and Other Waters section.
State Requirements
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
California’s Porter-Cologne Act, enacted in 1969, provides the legal basis for water
quality regulation within California. This act requires a “Report of Waste Discharge” for
any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or gaseous) to land or surface waters that may impair
beneficial uses for surface and/or groundwater of the state. It predates the CWA and
regulates discharges to waters of the state. Waters of the state include more than just
waters of the U.S., like groundwater and surface waters not considered waters of the U.S.
Additionally, it prohibits discharges of “waste” as defined, and this definition is broader
than the CWA definition of “pollutant.” Discharges under the Porter-Cologne Act are
permitted by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and may be required even when the
discharge is already permitted or exempt under the CWA.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 96
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCBs are responsible for
establishing the water quality standards (objectives and beneficial uses) required by the
CWA, and regulating discharges to ensure compliance with the water quality standards.
Details about water quality standards in a project area are included in the applicable
RWQCB Basin Plan. In California, Regional Boards designate beneficial uses for all
water body segments in their jurisdictions and then set criteria necessary to protect these
uses. As a result, the water quality standards developed for particular water segments are
based on the designated use and vary depending on that use. In addition, the SWRCB
identifies waters failing to meet standards for specific pollutants. These waters are then
state-listed in accordance with CWA Section 303(d). If a state determines that waters are
impaired for one or more constituents and the standards cannot be met through point
source controls (NPDES permits or WDRs), the CWA requires the establishment of Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). TMDLs specify allowable pollutant loads from all
sources (point, non-point, and natural) for a given watershed.
State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards
The SWRCB administers water rights, sets water pollution control policy, and issues
water board orders on matters of statewide application, and oversees water quality
functions throughout the state by approving Basin Plans, TMDLs, and NPDES permits.
RWCQBs are responsible for protecting beneficial uses of water resources within their
regional jurisdiction using planning, permitting, and enforcement authorities to meet this
responsibility.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4)
Section 402(p) of the CWA requires the issuance of NPDES permits for five categories of
storm water discharges, including Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). An
MS4 is defined as “any conveyance or system of conveyances (roads with drainage
systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human-made channels,
and storm drains) owned or operated by a state, city, town, county, or other public body
having jurisdiction over storm water, that is designed or used for collecting or conveying
storm water.” The SWRCB has identified Caltrans as an owner/operator of an MS4 under
federal regulations. The Caltrans’s MS4 permit covers all Caltrans rights-of-way,
properties, facilities, and activities in the state. The SWRCB or the RWQCB issues
NPDES permits for five years, and permit requirements remain active until a new permit
has been adopted.
Caltrans’s MS4 Permit (Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ) was adopted on September 19, 2012
and became effective on July 1, 2013. The permit has three basic requirements:
1. Caltrans must comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit (see
below);
2. Caltrans must implement a year-round program in all parts of the State to effectively
control storm water and non-storm water discharges; and
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 97
3. Caltrans storm water discharges must meet water quality standards through
implementation of permanent and temporary (construction) Best Management
Practices (BMPs), to the Maximum Extent Practicable, and other measures as the
SWRCB determines to be necessary to meet the water quality standards.
To comply with the permit, Caltrans developed the Statewide Storm Water Management
Plan (SWMP) to address storm water pollution controls related to highway planning,
design, construction, and maintenance activities throughout California. The SWMP
assigns responsibilities within Caltrans for implementing storm water management
procedures and practices as well as training, public education and participation,
monitoring and research, program evaluation, and reporting activities. The SWMP
describes the minimum procedures and practices Caltrans uses to reduce pollutants in
storm water and non-storm water discharges. It outlines procedures and responsibilities
for protecting water quality, including the selection and implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs). The proposed project will be programmed to follow the
guidelines and procedures outlined in the latest SWMP to address storm water runoff.
Construction General Permit
Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-009-DWQ), adopted on September 2, 2009,
became effective on July 1, 2010. The permit regulates storm water discharges from
construction sites that result in a Disturbed Soil Area (DSA) of one acre or greater, and/or
are smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development. By law, all storm
water discharges associated with construction activity where clearing, grading, and
excavation result in soil disturbance of at least one acre must comply with the provisions
of the General Construction Permit. Construction activity that results in soil disturbances
of less than one acre is subject to this Construction General Permit if there is potential for
significant water quality impairment resulting from the activity as determined by the
RWQCB. Operators of regulated construction sites are required to develop storm water
pollution prevention plans; to implement sediment, erosion, and pollution prevention
control measures; and to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit.
The Construction General Permit separates projects into Risk Levels 1, 2, or 3. Risk levels
are determined during the planning and design phases, and are based on potential erosion
and transport to receiving waters. Requirements apply according to the Risk Level
determined. For example, a Risk Level 3 (highest risk) project would require compulsory
storm water runoff pH and turbidity monitoring, and before construction and after
construction aquatic biological assessments during specified seasonal windows. For all
projects subject to the permit, applicants are required to develop and implement an
effective Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with Caltrans’s
Standard Specifications, a Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) is necessary for projects
with DSA less than one acre.
Section 401 Permitting
Under Section 401 of the CWA, any project requiring a federal license or permit that may
result in a discharge to a water of the U.S. must obtain a 401 Certification, which certifies
that the project will be in compliance with state water quality standards. The most
common federal permits triggering 401 Certification are CWA Section 404 permits issued
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 98
by the USACE. The 401 permit certifications are obtained from the appropriate RWQCB,
dependent on the project location, and are required before the USACE issues a 404
permit.
In some cases, the RWQCB may have specific concerns with discharges associated with a
project. As a result, the RWQCB may issue a set of requirements known as Waste
Discharge Requirements (WDRs) under the State Water Code (Porter-Cologne Act) that
define activities, such as the inclusion of specific features, effluent limitations,
monitoring, and plan submittals that are to be implemented for protecting or benefiting
water quality. WDRs can be issued to address both permanent and temporary discharges
of a project.
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the Water Quality Assessment Report (February
2018) and Long Form – Storm Water Data Report (August 2016) prepared for the project.
Temporary construction impacts are discussed in Section 2.4, Construction Impacts.
The proposed project is located primarily within the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed,
approximately 7.5 miles downstream of the Lopez Lake Dam. The total area of the Arroyo
Grande Creek watershed downstream of the Lopez Lake Dam is 86 square miles. Arroyo
Grande Creek flows from Lopez Dam approximately 12.8 miles through gently sloping
terrain, through the fertile Arroyo Grande Valley, before emptying into an estuary and
lagoon adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The watershed includes the tributaries of Tally Ho,
Tar Springs and Los Berros Creeks.
The main stem Arroyo Grande Creek is 12.79 miles long. Los Berros Creek is 13.7 miles,
Tar Springs 9.47 miles, and Talley Ho is 4.25 miles in length. Arroyo Grande Creek has
been altered since the late 1950s for water supply and groundwater recharge purposes and
flood control within the Arroyo Grande valley. In 1961, a set of levees and a constructed
channel approximately 3 miles in length extending inland from the ocean were
constructed to convey flows within Arroyo Grande Creek and protect the adjacent low-
lying farmland from flooding. The Lopez Dam and Reservoir were completed in 1968.
Arroyo Grande Creek, from below Lopez Lake to the Pacific Ocean (approximately 13
miles) is listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Waters
identified on the list do not meet water quality standards, even after point sources of
pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. The
Clean Water Act requires that priority rankings for waters on the list be established and
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) be developed to improve water quality.
There are currently no Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) established for the Arroyo
Grande Creek or other water bodies that would receive stormwater flows in the project
vicinity (receiving waters). The Creek’s listed pollutants are Escherichia coli (E. coli) and
Fecal Coliform and identified sources include agriculture, grazing-related sources, and
urban runoff/storm sewers. Arroyo Grande Creek’s category 5 listing reflects that a
TMDL is required but not yet completed for at least one of the pollutants listed for the
creek. The estimated TMDL completion date is 2021.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 99
The Meadow Creek Watershed contains the northwest section of the City of Arroyo
Grande and portions of the unincorporated area north of the City limits. The Meadow
Creek Watershed covers 2,900 acres with a length of 2.8 miles. The lower section contains
remnant marshland.
Meadow Creek is 5.3 miles in length. The headwaters come from Canyon No. 1, and
Canyon No. 2 according to the Arroyo Grande Northeast U.S. Geologic Service
quadrangle map. This is located directly west of Carpenter Canyon, which feeds Tally Ho
Creek and encompasses the canyons that contain Oak Park Boulevard and Noyes Road
from U.S. 101 easterly to Highway 227. The creek then flows through the southeast part
of Pismo Beach towards Oceano. The lower portions of Meadow Creek consist of a
remnant marsh drainage system that terminates in the estuary at the terminus of the
Arroyo Grande Creek flood control channel. Floodgates were installed at the point where
Meadow Creek meets the Arroyo Grande Creek flood control channel levee to prevent
storm surges from infiltrating the adjacent lowland marsh area and damaging homes in
that area.
Runoff in the eastern (Arroyo Grande Creek watershed) portion of the project area flows
into an open ditch adjacent to U.S. 101 and then Arroyo Grande Creek, located at the
southeastern end of the project area, before running into the estuary, lagoon, and Pacific
Ocean. Surface runoff in the western (Meadow Creek watershed) portion of the project
area flows into Meadow Creek, Pismo Lake Ecological Reserve, and the estuary, lagoon,
and Pacific Ocean.
U.S. Geological Service quadrangle maps for Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande Northeast, and
Oceano, California show two blue-line channels within the project area, one at the western
end of the project area near the Camino Mercado/West Branch Street intersection and
another beginning just north of Old Ranch Road in the northeastern portion of the project
site. Road construction and development in the project area has altered the original natural
channels for these blue-line drainages, and flows are now contained by man-made
channels, detention basins, and culverts. The Camino Mercado drainage directs flows west
through a culvert and concrete v-ditch to Meadow Creek and the Pismo Lake Ecological
Reserve. The Old Ranch Road drainage diverts flows east via a culvert that passes under
Grand Avenue before connecting to Arroyo Grande Creek east of the project site.
There is an existing permanent storm water treatment BMP within the project limits. Two
biofiltration swales are located on the southbound side of U.S. 101 from postmile (PM)
13.35 to 13.61 and PM 13.19 to 13.29 (generally between the southbound Halcyon Road
on-ramp and Grand Avenue overcrossing).
Environmental Consequences
Water quality problems most frequently encountered in the project vicinity involve
excessive salinity or hardness of local groundwaters. Increasing nitrate concentrations is a
growing problem near Arroyo Grande. Surface water problems are less frequently evident,
although bacteriological contamination of coastal waters, eutrophication (excessive
nutrient richness in a body of water, frequently due to runoff from the land, which causes
a dense growth of plant life and death of animal life from lack of oxygen), and naturally
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 100
highly mineralized waters that contribute to excessive salinity of groundwaters are
growing problems in the region.
Based on the highway storm water runoff data collected by the Caltrans Storm Water
Research and Monitoring Program, typical pollutants from California highways include
heavy metals, sediment, and litter. As traffic increases in the project area over time, the
amount of pollutants originating from cars and trucks (i.e., oils and lubricants, tire and
brake lining wear, litter, and spills during vehicle accidents) is also expected to increase.
All pollutant levels and other regulated constituents and parameters in nearby surface
water bodies found to be elevated (compared to background) or exceeding published
water quality standards are also potential concerns for the proposed project, as project
development could worsen existing conditions.
Permanent impacts to water quality could occur over months or years following
construction of the project if the project is not designed to avoid and minimize potential
impacts. The primary causes of these impacts would be from increased storm water runoff
rates and volumes and increased storm water pollutant loads. Changes in riparian and
wetland areas can also impact water quality through damage or loss of waters and
surrounding habitat areas, and/or through increased sedimentation and siltation that can
degrade water quality and stream functions. Under Alternative 1, fill at the northwest
quadrant of the U.S. 101/Grand Avenue interchange would cover part of an existing bio-
strip. Hydroseed and compost would be placed to restore the existing bio-strip.
Both build alternatives would increase impervious surfaces within the project area –
Alternative 1 by 1.04 acres and Alternative 4C by 1.71 acres.
Table 2.2-1 Net New Impervious Surface Areas
Design
Alternative
Net Increase in Impervious Area (acres)
Within Caltrans
Right-of-Way
Within City
Right-of-Way Total
Alternative 1 0.78 0.26 1.04
Alternative 4C 1.07 0.64 1.71
Increased impervious surface areas lead to increased stormwater runoff rates and volumes.
Where increased or concentrated flows from roadway surfaces cannot be adequately
controlled, flooding, scour and/or erosion may occur. Localized scouring of waterways
may be worsened by increases in impervious surfaces that result in greater water volume
and flow rates through the waterway channels. Erosion from concentrated flow can cause
gullies, alter creek channels and flows, change the hydrology of wetlands, and discharge
sediment above background levels to waterways.
To accommodate the proposed development, certain existing culverts will require
extensions, realignments, or replacements under both alternatives. Culvert extensions can
exacerbate scouring of drainage beds at both the downstream and upstream ends. Changes
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 101
to a stream’s geomorphology caused by scouring could cause adverse sedimentation (bank
and bed erosion) and damage vegetation. Alternative 4C would also modify local drainage
patterns along West Branch Street by bisecting a roadside ditch.
Increased impervious areas and stormwater flows also captures additional pollutants from
runoff areas and results in increased pollutant discharges from the road surface during
storm events. These pollutant discharges can include oil, lubricants, trash, dust, brake
linings, suspended solids, nutrients, pesticides, metals, pathogens, and hazardous materials
spills during traffic accidents that are washed from the roadway into drainages, creeks,
and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. Increased pollutant discharges into these receiving water
bodies can directly and indirectly impact aquatic organisms that inhabit the affected water
bodies.
New or replaced impervious surfaces within the Caltrans right-of-way will be regulated
consistent with the requirements of the Caltrans National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permit, and new or
replaced impervious surfaces within the City right-of-way would be regulated consistent
with the City’s NPDES MS4 permit.
The proposed project’s Project Scope Summary Report (PSSR) was signed on June 25,
2013. Therefore, it is grandfathered under the new Caltrans NPDES permit (Order 2012-
0011 DWQ). The new Caltrans Permit Order No. 2012-0011 –DWQ, effective July 1,
2013, states, under the Project Planning and Design section, that the new permit
requirements only apply to new and redevelopment projects that have not completed the
project initiation phase. Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to the
requirements contained within the Caltrans 1999 NPDES Permit Order No. 99-DWQ-06.
Within the Caltrans right-of-way, Alternative 4C would result in over 1 acre of new
impervious surface area and would, therefore, trigger post construction requirements in
the Caltrans NPDES MS4 permit. Post construction requirements would prioritize
infiltration as a means of reducing additional flows. If the water quality volume cannot be
infiltrated, the remainder would be treated via flow through treatment Best Management
Practices (e.g., vegetated swales/strips). The increase in impervious surface areas under
Alternative 1 would not trigger the post construction requirements in the Caltrans NPDES
MS4 permit.
Within the City right-of-way, both Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C would create or
replace over 2,500 square feet (0.05 acre) of new impervious surface and, therefore, would
both trigger post construction requirements in the City NPDES MS4 permit. Post
construction requirements include site design and runoff reduction strategies to minimize
project impact/disturbance (e.g., avoiding natural drainages, using permeable materials),
water quality treatment to reduce pollutant loads (e.g., Low Impact Development (LID)
treatment systems, biofiltration treatment systems, and non-retention based treatment
systems), and runoff retention through Low Impact Development standards. Because
Alternative 4C would create or replace over 22,500 square feet (0.52 acre) of impervious
surface area, it would also trigger requirements in the City permit to manage peak
stormwater runoff and meet water quality treatment and runoff retention performance
requirements.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 102
Design pollution prevention Best Management Practices promoting infiltration would be
prioritized for both alternatives and incorporated to maintain or restore pre-project
hydrology, as well as provide overall water quality improvement of discharges. Potential
water quality improvement measures include grading slopes to blend with natural terrain
and decrease the need for dikes, designing permanent drainage facilities that mimic the
existing drainage patterns of the area, constructing permanent vegetated drainage ditches
to decrease the velocity of discharge, and maintaining existing vegetated areas to the
extent feasible. In the vicinity of drainages and substantial slopes, stormwater will be
routed through grass swales and strips to the maximum extent practical to minimize direct
connections between the highway and the waterways.
The remainder water quality volume that cannot be infiltrated would be treated through
vegetated swales/strips. Currently, vegetated ditches capture sheet flow and convey runoff
to Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek. The project proposes seven biofiltration
swales/strips for Alternative 4C. Vegetation mixes appropriate for the biofiltration swales
based on project climate and location have not been determined at this time. However,
biofiltration swales are proposed to meet 100% treatment of the added impervious area.
Depending on the alternative selected, new drainage inlets and culvert pipes will be
necessary to convey runoff to existing drainage ditches. Open vegetated conveyances
would be prioritized and utilized before lined and piped conveyances. There are currently
no known existing areas of erosion or slope failures at existing culvert crossings, so
additional installation of flared end sections, rock slope protection, or other outlet
protection/velocity dissipation devices may not be required. However, because the runoff
will drain to existing or proposed natural drainage ditches, calculations will be conducted
during the design phase should show that the increase in volume can be contained within
the ditches and that the increase in flow and velocity will not result in erosion or scour if
the ditches are only vegetated and lined with rock or other hard material.
Both alternatives would incorporate slope/surface protection systems to minimize the risk
of erosion and sedimentation/siltation. The proposed side slopes to accommodate the new
improvements would be minor and would be 2:1 (horizontal:vertical change) or flatter,
consistent with existing slopes, except in one location adjacent to the realigned
southbound U.S. 101 on-ramp from Grand Avenue, where slopes would be constructed at
a 4:1 ratio under both alternatives. Other slope/surface protection items are expected to
include slope paving, hydroseed (planting slopes with a slurry of seed and mulch), and
move-in/move-out (implementing soil stabilization techniques in multiple phases as
various components of the project are completed, rather than all at once at the end of
project construction).
The proposed project improvements would be constructed to be as hydraulically
disconnected from the watersheds it crosses as possible. Installation of larger culverts,
flared end sections, and deep rooted vegetation are common ways of preventing scour and
would be incorporated into the project as necessary. As a last resort, rip rap may be placed
at the culvert inlets and outlets to prevent scour. Alternative 4C would also include design
pollution prevention Best Management Practices to maintain connectivity of existing
roadside drainages along West Branch Street in the area of the new proposed roundabout
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 103
intersection. Connectivity would be reestablished with a culvert crossing the north portion
of the proposed intersection.
Disturbance to wetlands and grasslands will be avoided to the maximum extent practical
to minimize soil disturbance, soil compaction, and alteration of wetland hydrology.
Existing vegetation would be preserved to the maximum extent possible. The project
would result in minimal clearing or grubbing because the majority of the project area is
currently paved.
All highway operation and maintenance activities will be performed in a manner that
minimizes impacts to water quality. For parts of the project within the Caltrans right-of-
way, long term operation and maintenance will comply with the Caltrans Stormwater
Quality Handbook, the Maintenance Staff Guide (revised September 2012).
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Through implementation of standard design and treatment Best Management Practices
described above and to be incorporated into the final project design, and compliance with
the Caltrans and City NPDES MS4 permits and Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook,
project related impacts under both alternatives would be minimal. No additional measures
are required.
2.2.3 Geology, Soils, Seismicity and Topography
Regulatory Setting
For geologic and topographic features, the key federal law is the Historic Sites Act of
1935, which establishes a national registry of natural landmarks and protects “outstanding
examples of major geological features.”
This section also discusses geology, soils and seismic concerns as they relate to public
safety and project design. Earthquakes are prime considerations in the design and retrofit
of structures. Caltrans’s Office of Earthquake Engineering is responsible for assessing the
seismic hazard for Caltrans projects. Structures are designed using Caltrans’s Seismic
Design Criteria (SDC). The SDC provides the minimum seismic requirements for
highway bridges designed in California. A bridge’s category and classification will
determine its seismic performance level and which methods are used for estimating the
seismic demands and structural capabilities. For more information, please see Caltrans’s
Division of Engineering Services, Office of Earthquake Engineering, Seismic Design
Criteria.
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the Geotechnical Investigation (January 2017)
prepared for the project.
Regional Geology
The project area is located within the southern limits of California’s Coast Range geologic
and geomorphic province. These ranges, and complimenting valleys, consist of
sedimentary, volcanic, and igneous rocks that extend northwest and generally parallel to
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 104
the San Andreas Fault. Rocks of the Coast Ranges province are predominantly of Jurassic
and Cretaceous age, although some pre-Jurassic rocks and Paleocene-age to recent
sediments are also present.
Five mountain ranges traverse San Luis Obispo County: Santa Lucia, Tremblor, Caliente,
La Panza, and San Luis. Within southern San Luis Obispo County, the Coast Ranges
province is dominated by the San Luis Range, an elongated, northwest trending mountain
range generally composed of Miocene and Pliocene marine sedimentary bedrock
formations. The San Luis Range lies just north of the project site, across U.S. 101.
The San Luis Range consists of the deep Franciscan formation, composed of sandstones,
shale, chert, limestone and altered volcanic rocks. The Monterey formation caps the
Franciscan formation and presents primarily shales interbedded with dolomite, chert, and
ash. Lying unconformably on the Monterey formation is the Pismo formation. The Pismo
formation presents friable sandstone, calcareous siltstone, conglomerate, and shale. The
hills north of U.S. 101 are composed of the uppermost Member of the Pismo Formation,
called the Squire Member.
Project Site Geology
The project site consists of the following geologic units: Qos (older sand dune deposits)
near the Brisco-Halcyon Road/U.S. 101 interchange and Qal (older alluvial deposits and
beach sands) near the Grand Avenue/U.S. 101 interchange. Just north of U.S. 101, the
Branch Street alignment runs along the contact between the alluvial sediments and Qpr
(poorly sorted and bedded conglomerate) the sedimentary rock of the upper Pismo unit
(refer to Figure 2.2-2).
Prior geotechnical investigations performed by Caltrans have indicated that soils in the
area of the Brisco Road undercrossing are medium dense and granular (Oos) and soils
near the Grand Avenue overcrossing consist of loose to medium dense silty sand and
sandy silt (Qal). Excavated soils are expected to predominately consist of sands, silty
sands, and gravels; however, the potential for zones and layers of clay and silt rich soils
cannot be precluded without additional site-specific investigations.
The geologic maps reviewed for the improvement areas do not identify any naturally
occurring hazardous formations (e.g. methane gas, serpentine, etc.). Given the overall
development of the area and the sedimentary units present, the potential for encountering
hazardous formations is remote.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 105
Figure 2.2-2 Geologic Map
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 106
Soils
Given the project geometry, soils are discussed separately for the Brisco-Halcyon Road
and Grand Avenue improvements (refer to Figure 2.2-3).
Brisco Road – Halcyon Road
Based on the NRCS soil maps, soils in the vicinity of the Brisco-Halcyon Road and Grace
Lane improvements include the following soil units:
• 216 – Tierra sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes. These soils are very deep, moderately
well drained, and gently to moderately sloping. Permeability of the soil is very slow,
and the available water capacity is low or moderate. Therefore, the soils will not
readily infiltrate or receive stormwater or runoff. The hazard of soil blowing is
moderate and the hazard of water erosion is slight or moderate. These soils have high
shrink-swell potential in the subsoil. Building sites, roads and streets, and most other
engineering uses of this soil require special designs, or they are impractical because of
the high shrink-swell potential, hardness to pack, low strength, and very slow
permeability of the clay subsoil.
• 117 – Chamise shaly sandy clay loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes. These soils are very deep,
well drained, and moderately sloping. Permeability of the soil is very slow, and the
available water capacity is very low or low. Surface runoff is medium and the hazard
of water erosion is moderate. These soils have moderate shrink-swell potential. If the
soil is used for urban development, foundations and footings need to be designed to
offset the moderate shrink-swell potential. Shallow excavations are difficult because
of the weakly cemented, very shaly clay subsoil.
The soil profile consists of a surface foot of granular soils overlying clay rich subgrade.
These soils present low to moderate subgrade strengths.
Grand Avenue
Soils in the vicinity of the Grand Avenue interchange include the following soil units:
• 184 – Oceano sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes. These soils are very deep, excessively
drained, and nearly level to moderately sloping. Permeability of the soil is rapid and
the available water capacity is low. Surface runoff is slow or moderate and the hazard
of soil blowing is high. Many areas of this soil are used for urban development.
• 210 – Still gravelly sandy clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes. These soils are very deep,
well drained, and gently to moderately sloping. Permeability of the soil is moderately
slow and the available water capacity is moderate or high. Surface runoff is slow or
medium, and the hazard of water erosion is slight. Some areas of this soil are used for
urban development. The soil has moderate limitations for local roads and streets and
building sites because of shrink-swell potential and lack of sufficient strength.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 107
Figure 2.2-3 Soils Map
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 108
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 109
• 221 – Xererts-Xerolls-Urban land complex, 1 to 15 percent slopes. This soil complex
consists of nearly level to strongly sloping soils and miscellaneous areas that are
covered by urban structures. The soil materials have been modified by earthmoving
equipment or covered by urban structures so that much of their original shape and
physical characteristic have been altered. When used for urban development, the
shrink-swell potential of the Xererts soil and the Xerolls subsoil and the very slow and
slow permeability of the Xerolls subsoil need consideration in the design and building
of foundations, concrete structures, and paved areas.
The soil profile consists of a surface 2‐foot thick layer of clay soils overlying blends of
clay and gravel. Soils in the vicinity of the Grand Avenue improvements presents low to
moderate subgrade strengths.
Groundwater
The Santa Maria Groundwater Basin underlies the southwestern corner of San Luis
Obispo County and the northwestern corner of Santa Barbara County. The overall basin
encompasses approximately 300 square miles, of which roughly one third is within San
Luis Obispo County. Proximate to the project area, the basin is bounded by the San Luis
Range to the north and northeast and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The project lies along
the northern perimeter of the Santa Maria Valley (SMV) Groundwater Basin near the
confluence with the Arroyo Grande Valley (AGV) sub‐basin. The basins are separated by
the Wilmar Avenue Fault, which roughly parallels the alignment of U.S. 101 in the project
area.
Based on the California Department of Water Resources’ Water Data Library, depth to
groundwater in the project area is typically greater than 30 feet and extended to as deep as
82 feet for the wells examined. No well data was available for the area north of the U.S.
101 alignment likely due to the presence and influence of the Wilmar Avenue Fault. No
spring or artesian water conditions have been documented within the project corridor.
Topography and Drainage
Within the project corridor U.S. 101 abuts a portion of the western flank of the Santa
Lucia Mountains of the Southern Coast Ranges. Project area elevations range from
approximately 100 to 140 feet. The most substantial drainage feature proximate to the
improvement area is the Arroyo Grande Valley that parallels Grand Avenue to the east.
Climate
Arroyo Grande has a temperate Mediterranean climate, with approximately 17 inches of
rain per year. The wettest months are December through March. On average, almost 80
percent of the days are sunny. July and August are typically the hottest months, with highs
approaching 70º Fahrenheit; January is the coldest month, with lows averaging 42º
Fahrenheit.
Faulting and Seismicity
No portion of the project site is included in an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The
closest fault is within 1,000 feet of the site (the 238‐San Luis Range [Wilmar Avenue])
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 110
and is reported to be late Quaternary, or active within the last 1.6 million years (refer to
Figure 2.2-4).
Arroyo Grande is located in a geologically complex and seismically active region.
Seismic, or earthquake related, hazards have the potential to result in public safety risks
and widespread property damage. Two of the direct effects of an earthquake include the
rupture of the ground surface along the trend or location of a fault, and ground shaking
that results from fault movement. Other geologic hazards that may occur in response to an
earthquake include liquefaction, seismic settlement, and landslide.
Erosion and Slope Stability
Soils in the project area have slight to medium surface runoff risks and the hazard of water
erosion is low to moderate. The bulk of the slopes along the corridor are moderately to
heavily vegetated.
The existing topography does not present an environment conducive to the development
of rockfall and/or landslide hazard.
Environmental Consequences
The project is located in an area with multiple geological characteristics that could
contribute to unstable earth/soil conditions, including compressible/collapsible soils, high
groundwater elevation, moderate liquefaction potential, and moderately high potential for
seismic activity, ground shaking, and seismic settlement. The placement of structures
within these soil conditions creates the risk for structure instability, damage, failure,
and/or collapse.
No portion of the project area is located within an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
In addition, although the study corridor is within 1,000 feet of a mapped fault trace, the
Wilmar Avenue Fault, the fault has been dated as Late Quaternary and therefore the
potential for rupture along this structure is considered low. Based on the identified Peak
Ground Acceleration (0.624), the project vicinity is likely to experience strong ground
motion in the event of an earthquake.
The potential for surface manifestation of liquefaction along the road improvement
corridors is relatively low given the anticipated depth to groundwater. Given the depth to
groundwater and the soil profile identified at the site, the potential for liquefaction near
the Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange is considered low. However, based on groundwater
and soil consistency near the Grand Avenue interchange, a moderate potential for
liquefaction could exist at the Grand Avenue structure.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 111
Figure 2.2-4 Fault Map
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 112
Seismically induced (dry) settlement could occur within older alluvial deposits and beach
sand near the Grand Avenue interchange. Since the deposits are older, the amount of
strain realized would likely be lessened. The potential for seismically induced slope
failure is considered remote. With sufficient geotechnical engineering modified and
developed slopes should be stable and present little risk for slope failure.
These geologic hazards will be further analyzed in a design-level geotechnical report and
the project would be required to incorporate all geotechnical report requirements and
recommendations. Development of the project would be required to meet or exceed the
most current requirements of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which have been developed to establish the
minimum requirements necessary for design to safeguard the public health, safety, and
general welfare through structural strength, stability, access, and other standards. Seismic
design is based on Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), Version 1.7 (Caltrans SDC
April 2013). Roadway, pedestrian and bicycle path elements would comply with the 2011
edition of AASHTO’s “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets” and
relevant City standards.
Compliance with AASHTO, Caltrans, and other applicable standards would typically
indicate that risks to people and structures, including those related to unstable soil
conditions, were properly safeguarded against. The project does not propose development
of any habitable structures; therefore, no risk of injury or death as a result of damage or
collapse of a habitatable structure would occur. Through compliance with applicable
standards, the structural components of the project would be designed to withstand
anticipated seismic and geologic stresses according to current established engineering
practices. Therefore, no adverse impacts would occur.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No adverse impact to Geology, Soils, Seismicity, or Topography would occur under either
build alternative after compliance with existing applicable standards and regulations.
Therefore, no measures are required.
2.2.4 Paleontology
Regulatory Setting
Paleontology is a natural science focused on the study of ancient animal and plant life as it
is preserved in the geologic record as fossils. A number of federal statutes specifically
address paleontological resources, their treatment, and funding for mitigation as a part of
federally authorized projects:
• 16 United States Code (USC) 431-433 (the “Antiquities Act”) prohibits appropriating,
excavating, injuring, or destroying any object of antiquity situated on federal land
without the permission of the Secretary of the Department of Government having
jurisdiction over the land. Fossils are considered “objects of antiquity” by the Bureau
of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Forest Service, and other federal
agencies.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 113
• 16 United States Code (USC) 461-467 (the National Registry of Natural Landmarks)
establishes the National Natural Landmarks (NNL) program. Under this program
property owners agree to protect biological and geological resources such as
paleontological features. Federal agencies and their agents must consider the existence
and location of designated NNLs, and of areas found to meet the criteria for national
significance, in assessing the effects of their activities on the environment under
NEPA.
• 16 United States Code (USC) 470aaa (the Paleontological Resources Preservation
Act) prohibits the excavation, removal, or damage of any paleontological resources
located on federal land under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of the Interior or
Agriculture without first obtaining an appropriate permit. The statute establishes
criminal and civil penalties for fossil theft and vandalism on federal lands.
• 23 United States Code (USC) 1.9(a) requires that the use of federal-aid funds must be
in conformity with federal and state law.
• 23 United States Code (USC) 305 authorizes the appropriation and use of federal
highway funds for paleontological salvage as necessary by the highway department of
any state, in compliance with 16 USC 431-433 above and state law.
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the Paleontological Evaluation Report (November
2016) and Paleontological Evaluation Report Addendum (January 2017) prepared for the
project.
The project area is underlain by the following geologic units: (1) Pliocene Pismo
Formation; (2) Plio-Pleistocene Paso Robles Formation; (3) Quaternary older sand dune
deposits (Pleistocene); and, (4) Quaternary alluvial deposits (Holocene) (refer to Table
2.2-2 and Figure 2.2-5). The paleontological resource potential of these units ranges from
low to high.
Table 2.2-2 Geologic Units in the Project Area
Age Geologic Unit Map
Abbreviation
Typical Fossil
Types
Paleontological
Resource
Potential
(sensitivity)
Holocene Quaternary
alluvium
Qal None Low
Pleistocene to
Holocene
Quaternary older
sand dune
deposits
Qos Terrestrial
vertebrates
High
Pleistocene,
Pliocene
Paso Robles
Formation
Qpr Terrestrial
vertebrates
High
Pliocene Pismo Formation,
Squire Member
Tpps Marine
vertebrates and
invertebrates
High
Source: Hall 1973.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 114
The northern and southern portions of the project area are underlain by the Pliocene-age
(5.6 to 2.6 million years ago) Pismo Formation (refer to Figure 2.2-6). The Pismo
Formation has yielded a diverse assemblage of marine vertebrate specimens, including
fossilized remains of numerous sharks, pinnipeds, whales, skates and rays, and terrestrial
mammals and birds. Therefore, based on the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP)
professional standards and the criteria set forth in the paleontological sensitivity scale
used by Caltrans, the Pismo Formation is considered to have a high paleontological
resource potential.
Much of the project area north of U.S. 101 is underlain by the Pliocene- to Pleistocene-age
(2.6 million years ago to 10,000 years before present) Paso Robles Formation. The Paso
Robles Formation has yielded at least one important fossil specimen of a gomphothere, an
extinct elephant-like animal, approximately 25 miles northwest of the project area in the
vicinity of Atascadero. It has also yielded numerous invertebrate fossil localities and
vertebrate localities elsewhere. Therefore, this unit is considered to have a high
paleontological resource potential.
Portions of the project area south of U.S. 101 are underlain by Pleistocene- to Holocene-
age (10,000 years before present to recent) sand dune deposits. Pleistocene alluvial
deposits are proven to yield important fossil resources in parts of California, including
near the project area. Vertebrate fossil specimens recovered from Quaternary older
alluvial deposits throughout California represent extinct taxa such as mammoths,
mastodons, ground sloths, dire wolves, short-faced bears, saber-toothed cats, horses,
camels, and bison. Therefore, this unit is considered to have a high paleontological
resource potential. Holocene-aged deposits contain the remains of modern organisms and
are too young to contain fossils. Therefore, Quaternary younger alluvial deposits are
considered to have a low potential for yielding fossil resources and are considered to have
a low paleontological resource potential.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 115
Figure 2.2-5 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Geologic Map
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 116
Figure 2.2-6 Paleontological Sensitivities Map
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 117
Environmental Consequences
A review of museum collections records at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles
County (LACM) confirms that no fossil localities have been previously recorded in the
project area. However, there are numerous previously recorded vertebrate fossil localities
nearby and from within the same or similar geologic units occurring in the project area.
A reconnaissance-level survey of the project area was performed on November 17, 2011.
The project area is within a highly urbanized area that has been heavily disturbed by
roadways, buildings, and other structures. Ground surface visibility was poor throughout
most of the project area (approximately 10 percent). Much of the ground surface that was
not previously built up was obscured by heavy vegetation or landscaped. No rock outcrops
or natural exposures were found in the project area and no fossil resources were
discovered during the course of the survey. However, based on the results of the records
search and literature review, the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units
underlying the project area is determined to range from low to high.
The destruction of sensitive geologic units as a result of human-caused ground disturbance
is considered an adverse impact to paleontological resources. In general, for project areas
that are underlain by paleontologically sensitive geologic units, the greater the amount of
ground disturbance, the greater the impact to paleontological resources. Avoiding
disturbance in sensitive geologic units is the only way to avoid potential adverse impacts;
however, this is often difficult to implement because geologic formations extend for large
distances and large enough design changes to avoid or lessen the project footprint within
those formation is not feasible.
The project area is underlain by geologic deposits determined to have a paleontological
sensitivity ranging from low to high; therefore, any project-related ground disturbances
(such as grading, excavating, or trenching) within areas underlain by previously
undisturbed Quaternary older sand dune deposits, the Paso Robles Formation, or the
Pismo Formation would result in adverse impacts to paleontological resources. Proper
measures can be implemented to mitigate these adverse effects. Ground disturbances in
the uppermost previously disturbed sediments or Holocene-age alluvium are not likely to
result in any adverse impacts to paleontological resources due to the low likelihood that
these units contain intact paleontological resources.
The locations and extent of excavations that will be required for Alternative 1 and
Alternative 4C within the project area have been identified in the Paleontological
Evaluation Report prepared for the project (November 2016). Excavation to a depth of 1.5
feet or greater, or excavation to any depth in previously undisturbed areas of geologically
sensitive formations are considered to have an adverse effect on paleontological resources.
Project development activities that would require the placement of fill material, or shallow
excavation in previously filled areas, or surficial excavation to a depth of 1.5 feet or less
in previously disturbed areas are considered to have low potential for disturbance to
paleontological resources.
The areas of adverse impacts on paleontological resources identified under Alternative 1
are limited to excavations north of West Branch Street near the Brisco Road undercrossing
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 118
and areas of deep excavation for development of foundational support at the widened
Grand Avenue overcrossing. Under Alternative 4C, areas of adverse effects on
paleontological resources also includes large areas surrounding the proposed U.S. 101
northbound ramps/West Branch Street/Grace Lane intersection and the reconfigured
Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection, where deep excavations in sensitive geologic units
would be required. Alternative 4C does not propose to widen Grand Avenue and would
not result in potential disturbance of sensitive geologic units as a result of foundation
development at that location.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Adverse impacts on paleontological resources would be mitigated through implementation
of recommended measures. The measures would apply equally to Alternative 1 and
Alternative 4C.
PAL/mm-1 A qualified paleontologist will be retained to prepare a paleontological
mitigation plan for the proposed project and supervise monitoring of
construction excavations. The qualified paleontologist will be present at
pre-construction meetings to confer with contractors who will be
performing ground-disturbing activities.
PAL/mm-2 All project-related ground disturbances which may disturb geologic units
that are considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity (i.e.,
previously undisturbed Quaternary older sand dune deposits, or any
portions of the Paso Robles and Pismo Formations) will be monitored by a
qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. However, the
frequency of monitoring may be reduced at the discretion of the qualified
paleontologist if the disturbed geologic units are determined to have a low
potential to yield important fossils resources upon further examination of
the geologic units during grading operations.
Paleontological resource monitoring will include inspection of exposed
rock units during active excavations within sensitive geologic deposits. The
monitor will have authority to temporarily divert grading away from
exposed fossils to professionally and efficiently recover the fossil
specimens and collect associated data. All efforts to avoid delays in project
schedules will be made. Monitors will be equipped with the necessary tools
for the rapid removal of fossils and retrieval of associated data to prevent
construction delays. This equipment will include handheld global
positioning system receivers, digital cameras, and cellular phones, as well
as a tool kit containing specimen containers and matrix sampling bags,
field labels, field tools (e.g., awls, hammers, chisels, shovels, etc.), and
plaster kits.
PAL/mm-3 In the event of a discovery, at each fossil locality, the paleontologist will
recover the fossil and field data forms will be used to record pertinent
geologic data, stratigraphic sections will be measured, and appropriate
sediment samples will be collected and submitted for analysis.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 119
PAL/mm-4 Recovered fossils will be prepared to the point of curation, identified by
qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and reposited in
a designated paleontological curation facility. The qualified paleontologist
will prepare a paleontological mitigation and monitoring report to be filed
with the City of Arroyo Grande, as the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) lead agency, and the repository. The report will include, but
will not be limited to, a discussion of the results of the mitigation and
monitoring program, an evaluation and analysis of the fossils collected
(including an assessment of their significance, age and geologic context),
an itemized inventory of fossils collected, a confidential appendix of
locality and specimen data with locality maps and photographs, an
appendix of curation agreements and other appropriate communications,
and a copy of the project-specific paleontological mitigation plan.
2.2.5 Hazardous Waste and Materials
Regulatory Setting
Hazardous materials including hazardous substances and wastes are regulated by many
federal laws. Statutes govern the generation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous
materials, substances, and waste, and the investigation and mitigation of waste releases,
air and water quality, human health, and land use.
The primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes/materials are the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). The purpose of CERCLA,
often referred to as “Superfund,” is to identify and clean up abandoned contaminated sites
so that public health and welfare are not compromised. The RCRA provides for “cradle to
grave” regulation of hazardous waste generated by operating entities. Other federal laws
include:
• Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) of 1992
• Clean Water Act
• Clean Air Act
• Safe Drinking Water Act
• Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA)
• Atomic Energy Act
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
Section 121(d) of CERCLA requires that remedial action plans include consideration of
more stringent state environmental “Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements” (ARARs). The 1990 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) also requires compliance with ARARs during remedial actions
and during removal actions to the extent practicable. As a result state laws pertaining to
hazardous waste management and clean-up of contamination are also pertinent.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 120
In addition to the acts listed above, EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control
Standards, mandates that necessary actions be taken to prevent and control environmental
pollution when federal activities or federal facilities are involved.
Worker and public health and safety are key issues when addressing hazardous materials
that may affect human health and the environment. Proper management and disposal of
hazardous material is vital if it is found, disturbed, or generated during project
construction.
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment
(January 2016) prepared for the project.
The Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment prepared for the project identified two sites
that may have residual contamination that could impact the project area: the Arroyo
Grande Shell gas station located at 222 Grand Avenue and the Chevron USA gas station at
251 Grand Avenue. The Shell station has a long history of releases and cleanup for
petroleum related contaminants. While the site has been deemed closed by the Central
Coast RWQCB, a notation in the case file states:
“Residual soil and groundwater wastes continues to underlie the site that
could pose an unacceptable risk under certain site development activities
such as site grading, excavation, or de-watering. The County of San Luis
Obispo Environmental Health Services (EHS) and appropriate local
planning and building departments must be notified prior to any changes
in land use, and site redevelopment. Future site disturbance could require
worker health and safety protection, and restrictions on the disposal of soil
and groundwater. The levels of residual wastes and any associated risks
are expected to diminish with time. Additionally, EHS may also require
additional assessment and remediation if the property is proposed to be
redeveloped. Additional action by the EHS may include, but is not limited
to, a case review, further investigations, soil gas analysis, remedial action,
and human health risk assessment.”
The Chevron USA gas station was also the location of multiple investigations from
underground storage tanks releases. This site has also been closed to further action by the
RWQCB. In this case, however, the RWQCB did not place restrictions on future use or
construction like those applied to the Shell station.
A previous analysis was conducted for the project (2006 and 2007), which included
limited testing for asbestos and aerially deposited lead. The limited asbestos survey
indicated asbestos was not detected above the reporting limit; however, ACM may still
occur in other untested areas of the project area. The limited aerially deposited lead
assessment identified soils containing lead in excess of concentration thresholds to a depth
of at least 1.5 feet below ground surface. In addition, paint used on bridge railings and
other built components within the project area proposed for demolition could contain lead-
based paint. Other identified hazards identified in the project area include gas transmission
lines, chemically-treated wood posts that could contain elevated concentrations of
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 121
preservative chemicals, pole-mounted transformers that may contain polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs, a toxic pollutant previously used in electrical components before being
banned by the federal government in 1979), and yellow traffic striping paint that may
contain lead.
Environmental Consequences
Based on a search of the California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor
database and the State Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker system, there are
several environmental cleanup sites within the project area. All sites have been determined
completed and closed, indicating that the site has been remediated to the satisfaction of
regulatory agency staff. There is also a current Cleanup Program Site within 0.5 mile of
the project area at the northbound U.S. 101 ramps/Grand Avenue intersection. The site is
related to pending cleanup of gasoline and other contaminants discovered during
underground storage tank removal in 1988.
The project area is a major transportation corridor supporting millions of trips over
previous decades. It is highly likely that the surface soils along these roadways are
affected by deposition of contaminants, including aerial lead, oils, fuels, and other
lubricants.
Aerially deposited lead (ADL) from the historical use of leaded gasoline, exists along
roadways throughout California. There is the likely presence of soils with elevated
concentrations of lead as a result of ADL on the state highway system right of way within
the limits of the project alternatives. Soil determined to contain lead concentrations
exceeding stipulated thresholds must be managed under the July 1, 2016, ADL Agreement
between Caltrans and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. This ADL
Agreement allows such soils to be safely reused within the project limits as long as all
requirements of the ADL Agreement are met.
Neither build alternative proposes the use, storage or discharge of any hazardous
substances during project operation nor would they change the existing land use of the
project site or substantially increase the potential use of hazardous materials in the project
vicinity. Therefore, the project would not create a substantial hazard to the public through
foreseeable accident or upset. However, existing infrastructure proposed to be demolished
under both build alternatives could include asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead-
based paint, aerially deposited lead, or other hazardous substances/materials and
contaminants.
A previous limited asbestos survey indicated asbestos was not detected above the
reporting limit; however, ACM may still occur in other untested areas of the project area.
The limited aerially deposited lead assessment identified soils containing lead in excess of
concentration thresholds to a depth of at least 1.5 feet below ground surface. In addition,
paint used on bridge railings and other built components within the project area proposed
for demolition could contain lead-based paint. Other identified hazards identified in the
project area include gas transmission lines, chemically-treated wood posts that could
contain elevated concentrations of preservative chemicals, pole-mounted transformers that
may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs, a toxic pollutant previously used in
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 122
electrical components before being banned by the federal government in 1979), and
yellow traffic striping paint that may contain lead. Both build alternatives would cause
adverse impacts associated with the disturbance and handling of these hazardous
substances, although demolition and disturbance under Alternative 4C would be greater
than that under Alternative 1.
A review of the U.S. Geological Survey map of the Arroyo Grande Northeast 7.5-Minute
Quadrangle indicates the majority of the project area is underlain by Holocene to late-
Pleistocene-aged alluvial deposits consisting of unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay, and
old Pleistocene-eolian deposits. These deposits are not likely to contain naturally
occurring asbestos. The project is not located within an area identified as having the
potential to contain naturally occurring asbestos based on the APCD’s naturally occurring
asbestos map. Therefore, no adverse impacts associated with naturally occurring asbestos
would occur.
Disturbance and handling of these toxic substances can result in substantial health impacts
on workers or other persons exposed to the substances. They can also damage adjacent
habitats and contaminate proximate soils, surfaces, and waters that receive stormwater
runoff from within the project area. The primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes
and materials are the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (RCRA). The purpose of CERCLA, often referred to as “Superfund,” is to identify
and clean up abandoned contaminated sites so that public health and welfare are not
compromised. The RCRA provides for “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous waste
generated by operating entities. Other federal laws include: the Community
Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) of 1992, Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA), Atomic
Energy Act, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The California Hazardous Waste Control Law is
administered by the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC). DTSC has adopted extensive regulations governing the
generation, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes. These regulations impose
cradle-to-grave requirements for handling hazardous wastes in a manner that protects
human health and the environment. The Hazardous Waste Control Law regulations
establish requirements for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes. They
prescribe management practices for hazardous wastes; establish permit requirements for
hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identify hazardous
wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills. Hazardous waste is tracked from the point
of generation to the point of disposal or treatment using hazardous waste manifests.
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) is responsible
for assuring worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace.
Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety
regulations. Cal/OSHA hazardous materials regulations include requirements for safety
training, availability of safety equipment, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and
emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal/OSHA has established the
Asbestos Construction Standard and Lead Construction Standards to regulate all
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 123
construction work where exposure to asbestos may occur or where an employee may be
occupationally exposed to lead.
Caltrans requires that any encounter with an unknown hazardous contaminant during
construction follow the Caltrans Unknown Hazards Procedure. The procedure includes a
stop work in the vicinity of the find, field review by the Caltrans resident engineer or
district construction hazardous waste coordinator/district hazardous waste coordinator,
and development of a hazardous waste investigation and removal plan (if necessary).
Caltrans 2015 Standard Specifications also includes standard requirements for removal of
yellow stripe and pavement marking with hazardous waste residue.
Although U.S. 101 and local roadways within the project area are commonly used for the
routine transport of potentially hazardous materials, neither build alternative would not
change existing land uses or cause a routine or permanent increase in the transport of
hazardous substances within the project area. No change in the transport or handling of
hazardous materials within proximity to adjacent schools would occur under either build
alternative outside of construction activities.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
The following potential environmental conditions exist within the project area: the
presence of underground storage tanks (USTs) and cases related to former releases from
the USTs, aerially deposited lead in soils adjacent to U.S. 101, asbestos containing
material in the concrete used to construct bridges, lead based pain on railings, PCBs in the
pole-mounted transformers, gas transmission lines, and treated wood in guardrail and sign
posts. Tests to determine the presence and treatment/disposal requirements for these
conditions are included in the measures below. Completion of testing is required before
the project can be certified as Ready to List (ready to be advertised and approved for
construction contracts).
Avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures have been proposed to minimize the
potential for exposure to unknown hazardous contaminants, minimize impacts associated
with spills, and to minimize potential impacts associated with ACM, lead-based paint,
aerially deposited lead, and other known hazards within the project area.
HAZ/mm-1 Demolition of existing structures and/or infrastructure shall be conducted
in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, including the
requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart M – asbestos NESHAP). These
requirements include, but are not limited to, notification to the APCD, an
asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector, and
applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified asbestos
containing materials.
HAZ/mm-2 A Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be developed
for the project and subject to approval by Caltrans to ensure contaminated
soils excavated during the project construction is handled, stockpiled, and
disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Soils
excavated during the project shall be tested for lead concentrations and the
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 124
Soil Management Plan shall establish a Reuse Screening Level for the
excavated soils; excavated soils with contaminant concentrations below the
Reuse Screening Levels may be reused during construction on the right-of-
way, while soils with contaminant concentrations exceeding the Reuse
Screening Levels shall be managed as hazardous waste and disposed of at a
facility that accepts soil with the detected concentrations of contaminants.
Special handling, treatment, or disposal of aerially deposited lead in soils
during construction activities within that portion of the project within
Caltrans right of way shall be consistent with the California Department of
Toxic Substances and Caltrans Soil Management Agreement for Aerially
Deposited Lead-Contaminated Soils (effective July 1, 2016).
HAZ/mm-3 Prior to initiation of construction, a Lead Compliance Plan shall be
prepared by the contractor to prevent or minimize worker exposure to lead
from handling material containing aerially-deposited lead (California Code
of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1532.1). This plan shall also be required for
work performed on painted structures. The contractor shall prepare a
written, project-specific Excavation and Transportation Plan establishing
procedures the contractor shall use for excavating, stockpiling,
transporting, and placing (or disposing) of material containing aerially
deposited lead. The plan must conform to Department of Toxic Substance
Control and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
regulations. For samples where lead levels exceed hazardous waste criteria,
the excavated soil shall be either managed or disposed of as a California
hazardous waste or stockpiled and resampled to confirm waste
classification and potential utilization of Caltrans’ hazardous waste
agreement to recycle soil on site. The appropriate Caltrans Standard
Special Provision shall be included in the Plans, Specifications, and
Estimate.
HAZ/mm-4 Built structures within the project area proposed for demolition or removal,
including all concrete, painted surfaces, and treated wood poles and soils at
the base of poles, shall be tested for asbestos containing material, lead-
based paint, and petroleum hydrocarbons and other wood preservative
chemicals. Testing shall be conducted prior to initiation of construction and
estimates during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates phase of the
project shall include provisions for proper removal and disposal by a
licensed contractor. Any identified contaminants and toxic materials shall
be handled, treated, and disposed of in accordance with applicable rules
and regulations.
HAZ/mm-5 The electrical company responsible for the electrical transformers present
within the project area shall be contacted to determine if the transformers
contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If the transformers contain
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), then they shall be removed and
disposed of in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. Any
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 125
identified leaking transformers shall be considered a potential PCB hazard
unless tested and shall be handled accordingly.
HAZ/mm-6 The gas company responsible for the gas transmission pipelines located
within the project area shall be contacted to delineate the location of the
gas transmission pipelines. The location of the pipelines shall be shown on
all project plans and specifications.
HAZ/mm-7 Underground Service Alert for Northern/Central California and Nevada
(USA North) shall be contacted prior to any subsurface excavation to
determine the location of any subsurface utility lines.
HAZ/mm-8 Testing and removal requirements for yellow traffic striping and pavement
marking materials shall be performed in accordance with Caltrans
Construction Policy Bulleting 99-2 (Caltrans Construction Manual Chapter
7-107E) and Caltrans 2015 Standard Specifications Section 14.11.12,
Removal of Yellow Traffic Stripe and Pavement Marking with Hazardous
Waste Residue.
HAZ/mm-9 Any previously unknown hazardous waste or material encountered as part
of construction of the proposed project shall be handled, treated, and
disposed of in accordance with Caltrans Unknown Hazards Procedures.
HAZ/mm-10 Prior to any disturbance at or within 100 feet of the Arroyo Grande Shell
Gas Station located at 222 Grand Avenue, the City shall consult with the
California Department of Toxic Substances, Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board, County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health
Department, and Caltrans Headquarters Hazardous Waste Management
Section regarding the potential disturbance of hazardous substances and
materials at the site. Prior to any disturbance at or within 100 feet of the
Arroyo Grande Shell Gas Station, the City shall prepare a Hazardous
Materials/Hazardous Waste Management, Removal, and Remediation Plan.
The plan shall, at minimum, include worker health and safety protection
measures and restrictions on the disposal of excavated soil and
groundwater. The plan shall incorporate any additional assessment and
remediation required by the California Department of Toxic Substances,
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, County of San Luis
Obispo Environmental Health Department, and Caltrans Headquarters
Hazardous Waste Management Section. The Plan shall include measures
that ensure all hazardous materials involvement would be coordinated with
the appropriate federal, state, and local regulatory agencies and all
hazardous materials encountered would be removed, handled, and disposed
of in accordance with state and federal regulations.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 126
2.2.6 Air Quality
Information in this section comes from the Air Quality Study Report (January 2017)
prepared for the project.
Regulatory Setting
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), as amended, is the primary federal law that governs
air quality while the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) is its companion state law. These
laws, and related regulations by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (ARB), set standards for the concentration
of pollutants in the air. At the federal level, these standards are called National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS and state ambient air quality standards have
been established for six transportation-related criteria pollutants that have been linked to
potential health concerns: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3),
particulate matter (PM) — which is broken down for regulatory purposes into particles of
10 micrometers or smaller (PM10) and particles of 2.5 micrometers and smaller (PM2.5)
— and sulfur dioxide (SO2). In addition, national and state standards exist for lead (Pb),
and state standards exist for visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S),
and vinyl chloride. The NAAQS and state standards are set at levels that protect public
health with a margin of safety, and are subject to periodic review and revision. Both state
and federal regulatory schemes also cover toxic air contaminants (air toxics); some criteria
pollutants are also air toxics or may include certain air toxics in their general definition.
Federal air quality standards and regulations provide the basic scheme for project-level air
quality analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition to this
environmental analysis, a parallel “Conformity” requirement under the FCAA also
applies.
Conformity
The conformity requirement is based on FCAA Section 176(c), which prohibits the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) and other federal agencies from funding,
authorizing, or approving plans, programs, or projects that do not conform to State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining the NAAQS. “Transportation Conformity”
applies to highway and transit projects and takes place on two levels: the regional (or
planning and programming) level and the project level. The proposed project must
conform at both levels to be approved.
Conformity requirements apply only in nonattainment and “maintenance” (former
nonattainment) areas for the NAAQS, and only for the specific NAAQS that are or were
violated. U.S. EPA regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93 govern the
conformity process. Conformity requirements do not apply in unclassifiable/attainment
areas for NAAQS and do not apply at all for state standards regardless of the status of the
area.
Regional conformity is concerned with how well the regional transportation system
supports plans for attaining the NAAQS for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and in some areas (although
not in California), sulfur dioxide (SO2). California has nonattainment or maintenance
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 127
areas for all of these transportation-related “criteria pollutants” except SO2, and also has a
nonattainment area for lead (Pb); however, lead is not currently required by the FCAA to
be covered in transportation conformity analysis. Regional conformity is based on
emission analysis of Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and Federal Transportation
Improvement Programs (FTIPs) that include all transportation projects planned for a
region over a period of at least 20 years (for the RTP) and 4 years (for the FTIP). RTP
and FTIP conformity uses travel demand and emission models to determine whether or
not the implementation of those projects would conform to emission budgets or other tests
at various analysis years showing that requirements of the FCAA and the SIP are met. If
the conformity analysis is successful, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO),
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
make the determinations that the RTP and FTIP are in conformity with the SIP for
achieving the goals of the FCAA. Otherwise, the projects in the RTP and/or FTIP must be
modified until conformity is attained. If the design concept and scope and the “open-to-
traffic” schedule of a proposed transportation project are the same as described in the RTP
and FTIP, then the proposed project meets regional conformity requirements for purposes
of project-level analysis.
Project-level conformity is achieved by demonstrating that the project comes from a
conforming RTP and TIP; the project has a design concept and scope that has not changed
significantly from those in the RTP and TIP; project analyses have used the latest
planning assumptions and EPA-approved emissions models; and in PM areas, the project
complies with any control measures in the SIP. Furthermore, additional analyses (known
as hot-spot analyses) may be required for projects located in CO and PM nonattainment or
maintenance areas to examine localized air quality impacts.
Affected Environment
San Luis Obispo County is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin, which also includes
Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. The climate of the basin area is strongly influenced
by its proximity to the Pacific Ocean. Airflow around and within the basin plays an
important role in the movement and dispersion of pollutants. The speed and direction of
local winds are controlled by the location and strength of the Pacific High pressure system
and other global weather patterns, topographical factors, and circulation patterns that
result from temperature differences between the land and the sea.
In the spring and summer months, when the Pacific High attains its greatest strength,
onshore winds from the northwest generally prevail during the day. At night, as the sea
breeze dies, weak drainage winds flow down the coastal mountains and valleys to form a
light, easterly land breeze. In the fall, onshore surface winds decline and the marine layer
grows shallow, allowing an occasional reversal to a weak offshore flow. This, along with
the diurnal alteration of land-sea breeze circulation, can sometimes produce a “sloshing”
effect. Under these conditions, pollutants may accumulate over the ocean for a period of
one or more days and are subsequently carried back onshore with the return of the sea
breeze. Strong inversions can form at this time, “trapping” pollutants near the surface.
This effect is intensified when the Pacific High weakens or moves inland to the east. This
may produce a “Santa Ana” condition in which air, often pollutant-laden, is transported
into the air basin from the east and southeast. This can occur over a period of several days
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 128
until the high-pressure system returns to its normal location, breaking the pattern. The
breakup of this condition may result in relatively stagnant conditions and a buildup of
pollutants offshore. The onset of the typical daytime sea breeze can bring these pollutants
back onshore, where they combine with local emissions to cause high pollutant
concentrations. Not all occurrences of the “post Santa Ana” condition lead to high
ambient pollutant levels, but they do play an important role in the air pollution
meteorology of the region.
Within the project site and its vicinity, the average wind speed, as recorded at the San Luis
Obispo Airport Wind Monitoring Station, is approximately seven miles per hour. Wind in
the vicinity of the project site predominately blows from the west-northwest. The annual
average temperature, as recorded at the Pismo Beach climate station, in the project area is
58°F. The project area experiences an average winter temperature of approximately 48°F
and an average summer temperature of approximately 68°F. Total precipitation in the
project area averages approximately 15.1 inches annually. Precipitation occurs mostly
during the winter and relatively infrequently during the summer. Precipitation averages
approximately eight inches during the winter, approximately four inches during the spring,
approximately three inches during the fall, and less than one inch during the summer.
The federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for six
criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). Ozone and particulate matter are
generally seen as regional pollutants because they or their precursors affect air quality
across a region. Pollutants such as CO, NO2, SO2, and Pb are local pollutants that tend to
accumulate in the air locally. In addition to being a regional pollutant, particulate matter is
also considered a local pollutant. In the area of the proposed project site, ozone and
particulate matter are of particular concern.
California-only pollutants include visible reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide
(H2S), and vinyl chloride. The Clean Air Act identifies 188 air toxics, also known as
hazardous air pollutants. The Environmental Protection Agency has identified 21 of these
toxics as Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs). They have also identified a subset of
MSATs that are known as Priority MSATs. These are: benzene, formaldehyde,
acetaldehyde, diesel particulate matter/diesel exhaust organic gases, acrolein, and 1,3-
butadiene.
Federal and state criteria air pollutant standards, effects, and sources are shown in Table
2.2-3.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 129
Table 2.2-3 State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 130
Table 2.2-3 State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 131
Table 2.2-3 State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 132
The FCAA requires the Environmental Protection Agency to designate areas as
attainment, nonattainment, unclassified, or maintenance (previously nonattainment and
currently attainment) for each criteria pollutant based on whether the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards have been achieved. The Environmental Protection Agency defines
unclassified area as 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
pollutants. The Environmental Protection Agency has classified the Western San Luis
Obispo County portion of the South Central Coast Air Basin as attainment for O3 and as
attainment-unclassified for the rest of the criteria pollutants. The state has designated the
area as nonattainment for O3 and PM10 and attainment for the rest of the criteria
pollutants.
The California Clean Air Act requires the Air Resources Board to designate areas within
California as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on
whether the California Ambient Air Quality Standards have been achieved. Areas are
designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a state standard
for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years.
Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events are not considered
violations of a state standard and are not used as a basis for designating areas as
nonattainment. The Air Resources Board has classified the South Central Coast Air Basin
as a nonattainment area for O3 and PM10.
The transportation conformity requirement is based on FCAA Section 176(c), which
prohibits the Department of Transportation (USDOT) and other federal agencies from
funding, authorizing, or approving plans, programs, or projects that do not conform to
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. “Transportation Conformity” applies to highway and transit projects and takes
place on two levels: the regional—or planning and programming—level and the project
level. The proposed project must conform at both levels to be approved. The
Environmental Protection Agency has classified the South Central Coast Air Basin as
attainment or attainment-unclassified for all criteria pollutants. As such, no further
analysis of transportation conformity is required.
Environmental Consequences
For a construction impacts discussion refer to Section 2.4, Construction Impacts, for
additional information. Construction emissions are short-term in duration and, therefore,
will not result in long-term adverse conditions.
A long-term beneficial impact on air quality would occur because both build alternatives
would reduce traffic congestion. The No-build alternative would increase operational
traffic conditions because congestion would continue to worsen. Regional emissions
would be less than future no-project conditions under both build alternatives.
A regional operational emissions analysis was completed based on peak hour delay. The
design concept and scope of the proposed project and build alternative are consistent with
the project description in the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy, 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program, and the “open to traffic"
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 133
assumptions of the SLOCOG regional emissions analysis. Therefore, both build
alternatives are satisfactory and no further analysis is required.
At the project level, a carbon monoxide hotspot analysis was completed based on Caltrans
guidance and indicated that the build alternatives would not generate a carbon monoxide
hotspot. The carbon monoxide analysis is included in the 2017 Air Quality Study. The
South Central Coast Air Basin has been designated as a nonattainment area under the
California Clean Air Act for PM10. Both build alternatives would marginally decrease
regional PM10 emissions during the AM and PM peak periods within the same year of
analysis.
Other air issues include mobile source air toxic effects. Based on the Federal Highway
Administration guidance, the proposed project and build alternative have low potential for
mobile source air toxic effects because design year annual average daily traffic will not
exceed 140,000 vehicles. A qualitative mobile source air toxic analysis was completed
and is provided in the 2017 Air Quality Study.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No adverse impact to air quality would occur under either build alternative. Therefore, no
measures are required.
2.2.7 Noise
Regulatory Setting
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 provides the broad basis for
analyzing and abating highway traffic noise effects. The intent of this law is to promote
the general welfare and to foster a healthy environment. The requirements for noise
analysis and consideration of noise abatement under NEPA are described below.
National Environmental Policy Act and 23 CFR 772
For highway transportation projects with FHWA involvement (and Caltrans, as assigned),
the federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 and the associated implementing regulations (23
Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 772) govern the analysis and abatement of traffic
noise impacts. The regulations require that potential noise impacts in areas of frequent
human use be identified during the planning and design of a highway project. The
regulations include noise abatement criteria that are used to determine when a noise
impact would occur. The noise abatement criteria differ depending on the type of land use
under analysis. For example, the noise abatement criteria for residences (67 dBA) is lower
than the noise abatement criteria for commercial areas (72 dBA). The following table lists
the noise abatement criteria for use in the NEPA 23 CFR 772 analysis.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 134
Table 2.2-4 Noise Abatement Criteria
Activity
Category
NAC, Hourly A-
Weighted Noise
Level, Leq(h)
Description of activity category
A 57 (Exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
significance and serve an important public need and where the
preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to
continue to serve its intended purpose.
B1 67 (Exterior) Residential.
C1 67 (Exterior) Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums,
campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals,
libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of
worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or
nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios,
recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites,
schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings.
D 52 (Interior) Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries,
medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting
rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio
studios, recording studios, schools, and television
studios.
E 72 (Exterior) Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other
developed lands, properties, or activities not included in A–D
or F.
F No NAC—reporting
only
Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services,
industrial, logging, maintenance facilities,
manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities,
shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment,
electrical, etc.), and warehousing.
G No NAC—reporting
only
Undeveloped lands that are not permitted.
1 Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category.
Figure 2.2-7 lists the noise levels of common activities to enable readers to compare the
actual and predicted highway noise levels discussed in this section with common
activities.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 135
Figure 2.2-7 Noise Levels of Common Activities
According to Caltrans’s Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction
and Reconstruction Projects, May 2011, a noise impact occurs when the predicted future
noise level with the project substantially exceeds the existing noise level (defined as a 12
dBA or more increase) or when the future noise level with the project approaches or
exceeds the noise abatement criteria. Approaching the noise abatement criteria is defined
as coming within 1 dBA of the noise abatement criteria.
If it is determined that the project will have noise impacts, then potential abatement
measures must be considered. Noise abatement measures that are determined to be
reasonable and feasible at the time of final design are incorporated into the project plans
and specifications. This document discusses noise abatement measures that would likely
be incorporated in the project.
Caltrans’s Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol sets forth the criteria for determining when an
abatement measure is reasonable and feasible. Feasibility of noise abatement is basically
an engineering concern. A minimum 7 dBA reduction in the future noise level must be
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 136
achieved for an abatement measure to be considered feasible. Other considerations include
topography, access requirements, other noise sources and safety considerations. The
reasonableness determination is basically a cost-benefit analysis. Factors used in
determining whether a proposed noise abatement measure is reasonable include: residents’
acceptance and the cost per benefited residence.
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the Noise Study Report (June 2017) prepared for
the project.
Fundamentals of Traffic Noise
Sound can be described as the energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves
through a liquid or gaseous medium (e.g., air) to a hearing organ, such as a human ear.
In fundamental concept of acoustics consists of a sound (or noise) source, a receiver, and
the path between the two. The loudness of the noise source and obstructions or
atmospheric factors affecting the path to the receiver determine the sound level and
characteristics of the noise perceived by the receiver.
Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is
able to discern 1-dB changes in sound levels, when exposed to steady, single-frequency
(“pure-tone”) signals in an optimal range. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise
of 1 to 2 dB are generally not perceptible. However, it is widely accepted that people are
able to begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments.
Further, a 5-dB increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a
10-dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness. Therefore, a doubling of
sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) that would result in a 3-
dB increase in sound, would generally be perceived as barely detectable.
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The
manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on geometric spreading, ground
absorption, atmospheric effects, and shielding by natural or human-made features.
Geometric spreading is the attenuation (or decrease) in sound as it propagates uniformly
outward from its source. Highways are considered a line source of noise, since noise
sources (vehicles) occur along a defined path (i.e., the highway). Sound levels generally
attenuate (or decrease) at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of distance from
a line source. For example, noise levels 50 feet away from the highway would be 3 dB
lower at 100 feet from the highway.
Noise can further attenuate through ground absorption as it travels from the noise source
to the receiver. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a noise reflective surface
between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess
ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites
with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver, such as soft dirt,
grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an additional 1.5 dB of noise attenuation per
doubling of distance is normally assumed.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 137
Noise can increase or decrease based on certain atmospheric effects. Receptors located
downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm
conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Other factors such as
air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have substantial effects.
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can
substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by
shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency of the noise source. Natural
terrain features (e.g., hills and dense woods) and human-made features (e.g., buildings and
walls) can substantially reduce noise levels. Walls are often constructed between a source
and a receiver specifically to reduce noise. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a
source and a receiver will typically result in at least 5 dB of noise reduction. Taller
barriers provide increased noise reduction. Vegetation between the highway and receiver
is rarely effective in reducing noise because it does not create a solid barrier.
Existing Noise Environment
The project area extends through an urbanized area of Arroyo Grande, with a mix of
large-scale commercial/retail developments and a school site on the north side of U.S. 101
and commercial/light industrial uses, schools, religious institutions, a cemetery, and a
hotel on the south side of U.S. 101. Single-family residences are located near U.S. 101
south of El Camino Real between Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue.
Short-term noise monitoring was conducted within the project area to determine existing
noise levels. Measured existing noise levels within the project area ranged between 38 and
76 decibels and U.S. 101 was the dominant noise source at each of the measurement
locations. Predicted future (2035) noise levels without the project were estimated to range
from 45 to 77 dB.
Environmental Consequences
Temporary construction impacts are discussed in Section 2.4, Construction Impacts.
Alternatives 1 and 4C are Type 1 projects. A Type 1 project is a project that involves:
1. The construction of a highway on a new location or
2. The physical alteration of an existing highway where there is either:
a. Substantial horizontal alteration. A project that halves the distance between the
traffic noise source and the closest receptor between the existing condition to the
future build condition, or
b. Substantial vertical alteration. A project that removes shielding thereby exposing
the line-of-sight between the receptor and the traffic noise source. This is done by
altering either the vertical alignment of the highway or the topography between the
highway traffic noise source and the receptor; or
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 138
3. The addition of a through-traffic lane(s). This includes the addition of a through-traffic
lane that functions as a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, high-occupancy toll
(HOT) lane, bus lane, or truck climbing lane; or
4. The addition of an auxiliary lane, except for when the auxiliary lane is a turn lane; or
5. The addition or relocation of interchange lanes or ramps added to a quadrant to
complete an existing partial interchange; or
6. Restriping existing pavement for the purpose of adding a through-traffic lane or an
auxiliary lane; or
7. The addition of a new or substantial alteration of a weigh station, rest stop, ride-share
lot, or toll plaza.
Noise levels were modeled in Year 2035 for No-Build and Alternatives 1 and 4C
conditions. Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C noise levels were assessed to ascertain if
design year noise levels will approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria in areas of
frequent human use. Noise impacts under Alternative 1 were generally the same as
predicted future noise levels in the area without the project. Compared to No-Build
conditions, a 1 decibel increase was identified at 14 residences and a 1 decibel or more
decrease in noise levels was identified at 66 nearby receivers (refer to Table 2.2-5). Noise
impacts under Alternative 4C would also be generally consistent with predicted noise
levels in the area without the project. Compared to No-Build conditions, a 1 decibel or
more increase was identified at 23 nearby receivers and a 1 decibel or more decrease in
noise levels was identified at 40 nearby receivers.
Table 2.2-5 Summary of Increased and Decreased Noise Levels
Alternative
Receptors that would
experience noise level
increase of at least 1
decibel
Receptors that would
experience noise level
decrease of more than 1
decibel
Alternative 1 14 nearby receptors 66 nearby receptors
Alternative 4C 23 nearby receptors 40 nearby receptors
Predicted future noise levels with the project will not substantially increase compared to
the existing noise level (defined as a 12 dbA or more increase). Changes in noise of less
than 3 dB are generally not perceptible. However, predicted noise levels under Alternative
1, Alternative 4C, and the No-Build Alternative would exceed exterior noise abatement
criteria at receptor locations.
Interior noise abatement criteria at schools, libraries, and churches in the project area were
also considered. The proposed roundabout intersection under Alternative 4C would shift
the existing U.S. 101 northbound ramps/Brisco Road/West Branch Street intersection east
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 139
towards the Arroyo Grande library and away from St. Patrick’s school, resulting in
marginally higher noise levels at the library and lower noise levels at the school.
Other improvements associated with Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C, including
restriping, signalization, and realignment of specific intersections were not modeled due to
their minimal impacts on the noise environment when compared to the U.S. 101 travel
lanes. For example, the realignment of the southbound on-ramp at Grand Avenue will
align that ramp with the southbound off-ramp, moving it approximately 100 feet to the
southwest, closer to potential sensitive receivers. However, it is not a substantial noise
source when compared to the U.S. 101 travel lanes.
All developed land uses were evaluated in Noise Study Report prepared for the project;
however, noise abatement was only considered for areas of frequent human use that would
benefit from a lowered noise level. Accordingly, the impact analysis focuses on locations
with defined outdoor activity areas, such as residential backyards and common use areas
at multi-family residences.
Two areas of frequent human use that would benefit from a lowered noise level were
identified:
• Area A: Area A is located on the south side of U.S. 101 west of Brisco Road. This
area is generally flat and is elevated approximately 10 feet above U.S. 101. The front
yards of the residential land uses in this area are close to and faced towards U.S. 101.
Sensitive receptors in this area (A-1 through A-105) include residences along Chilton
Street, Robles Road, and Stonecrest Drive, shown on Figures 2.2-9 and 2.2-10.
• Area B: Area B is also located on the south side of U.S. 101 from east of Halcyon
Road to west of the East Grand Avenue. Residential land uses make up the majority of
this area. This area is generally flat. Front yards face the highway. No sound barriers
or topographical shielding occur between the highway and the residential uses.
Sensitive receptors in this area (B-1 through B-26) include the Arroyo Grande
Cemetery, a hotel, school, and residences along Faeh Avenue, Bennett Avenue, and
Cornwall Avenue, shown on Figure 2.2-8.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Noise Abatement Measures
Various noise abatement options have been considered. However, because of the
configuration and location of the project, noise barriers are the only form of noise
abatement considered to be feasible for this project. Feasibility of noise barriers from a
cost perspective has been analyzed in the Noise Abatement Decision Report.
Three noise barriers were evaluated. Barrier heights in the range of 6 to 16 feet were
evaluated in 2-foot increments. The location of the barriers and adjacent sensitive
receivers are shown in Figures 2.2-8 through 2.2-10.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 140
Figure 2.2-8 Noise Sensitive Receptor and Barrier Locations (1 of 3)
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 141
Figure 2.2-9 Noise Sensitive Receptor and Barrier Locations (2 of 3)
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 142
Figure 2.2-10 Noise Sensitive Receptor and Barrier Locations (3 of 3)
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 143
Modeling indicated that the evaluated noise barrier in front of St. Patrick’s school and the
Hampton Inn would result in a less than 5-decible reduction in noise levels under either
build alternative. Based on the studies completed to date, the City intends to incorporate
noise abatement in the form of a noise barriers on the south side of U.S. 101 between the
Oak Park Boulevard interchange and Stonecrest Drive and between the southbound
Halcyon Road on-ramp and Grand Avenue off-ramp.
Based on studies completed to date, noise abatement in the form of a barrier between Oak
Park Boulevard and Stonecrest Drive would reduce noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA for up to
21 benefitted receivers under Alternative 1 and up to 20 benefitted receivers under
Alternative 4C. Under either build alternative, this barrier would be approximately 1,700
feet long, 12 feet tall, and would cost approximately $408,000 to construct.
The barrier between Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue would reduce noise levels by 5 to
13 dBA for up to 16 benefitted receivers under Alternative 1 and by 4 to 8 decibels for up
to 16 total benefitted receivers under Alternative 4C. Under Alternative 1, this barrier
would be approximately 2,900 feet long, 8 feet tall, and would cost approximately
$464,000 to construct. Under Alternative 4C, this barrier would be approximately 2,900
feet long, 10 feet tall, and would cost approximately $580,000 to construct.
Quantified noise abatement information at each individual receptor is included in the
Noise Study Report (June 2017). If during final design conditions have substantially
changed, noise abatement may not be necessary. The final decision on noise abatement
will be made upon completion of the project design and the public involvement process.
2.3 Biological Environment
2.3.1 Natural Communities
This section of the document discusses natural communities of concern. The focus of this
section is on biological communities, not individual plant or animal species. This section
also includes information on wildlife corridors, fish passage, and habitat fragmentation.
Wildlife corridors are areas of habitat used by wildlife for seasonal or daily migration.
Habitat fragmentation involves the potential for dividing sensitive habitat and thereby
lessening its biological value.
Habitat areas that have been designated as critical habitat under the Federal Endangered
Species Act are discussed in Section 2.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. Wetlands
and Other Waters are discussed in Section 2.3.2, Wetlands and Other Waters.
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the Natural Environment Study (February 2018)
prepared for the project.
The project area encompasses a disturbed urbanized landscape consisting of roads,
buildings, and other artificial structures and unvegetated areas. The roadway fringes and
adjacent sidewalk/shoulder areas are landscaped with ornamental plants and planted trees
(both native and ornamental) characteristic of the region. Vegetation within the project
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 144
area includes primarily landscaping/ornamental vegetation, with minimal amounts of
agriculture, ruderal (disturbed), riparian, and freshwater marsh vegetation.
Three drainages traverse the project area and are channelized (culverts) under and/or
adjacent to the U.S. 101, leading to Arroyo Grande Creek or Meadow Park Creek. These
are roadside drainages that function to collect and convey stormwater runoff. Some of the
drainages are vegetated by riparian vegetation and an herbaceous and/or shrubby
understory; others are unvegetated or minimally vegetated with forbs, weeds, and/or
species characteristic of freshwater marsh.
Riparian areas (central coast riparian scrub) in the project area were identified as a natural
community of special concern in the Natural Environment Study. Central coast riparian
scrub, a subcategory of riparian scrub habitat, is considered a “high priority” and “rare”
community type by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
In general, riparian areas include streamside trees and/or shrubs, and are considered
sensitive and important habitats by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) and other resource agencies. The diversity of wildlife species occurring within
extensive riparian habitats is typically very high and these habitats can be sensitive to
disturbance. Riparian vegetation also provides important roosting and foraging habitat for
many migratory bird species, regulates water temperatures, and provides (directly or
indirectly) food sources for aquatic organisms. Riparian habitats serve as migratory
corridors for wildlife, and as such, are important in linking non-contiguous or fragmented
wildlife habitats. Riparian areas often fall within the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW).
Riparian habitat (central coast riparian scrub) occurs in scattered locations within the
project area, mostly in or adjacent to the identified drainage ditches. The areas of mapped
riparian habitat are relatively small and fragmented. Biological surveys and analysis of the
project area indicate that these riparian areas do not provide enough continuity and are too
close in proximity to traffic disturbance to be considered a substantial riparian migratory
corridor.
Environmental Consequences
Although the project area lacks a riparian corridor, the proposed project has the potential
to impact riparian habitat within the project area as a result of improvements and
modifications proposed in close proximity to riparian areas.
Riparian areas were identified and mapped at the following locations:
• Near the northeast corner of the Brisco Road/El Camino Real intersection;
• At the northeast corner of the Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection; and
• South of West Branch Street between the Arroyo Grande Library and Old Ranch
Road.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 145
Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C propose modifications at the Brisco Road/El
Camino Real intersection that could affect proximate riparian areas. The reconfigured
Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection and new northbound on- and off-ramps at Grace
Lane proposed under Alternative 4C could also affect adjacent riparian areas near those
locations.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Approvals from affected agencies will be needed prior to project implementation. This
includes a Section 404 Nationwide Permit from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), and a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). These permits would include a variety of
measures to avoid, minimize and compensate for any potential impacts to riparian habitat
resulting from the project. In addition, the following recommended avoidance and
minimization measures are recommended to avoid and reduce potential impacts.
BIO/mm-1 Prior to project implementation, the City shall retain a qualified biological
monitor(s) approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to
ensure compliance with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures
within the project environmental documents. Monitoring shall occur
throughout the length of construction or as directed by the regulatory
agencies. Monitoring may be reduced to part time once construction
activities are underway and the potential for additional impacts are
reduced.
BIO/mm-2 During project activities, the biological monitor(s) shall coordinate with
federal, state, and local agencies and the construction contractor to ensure
construction schedules comply with biological avoidance, minimization,
and mitigation requirements.
BIO/mm-3 The project site shall be clearly flagged or fenced so that the contractor is
aware of the limits of allowable site access points and disturbance. Areas
within the designated project site that do not require regular access shall be
clearly flagged as off-limit areas to avoid/discourage unnecessary damage
to sensitive habitats within and near the project site.
BIO/mm-4 During project activities, any work that must occur within drainage ditches
shall be conducted when they do not contain flowing water, if possible.
BIO/mm-5 Erosion control measures shall be implemented during construction. Silt
fencing and barriers (e.g., hay bales) shall be installed in appropriate areas
to prevent introduction of silt/sediment to aquatic areas within the project
area. At a minimum, silt fencing shall be checked and maintained on a
daily basis during the rainy season throughout the construction period. The
contractor shall also apply adequate dust control techniques, such as site
watering, in areas where necessary during construction.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 146
BIO/mm-6 During project activities, the cleaning and refueling of equipment and
vehicles shall occur only within a designated staging area and at least 60
feet from wetlands, other waters, riparian, or other aquatic areas. This
staging area shall conform to best management practices (BMPs)
applicable to attaining zero discharge of stormwater runoff. At a minimum,
all equipment and vehicles shall be checked and maintained on a daily
basis to ensure proper operation and avoid potential leaks or spills.
BIO/mm-7 All project-related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to
project sites shall be cleaned-up immediately. Spill prevention and clean-
up materials shall be on-site at all times during construction.
BIO/mm-8 During construction, trash shall be contained, removed from the work site,
and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and
construction debris shall be removed from work areas.
BIO/mm-9 The biological monitor(s) shall ensure that the spread of introduction of
invasive exotic plant species will be avoided to the maximum extent
possible. When practicable, invasive exotic plants in the project site shall
be removed and properly disposed.
2.3.2 Wetlands and Other Waters
Regulatory Setting
Wetlands and other waters are protected under a number of laws and regulations. At the
federal level, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly referred to as the
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 United States Code [USC] 1344), is the primary law
regulating wetlands and surface waters. One purpose of the CWA is to regulate the
discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.), including
wetlands. Waters of the U.S. include navigable waters, interstate waters, territorial seas,
and other waters that may be used in interstate or foreign commerce. To classify wetlands
for the purposes of the CWA, a three-parameter approach is used that includes the
presence of hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils
(soils formed during saturation/inundation). All three parameters must be present, under
normal circumstances, for an area to be designated as a jurisdictional wetland under the
CWA.
Section 404 of the CWA establishes a regulatory program that provides that discharge of
dredged or fill material cannot be permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less
damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation’s waters would be substantially
degraded. The Section 404 permit program is run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) with oversight by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).
The USACE issues two types of 404 permits: General and Standard permits. There are
two types of General permits: Regional permits and Nationwide permits. Regional permits
are issued for a general category of activities when they are similar in nature and cause
minimal environmental effect. Nationwide permits are issued to authorize a variety of
minor project activities with no more than minimal effects.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 147
Ordinarily, projects that do not meet the criteria for a Nationwide Permit may be permitted
under one of USACE’s Standard permits. There are two types of Standard permits:
Individual permits and Letters of Permission. For Standard permits, the USACE decision
to approve is based on compliance with U.S. EPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (U.S.
EPA 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 230), and whether permit approval is in
the public interest. The 404 (b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) were developed by the U.S.
EPA in conjunction with the USACE, and allow the discharge of dredged or fill material
into the aquatic system (waters of the U.S.) only if there is no practicable alternative
which would have less adverse effects. The Guidelines state that the USACE may not
issue a permit if there is a least environmentally damaging practical alternative (LEDPA)
to the proposed discharge that would have lesser effects on waters of the U.S., and not
have any other significant adverse environmental consequences.
The Executive Order for the Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990) also regulates the
activities of federal agencies with regard to wetlands. Essentially, this EO states that a
federal agency, such as the FHWA and/or Caltrans, as assigned, cannot undertake or
provide assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency
finds: 1) that there is no practicable alternative to the construction and 2) the proposed
project includes all practicable measures to minimize harm.
The Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) were established under the Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act to oversee water quality. Discharges under the Porter-
Cologne Act are permitted by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and may be
required even when the discharge is already permitted or exempt under the CWA. In
compliance with Section 401 of the CWA, the RWQCBs also issue water quality
certifications for activities which may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. This is
most frequently required in tandem with a Section 404 permit request. Please see the
Water Quality section for more details.
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the Natural Environment Study (February 2018)
and Jurisdictional Assessment (February 2018) prepared for the project.
Hydrology within the project area has been substantially altered by development and road
construction. USGS quadrangle maps for Arroyo Grande Northeast and Oceano,
California show two blue-line channels within the project area – one at the western end
near Camino Mercado, and another just west of Old Ranch Road in the eastern portion of
the project (refer generally to Section 2.2.1, Hydrology and Floodplain). The Camino
Mercado drainage is ephemeral (seasonal), while the Old Ranch Road drainage appears to
contain low flows through the normal dry season. Highway and frontage road construction
has eliminated the original natural channels for these two blue-line features, and all flows
within the project area are now contained by man-made channels, detention basins, and
culverts.
There are also three man-made ditches excavated in upland areas to capture and direct
urban runoff (referred to as Excavated Ditches 1, 2, and 3) located within the project area.
These excavated ditches consist of open v-shaped channels with exposed soil/substrate or
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 148
concrete lining, and eventually convey road runoff from U.S. 101 and adjacent surface
streets to the Old Ranch Road drainage and Arroyo Grande Creek. Flows within the
excavated ditches are ephemeral.
The project area has been extensively disturbed by development, and no substantial native
vegetation or native habitat areas are present. Habitats observed within the project area
include ruderal (disturbed) and landscaping/ornamental vegetation along roadways and
adjacent development, and agricultural fields south of Grand Avenue. The Camino
Mercado detention basins and the Old Ranch Road drainage contain areas of riparian
habitat consisting of arroyo willow canopy cover, while the man-made excavated ditches
are dominated by landscape plants and ruderal species.
The Jurisdictional Assessment (February 2018) prepared for the project identified
potential wetlands and other jurisdictional waters within the project area. The
jurisdictional results are preliminary, and are subject to review by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and other agencies prior to issuance of permits.
The assessment identified one area of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional
wetlands associated with the Old Ranch Road drainage, between the northbound U.S. 101
lanes and West Branch Street approximately 200 feet west of Old Ranch Road. Other
portions of the Old Ranch Road drainage and the Camino Mercado drainage/detention
basin within the project area were determined to constitute jurisdictional Other Waters
because they replace the hydrologic functions of previously existing natural channels.
Excavated Ditches 1 through 3, although excavated in uplands and lacking hydric soil or
dominant hydrophytic vegetation coverage, all exhibit connectivity to Arroyo Grande
Creek. As a result, these three ditches may also qualify as Other Waters and may meet
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional requirements as Waters of the State.
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 does not propose modifications or disturbance within 300 feet of the
identified U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetland. Therefore, no impacts
would occur. The new northbound off-ramp at Grace Lane and northbound mainline
auxiliary lane between Grand Avenue and Grace Lane proposed under Alternative 4C
would be constructed within 50 feet of the wetland, but the adjacent sensitive riparian
habitat and wetland areas would be avoided. Therefore, no impacts to U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers jurisdictional wetlands would occur under either alternative.
Impacts to jurisdictional Other Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State may result from
the interchange improvements introducing fill into the drainage ditches or requiring their
realignment. The following tables summarize the proposed impact areas that would
potentially be subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdiction under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act as Waters of the State, and/or California Department of Fish
and Wildlife jurisdiction under Sections 1600-1602 of the California Fish and Game Code
as Waters of the State.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 149
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdictional determinations were based on the
presence/absence of wetland indicators, definable ordinary high water marks (OHWMs),
and connectivity to relatively permanent waters. Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) jurisdictional areas typically include both U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
wetlands and Other Waters, and extend out to the limits of riparian habitat. California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction typically extends to the top of bank
or outside edge of riparian canopy cover. As a result, CDFG jurisdictional boundaries are
typically larger than U.S. Army Corps of Engineers boundaries. CDFG jurisdictional areas
were delineated by the evidence of a defined bed and bank, connectivity to relatively
permanent waters, riparian dripline vegetation boundaries, or evidence of hydrology.
The permanent impact calculations below are based on project plans, and the temporary
impacts are based on a 20-foot buffer surrounding all proposed permanent impact areas.
Table 2.3-1 Proposed Impacts to USACE Jurisdictional Areas
(Other Waters)
Drainage Jurisdictional
Status
Alternative 1 Impacts Alternative 4C Impacts
Permanent
(ft2 / ac*)
Temporary
(ft2 / ac*)
Permanent
(ft2 / ac*)
Temporary
(ft2 / ac*)
Camino
Mercado
Waters of the
U.S. n/a 2,187 / 0.05 n/a n/a
Old Ranch
Road
Waters of the
U.S. 919 / 0.02 4,058 / 0.09 919 / 0.02 4,072 / 0.09
Excavated
Ditch 1
Potential Waters
of the U.S. n/a n/a 1,082 / 0.02 2,245 / 0.05
Excavated
Ditch 2
Potential Waters
of the U.S. n/a 347 / 0.01 n/a 347 / 0.01
Excavated
Ditch 3
Potential Waters
of the U.S. n/a n/a n/a n/a
TOTALS 919 / 0.02 6,592 / 0.15 1,999 / 0.05 6,663 / 0.15
* ft2 = square feet, ac = acre
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 150
Table 2.3-2 Proposed Impacts to RWQCB Jurisdictional Areas
(Waters of the State)
Drainage Jurisdictional
Status
Alternative 1 Impacts Alternative 4C Impacts
Permanent
(ft2 / ac*)
Temporary
(ft2 / ac*)
Permanent
(ft2 / ac*)
Temporary
(ft2 / ac*)
Camino
Mercado
Waters of the
State 2,289 / 0.05 9,080 / 0.21 n/a n/a
Old Ranch
Road
Waters of the
State 919 / 0.02 4,058 / 0.09 n/a 4,072 / 0.09
Excavated
Ditch 1
Potential Waters
of the State n/a n/a 1,082 / 0.02 2,245 / 0.05
Excavated
Ditch 2
Potential Waters
of the State n/a 347 / 0.01 n/a 347 / 0.01
Excavated
Ditch 3
Potential Waters
of the State n/a n/a n/a n/a
TOTALS 3,207 / 0.07 13,486 / 0.31 9,274 / 0.21 6,663 / 0.15
* ft2 = square feet, ac = acre
Table 2.3-3 Proposed Impacts to CDFW Jurisdictional Areas
(Alternatives 1 and 4)
Drainage Jurisdictional
Status
Alternative 1 Impacts Alternative 4C Impacts
Permanent
(ft2 / ac*)
Temporary
(ft2 / ac*)
Permanent
(ft2 / ac*)
Temporary
(ft2 / ac*)
Camino
Mercado
Waters of the
State 2,289 / 0.05 9,080 / 0.21 n/a n/a
Old Ranch
Road
Waters of the
State 919 / 0.02 4,058 / 0.09 919 / 0.02 4,072 / 0.09
Excavated
Ditch 1
Potential Waters
of the State n/a n/a 1,082 / 0.02 2,245 / 0.05
Excavated
Ditch 2
Potential Waters
of the State n/a 347, 0.01 n/a 347 / 0.01
Excavated
Ditch 3
Potential Waters
of the State n/a n/a n/a n/a
TOTALS 3,207 / 0.07 13,486 / 0.31 9,274 / 0.21 6,663 / 0.15
* ft2 = square feet, ac = acre
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 151
The potentially jurisdictional waters associated with the two channels and three excavated
ditches within the project area have been extensively altered by, or constructed during,
historical road and highway development in the area. The earthen channel sections are
short and shallow and located between culvert and concrete ditch structures or in detention
basin bottoms. The existing culverts and v-ditch structures compose the majority of the
features present in the project area. All mapped features provide low to moderate
functions and values due to their limited flow regime, urban setting, and small size.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
The project is not expected to impact jurisdictional wetlands, but may impact
jurisdictional Other Waters. Recommended avoidance and minimization measures
previously discussed in Section 2.3.1, Natural Communities (BIO-1 through BIO-9) will
be applied for all aquatic areas within the project area, including jurisdictional wetlands
and other waters.
Compensatory mitigation would also be required for impacts to jurisdictional Other
Waters, if they occur. Mitigation ratios would be determined on a case by case basis
during the project permitting phase, but at a minimum, shall include native revegetation of
any impacted wetland habitat at a 1:1 ratio for temporary impacts and a 2:1 ratio for
permanent impacts.
2.3.3 Animal Species
Regulatory Setting
Many federal laws regulate impacts on wildlife. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine
Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) are responsible for implementing these laws.
This section discusses potential impacts and permit requirements associated with animals
not listed or proposed for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. Species listed
or proposed for listing are discussed in Section 2.3.4, Threatened or Endangered Species,
below. All other federally protected special-status animal species are discussed here,
including USFWS or NOAA Fisheries Service candidate species.
Federal laws and regulations relevant to wildlife include the following:
• National Environmental Policy Act
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the Natural Environment Study (February 2018)
prepared for the project.
Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus), Western
Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), Purple Martin (Progyne
subis), and Other Nesting Birds (Class Aves) were identified as special-status animal
species with the potential to occur within the project area. These bird species are
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 152
addressed as a group because they have similar habitat requirements and potential project-
related impacts.
The sharp-shinned hawk is considered a species of special concern by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). It is a small accipiter hawk with a grayish back
and a squared-off, banded tail, in comparison to the more rounded off tail of the larger
Cooper’s hawk. This species formerly bred in small numbers throughout much of northern
California and in very small numbers in all the mountain ranges of southern California as
far south as the Cuyamaca Mountains in San Diego County. The current breeding
population is greatly reduced from former levels.
The sharp-shinned hawk roosts in intermediate to high-canopy forest or riparian areas. It
usually nests in dense, pole and small-tree stands of conifers, which are cool, moist, well
shaded, with little ground-cover, near water. The nest is a platform or cup in dense foliage
against a trunk, or toward the center of a tree, usually 6 to 80 feet above ground. Sharp-
shinned hawks usually nest within 275 feet of water. The breeding season is from April
through August, with peak activity in late May to July. Clutch sizes average four to five
eggs. Sharp-shinned hawks feed mainly on small birds, but will also take small mammals,
insects, reptiles, and amphibians.
The white-tailed kite is considered a Fully Protected species by the California Fish and
Game Code. It is a yearlong resident ranging throughout valley and coastal lowlands in
California, and most commonly, near agricultural areas. Within San Luis Obispo County,
this species is considered an uncommon resident. Nesting and roosting occurs in dense,
broad-leafed deciduous groves of trees. Breeding occurs from February to October,
peaking in May to August. Its eggs (typically four to five) are incubated for about 28 days,
with the young subsequently fledging 35 to 40 days thereafter. White-tailed kites prey
chiefly on voles and other small diurnal mammals, and occasionally on birds, insects,
amphibians, and reptiles.
The western yellow-billed cuckoo is a candidate species for federal listing and a state-
listed endangered species. There is no proposed federally designated critical habitat for the
species. A slender brown bird with white underparts, its wings appear rufous or cinnamon
in flight and the tail shows black with white spots. It is an uncommon to rare summer
resident of valley foothill and desert riparian habitats in scattered locations in California.
Formerly much more common and widespread throughout lowland California, the
species’ numbers have been drastically reduced by habitat loss. Although the cuckoo nests
in walnut and almond orchards in California, its natural nesting habitat is in cottonwood-
tree willow riparian forest. It usually arrives from South American wintering areas in
June, and departs by late August or early September. The twig nest typically is on the
horizontal branch of a tree willow in a location hidden from view from the ground or
surrounding trees. In California, most eggs are laid mid-June to mid-July. Clutch size
averages three to four eggs. Food items are typically large insects.
The purple martin is considered a species of special concern by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). It is a dark purple-black swallow. At one time, the purple
martin was a fairly common breeder in the Coast Ranges the length of the state and in
smaller numbers in the Sierra Nevada. In the last 15 years there has been a dramatic
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 153
decrease in southern California, where it was once a common breeder in the mountains
and where it even nested in some lowland residential areas. The purple martin inhabits
hardwood, hardwood-conifer, riparian, and coniferous habitats. It usually nests in old
woodpecker cavities, but will occasionally nest in man-made structures such as bridges
and culverts. The species nests from April to August, with peak activity in June. Females
lay three to eight eggs. Insects are typical food items.
Several other species of nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
and State of California Fish and Game Code could potentially nest in the riparian scrub
and other trees within the project area.
Environmental Consequences
Although there is marginal nesting habitat within riparian and landscaped trees and man-
made structures within the project area, no nesting birds were observed during field
surveys conducted in 2005, 2006, and 2011.
Particular attention is granted to the western yellow-billed cuckoo because of its federally
listed candidacy and state endangered status. The project area supports marginal willow
riparian habitat, but no western yellow-billed cuckoo were observed or heard in or near
the project area. In addition, no bird nests were observed in trees within the project area.
The western yellow-billed cuckoo is a fairly local breeder in California and does not
typically arrive on the breeding grounds until early June through mid-July.
The western yellow-billed cuckoo is a casual spring and fall transient in San Luis Obispo
County. Although its historic status within the county is unknown, it was likely a regular
breeder in large cottonwood-willow riparian woodlands. There are only eight San Luis
Obispo County records for the species over the last fifty years, two of which pertain to
nesting birds. The six recent non-breeding records are from Morro Bay (1961), Los Osos
(1980), Morro Bay (1989), Carrizo Plain (1991), Oso Flaco Lake (1999), and San Simeon
Creek (1999). This species was probably a recent resident and breeder in dense willow
and other floodplain habitats in San Luis Obispo County until the 1930s and possibly even
later. The County’s two nesting records involve a fledgling collected in San Luis Obispo
in 1921 (San Bernardino County Museum) and an egg set taken in 1932 at “Mile’s
Station” in upper Avila Valley, which is incorrectly mapped by the CNDDB as a city of
San Luis Obispo record. There are no known recent nesting records in San Luis Obispo
County and there are no known breeding locations outside of the currently known
breeding locations, none of which occur in San Luis Obispo County. No other yellow-
billed cuckoo observations in or near the project area are known to exist.
Although there is marginal habitat to support these species and they have never been
observed within the project area, project construction has the potential to result in the
temporary loss of vegetation that provides potential breeding and foraging habitat for
these protected bird species.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
A variety of avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are recommended to
avoid, minimize and compensate for any potential impacts resulting from the project.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 154
BIO/mm-10 If feasible, removal of trees shall be scheduled to occur in the fall and
winter (between September 1 and February 15), after fledging and before
the initiation of the nesting season.
BIO/mm-11 If trees must be removed from February 15 to August 31, a qualified
biologist shall be retained to conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting
bird species within the project site.
BIO/mm-12 If active nests are observed, the applicant shall either: 1) wait for such
nesting birds to fledge and leave the project site; 2) establish 100-foot
exclusion zones around active nests, where construction will not be
allowed in these exclusion zones until young have fledged; or 3) consult
with the appropriate resource agencies for guidance prior to site
disturbance.
The implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures such as appropriate
timing of vegetation removal, preactivity surveys, and exclusion zones will reduce the
potential for adverse effects to nesting bird species.
2.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species
Regulatory Setting
The primary federal law protecting threatened and endangered species is the Federal
Endangered Species Act (FESA): 16 United States Code (USC), Section 1531, et seq. See
also 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 402. This act and later amendments
provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. Under Section 7 of this act, federal agencies, such as Caltrans, as
assigned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), are required to consult with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service) to ensure
that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined as geographic locations critical to the
existence of a threatened or endangered species. The outcome of consultation under
Section 7 may include a Biological Opinion with an Incidental Take statement, a Letter of
Concurrence and/or documentation of a No Effect finding. Section 3 of FESA defines take
as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect or any attempt at
such conduct.”
Another federal law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
of 1976, was established to conserve and manage fishery resources found off the coast, as
well as anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources of the United States,
by exercising (A) sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving,
and managing all fish within the exclusive economic zone established by Presidential
Proclamation 5030, dated March 10, 1983, and (B) exclusive fishery management
authority beyond the exclusive economic zone over such anadromous species, Continental
Shelf fishery resources, and fishery resources in special areas.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 155
Affected Environment
Information in this section comes from the Natural Environment Study (February 2018)
prepared for the project. Species lists were obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service in February 2018 (refer to
Appendix E).
South-central California coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) and California
red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) are species protected by the Federal Endangered
Species Act with the potential to occur within the project area.
Steelhead
Steelhead are the anadromous form of rainbow trout. Steelhead historically ranged from
Alaska southward to the California-Mexico border, though current data suggest that the
Ventura River is presently the southernmost drainage supporting substantial steelhead
runs. Southern steelhead are important because they represent the southernmost portion of
the native steelhead range in North America, having ecologically and physiologically
adapted to seasonally intermittent coastal California streams.
Optimal habitat for steelhead throughout its entire range on the Pacific Coast can
generally be characterized by clear, cool water with abundant instream cover (i.e.,
submerged branches, rocks, logs), well-vegetated stream margins, relatively stable water
flow, and a 1:1 pool-to-riffle ratio; however, steelhead are occasionally found in reaches
of streams containing habitat that would be considered less than optimal. Steelhead within
the central coast region begin migrating up coastal drainages following the first substantial
rainfall of the fall season. Spawning typically occurs during the spring in riffle areas that
consist of clean, coarse gravels. Deposited eggs incubate for approximately three to four
weeks, with hatched fry rearing within the gravel interstices for an additional two to three
weeks. Emergent fry rear at the stream margins near overhanging vegetation. Juveniles
(smolts), after rearing for one to three years within freshwater, and post-spawning adults,
outmigrate to the ocean from March to July, depending on streamflows.
All populations of steelhead occurring within the South-Central California Coast Region,
which is defined as that geographic region north of the Santa Maria River, northward to
(and including) the Pajaro River (and its tributaries) in Santa Cruz County, were listed as
Federally Threatened by NOAA Fisheries in August 1997. South-central California coast
steelhead are also considered a species of special concern by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). NOAA Fisheries lists habitat deterioration due to
sedimentation and flooding related to land management practices, and potential genetic
interaction with hatchery rainbow trout, as risk factors to steelhead within this region.
California Red-legged Frog
The California red-legged frog was formally listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) as federally threatened in 1996, and is considered a species of special concern
by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). It historically ranged from
Marin County southward to northern Baja California. Presently, Monterey, San Luis
Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties support the largest remaining California red-legged
frog populations within California.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 156
This frog prefers aquatic habitats with little or no flow, the presence of surface water to at
least early June, surface water depths to at least 2.3 feet, and the presence of fairly sturdy
underwater supports such as cattails. The largest densities of this subspecies are typically
associated with dense stands of overhanging willows and an intermixed fringe of sturdy
emergent vegetation. California red-legged frogs typically breed from January to July,
with peak breeding occurring in February. Eggs are attached to subsurface vegetation, and
hatched tadpoles require 11 to 20 weeks to metamorphose. It is estimated that only one
percent of eggs actually reach adulthood.
California red-legged frogs will also disperse through upland habitat adjacent to aquatic
habitat. Riparian habitat degradation, urbanization, predation by bullfrogs, and historic
market harvesting have all reportedly contributed to population declines in this
subspecies.
Environmental Consequences
Steelhead
No steelhead were observed within any of the drainage ditches within the project area.
The open or concrete-lined ditches within the project area convey seasonal flows and offer
extremely marginal habitat for fish species. In addition, there is no opportunity for
migration from Arroyo Grande Creek to these drainage ditches, due to steep drops or other
impassable barriers.
The project will not directly impact steelhead. Indirect effects resulting from the
introduction of sediment into the drainages leading to Arroyo Grande Creek could lead to
downstream impacts within the watershed, but are unlikely.
California Red-legged Frog
A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) yielded 65 known
occurrences of California red-legged frogs within a seven-quadrangle search area.
However, only two California red-legged frog occurrences have been recorded within 1
mile of the project area. The nearest record is from Corbett Canyon Creek (aka Tally Ho
Creek), west of State Route 227 near the ends of May Street and Paseo Street, in Arroyo
Grande, approximately 0.6 mile northeast of the project area. There are also several
occurrences from Arroyo Grande Creek, but none within the vicinity of the project area.
To determine the potential for occurrence of the California red-legged frog within the
project area, an assessment was conducted following the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-
legged Frogs. A California Red-legged Frog Site Assessment Report was submitted to the
Ventura U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office on April 4, 2006. As recommended by
USFWS Fish and Wildlife Biologist Mark Elvin (2006), surveys for California red-legged
frog were conducted within the project area, beginning on March 7, 2007, and ending on
August 7, 2007. A total of eight surveys were conducted, and no California red-legged
frogs were observed during any of the survey efforts.
Habitats within the project area and within 1 mile of the project area are highly
fragmented due to urban development, U.S. 101, and other roads. While California red-
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 157
legged frogs have the potential to occur within large areas of good to excellent quality
habitat with riparian and emergent vegetative cover, suitable water quality, and minimal
disturbance, these conditions do not occur within the project area. It is extremely unlikely
that California red-legged frogs inhabit the drainage ditches within the project area, which
are minimally vegetated to non-vegetated, typically convey only seasonal stormwater
flows, and are subjected to considerable disturbance (e.g., due to location adjacent to busy
roadways). Dispersal of the species to these areas from habitats outside of the project area
would be difficult due to the extensive network of roads and urban development existing
in and near the project area.
The proposed project is not likely to adversely affect California red-legged frog. No
California red-legged frogs were detected during protocol surveys conducted in 2006 and
the potential for California red-legged frogs to inhabit the drainages within the project
area is believed to be extremely low due to extremely marginal habitat quality.
Water quality degradation within the drainage ditches leading to Arroyo Grande Creek
could result from concrete spills, fuel spills, or excessive project-related sedimentation,
which could be carried downstream and adversely impact water quality and foraging and
breeding habitat for the species; however, these effects are unlikely and will be avoided or
minimized with the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
Recommended avoidance and minimization measures previously discussed in this
Environmental Assessment, including sedimentation/siltation/erosion control measures,
would avoid and minimize potential indirect impacts to downstream habitat for steelhead
and California red-legged frog. No additional avoidance and minimization efforts are
necessary.
2.4 Construction Impacts
Project construction under Alternative 1 would last approximately 9 months, and under
Alternative 4C approximately 12 months.
Specific construction staging requirements would be defined during the final design
process, although staging is expected to take place within existing or proposed public
rights of way for both alternatives. Disposal and borrow sites (i.e., for disposal of excess
material or acquisition of fill material) would be off-site at appropriate facilities.
Environmental Consequences
Both alternatives would result in short-term adverse impacts associated with project
construction related to air quality, traffic and transportation, visual/aesthetics, water
quality and stormwater, hazardous waste and materials, and noise. Construction is
expected to last between approximately 9 to 12 months and spanning one rainy season.
Alternative 1 is expected to take approximately 40 fewer days to construct than
Alternative 4C.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 158
Issue areas that would be affected by short-term construction activities are discussed in
this section.
Air Quality
During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of
particulate emissions (airborne dust) and other pollutants generated by excavation,
grading, hauling, and various other activities related to construction. Site preparation and
roadway construction would involve clearing, cut-and-fill activities, grading, removing or
improving existing roadways, and paving roadway surfaces.
All construction vehicles and equipment would be required to be equipped with the State-
mandated emission control devices pursuant to State emission regulations and standard
construction practices. Project construction is estimated to last between approximately 9
and 12 months. After construction is complete, all construction-related impacts would
cease. Short-term construction emissions would be further reduced with the
implementation of standard dust and diesel particulate matter (DPM) suppression
measures outlined within the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (APCD) rules
and regulations. Caltrans Standard Specifications for Construction (Section 10 and 18
[Dust Control] and Section 39 [Asphalt Concrete Plans]) would also be adhered to.
The Air Quality Study prepared for the project concluded that the proposed project would
not result in significant adverse impacts related to construction emissions. However, site
disturbance would occur within an area designated as non-attainment for fugitive dust
(Particulate Matter suspended in the air primarily from soil that has been disturbed by
wind or human activities, and has the potential to adversely affect human health or the
environment). Therefore, in order to prevent a dust nuisance and contribute to fugitive
dust generation, standard dust control avoidance, minimization, and mitigation set out in
San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (APCD) regulations would be
implemented. In addition, the project is located within 1,000 feet of potentially sensitive
receptors (residences), who may be adversely affected by exposure to diesel particulate
matter (DPM) emitted by construction equipment. Based on the San Luis Obispo Air
Pollution Control District’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality
Handbook, standard mitigation and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) would be
implemented to reduce potential effects on nearby sensitive receptors.
Traffic and Transportation
Short-term construction activities would cause increased congestion throughout the
project area. The project may require lane closures and/or detours and may result in
constrained access throughout the project area. Congestion on nearby roadways may
increase as traffic patterns are adjusted to avoid construction activities.
These impacts would be short-term and minimized to the extent feasible through
identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and compliance with
standard City and Caltrans policies. Effects on access and parking throughout the project
area would be minimized through implementation of identified measures.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 159
Visual/Aesthetics
Construction activities would create a potential for visual impacts due to the presence of
heavy construction equipment and materials. Construction activities would be visible from
U.S. 101 and several other local roadways.
The construction impacts would be short term in nature and would not substantially
conflict with other urbanized uses and traffic throughout the project area. Visual effects of
the construction equipment would be adverse, but minimized due to the short timeframe
and existing urbanization and commercial/light industrial uses within the project area.
Therefore, visual impacts associated with project construction would be minor.
Water Quality and Stormwater
The exhaust from construction equipment contains hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen,
carbon monoxide, suspended particulate matter, and odors, which are deposited on area
roadways. These contaminants could have an effect on water quality when conveyed via
storm water runoff into adjacent waterways. Leaky construction equipment has the
potential to drip or spill fuels, petroleum products, and hydraulic fluids among other
hazardous substances. The use of asphalt, concrete, and other harmful chemicals during
construction activities would also add to the potential of these substances entering creek
channels during activities in and near water bodies and wetlands or other jurisdictional
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) waters within the project limits.
However, it is estimated that the largest percentage of construction pollutants would be
sediment, construction debris from demolished structures, and dust generated during
excavation, grading, hauling, demolition, and various other activities. The impacts of
these activities would vary each day as construction progresses and onsite conditions
change. The project area is predominately comprised of soils that have a low to moderate
erosion risk. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and Caltrans Standard
Specifications will address most concerns with erosion. However, unusual situations such
as unexpected rain and improper Best Management Practices (BMPs) implementation
could result in temporary impacts to surface water quality.
Rain event action plans will require adequate Best Management Practices (BMPs)
implementation prior to any predicted rain. Because the proposed project is identified as a
risk level 2 projects, if there is a 50% chance of rain, within 72 hours, a Rain Event Action
Plan must be submitted.
The total disturbed soil area for the project is estimated to be 5.47 acres for Alternative 1
and 13.75 acres for Alternative 4C. The project area, when disturbed, is expected to have a
moderate erosion hazard potential. All disturbed surface area would receive temporary
erosion and sediment controls prior to every predicted rain event. For qualifying rain
events of 0.5 inch or more, all discharge locations would be sampled three times daily and
tested for turbidity and pH. Exceedances would be reported to the Central Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and available to the general public. All incidents
of non-compliance (field or administrative) would be reported to the Executive Officer of
the Regional Water Quality Control Board within five days.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 160
Potential sources of temporary surface water impacts include: construction materials,
contaminants in the existing roadway, vehicle leaks, traffic accidents, and illegal dumping.
Temporary construction site stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be
implemented to minimize or eliminate chemical releases to ground and surface waters.
Both project alternatives would include temporary and permanent erosion control
techniques, including temporary soil stabilization/sediment control Best Management
Practices implemented during construction consistent with the Construction General
Permit. Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) are estimated to cost
approximately $113,259 for Alternative 1 and $193,285 for Alternative 4C.
Hazardous Waste and Materials
Oils, gasoline, lubricants, fuels, and other potentially hazardous substances would be used
and stored on-site during construction activities. Should a spill or leak of these materials
occur during construction activities, sensitive resources within the project vicinity could
be adversely affected. Such activities would also occur in close proximity to Saint
Patrick’s School and other sensitive adjacent land uses. However, such use would be
short-term and subject to standard requirements for the handling of hazardous materials.
Avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures would be implemented to ensure
potential impacts were reduced to less than significant.
Noise
During construction of the project, noise from construction activities may intermittently
dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. Noise associated
with construction is controlled by Caltrans Standard Specification Section 14-8.02, “Noise
Control,” which states the following:
• Do not exceed 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the job site activities from 9 p.m. to 6
a.m.
• Equip an internal combustion engine with the manufacturer-recommended muffler. Do
not operate an internal combustion engine on the job site without the appropriate
muffler.
Table 2.4-1 summarizes noise levels produced by construction equipment that is
commonly used on roadway construction projects. Construction equipment is expected to
generate noise levels ranging from 70 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet, and noise
produced by construction equipment would be reduced over distance at a rate of about 6
dB per doubling of distance.
Table 2.4-1 Construction Equipment Noise
Equipment Maximum Noise Level
(dBA at 50 feet)
Scrapers 89
Bulldozers 85
Heavy Trucks 88
Backhoe 80
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 161
Equipment Maximum Noise Level
(dBA at 50 feet)
Pneumatic Tools 85
Concrete Pump 82
Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006. See also:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm
No adverse noise impacts from construction are anticipated because construction would be
conducted in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14.8-02.
Construction noise would be short-term, intermittent, and overshadowed by local traffic
noise.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
AQ/mm-1 Prior to issuance of construction permits, the following measures shall be
incorporated into the construction phase of the project and shown on all
applicable plans:
Construction Equipment
a. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to
manufacturer’s specifications;
b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but
not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes,
generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, with CARB-
certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use
off-road);
c. Maximize to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction
equipment meeting the CARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-
road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road
Regulation;
d. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007 or cleaner
certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and
comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
e. Construction or trucking companies with fleets that 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;
f. All on- and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5
minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or
job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5-minute idling limit;
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 162
g. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall be avoided to
the maximum extent feasible;
h. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors to the maximum extent feasible;
i. Electrify equipment when feasible;
j. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment,
where feasible; and,
k. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible,
such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG),
propane, or biodiesel.
Best Available Control Technology
l. Further reduce emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-
road and 2010 on-road compliant engines;
m. Repower equipment with the cleanest engines available; and,
n. Install California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies. These
strategies are listed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm.
AQ/mm-2 Upon application for construction permits, all required PM10 measures
shall be shown on applicable grading or construction plans, and made
applicable during grading and construction activities as described below.
a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to
prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering
frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles
per hour (mph);
c. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible;
d. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed;
e. 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;
f. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater
than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast
germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is
established;
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 163
g. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized
using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods
approved in advance by the APCD;
h. 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;
i. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on
any unpaved surface at the construction site;
j. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be
covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum
vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance
with California Vehicle Code §23114;
k. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto
streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site; and,
l. 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 avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation
measures shall be shown on grading, construction and building plans; and
the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive
dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as
necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below
20% opacity, and to prevent transport of dust off-site. Their duties shall
include monitoring the effectiveness of the required dust control measures
(as conditions dictate), and shall include holidays and weekend periods
when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of
such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to
the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
TRA/mm-4 All construction activities shall be planned so as to minimize
inconvenience to the traveling public, i.e., through minimization of the
amount and duration of lane closures, minimization of lane closures during
peak traffic hours, and goals to complete project construction without
unnecessary delay. Public traffic traveling north on U.S. 101 should be
rerouted, via highway signage, to use the Grand Avenue exit should the
northbound ramps at Brisco Road be closed temporarily, and vice versa.
TRA/mm-5 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare a
Construction Timing, Access, and Circulation Plan, which shall include the
following measures. This plan shall be approved by the City Public Works
Director prior to the start of construction and made available for local
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 164
residents to review and comment on prior to the onset of construction
activities.
a. Methods for ensuring permanent access to the commercial/retail centers
north of the Brisco Road/U.S. 101 interchange is preserved and/or
improved to the maximum extent feasible through implementation of
the proposed project.
b. A signage plan and other methods, if feasible, for increasing the
visibility of business blocked by construction activities and educating
travelers that businesses adjacent to the project corridor are to remain
open during construction;
c. Clearly marked detour routes for alternate access to any businesses that
are made inaccessible or difficult to access due to construction
activities;
d. Hours of haulage (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.);
e. Designation of truck routes that avoid residential areas to the extent
possible;
f. Methods of traffic control on adjacent streets within the project area;
g. Adequate safety signage regarding traffic control;
h. Designated construction staging areas for construction personnel
vehicles, supplies, and equipment;
i. A telephone number for local residents to call if there are issues or
complaints; and
j. Measures to resolve potential conflicts between construction activities
and adjacent businesses.
Business owners directly adjacent to the project area shall be directly
notified of the availability of and allowed to comment on the plan.
TRA/mm-6 Traffic control plans affecting state facilities shall be reviewed and
approved by Caltrans, and traffic control plans affecting City facilities shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Director, through
consultation with affected emergency responders and service providers
(i.e., the police department, fire department, San Luis Ambulance, and
Arroyo Grande Hospital), prior to construction activities.
TRA/mm-7 Access to all existing bike paths and pedestrian walkways should remain
open and easily accessible through the duration of construction activities.
Where interference with existing access cannot be avoided, clearly posted
detours should be provided.
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 165
TRA/mm-8 Access to all alternative transportation facilities in the project area,
including RTA stops, Park and Ride lots, and bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, should be maintained through the duration of construction
activities. If construction activities will interfere with existing public transit
facilities, or bicycle or pedestrian routes, specific locations for relocated
bus stops or bike or pedestrian detours should be identified, and temporary
access should be provided to all areas of the project area. Construction
activities should not interfere with or inhibit access or use of public
transportation stops or parking lots and shall take into account existing
RTA and Park and Ride schedules and routes.
WQ/mm-1 The design of all construction Best Management Practices will comply
with the design requirements found in the Caltrans Storm Water Quality
Handbooks: Project Planning and Design Guide and Construction Site Best
Management Practices (BMPs) Manual. The temporary construction site
Best Management Practices strategy shall include the following:
• Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Both project
alternatives would disturb more than one acre of soil, so a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan would be prepared by a qualified practitioner
and/or qualified Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan developer per
the Construction General Permit and submitted prior to the start of
construction. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would
include a Construction Site Monitoring Program that presents
procedures and methods related to the visual monitoring and sampling
and analysis plans for non-visible pollutants, sediment and turbidity,
and pH.
• Rain Event Action Plan (REAP). Risk Level 2 projects are required to
prepare a Rain Event Action Plan, which will describe projected storm
information and list specific actions required to be taken before
predicted rain events.
• Job Site Best Management Practices Strategy. Whenever possible, the
scheduling of earth-disturbing construction activities should not be
made during anticipated rain events. Construction site Best
Management Practices should be installed prior to the start of
construction or as early as feasibly possible during construction.
• Soil Stabilization Measures. Minimum soil stabilization measures for
the project would include move-in/move-out erosion control, use of
temporary hydraulic mulch on any exposed disturbed soils, temporary
covers to protect stockpiles, and temporary fencing to designate
environmentally sensitive areas as outside of the work area limits.
Analysis of additional soil stabilization measures will continue during
the design phase.
• Sediment Control Measures. Temporary sediment control BMPs will
be applied prior to every predicted rain event. Minimum sediment
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 166
control measures for the project would include temporary fiber rolls to
minimize sediment-laden sheet flows and concentrated flows from
discharging offsite, and temporary drainage inlet protection to prevent
sediment from entering current or proposed storm drains. Investigation
into additional sediment control measures, including the use of
sediment traps, will continue during the design phase.
• Tracking Controls. To prevent the tracking of mud and dirt off-site,
stabilized construction entrances and exits would be placed at multiple
points throughout the project site. Street sweeping would be
implemented to remove any tracked sediment.
• Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. Concrete washout
facilities will be utilized during all concrete-related work activities.
• Job Site Management. The project’s proposed Job Site Management
includes waste management and material control Best Management
Practices to control potential sources of water pollution before they
enter any storm water systems or water courses and employee and
subcontractor training, including the proper selection, deployment, and
repair of construction site Best Management Practices used within the
project site.
• Storm Water Sampling and Analysis. Risk Level 2 projects are required
to perform storm water sampling at all discharge locations during
qualifying rain events. The samples would be analyzed for pH and
turbidity, and subject to numeric action levels and associated reporting
requirements.
WQ/mm-2 The following will be implemented to comply with the Caltrans and City
NPDES Permits:
• During construction, temporary erosion control practices will be
utilized that are appropriate to site-specific conditions. Since portions
of the project area have moderate erosion hazard, stabilizing the ground
surface before the start of the wet season will be carefully planned.
Disturbance to wetlands and grasslands will be avoided to the
maximum extent practical to minimize soil disturbance, soil
compaction, and alteration of wetland hydrology. Temporary
construction site Best Management Practices will be evaluated and
selected during the Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) phase
of this project.
HAZ/mm-11 Prior to construction, the City or its contractor shall prepare a Hazardous
Material Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan to minimize
the potential for, and effects of, spills of hazardous or toxic substances
during construction of the project. The plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City Public Works Director, and shall include, at
minimum, the following:
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 167
a. A description of storage procedures and construction site maintenance
and upkeep practices;
b. Identification of a person or persons responsible for monitoring
implementation of the plan and spill response;
c. Identification of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be
implemented to ensure minimal impacts to the environment occur,
including but not limited to the use of containment devices for
hazardous materials, training of construction staff regarding safety
practices to reduce the chance for spills or accidents, and use of non-
toxic substances where feasible;
d. A description of proper procedures for containing, diverting, isolating,
and cleaning up spills, hazardous substances and/or soils, in a manner
that minimizes impacts on surface and groundwater quality and
sensitive biological resources;
e. A description of the actions required if a spill occurs, including which
authorities to contact and proper clean-up procedures; and
f. A requirement that all construction personnel participate in an
awareness training program conducted by qualified personnel approved
by the City Public Works Director. The training must include a
description of the Hazardous Materials Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure Plan, the plan’s requirements for spill prevention,
information regarding the importance of preventing spills, the
appropriate measures to take should a spill occur, and identification of
the location of all clean-up materials and equipment.
NOI/mm-1 As directed by Caltrans, the contractor will implement appropriate
additional noise avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures,
including changing the location of stationary construction equipment,
turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying
adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic
barriers around stationary construction noise sources.
2.5 Cumulative Impacts
Regulatory Setting
Cumulative impacts are those that result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions, combined with the potential impacts of the proposed project. A cumulative
effect assessment looks at the collective impacts posed by individual land use plans and
projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively
substantial impacts taking place over a period of time.
Cumulative impacts to resources in the project area may result from residential,
commercial, industrial, and highway development, as well as from agricultural
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 168
development and the conversion to more intensive agricultural cultivation. These land use
activities can degrade habitat and species diversity through consequences such as
displacement and fragmentation of habitats and populations, alteration of hydrology,
contamination, erosion, sedimentation, disruption of migration corridors, changes in water
quality, and introduction or promotion of predators. They can also contribute to potential
community impacts identified for the project, such as changes in community character,
traffic patterns, housing availability, and employment.
A definition of cumulative impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
can be found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 1508.7.
Affected Environment
The city limits of the city of Arroyo Grande define the cumulative impact study area for
the proposed project. Refer to Table 2.1.3, above, for a list of past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects in the City.
Environmental Consequences
Because the project does not propose a new or substantially different use than the existing
use, the project’s impacts would be limited in extent and duration and would be generally
minimized through application of standard control measures. The proposed project does
not have impacts that would be individually limited but cumulatively considerable with
implementation of identified avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures. There
are no known proposed or planned projects in the area that would create similar impacts,
which when considered together with the project-related impacts would be considerable,
or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Some construction-related
impacts could be compounded if other projects are constructed at the same time; however,
other projects would generally be spread throughout the city, minimizing cumulative
impacts, and any adverse effects would be short-term and limited to the duration of
construction.
There are no unmitigated impacts that would contribute to with the measures incorporated
to minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, and compensate for impacts to the following
resources:
• Other Waters (with replacement ratio)
• riparian habitat (with minimization measures)
• stormwater runoff (with treatment and required measures)
• visual resources (with planting and aesthetic treatments)
• noise (with soundwalls)
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
With measures incorporated to minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, and compensate for
impacts, no significant cumulative impacts would occur under either build alternative.
Therefore, no measures are required.
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 169
Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination
Early and continuing coordination with the general public and appropriate public agencies
is an essential part of the environmental process. It helps planners determine the scope of
environmental documentation and the level of analysis required, and to identify potential
impacts and avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures and related
environmental requirements. Agency consultation and public participation for this project
have been accomplished through a variety of formal and informal methods, including:
Project Development Team (PDT) meetings, interagency coordination meetings,
important stakeholder meetings, and a community participation program. This chapter
summarizes the results of Caltrans’ efforts to fully identify, address, and resolve project-
related issues through early and continuing coordination.
3.1 Public Scoping
Important stakeholders in the proposed project include the County of San Luis Obispo,
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), Caltrans, City of Grover Beach,
City of Pismo Beach, and adjacent and affected business owners, schools, and individuals.
The City has established a Council Sub-Committee for the project, which meets on a
periodic basis with local and regional stakeholders. Several of these meetings have already
taken place, including meetings in October 2011, November 2011, April 2012, March
2014, and April 2015. Additional meetings are planned as the project progresses.
The project has been presented before the Arroyo Grande City Council and City Traffic
Commission in various meetings since 2009. The City held a public meeting in February
2011 to allow community members the opportunity to discuss and comment on the
project. The meeting was publicly noticed and very well attended, with an estimated 80 to
100 community members attending. The main concern expressed by the public was
increased traffic along Rodeo Drive. Concerns were also raised related to the preservation
of highway access to and from businesses located adjacent to the Brisco-Halcyon
Road/U.S. 101 interchange. A subsequent community meeting was held later that year
(June 2011), and a St. Patrick’s School parents meeting was also held in November 2011.
Stakeholder meetings were set up with San Luis Obispo County representatives, Saint
Patrick’s School, and individuals that live in the vicinity of the project. Public meetings
were noticed via published City agendas and the City “Stagecoach” Newsletter was used
on occasion. City and Countywide polls have also been used to gauge public interest in
seeing the project move forward.
The public scoping process has indicated that the community is generally supportive of
the project. The project was identified as the number one transportation issue in a 2006
citywide poll, and was also identified as an important issue needing attention in a 2011
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments poll. The project has remained as the high
priority under the City’s Critical Needs Action Plan since 2010 and is identified as an
emerging issue in the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan.
Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 170
Main concerns expressed by the public regarding the project throughout public scoping
were related to increased traffic levels throughout the City and loss of highway access to
businesses.
3.2 Agency Consultation
3.2.1 Native American Consultation
The Native American Heritage Commission was notified of the initial proposed project in
a letter sent by consultant staff to Rob Wood, dated September 15, 2005. The letter
requested a records search of the sacred lands files and a list of local Native American
contacts with whom consultant staff could communicate concerning the project. In a letter
dated November 12, 2005, Wood responded that the records search indicated that no
Native American sacred sites were known in the immediate area. A list of Native
American individuals/organizations that may have knowledge of local cultural resources
was provided. These individuals/organizations were notified of the project by letter (dated
November 29, 2005) and asked to express any concerns they might have regarding Native
American cultural sites within the project area. Follow-up telephone contacts were
conducted by consultant staff on January 2, 2006 and comments were received from
several individuals regarding the general sensitivity of the area for cultural resources and
the recommendation that a monitor be involved in the project.
Additional contact was made with the Native American Heritage Commission on August
10, 2011 updating them on project changes and requesting a current search of the sacred
lands files and a list of local Native American contacts. Program Analyst Katy Sanchez
responded in a letter dated August 11, 2011 that the records search identified no known
Native American cultural resources in the immediate project vicinity. A list of Native
American contacts with potential knowledge of the area was provided. Additional letters
of notification were mailed to these individuals/groups on August 23, 2011 to update them
on the project. Responses included concerns about the old cemetery in the project vicinity
and the rich Chumash culture of the general southern San Luis Obispo County area and
the need to protect cultural resources in this sensitive area.
3.2.2 Local Historical Society / Historic Preservation Group
Consultant staff sent letters informing interested parties of this project to the following
local historical societies and museums on September 13, 2011:
• Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association, P.O. Box 1526, Arroyo Grande, CA
93421
• History Center of San Luis Obispo County, 696 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo,
CA 93401
• San Luis Obispo County Genealogical Society, P.O. Box 4, Atascadero, CA 93423
• South County Historical Society, P.O. Box 633, Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
• The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County, P.O. Box 12206, San Luis
Obispo, CA 93406
No responses were received within 30 days of circulation of the letter.
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 171
Chapter 4 List of Preparers
The following Caltrans staff, City of Arroyo Grande staff, and consultants contributed to
the preparation of this Environmental Assessment:
Caltrans Staff
Abdulrahim N. Chafi, Ph.D., P.E. Civil/Environmental Engineer. Registered Civil
Engineer in the State of California. Ph.D., Environmental Engineering, California
Coast University, Santa Ana; B.S., M.S., Chemistry and M.S.,
Civil/Environmental Engineering, California State University, Fresno; more than
15 years of environmental technical studies experience. Contribution: Review of
the Air Quality Study.
Alexandra Bevk, Associate Environmental Planner (Architectural History). M.S., Historic
Preservation, University of Pennsylvania; B.A., Art History and Classics,
University of Wisconsin; 8 years of experience in California architectural history.
Contribution: Review of Historic Resource Evaluation Report. Contribution:
Review of Historic Resource Evaluation Report.
Andrew Domingos, Associate Environmental Planner (Biologist). B.S., Environmental
Science Resource Management, California State University Channel Islands; 8
years of experience in California biology. Contribution: Review of biological
compliance documents.
Christina MacDonald, Associate Environmental Planner (Arch). M.A., Cultural Resources
Management, Sonoma State University; B.A., Anthropology, University of
California, Los Angeles; 14 years of experience in California prehistoric and
historical archaeology. Contribution: Review of Archaeological Survey Report.
Isaac Leyva, Engineering Geologist. B.S., Geology; 27 years of experience in Petroleum
Geology, Environmental Geology, Geotechnical Engineering. Contribution:
Paleontology review.
Jane Sellers, Research Writer. B.A., Journalism—News-Editorial Sequence, California
State University, Fresno; more than 25 years of writing/editing, media, corporate
communications, Request for Proposal, and public relations experience.
Contribution: Editor.
Jennifer Lugo, Associate Environmental Planner. M.A., History, California State
University, Fresno; B.A., History, Minor in Political Science, California State
University, Fresno; 12 years of environmental planning experience. Contribution:
Peer review of Environmental Assessment.
Joel Kloth, B.S., Geology, California Lutheran University, 1980; 34 years experience in
Petroleum Geology, Geotechnical Geology, and Environmental Engineering
Geology-Hazardous waste. Contribution: Review of Hazardous Waste compliance
documentation.
Chapter 4 List of Preparers
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 172
John Thomas, Associate Environmental Planner. B.A., Geography, California State
University, Fresno; 16 years of environmental planning experience. Contribution:
NEPA Assignment required content reviewer.
Krista Kiaha, Senior Environmental Planner. M.S., Anthropology, Idaho State University;
B.A., Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz; 20 years of cultural
resources experience. Contribution: Review and approval of cultural resource
compliance documents.
Kristen Merriman, Associate Environmental Planner. B.A., Anthropology, California
State University, Fresno; 17 years of environmental impact assessment experience.
Contribution: Review of Environmental Assessment.
Ken J. Romero, Senior Transportation Engineer. B.S., Civil Engineering, California State
University, Fresno; 11 years of environmental technical studies experience.
Contribution: Review of Noise Study Report and Noise Abatement Decision
Report.
Kimely Sawtell, Associate Environmental Planner. M.A., Geography, California State
University, Fresno; B.S., Geography, California State University, Fresno; 17 years
of environmental planning experience. Contribution: Content and Consistency
reviewer, and additionally the review of the Community Impact Assessment.
Larry E. Bonner, Senior Environmental Planner. B.S., Natural Resources Management,
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; 18 years of
environmental planning and biological studies experience. Contribution: Senior
review of biological compliance.
Pete Riegelhuth, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/Stormwater
Coordinator, Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control CPESC
#5336, Landscape Associate. Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; Obispo; 5 years of experience as
District Construction Stormwater Coordinator, 11 years as National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System/Stormwater Coordinator. Contribution: Review of
Stormwater compliance documentation.
Philip Vallejo, Acting Senior Environmental Planner [Associate Environmental Planner
(Arch/Hist)]. B.A., History, California State University, Fresno; 9 years of
experience in architectural history field. Contribution: Senior Environmental
Planner review and approval of Environmental Assessment.
Rajeev Dwivedi, Engineering Geologist. Ph.D., Environmental Engineering, Oklahoma
State University, Stillwater; more than 20 years of environmental technical studies
experience. Contribution: Review of Water Quality Assessment Report.
Robert Carr, Associate Landscape Architect. B.S., Landscape Architecture, California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; 27 years of experience preparing
Visual Impact Assessments. Contribution: Review of Visual Impact Assessment.
Chapter 4 List of Preparers
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 173
Roger Valverde, Graphic Designer III. Certificate of Multimedia, Mount San Jacinto and
California State University, Fresno; more than 25 years of visual design and public
participation experience. Contribution: Assistance with distribution.
Scott Smith, Senior Environmental Planner. B.A., Economics, California State University,
Fresno; 15 years of environmental planning experience. Contribution: Senior
Environmental Planner reviewing Environmental Assessment.
Terry L. Joslin, Associate Environmental Planner (Arch). M.A., Anthropology, University
of California, Santa Barbara; B.S., Anthropology/Geography, California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; more than 20 years of archaeology
experience. Contribution: Oversight of Native American Coordination.
Vladimir Timofei, Transportation Engineer. M.S., Civil Engineering, California State
University, Fullerton; 15 years of environmental technical studies experience.
Contribution: Review of Noise Study Report.
Wendy Kronman, Associate Environmental Planner. M.A., Linguistics, California State
University, Fresno; Certificate in Horticulture, Merritt College, Oakland; B.A.,
Anthropology, Sonoma State University; 11 years of environmental planning
experience. Contribution: Peer Review of Environmental Assessment.
City of Arroyo Grande Staff
Matt Horn, City Engineer. Contribution: Project oversight and environmental document
review.
Teresa McClish, AICP, Director of Community Development. Contribution: Project
oversight and environmental document review.
Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.
Deborah Jones, Principal Investigator (Archaeology), M.A., Anthropology
(Archaeological emphasis), University of California, Davis; 30 years of experience
in California prehistory. Contribution: Researcher, surveyor, and author of
Archaeological Survey Report.
Haro Environmental, Inc.
Elliot Haro, Principal Scientist. M.S., Soil Science and B.S., Soil Science, California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; 14 years of experience directing,
managing and performing environmental site assessments and remediation
activities. Contribution: Prepared Phase I Hazardous Waste Initial Site
Assessment.
Timothy Nelligan, Professional Engineer. B.S., Environmental Engineering, California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; California State-licensed
Professional Engineer No. C68666; 20 years of experience in the areas of
environmental compliance, permitting, and remedial design engineering.
Contribution: Phase I Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment oversight and
report review.
Chapter 4 List of Preparers
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 174
JRP Historical Consulting, LLC
Bryan Larson, Historian/Architectural Historian. M.A., History-Public History, California
State University, Sacramento; B.A., History, University of California, Los
Angeles; 18 years of experience in historic architectural studies. Contribution:
Preparation of Historical Resources Evaluation Report and Historic Property
Survey Reports.
Rebecca Meta Bunse, Historian/Architectural Historian. M.A., History-Public History,
California State University, Sacramento; B.A., Women’s Studies / Italian,
University of California, Davis; 26 years of experience in historic architectural
studies. Contribution: Project direction, review of Historical Resources Evaluation
Report and Historic Property Survey Reports.
SWCA Environmental Consultants
Adriana Neal, GIS/CADD Specialist. M.C.R.P., California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo, California; 5 years GIS/CADD experience. Contribution:
Prepared report graphics and figures.
Amanda Tyrell, Senior Environmental Planner. M.S., Environmental Sciences and Policy,
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; B.S., Integrated Science and
Technology, Environment Concentration, James Madison University,
Harrisonburg, Virginia; 17 years planning experience. Contribution: Drafted
portions of the EA.
Cara Corsetti, Senior Paleontologist and Principal. M.S., Geological Sciences
(Paleobiology), University of California, Santa Barbara; B.A., Creative Sciences
(Biology/Paleontology), University of California Santa Barbara; 20 years
California paleontology experience. Contribution: Principal Paleontologist and co-
author of the report. Contribution: Provided quality assurance and quality control
of paleontological work.
Emily Creel, Environmental Planner. J.D., Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana;
B.A., Political Science, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona; 9 years of
planning experience. Contribution: Prepared Environmental Assessment and
CEQA Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration; prepared
Community Impact Assessment, Paleontological Evaluation Report Addendum,
Visual Impact Assessment, Visual Impact Assessment Addendum, and Water
Quality Assessment Report.
Geoff Hoetker, Senior Biologist. M.S., Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, California; 19 years biological specialist experience.
Contribution: Original author of Natural Environment Study and project
management from 2004 to 2011.
Jaimie Jones, Technical Editor. Coursework, Focus on Liberal Arts and Fire Science, Los
Angeles Harbor College; Professional Sequence in Editing Certification (in
progress), UC Berkeley Extension; 14 years environmental document coordination
Chapter 4 List of Preparers
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 175
experience. Contribution: Edited and compiled Community Impact Assessment
and Proposed Environmental Assessment.
Jess DeBusk, Paleontologist. B.S., Geology, emphasis in Paleobiology, Mackay School of
Mines, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada; 9 years California paleontology
experience. Contribution: Prepared Paleontological Evaluation Report.
Jon Claxton, Environmental Specialist. B.S., Biological Sciences, California Polytechnic
State University, San Luis Obispo, California; 17 years biological specialist
experience. Contribution: Coordinated the environmental process for the project
from 2011 to present; Prepared the Jurisdictional Assessment and Natural
Environment Study.
Takashi Abiko, GIS/CADD Specialist. Graduate Certificate Program, GIS; University of
Denver, Colorado; M.A., Student Personnel Services, Rowan University, New
Jersey; 2 years GIS/CADD experience. Contribution: Prepared report graphics and
figures.
Terry A. Hayes Associates Inc.
Sam Silverman, Senior Associate/Senior Environmental Scientist, M.S. Environmental
Health, University of California, Los Angeles; B.S., Environmental Studies,
University of California, Santa Barbara; 15 years experience in California related
to air quality and noise. Contribution: Management and preparation of the Air
Quality Report and Noise Study Report.
Dr. Seyedehsan Hosseini, Environmental Scientist, Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering,
University of California, Riverside; M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Sharif
University of Technology; B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Chamran University; 3
years experience in California related to air quality and noise. Contribution:
Preparation of the Air Quality Report and Noise Study Report.
Chapter 4 List of Preparers
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 176
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 177
Chapter 5 Distribution List
Federal Agencies
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Federal Highway Administration
State Agencies
State Historic Preservation Officer
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4
Julie Vance, Regional Manager (Region 4)
1234 E. Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710
State Department of Water Resources
California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812
California Highway Patrol
California Transportation Commission
1120 N Street, MS-52
Sacramento, CA 95814
Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
California Rural Legal Assistance
San Luis Obispo office, 1011 Pacific Street # A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
California Air Resources Board
1102 Q Street
Sacramento, CA 95802
California State Lands Commission
100 Howard Avenue, Suite 100
South Sacramento, CA 95825
Chapter 5 Distribution List
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 178
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection
801 K Street, MS 18-01
Sacramento, CA 95814
Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Waste Permitting
Attn: Caltrans Lead Variance Notification
8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, CA 95826
California Department of Toxic Substance Control
700 Heinz Avenue, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710-2122
Department of General Services, Environmental Services Section
707 3rd Street, 3rd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95605
State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research
1400 10th Street, Room 222
Sacramento, CA 95814
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
1001 I Street--P.O. Box 4025
Sacramento, CA 95812
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
1415 11th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
California Energy Commission, Media and Public Communications Office
1516 9th Street, MS-29
Sacramento, CA 95814
California Highway Patrol, Office of Special Projects
2551 1st Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95818
Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Local Agencies/ Entities
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7906
Chapter 5 Distribution List
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 179
City of Grover Beach
154 S Eighth Street
Grover Beach, CA 93433
City of Pismo Beach
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
1114 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
County of San Luis Obispo
1055 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District
1203 Main Street, Suite B
Morro Bay, CA 93442
Arroyo Grande Police Department
200 N Halcyon Rd
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Arroyo Grande Fire Department
140 Traffic Way
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission
300 E Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Arroyo Grande City Council and Traffic Commission
City Council Chambers
215 E Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
City of Arroyo Grande Parks and Recreation Commission
City Council Chambers
215 E Branch St.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Arroyo Grande & Grover Beach Chamber of Commerce
800A W Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
SLO Chamber of Commerce
895 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Chapter 5 Distribution List
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 180
SLO County Farm Bureau
4875 Morabito Place
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
County Historical Advisory Commission
County Agricultural and Rural Life Museum
South County Historical Society
P.O. Box 633
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Amtrak
180 W Grand Avenue
Grover Beach, CA 93433
Council Sub-Committee for the Project
Local Libraries
Arroyo Grande Library
800 W. Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Nipomo Library
918 West Tefft
Nipomo CA 93444
Shell Beach Library
230 Leeward Avenue
Shell Beach, CA 93449
San Luis Obispo County Library
995 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Grover Beach Community Library
240 N. 9th Street
Grover Beach, CA 93433
Schools
Lucia Mar Unified School District
602 Orchard Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Arroyo Grande High School
495 Valley Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Chapter 5 Distribution List
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 181
Lopez High School
1055 Mesa View Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Allan Hancock College
800 S College Drive
Santa Maria, CA 93454
Paulding Middle School
600 Crown Hill Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Mesa Middle School
2555 S Halcyon Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Judkins Middle School
680 Wadsworth Street
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Branch Elementary School
970 School Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Harloe Elementary School
901 Fair Oaks Avenue
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Ocean View Elementary School
1208 Linda Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Fairgrove Elementary
2101 The Pike
Grover Beach, CA 93433
Grover Heights Elementary School
770 N 8th Street
Grover Beach, CA 93433
Oceano Elementary School
1551 17th Street
Oceano, CA 93445
Shell Beach Elementary School
2100 Shell Beach Road
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Chapter 5 Distribution List
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 182
Grover Beach Elementary
365 S 10th Street
Grover Beach, CA 93433
Central Coast New Tech High School
525 N Thompson Avenue
Nipomo, CA 93444
Nipomo High School
525 N Thompson Avenue
Nipomo, CA 93444
Stakeholder Organizations
Sierra Club
Santa Lucia Chapter
974 Santa Rosa Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
San Luis Obispo South County Historical Society
P.O. Box 633
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
Arroyo Grande Village Improvement Association
P.O. Box 1526
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421
History Center of San Luis Obispo County
696 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
San Luis Obispo County Genealogical Society
P.O. Box 4
Atascadero, CA 93423
The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County
P.O. Box 12206
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 183
Appendix A Resources Evaluated Relative to
the Requirements of Section
4(f): No-Use Determinations
The environmental review, consultation, and any other actions required by applicable
Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by
Caltrans pursuant to 23 USC 327 and the Memorandum of Understanding dated
December 23, 2016 and executed by FHWA and Caltrans.
Introduction
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified in federal law at 49
United States Code (USC) 303, declares that “it is the policy of the United States
Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the
countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and
historic sites.”
This section of the document discusses parks, recreational facilities, wildlife refuges, and
historic properties found within or next to the project area that do not trigger Section 4(f)
protection because: 1) they are not publicly owned, 2) they are not open to the public, 3)
they are not eligible historic properties, or 4) the project does not permanently use the
property and does not hinder the preservation of the property.
Section 4(f) Properties
This section identifies all public and private parks, recreational facilities, and wildlife
refuges within approximately 0.5 mile of the project alternatives and all archaeological
and historic sites within the Section 106 area of potential effects (APE) to determine
whether they are protected Section 4(f) properties.
Parks, recreational facilities, and wildlife refuges located within 0.5 mile of the corridor
for the build alternatives include:
• El Camino Reel Park
• St. Patrick’s Catholic School
• United Methodist Conference Camp
• Hoosgow Park
• Village Centennial Park
• Heritage Square Park
• Christmas Tree Island Park
• Rancho Grande Park
Appendix A Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of
Section 4(f): No-Use Determinations
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 184
• James Way Oak Habitat and Wildlife Preserve
No historic properties or archaeological sites that are in or eligible for listing in the
National Register and warrant preservation in place were identified in the APE.
The parks, recreational facilities, and wildlife refuges found within approximately 0.5
mile of project alternatives, and historic properties evaluated within the APE do not
trigger Section 4(f) protection because either: 1) they are not publicly owned, 2) they are
not open to the public, 3) they are not eligible historic properties, 4) the project does not
permanently use the property and does not hinder the preservation of the property, or 5)
the proximity impacts do not result in constructive use.
The project would not “use” any portion of the above park properties under Section 4(f),
meaning that these parks would not be acquired, be occupied, or negatively impacted for
the purposes of this project (23 CFR 774.17).
A “constructive use” can occur when a project substantially impairs the activities,
features, or attributes that qualify the resources for protection under Section 4(f).
Although this project does not directly “use” any of the above listed properties, it is
possible that there could be a “constructive use” if noise generated by the project impaired
park activities, features, or attributes. The Noise Study Report (June 2017) for the project
predicted future noise levels with the project will not substantially increase compared to
the existing noise levels. No adverse noise impacts from construction are anticipated
because construction would be conducted in accordance with Caltrans Standard
Specifications Section 14.8-02. Construction noise would be short-term, intermittent, and
overshadowed by local traffic noise.
No other facilities, functions, and/or other activities would be potentially affected.
Therefore, the provisions of Section 4(f) are not triggered.
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 185
Appendix B Title VI Policy Statement
Appendix B Title VI Policy Statement
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 186
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 187
Appendix C Summary of Relocation Benefits
Declaration of Policy
“The purpose of this title is to establish a uniform policy for fair and equitable treatment
of persons displaced as a result of federal and federally assisted programs in order that
such persons shall not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of programs designed
for the benefit of the public as a whole.”
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “No Person shall… be deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken
for public use without just compensation.” The Uniform Act sets forth in statute the due
process that must be followed in Real Property acquisitions involving federal funds.
Supplementing the Uniform Act is the government-wide single rule for all agencies to
follow, set forth in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 24. Displaced individuals,
families, businesses, farms, and nonprofit organizations may be eligible for relocation
advisory services and payments, as discussed below.
Fair Housing
The Fair Housing Law (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) sets forth the policy of
the United States to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing. This act,
and as amended, makes discriminatory practices in the purchase and rental of most
residential units illegal. Whenever possible, minority persons shall be given reasonable
opportunities to relocate to any available housing regardless of neighborhood, as long as
the replacement dwellings are decent, safe, and sanitary and are within their financial
means. This policy, however, does not require the Department to provide a person a
larger payment than is necessary to enable a person to relocate to a comparable
replacement dwelling.
Any persons to be displaced will be assigned to a relocation advisor, who will work
closely with each displacee in order to see that all payments and benefits are fully utilized
and that all regulations are observed, thereby avoiding the possibility of displacees
jeopardizing or forfeiting any of their benefits or payments. At the time of the initiation of
negotiations (usually the first written offer to purchase), owner-occupants are given a
detailed explanation of the state’s relocation services. Tenant occupants of properties to
be acquired are contacted soon after the initiation of negotiations and also are given a
detailed explanation of the Caltrans Relocation Assistance Program. To avoid loss of
possible benefits, no individual, family, business, farm, or nonprofit organization should
commit to purchase or rent a replacement property without first contacting a Department
relocation advisor.
Appendix C Summary of Relocation Benefits
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project / Environmental Assessment 188
Relocation Assistance Advisory Services
In accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, as amended, the Department will provide relocation advisory
assistance to any person, business, farm or nonprofit organization displaced as a result of
the acquisition of real property for public use, so long as they are legally present in the
United States. The Department will assist eligible displacees in obtaining comparable
replacement housing by providing current and continuing information on the availability
and prices of both houses for sale and rental units that are “decent, safe, and sanitary.”
Nonresidential displacees will receive information on comparable properties for lease or
purchase (for business, farm, and nonprofit organization relocation services, see below).
Residential replacement dwellings will be in a location generally not less desirable than
the displacement neighborhood at prices or rents within the financial ability of the
individuals and families displaced, and reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. Before any displacement occurs, comparable replacement dwellings will be
offered to displacees that are open to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, and consistent with the requirements of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1968. This assistance will also include the supplying of information concerning
Federal and State assisted housing programs and any other known services being offered
by public and private agencies in the area.
Persons who are eligible for relocation payments and who are legally occupying the
property required for the project will not be asked to move without first being given at
least 90 days written notice. Residential occupants eligible for relocation payment(s) will
not be required to move unless at least one comparable “decent, safe, and sanitary”
replacement dwelling, available on the market, is offered to them by the Department.
Nonresidential Relocation Assistance
The Nonresidential Relocation Assistance Program provides assistance to businesses,
farms and nonprofit organizations in locating suitable replacement property, and
reimbursement for certain costs involved in relocation. The Relocation Advisory
Assistance Program will provide current lists of properties offered for sale or rent, suitable
for a particular business’s specific relocation needs. The types of payments available to
eligible businesses, farms, and nonprofit organizations are: searching and moving
expenses, and possibly reestablishment expenses; or a fixed in lieu payment instead of any
moving, searching and reestablishment expenses. The payment types can be summarized
as follows:
Moving Expenses
Moving expenses may include the following actual, reasonable costs:
• The moving of inventory, machinery, equipment and similar business-related property,
including: dismantling, disconnecting, crating, packing, loading, insuring,
transporting, unloading, unpacking, and reconnecting of personal property. Items
acquired in the right-of-way contract may not be moved under the Relocation
Appendix C Summary of Relocation Benefits
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project / Environmental Assessment 189
Assistance Program. If the displacee buys an Item Pertaining to the Realty back at
salvage value, the cost to move that item is borne by the displacee.
• Loss of tangible personal property provides payment for actual, direct loss of personal
property that the owner is permitted not to move.
• Expenses related to searching for a new business site, up to $2,500, for reasonable
expenses actually incurred.
Reestablishment Expenses
Reestablishment expenses related to the operation of the business at the new location, up
to $25,000 for reasonable expenses actually incurred.
Fixed In Lieu Payment
A fixed payment in lieu of moving, searching, and reestablishment payments may be
available to businesses that meet certain eligibility requirements. This payment is an
amount equal to half the average annual net earnings for the last two taxable years prior to
the relocation and may not be less than $1,000 nor more than $40,000.
Additional Information
Reimbursement for moving costs and replacement housing payments are not considered
income for the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, or for the purpose of
determining the extent of eligibility of a displacee for assistance under the Social Security
Act, or any other law, except for any federal law providing local “Section 8” Housing
Programs.
Any person, business, farm or nonprofit organization that has been refused a relocation
payment by the Department relocation advisor or believes that the payment(s) offered by
the agency are inadequate may appeal for a special hearing of the complaint. No legal
assistance is required. Information about the appeal procedure is available from the
relocation advisor.
California law allows for the payment for lost goodwill that arises from the displacement
for a public project. A list of ineligible expenses can be obtained from the Department’s
Division of Right of Way and Land Surveys. California’s law and the federal regulations
covering relocation assistance provide that no payment shall be duplicated by other
payments being made by the displacing agency.
Appendix C Summary of Relocation Benefits
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project / Environmental Assessment 190
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 191
Appendix D NRCS CPA 106 Form
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Species Lists
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 192
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 193
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries
Service Species Lists
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Species Lists
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 194
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Species Lists
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 195
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Species Lists
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 196
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Species Lists
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 197
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Species Lists
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 198
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Species Lists
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 199
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Species Lists
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 200
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Species Lists
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 201
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Species Lists
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 202
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Species Lists
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 203
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Species Lists
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 204
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Species Lists
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 205
Appendix E USFWS and NOAA Fisheries Service Species Lists
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 206
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 207
Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or
Mitigation Summary
In order to be sure that all of the environmental measures identified in this document are
executed at the appropriate times, the following mitigation program (as articulated on the
proposed Environmental Commitments Record [ECR] which follows) would be
implemented. During project design, avoidance, minimization, and /or mitigation
measures will be incorporated into the project’s final plans, specifications, and cost
estimates, as appropriate. All permits will be obtained prior to implementation of the
project. During construction, environmental and construction/engineering staff will
ensure that the commitments contained in this ECR are fulfilled. Following construction
and appropriate phases of project delivery, long-term mitigation maintenance and
monitoring will take place, as applicable. As the following ECR is a draft, some fields
have not been completed, and will be filled out as each of the measures is implemented.
Note: Some measures may apply to more than one resource area. Duplicative or
redundant measures have not been included in this ECR.
Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
TRA/mm-1 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare a
Non-Motorized / Public Transportation Plan in consultation with the City
of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department and the County Bicycle
Advisory Committee. The plan shall include, at minimum:
a. Designs for providing bicycle, pedestrian and car interaction along
the project area that would minimize conflicts through the use of
striping, signage, lighting, bollards, etc.;
b. Examples of the signage, striping, lighting, designs, etc. for safe
bicycle, pedestrian and car interaction;
c. Methods for ensuring the project would not interfere in any way
with existing or proposed future bike and pedestrian lanes and
paths, whether formal or informal, particularly those associated
with St. Patrick’s School, the Arroyo Grande Library, and adjacent
public buildings and facilities.
d. Methods for ensuring bike and pedestrian circulation to serve
schools and public facilities are made a priority consistent with
policies of the Circulation Element.
e. Methods to ensure the project would not interfere, temporarily or
long-term, in any way with any routes, schedules, or operations of
the RTA (Regional Transit Authority) stops at Walmart and the
Arroyo Grande Library.
Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 208
f. Methods to ensure the project would not interfere in any way with
the Park and Ride parking lots located within the project area,
including the lot on El Camino Real in between Halcyon Street and
Grand Avenue.
TRA/mm-2 The project shall be designed to allow convenient and/or improved access
to the Regional Transit Authority stops along West Branch Street at the
Arroyo Grande Library and Walmart and the Park and Ride lots along El
Camino Real. Construction activities shall not interfere with or inhibit
access or usability of the public transportation stops or parking lots and
shall take into account existing RTA and Park and Ride schedules and
routes.
TRA/mm-3 The City and Caltrans shall coordinate with affected local businesses to
ensure that all lost parking spaces are reconfigured and replaced.
Replacement should be at a 1:1 ratio if feasible. At minimum, parking shall
be replaced in an amount consistent with City regulations and reconfigured
and replacement parking shall be designed consistent with the Land Use
Element of the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan.
Paleontology
PAL/mm-1 A qualified paleontologist will be retained to prepare a paleontological
mitigation plan for the proposed project and supervise monitoring of
construction excavations. The qualified paleontologist will be present at
pre-construction meetings to confer with contractors who will be
performing ground-disturbing activities.
PAL/mm-2 All project-related ground disturbances which may disturb geologic units
that are considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity (i.e.,
previously undisturbed Quaternary older sand dune deposits, or any
portions of the Paso Robles and Pismo Formations) will be monitored by a
qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. However, the
frequency of monitoring may be reduced at the discretion of the qualified
paleontologist if the disturbed geologic units are determined to have a low
potential to yield important fossils resources upon further examination of
the geologic units during grading operations.
Paleontological resource monitoring will include inspection of exposed
rock units during active excavations within sensitive geologic deposits. The
monitor will have authority to temporarily divert grading away from
exposed fossils to professionally and efficiently recover the fossil
specimens and collect associated data. All efforts to avoid delays in project
schedules will be made. Monitors will be equipped with the necessary tools
for the rapid removal of fossils and retrieval of associated data to prevent
construction delays. This equipment will include handheld global
positioning system receivers, digital cameras, and cellular phones, as well
as a tool kit containing specimen containers and matrix sampling bags,
Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 209
field labels, field tools (e.g., awls, hammers, chisels, shovels, etc.), and
plaster kits.
PAL/mm-3 In the event of a discovery, at each fossil locality, the paleontologist will
recover the fossil and field data forms will be used to record pertinent
geologic data, stratigraphic sections will be measured, and appropriate
sediment samples will be collected and submitted for analysis.
PAL/mm-4 Recovered fossils will be prepared to the point of curation, identified by
qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and reposited in
a designated paleontological curation facility. The qualified paleontologist
will prepare a paleontological mitigation and monitoring report to be filed
with the City of Arroyo Grande, as the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) lead agency, and the repository. The report will include, but
will not be limited to, a discussion of the results of the mitigation and
monitoring program, an evaluation and analysis of the fossils collected
(including an assessment of their significance, age and geologic context),
an itemized inventory of fossils collected, a confidential appendix of
locality and specimen data with locality maps and photographs, an
appendix of curation agreements and other appropriate communications,
and a copy of the project-specific paleontological mitigation plan.
Hazardous Waste and Materials
HAZ/mm-1 Demolition of existing structures and/or infrastructure shall be conducted
in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, including the
requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart M – asbestos NESHAP). These
requirements include, but are not limited to, notification to the APCD, an
asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector, and
applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified asbestos
containing materials.
HAZ/mm-2 A Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be developed
for the project and subject to approval by Caltrans to ensure contaminated
soils excavated during the project construction is handled, stockpiled, and
disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Soils
excavated during the project shall be tested for lead concentrations and the
Soil Management Plan shall establish a Reuse Screening Level for the
excavated soils; excavated soils with contaminant concentrations below the
Reuse Screening Levels may be reused during construction on the right-of-
way, while soils with contaminant concentrations exceeding the Reuse
Screening Levels shall be managed as hazardous waste and disposed of at a
facility that accepts soil with the detected concentrations of contaminants.
Special handling, treatment, or disposal of aerially deposited lead in soils
during construction activities within that portion of the project within
Caltrans right of way shall be consistent with the California Department of
Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 210
Toxic Substances and Caltrans Soil Management Agreement for Aerially
Deposited Lead-Contaminated Soils (effective July 1, 2016).
HAZ/mm-3 Prior to initiation of construction, a Lead Compliance Plan shall be
prepared by the contractor to prevent or minimize worker exposure to lead
from handling material containing aerially-deposited lead (California Code
of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1532.1). This plan shall also be required for
work performed on painted structures. The contractor shall prepare a
written, project-specific Excavation and Transportation Plan establishing
procedures the contractor shall use for excavating, stockpiling,
transporting, and placing (or disposing) of material containing aerially
deposited lead. The plan must conform to Department of Toxic Substance
Control and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
regulations. For samples where lead levels exceed hazardous waste criteria,
the excavated soil shall be either managed or disposed of as a California
hazardous waste or stockpiled and resampled to confirm waste
classification and potential utilization of Caltrans’ hazardous waste
agreement to recycle soil on site. The appropriate Caltrans Standard
Special Provision shall be included in the Plans, Specifications, and
Estimate.
HAZ/mm-4 Built structures within the project area proposed for demolition or removal,
including all concrete, painted surfaces, and treated wood poles and soils at
the base of poles, shall be tested for asbestos containing material, lead-
based paint, and petroleum hydrocarbons and other wood preservative
chemicals. Testing shall be conducted prior to initiation of construction and
estimates during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates phase of the
project shall include provisions for proper removal and disposal by a
licensed contractor. Any identified contaminants and toxic materials shall
be handled, treated, and disposed of in accordance with applicable rules
and regulations.
HAZ/mm-5 The electrical company responsible for the electrical transformers present
within the project area shall be contacted to determine if the transformers
contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If the transformers contain
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), then they shall be removed and
disposed of in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. Any
identified leaking transformers shall be considered a potential PCB hazard
unless tested and shall be handled accordingly.
HAZ/mm-6 The gas company responsible for the gas transmission pipelines located
within the project area shall be contacted to delineate the location of the
gas transmission pipelines. The location of the pipelines shall be shown on
all project plans and specifications.
HAZ/mm-7 Underground Service Alert for Northern/Central California and Nevada
(USA North) shall be contacted prior to any subsurface excavation to
determine the location of any subsurface utility lines.
Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 211
HAZ/mm-8 Testing and removal requirements for yellow traffic striping and pavement
marking materials shall be performed in accordance with Caltrans
Construction Policy Bulleting 99-2 (Caltrans Construction Manual Chapter
7-107E).
HAZ/mm-9 Any previously unknown hazardous waste or material encountered as part
of construction of the proposed project shall be handled, treated, and
disposed of in accordance with Caltrans Unknown Hazards Procedures.
HAZ/mm-10 Prior to any disturbance at or within 100 feet of the Arroyo Grande Shell
Gas Station located at 222 Grand Avenue, the City shall consult with the
California Department of Toxic Substances, Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board, County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health
Department, and Caltrans Headquarters Hazardous Waste Management
Section regarding the potential disturbance of hazardous substances and
materials at the site. Prior to any disturbance at or within 100 feet of the
Arroyo Grande Shell Gas Station, the City shall prepare a Hazardous
Materials/Hazardous Waste Management, Removal, and Remediation Plan.
The plan shall, at minimum, include worker health and safety protection
measures and restrictions on the disposal of excavated soil and
groundwater. The plan shall incorporate any additional assessment and
remediation required by the California Department of Toxic Substances,
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, County of San Luis
Obispo Environmental Health Department, and Caltrans Headquarters
Hazardous Waste Management Section. The Plan shall include measures
that ensure all hazardous materials involvement would be coordinated with
the appropriate federal, state, and local regulatory agencies and all
hazardous materials encountered would be removed, handled, and disposed
of in accordance with state and federal regulations.
Biological Environment
BIO/mm-1 Prior to project implementation, the City shall retain a qualified biological
monitor(s) approved by all involved regulatory agencies to ensure
compliance with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures within
the project environmental documents. Monitoring shall occur throughout
the length of construction or as directed by the regulatory agencies.
Monitoring may be reduced to part time once construction activities are
underway and the potential for additional impacts are reduced.
BIO/mm-2 During project activities, the biological monitor(s) shall coordinate with
federal, state, and local agencies and the construction contractor to ensure
construction schedules comply with biological avoidance, minimization,
and mitigation requirements.
BIO/mm-3 The project site shall be clearly flagged or fenced so that the contractor is
aware of the limits of allowable site access points and disturbance. Areas
within the designated project site that do not require regular access shall be
Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 212
clearly flagged as off-limit areas to avoid/discourage unnecessary damage
to sensitive habitats within and near the project site.
BIO/mm-4 During project activities, any work that must occur within drainage ditches
shall be conducted when they do not contain flowing water, if possible.
BIO/mm-5 Erosion control measures shall be implemented during construction. Silt
fencing and barriers (e.g., hay bales) shall be installed in appropriate areas
to prevent introduction of silt/sediment to aquatic areas within the project
area. At a minimum, silt fencing shall be checked and maintained on a
daily basis during the rainy season throughout the construction period. The
contractor shall also apply adequate dust control techniques, such as site
watering, in areas where necessary during construction.
BIO/mm-6 During project activities, the cleaning and refueling of equipment and
vehicles shall occur only within a designated staging area and at least 60
feet from wetlands, other waters, riparian, or other aquatic areas. This
staging area shall conform to best management practices (BMPs)
applicable to attaining zero discharge of stormwater runoff. At a minimum,
all equipment and vehicles shall be checked and maintained on a daily
basis to ensure proper operation and avoid potential leaks or spills.
BIO/mm-7 All project-related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to
project sites shall be cleaned-up immediately. Spill prevention and clean-
up materials shall be on-site at all times during construction.
BIO/mm-8 During construction, trash shall be contained, removed from the work site,
and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and
construction debris shall be removed from work areas.
BIO/mm-9 The biological monitor(s) shall ensure that the spread of introduction of
invasive exotic plant species will be avoided to the maximum extent
possible. When practicable, invasive exotic plants in the project site shall
be removed and properly disposed.
BIO/mm-10 If feasible, removal of trees shall be scheduled to occur in the fall and
winter (between September 1 and February 15), after fledging and before
the initiation of the nesting season.
BIO/mm-11 If trees must be removed from February 15 to August 31, a qualified
biologist shall be retained to conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting
bird species within the project site.
BIO/mm-12 If active nests are observed, the applicant shall either: 1) wait for such
nesting birds to fledge and leave the project site; 2) establish 100-foot
exclusion zones around active nests, where construction will not be
allowed in these exclusion zones until young have fledged; or 3) consult
Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 213
with the appropriate resource agencies for guidance prior to site
disturbance.
Construction
AQ/mm-1 Prior to issuance of construction permits, the following measures shall be
incorporated into the construction phase of the project and shown on all
applicable plans:
Construction Equipment
a. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to
manufacturer’s specifications;
b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but
not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes,
generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, with CARB-
certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use
off-road);
c. Maximize to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction
equipment meeting the CARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-
road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road
Regulation;
d. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2007 or cleaner
certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and
comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
e. Construction or trucking companies with fleets that 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;
f. All on- and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5
minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or
job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5-minute idling limit;
g. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall be avoided to
the maximum extent feasible;
h. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors to the maximum extent feasible;
i. Electrify equipment when feasible;
j. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment,
where feasible; and,
Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 214
k. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible,
such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG),
propane, or biodiesel.
Best Available Control Technology
l. Further reduce emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-
road and 2010 on-road compliant engines;
m. Repower equipment with the cleanest engines available; and,
n. Install California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies. These
strategies are listed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm.
AQ/mm-2 Upon application for construction permits, all required PM10 measures
shall be shown on applicable grading or construction plans, and made
applicable during grading and construction activities as described below.
a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to
prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering
frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles
per hour (mph);
c. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible;
d. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed;
e. 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;
f. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater
than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast
germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is
established;
g. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized
using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods
approved in advance by the APCD;
h. 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;
i. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on
any unpaved surface at the construction site;
Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 215
j. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be
covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum
vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance
with California Vehicle Code §23114;
k. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto
streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site; and,
l. 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 avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation
measures shall be shown on grading, construction and building plans; and
the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive
dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as
necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below
20% opacity, and to prevent transport of dust off-site. Their duties shall
include monitoring the effectiveness of the required dust control measures
(as conditions dictate), and shall include holidays and weekend periods
when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of
such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to
the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
TRA/mm-4 All construction activities shall be planned so as to minimize
inconvenience to the traveling public, i.e., through minimization of the
amount and duration of lane closures, minimization of lane closures during
peak traffic hours, and goals to complete project construction without
unnecessary delay. Public traffic traveling north on U.S. 101 should be
rerouted, via highway signage, to use the Grand Avenue exit should the
northbound ramps at Brisco Road be closed temporarily, and vice versa.
TRA/mm-5 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare a
Construction Timing, Access, and Circulation Plan, which shall include the
following measures. This plan shall be approved by the City Public Works
Director prior to the start of construction and made available for local
residents to review and comment on prior to the onset of construction
activities.
a. Methods for ensuring permanent access to the commercial/retail centers
north of the Brisco Road/U.S. 101 interchange is preserved and/or
improved to the maximum extent feasible through implementation of
the proposed project.
b. A signage plan and other methods, if feasible, for increasing the
visibility of business blocked by construction activities and educating
travelers that businesses adjacent to the project corridor are to remain
open during construction;
Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 216
c. Clearly marked detour routes for alternate access to any businesses that
are made inaccessible or difficult to access due to construction
activities;
d. Hours of haulage (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.);
e. Designation of truck routes that avoid residential areas to the extent
possible;
f. Methods of traffic control on adjacent streets within the project area;
g. Adequate safety signage regarding traffic control;
h. Designated construction staging areas for construction personnel
vehicles, supplies, and equipment;
i. A telephone number for local residents to call if there are issues or
complaints; and
j. Measures to resolve potential conflicts between construction activities
and adjacent businesses.
Business owners directly adjacent to the project area shall be directly
notified of the availability of and allowed to comment on the plan.
TRA/mm-6 Traffic control plans affecting state facilities shall be reviewed and
approved by Caltrans, and traffic control plans affecting City facilities shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Director, through
consultation with affected emergency responders and service providers
(i.e., the police department, fire department, San Luis Ambulance, and
Arroyo Grande Hospital), prior to construction activities.
TRA/mm-7 Access to all existing bike paths and pedestrian walkways should remain
open and easily accessible through the duration of construction activities.
Where interference with existing access cannot be avoided, clearly posted
detours should be provided.
TRA/mm-8 Access to all alternative transportation facilities in the project area,
including RTA stops, Park and Ride lots, and bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, should be maintained through the duration of construction
activities. If construction activities will interfere with existing public transit
facilities, or bicycle or pedestrian routes, specific locations for relocated
bus stops or bike or pedestrian detours should be identified, and temporary
access should be provided to all areas of the project area. Construction
activities should not interfere with or inhibit access or use of public
transportation stops or parking lots and shall take into account existing
RTA and Park and Ride schedules and routes.
Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 217
WQ/mm-1 The design of all construction Best Management Practices will comply
with the design requirements found in the Caltrans Storm Water Quality
Handbooks: Project Planning and Design Guide and Construction Site Best
Management Practices (BMPs) Manual. The temporary construction site
Best Management Practices strategy shall include the following:
• Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Both project
alternatives would disturb more than one acre of soil, so a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan would be prepared by a qualified practitioner
and/or qualified Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan developer per
the Construction General Permit and submitted prior to the start of
construction. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would
include a Construction Site Monitoring Program that presents
procedures and methods related to the visual monitoring and sampling
and analysis plans for non-visible pollutants, sediment and turbidity,
and pH.
• Rain Event Action Plan (REAP). Risk Level 2 projects are required to
prepare a Rain Event Action Plan, which will describe projected storm
information and list specific actions required to be taken before
predicted rain events.
• Job Site Best Management Practices Strategy. Whenever possible, the
scheduling of earth-disturbing construction activities should not be
made during anticipated rain events. Construction site Best
Management Practices should be installed prior to the start of
construction or as early as feasibly possible during construction.
• Soil Stabilization Measures. Minimum soil stabilization measures for
the project would include move-in/move-out erosion control, use of
temporary hydraulic mulch on any exposed disturbed soils, temporary
covers to protect stockpiles, and temporary fencing to designate
environmentally sensitive areas as outside of the work area limits.
Analysis of additional soil stabilization measures will continue during
the design phase.
• Sediment Control Measures. Temporary sediment control BMPs will
be applied prior to every predicted rain event. Minimum sediment
control measures for the project would include temporary fiber rolls to
minimize sediment-laden sheet flows and concentrated flows from
discharging offsite, and temporary drainage inlet protection to prevent
sediment from entering current or proposed storm drains. Investigation
into additional sediment control measures, including the use of
sediment traps, will continue during the design phase.
• Tracking Controls. To prevent the tracking of mud and dirt off-site,
stabilized construction entrances and exits would be placed at multiple
points throughout the project site. Street sweeping would be
implemented to remove any tracked sediment.
Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 218
• Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. Concrete washout
facilities will be utilized during all concrete-related work activities.
• Job Site Management. The project’s proposed Job Site Management
includes waste management and material control Best Management
Practices to control potential sources of water pollution before they
enter any storm water systems or water courses and employee and
subcontractor training, including the proper selection, deployment, and
repair of construction site Best Management Practices used within the
project site.
• Storm Water Sampling and Analysis. Risk Level 2 projects are required
to perform storm water sampling at all discharge locations during
qualifying rain events. The samples would be analyzed for pH and
turbidity, and subject to numeric action levels and associated reporting
requirements.
WQ/mm-2 The following will be implemented to comply with the Caltrans and City
NPDES Permits:
• During construction, temporary erosion control practices will be
utilized that are appropriate to site-specific conditions. Since portions
of the project area have moderate erosion hazard, stabilizing the ground
surface before the start of the wet season will be carefully planned.
Disturbance to wetlands and grasslands will be avoided to the
maximum extent practical to minimize soil disturbance, soil
compaction, and alteration of wetland hydrology. Temporary
construction site Best Management Practices will be evaluated and
selected during the Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) phase
of this project.
HAZ/mm-11 Prior to construction, the City or its contractor shall prepare a Hazardous
Material Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan to minimize
the potential for, and effects of, spills of hazardous or toxic substances
during construction of the project. The plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City Public Works Director, and shall include, at
minimum, the following:
a. A description of storage procedures and construction site maintenance
and upkeep practices;
b. Identification of a person or persons responsible for monitoring
implementation of the plan and spill response;
c. Identification of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be
implemented to ensure minimal impacts to the environment occur,
including but not limited to the use of containment devices for
hazardous materials, training of construction staff regarding safety
practices to reduce the chance for spills or accidents, and use of non-
toxic substances where feasible;
Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 219
d. A description of proper procedures for containing, diverting, isolating,
and cleaning up spills, hazardous substances and/or soils, in a manner
that minimizes impacts on surface and groundwater quality and
sensitive biological resources;
e. A description of the actions required if a spill occurs, including which
authorities to contact and proper clean-up procedures; and
f. A requirement that all construction personnel participate in an
awareness training program conducted by qualified personnel approved
by the City Public Works Director. The training must include a
description of the Hazardous Materials Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure Plan, the plan’s requirements for spill prevention,
information regarding the importance of preventing spills, the
appropriate measures to take should a spill occur, and identification of
the location of all clean-up materials and equipment.
NOI/mm-1 As directed by Caltrans, the contractor will implement appropriate
additional noise avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures,
including changing the location of stationary construction equipment,
turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying
adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic
barriers around stationary construction noise sources.
Appendix F Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Summary
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 220
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 221
Appendix G List of Technical Studies
Air Quality Study (January 2017)
Community Impact Assessment (February 2018)
Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment (January 2016)
Location Hydraulic Study (February 2016)
Natural Environment Study (February 2018)
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (February 2018)
Noise Study Report (June 2017)
Paleontological Evaluation Report (November 2016)
Paleontological Evaluation Report Addendum (January 2017)
Storm Water Data Report (August 2016)
Structure Preliminary Geotechnical Report (January 2017)
Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis (September 2012)
Visual Impact Assessment (November 2016)
Visual Impact Assessment Addendum (January 2017)
Water Quality Assessment Report (February 2018)
The following technical studies have been removed due to confidentiality:
• Historical Property Survey Report (November 2011)
• Historical Resources Evaluation Report (November 2011)
• Archaeological Survey Report (November 2011)
• Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report (February 2016)
• Supplemental Archaeological Survey Report (January 2016)
The legal authority to restrict cultural resource information can be found in California
Government Code Sections 6254.10 and 6254(r); California Code Regulations
Section 15120(d); and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
Appendix G List of Technical Studies
U.S. 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project / Environmental Assessment 222
_____________________________________________________________ Attachment H – Right-of-Way Data Sheets
_____________________________________________________________ Attachment I – Traffic Management Plan Data Sheet
DISTRICT 5
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATA SHEET/CHECKLIST
ALTERNATIVE 1
District / EA / EFIS: 05-0A370 Co.-Rte-PM:SLO - 101 - PM 13.1/14.6
Project Engineer: Lucas Fuson Description:Interchange Improvements
Date Prepared: 12/8/2015 Working Days:160-200 days
Check each box and reference your attachments to the
item(s) number(s) shown on the list.RequiredRecommendedNot requiredCOMMENTS
1.0 Public Information
1.1 Public Awareness. Eg., media, web, hotline, etc. x Include $3000
1.2 Other Strategies x Early on-sight notification (see below)
2.0 Motorist Information Strategies
2.1 Changeable Message Signs - Portable x 1/lane closure/dir. + alt. Rte signing possible
2.2 Construction Area Signs x
2.3 Highway Advisory Radio (fixed and mobile)x
2.4 Planned Lane Closure Web Site x Construction to provide information
2.5 Caltrans Highway Information Network (CHIN) x Construction to provide information
3.0 Incident Management
3.1 COZEEP (during k-rail moving & work in live traffic)x During closures as required
3.2 Freeway Service Patrol x
4.0 Traffic Management Strategies
4.1 Lane/Ramp Closures Charts x Contruction/Contractor to provide
4.2 Total Facility Closure/ Number of days?x
4.3 Coordination with adjacent construction x
4.4 Contingency Plan x Standard SSP
4.4.1 Material/Equipment Standby x Contruction/Contractor to provide
4.4.2 Emergency Detour Plan x Contruction/Contractor to provide
4.4.3 Emergency Notification Plan x Contruction/Contractor to provide
4.5 Speed Limit Reduction Request x
4.6 Special Days: x
4.7 Other items:x
4.7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations* x Contruction/Contractor to provide
*Planning for all road users must be included in this process. Bicyclists and Pedestrians shall not be led into direct conflicts with
mainline traffic, work site vehicles, or equipment moving through or around the TTC zone. Contact Dario Senor w/ questions.
5.0 Anticipated Delays
5.1 Lane Closure Review Committee x
(for anticipated delays over 30 minutes)
5.2 Planned freeway closures x
5.3 Minimal delay anticipated -
no further action required yes no If no, explain additional measures
on attached sheet.
6.0 Placement of CMS x Per RE
Shayne Sandeman
District 5 TMP Coordinator
DISTRICT 5
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN DATA SHEET/CHECKLIST
ALTERNATIVE 4C
District / EA / EFIS: 05-0A370 Co.-Rte-PM:SLO - 101 - PM 13.1/14.6
Project Engineer: Lucas Fuson Description:Interchange Improvements
Date Prepared: 12/8/2015 Working Days:160-200 days
Check each box and reference your attachments to the
item(s) number(s) shown on the list.RequiredRecommendedNot requiredCOMMENTS
1.0 Public Information
1.1 Public Awareness. Eg., media, web, hotline, etc. x Include $5000
1.2 Other Strategies x Early on-sight notification (see below)
2.0 Motorist Information Strategies
2.1 Changeable Message Signs - Portable x 1/lane closure/dir. + alt. Rte signing possible
2.2 Construction Area Signs x
2.3 Highway Advisory Radio (fixed and mobile)x
2.4 Planned Lane Closure Web Site x Construction to provide information
2.5 Caltrans Highway Information Network (CHIN) x Construction to provide information
3.0 Incident Management
3.1 COZEEP (during k-rail moving & work in live traffic)x During closures as required
3.2 Freeway Service Patrol x
4.0 Traffic Management Strategies
4.1 Lane/Ramp Closures Charts x Contruction/Contractor to provide
4.2 Total Facility Closure/ Number of days?x
4.3 Coordination with adjacent construction x
4.4 Contingency Plan x Standard SSP
4.4.1 Material/Equipment Standby x Contruction/Contractor to provide
4.4.2 Emergency Detour Plan x Contruction/Contractor to provide
4.4.3 Emergency Notification Plan x Contruction/Contractor to provide
4.5 Speed Limit Reduction Request x
4.6 Special Days: x
4.7 Other items:x
4.7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations* x Contruction/Contractor to provide
*Planning for all road users must be included in this process. Bicyclists and Pedestrians shall not be led into direct conflicts with
mainline traffic, work site vehicles, or equipment moving through or around the TTC zone. Contact Dario Senor w/ questions.
5.0 Anticipated Delays
5.1 Lane Closure Review Committee x
(for anticipated delays over 30 minutes)
5.2 Planned freeway closures x
5.3 Minimal delay anticipated -
no further action required yes no If no, explain additional measures
on attached sheet.
6.0 Placement of CMS x Per RE
Shayne Sandeman
District 5 TMP Coordinator
_____________________________________________________________ Attachment J – Storm Water Data Report Cover Sheet
_____________________________________________________________ Attachment K – Cooperative Agreement
_____________________________________________________________ Attachment L – Risk Management Plan
PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT PLANDist - EACo-Rte- PMDateAlternative1Responsible Agency:Caltans District 5Status ID #Date Identified Project Phase Threat/Opportunity Event SMART Column Risk Trigger Type Probability Impact StrategyResponse Actions including advantages and disadvantages Affected TasksResponsibilty (Task Manager)Status Interval or Milestone CheckDate, Status and Review CommentsVH H M X L VL VL L M H VHVH H M X L VL VL L M H VHVH H M X L VL VL L M H VHVH H M X L VL VL L M H VHVH H M X L VL VL L M H VHPerform the ISA and PSI early in PS&E PS&ECt Environmental Lead (Allison Donatello) City Engineer (Robin Dickerson)MonthlyPA&EDImpactPotential Hazardous Waste at existing gas stations impacted by the projectScheduleModerate ModerateProbabilityMitigation6Active12/21/2015(Risk) Environmental; Hazardous WastePS&E impactHave a fully funded project at the PA&ED phase, and confirmed at the 60% and 95% PS&E stages.ConstructionCity Project Manager (Teresa McClish)MonthlyConstructionImpactInadequate Funding is SecuredScopeModerate HighProbabilityAcceptance5Active12/21/2015(Risk) FundingConstruction could be delayed if funding is not securedIdentify risk based on the Design Standards Risk Assessment Table per PDPM Appendix KPA&ED and PS&EConsultant Project Engineer (Luke Fuson)MonthlyPA&EDImpactFINAL PA&ED schedule slippage ScheduleModerate ModerateProbabilityAcceptance4Active12/21/2015(Risk) Design Standard ComplianceApproval of design exceptions required for approval of design features of each project Alternative.Begin PS&E phase in advance of FINAL PA&ED if necessaryPA&EDCity Project Manager (Teresa McClish)MonthlyPA&EDImpactFINAL PA&ED schedule slippage ScheduleModerate ModerateProbabilityMitigation2Active12/21/2015(Risk) PA&ED delayThe PA&ED phase may extend beyond project schedule thus impacting the next design phase of PS&E. Identify any R/W aqcuisition risk early during the PS&E phase. Be conservative in identifying all potential R/W impacts for both fee and easments. PS&ECity Engineer (Robin Dickerson)MonthlyPS&EImpactR/W negotiations after PA&ED approvalScheduleModerate ModerateProbabilityAcceptance1Active12/21/2015(Risk) Right of Way AqcuisitionRight of Way aqcuisition could impact project deliverable due to R/W process duration and timelines.12 months is currently allotted for right of way acquisition including purchase of portions of 8-10 parcels and relocation of utilities by 6 providers. This duration is likely to take longer and would impact RTL and therefore impact when CTC could allocate, and when the contract could be awarded.05-0A37005-SLO-101 (PM 13.1/14.6)1/30/2018PriorityPROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 1IdentificationQualitative Analysis Response Strategy Monitoring and ControlRisk Matrix05-SLO-101_RiskMgmt.xls1/30/2018
PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT PLANDist - EACo-Rte- PMDateAlternative1Responsible Agency:Caltans District 5Status ID #Date Identified Project Phase Threat/Opportunity Event SMART Column Risk Trigger Type Probability Impact StrategyResponse Actions including advantages and disadvantages Affected TasksResponsibilty (Task Manager)Status Interval or Milestone CheckDate, Status and Review Comments05-0A37005-SLO-101 (PM 13.1/14.6)1/30/2018PriorityPROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 1IdentificationQualitative Analysis Response Strategy Monitoring and ControlRisk MatrixVH H M X L VL VL L M H VHVH H M L X VL VL L M H VHVH H M L X VL VL L M H VHVH H M X L VL VL L M H VHVH H M X L VL VL L M H VHIdentify any utilit relocation risk early during the PS&E phase and engage utility owners early.PS&ECity Engineer (Robin Dickerson)Consultant Project Engineer (Luke Fuson)MonthlyPS&EImpactDelays in utility conflict identification and utility owner relocation plans.CostModerate ModerateProbabilityAcceptance11 Active1/30/2018(Risk) UtilitiesPS&EIdentify any R/W aqcuisition risk early during the PS&E phase. Be conservative in identifying all potential R/W impacts for both fee and easments. PS&ECity Engineer (Robin Dickerson)MonthlyPS&EImpactAssumptions regarding minimization of project impact, and therefore cost, to address the acquisition / damages / mitigation to the Shell station may not play out as planned or anticipated. It is possible that costs are understated. CostModerate HighProbabilityAcceptance10 Active1/30/2018(Risk) Right of Way Capital CostPS&EHighProbabilityAcceptance7Active12/21/2015(Risk) Environmental; Noise BarriersPA&ED, PS&E, Construction impactEngage public in discussion PA&ED Ct Environmental Lead (Allison Donatello) City Engineer (Robin Dickerson)MonthlyPA&EDImpactCommunity input during the public review period could require soundwalls as a project component.ScheduleModerateModerateProbabilityMitigation8Active1/12/2017(Risk) Potential Traffic ChangesPA&ED, PS&EObservation of traffic conditions and analysis of test closurePA&ED City Engineer (Robin Dickerson) Consultant Project Manager (Mark Rayback)MonthlyPA&EDImpactTraffic changes due to delay in funding year.ScheduleLowLowProbabilityMitigation9Active1/12/2017(Risk) Environmental MitigationPA&ED, PS&EObservation of environmental conditions as project moves forward. Finalize environmental documentation.PA&ED Ct Environmental Lead (Allison Donatello) City Engineer (Robin Dickerson)MonthlyPS&EImpactEnvironmental changes due to delay in funding year.ScheduleLow05-SLO-101_RiskMgmt.xls1/30/2018
PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT PLANDist - EACo-Rte- PMDateAlternative4CResponsible Agency:Caltans District 5Status ID #Date Identified Project Phase Threat/Opportunity Event SMART Column Risk Trigger Type Probability Impact StrategyResponse Actions including advantages and disadvantages Affected TasksResponsibilty (Task Manager)Status Interval or Milestone CheckDate, Status and Review CommentsVH H M X L VL VL L M H VHVH H M X L VL VL L M H VHVH H M X L VL VL L M H VHVH H M X L VL VL L M H VHVH H M X L VL VL L M H VHMonthlyHave a fully funded project at the PA&ED phase, and confirm at the 60% and 95% PS&E stages.ImpactConstructionModerate HighProbabilityAcceptanceCity Project Manager (Teresa McClish)5Active12/21/2015Construction(Risk) FundingConstruction could be delayed if funding is not securedAdequate funding is securedScopeConsultant Project Engineer (Luke Fuson)Acceptance PA&ED and PS&EModerateImpactImpactMitigationBegin PS&E phase in advance of FINAL PA&ED if necessaryCity Project Manager (Teresa McClish)ScheduleModerateProbability(Risk) PA&ED delayThe PA&ED phase may extend beyond project schedule thus impacting the next design phase of PS&E. FINAL PA&ED schedule slippage MonthlyPA&ED2Active12/21/2015ModeratePA&ED05-0A37005-SLO-101 (PM 13.1/14.6)1/30/2018Monitoring and ControlIdentificationResponse StrategyQualitative AnalysisPROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 4CRisk Matrix1Active12/21/2015PS&E(Risk) Right of Way AqcuisitionR/W negotiations after PA&ED approvalPriorityScheduleIdentify any R/W aqcuisition risk early during the PS&E phase. Be conservative in identifying all potential R/W impacts for both fee and easments. ProbabilityImpactModerateRight of Way aqcuisition could impact project deliverable due to R/W process duration and timelines.12 months is currently allotted for right of way acquisition including purchase of portions of 8-10 parcels and relocation of utilities by 6 providers. This duration is likely to take longer and would impact RTL and therefore impact when CTC could allocate, and when the contract could be awarded Moderate AcceptanceCity Engineer (Robin Dickerson)MonthlyPS&E4Active12/21/2015PA&EDApproval of design exceptions required for approval of design features of each project Alternative.ProbabilityMonthly(Risk) Design Standard ComplianceFINAL PA&ED schedule slippage ScheduleModerateIdentify risk based on the Design Standards Risk Assessment Table per PDPM Appendix KModerateProbabilityMitigation6Active12/21/2015(Risk) Environmental; Hazardous WastePS&EPerform the ISA and PSI early in PS&E. PS&ECt Environmental Lead (Allison Donatello) City Engineer (Robin Dickerson)MonthlyPA&EDImpactPotential Hazardous Waste at existing gas stations impacted by the projectScheduleModerate05-SLO-101_RiskMgmt.xls1/30/2018
PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT PLANDist - EACo-Rte- PMDateAlternative4CResponsible Agency:Caltans District 5Status ID #Date Identified Project Phase Threat/Opportunity Event SMART Column Risk Trigger Type Probability Impact StrategyResponse Actions including advantages and disadvantages Affected TasksResponsibilty (Task Manager)Status Interval or Milestone CheckDate, Status and Review Comments05-0A37005-SLO-101 (PM 13.1/14.6)1/30/2018Monitoring and ControlIdentificationResponse StrategyQualitative AnalysisPROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN - ALTERNATIVE 4CRisk MatrixPriorityVH H M X L VL VL L M H VHVH H M L X VL VL L M H VHVH H M L X VL VL L M H VHVH H M X L VL VL L M H VHActive10ModerateCostDelays in utility conflict identification and utility owner relocation plans.PS&E(Risk) Utilities1/30/2018ImpactPS&EMonthlyCity Engineer (Robin Dickerson)Consultant Project Engineer (Luke Fuson)PS&EIdentify any utilit relocation risk early during the PS&E phase and engage utility owners early.AcceptanceProbabilityModerateEngage public in discussion PA&ED Ct Environmental Lead (Allison Donatello) City Engineer (Robin Dickerson)MonthlyPA&EDImpactCommunity input during the public review period could require soundwalls as a project component.ScheduleModerate HighProbabilityAcceptance7Active12/21/2015(Risk) Environmental; Noise BarriersPA&ED, PS&E, Construction impactModerateProbabilityMitigation8Active1/12/2017(Risk) Potential Traffic ChangesPA&ED, PS&EObservation of traffic conditions and analysis of test closurePA&ED City Engineer (Robin Dickerson) Consultant Project Manager (Mark Rayback)MonthlyPA&EDImpactTraffic changes due to delay in funding year.ScheduleLowLowProbabilityMitigation9Active1/12/2017(Risk) Environmental MitigationPA&ED, PS&EObservation of environmental conditions as project moves forward. Finalize environmental documentation.PA&ED Ct Environmental Lead (Allison Donatello) City Engineer (Robin Dickerson)MonthlyPS&EImpactEnvironmental changes due to delay in funding year.ScheduleLow05-SLO-101_RiskMgmt.xls1/30/2018
_____________________________________________________________ Attachment M – Distribution List
PR DOC DISTRIBUTION
Division / Program / Office Project Type
HQ Division of Engineering Serv All Projects
Division of
Engineering
Services (electronic
copy OK)
1
HQ Environmental All Projects Kirsten J Helton 1
Project Manager All Projects Paul Valadao 1
Design Manager All Projects John Fouche 2
Resident Engineer All Projects c/o John Fouche 1
All Projects Lance Gorman 1
District Traffic Management All Projects Jacques Van
Zeventer 1
District Traffic Safety SLO/SBT Steve Talbert
Region Materials All Projects Doug Lambert 1
Region Environmental All Projects Diana Vargas,
Kristen Merriman 1
Region Right of Way All Projects Marshall Garcia 1
District Planning All Projects Garin Schneider 1
District SFP All Projects No Copy 0
PPM All Projects Linda Araujo 1
All Projects 0
All Projects Jeremy Villegas 1
SB/SLO Nick Tatarian
HQ DES/OPPM Proj w/Structures Andrew T S Tan 1
District Records All Projects Pat Duty (electronic
copy only)0
D5
District Maintenance
1
District Surveys
1
PR Distribution List 051916.xlsx 1 of 1 6/9/2016, 2:06 PM
ATTACHMENT 3omni-means
ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS
Technical Memorandum
To: City of Arroyo Grande
Attn: Matt Horn, City Engineer
From: Jonathan "Nate" Stong, P.E.
Re: Existing and Cumulative Conditions
Traffic Analysis
CC: Joe Weiland, P.E., Teresa McClish
Introduction
Date: February 17, 2016
Project: Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps
Closure Traffic Analysis
Job No.: 25-1275-32 (05)
File No.: C2067MEM002.DOCX
This memorandum summarizes the traffic evaluation of the temporary closure of the US 101
Northbound ramps at Brisco Road, which began September 28, 2015 and is scheduled for
reopening July 11, 2016. The intersection of the ramps at Brisco Road is located adjacent to the
intersection of Brisco Road and W. Branch Street which results in poor operational performance
and traffic congestion. The City of Arroyo Grande is in the process of evaluating potential
improvements to the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road interchange including permanently closing the
ramps and making necessary improvements to those intersections which experience degraded
performance as a result of trip redistribution. The temporary closure of the ramps provides the
opportunity to measure the actual traffic volume redistribution resulting from the closure on the
City transportation system and on US 101. This memorandum summarizes the traffic analysis
performed within the study area shown on Figure 1.
E (,R ,.\IJ lu
Figure 1: Project Study Area
( 1 \ff.\"O 'fERC no
RAMP CLOSURE LOCATION
669 Pacific Street I Suite A I San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 I p. 805.242.0461 I omnimeans.com
Napa I Redding I Roseville I San Luis Obispo I Visalia I Walnut Creek
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
The City is currently engaged in the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED)
phase of a project to make improvements to the Brisco Road-Halcyon Road Interchange. The
City is currently evaluating two alternatives in addition to the "No Build" alternative. Alternative 1
would permanently close the ramps and make improvements to intersections (described
beginning on Page 23) projected to be required by the change in traffic patterns. Alternative 4C
would remove the ramps to Brisco Road and construct new hook ramps to intersect W. Branch
Street at Rodeo Drive.
The purpose of this report Is to summarize the affect of the closure of the northbound ramps on
the intersections identified in the study area and to evaluate the efficacy of the Alternative 1
improvements in addressing the impacts of a permanent closure.
The scenarios evaluated in this memorandum are the existing (pre-closure) condition and the
during-closure condition, analyzed with existing and forecast traffic volumes. The intersections
and segments studied are those expected to experience a change in traffic volumes as a result
of the Brisco Road northbound ramps closure.
The following scenarios are analyzed in this memorandum:
•Existing Conditions;
•During Closure Conditions;
•Forecast Year 2035 "No Closure" Conditions;
•Forecast Year 2035 "With Closure" Conditions; and,
•Forecast Year 2035 Alternative 1 Improvements Conditions.
For each of these scenarios, intersection peak hour capacity analyses for the AM, Mid-Day and
PM peak hour will be completed.
The Existing conditions analyze current traffic operations within the study area. Traffic counts
were taken prior to the ramps closure at all study locations in order to quantify typical weekday
roadway segment volumes and intersection turning movements.
The During Closure condition represents traffic operations within the study area following
closure of the northbound ramps at Brisco Road. Traffic counts were again taken at all study
locations with the ramps closed in order to quantify typical weekday volumes and turning
movements.
The Forecast Year 2035 ''No Closure" Condition represents forecast volumes under existing
conditions with the ramps open. Planned improvements identified by the City such as the signal
modification at the intersection of Oak Park Blvd/W. Branch StreeUUS 101 NB Onramp and lane
reconfiguration of the northbound El Camino Real approach to Oak Park Blvd are taken into
consideration and incorporated into the traffic model.
The Forecast Year 2035 "With Closure" Condition represents forecast volumes with the ramps
closed. Planned improvements identified by the City are taken into consideration and
incorporated into the traffic model.
The Forecast Year 2035 Alternative 1 Mitigation Condition represents the improvements
proposed in the Draft Project Report, Wood Rodgers using forecast traffic volumes.
2
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
Data Collection
Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement and Daily Roadway Segment Volumes
Traffic volumes were obtained from counts performed by Metro Traffic Data Inc. The counts
were performed both before and after the closure of the US 101 Northbound ramps at Brisco
Road. Collection of before turning movement counts occurred simultaneously at all study
intersections on Thursday September 17, 2015, with roadway segment volumes collected
during the week of Friday September 18 through Thursday September 24, 2015. The ramps
were then closed on September 28 and during closure intersection counts occurred on
Thursday November 19, 2015 and roadway segment volumes collected during the weeks of
November 15 through 21, 2015. Supplemental counts for certain segments were taken
December 9 through 15, 2015 due to rain-fouled or street-sweeper damaged counter tubes.
The during closure counts were initiated 7 weeks after closure of the ramps to allow time for
traffic patterns to adjust to the closure and normalize. Intersection counts were collected for AM,
Mid-Day, and PM peak hours and segment volume collected directional daily volumes by class
at 15-minute intervals. The intersections and roadway segments are shown on Figure 2.
Intersection Queuing
Intersection queuing data used In calibration of the traffic model was collected the same dates
as the intersection turning movement counts on Thursday September 17, 2015 and Thursday
November 19, 2015. Maximum queues and signal cycle lengths were measured using video
recordings of the following intersections along the Brisco Road corridor and E. Grand Avenue
corridor:
•Westbound Brisco Road and El Camino Real
•Eastbound Brisco Road and Northbound US 101 Off-Ramp
•Eastbound Brisco Road and W Branch Street
•Northbound US 101 Off-Ramp and Camino Mercado
•Westbound Grand Avenue and Southbound US 101 Off-Ramp
•Westbound Grand Avenue and Southbound US 101 On-Ramp (westbound left turn lane)
•Eastbound Grand Avenue and Northbound US 101 Ramps
•Westbound Grand Avenue and Northbound US 101 Ramps
•Eastbound Grand Avenue and Traffic Way
Travel Time Measurements
Travel times were measured through the Brisco Rd corridor from west of El Camino Real to W.
Branch Street northbound and through the E. Grand Avenue corridor from west of the US 101
southbound ramps to east of Traffic Way. The measurements by Omni-Means staff were made
on Thursday September 17, 2015 during the PM peak hour to provide data used in calibration of
the traffic model.
3
•INTERSECTIONS
-SEGMENTS
INTERSECTIONS
1. FAIR OAKS AVENUE / TRAFFIC WAY
2.WEST BRANCH STREET / TRAFFIC WAY
3.WEST BRANCH STREET / RODEO DRIVE
4. EAST GRAND AVENUE/ WEST BRANCH STREET
5.EAST GRAND AVENUE / US 101 NORTHBOUND (NB) RAMPS
6. EAST GRAND AVENUE / US 101 SOUTHBOUND (SB) RAMPS
7.BRISCO ROAD / WEST BRANCH STREET
8.BRISCO ROAD / US 101 NB RAMPS (PRE-CLOSURE COUNTS ONLY)
9.BRISCO ROAD / EL CAMINO REAL
10.WEST BRANCH STREET / RANCHO PARf<WAY
11.WEST BRANCH STREET / TOWN CENTER DRIVE
12.WEST BRANCH STREET / CAMINO MERCADO
13.WEST BRANCH STREET / NORTH OAK PARK BOULEVARD
14.NORTH OAK PARK BOULEVARD / EL CAMINO REAL
Brisco Road US 101 Ram s Closure Traffic Anal sis
Intersection And Roadway Segment Count Locations
J /29/201� 5 41 N \ \10.3 250 26\COW<ON\P�J\2067\12067\ T20671GOO! OV,C
SEGMENTS
1.EAST GRAND AVENUE WEST OF US 101 SB RAMPS
2. EAST GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN US 101 SB AND NB RAMPS
3.US 101 NB ON RAMP FROM EAST GRAND AVENUE
4. US 101 NB OFF RAMP TO EAST GRAND AVENUE
5.EAST GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN US 101 NB RAMPS AND WEST BRANCH STREET
6.WEST BRANCH STREET NORTH OF EAST GRAND AVENUE
7. EAST BRANCH STREET EAST OF WEST BRANCH STREET
8.FAIR OAKS AVENUE WEST OF TRAFFIC WAY
9.TRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF EAST CHERRY AVE
10. US 101 NB OFF-RAMP TO TRAFFIC WAY
11.OAK PARK BOULEVARD SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL
12. US 101 NB ON-RAMP FROM OAK PARK BOULEVARD
13.WEST BRANCH STREET EAST OF OAK PARK BOULEVARD
14. US 101 NB ON-RAMP FROM CAMINO MERCADO
15.US 101 NB OFF-RAMP To CAMINO MERCADO
16.WEST BRANCH STREET EAST OF CAMINO MERCADO
17.WEST BRANCH STREET WEST OF BRISCO ROAD
18.EL CAMINO REAL WEST OF BRISCO ROAD
19.BRISCO ROAD SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL
20.BRISCO ROAD BETWEEN EL CAMINO REAL AND US 101 NB RAMPS
21.EL CAMINO REAL BETWEEN BRISCO ROAD AND HALCYON ROAD
22.WEST BRANCH STREET WEST OF RODEO DRIVE
23.HALCYON ROAD SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL
24.US 101 NB OFF-RAMP TO BRISCO ROAD (PRE-CLOSURE ONLY)
25.US 101 NB ON-RAMP FROM BRISCO ROAD (PRE-CLOSURE ONl Y)
Fi ure No. 2
Jot, No 15-127�}5/ l067
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
Analysis Methodology
Intersection LOS Methodologies
Levels of Service (LOS) have been calculated for all intersection control types using the
methods documented in the Transportation Research Board Publication Highway Capacity
Manual, 2010. Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby
a letter grade A through F is assigned to an intersection or roadway segment representing
progressively worsening traffic conditions. For signalized intersections and All-Way-Stop
Controlled (AWSC) intersection, the intersection delays and LOS are average values for all
intersection movements. For Two-Way-Stop-Controlled (TWSC) intersections, the intersection
delays and LOS is representative of those for the worst-case movement. LOS definitions for
different types of intersection controls are outlined in Table 1.
Synchro 9 Modeling
Synchro 9 used in this analysis includes the newest methodology from Transportation Research
Board Publication Highway Capacity Manual, Fourth Edition, 2010, and is consistent with the
Draft Transportation Impact Analysis Report Guidellnes (City of Arroyo Grande, 2015). Traffic
signal timings were obtained from the City of Arroyo Grande, Caltrans, and direct observation by
Omni-Means staff. The signal timings and traffic volumes are input to the model to accurately
recreate the conditions at intersections.
Level of Service Thresholds
The City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Circulation Element specifies minimum level-of-service
standards for all the streets and intersections within the City's jurisdiction. In section CT2, the
City establishes the following performance standards for acceptable LOS:
"CT2: Attain and maintain Level of Service (LOS)'C' or better on all streets and controlled
intersections.
CT2-1: Where deficiencies exist, mitigate to an LOS 'D' at a minimum and plan improvement
to achieve LOS 'C' (LOS 'E' or 'F' unacceptable = significant adverse impact unless
Statement of Overriding Considerations or CEQA Findings approved). The design and
funding for such planned improvements shall be sufficiently definite to enable construction
within a reasonable period of time."
In addition to the City of Arroyo Grande designated LOS ''C" as the minimum acceptable LOS
standard on City facilities, Caltrans LOS policy for state highways including ramp intersections
will also be implemented. The Caltrans published Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact
Studies (dated December 2002) states the following:
"Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS ''C" and LOS
"D" on State highway facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not be always
feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the
appropriate target LOS."
5
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
TABLE 1
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA AND DEFINITION FOR INTERSECTIONS
Level
of Type of
Service Flow
� 3 A .0 0 <tl-ci5 IJ..
�3 B .0 0 ro -ci5 IJ..
�3 C .0 0 ro -U)LL
0) .S a, £ ::0 3 D ro $ oO en -'- C IJ.. 8:: ::::> <(
3 0 u::
E Ql ::0 ro ti
3
F u
IJ..
Dela� Maneuverabilit�
Very slight delay. Progression is Turning movements are
very favorable, with most vehicles easily made, and nearly
arriving during the green phase not all drivers find freedom of
stoeeing at all. oeeration.
Good progression and/or short Vehicle platoons are
cycle lengths. More vehicles stop formed. Many drivers
begin to feel somewhat than for LOS A, causing higher restricted within groups levels of average delay. of vehicles.
Higher delays resulting from fair
progression and/or longer cycle
lengths. Individual cycle failures Back-ups may develop
may begin to appear at this level. behind turning vehicles .
The number of vehicles stopping is Most drivers feel
significant, although many still somewhat restricted
pass through the intersection
without stoeeing.
The influence of congestion
becomes more noticeable. Longer
delays may result from some
combination of unfavorable Maneuverability is
progression, long cycle lengths, or severely limited during
high volume-to-capacity ratios. short periods due to
Many vehicles stop, and the temporary back-ups.
proportion of vehicles not stopping
declines. Individual cycle failures
are noticeable.
Generally considered to be the
limit of acceptable delay. Indicative There are typically long
of poor progression, long cycle queues of vehicles
lengths, and high volume-to-waiting upstream of the
capacity ratios. Individual cycle intersection.
failures are freguent occurrences.
Generally considered lo be Jammed conditions.
unacceptable to most drivers. Back-ups from other
Often occurs with over saturation. locations restrict or
May also occur at high volume-to-prevent movement.
capacity ratios. There are many Volumes may vary
individual cycle failures. Poor widely, depending
progression and long cycle lengths principally on the
may also be major contributing downstream back-up
factors. conditions.
Reference: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual
Dela� in Seconds
Signalized/ Unsignalized Roundabout
< 10.0 < 10.0
>10.0 >10.0
and and
< 20.0 < 15.0
>20.0 >15.0
and and
< 35.0 <25.0
>35.0 >25.0
and and
< 55.0 < 35.0
>55.0 >35.0
and and
< 80.0 < 50.0
>80.0 >50.0
6
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
Consistent with Caltrans policies and City policies, LOS "C" has been taken as the general
threshold for acceptable operations at study intersections and roadway segments maintained by
the City, and the transition between LOS "Cµ and LOS "D" for acceptable operations at study
intersections and roadways maintained by the State.
Determination of Project Impacts
The ramp closure is considered to have a significant impact if an intersection which currently
operates at an acceptable LOS is projected to function at unacceptable LOS. Should LOS "D" or
"E" conditions exist under the "Before Closure" scenario, additional delay of more than 7.5
seconds for signalized intersections in the "During Closure" scenario is considered a significant
impact. If LOS "F" conditions exist under the "Before Closure" scenario, any additional delay of
5.0 seconds or more for signalized intersections in the "Dur1ng Closure" scenario is considered
a significant impact. For unsignalized intersections, the impact is considered significant if a
delay of more than 5.0 seconds is introduced at an intersection currently operating at an
unacceptable condition under the "Before Closure" scenario.
Before Closure Condition Analysis
Existing Intersection Level Of Service
The Before Closure condition analysis investigates traffic operation in the study area while the
Brisco Road northbound ramps are in operation. Figure 3 shows the existing (before closure)
turning movement volumes at the study intersections for the AM, Mid-Day, and PM peak hours.
Using the lane geometrics and traffic volumes, the operational levels of the intersections are
quantified. Table 2 summarizes peak hour LOS and average delay at all study locations prior to
closure of the ramps.
7
1
LEGEND:
xx
(XX)
!XXl
L118(1os)!12J -41(39)1461 r 1♦(22>1281
AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
MID-DAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
•.._ 12(19)1271 1 -166(369)13451 a 69(167)11791 c»
t ( �li
20(79)[841 142(215)12921-►
Brisco Road US 101 Ram s Closure Traffic Anal sis
Existing Conditions Peak
'130/2016 ,.09 p� \\10 l.ZS0 :6\00MMON\PRJ\l0ol\TW67\l1067rG001 o��
Hour Traffic
58(105)11321 ◄-168(276)1276 1
Volumes
◄-124(197)11531 138(138)1991
/
8
141(148)11421 ◄ 0(1)111 r 142(111)11291
") i
.. J
! L ♦3(31)1201 "' 7. -100(188}j154j _.,
181(127)1771 76(170)12051-►
LO(O)IOI O(0)l0I ,r-O(0)I0I
Fi ure No. 3
,/Ob No 15-l�7$--}f,/ 1067
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
TABLE 2
BEFORE CLOSURE CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LOS
AM Peak Hour Mid-Day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Control Target Delay Delay Delay
No. Intersection Type LOS (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS
1 El Camino Real & Oak Signal C 18.4 B 21.5 C 22.2 C Park Blvd
2 West Branch St/101 NB S1gnal CID 11.2 B 13.6 B 13.3 B Ramp & Oak Park Blvd
3 West Branch St & 101 NB Signal CID 18.4 B 22.1 C 16.6 B Ramps/Camino Mercado
4 West Branch St & Town Signal C 5.3 A 8.0 A 8.5 A Center Drive
5 West Branch St & Rancho Signal C 6.3 A 9.6 A 11.1 B Parkway
6 El Camino Real & Brisco Si.9nal C 41.3 D 37.2 D 44.5 D Rd
7 West Branch Street & Signal C 11.2 B 13.8 B 13.8 B Brisco Rd
8 101 NB Ramps & Brisco Signal CID 27.5 C 27.5 C 28.3 C Rd
9 West Branch Street & TWSC C 12.8 B 12.9 B 11.3 B Rodeo Drive
10 101 SB & East Grand Ave Signal CID 14.3 B 19.2 B 19.9 B
11 101 NB & East Grand Ave Signal CID 23.0 C 14.0 B 13.4 B
12 East Grand Ave & West TWSC C 59.7 F 497.8 1 F 138.1 F Branch St
13 Traffic Way/Wesley St & Signal C 25.2 C 28.2 C 22.3 C West Branch St
14 Traffic Way & Fair Oaks AWSC C 30.8 D 18.0 C 27.1 D Ave
1 Values reported for later comparison purposes only; intersection is considered in Overflow with more than 300
seconds of delay per vehicle on average
As can be seen in Table 2, three intersections currently operate at unacceptable levels of
service. The deficient intersections are East Grand Avenue & West Branch Street, El Camino
Real & Brisco Road, and Traffic Way & Fair Oaks Avenue.
During Closure Condition Analysis
The During Closure condition analysis evaluates traffic operations within the study area with the
Brisco Road northbound US 101 ramps closed.
9
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
Trip redistribution
The redistribution of trips resulting from the closure of the ramps Figure 4 shows the during
closure volumes at the study intersections for the AM, Mid-Day, and PM peak hours. Using the
traffic counts taken on the US 101 northbound ramps, the following tables summarizes the shift
in traffic from the closure, with Table 3 comparing intersection volumes and northbound ramp
volumes compared in Table 4.
TABLE 3
INTERSECTIONS VOLUME COMPARISON
AM Peak Hour l\'UD Peak Hour PM Pc11k Hour ConlrOI FA.isling I Clo.-ure Volume Wstlng Ctosu�e Volume Existing Closure Volume # In tcrsecllon Type 1.2 Volume I Volume Change Volume Volume Change Volume Volume Change L el Camino Real & Oak Park Signal 1,956 2095 139 2517 2628 111 2826 2862 36 2 W Branch/NB Ramp & Oak Park Blvd Signal 2.195 2368 l7J 2672 2837 165 2832 2863 31 3 W Branch St/US 101 °NB Ramps/Camino Mercado Sigpal 925 1226 301 1455 1689 234 1511 1712 201 4 W Brancb & Towo Center Dr Signa.l 472 721 249 925 1184 259 1063 1144 81 _ W Branch St & Rancho Signal 651 882 231 1404 1502 98 1414 1472 58 .) Parkway (; El Camino Re.al & Brisco Rd Signal 1,479 1;1,47 -2]2 16�2 1582 -1 O() 1703 1557 -1467 W Branch SI & Brisco Rd Signal 91:l 1036 124 1455 1514 59 131i6 13\!7 21 8 US IOI NB Ramps & Brisco Rd Signal 1,261 NIA 1413 NIA 1430 NIA 9 W Branch St & Rodeo Dr TWSC 615 597 .] 8 730 796 66 574 542 -32 10 US 101 SB Ramps & !".Grand Si1:71al Ave 1,835 1912 77 2042 2079 37 1923 1972 49 11 US IOI NB Ramps & EGrand Signul 1.812 2147 335 2220 2264 44 1998 2136 138 Ave 12 E Grand Ave & W Branch St TWSC 1.899 1�56 -43 2223 2162 -61 1931 1951 20 13 Traffic Way/Wesley St/W Sigpal 1,9()0 1884 -106 2288 2206 -R2 2031 2011 -20Branch St 14 Traffic Way & Fair Oaks Ave AWSC 1,413 1437 24 1342 1451 109 1652 1569 -83TABLE 4
NORTHBOUND US 101 RAMPS VOLUME COMPARISON
Northbound Ramp Location
Oak Park Blvd On-Ramp
Ca1uino Mercado On-Ramp
Camino Mercado Off Ramp
Brisco Rd On-Ramp
Brisco Rd Off-Ramp
E Grand Ave On-Ramp
EGrand Ave Off-Ramp
Traffic Way Off-Ramp
Existing
Ramp
Volume
615
109
339
466
293
627
270
370
AM Peak Hour
Closure Diff. Ramp
Volume
713 98
305 196
457 118
0 -466
0 -293
620 -7
364 94
390 20
Mid-Day Peak
% Oiff. Existing Closure DifT.
Ramp Ramp
Volume Volume
16% 518 566 48
180% 182 350 168
35% 392 397 5
-100%278 0 -278
-100%272 0 -272
-1%537 566 29
35% 243 253 JO
5% 220 250 30
PM Peak Hour
% Diff. Existing Closure Oiff. % Diff.
Ramp Ramp
Volume Volume
9% 465 545 80 17%
92% 218 340 122 56%
1% 295 440 145 49%
-100%310 0 -310 -100%
-100%288 0 -288 -100%
5%494 586 92 19%
4%237 344 107 45%
14%370 380 LO 3%
10
1
LEGEND:
xx
(XX)
!XXl
AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
MID-DAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
.,_ 19(18)131} 1 -198(409){353! a 270(326)!318} .,
ti � 'ii
Brisco Road US 101 Ram s Closure Traffic Anal sis
Ramp Closure Conditions Peak
'130/2016 'oa PM \\10 l.lSO :6\00MMON\PRJ\lOol\TW67\l1067rG001 o��
Hour Traffic
L 106(258)12121 � -«J( 431 )14 30} ------+------6
Volumes
86(167)1116 1-►
� 168(J28)t4001 � J �
::=: �lo i � Branch Street
L 119(162)(1431
◄-902(941)!8961
.,--11(7)118!
it i
/
N/A
◄ N/A
.,-NIA
ams
L4(20J{1J! ◄-498( 443)1509} t:!
.,--9sc1o)l55!
es
L 75(60)124) ., ◄-133(211)!1841 _.,
LO(O)IOI O(O)lOI -;--O(O)!OI
471(469)(4451_, ·1 t i
O(OJIOI-► 144(156)12141 7
Fi ure No. 4
,/Ob No 1�-1�7$---}f,/ 1067
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
Roadway Segments ADT Trip Redistribution
The redistribution of average daily trips within the study roadway segments resulting from the
closure of the ramps is shown on Figure 5. The table on Figure 5 presents the difference in
ADT between the Before Closure condition and the During Closure condition, also expressed as
a percentage. ADT was determined by averaging the daily traffic measured on the Tuesday,
Wednesday and Thursday, in both directions, regardless of vehicle classification.
The greatest change is shown to be an increase of 70.5% on the northbound US 101 on-ramp
from Camino Mercado (Segment 14), and an Increase of 56.7% on E. Grand Avenue between
the US 101 northbound ramps and W. Branch Street (Segment 5). Other notable changes
occurred on Segment 4 (19% increase in ADT on the 101 northbound offramp to E. Grand
Ave.), Segment 15 (34% increase on the 101 northbound offramp to Camino Mercado),
Segment 16 (26% increase on W. Branch Street east of Camino Mercado), and Segment 19 (a
17% decrease on Brisco Road between El Camino Real and the 101 northbound ramps).
The roadway segment traffic count data is provided in Attachment D.
12
Brisco Road US 101 Ram s Closure Traffic Anal sis
Roadway Segment Volumes
./1612010 4 !.a PM \\ICl.9 150 !I\CQl,IMON\P�J\�067\T2067\T2067TGOQ1 �W�
ROADWAY SEGMENT
1.EAST GRAND AVENUE WEST OF US 101 SB RAMPS
2.EAST GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN US 101 SB AND NB RAMPS
3.US 101 NB ON RAMP FROM EAST GRAND AVENUE
4.US 101 NB OFF RAMP TO EAST GRAND AVENUE
5.E. GRAND AVE BETWEEN US 101 NB RAMPS AND W. BRANCH ST
6.WEST BRANCH STREET NORTH OF EAST GRAND AVENUE
7. EAST BRANCH STREET EAST OF WEST BRANCH STREET
8.FAIR OAKS AVENUE WEST OF TRAFFIC WAY
9.TRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF EAST CHERRY AVE
10.US 101 NB OFF-RAMP TO TRAFFIC WAY
11.OAK PARK BOULEVARD SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL
12.US 101 NB ON-RAMP FROM OAK PARK BOULEVARD
13. WEST BRANCH STREET EAST OF OAK PARK BOULEVARD
14.US 101 NB ON-RAMP FROM CAMINO MERCADO
15.US 101 NB OFF-RAMP TO CAMINO MERCADO
16.WEST BRANCH STREET EAST OF CAMINO MERCADO
17.WEST BRANCH STREET WEST OF BRISCO ROAD
18.EL CAMINO REAL WEST OF BRISCO ROAD
19.BRISCO ROAD SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL
20.BRISCO ROAD BETWEEN EL CAMINO REAL AND US 101 NB RAMPS
21.EL CAMINO REAL BETWEEN BRISCO ROAD AND HALCYON ROAD
22.WEST BRANCH STREET WEST OF RODEO DRIVE
23. HALCYON ROAD SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL
24.US 101 NB OFF-RAMP TO BRISCO ROAD (PRE-CLOSURE ONLY)
25.US 101 NB ON-RAMP FROM BRISCO ROAD PRE-CLOSURE ONLY
ADT (T-Th)
Pre-Closure
15720
16410
6290
3160
10860
3060
15400
9810
7950
4010 *
7030
12120
2270
3740
11890
12450
4480
7040
5470
10410
3660
9090
3150
3990
/
During Closure
17640
18680
6320
3760
17020
3480
15220
9630
8590
4030
17780
7650
13800
3870
5010
15030
13290
4830
5820
5340
9930
4060
8660
0
0
DIFFERENCE
ADT %
1920 2270 30 600 6160 420
(180)
(180) 640 20 *
620 1680 1600
1270 14
840 350
(1220)
130
(480) 400
(430)
(3150)
3990
12.2 13.8 0.5
19.0
56.7 1
(1.2) (1.8) 8.1 0.5 *
8.8 13.9 70.5
34.0 26.4
6.7 7.8
(17.3)
2.4
( 4.6) 10.9
( 4.7)
(100)
100
*Dato not availabledue to damaged counter
Fi ure No. 5
Jot, No 1�-127�}6/ 1067
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
During Closure Intersection Level Of Service
Using the existing lane geometrics and intersection control with traffic volumes measured in the
"during closure" condition, the level of service of the study intersections are calculated. Table 5
summarizes the peak hour LOS at all the study locations during the ramp closure. As can be
seen, the intersections of E. Grand Avenue & W. Branch Street, El Camino Real & Brisco Road,
and Traffic Way & Fair Oaks Avenue continue to perform below the target LOS after the Brisco
ramps have been closed. The intersection of W. Branch Street/US 101 NB ramps/Camino
Mercado is shown to operate below acceptable LOS in the PM peak hour. The remaining
intersections are calculated to perform at target LOS or better.
TABLE 5
DURING CLOSURE CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LOS
AM Peak Hour Mid-Day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Control Target Delay Delay Delay
No. Intersection Type LOS (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS
El Camino Real & Oak Signal C 18.7 B 22.4 C 22.1 C Park Blvd
West Branch St/101 NB Ramp & Oak Park Signal CID 13.2 B 14.6 B 13.8 B Blvd
West Branch St & 101
NB Ramps/Camino Signal CID 34.9 C 30.5 C 47.2 D
Mercado
4 West Branch St & Signal C 5.0 A 8.2 A 8.1 A Town Center Drive
5 West Branch St &Signal C 7.0 A 10.9 B 10.9 B Rancho Parkway
6 El Camino Real & Signal C 39.3 D 43.6 D 43.4 D Brisco Rd
7 West Branch Street &Signal C 18.9 B 18.5 B 18.4 B Brisco Rd
8 101 NB Ramps &CID Brisco Rd
9 West Branch Street &TWSC C 11.7 B 15.9 B 11.1 B Rodeo Drive
10 101 SB & East Grand Sfgnal CID 12.3 B 20.5 C 16.0 B Ave
11 101 NB & East Grand Signal CID 27.8 C 16.2 B 20.7 C Ave
12 East Grand Ave &TWSC C 242.0 F 270.0 F 97.6 F West Branch St
13 Traffic Way/Wesley St Signal C 22.4 C 30.0 C 27.1 C & West Branch St
14 Traffic Way & Fair AWSC C 31.9 D 22.9 C 27.1 D Oaks Ave
14
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
Determination of Closure Impacts -Existing Volumes
With the effects of the ramp. closure on current traffic volumes quantified in the analysis above,
a comparison can be made and is provided in the following tables summarizing the change in
average delay and LOS at each intersection for the AM (Table 6), Mid-Day (Table 7) and PM
(Table 8) peak hours. As can be seen in the following tables, the closure of the ramps and the
resulting redistribution of existing trips is shown to have increased the delays some intersections
and decreased delay at others, but the only intersections which are calculated to experience a
significant impact as defined by City and Caltrans policy is Intersection 12 in the AM peak hour
and Intersection 3 in the PM peak hour.
TABLE 6
AM PEAK HOUR EXISTING VOLUMES RAMPS CLOSURE DELAY IMPACT SUMMARY
Change In
# During During Delay due Existing Existing Closure Closure to Closure Intersection Delay (sec) LOS Delay(sec) LOS (sec) Impact?
1 El Camino Real & 18.4 B Oak Park Boulevard 18,7 B 0.3 No
2 West Branen sv, 01
NB Ramp/Oak Park 11.2 B 13.2 B 2,0 No
3 W Branch SU101 NB 18.4 B Ramps/Camino Mere 34.9 C 16.5 No
4 West Branch St & 5.3 A Town Center Drive 5.0 A -0:3 No
5 West Branch St & 6.3 A Rancho Parkway 7.0 A 0.7 No
6 El Camino Real & 41.3 D 39.3 D -2.0 No Brisco Road
7 West Branch Street 11.2 B & Brisco Road 18.9 B -19.8 No
8 101 NB Ram13s & 27.5 C Brisco Road
---n/a
9 West Branch Street 12.8 B & Rodeo Drive 11.7 B -1.1' No
10 101 SB & East Grand 14.3 B 12,3 B -2.0 No Avenue
11 101 NB & East 23.0 C Grand Avenue 27.8 C 4.8 No
12 East Grand Avenue 59.7 F & West Branch 242.0 F 182.3 Yes
13 Traffic Way/Wesley 25.2 C StreeUWest Branch 22A C -2.8 No
14 Traffic Way & Fair 30.8 D Oaks Avenue 31.9 D 1.1 No
As would be expected from closure of the ramps and elimination of the signal closely spaced to
the intersection of Brisco Road and W. Branch Street, the traffic operations along Brisco Road
15
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
from El Camino Real to W. Branch Street are generally improved, although the intersection of
Brisco Road and El Camino Real is shown to continue to operate at unacceptable LOS D.
TABLE 7
MID-DAY PEAK HOUR EXISTING VOLUMES RAMPS CLOSURE DELAY IMPACT SUMMARY
Chan,g&in
# DL1rl119 During OelaydLte
Exi&Ung Existing Closure Closure to Closure
lntersec:tlon Delay (sec} LOS Delay (sec) LOS (sec) Impact?
1 El Camino Real & 21.5 C 22,4 C 0.9 No Oak Park Boulevard
2 West Branch St/101 13.6 B 14.6 B i.0 No NB Rarnp/Oak Park
3 W Branch St/101 NB 22.1 C 30.5 C 8.4 No Ramps/Camino Mere
4 West Branch St & 8.0 A Town Genter Drive 8.2 A 0.2 No
5 West Branch St & 9.6 A Rancho Parkway 10.9 B 1.3 No
6 El Camino Real & 37.2 D Brisco Road 43.8 D 6.6 No
7 West Branch Street 13.8 B 18.5 B -22.8 No & Brisco Road
8 101 NB Ramps & 27.5 C ---nla Brisco Road
9 West Branch Street 12.9 B 15.9 C 3.0 No & Rodeo Drive
10 101 SB & East Grand 19.2 B 20.5 C 1.3 No Avenue
11 101 NB & East 14.0 B 16.2 B 2.2 No Grand Avenue
12 East Grand Avenue 497.8 F & West Branch 500.0 F 22 No
13 Traffic Way/Wesley 28.2 C' Street/West Branch 30.0 C 1.13" No
14 Traffic Way & Fair 18.0 C Oaks Avenue 22,9 C 4.9 No
lh the Mid-Day peak hour, the intersection of Brisco Road and El Camino Real, currently
operating at unacceptable LOS D, is calculated to experience an increase in delay of 6.6
seconds. As a signalized intersection currently operating at unacceptable levels, the increase of
less than 7 .5 seconds is not considered a significant impact.
16
'
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
TABLE 8
PM PEAK HOUR EXISTING VOLUMES RAMPS CLOSURE DELAY IMPACT SUMMARY
Change in
ti During During Delay due
Existing Existing Closure Closure to Closura
Intersection Dela" tsecl LOS Defa" tsec) LOS tsec) lmoact?
1 El Camino Real & 22.2 C 22.1 C -0.1 No Oak Park Boulevard
2 West Branch St/101 13.3 B 13.8 B 0.5 No NB Ramp/Oak Park
3 W Branch St/101 16.6 B NB Ramps/Camino 47,2 D 30.6 Yes
4 West Btanch St & 8.5 A Town Center Drive 8.1 A -0.4 No
5 West Branch St & 11.1 B Rancho Parkway 10.9 B -0.2 No
6 El Camino Real & 44.5 D Brisco Road 43.4 D -1.1 No
7 West Branch Street 13.8 B 18.4 B -23.7 No & Brisco Road
8 101 NB Ramps & 28.3 C Brisco Road
---n/a
9 West Branch Street 11.3 B 11.1 B -0.2 No & Rodeo Drive
10 101 SB & East Grand 19.9 B Avenue 16.0 B -3.9 No
11 101 NB & East 13.4 B Grand Avenue 20.7 C 7.3 No
12 East Grand Avenu& 138.1 F & West Braflch 97.6 F -40.5 No
13 Traffic Way/Wesley 22.3 C Street/West Branch 27.1 C 4.8 No
14 Traffic Way & Fair 27.1 D Oaks Avenue 27.1 D 0.0 No
As can be seen in Tables 6, 7 and 8, and using the impact significance criteria outlined earlier in
this memorandum, the closure of the Brisco ramps results in a significant impact to the W.
Branch Street/101 NB ramps/Camino Mercado intersection in the PM peak hour and to the E.
Grand Avenue & W. Branch Street intersection during the AM peak period.
Delay increases occur at the intersection of US 101 NB & E. Grand Ave, which experiences
volume increases throughout the day due to the closure. The intersection operates at or above
the target LOS and therefore the Brisco ramps closure does not cause a significant impact with
existing traffic volumes.
The intersection of W. Branch S1reet & Town Center Drive has an increased number of vehicles
but sees reduced delay. Larger numbers of vehicles travelled through the intersection on West
Branch Street to get to the NB ramps at Camino Mercado. Fewer vehicles turned left from Town
17
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
Center Drive causing fewer interruptions to West Branch Street through traffic and reducing
delay.
The intersection of Brisco Road and El Camino Real shows decrease in overall traffic volume
but continues to operate at LOS D in the peak hours, and during Mid-Day the delay is shown to
increase by 6.6 seconds. With the closure, the movement pattern through the intersection has
changed, with a greater number of through movements on El Camino Real and a decrease in
the number of vehicles making protected right turns from westbound El Camino Real to
northbound Brisco Road.
The delay at the intersection of W. Branch Street & Brisco Road (during closure) is compared
against the total delay at the intersections of W. Branch Street/101 NB ramps/Brisco Rd (before
closure) due to the short distance between the two intersections and lack of storage length
functioning as one intersection. In the Synchro model, the delay is calculated individually for
each of two intersections in the Before Closure condition. After the closure, all of the delay
occurs at the intersection of W. Branch Street & Brisco Road. The combined delay from the two
intersections in the before condition was used to compare and shows significant reductions in
delay occurring with the NB 101 Brisco ramps closed.
Forecast Year 2035 Traffic Volumes
The City of Arroyo Grande Citywide traffic model (last comprehensively updated in 2012) and
the SLOCOG regional travel demand model were utilized to develop Year 2035 forecast traffic
volumes for this analysis. Buildout of the City's General Plan land uses (remaining undeveloped
and underdeveloped parcels within the City and its sphere of influence), produced an
estimated 20-year growth rate of about 18% in the project study area. Given that the study area
also serves regional traffic in addition to local traffic, the SLOCOG regional model was also
reviewed to compare with the City's growth projection. The regional model forecasts a 23%
growth over the next twenty years. In order to provide a reasonably conservative analysis that is
consistent with the SLOCOG regional model, a 23% growth rate was utilized to develop 20-year
volume projections for this study.
Year 2035 "No Clos ure" Condition Analysis
The traffic counts taken prior to the closure of the ramps are adjusted for the anticipated 23%
growth rate to Year 2035 conditions. The Year 2035 "No Closure'' condition analysis
investigates traffic operation within the study area with the ramps remaining In service. Figure 6
presents the forecasted volumes at the study intersections for the AM, Mid-Day, and PM peak
hours. Using the lane geometrics and traffic volumes, the operational levels of the intersections
are determined and summarized in Table 9.
18
LEGEND:
xx
(XX)
!XXl
L 146(1JJJ!90l ◄-51(48)1571 16(28)13 5!
AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
MID-DAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Brisco Road US 101 Ram s Closure Traffic Anal sis
Year 2035 Forecast
�/16/2010 4 57 o� \\!(lg 150 ll\tOM..,Otl\PRJ\�OISl\12067\l2067TC001 �we,
"No Closure" Peak Hour
L 11s(453)l4ooJ � ◄-U5(373)!336] ------+------6
Traffic Volumes
7 8
i i
/
-....i� N ,n .:!.-aS 174(197){194! :;; ;l ..J � ◄ o(2)12!
P 187(137)[160!
") •I
-:;:--;-�� ��"' -N '° i==:'O
101 ND ;;;am s
I L 53(39)1251 � t -123(246)1191} •
231(160)1951 96(216)!2531-►
es
Lo(O)IO! o(0)I0! ,r-O(0)!0I
Fi ure No. 6
,/Ob No 15-1�7$--}f,/ 1067
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
TABLE 9
FORECAST YEAR 2035 "NO CLOSURE" CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LOS
AM Peak Hour Mid-Day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Control Target Delay Delay Delay
No. Intersection Type LOS (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS
1 El Camino Real & Oak Signal C 19.0 B 23.2 C 25.7 C Park Blvd
West Branch SV101
2 NB Ramp & Oak Park Signal CID 15.0 B 18.9 B 21.3 C
Blvd
West Branch St & 101
3 NB Ramps/Carnine Signal CID 20.5 C 34.4 C 23,8 C
Mercado
4 West Branch St & Sfgnal C 5.6 A 9.1 A 9.9 A Town Center Drive
5 West Branch St & Signal C 6.7 A 12.1 B 14.1 B Rancho Parkway
6 El Camino Real & Signal C 46.3 D 73.8 E 110.1 F Brisco Rd
7 West Branch Street & Signal C 13.5 B 17.7 8 16.0 B Brisco Rd
8 101 NB Ramps & Signal CID 29.5 C 34.4 C 35.3 D Brisco Rd
9 West Branch Street & TWSC C 14.9 B 16.2 C 12.2 B Rodeo Drive
10 101 SB & East Grand Signal CID 17.0 B 17.8 8 24 .. 1 C Ave
11 101 NB & East Grand Signal CID 29.5 C 17.8 B 15.9 8 Ave
12 East Grand Ave & TWSC C 311.41 F 2651.31 F 808.4 1 F West Branch St
13 Traffic Way/Wesley St Signal C 35.0 C 43.1 D 30.3 C & West Branch St
14 Traffic Way & Fair AWSC C 43.0 E 29.8 D 50.5 F Oaks Ave
1 Values reported for comparison purposes only; intersection is considered in Overflow with more than 300 seconds
of delay per vehicle on average
In forecast future conditions the intersections of E. Grand Avenue/W. Branch Street, El Camino
Real/Brisco Road, and Traffic Way/Fair Oaks Avenue are projected to operate at unacceptable
LOS in each peak hour. The intersection of Traffic Way/Wesley Street/W. Branch Street is also
projected to operate at unacceptable LOS during the Mid-Day Peak Hour. E. Grand Avenue/W.
Branch Street experiences overflow conditions in each peak hour.
20
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
Forecast Year 2035 "With Closure'' Condition Analysis
The Forecast "With Closure" condition analysis investigates traffic operation at all study
intersections with the Brisco ramps closed in the forecast year 2035. Figure 7 presents the
forecasted turning movement volumes at the study intersections for the AM, Mid-Day, and PM
peak hours. Using the lane geometrics and traffic volumes, the operational levels of the
intersections are summarized in Table 10.
TABLE10
FORECAST YEAR 2035 "WITH CLOSURE" CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LOS
AM Peak Hour Mid-Day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Control Target Delay Delay Delay
No. Intersection Type LOS (sec/veh) LOS (sec/ve.h) LOS (sec/veh) LOS
El Camino Real & Oak Signal C 22.1 C 23.7 C 25.0 C Park Blvd
West Branch SU101
NB Ramp & Oak Park Sfgnal CID 26.5 C 21.2 C 23.3
Blvd
West Branch St & 101
NB Ramps/Camino Signal CID 38.3 D 33.5 C 47.7 D
Mercado
4 West Branch St & Signal C 5.3 A 9.5 A 9.4 A Town Center Drive
5 West Branch St & Signal C 7.6 A 13.7 B 13.8 B Rancho Parkway
6 El Camino Real & Signal C 43.4 D 80.1 F 79.3 E Brisco Rd
7 West Branch Street & Signal C 19.4 B 19.6 B 19.2 B Brisco Rd
8 101 NB Ramps & Signal CID NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA Brisco Rd
9 West Branch Street & TWSC C 13.5 B 23.0 C 12.5 B Rodeo Drive
10 101 SB & East Grand Signal CID 14.3 B 25.6 C 19.1 B Ave
11 101 NB & East Grand Signal CID 40.7 D 21.4 C 27,0 C Ave
12 East Grand Ave & TWSC C 991.9 1 F 1862.9 1 F 679.0 1 F West Branch St
13 Traffic Way/Wesley St Signal C 29.4 C 54.8 D 39.2 D & West Branch St
14 Traffic Way & Fair AWSC C 47.7 E 45.7 E 51.9 F Oaks Ave
1 Values reported for later comparison purposes only; intersection is considered in Overflow with more than 300
seconds of delay per vehicle on average
21
LEGEND:
xx
(XX) !XXl
L 240(1s5J!114! -29(44){32! 15(29)1371
m
L J83(395)l344l -58(116)!1011 r 264(461)15221
ra
AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
MID-DAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
.,_ 24(2J)IJ9J l -244(504){435} r 333(401)13921
ii � li
Brisco Road US 101 Ram s Closure Traffic Anal sis
Year 2035 Forecast
�/16/2011; 4 57 o� \\l(lg 150 ll\tOM..,Otl\PRJ\�OISl\12067\120671(;001 �we,
"During Closure" Peak
L 133(342)(3351 t:1 ◄-553(564)!529] ;l a -------t------
Hour Volumes
Branch Street
123{154)i1J0j J 719{913)!761}-0( 4)15! """7'
L 147(200)1184! ◄-1174(1216)11189 -;--14(9)!25]
it i
/
N/A ◄ N/A
rN/A
ams
9) � � "/;:l' It_ 93(74)!J0J � l -1s1(216)12J•1 _;,
157(148)193 ! 94(228)116 01-►
LO(O)IOI O(0)I0I -;--O(0)I0I
Fi ure No. 7
,/Ob No 15-1�7$--Jf,/ 1067
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
Determination of Closure Impacts -Forecast Volumes
With the effects of the ramp closure on forecast traffic volumes quantified in the analysis above,
a comparison can be made and is provided in the. following tables summarizing the change in
average delay and LOS at each intersection for the AM (Table 11 ), Mid-Day (Table 12) and PM
(Table 13) peak hours. As can be seen, the closure of the ramps is calculated to result in
significant impacts to Intersections 3, 6, 12, 13 and 14 as defined by City policy.
TABLE 11
YEAR 2035 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES RAMPS CLOSURE DELAY IMPACT SUMMARY
Change In
# During During Delay due
Existing Existing Closure Closure to Closure
Intersection Defav (sec) LOS Delav (sec) LOS (sec) lmoact?
1 El Camino Real & 19.0 B Oak Park Boulevard 22.1 C 3.1 No
2 West Branch St/101 15.0 B NB Ramp/Oal< Park 26.5 C 11.5 No
3 W Branch St/101 20.5 C NB Ramps/Camino 38.3 D 17.8 Yes
4 West Branch .St & 5.6 A Town Center Drive 5.3 A -0.3 No
5 West Branch St & 6.7 A Rancho Parkway 7.6 A 0.9 No
6 El Camino Reaj & 46.3 D 43.4 D -2.9 No Brisco Road
7 West Branch Street 13.5 B & Brisco Road 19.4 B -23.6 No
8 101 NB Ramr:>s & 29.5 Brisco Road C A NIA n/a
9 West Branch Street 14.9 B & Rodeo Ddve 13.5 B -1.4 No
10 101 SB & East Grand
Avenue 17.0 B 14.3 B -2.7 No
11 101 NB & East 29.5 C Grand Avenue 40] D 11.2 No
12 East Grand Avenue 311.4 F & West Branch 991.9 F 680.5 Yes
13 Traffic Way/Wesley 35.0 C Street/West Branch 29.4 C -5.6 No
14 Traffic Way & Fair 43.0 E 47.7 E 4.7 No Oal<s Avenue
In the AM peak hour, all intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS except
Intersections 3, 6, 12 and 14. The closure impact on Intersections 3 and 12 is significant while
the impact on Intersections 6 and 14 is less than 5 seconds of additional delay and therefore not
significant in the AM peak hour.
23
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
TABLE 12
YEAR 2035 MID-DAY PEAK HOUR VOLUMES RAMPS CLOSURE DELAY IMPACT SUMMARY
Change in
ti During During Delay due
Existing Existing Closure Closure to Closure
Intersection Delav lsecl LOS Delav tsecl LOS 1sec) lmoact?
1 El Camino Real & 23.2 C 23.7 C 0.5 No Oak Park Boulevard
2 West Branch St/101 18.1:) B NB Ramp/Oak Park 212 C 2.3 No
3 W Branch St/101 NB 34.4 C 33.5 C -0.9 No Ramps/Camino Mere
4 West Branch St & 9.1 A Town Center Drive 9.5 A 0.4 No
5 West Branch St & 12.1 B Rancho Parkway 13.7 B 1.6 No
6 El Camino Real & 73.8 E Brisco Road 80.1 F 6.3 Yes
7 West Branch Street 17.7 B 19.6 B -32.5 No & Brisco Road
8 101 NB Ramps & 34.4 Brisco Road C A N/A n/a
9 West Branch Street 16.2 C 23.0 C 6.8 No & Rodeo Drive
10 101 $B & East Grand 23.3 C Avenue 25,6 C 2.3 No
11 101 NB & East 17.8 B Grand Avenue 21.4 C 3.6 No
12 East Grand Avenue 2651.3 F 1862.9 F -788.4 No & West Braoch
13 Traffic Way/Wesley 43.1 D Street/West Branch 54.8 D 11.7 Yes
14 Traffic Way & Fair 29.8 0 Oaks Avenue 45.7 E 15.9 Yes
In the Mid-Day peak hour, the intersection of Brisco Road and El Camino Real is projected to
operate at unacceptable LOS E and to experience an increase in delay of 6.3 seconds to LOS
F.The increase in delay and reduction in LOS from E to F is considered a significant impact.
The intersection of Traffic Way/Wesley Street/W. Branch Street is projected to experience an
increase of 11.7 seconds and remain at LOS D, while the delay at the intersection of Traffic
Way/Fair Oaks Avenue is projected to increase by 15.9 seconds and degrade from LOS D to
LOS E. Both are considered significant impacts attributable to the closure of the ramps.
24
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
TABLE 13
YEAR 2035 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES RAMPS CLOSURE DELAY IMPACT SUMMARY
Change in
# During During Delay due
Existing Existing Closure Closure to Closure
Intersection Dela" lsec) LOS Dela" lsec) LOS lsec) lmoact?
1 El Camino Real & 25.7 C 25.0 C -0.7 No Oak Park Boulevard
2 West Branch SU101 21.3 C a3 C 2.0 No NB Ramp/Oak Park
3 W Branch St/101 23.8 C NB Ramps/Camino 47.7 0 23.9 Yes
4 West Stanch St & 9.9 A Town Center Drive 9.4 A -0.5 No
5 West Branch St & 14.1 B 13.8 B -0.3 No Rancho Parkway
6 El Camino Real & 110.1 f Brisco Road 79.3 E -30.8 No
7 West Branch Street 16.0 B & Brisco Road 19.2 B -32.1 No
8 101 NB Ramps & 3-5.3 Brisco Road 0 A N/A n/a
9 West Branch Street 12.2 B 12.5 B .0.3 No & Rodeo Drive
10 101 SB & East Grand 24.1 C Avenue 19J B -5.0 No
11 101 NB & East 15.9 B Grand Avenue 27.0 C 11.1 No
12 East Grand Avenue 808.4 F & West Branch 679.0 F -129.4 No
13 Traffic Way/Wesley 30.3 C Street/West Branch 39.2 0 8.9 Yes
14 Traffic Way & Fair 50.5 F Oaks Avenue SM F 1.4 No
As can be seen in Tables 11, 12 and 13, and using the impact significance criteria outlined
earlier in this memorandum, the closure of the Brisco ramps results in significant impacts to four
intersections (Intersection Nos. 6, 12, 13 and 14) in the forecast Year 2035 condition.
Forecast Year 2035 Alternative 1 Condition Analysis
The Forecast Year 2035 Alternative 1 condition analysis investigates traffic operation at all
study intersections in forecast Year 2035 with mitigation improvements implemented. The
mitigation improvements considered are the Brisco Interchange Modification Project, Design
Alternative 1 which proposes the removal of the Brisco Road northbound on-and off-ramps and
improvements to the adjacent East Grand Avenue/US 101 interchange located to the south and
Camino Mercado/US 101 intersection to the north. Alternative 1 includes the following design
elements which are also depicted on preliminary layout plans provided as Attachment A:
25
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
•Construction of an additional left-turn lane on the northbound off-ramp at the East Grand
Avenue/US 101 northbound ramps intersection and provision of an exclusive right-turn
lane on the westbound approach.
•Relocation of the US 101 southbound on-ramp at East Grand Avenue to opposite the
existing US 101 southbound off-ramp approach, and associated traffic signal phasing
modifications. This will also include installation of a double 54-inch concrete pipe culvert
to carry storm water under the realigned ramp.
•Widening E Grand Avenue, including the E Grand Av(;lnue Overcrossing, through both
ramp intersections to provide standard lane, shoulder and sidewalk widths.
•Improvements to the northbound US 101 on-ramp/Camino Mercado/West Branch Street
intersection. These improvements include widening and restriping the northbound West
Branch Street approach to provide a second northbound left-turn lane to the US 101
northbound on-ramp and modifying the northbound on-ramp to provide dual receiving
lanes that merge to a single lane with a 950+ foot auxiliary lane on northbound US 101.
Provisions for future ramp metering would be provided on the US 101 northbound on�
ramp.
•Closure and removal of US 101 northbound on-and off-ramps at Brisco Road and
removal of the associated traffic signal equipment.
•At the Brisco Road/El Camino Real intersection, restriping to provide for one exclusive
left-turn lane and one shared through-right lane for the southbound Brisco Road
undercrossing approach to El Camino Real. With this improvement, the existing Brisco
Road three-lane undercrossing will be re-striped to accommodate two southbound lanes
and one northbound lane. At the Brisco Road/West Branch Street intersection, one left
turn lane and one shared left-right turn pocket (at least 100 feet long) will be constructed
for the northbound approach. Preliminary operational analysis indicates that the existing
three-lane undercrossing, with the above-noted restriping modifications, will provide
acceptable operating conditions at the intersections with El Camino Real and West
Branch Street.
Year 2035 Alternative 1 Intersection Level Of Service
Using the Year 2035 forecasted volumes at the study intersections for the AM, Mid-Day, and
PM peak hours shown on Figure 6 and the lane geometrics depicted on the Preliminary Exhibit
for Proposed Improvements shown in Attachment A, the operational levels of the intersections
are calculated and summarized in Table 14.
26
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
TABLE 14
YEAR 2035 ALTERNATIVE 1 CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LOS
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Intersection
El Camino Real & Oak
Park Blvd
West Branch Sl/101
NB Ramp & Oak Park
Blvd
West Branch St & 101
NB Ramps/Camino
Mercado
West Branch St &
Town Center Drive
West Branch St &
Rancho Parkway
El Camino Real &
Br1sco Rd
West Branch Street &
Brisco Rd
101 NB Ramps &
Brisco Rd
West Branch Street &
Rodeo Drive
101 SB & East Grand
Ave
101 NB & East Grand
Ave
East Grand Ave &
West Branch St
Traffic Way/Wesley
St & West Branch St
Traffic Way & Fair
Oaks Ave
Control
Type
Signal
Slgnal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
Signal
TWSC
S[gnal
Signal
TWSC
Signal
AWSC
Target
LOS
C
CID
CID
C
C
C
C
C
CID
C/D
C
C
C
AM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec/veh)
24.6
26.5
24.7
5.3
7.6
24.5
11.5
13.5
12.4
14.5
991.91
29.4
47.7
LOS
C
C
C
A
A
C
B
B
B
B
F
C
E
Mid-Day Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(sec/veh)
28.0
21.2
26,9
9.5
13.7
29.1
14.3
23.0
22.5
10.2
1862.91
54.8
45.7
LOS
C
C
C
A
B
C
B
C
C
B
F
D
E
Delay
(sec/veh)
31.8
23.3
34,7
9.4
13.8
33.6
13.4
12.5
14.8
11.5
679.01
39.2
51.9
LOS
C
C
C
A
B
C
B
8
B
B
F
D
F
1 Intersection is considered in Overflow. more than 300 seconds of delay per vehicle on average
The Alternative 1 improvements are projected to significantly reduce delay at several
intersections including W. Branch Street/US 101 NB ramps/Camino Mercado, El Camino Real &
Brisco Road, West Branch Street & Brisco Road, and the US 101 ramps at East Grand Avenue.
Intersections 12, 13 and 14 however are not addressed by Alternative 1 and are projected to
operate at unacceptable LOS, exacerbated by the closure of the northbound ramps at Brisco
Road.
27
Brisco Road US 101 NB Ramps Closure Traffic Analysis February 17, 2016
Conclusion and Recommendations
In the existing volumes condition, the temporary closure of the US 101 Northbound ramps at
Brisco Road has resulted in a significant increase in delay in the AM peak hour at the W. Branch
Street/E. Grand Avenue intersection, currently operating at LOS F. In addition, the closure has
reduced the level of service at the W. Branch Street/US 101 NB ramps/Camino Mercado
intersection from LOS B to LOS D in the PM peak hour. Other than these impacts, the closure
has not caused significant issues to the surrounding road network with existing traffic volumes.
In the forecast Year 2035 scenarios, the effect of closing the ramps was calculated to have
significant impacts on four of the fourteen study intersections. Modeling Alternative 1 under Year
2035 conditions, the improvements are shown to mitigate the impacts to Intersection 3 (W.
Branch Street/US 101 NB ramps/Camino Mercado) and Intersection 6 (Brisco Road and El
Camino Real) but not address the impacts to Intersections 12, 13, and 14.
In order to address the impacts at the three remaining intersections this report recommends
developing additional improvements or alternatives such as roundabout intersection control
along the E. Grand Avenue/E. Branch Street corridor for further analysis.
Attachments: (on file at City Hall)
A.Brisco Road Interchange Modification • Alternative 1 Layouts
B.Synchro Level of Service Reports
C.Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Traffic Volume Data
D.Daily Roadway Segment Traffic Volume Data
28
ATTACHMENT 4
^ S LO COGSAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCONNECTING COMMUNITIESARROYOGRANDE ATASCADERO GROVER BEACHMORRO BAY PASO ROBLES PISMO BEACHSAN LUIS OBISPO SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNT/March 15, 2019Jim Bergman, City ManagerCity of Arroyo Grande300 E. Branch StreetArroyo Grande, CA 93420RE: State Transportation Improvement Program- Regional Improvement Program (STIP-RIP) Funding forthe Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications ProjectDear Mr. BergmanIn December 2011, the SLOCOG Board adopted the 2012 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP),which programmed $5,624,000 in STIP-RIP funding for the construction of the subject project. The CaliforniaTransportation Commission (CTC) adopted the funding recommendations of the 2012 RTIP in March 2012 aspart of the 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program. In December 2013, the SLOCOG Board adoptedthe 2014 RTIP, which increased the STIP-RIP funding for this project by $1,000,000 for a total of $6,624,000; thefunding recommendations of the 2014 RTIP were adopted by the CTC in February 2014 as part of the 2014 STIP.The funding for this project was reaffirmed through subsequent RTIP and STIP cycles in 2016 and 2018.The Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project will relieve congestion and alleviate queuing at theBrisco Road undercrossing and along Grand Avenue, and provide interregional mobility and operationalefficiency between the local road networks in Arroyo Grande and south county unincorporated areas and U.S.Highway 101. The completion of this project is a regional priority.Subject to the condition that a Council approved financing plan identifying this project as fully funded (designand construction) be received by SLOCOG by September 23, 2019, staff will recommend that existing fundinglevels for this project be maintained in the 2020 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The2020 RTIP is anticipated for Board approval in December 2019.If you have any questions about funding for this project or programming timeline, please contact StephenHanamaikai at 805-788-2104./S^icerely,\, )Richard MurpTProgramming DirectorCC: Teresa McClish, Director of Community Development1114 Marsh Street San LuisObispo,CA 93401 | t (805)781-4219 f (805)781-5703 | slocog@slocog.org SLOCOG.ORGATTACHMENT 5
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
On U.S. Highway 101 in the City of Arroyo Grande
San Luis Obispo County, California
District 05-SLO-101 (PM 13.1/14.6)
Project ID 0500000008
Response to Comments on the
Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Environmental Assessment
Prepared by the
City of Arroyo Grande
and
State of California Department of Transportation
The environmental review, consultation, and any other action required in accordance with applicable federal laws
for this project is being, or has been, carried out by Caltrans under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23
USC 327.
February 2019
ATTACHMENT 6
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 3 of 164
Table of Contents:
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Response to Comments ................................................................................................................................ 5
Agency Comment Letters .......................................................................................................................... 5
1. Response to: State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State
Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (Letter Dated May 14, 2018) ................................................... 8
2. Response to: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (Letter Dated May 3, 2018)
.................................................................................................................................................... 14
3. Response to: County of San Luis Obispo Department of Agriculture / Weights & Measures
(Letter Dated May 10, 2018) ...................................................................................................... 17
4. Response to: County of San Luis Obispo Public Libraries (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) ............ 20
5. Response to: County of San Luis Obispo Central Services Department (Letter Dated May 11,
2018) ........................................................................................................................................... 23
6. Response to: County of San Luis Obispo County Library (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) ............. 26
7. Response to: County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works (Letter dated May 11,
2018) ........................................................................................................................................... 29
Organization Comment Letters ............................................................................................................... 31
8. Response to: San Luis Obispo Bicycling Advocates (Letter Dated May 12, 2018) ...................... 35
Public Comment Letters .......................................................................................................................... 37
9. Response to: 222 East Grand Avenue Shell Station (Letter Dated April 26, 2018) .................... 40
10. Response to: Brisco Mill & Lumber (Letter Dated May 8, 2018) ................................................ 42
11. Response to: Investec Real Estate Companies, representing Five Cities Shopping Center (Letter
Dated May 10, 2018) .................................................................................................................. 44
12. Response to: Farm Supply Company (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) ........................................... 46
13. Response to: Mier Bros. Landscape Products (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) .............................. 48
14. Response to: HomeStar Construction (Letter Dated May 12, 2018) .......................................... 50
15. Response to: John and Kari Sinner (Letter Dated April 23, 2018) .............................................. 53
16. Response to: Carie Randolph (Letter Dated April 26, 2018) ...................................................... 56
17. Response to: Gay Spencer (Letter Dated April 26, 2018) ........................................................... 58
18. Response to: Toni (Letter Dated April 26, 2018) ........................................................................ 60
19. Response to: Danny Gresser (Letter Dated May 1, 2018) .......................................................... 62
20. Response to: LeAnn Gresser (Letter Dated May 1, 2018) .......................................................... 64
21. Response to: Megan Rice (Letter Dated May 1, 2018) ............................................................... 67
22. Response to: Stephen J. Russ (Letter Dated May 1, 2018) ......................................................... 70
23. Response to: Jim and Mary Webster (Letter Dated May 2, 2018) ............................................. 75
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 4 of 164
24. Response to: Gary Thies (Letter Dated May 5, 2018) ................................................................. 78
25. Response to: Susan Henslin (Letter Dated May 6, 2018) ........................................................... 83
26. Response to: Franklin Bayliss (Letter Dated May 7, 2018) ......................................................... 87
27. Response to: Laura Kass (Letter Dated May 7, 2018) ................................................................. 89
28. Response to: Mardell and Robert Perez (Letter Dated May 7, 2018) ........................................ 92
29. Response to: Chuck Kass (Letter Dated May 8, 2018) ................................................................ 96
30. Response to: Ronald Nishida (Letter Dated May 8, 2018) ....................................................... 100
31. Response to: Diego Bernal (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) ......................................................... 102
32. Response to: Jim Broz (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) ................................................................ 104
33. Response to: Christiane Dubrulle (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) .............................................. 106
34. Response to: Trudy Jarratt (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) ......................................................... 110
35. Response to: Katie Merlo (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) ........................................................... 112
36. Response to: Will Reichardt (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) ....................................................... 116
37. Response to: Linda L. Smith (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) ....................................................... 118
38. Response to: Jeff Techau (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) ........................................................... 120
39. Response to: Carolyn Bayliss (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) ...................................................... 122
40. Response to: Sam Cotton (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) ........................................................... 125
41. Response to: John and Margie Gayley (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) ....................................... 128
42. Response to: Rod Hatch (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) ............................................................. 135
43. Response to: Andrea Portney (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) .................................................... 137
44. Response to: Jeff Portney (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) .......................................................... 142
45. Response to: Virginia Roof (Letter Dated May 12, 2018) ......................................................... 146
46. Response to: Theresa Schultz (Letter Dated May 12, 2018) .................................................... 151
47. Response to: Sue Stanton (Letter Dated May 12, 2018) .......................................................... 155
48. Response to: Robert and Julia Hess (Letter Dated May 14, 2018) ........................................... 157
49. Response to: Danny Gresser (Letter Dated May 7, 2018) ........................................................ 160
50. Response to: Brad Snook (Letter Dated April 26, 2018) ........................................................... 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 5 of 164
Introduction
The comment letters for the proposed Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Environmental Assessment (EA) are provided
below, with the responses following the individual letters. Comment letters are reproduced in total, and
numerical annotation has been added as appropriate to delineate and reference the responses to those
comments. The City of Arroyo Grande (City) is the lead agency under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the lead agency under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The lead agencies have prepared a consolidated set of
responses to comments received on the IS/MND and EA. The comments will be made part of the
administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
With the exception of the letter from the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, all comment letters are listed chronologically.
Response to Comments
Agency Comment Letters
Commenter Letter Date Letter No.
State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research,
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
April 12, 2018 1
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
Contact: Gary Arcemont, Air Quality Specialist
May 3, 2018 2
County of San Luis Obispo Department of Agriculture / Weights & Measures
Contact: Martin Settevendemie, Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer
May 10, 2018 3
County of San Luis Obispo Public Libraries
Contact: Christopher Barnickel, Director of Libraries
May 10, 2018 4
County of San Luis Obispo Central Services Department
Contact: Philip D’Acri, A.A.E., Real Property Manager
May 11, 2018 5
County of San Luis Obispo County Library
Contact: Chase McMunn, Assistant Director of Libraries
May 11, 2018 6
County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works
Contact: Dave Flynn, P.E., Deputy Director
May 11, 2018 7
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 6 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 7 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 8 of 164
1. Response to: State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (Letter Dated May 14, 2018)
1.1 The City and Caltrans note the State Clearinghouse (SCH) and Planning Unit’s receipt of the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. No state agencies submitted comments to SCH
within the public circulation period.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 9 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 10 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 11 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 12 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 13 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 14 of 164
2. Response to: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (Letter Dated May 3,
2018)
2.1 This is an introductory comment regarding the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control
District’s (APCD) role in the environmental review processes. No further response is required.
2.2 This comment identifies the potential for hydrocarbon contaminated soil to be encountered
during construction and has provided mitigation measures in the event hydrocarbons are
encountered. The potential for hazardous material, including contaminated soils, to be
encountered during construction is discussed in Section VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
of the IS/MND and Section 2.2.5 Hazardous Waste and Materials of the EA. Mitigation measures
identified in the IS/MND (HAZ/mm-3) and EA (HAZ/mm-2) require preparation of a Soil
Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan to ensure contaminated soils excavated during
project construction are handles, stockpiled, and disposed of in accordance with federal, state,
and local regulations. Mitigation Measures HAZ/mm-5 in the IS/MND and HAZ/mm-4 in the EA
require testing of asbestos containing material, lead-based paint, and petroleum hydrocarbons
in built structures prior to demolition or construction.
The APCD is listed in the table of required agency authorizations and permits in the IS/MND
(Table 2) and the EA (Table 1-2). These tables have been revised to reflect the potential need for
an APCD permit in the event hydrocarbon contaminated soil is encountered during construction.
Mitigation Measures HAZ/mm-5 in the IS/MND and HAZ/mm-4 in the EA also been revised to
specifically reference the requirements to be implemented in the event contaminated soil is
discovered.
In addition, temporary construction activities could generate fugitive dust from the operation of
construction equipment. Caltrans Standard Specifications pertaining to dust control and dust
palliative requirement is a required part of all construction contracts and should effectively
reduce and control emission impacts during construction. The provisions for Caltrans Standard
Specifications, “Air Pollution Control” and “Dust Control” require the contractor to comply with
the applicable Air Pollution Control District’s rules, ordinances, and regulations.
2.3 The comment notes APCD permit requirements for construction equipment. The types of
equipment that will be utilized during project construction is not known at this time. The
potential need for APCD construction permits is identified in the table of required agency
authorizations and permits in the IS/MND (Table 2) and the EA (Table 1-2). The City and Caltrans
will obtain any permits required for project construction.
2.4 This comment identifies the need for truck routes to be evaluated to reduce impacts to nearby
sensitive receptors, and if necessary, to evaluate toxic risks if routine truck trips will occur in
close proximity to sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measures in Section XIV. Public Services of the
IS/MND (PS/mm-2) and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
of the EA (TRA/mm-5) require the City to prepare a Construction Timing, Access, and Circulation
Plan which limits the hours of haulage and requires designation of truck routes that avoid
residential areas to the extent possible. These measures have been revised to clarify that
designated truck haul routes shall avoid all sensitive receptors (including schools, parks, day care
centers, nursing homes, and hospitals) to the greatest extent feasible.
Long-term effects of the project would generally be beneficial. Alternative 1 would close the
U.S. Highway 101 northbound on- and off-ramps/Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange, removing
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 15 of 164
truck trips from this location proximate to St. Patrick’s School (a sensitive receptor) and
relocating trips to the adjacent Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado intersections. There is a
hotel adjacent to Camino Mercado, but no other sensitive land uses at these locations.
Alternative 4C would replace the U.S. 101/Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange with a new
interchange at an adjacent location. The new interchange would be slightly farther from St.
Patrick’s School and would improve traffic flows through the project area, decreasing toxic risks.
In addition, temporary construction activities could generate fugitive dust from the operation of
construction equipment. Caltrans Standard Specifications pertaining to dust control and dust
palliative requirement is a required part of all construction contracts and should effectively
reduce and control emission impacts during construction. The provisions for Caltrans Standard
Specifications, “Air Pollution Control” and “Dust Control” require the contractor to comply with
the applicable Air Pollution Control District’s rules, ordinances, and regulations.
2.5 This comment pertains to the prohibition of developmental burning of vegetation. The project
does not propose the developmental burning of vegetation.
2.6 This comment identifies the potential for asbestos containing material to be encountered during
certain demolition activities, which would require project compliance with additional regulatory
requirements, including the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61,
Subpart M – asbestos NESHAP). Mitigation Measures in Section VIII. Hazards and Hazardous
Materials of the IS/MND (HAZ/mm-2) and Section 2.2.5 Hazardous Waste and Materials of the
EA (HAZ/mm-1) require compliance with the asbestos NESHAP, including APCD notification, an
asbestos survey, and applicable removal and disposal requirements. In addition, Caltrans has
Non Standard and Standard Special Provisions for handling, disposal and transportation of
hazardous materials such as asbestos, lead based paint, and petroleum hydrocarbons during
construction that follow Federal, State, and Local regulations.
2.7 This comment recommends implementation of the APCD’s standard dust control measures.
Mitigation Measures in Section III. Air Quality of the IS/MND (AQ/mm-2) include standard dust
(PM10) control measures as described in the APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook to reduce and
minimize dust and airborne particulate matter, consistent with this comment. The project would
not exceed any federal air quality thresholds; therefore, no mitigation is necessary in the EA.
2.8 This comment recommends implementation of the APCD’s standard diesel idling control
measures. Mitigation Measures in Section III. Air Quality of the IS/MND (AQ/mm-1) includes
standard construction phase idling limitations per the APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook,
consistent with this comment. The project would not exceed any federal air quality thresholds;
therefore, no mitigation is necessary in the EA.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 16 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 17 of 164
3. Response to: County of San Luis Obispo Department of Agriculture / Weights &
Measures (Letter Dated May 10, 2018)
3.1 This comment is an introductory comment by the County of San Luis Obispo Department of
Agriculture / Weights & Measures expressing support for Alternative 1 and proposing mitigation
to reduce impacts to the Department of Agriculture’s modular office building at the Arroyo
Grande Library/South County Regional Center. No further response is required.
3.2 This comment is a request to be included in all discussions related to the South County Regional
Center site. While this comment is not directly related to the adequacy of the IS/MND or EA, it
has been noted and included as part of the record. The City and Caltrans will continue to
coordinate with the County Department of Agriculture regarding project-related changes to the
South County Regional Center.
3.3 This comment emphasizes the importance of minimizing impacts to staff and visitor site access
and parking. Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic, Question f of the IS/MND and Sections 2.1.4
Relocations and Real Property Acquisitions and 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and
Bicycle Facilities of the EA discuss and analyze the project’s potential impacts to the South
County Regional Center, the Department of Agriculture’s modular office building, and onsite
parking. Mitigation Measure PS/mm-2 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-5 in the EA require
preparation of a Construction Timing, Access, and Circulation plan prior to the initiation of
construction activities that requires signage, clearly marked detour routes, traffic control, and
other methods for ensuring permanent access to areas north of Brisco Road is preserved. The
City proposes to replace all lost parking spaces within the reconfigured parking lots to the extent
feasible and replace lost parking at the South County Regional Center with a new parking lot at
the same location. Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-5 in Section X. Land Use and
Planning of the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 have been designed to ensure impacts to
site access and parking are reduced to less than significant, and include a requirement that areas
adjacent to disturbed areas shall be kept open for parking and customer use to the greatest
extent feasible during project construction, that the project design provide convenient and/or
improved access to the public transit stops and bicycle paths to the South County Regional
Center, and other measures to ensure visitor parking and use of public facilities at the South
County Regional Center would not be deterred during construction of the project, to the
maximum extent feasible. Specifically, Mitigation Measure LU/mm-5 of the IS/MND and
TRA/mm-3 of the EA require the City to prepare a Parking Plan in consultation with the City of
Arroyo Grande City Engineer and any other affected public or private property owners, including
the County Department of Agriculture.
3.4 This comment is a request for adequate signage during all construction phases. Impacts to
public and private businesses within the project area were analyzed and discussed in Section
XIV. Public Services of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and
Bicycle Facilities in the EA. Both environmental documents identified mitigation to minimize
potentially significant construction-related impacts on public facilities at the South County
Regional Center. Consistent with this comment, Mitigation Measures PS/mm-2 in the IS/MND
and TRA/mm-5 in the EA require a signage plan and other methods, if feasible, for increasing the
visibility of businesses blocked by construction activities and alerting travelers that businesses
adjacent to the project corridor will remain open during construction.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 18 of 164
3.5 This comment requests adequate mitigation for noise, dust and debris during construction.
Section XII. Noise of the IS/MND and Section 2.2.7 Noise of the EA discuss noise related impacts.
Project-related construction activities would result in intermittent noise increases, and the
project would be required to meet Caltrans Standard Noise Control Specifications and the City’s
noise standards. Therefore, construction related noise impacts are considered less than
significant.
Section III. Air Quality in the IS/MND analyzed and discussed potential impacts related to short-
term construction-related air quality and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) effects. Mitigation
Measures AQ/mm-1 and AQ/mm-2 in the IS/MND and EA require standard dust control and
diesel idling control measures, per APCD requirements to minimize and reduce construction
related impacts. In addition, BIO/mm-9 in the IS/MND and BIO/mm-8 in the EA require trash to
be contained, removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly during construction,
consistent with this comment.
3.6 This comment requests that, if Alternative 4C is selected, impacts to Department of Agriculture
operations be mitigated before and during construction, including through the provision of
temporary facilities if necessary. As discussed above in Responses 3.3 and 3.4, potential impacts
to the South County Regional Center were analyzed and discussed in Section XIV. Public Services
of the IS/MND and Sections 2.1.4 Relocations and Real Property Acquisitions and 2.1.6 Traffic
and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities of the EA and Mitigation Measures LU/mm-
2, 3, and 5 of the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, and 3 of the EA minimize potentially significant
impacts on public services at the regional center.
3.7 This comment requests consultation with the Department of Agriculture regarding proposed
building relocation plans and parking reconfiguration. See Response 3.3, above. The City and
Caltrans would continue to consult with the County Department of Agriculture regarding the
proposed relocation and proposed Parking Plan, pursuant to mitigation measure LU/mm-5 in
the IS/MND and TRA/mm-3 in the EA.
3.8 This comment requests an equal to or improved facility upon completion of the project.
Relocation of the modular building is expected to be feasible; therefore, the Department of
Agriculture’s office will be equal to the existing building. In addition, proposed circulation,
bike/pedestrian, and transit improvements under both alternatives would provide improved
access to the site. Parking would be replaced on-site and the new intersection, roadways,
landscaping, and associated improvements would generally improve areas surrounding the
South County Regional Center.
3.9 This comment requests adequate vehicular and customer access to the facility. Refer to
Responses 3.2 through 3.8, above.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 19 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 20 of 164
4. Response to: County of San Luis Obispo Public Libraries (Letter Dated May 10, 2018)
4.1 This comment is an introductory comment by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Libraries
expressing a preference for Alternative 1 and identifying the importance of Brisco Road for
convenient access to the library. No further response is required.
4.2 This comment raises concerns over the loss of parking spaces and requests that replacement
parking be graded and constructed prior to construction to address temporary parking impacts.
Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic, Question f of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA discuss and analyzes the project’s
impacts to parking. Mitigation measures in the IS/MND (LU/mm-5) and the EA (TRA/mm-3)
require the City and Caltrans to coordinate with affected public and private property owners
regarding replacement parking, including County Public Libraries. Implementation of identified
measures would ensure impacts related to the loss of parking would be mitigated to ensure that
all lost parking spaces are reconfigured and replaced. Replacement should be at a 1:1 ratio if
feasible.
4.3 This comment raises a concern over the loss of access for patrons using public transportation.
Mitigation Measures in Section X. Land Use and Planning of the IS/MND (LU/mm-2) and Section
2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities of the EA (TRA/mm-1) require
the City to prepare Non-Motorized / Public Transportation Plan to ensure the project would not
interfere, temporarily or long-term, in any way with any routes, schedules, or operations of the
RTA (Regional Transit Authority) stops at the Arroyo Grande Library.
4.4 This comment is a request for noise mitigation measures to reduce both construction related
and long-term noise impacts due to the proximity and increase in trips under Alternative 4C.
Section XII. Noise of the IS/MND and Section 2.2.7 Noise of the EA discuss noise related impacts
and determined that while intermittent noise increases would occur during construction, the
project would be required to meet Caltrans Standard Noise Control Specifications and the City’s
noise standards; therefore, potential construction-related impacts would be less than
significant. Operational noise was modeled under both alternatives and determined that
projected noise levels would be the same at the library with or without the project. Noise levels
would also be the same under Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C. Relocation of the intersection
under Alternative 4C would result in a marginal increase in exterior noise at the library, but the
change would not be perceptible, and the noise environment would continue to be dominated
by traffic noise along U.S. 101. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected to occur and no
mitigation was determined to be necessary.
4.5 The comment requests adequate signage during and after construction. Mitigation Measures in
Section XIV. Public Services of the IS/MND (PS/mm-2) and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities of the EA (TRA/mm-5) require the City to
prepare a Construction Timing, Access, and Circulation Plan which includes a signage plan and
other methods, if feasible, for increasing the visibility of business blocked by construction
activities and alerting travelers that businesses adjacent to the project corridor will remain open
during construction, consistent with this comment.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 21 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 22 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 23 of 164
5. Response to: County of San Luis Obispo Central Services Department (Letter Dated May
11, 2018)
5.1 This is an introductory comment by the County of San Luis Obispo Central Services Department
expressing a preference for Alternative 1 on behalf of their Client Departments (the Department
of Agriculture/Weights & Measures and County Public Libraries). No further response is
required.
5.2 This comment raises a concern with both short- and long-term noise impacts. Section XII. Noise
of the IS/MND and Section 2.2.7 Noise of the EA discuss noise related impacts and determined
that while intermittent noise increases would occur during construction, the project would be
required to meet Caltrans Standard Noise Control Specifications and the City’s noise standards;
therefore, potential construction-related impacts would be less than significant. Operational
noise was modeled under both alternatives and determined that projected noise levels would
be the same at the library and County property with or without the project. Projected future
noise levels would also be the same under Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C. Relocation of the
intersection under Alternative 4C would result in a marginal increase in noise at the library, but
the change would not be perceptible, and the noise environment would continue to be
dominated by traffic noise along U.S. 101. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected occur
and no mitigation was determined to be necessary.
5.3 This comment raises a concern about interruptions to service at the South County Regional
Center. Mitigation Measures in Section X. Land Use and Planning of the IS/MND (PS/mm-2) and
Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA (TRA/mm-5)
that require the City to prepare a Construction Timing, Access, and Circulation Plan that, among
other things, is required to include measures and methods for preserving access during
construction, signage for increasing visibility and ensuring travelers that adjacent business will
remain open during construction, and clearly marked detour routes. These measures require the
City to provide the plan to owners of adjacent properties, including the County, and allow them
to comment on the plan.
5.4 This comment raises a concern about increased traffic congestion to the County’s property. The
project is a traffic improvement project that would substantially improve traffic levels at all
intersections within the project area. Effects associated with the increase in short-term
construction related traffic would be minimized through implementation of measures identified
in the IS/MND (PS/mm-1 through PS/mm-3) and the EA (TRA/mm-4 through TRA/mm-8),
including coordination with adjacent property owners, including the County, regarding
construction timing, access, and circulation plans. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1
through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure
that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns
incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths
or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving
connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. With
implementation of these measures, potential impacts would be less than significant.
5.5 This comment requests adequate wayfinding signage, lighting, and pedestrian walkways for the
new parking lot and construction of the replacement lot prior to construction to avoid
temporary loss of parking. Refer to Response 4.2, above. In addition, Mitigation Measures in the
IS (LU/mm-5) and the EA (TRA/mm-3) require the City to coordinate with affected local
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 24 of 164
businesses in developing replacement parking, including development of restriping and
landscape design plans for affected properties. With implementation of these measures,
potential impacts would be less than significant.
5.6 This comment requests restoration of impacts to the library main entrance and signage.
Mitigation Measures in the IS/MND (LU/mm-5) and the EA (TRA/mm-3) require the City to
coordinate with affected local businesses in development of restriping and landscape design
plans for affected properties, such as the County library. The City will consult with the County to
ensure changes to the entrance, including signage, are appropriately relocated. As discussed in
Response 5.4, the project would not result in significant adverse effects related to traffic
congestion and sight distance from the new intersection under Alternative 4C would not be
substantially different than existing conditions due to the sloped hillsides and higher elevation
of the County property from this location. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant.
5.7 This comment requests an acceptable replacement facility for the County Department of
Agriculture’s modular office building at the South County Regional Center. Refer to Response
3.8, above.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 25 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 26 of 164
6. Response to: County of San Luis Obispo County Library (Letter Dated May 11, 2018)
6.1 This comment is an introductory comment by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Libraries
expressing a preference for Alternative 1. No further response is required.
6.2 This comment raises concerns over the loss of parking spaces and requests that temporary
parking be provided. Refer to Response 4.2 and Mitigation Measures LU/mm-3 through LU/mm-
5 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-2 and TRA/mm-3 in the EA. Implementation of these measures
would ensure adequate replacement parking is provided onsite and would result in improved
public transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant.
6.3 This comment requests that the RTA bus stop be relocated to an area that is easily accessible
and that library signage be replaced in an area that retains visibility with the changing traffic
flow. Refer to Response 5.6 and 6.2, above. Mitigation Measures in Section X. Land Use and
Planning of the IS/MND (LU/mm-2) and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and
Bicycle Facilities (TRA/mm-1) requires the City to prepare a Non-Motorized / Public
Transportation Plan that includes methods to ensure the project would not interfere,
temporarily or long-term, in any way with any routes, schedules, or operations of the RTA stops
at the Arroyo Grande Library. In addition, mitigation measures LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and
TRA/mm-2 in the EA require the project design provide convenient and/or improved access to
the RTA stops along West Branch Street at the Arroyo Grande Library. With implementation of
these measures, potential impacts would be less than significant.
6.4 This comment requests noise mitigation to reduce potential freeway noise that is brought closer
to the library. Refer to Response 4.4, above. No significant noise increases would occur.
6.5 This comment expresses concerns about continued public access under Alternative 1 and
requests that safe and convenient access be provided to the library in the event the Brisco Road
intersection is closed. Traffic analyses determined that adequate alternative access exists at
adjacent U.S. 101 intersections to accommodate diverted trips under Alternative 1. Although
direct access from U.S. 101 at Brisco Road would no longer be available, access via the Brisco
Road undercrossing would be improved. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 27 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 28 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 29 of 164
7. Response to: County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works (Letter dated May
11, 2018)
7.1 The County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works has identified a County Flood
Control District 3 Lopez water transmission line within the project area that would be impacted
by Alternative 4C, requiring a new replacement. The County requests that all costs associated
with the work be reimbursed or made part of the City’s interchange project. The relocation of
utility lines is addressed in Section XVII Utilities and Service Systems in the IS/MND and Section
2.1.5 Utilities and Emergency Services in the EA. Both environmental documents indicate the
presence of substantial existing utility systems and components within the project area,
including infrastructure for water, sewer, natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications. The
City will work with the County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works regarding any
necessary utility line replacements.
7.2 This comment identifies a potential impact resulting from an increase in existing slope at the
main driveway to the South County Regional Center, which may affect the parking lot by the
building entrance. The driveway slope would be increased from 10% to approximately 12% to
14% and would extend to the end of the existing driveway. The driveway would be
reconstructed at the new profile grade. Mitigation Measures LU/mm-3 through LU/mm-5 in the
IS/MND and TRA/mm-2 and TRA/mm-3 in the EA address parking. In final design there is
potential for minor reconstruction at the library’s circulating roadway although realignment of
the circulating roadway is not anticipated.
7.3 This comment identifies the potential for reduced sight distance when exiting from the main
driveway of the South County Regional Center. Minor changes in sight distance may result from
modification of the existing elevated building pad and vegetation which currently restricts
corner sight distance. Adequate sight distances would be checked and maintained for the design
speeds for all facilities during final design phase.
7.4 This comment identifies the need for accessible parking to be accommodated on the northside
of the parcel, and for landscaping to be installed along the new access and parking areas. The
project proposes replacement parking at the northside of the County parcel, including ADA
accessible parking, as required, and access to Rodeo Street. Mitigation Measures in Section X.
Land Use and Planning of the IS/MND (LU/mm-5) and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA (TRA/mm-3) require the City to
coordinate with the County regarding replacement parking, restriping, and landscape design. In
addition, mitigation measures LU/mm-3 and LU/mm-5 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1 and
TRA/mm-3 in the EA require the City of prepare a circulation and traffic plan to improve
connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian
access ways, to the greatest extent feasible, through the incorporation of crosswalks, sidewalks,
and bike lanes, at a minimum. All new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian
access ways would be ADA-compliant. With implementation of these measures, potential
impacts would be less than significant.
7.5 This comment identifies the need for an ADA accessible path from Branch Street to the South
County Regional Center. All new and replaced parking lots, pathways, and pedestrian facilities
will be designed in accordance with the American with Disabilities Act. See Response 7.4.
Mitigation Measure LU/mm-1 in the IS/MND requires all new public transit facilities, bike paths
or lanes, and pedestrian access ways to be ADA-compliant.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 30 of 164
7.6 This comment points out that Alternative 4C would provide improved area access to the South
County Regional Center, but that the County Department of Public Works would work with
other County departments to determine whether Alternative 4C would provide an overall
benefit to the community given the overall impacts to the County parcel. No further response
needed.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 31 of 164
Organization Comment Letters
Commenter Letter Date Letter No.
San Luis Obispo Bicycling Advocates
Contact: Lea Brooks, SLOBA Steering Committee Member
May 12, 2018 8
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 32 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 33 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 34 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 35 of 164
8. Response to: San Luis Obispo Bicycling Advocates (Letter Dated May 12, 2018)
8.1 This comment provided by San Luis Obispo Bicycling Advocates (SLOBA) raises a concern over
the lack of specific analysis of bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements associated with the
project, and the IS/MND’s and EA’s focus on improving vehicular traffic. The purpose of the
project is to correct exiting operational deficiencies at the northbound U.S. 101 northbound on-
and off-ramps/Brisco Road intersection and nearby intersections by providing congestion relief,
alleviating queuing, and improving the traffic operations of the regional and local street system.
While the project is not intended to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, the potential for
project-related impacts to these facilities have been addressed. Mitigation Measures in the
IS/MND (LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3) and the EA (TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8) incorporate various
measures to improve multimodal connectivity and upgrade facilities for both bicyclists and
pedestrians, including requirements that the City consult with the County Bicycle Advisory
Committee, improve connectivity to bike paths or lanes, and ensure bike and pedestrian
circulation to serve schools and public facilities are made a priority, consistent with policies in
the City’s Circulation Element. With incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to bike
and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.
8.2 This comment raises a concern about why the requirements of the Complete Streets Act of 2008
have not been addressed. As discussed in Response 8.1, above, the IS/MND and EA have
considered alternative modes of transportation in project design and implementation.
Mitigation measures in the IS/MND (LU/mm-2) and in the EA (TRA/mm-1) require the City to
prepare a Non-Motorized / Public Transportation Plan in consultation with the County Bicycle
Advocacy Committee. At a minimum, the plan would include project design that provides for
bicycle interaction with vehicles, methods for ensuring the project would not interfere with
existing or proposed future bicycle paths in the project area, and methods for ensuring bike and
pedestrian circulation to schools and public facilities are made a priority consistent with the
Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan. These Mitigation Measures LU/mm-2 in the
IS/MND and TRA/mm-1 in the EA have been modified to clarify that proposed improvements
shall be implemented in accordance with any applicable requirements of the Complete Streets
Act of 2008.
8.3 This comment asks why the Halcyon Complete Streets Plan is not mentioned in the IS/MND. The
Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan is in the planning process and is not a part of the proposed
project. Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-5 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 3, 7,
and 8 in the EA require the City to evaluate connection and circulation improvements
throughout the project area, including connection with Halcyon Road bike paths and sidewalks.
The IS/MND and EA determined that no significant adverse effects on bicycle facilities would
occur and both build alternatives would have a generally beneficial impact on bicycle facilities in
the project area. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
8.4 This comment summarizes a discussion in the IS/MND regarding interruptions to and conflicts
with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Mitigation measures have been identified in the IS/MND
(LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-5) and the EA (TRA/mm-1, 2 , 3, 7, and 8) to ensure potential impacts
are avoided through project design and implementation.
8.5 This comment expresses support for 8-foot shoulders and 6-foot sidewalks along the Grand
Avenue overcrossing and claim that this improvement should be required. These improvements
are proposed under Alternative 1 and would provide a beneficial impact on bike facilities at this
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 36 of 164
location. Although Alternative 4C would also provide improved bike and pedestrian facilities
within the project area, Alternative 4C does not propose this improvement and there is no
reasonable nexus to require it as a part of the proposed project. Because no significant change
or effect on existing or planned bike facilities would occur, no further analysis is necessary.
8.6 The comment claims that Mitigation Measure LU/mm-1 is vague in describing the timing of
when the circulation and traffic plans will be prepared and who will review and approve them.
Chapter 6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program describe the verification timing and
responsible party for each mitigation measure. The plans will be prepared and reviewed for
consistency by the City Public Works Director prior to construction. Periodic site inspections and
compliance monitoring will be performed by the City Engineer throughout the duration of all
construction activities. CEQA and NEPA only require the lead agency (the City and Caltrans) to
consider the effects of the proposed project on existing conditions and whether the project
would adversely affect existing resources. The project would generally improve bicycle and
pedestrian facilities within the project area; therefore, no significant adverse effects would
occur. The asserted lack of safe, convenient, and connected bicycle and pedestrian access in the
City is not related to, and would not be an impact of, the proposed project.
8.7 This comment points out that the project is not included in the County Bikeway Plan except for
one segment. The County Bicycle Advisory Committee chair was not consulted with in
developing Mitigation Measure LU/mm-2 of the IS/MND (TRA/mm-1 of the EA). This measure
has been revised to clarify that the City would coordinate with the County Bicycle Advisory
Committee on any improvements that may affect facilities identified in the County Bikeway
Plan.
8.8 This comment summarizes SLOBA’s concerns about the project’s purpose to alleviate traffic
congestion while inadequately addressing bicycle and pedestrian needs. See Response 8.1.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 37 of 164
Public Comment Letters
Commenter Letter Date Letter No.
Businesses
222 East Grand Avenue Shell Station
Contacts: Katcho Achadjian, Hagop Wartanian (Owners)
April 26, 2018
(Public Meeting)
9
Brisco Mill & Lumber
Contacts: Mark Mankins, Blair Mankins
May 8, 2018 10
Investec Real Estate Companies, representing Five Cities Shopping Center
Contact: Gregory J. Parker
May 10, 2018 11
Farm Supply Company
Contact: Cara M. Crye, President/CEO
May 11, 2018 12
Mier Bros. Landscape Products
Contact: Michael J. Mier
May 11, 2018 13
HomeStar Construction
Contact: Dave Yatsko
May 12, 2018 14
General Public
John and Kari Sinner April 23, 2018 15
Carie Randolph April 26, 2018
(Public Meeting)
16
Gay Spencer April 26, 2018
(Public Meeting)
17
Toni (no last name provided) April 26, 2018
(Public Meeting)
18
Danny Gresser May 1, 2018 19
LeAnn Gresser May 1, 2018 20
Megan Rice May 1, 2018 21
Stephen J. Russ May 1, 2018 22
Jim and Mary Webster May 2, 2018 23
Gary Thies May 5, 2018 24
Susan Henslin May 6, 2018 25
Franklin Bayliss May 7, 2018 26
Laura Kass May 7, 2018 27
Mardell and Robert Perez May 7, 2018 28
Chuck Kass May 8, 2018 29
Ronald Nishida May 8, 2018 30
Diego Bernal May 10, 2018 31
Jim Broz May 10, 2018 32
Christiane Dubrulle May 10, 2018 33
Trudy Jarratt May 10, 2018 34
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 38 of 164
Commenter Letter Date Letter No.
Katie Merlo May 10, 2018 35
Will Reichardt May 10, 2018 36
Linda L. Smith May 10, 2018 37
Jeff Techau May 10, 2018 38
Carolyn Bayliss May 11, 2018 39
Sam Cotton May 11, 2018 40
John and Margie Gayley May 11, 2018 41
Rod Hatch May 11, 2018 42
Andrea Portney May 11, 2018 43
Jeff Portney May 11, 2018 44
Virginia Roof May 12, 2018 45
Theresa Schultz May 12, 2018 46
Robert and Julia Hess May 14, 2018 47
Sue Stanton May 12, 2018 48
Danny Gresser May 7, 2018 49
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 39 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 40 of 164
9. Response to: 222 East Grand Avenue Shell Station (Letter Dated April 26, 2018)
9.1 The comment is submitted by the owner and operator of the Shell Station at 222 East Grand
Avenue and raises concern over the proposed widening of Grand Avenue under Alternative 1,
which would require right-of-way acquisition at the Shell Station. The comment asserts the
acquisition would result in a loss of property and negatively impact business operations. While
economic impacts must be discussed under NEPA, they are not considered environmental
impacts under CEQA and only require discussion if the economic impacts would have a negative
impact on the physical environment, or if the economic impacts would result in growth-inducing
impacts. The EA identified potential adverse impacts to businesses related to necessary right-of-
way acquisitions, including the Shell Station, resulting from the proposed project. The EA
concluded that only partial acquisitions would be necessary, and that the acquisitions would not
alter the existing land uses or land use patterns, or long-range development concepts.
Furthermore, the EA did not identify any negative impacts on the physical environment due to
these economic impacts. In addition, Mitigation Measure PS/mm-2 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-
5 in the EA require the City to prepare a Construction Timing, Access, and Circulation Plan, which
includes provisions for signage to alert travelers that businesses will remain open during
construction. The comment does not identify any deficiency in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no
changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, if Alternative 1 is chosen,
project designers will look for opportunities to minimize impacts to businesses where existing
access, traffic patterns, etc. have been affected. The comment will be made part of the
administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 41 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 42 of 164
10. Response to: Brisco Mill & Lumber (Letter Dated May 8, 2018)
10.1 The comment describes the presence of Brisco Mil & Lumber in Arroyo Grande since 1909 and
how the business and others along El Camino Real have always benefited from freeway access.
The comment expresses support for Alternative 4C and raises a concern about the negative
impacts to businesses along El Camino Real west of U.S. 101 if the northbound on/off-ramps are
permanently closed. While economic impacts must be discussed under NEPA, they are not
considered environmental impacts under CEQA and only require discussion if the economic
impacts would have a negative impact on the physical environment, or if the economic impacts
would result in growth-inducing impacts. The EA identified potential adverse impacts to
businesses related to necessary right-of-way acquisitions resulting from the proposed project.
The EA concluded that only partial acquisitions would be necessary, and that the acquisitions
would not alter the existing land uses or land use patterns, or long-range development
concepts. Furthermore, the EA did not identify any negative impacts on the physical
environment due to these economic impacts. In addition, Mitigation Measure PS/mm-2 in the
IS/MND and TRA/mm-5 in the EA require the City to prepare a Construction Timing, Access, and
Circulation Plan, which includes provisions for signage to alert travelers that businesses will
remain open during construction. The comment does not identify any deficiency in the IS/MND
or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the
comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers
for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 43 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 44 of 164
11. Response to: Investec Real Estate Companies, representing Five Cities Shopping Center
(Letter Dated May 10, 2018)
11.1 This comment raises a concern over the elimination of the on/off-ramps and the adverse impact
and inconvenience to affected businesses at the Five Cities Shopping Center. The comment also
asserts that the temporary closure of Brisco Road ramps caused traffic congestion at adjacent
intersections and ramps. The IS/MND and EA both recognize that Alternative 4C would preserve
direct access to the Five Cities Shopping Center and other commercial/retail areas in the project
vicinity, further meeting the project objectives. However, the improvements proposed under
Alternative 1 would resolve any increased trips and congestion at adjacent intersections in the
event the ramps at Brisco Road are permanently closed.
11.2 The comment states a preference for Alternative 4C as being the least impactful to the Five
Cities Shopping Center and affected businesses. However, PS/mm-2 of the IS/MND and
TRA/mm-5 of the EA require the City to prepare a plan that would alter travelers that businesses
will remain open during construction. The comment does not directly relate to any
environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental
documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record
and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 45 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 46 of 164
12. Response to: Farm Supply Company (Letter Dated May 11, 2018)
12.1 The comment summarizes the business operations of the Farm Supply Company, which has
been in operation in Arroyo Grande since 1950 and states a preference for Alternative 4C, as it
would allow for future growth, alleviate the current congestion at the Brisco Road
undercrossing, and allow the flow of traffic to move to the west side of U.S. 101. The comment
does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes
in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the
administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
12.2 This comment raises a concern over the elimination of the on/off-ramps under Alternative 1 and
the adverse impacts ramp closure would have on affected businesses and local tax revenue.
While economic impacts must be discussed under NEPA, they are not considered environmental
impacts under CEQA and only require discussion if the economic impacts would have a negative
impact on the physical environment, or if the economic impacts would result in growth-inducing
impacts. The EA identified potential adverse impacts to businesses related to necessary right-of-
way acquisitions, including the Shell Station, resulting from the proposed project. The EA
concluded that only partial acquisitions would be necessary, and that the acquisitions would not
alter the existing land uses or land use patterns, or long-range development concepts.
Furthermore, the EA did not identify any negative impacts on the physical environment due to
these economic impacts. In addition, Mitigation Measure PS/mm-2 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-
5 in the EA require the City to prepare a Construction Timing, Access, and Circulation Plan, which
includes provisions for signage to alert travelers that businesses will remain open during
construction. The comment does not identify any deficiency in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no
changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part
of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 47 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 48 of 164
13. Response to: Mier Bros. Landscape Products (Letter Dated May 11, 2018)
13.1 The comment describes the history of business operations at Mier Bros. Landscape Projects,
which has been operating in Arroyo Grande since 1987, and expresses a preference for
Alternative 4C because it would retain convenient access for customers to the west side of U.S.
101. The comment raises a concern about the negative impacts to affected businesses if the
northbound on/off-ramps are closed and increased congestion at adjacent ramp interchanges
(Grand Avenue and Oak Park Boulevard). The traffic analysis conducted for the project
determined that any increase in traffic at adjacent ramp intersections, including Grand Avenue
and Oak Park Boulevard, would be adequately accommodated by the improvements proposed
under Alternative 1; therefore, no significant impacts at adjacent intersections would result
from the closure of Brisco Road ramps once those improvements are constructed. While
economic impacts must be discussed under NEPA, they are not considered environmental
impacts under CEQA and only require discussion if the economic impacts would have a negative
impact on the physical environment, or if the economic impacts would result in growth-inducing
impacts. The EA identified potential adverse impacts to businesses related to necessary right-of-
way acquisitions, including the Shell Station, resulting from the proposed project. The EA
concluded that only partial acquisitions would be necessary, and that the acquisitions would not
alter the existing land uses or land use patterns, or long-range development concepts.
Furthermore, the EA did not identify any negative impacts on the physical environment due to
these economic impacts. In addition, Mitigation Measure PS/mm-2 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-
5 in the EA require the City to prepare a Construction Timing, Access, and Circulation Plan, which
includes provisions for signage to alert travelers that businesses will remain open during
construction. The comment does not identify any deficiency in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no
changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part
of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 49 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 50 of 164
14. Response to: HomeStar Construction (Letter Dated May 12, 2018)
14.1 The commenter raises several traffic-related concerns with Alternative 1. Traffic related impacts
were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis
conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of
the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the
EA. The IS/MND and EA concluded that under Alternative 1, traffic levels would generally be
improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City’s General Plan
Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional
Transportation Plan. The traffic analysis conducted for the project determined that any increase
in traffic at adjacent ramp intersections due to the closure of ramps at Brisco Road would be
adequately accommodated by the improvements proposed under Alternative 1 at the Grand
Avenue and Camino Mercado ramp intersections; therefore, no significant congestion at
adjacent intersections would result from the closure of Brisco Road ramps once those
improvements are constructed. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in
the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed
circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and
improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and
pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with
existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. Both build alternatives
would improve traffic in the project area; however, only Alternative 4C would retain direct
access from U.S. 101 at Brisco Road.
14.2 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 4C because it would preserve direct access
to the west side of U.S. 101 and eliminate additional trips to Grand Avenue, Halcyon Road, and
adjacent streets. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the
IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,
the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision
makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 51 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 52 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 53 of 164
15. Response to: John and Kari Sinner (Letter Dated April 23, 2018)
15.1 The commenter expresses a preference for Alternative 1 and notes the improved traffic
conditions during temporary ramp closures. The comment does not directly relate to any
environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental
documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record
and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
This comment raises a concern regarding traffic-related impacts to the surrounding community
under Alternative 4C. Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic
Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section
XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane / West
Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best
level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in
a large change in travel routes through the project area. In addition, the IS-MND and EA concluded
that under Alternative 4C, traffic levels would generally be improved throughout the project area
and would be consistent the City’s General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation
System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Roadway operations in the
project area under this alternative would be slightly better than under Alternative 1. Additional
mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND and EA were included to ensure that proposed
circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit
facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating
and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent
feasible. The new intersection proposed under Alternative 4C would not be substantially different
than the existing intersection and the proposed roundabout is not substantially larger than the
existing U.S. 101 northbound ramps/Brisco Road/West Branch Street intersections. The IS/MND
and EA identified potential effects on St. Patrick’s School, the Arroyo Grande Library, and South
County Regional Center, including right-of-way acquisitions, loss of parking, addition of retaining
walls, and marginal increases in noise, consistent with this comment.
The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near
Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives. The LOS
and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval & Environmental
Determination Phase (PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood
Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum
(Wood Rodgers, June 7, 2017).
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service
Alternative Intersection LOS
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
B
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 54 of 164
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing
Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps
NBL Exceeds Storage by 100’
NBT Exceeds Storage by 100’
SBT Exceeds Storage by 800’
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
All Queues Within Storage
(Queues would be even shorter
than with a signalized
intersection)
Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street
near Brisco Road. Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be
affected.
Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning
movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected
decreased trips (-0.09% and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during
the mid-day peak (+0.34%). The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very
minor.
Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after
construction of Alternative 4C. This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took
Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with
construction of Alternative 4C. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable
increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C.
15.2 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1. The comment does not directly relate to
any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental
documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record
and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 55 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 56 of 164
16. Response to: Carie Randolph (Letter Dated April 26, 2018)
16.1 This comment expresses support for the tallest evaluated sound wall and their ability to reduce
impacts from traffic noise. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in
the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed.
However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local
decision makers for their consideration.
16.2 This comment states a preference for continued northbound ramp closure at Brisco Road until
the selected alternative is constructed. The comment does not directly relate to any
environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental
documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record
and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
16.3 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 4C as a better long-term solution. The
comment does not directly relate to any other environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;
therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will
be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their
consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 57 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 58 of 164
17. Response to: Gay Spencer (Letter Dated April 26, 2018)
17.1 This comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 because it would address traffic
congestion at three U.S. ramp interchanges within the project area without impacting the
nearby school and residential areas. The comment also states a concern with the costs of
Alternative 4C. The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost
for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different
sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-
year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal
Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured
by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and
the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA
requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the
proposed project is “reasonably available” prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City
proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well
as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under
Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.
The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for
the debt service of the project over the 10 year planning horizon. In addition, local
transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and
collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;
therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will
be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their
consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 59 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 60 of 164
18. Response to: Toni (Letter Dated April 26, 2018)
18.1 The comment expresses concern about users’ ability to navigate a roundabout. In general,
roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control
(two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven
safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types,
reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through
intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive, think, react, and
correct for errors (as may all users) with the low-speed roundabout designs. The comment does
not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in
the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the
administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 61 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 62 of 164
19. Response to: Danny Gresser (Letter Dated May 1, 2018)
19.1 This comment asks what Caltrans believes is the best alternative for the future. Caltrans is the
NEPA lead agency for the project and was responsible for preparation of the EA. As described in
the EA, both project alternatives would meet the project’s purpose and need and would
alleviate the current and projected future congestion within the project area. Long-term traffic
benefits under Alternative 4C would be slightly better than under Alternative 1. The comment
does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes
in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the
administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
19.2 The comment points to the increased cost of Alternative 4C and raises a concern about the
expense of the project considering the State’s current budget. The estimated cost for
Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million.
Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program
of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other
sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is
acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016
Regional Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is
required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is “reasonably available”
prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project
alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds).
Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately
$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax
Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project
over the 10 year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future
projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;
therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will
be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their
consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 63 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 64 of 164
20. Response to: LeAnn Gresser (Letter Dated May 1, 2018)
20.1 The comment expresses opposition to Alternative 4C because it would direct traffic into
neighborhoods, place a Park and Ride lot next to a school, and negatively affect housing prices.
Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and
Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI.
Transportation and Traffic of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. The IS/MND and EA concluded that
under Alternative 4C, traffic levels would generally be improved throughout the project area
and would be consistent the City’s General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation
System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. In addition, Mitigation
Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were
identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed
circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit
facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including improvements at St.
Patrick’s school, and measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and
new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. The proposed roundabout
intersection would replace an existing intersection and would not substantially change traffic
patterns or direct traffic into neighborhoods. Mitigation Measures LU/mm-2 in the IS/MND and
TRA/mm-1 EA have been modified to require the City to coordinate with St. Patrick’s School in
developing the Park and Ride lot.
20.2 The comment expresses concern over the potential fiscal impacts of Alternative 4C. The
estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is
$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6
million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital
improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation
Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of
Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is
included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the
City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is
“reasonably available” prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially
fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or
Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and
approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year
Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service
of the project over the 10 year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees
from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for
the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;
therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 65 of 164
be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their
consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 66 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 67 of 164
21. Response to: Megan Rice (Letter Dated May 1, 2018)
21.1 The comment expresses concern over the proposed roundabout and Park and Ride lot under
Alternative 4C and potential impacts to residential areas and St. Patrick’s School. Traffic related
impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis
conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of
the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the
EA. The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane / West Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as
part of Alternative 4C would provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of
the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the
project area.
In addition, the IS/MND and EA concluded that Alternative 4C would improve traffic congestion
throughout the project area and would be consistent the City’s General Plan Circulation Element
policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan.
In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7,
and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that
proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public
transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for
incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the
greatest extent feasible. Additional mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND and EA were
included to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with
existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including
measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit
facilities to the greatest extent feasible. The extensive evaluation of traffic-related effects of the
project have did not identified any disruption to adjacent residential areas. Future traffic
conditions would be slightly better under Alternative 4C than Alternative 1.
The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near
Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives. The LOS
and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval & Environmental
Determination Phase (PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood
Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum
(Wood Rodgers, June 7, 2017).
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service
Alternative Intersection LOS
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
B
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 68 of 164
Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps
NBL Exceeds Storage by 100’
NBT Exceeds Storage by 100’
SBT Exceeds Storage by 800’
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
All Queues Within Storage
(Queues would be even shorter
than with a signalized
intersection)
Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street
near Brisco Road. Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be
affected.
Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning
movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected
decreased trips (-0.09% and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips
during the mid-day peak (+0.34%). The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study
are very minor.
Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after
construction of Alternative 4C. This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which
took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with
construction of Alternative 4C. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a
noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C. The comment does not directly
relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the
environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the
administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 69 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 70 of 164
22. Response to: Stephen J. Russ (Letter Dated May 1, 2018)
22.1 The comment expresses opposition to Alternative 1 and 4C and a preference for the No Build
Alternative. The No Build Alternative was evaluated in the EA; the No Build Alternative would
not provide any transportation improvements and would not meet the project’s purpose and
need. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;
therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will
be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their
consideration.
22.2 The comment expresses opposition to Alternative 4C based on the expense and extra project
components that are not needed to correct the congestion at Brisco Road (like soundwalls and
Park and Ride lot). The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated
cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two
different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a
multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal
Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured
by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and
the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA
requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the
proposed project is “reasonably available” prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City
proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well
as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under
Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.
The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for
the debt service of the project over the 10 year planning horizon. In addition, local
transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and
collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore,
no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made
part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
22.3 This comment expresses opposition to Alternative 1 because of potential impacts to commute
times and levels of service. Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum:
Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed
in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. The IS/MND and EA concluded that
both alternatives would improve or maintain traffic conditions at all study area intersections and
impacts to traffic and level of service standards would ultimately be less than significant.
Although previous temporary ramp closures created additional diverted traffic trips to adjacent
intersection detours and delays, the improvements proposed under Alternative 1 are designed
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 71 of 164
to address the increased trips to adjacent intersections. Therefore, Alternative 1 would also
improve traffic conditions at all project area intersections. The closure of Brisco Road ramps
would require detours to adjacent ramp intersections and freeway crossings, adding time to
commutes and increased trips and air emissions. However, when compared to existing
conditions, the effects of Alternative 1 were also found to result in an overall benefit.
22.4 The comment reiterates support for a No Build Alternative and suggests operating the two
intersections as one and letting each leg have its own green time (i.e. split phasing). Split
phasing in signal operations is the least desirable due to the inefficiencies associated with this
type of signal timing. The intersections are controlled by one signal controller with split phases
and the source of the issues at the intersections. While one leg has the green, the other three
must wait while the vehicle queues would build up during a red. It’s more acute on the
northbound Brisco Road approach to the southbound ramps and W. Branch St. The signal at El
Camino Real/Brisco Road is rendered ineffective once the queue at Brisco Road/southbound
ramps spill back to El Camino Real.
Alternatives 1 and 4C have been evaluated extensively and determined to be feasible
alternatives that would meet the project’s purpose and need. The comment does not directly
relate to any other environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the
environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the
administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 72 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 73 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 74 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 75 of 164
23. Response to: Jim and Mary Webster (Letter Dated May 2, 2018)
23.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on previous temporary on- and
off-ramp closures. The comment states that previous closures clarified that use of the adjacent
ramp intersections were a satisfactory alternative to Brisco Road ramps and that the
improvements proposed under Alternative 1 would further improve these routes. The comment
does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes
in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the
administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
23.2 The comment expresses further support for Alternative 1 because it is more cost effective and
would create less of a disruption than Alternative 4C. The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is
$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is
proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation
projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local
transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional
funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional
Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is required to
demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is “reasonably available” prior to final
approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative
through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2
million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would
need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan
anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10
year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also
be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore,
no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made
part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
23.3 This comment raises concerns about the appearance of the local area being impacted by the
improvements proposed as part of Alternative 4C. Section I. Aesthetics in the IS/MND and
Section 2.1.7 Visual/Aesthetics in the EA evaluated whether the project would substantially
degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and determined
the features proposed under Alternative 4C would generally be consistent with the level and
types of development in surrounding areas.
Consistency with local planning documents and policies was further evaluated under Section X.
Land Use and Planning of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.3 Community Character and Cohesion in
the EA. Both environmental documents determined that the proposed project alternatives
would potentially conflict with some applicable policies related to circulation interconnection,
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 76 of 164
promotion of nonmotorized and pedestrian facilities, installation of solid walls, and/or
convenient and well-designed parking facilities. Mitigation measures LU/mm-3, 5, and 6 in the
IS/MND and TRA/mm-1 and TRA/mm-3 were identified to ensure appropriate design elements
would be incorporated to ensure the interconnection of transportation systems,
encouragement of non-motorized transportation alternatives, design of convenient, well-
designed aesthetic parking facilities, landscaping and retaining wall design, and consistency with
transportation and land use policies and goals. Although the proposed roundabout intersection
would be further away from the U.S. 101 mainline and extend into a currently undeveloped City
owned parcel, the project includes requirements for project design and style consistent with
City policies and other recent improvements along U.S. 101 in Arroyo Grande and surrounding
areas. With implementation of these measures, potential impacts would be less than significant.
No changes in the IS/MND or EA are necessary.
23.4 The comment explains that Alternative 4C would result in higher costs and temporary impacts.
Refer to the Response to 23.2 for comments related to project cost. The comment does not
directly relate to any additional environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no
changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part
of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 77 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 78 of 164
24. Response to: Gary Thies (Letter Dated May 5, 2018)
24.1 This comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on the previous off-ramp closures
at Brisco Road that proved to be successful and cost-effective method of addressing traffic at
the Brisco Road intersection. The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the
estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come
from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by
the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation
funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency
for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan.
Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full
funding for the proposed project is “reasonably available” prior to final approval of the EA by
Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available
local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be
financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under
Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing
commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10 year planning horizon. In
addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future
years and collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore,
no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made
part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 79 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 80 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 81 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 82 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 83 of 164
25. Response to: Susan Henslin (Letter Dated May 6, 2018)
25.1 This comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on the lower cost. The estimated
cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million.
Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program
of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other
sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is
acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016
Regional Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is
required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is “reasonably available”
prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project
alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds).
Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately
$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax
Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project
over the 10 year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future
projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore,
no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made
part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
25.2 The comment expresses opposition to Alternative 4C and roundabouts in general. In general,
roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control
(two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven
safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types,
reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through
intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive, think, react, and
correct for errors (as may all users) with the low-speed roundabout designs. The comment does
not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in
the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the
administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
25.3 The comment requests clarification on whether sound walls would be required under
Alternative 1. Although the project would not increase ambient noise levels above levels
without the project, current exceedances of City and Caltrans standards currently exist.
Alternative 1 proposes the types of improvements that require consideration of sound walls in
order to address the current noise threshold exceedances per Caltrans regulations and
standards. Therefore, sound walls will be considered under both build alternatives. The relative
cost and benefit of the walls is described in Section 2.2.7 Noise of the EA (pages 139-143).
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 84 of 164
25.4 This comment questions whether business owners and landowners were included in discussions
regarding the project. Adjacent property owners that would be affected by the project have
been provided opportunities to participate in the project, including through community
meetings, public hearings, and the environmental process. Further coordination will be required
after selection of an alternative and finalization of project design.
25.5 This comment questions relates to land acquisition and the affected landowner’s input. Land
acquisitions are handled through a process that includes coordination with the landowners.
Right-of-way acquisitions are subject to Caltrans’ Relocation Assistance Program and the Federal
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, which are
intended to ensure that persons displaced as a result of a transportation project are treated
fairly, consistency, and equitably so that such persons will not suffer disproportionate injuries as
a result of projects designed to benefit the public as a whole. The Federal Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act requires certain relocation services and
payments be made to eligible landowners and residents who are affected by land acquisition.
25.6 This comment relates to land acquisition and the affected landowner’s input. Refer to Response
25.5. Based on preliminary design engineering and an evaluation of all anticipated necessary
acquisitions, structures and facilities would be relocated within existing sites and businesses
could continue to operate in a similar manner at the same location.
25.7 This comment relates to a nearby off-ramp not included as part of the project or the traffic
analysis (Fair Oaks) and asks how the proposed improvements would affect impacted traffic
conditions at this intersection. Closing the northbound Brisco ramps affects the traffic using the
northbound U.S. 101 and has no impact on southbound U.S. 101 traffic patterns at Fair Oaks.
The substandard southbound weaving segment between the Grand Ave on-ramp and the Fair
Oaks Avenue off-ramp, and the off-ramp/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection operations are separate
issues. Addressing those issue would not satisfy the project purpose and need.
All intersections which would be directly modified by the Project or which could potentially
experience a change in operations due to the Project were selected for analysis, per typical
industry practices. The list of intersections to be included in the analysis was shared with and
approved by the Project Development Team.
The Project would potentially modify facilities along El Camino Real and West Branch Street
between the US 101 south ramps just west of Oak Park Boulevard and Grand Avenue. Therefore,
all major intersections within these limits were selected for evaluation. Any facilities outside these
limits would not likely see a significant change in traffic operations due to the Project, and
therefore were not included in the analysis. Fair Oaks Avenue is outside the limits of the Project
improvements and has no direct local street connection to West Branch Street or El Camino Real,
and therefore was not included in the analysis.
25.8 This comment is in regard to a landowner’s opinion on the conversion of agricultural land. The
referenced calculations are intended to reflect an approximate cost associated with the loss of
productive agriculture, not land value. Refer to Responses 25.5 and 25.6.
25.9 This comment asserts that new access on the east side of the referenced parcel would be
required to accommodate equipment, tractors, and other agricultural operations. This and other
potentially indirect effects on agricultural operations would be taken into consideration during
the right-of-way acquisition process.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 85 of 164
25.10 This comment questions a mitigation measure related to staging and queueing areas. This
requirement is included in standard diesel emission reduction mitigation measures of the San
Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and have been included per APCD
regulations and guidance. It is possible that no staging locations can be located at least 1,000
feet from any sensitive receptor; however, the City will identify staging areas that avoid
sensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible.
25.11 This comment questions the age of biological surveys and the conclusion that the project area is
not a wildlife corridor. The comment further references anectodical information to imply
potential biological resources along Arroyo Grande Creek. Updated biological surveys were
conducted in 2011 and 2014. Arroyo Grande Creek would likely be considered a wildlife
corridor, as many wildlife species commonly travel along surface water bodies and/or riparian
habitat. However, the project site and proposed areas of disturbance do not include any portion
of Arroyo Grande Creek. The highly disturbed and urbanized areas of the proposed project are
not considered wildlife corridors, though some wildlife may occur within the area.
25.12 This comment questions the methodology used for nesting bird surveys and refences anecdotal
information to imply potential biological resources near Arroyo Grande Creek. The project area
does not include any portion of Arroyo Grande Creek. Mitigation Measures identified in the
IS/MND (BIO/mm-10 through BIO/mm-12) and the EA (BIO/mm-10 through BIO/mm-12) require
avoidance of tree removal during the nesting bird season if feasible, pre-construction nesting
bird surveys in the event the nesting season cannot be avoided, and measures to avoid adverse
effects on active nests in the event they are encountered.
25.13 The comment questions whether the project area could support potential habitat for California
red-legged frog. As described in the IS/MND and EA, only two California red-legged frog
occurrences have been recorded within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project site (CNDDB 2006).
To determine the potential for occurrence of the California red-legged frog within the project
area, an assessment of the habitat was conducted following the USFWS Revised Guidance on
Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs (USFWS 2005). A California
Red-legged Frog Site Assessment Report was submitted to the Ventura USFWS office on April 4,
2006 (Morro Group 2006). As recommended by USFWS Fish and Wildlife Biologist Mark Elvin
(2006), surveys for California red-legged frog were conducted within the project area with a
focus on Excavated Ditch 3, beginning on March 7, 2007, and ending on August 7, 2007. Eight
surveys were conducted, and no California red-legged frogs were observed during any of the
survey efforts.
Habitats within the project area and within 1 mile of the BSA are highly fragmented due to
urban development, US 101, and other roads. While California red-legged frogs have the
potential to occur within large areas of good to excellent quality habitat with riparian and
emergent vegetative cover, suitable water quality, and minimal disturbance, these conditions do
not occur within the project area. It is extremely unlikely that California red-legged frogs inhabit
the drainage ditches within the project area, which are minimally vegetated to non-vegetated,
typically convey only seasonal stormwater flows, and are subjected to considerable disturbance
(e.g., right next to road edges). Dispersal to these areas from habitats outside of the project area
would be difficult due to the extensive network of roads and urban development existing in and
near project area.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 86 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 87 of 164
26. Response to: Franklin Bayliss (Letter Dated May 7, 2018)
26.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1. The comment does not directly relate to
any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental
documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record
and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 88 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 89 of 164
27. Response to: Laura Kass (Letter Dated May 7, 2018)
27.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 and opposes Alternative 4C, raising
concerns about the expense of Alternative 4C while not substantially changing traffic using the
Brisco Road undercrossing. The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the
estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come
from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by
the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation
funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency
for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan.
Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full
funding for the proposed project is “reasonably available” prior to final approval of the EA by
Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available
local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be
financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under
Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing
commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10 year planning horizon. In
addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future
years and collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;
therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will
be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their
consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 90 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 91 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 92 of 164
28. Response to: Mardell and Robert Perez (Letter Dated May 7, 2018)
28.1 The comment describes excessive speed and congestion issues along Grace Lane and opposes
developing a freeway exit near St. Patrick’s School that would lead to additional localized traffic
congestion along Rodeo Drive and Grace Lane. Excess speed is an enforcement issue or a side
effect of implementing an arbitrary speed limit without a traffic engineering survey. Otherwise
the City can implement traffic calming measures to achieve the desired operating speed. A City-
wide speed study was approved by City Council November 27, 2018. The speed study
determined that the posted speed limit on Grace Lane remained unchanged at 35 miles per
hour, which represents the 85th percentile. The Arroyo Grande Police Department is providing
enforcement and is prepared to cite speed violators as allowed by the vehicle code. According
to the City Police Department, observed speeds are definitely lower than the perceived 50 mph
plus speeds being reported by residents. The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane / West Branch Street
roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best level of
service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large
change in travel routes through the project area.
Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and
Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI.
Transportation and Traffic of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian
and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US
101 Ramps intersection near Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all
Project Alternatives. The LOS and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval
& Environmental Determination Phase (PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis
Memorandum (Wood Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations
Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers, June 7, 2017).
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service
Alternative Intersection LOS
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
B
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing
Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps
NBL Exceeds Storage by 100’
NBT Exceeds Storage by 100’
SBT Exceeds Storage by 800’
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 93 of 164
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
All Queues Within Storage
(Queues would be even shorter
than with a signalized
intersection)
Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street
near Brisco Road. Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be
affected.
Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning
movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected
decreased trips (-0.09% and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips
during the mid-day peak (+0.34%). The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study
are very minor.
Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after
construction of Alternative 4C. This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which
took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with
construction of Alternative 4C. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a
noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C.
28.2 The IS/MND and EA discuss incompatible uses, and concluded that the project would be subject
to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in
the General Plan, and would result in less than significant impacts to adjacent land uses. The
proposed roundabout intersection under Alternative 4C would not be substantially different
from the existing intersection that it would replace. Additionally, the IS/MND and EA concluded
that under Alternative 4C, traffic levels would be improved throughout the project area and
would be consistent the City’s General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation
System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Traffic benefits under
Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly at
the Brisco Road/El Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street intersections.
Additional mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND and EA were included to ensure that
proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new
public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for
incorporating and improving connectivity with St. Patrick’s School and existing and new public
transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible.
The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on cost and impacts to the school
and nearby community. The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the
estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come
from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by
the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation
funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency
for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 94 of 164
Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full
funding for the proposed project is “reasonably available” prior to final approval of the EA by
Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available
local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be
financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under
Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing
commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10 year planning horizon. In
addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future
years and collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate
to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental
documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record
and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 95 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 96 of 164
29. Response to: Chuck Kass (Letter Dated May 8, 2018)
29.1 The comment relates to the history of growing traffic problems in the city and the City’s current
finances and suggests that Alternative 4C would provide only marginal benefits over Alternative
1. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;
therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will
be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their
consideration.
29.2 This comment raises concerns over the cost of sound barriers and the benefit to nearby
residences. The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for
Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different
sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-
year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal
Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured
by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and
the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA
requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the
proposed project is “reasonably available” prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City
proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well
as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under
Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.
The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for
the debt service of the project over the 10 year planning horizon. In addition, local
transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and
collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
Potential benefits and feasibility of noise barriers along the U.S. 101 to minimize noise were
analyzed in a Noise Study Report (NSR) prepared for the project and further discussed in both
Section X. Land Use and Planning and XII. Noise of the IS-MND and Section 2.2.7 Noise of the EA.
A preliminary noise abatement analysis was performed as part of the NSR to evaluate the
feasibility for each potential noise barrier to achieve noise reduction (results are further
discussed in the NSR). The relative cost and benefit of the walls is described in Section 2.2.7
Noise of the EA (pages 139-143). The cost of the sound barrier in comparison to the benefit it
would provide is considered in the determination of whether a sound wall should be required.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 97 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 98 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 99 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 100 of 164
30. Response to: Ronald Nishida (Letter Dated May 8, 2018)
30.1 The comment presents an alternative that was not previously discussed or analyzed in the
IS/MND or EA. The City and Caltrans have discussed numerous project design alternatives over
the last decade, many of which were determined to be infeasible due to geographical limitations
or traffic conditions. Restricting left-turns at the Brisco Road/southbound ramp intersection
could work, but it’s just a temporary solution. The proposed project improvements would
provide a 20-yearr+ design life.
Alternatives 1 and 4C have been evaluated extensively and determined to be feasible
alternatives that would meet the project’s purpose and need. The build alternatives have been
designed to not only address current congestion, but also congestion related to projected build-
out of the City by 2035. The comment does not directly relate to any other environmental issues
in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed.
However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local
decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 101 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 102 of 164
31. Response to: Diego Bernal (Letter Dated May 10, 2018)
31.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 4C based on the heavy local usage and
localized traffic congestion at the Brisco on/off-ramps. The comment also states that the Brisco
Road ramps are the most convenient for accessing the businesses on Camino Mercado, and that
the Grand Avenue exist requires a lot more maneuvering around gas stations, residential areas,
and traffic backed up from the In-N-Out drive through. The comment does not directly relate to
any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental
documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record
and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 103 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 104 of 164
32. Response to: Jim Broz (Letter Dated May 10, 2018)
32.1 The comment expresses a preference for the No Build Alternative, until the City can afford a
build alternative. The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost
for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different
sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-
year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal
Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured
by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and
the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA
requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the
proposed project is “reasonably available” prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City
proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well
as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under
Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.
The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for
the debt service of the project over the 10 year planning horizon. In addition, local
transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and
collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes
available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible installation
of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000 and Alternative
4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the southbound
Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either
alternative by approximately $2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any
environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents
are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided
to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 105 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 106 of 164
33. Response to: Christiane Dubrulle (Letter Dated May 10, 2018)
33.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 due to the successful temporary closure,
the available northbound access at Camino Mercado, the lack of a need for a new interchange at
Rodeo so close to the Grand Avenue interchange, and the minimal disruption it would require.
Consistent with this comment, the IS/MND and EA determined that closure of the ramps at
Brisco Road would not worsen traffic congestion after implementation of the improvements
proposed under Alternative 1 due to the availability of alternative access at Grand Avenue and
Camino Mercado. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the
IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,
the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision
makers for their consideration.
33.2 This comment expresses opposition to Alternative 4C based on a complicated design, the
potential for disruptions to quiet residential areas, safety concerns from putting a roundabout
next to St. Patrick’s School, high costs, and because it would create access to and from the
freeway along Rodeo Drive and Grace Lane. The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7
million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is
proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation
projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local
transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional
funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional
Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is required to
demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is “reasonably available” prior to final
approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative
through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2
million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would
need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan
anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10
year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also
be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes
available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible installation
of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000 and Alternative
4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the southbound
Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either
alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;
therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will
be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their
consideration.
Regarding access, traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic
Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section
XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities of the EA. The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane / West
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 107 of 164
Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best
level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in
a large change in travel routes through the project area.
The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near
Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives. The LOS
and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval & Environmental
Determination Phase (PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood
Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum
(Wood Rodgers, June 7, 2017).
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service
Alternative Intersection LOS
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
B
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing
Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps
NBL Exceeds Storage by 100’
NBT Exceeds Storage by 100’
SBT Exceeds Storage by 800’
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
All Queues Within Storage
(Queues would be even shorter
than with a signalized
intersection)
Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street
near Brisco Road. Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be
affected.
Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning
movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected
decreased trips (-0.09% and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips
during the mid-day peak (+0.34%). The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study
are very minor.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 108 of 164
Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after
construction of Alternative 4C. This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took
Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with
construction of Alternative 4C. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable
increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C.
The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses, and uses
and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and
construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan, and would result in less
than significant impacts. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other
forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings.
Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or
altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they
proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to
perceive, think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users) with the low-speed roundabout
designs. The new interchange is not expected to operate substantially different than the existing
intersection and traffic patterns along Rodeo Drive and Grace Lane would continue to access the
freeway at/near Brisco Road similar to current conditions. Under Alternative 4C, traffic levels
would be improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City’s General Plan
Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional
Transportation Plan. In addition, Alternative 4C meets the stated project purpose of maintaining
direct access from U.S. 101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area. In addition, Mitigation
Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were
identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation
patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike
paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including improvements at St. Patrick’s School, and
measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit
facilities to the greatest extent feasible. Additional mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND
and EA were included to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve
connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian
access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with St. Patrick’s
School and existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 109 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 110 of 164
34. Response to: Trudy Jarratt (Letter Dated May 10, 2018)
34.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 4C because of the efficiency of
roundabouts along the coast and throughout Europe. The comment does not directly relate to
any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental
documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record
and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 111 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 112 of 164
35. Response to: Katie Merlo (Letter Dated May 10, 2018)
35.1 The comment raises concerns under Alternative 4C including fiscal impacts, traffic congestion,
and safety of students and families crossing Rodeo Drive.
The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is
$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6
million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital
improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation
Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of
Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is
included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the
City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is
“reasonably available” prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially
fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or
Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and
approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year
Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of
the project over the 10 year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from
future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the
project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes
available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible installation
of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000 and Alternative
4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the southbound
Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either
alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore,
no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made
part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
Regarding traffic concerns, traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum:
Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in
Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane / West
Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best
level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in
a large change in travel routes through the project area.
The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near
Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives. The LOS
and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval & Environmental
Determination Phase (PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood
Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum
(Wood Rodgers, June 7, 2017).
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 113 of 164
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service
Alternative Intersection LOS
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
B
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing
Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps
NBL Exceeds Storage by 100’
NBT Exceeds Storage by 100’
SBT Exceeds Storage by 800’
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
All Queues Within Storage
(Queues would be even shorter
than with a signalized
intersection)
Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street
near Brisco Road. Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be
affected.
Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning
movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected
decreased trips (-0.09% and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips
during the mid-day peak (+0.34%). The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study
are very minor.
Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after
construction of Alternative 4C. This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took
Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with
construction of Alternative 4C. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable
increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C.
The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses, and
concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and
construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan, and would result in
less than significant impacts. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 114 of 164
than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural
settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by
eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce
speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the
additional time to perceive, think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users) with the low-
speed roundabout designs. Alternative 4C would also improve pedestrian facilities in the vicinity
of the new interchange, providing safer connections for pedestrians. The new interchange is not
expected to operate substantially different than the existing intersection. Under Alternative 4C,
traffic levels would be improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City’s
General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of
the Regional Transportation Plan. Long-term traffic benefits under Alternative 4C would be
slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly at the Brisco Road/El
Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street intersections. In addition, Alternative 4C
meets the stated project’s purpose of maintaining direct access from U.S. 101 to
commercial/retail areas in the project area.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 115 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 116 of 164
36. Response to: Will Reichardt (Letter Dated May 10, 2018)
36.1 The commenter expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on cost and the fiscal impacts of
Alternative 4C to the City. The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the
estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come
from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by
the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation
funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency
for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan.
Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full
funding for the proposed project is “reasonably available” prior to final approval of the EA by
Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available
local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be
financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under
Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing
commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10 year planning horizon. In
addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future
years and collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore,
no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made
part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 117 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 118 of 164
37. Response to: Linda L. Smith (Letter Dated May 10, 2018)
37.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 (or alternatively the No Build Alternative)
because of cost. The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost
for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different
sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-
year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal
Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured
by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and
the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA
requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the
proposed project is “reasonably available” prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City
proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well
as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under
Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.
The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for
the debt service of the project over the 10 year planning horizon. In addition, local
transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and
collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore,
no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made
part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 119 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 120 of 164
38. Response to: Jeff Techau (Letter Dated May 10, 2018)
38.1 The comment expresses a preference for roundabouts but raises concerns about how the
roundabout is potentially undersized and drivers may have a difficult time using them. Traffic
related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and
Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle
Facilities in the EA. The proposed roundabout, as designed, would be adequately sized to meet
the traffic needs of the project area. Traffic throughout the project area would be substantially
improved over No Build (existing) conditions, and slightly better than traffic conditions under
Alternative 1. The project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and
construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan; therefore, impacts
related to roundabout design and size would be less than significant. In general, roundabouts
have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop
and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for
improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity,
and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older
drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive, think, react, and correct for errors (as
may all users) with the low-speed roundabout designs. They are becoming more and more
frequently used in the project vicinity and other areas.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 121 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 122 of 164
39. Response to: Carolyn Bayliss (Letter Dated May 11, 2018)
39.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1, strong opposition to Alternative 4c, and
a preference for the No Build Alternative over Alternative 4C. The comment does not directly
relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the
environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the
administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
39.2 This comment further supports Alternative 1 because it would be an effective means of
addressing traffic congestion as evidenced by the substantial improvements during temporary
ramp closures. Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic
and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA discuss impacts to traffic and
conclude that under Alternative 1, traffic levels would be substantially improved throughout the
project area in comparison to the No Build Alternative. The improvements proposed under
Alternative 1 would be necessary to maintain improved traffic conditions in the future, in the
event the Brisco Road ramps are closed.
39.3 This comment raises concerns about the fiscal impacts of Alternative 4C. The estimated cost for
Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million.
Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program
of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other
sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is
acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016
Regional Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is
required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is “reasonably available”
prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project
alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds).
Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately
$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax
Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project
over the 10 year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future
projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore,
no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made
part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 123 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 124 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 125 of 164
40. Response to: Sam Cotton (Letter Dated May 11, 2018)
40.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on the previous successful
temporary ramp closure and cost. Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and
Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA discuss
impacts to traffic and conclude that under Alternative 1, traffic levels would be substantially
improved throughout the project area in comparison to the No Build Alternative. The
improvements proposed under Alternative 1 would be necessary to maintain improved traffic
conditions in the future, in the event the Brisco Road ramps are closed.
Regarding cost, the estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for
Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different
sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year
capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation
Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of
Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is
included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the
City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is
“reasonably available” prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially
fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or
Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and
approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year
Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of
the project over the 10 year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from
future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the
project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes
available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible installation
of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000 and Alternative
4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the southbound
Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either
alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any other environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;
therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will
be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their
consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 126 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 127 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 128 of 164
41. Response to: John and Margie Gayley (Letter Dated May 11, 2018)
41.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 and opposes Alternative 4C based on the
expense and fiscal impact to the City. The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while
the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come
from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by
the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation
funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency
for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan.
Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full
funding for the proposed project is “reasonably available” prior to final approval of the EA by
Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available
local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be
financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under
Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing
commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10 year planning horizon. In
addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future
years and collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore,
no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made
part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
41.2 This comment raises concerns regarding neighborhood disruption, the size of the proposed
roundabout footprint, and the growth of adjacent residential areas further complicating traffic
patterns. The IS/MND and EA considered cumulative growth and development within the City in
analyzing potential impacts, including residential growth at Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive. Traffic
related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and
Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle
Facilities in the EA.
The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane / West Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of
Alternative 4C would provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the
alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project
area.
The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near
Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives. The LOS
and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval & Environmental
Determination Phase (PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 129 of 164
Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum
(Wood Rodgers, June 7, 2017).
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service
Alternative Intersection LOS
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
B
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing
Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps
NBL Exceeds Storage by 100’
NBT Exceeds Storage by 100’
SBT Exceeds Storage by 800’
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
All Queues Within Storage
(Queues would be even shorter
than with a signalized
intersection)
Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street
near Brisco Road. Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be
affected.
Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning
movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected
decreased trips (-0.09% and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips
during the mid-day peak (+0.34%). The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study
are very minor.
Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after
construction of Alternative 4C. This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took
Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with
construction of Alternative 4C. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable
increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 130 of 164
The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses, and
concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and
construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan, and would result in less
than significant impacts. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other
forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings.
Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or
altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they
proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to
perceive, think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users) with the low-speed roundabout
designs. Alternative 4C would also improve pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the new
interchange, providing safer connections for pedestrians through the project area. The new
interchange is not expected to operate substantially different than the existing intersection.
Under Alternative 4C, traffic levels would be improved throughout the project area and would be
consistent the City’s General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System
Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Long-term traffic benefits under
Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly at
the Brisco Road/El Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street intersections. In
addition, Alternative 4C meets the stated project purpose of maintaining direct access from U.S.
101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1
through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure
that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns
incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or
lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving
connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. .
Additional mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND and EA were included to ensure that
proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public
transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for
incorporating and improving connectivity with St. Patrick’s School and existing and new public
transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. With incorporation of these measures, potential
impacts to St. Patrick’s School and the surrounding neighborhoods would be less than significant.
41.3 This comment raises concerns about the project’s proximity and safety implications to St.
Patrick’s School. See Response 41.2.
This comment raises concerns about increased traffic speeds along Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive,
the use of these streets as a “throughway”, and safety concerns at the Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane
intersection. See Response 41.2. Excess speed is an enforcement issue or a side effect of
implementing an arbitrary speed limit without a traffic engineering survey. Otherwise the City
can implement traffic calming measures to achieve the desired operating speed. A City-wide
speed study was approved by City Council November 27, 2018. The speed study determined
that the posted speed limit on Grace Lane remained unchanged at 35 miles per hour, which
represents the 85th percentile. The Arroyo Grande Police Department is providing enforcement
and is prepared to cite speed violators as allowed by the vehicle code. According to the City
Police Department, observed speeds are definitely lower than the perceived 50 mph plus speeds
being reported by residents.
Regarding safety concerns, the US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane / West Branch Street roundabout
intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best level of service (LOS) and
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 131 of 164
queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel
routes through the project area.
The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near
Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives. The LOS
and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval & Environmental
Determination Phase (PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood
Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum
(Wood Rodgers, June 7, 2017).
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service
Alternative Intersection LOS
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
B
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing
Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps
NBL Exceeds Storage by 100’
NBT Exceeds Storage by 100’
SBT Exceeds Storage by 800’
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
All Queues Within Storage
(Queues would be even shorter
than with a signalized
intersection)
Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street
near Brisco Road. Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be
affected.
Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning
movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected
decreased trips (-0.09% and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips
during the mid-day peak (+0.34%). The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study
are very minor.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 132 of 164
Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after
construction of Alternative 4C. This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took
Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with
construction of Alternative 4C. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable
increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C.
41.4 This comment raises a concern about pedestrian traffic. See Response 41.2. The cost of
pedestrian improvements and implementation of all other mitigation requirements are included
in the estimated project costs for both alternatives. The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is
$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is
proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation
projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local
transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional
funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional
Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is required to
demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is “reasonably available” prior to final
approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative
through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2
million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would
need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan
anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10
year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also
be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes
available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible installation
of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000 and Alternative
4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the southbound
Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either
alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore,
no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made
part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
41.5 This comment raises concerns about the benefits of roundabouts. Traffic related impacts were
analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by
Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND
and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. The
proposed roundabout, as designed, would be adequately sized to meet the traffic needs of the
project area. Traffic throughout the project area would be substantially improved over No Build
conditions, and slightly better than traffic conditions under Alternative 1. The project would be
subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures
contained in the General Plan; therefore, impacts related to roundabout design and size would
be less than significant. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than
other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural
settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 133 of 164
eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce
speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the
additional time to perceive, think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users) with the low-
speed roundabout designs. They are becoming more and more frequently used in the project
vicinity and other areas.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 134 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 135 of 164
42. Response to: Rod Hatch (Letter Dated May 11, 2018)
42.1 This comment suggests an additional alternative that would keep the northbound off-ramp
open at Brisco Road while closing the northbound on-ramp. Caltrans policy prohibits isolated
off-ramps.
The City and Caltrans have discussed numerous project design alternatives over the last decade,
many of which were determined to be infeasible due to geographical limitations or traffic
conditions. Alternatives 1 and 4C have been evaluated extensively and determined to be
feasible alternatives that would meet the project’s purpose and need. As a result, these two
build alternatives are being considered in this analysis to address the project objective of
correcting existing operational deficiencies in the area. Closure of the northbound on-ramp at
Brisco Road would not solve current or projected traffic issues in the project area. All
intersections which would be directly modified by the Project or which could potentially
experience a change in operations due to the Project were selected for analysis, per typical
industry practices. The list of intersections to be included in the analysis was shared with and
approved by the Project Development Team.
The Project would potentially modify facilities along El Camino Real and West Branch Street
between the US 101 south ramps just west of Oak Park Boulevard and Grand Avenue. Therefore,
all major intersections within these limits were selected for evaluation. Any facilities outside these
limits would not likely see a significant change in traffic operations due to the Project, and
therefore were not included in the analysis. Fair Oaks Avenue is outside the limits of the Project
improvements and has no direct local street connection to West Branch Street or El Camino Real,
and therefore was not included in the analysis.
42.2 The commenter expresses opposition to Alternative 4C because the roundabout may be
confusing to drivers and opposition to Alternative 1 because of the lack of access from U.S. 101.
In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection
control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a
proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types,
reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through
intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive, think, react, and
correct for errors (as may all users) with the low-speed roundabout designs. The IS/MND and EA
recognize the benefit of Alternative 4C in maintaining direct access from U.S. 101 to the
commercial/retail centers throughout the project area. Alternative 1 would not meet this
project purpose, but the was determined that alternate routes were available to accommodate
trips through the project area, particularly given the improvements in traffic flow that would
occur under either alternative.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 136 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 137 of 164
43. Response to: Andrea Portney (Letter Dated May 11, 2018)
43.1 The comment requests that careful consideration be given in choosing an alternative for the
Brisco Road interchange, citing to the long-term effects the decision will have to surrounding
neighborhoods. The comment does not directly relate to any other environmental issues in the
IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,
the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision
makers for their consideration.
43.2 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1. The comment does not directly relate to
any other environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the
environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the
administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
This comment raises concerns over additional traffic related impacts resulting from Alternative
4C and states that a residential neighborhood is not an appropriate location for a roundabout or
Park and Ride lot. Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic
Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section
XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA.
The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane / West Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of
Alternative 4C would provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the
alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project
area.
The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near
Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives. The LOS
and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval & Environmental
Determination Phase (PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood
Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum
(Wood Rodgers, June 7, 2017).
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service
Alternative Intersection LOS
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
B
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing
Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 138 of 164
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps
NBL Exceeds Storage by 100’
NBT Exceeds Storage by 100’
SBT Exceeds Storage by 800’
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
All Queues Within Storage
(Queues would be even shorter
than with a signalized
intersection)
Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street
near Brisco Road. Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be
affected.
Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning
movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected
decreased trips (-0.09% and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips
during the mid-day peak (+0.34%). The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study
are very minor.
Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after
construction of Alternative 4C. This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took
Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with
construction of Alternative 4C. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable
increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C.
The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses and
concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and
construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan and would result in less
than significant impacts. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other
forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings.
Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or
altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they
proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to
perceive, think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users) with the low-speed roundabout
designs. Alternative 4C would also improve pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the new
interchange, providing safer connections for pedestrians through the project area. The new
interchange is not expected to operate substantially different than the existing intersection.
Under Alternative 4C, traffic levels would be improved throughout the project area and would be
consistent the City’s General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System
Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Long-term traffic benefits under
Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly at
the Brisco Road/El Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street intersections. In
addition, Alternative 4C meets the stated project purpose of maintaining direct access from U.S.
101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 139 of 164
through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure
that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns
incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or
lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving
connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. With
incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to St. Patrick’s School and the surrounding
neighborhoods would be less than significant. The proposed roundabout and Park and Ride lot
would not be located in a neighborhood; they are proposed in a Public Facility zoned area adjacent
to substantial commercial/retail uses along West Branch Street.
43.3 This comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on project cost. The estimated
cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million.
Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program
of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other
sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is
acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016
Regional Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is
required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is “reasonably available”
prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project
alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds).
Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately
$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax
Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project
over the 10 year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future
projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any other environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;
therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will
be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their
consideration.
The commenter reiterates their preference for Alternative 1 citing several improvements
proposed under that alternative (upgrades to Grand Avenue, upgrades to Camino Mercado,
noise walls). The comment also states that Alternative 1 would reduce traffic trips through the
Royal Oak Area off Rodeo Drive and surrounding neighborhoods. Omni-Means completed a
before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning movement counts collected at
the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected decreased trips (-0.09% and -
0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during the mid-day peak (+0.34%).
The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very minor.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 140 of 164
Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after
construction of Alternative 4C. This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which
took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with
construction of Alternative 4C. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a
noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C.
43.4 Since Alternative 1 would eliminate the existing US 101 northbound ramps on Brisco Road,
travel time between James Way and US 101 along Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane is projected to
increase with construction of Alternative 1. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to
experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 1.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 141 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 142 of 164
44. Response to: Jeff Portney (Letter Dated May 11, 2018)
44.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on the temporary test closure of
the northbound ramps at Brisco Road and traffic benefits that would result from the
improvements at Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado proposed under Alternative 1. The
comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore,
no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made
part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
44.2 This comment expresses a preference for the No Build Alternative due to project costs. The
estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is
$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6
million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital
improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation
Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of
Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is
included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the
City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is
“reasonably available” prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially
fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or
Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and
approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year
Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service
of the project over the 10 year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees
from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for
the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes
available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible installation
of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000 and Alternative
4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the southbound
Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either
alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore,
no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made
part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
44.3 The comment expresses opposition to Alternative 4C based on the large roundabout footprint,
lack of access improvements to the Village of Arroyo Grande, and increased traffic through
Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive. Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum:
Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed
in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane / West
Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the
best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not
resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project area.
The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses and
concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 143 of 164
construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan, and would result in less
than significant impacts. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other
forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings.
Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or
altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they
proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to
perceive, think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users) with the low-speed roundabout
designs. Alternative 4C would also improve pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the new
interchange, providing safer connections for pedestrians through the project area. The new
interchange is not expected to operate substantially different than the existing intersection.
Under Alternative 4C, traffic levels would be improved throughout the project area and would be
consistent the City’s General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System
Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Long-term traffic benefits under
Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly at
the Brisco Road/El Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street intersections. In
addition, Alternative 4C meets the stated project purpose of maintaining direct access from U.S.
101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1
through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure
that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns
incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or
lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving
connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. With
incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to St. Patrick’s School and the surrounding
neighborhoods would be less than significant.
The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near
Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives. The LOS
and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval & Environmental
Determination Phase (PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood
Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum
(Wood Rodgers, June 7, 2017).
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service
Alternative Intersection LOS
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
B
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing
Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 144 of 164
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps
NBL Exceeds Storage by 100’
NBT Exceeds Storage by 100’
SBT Exceeds Storage by 800’
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
All Queues Within Storage
(Queues would be even shorter
than with a signalized
intersection)
Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street
near Brisco Road. Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be
affected.
Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning
movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected
decreased trips (-0.09% and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips
during the mid-day peak (+0.34%). The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study
are very minor.
Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after
construction of Alternative 4C. This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took
Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with
construction of Alternative 4C. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable
increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 145 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 146 of 164
45. Response to: Virginia Roof (Letter Dated May 12, 2018)
The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 and closing of the Brisco Road ramps based
on the traffic benefits during the temporary test ramp closure. The comment also states
opposition to the proposed roundabout because it would make trips through the project area
more chaotic. Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic
Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section
XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane / West
Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best
level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in
a large change in travel routes through the project area.
The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses and
concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and
construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan, and would result in less
than significant impacts. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other
forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings.
Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or
altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they
proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to
perceive, think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users) with the low-speed roundabout
designs. Alternative 4C would also improve pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the new
interchange, providing safer connections for pedestrians through the project area. The new
interchange is not expected to operate substantially different than the existing intersection.
Under Alternative 4C, traffic levels would be improved throughout the project area and would be
consistent the City’s General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System
Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Long-term traffic benefits under
Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly at
the Brisco Road/El Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street intersections. In
addition, Alternative 4C meets the stated project purpose of maintaining direct access from U.S.
101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1
through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure
that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns
incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or
lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving
connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. With
incorporation of these measures, potential traffic and transportation-related effects would be less
than significant.
The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near
Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives. The LOS
and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval & Environmental
Determination Phase (PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood
Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum
(Wood Rodgers, June 7, 2017).
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 147 of 164
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service
Alternative Intersection LOS
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
B
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing
Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps
NBL Exceeds Storage by 100’
NBT Exceeds Storage by 100’
SBT Exceeds Storage by 800’
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
All Queues Within Storage
(Queues would be even shorter
than with a signalized
intersection)
Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street
near Brisco Road. Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be
affected.
Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning
movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected
decreased trips (-0.09% and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips
during the mid-day peak (+0.34%). The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study
are very minor.
Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after
construction of Alternative 4C. This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took
Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with
construction of Alternative 4C. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable
increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C.
45.1 The comment suggests additional sidewalk improvements to provide a safe walking route to
Ocean View Elementary School. The purpose of the project is to correct exiting operational
deficiencies at the northbound U.S. 101 northbound on- and off-ramps/Brisco Road intersection
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 148 of 164
and nearby intersections by providing congestion relief, alleviating queuing, and improving the
traffic operations of the regional and local street system. While the project is not intended to
improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities, the potential for project-related impacts to these
facilities have been addressed. Mitigation Measures in the IS/MND (LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-
3) and the EA (TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8) incorporate various measures to improve multimodal
connectivity and upgrade facilities for both bicyclist and pedestrians, including requirements
that the City improve connectivity to bike paths or lanes, and ensure bike and pedestrian
circulation to serve schools and public facilities are made a priority consistent with policies in
the City’s Circulation Element. With incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to
pedestrian and bike facilities, including those near Ocean View Elementary School, would be less
than significant.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 149 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 150 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 151 of 164
46. Response to: Theresa Schultz (Letter Dated May 12, 2018)
46.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on project costs. The estimated
cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million.
Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program
of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other
sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is
acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016
Regional Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is
required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is “reasonably available”
prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project
alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds).
Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately
$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax
Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project
over the 10 year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future
projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore,
no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made
part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
The comment also raises several traffic and safety concerns under Alternative 4C, including ramp
spacing, neighborhood impacts along Rodeo Drive and Grace Lane, increased traffic through
Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive, and the benefits ramp closure would have on the Brisco Road
undercrossing. Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic
Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section
XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane / West
Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best
level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in
a large change in travel routes through the project area.
The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses and
concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and
construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan, and would result in less
than significant impacts. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other
forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings.
Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or
altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they
proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 152 of 164
perceive, think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users) with the low-speed roundabout
designs. Alternative 4C would also improve pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the new
interchange, providing safer connections for pedestrians through the project area. The new
interchange is not expected to operate substantially different than the existing intersection.
Under Alternative 4C, traffic levels would be substantially improved throughout the project area
and would be consistent the City’s General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation
System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Long-term traffic benefits
under Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly
at the Brisco Road/El Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street intersections. Studies
did not find that Alternative 1 would be more efficient in alleviating traffic through the Brisco
Road undercrossing than Alternative 4C. In addition, Alternative 4C meets the stated project
purpose of maintaining direct access from U.S. 101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area.
In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7,
and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that
proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public
transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for
incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the
greatest extent feasible. With incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to St. Patrick’s
School and the surrounding neighborhoods would be less than significant.
The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near
Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives. The LOS
and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval & Environmental
Determination Phase (PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood
Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum
(Wood Rodgers, June 7, 2017).
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service
Alternative Intersection LOS
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
B
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing
Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps
NBL Exceeds Storage by 100’
NBT Exceeds Storage by 100’
SBT Exceeds Storage by 800’
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 153 of 164
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
All Queues Within Storage
(Queues would be even shorter
than with a signalized
intersection)
Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street
near Brisco Road. Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be
affected.
Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning
movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected
decreased trips (-0.09% and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips
during the mid-day peak (+0.34%). The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study
are very minor.
Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after
construction of Alternative 4C. This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took
Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with
construction of Alternative 4C. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable
increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 154 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 155 of 164
47. Response to: Sue Stanton (Letter Dated May 12, 2018)
47.1 This comment summarizes the current deficient and dangerous conditions at the U.S. 101
ramps/Brisco Road/West Branch Street and Brisco Road/El Camino Real intersections and
suggests the temporary ramp closures seemed to help the issues to some degree. The comment
does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes
in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the
administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 156 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 157 of 164
48. Response to: Robert and Julia Hess (Letter Dated May 14, 2018)
48.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 and opposition to Alternative 4C based
on the expense and fiscal impact to the City. The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7
million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is
proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation
projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local
transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional
funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional
Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande is required to
demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is “reasonably available” prior to final
approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative
through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2
million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would
need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan
anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10
year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also
be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore,
no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made
part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
48.2 This comment asks whether the gas tax will be relied on to fund Alternative 4C. Funding of the
project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of
transportation projects funded by the federal Transportation Investment Fund and other
sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. The City
recognizes repeal of the gas tax was voted on in the November elections and failed. The
comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore,
no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made
part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
48.3 This comment raises concerns about moving the on/off-ramps closer to Grand Avenue under
Alternative 4C and creating possible merging issues. Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a
Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood
Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and
Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. These
analyses included an evaluation of freeway mainline operations and mainline weaving (merging
with on- and off-ramps). Under both build alternatives mainline weaving operations would be
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 158 of 164
improved over No Build conditions. No change to mainline operations would occur under either
alternative.
48.4 This comment raises concerns about roundabouts and potential safety hazard. In general,
roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control
(two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven
safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types,
reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through
intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive, think, react, and
correct for errors (as may all users) with the low-speed roundabout designs. They are becoming
more and more frequently used in the project vicinity and other areas, including in combination
with a freeway on- and/or off-ramp.
48.5 This comment refers to traffic benefits realized during temporary ramp closures and reduced
trips on Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive. Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and
Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA discuss
impacts to traffic and conclude that under Alternative 1, traffic levels would be substantially
improved throughout the project area in comparison to the No Build Alternative. The
improvements proposed under Alternative 1 would be necessary to maintain improved traffic
conditions in the future, in the event the Brisco Road ramps are closed.
Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning
movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected
decreased trips (-0.09% and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips
during the mid-day peak (+0.34%). The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study
are very minor.
Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after
construction of Alternative 4C. This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which
took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with
construction of Alternative 4C. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a
noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C.
Since Alternative 1 would eliminate the existing US 101 northbound ramps on Brisco Road, travel
time between James Way and US 101 along Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane is projected to increase with
construction of Alternative 1. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable
increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 1.
48.6 The comment reiterates a preference for Alternative 1. The comment does not directly relate to
any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental
documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record
and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 159 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 160 of 164
49. Response to: Danny Gresser (Letter Dated May 7, 2018)
49.1 The comment questions what the benefits of Alternative 4C are and expresses opposition to
Alternative 4C based on project costs and neighborhood impacts along Grace Lane. The
estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is
$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6
million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital
improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation
Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of
Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is
included in SLOCOG’s 2016 Regional Transportation Plan. Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the
City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is
“reasonably available” prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially
fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or
Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and
approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City’s 10 Year
Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service
of the project over the 10 year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees
from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for
the project.
The City is also considering phasing portions of the project to a later date, when funding
becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible
installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately $950,000
and Alternative 4C costs by approximately $1,075,000; and (2) the proposed realignment of the
southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce
costs of either alternative by approximately $2,100,000.
The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;
therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will
be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their
consideration.
49.2 This comment raises a concern about neighborhood impacts along Grace Lane and new
congestion near the school. Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum:
Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed
in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and
Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane / West
Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would substantially
improve traffic and circulation at all project area intersections over No Build conditions and
provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed
while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project area. Alternative 4C
would also improve pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the new interchange, providing safer
connections for pedestrians through the project area. The new interchange is not expected to
operate substantially different than the existing intersection. Under Alternative 4C, traffic levels
would be consistent the City’s General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation
System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Long-term traffic benefits
under Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1,
particularly at the Brisco Road/El Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 161 of 164
intersections. In addition, Alternative 4C meets the stated project purpose of maintaining direct
access from U.S. 101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area. In addition, Mitigation
Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were
identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed
circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit
facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating
and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent
feasible.
The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near
Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives. The LOS
and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval & Environmental
Determination Phase (PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood
Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum
(Wood Rodgers, June 7, 2017).
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service
Alternative Intersection LOS
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
B
2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing
Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing
No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps
NBL Exceeds Storage by 100’
NBT Exceeds Storage by 100’
SBT Exceeds Storage by 800’
Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a
Alternative 4C
US 101 NB Ramps-Grace
Lane/West Branch Street
(Roundabout)
All Queues Within Storage
(Queues would be even shorter
than with a signalized
intersection)
Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street
near Brisco Road. Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be
affected.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 162 of 164
Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning
movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected
decreased trips (-0.09% and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips
during the mid-day peak (+0.34%). The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study
are very minor.
Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations
Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after
construction of Alternative 4C. This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took
Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with
construction of Alternative 4C. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable
increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C.
49.3 This comment raises a concern about speeding along Grace Lane and use of Grace Lane and
Rodeo Drive as a “throughway” to James Way. Excess speed is an enforcement issue or a side
effect of implementing an arbitrary speed limit without a traffic engineering survey. Otherwise
the City can implement traffic calming measures to achieve the desired operating speed. A City-
wide speed study was approved by City Council November 27, 2018. The speed study
determined that the posted speed limit on Grace Lane remained unchanged at 35 miles per
hour, which represents the 85th percentile. The Arroyo Grande Police Department is providing
enforcement and is prepared to cite speed violators as allowed by the vehicle code. According
to the City Police Department, observed speeds are definitely lower than the perceived 50 mph
plus speeds being reported by residents.
49.4 This comment raises a concern about speeding traffic in nearby neighborhoods. See Response
49.2 and 49.3.
49.5 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on project costs. Refer to
Response to 49.1 for comments related to project cost. The comment does not directly relate to
any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental
documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record
and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
49.6 The comment asks why Alternative 4C is still being considered as an option. Refer to Response
49.1.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 163 of 164
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA February 2019
Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Page 164 of 164
50. Response to: Brad Snook (Letter Dated April 26, 2018)
50.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1. The comment does not directly relate to
any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental
documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record
and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
50.2 The comment expresses a preference for new Northbound off-ramps. The comment questions
the necessity of a roundabout suggests utilizing stop signs at West Branch Street instead. The
City and Caltrans have discussed numerous project design alternatives over the last decade,
many of which were determined to be infeasible due to geographical limitations or traffic
conditions. Alternatives 1 and 4C have been evaluated extensively and determined to be
feasible alternatives that would meet the project’s purpose and need. As a result, these two
build alternatives are being considered in this analysis to address the project objective of
correcting existing operational deficiencies in the area. The comment does not directly relate to
any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental
documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record
and provided to local decision makers for their consideration.
From:Judy Zwarg
To:brisco
Subject:Alternate #1
Date:Saturday, February 09, 2019 11:11:55 AM
Hi:
We would like to express our vote for alternative #1 in the upcoming City Council meeting. Unfortunately we are
unable to be at the meeting.
Thanks
Jack & Judy
House of Another Tyme B&B
Le Point St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
ATTACHMENT 7
From:Carol De Los Santos
To:brisco
Subject:Alternative 1
Date:Thursday, February 14, 2019 5:33:15 PM
Traffic flowed smoother when Brisco was closed for a year.
Heavy traffic in the Rodeo area would be a problem and it would be too close to the school.
The bridge at Arroyo would be the best area to expand.
Sincerely
Carol DeLosSantos
Vista Pacifica Circle
Pismo Beach Ca 93449
Sent from my iPhone
From:Ann Cherry
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco Offramp
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 8:39:12 AM
To whom it may concern:
I have only lived in Arroyo Grande for 3 years but have visited family for over 25 years.
What is noticed at the Brisco offramp mostly, is the backup of traffic on Branch St., all the way up to the top of the
hill, even with Chili’s restaurant, in the afternoons at least. Sometimes it takes 3 or 4 cycles of a green light to get to
the other side of the freeway!
People coming from the El Camino Real side have traffic backed up, two lanes, to Halcyon. Then you have the
people turning, under the freeway, on to the northbound freeway yet some cars continue onto Branch St., make the
left turn and go immediately into the right lane, a possible accident and horn honking situation. The is no signage
saying you MUST turn onto the freeway or that you can use it to continue on to Branch St. although there is a
painted arrow saying you can continue. I heard City Engineers do not want you to continue but no sign says you
can’t and the arrow is there to continue.
In other words, that offramp needs to be moved, it’s just a nightmare of confusion, long waits and high traffic along
with a high possibility of accidents. All the “weird” turns don’t help either.
Ann Cherry
Hacienda Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA
Sent from my iPhone
From:Camille Penningroth
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 11:59:35 AM
Hello,
I think the Brisco offramp should be closed because of the congestion it creates. It was fine when it was temporarily
closed, as I used the Oak Park exit.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Carmela Vignocchi
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco interchange input
Date:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 4:33:44 PM
Hello,
Thank you to Jimmy Paulding for sending the email out to many of us who will be affected but don't live in AG.
I am in favor of Alternative 1; it's cost effective and worked!
Thank you,
Carmela Vignocchi
Sent from my iPad
From:Carolyn Leighton
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco interchange project - no build
Date:Thursday, February 14, 2019 12:41:30 AM
Sent from my iPad
From:Patricia W
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco Interchange
Date:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 5:56:30 AM
The ONLY thing that needs to be done is adding a turn signal at the frontage road and Brisco.
Other wise it needs to be left alone. Yes it gets busy certain times of the day but the whole
freeway system does. It is the nature of the beast. Too many people, too little space. Maybe if
the county/cities curtailed growth, there might be some reprieve. Seriously, there are so much
better uses of the money proposed being spent on this. I use this area all of the time. Most
times of the day, it is just fine. If people would learn to just be patient and not be in such a
hurry, they would see there is no need for any changes other than a turn signal on the frontage
road.
Patricia Wiley
Alisos Road
AG CA 93420
From:Sharlotte Wilson
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco interchange
Date:Thursday, February 14, 2019 5:51:15 AM
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am out of country so I will miss the meeting today. I am asking for the City of Arroyo
Grande to consider this option:
The First Alternative:
Closes the northbound on and off ramps at Brisco Road and HWY 101.
Completes intersection improvements at Camino Mercado and HWY 101.
Completes intersection improvements at East Grand Avenue and HWY 101.
Completes bridge widening on East Grand Avenue.
Has an estimated cost of $14,000,000.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sharlotte Wilson
Bambi Court Arroyo Grande
From:Hank Wethington
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco Interchange
Date:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 10:24:51 AM
Interchange Team,
As a 25-year resident of Arroyo Grande, I have used the Brisco interchange to get to work in
San Luis Obispo or when coming home after a southern trip for most of that time. My
preference for the interchange is to leave it as is. The main reason the interchange should stay
as is is this would save the city millions of dollars. While the interchange can be frustrating at
times, most of these times are a problem with the driver(s) not the interchange. I'm not
convinced that either of the proposed changes would be less frustrating, but I do know they
will cost a tremendous amount.
Hank Wethington
Ash St,
Arroyo Grade, CA 93420
From:Sandra Mason
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco Interchange
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 8:45:20 AM
In case I can’t get to the meeting:
I think #2 is the better alternative in the long run. It provides for a better long term solution. BTW, I
live at the intersection of Chaparral and Grace Lane, so it is not a NIMBY solution for me.
Either way, #1 or #2 would be better than #3.
Sandra Mason
Chaparral Ln, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
From:Morgan Bowen
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco Preference
Date:Monday, February 11, 2019 6:22:12 PM
Dear Arroyo Grande City Council,
Thank you for reaching out to the community. I have lived in the area since 1997 and specifically on Old Ranch
Road in AG between the library and the women’s club for almost three years. My vote is for Alt 1 because it will be
the best for eliminating congestion. Currently, there is a great deal of congestion and backup because of the Brisco
on and off-ramps. Also, Alt 2 would create on and off ramps too close to residents while Camino Mercado is ideal
and near shopping.
Sincerely,
Morgan Bowen
Sent from my iPad
From:Kim Rose
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco preference
Date:Monday, February 11, 2019 6:38:52 PM
Arroyo Grande City Council,
My preference for the Brisco interchange is alternative 1. I believe it’s the best way to save the city money and
alleviate traffic. Mostly, I am against bringing the ramp to Rodeo Drive.
Thank you,
Kim Rose
Old Ranch Rd
Arroyo Grande
Dylan James Salon, Owner
E Grand Ave
Arroyo Grande
Sent from my iPad
From:Joan Dralle
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco project
Date:Thursday, February 14, 2019 10:39:30 AM
Closing the north ramps worked. Let’s go with a proven solution
Joan Dralle Paul pl arroyo grande
Sent from my iPad
From:Bill Greene
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco project
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 7:08:47 PM
My feeling is to leave it alone, and spend the money on other projects.
I have seen no reason to change this area ,and I have lived here since 1971
Bill Greene
Brisco Road Interchange Project
Social Media Comments
a/o 2/13/19
INSTAGRAM
arroyograndecity
The public is invited to a public information meeting regarding the Brisco Road Interchange
Project next Wednesday, February 13th from 4-6 PM. Come ask questions, discuss the
alternatives and provide your input.
#ArroyoGrande #BriscoRoad#briscointerchangeproject
james g. green
Alt #1
FACEBOOK
City of Arroyo Grande
Published by Hootsuite · February 6 at 8:05 AM ·
The public is invited to a public information meeting regarding the Brisco Road Interchange Project
next Wednesday, February 13th from 4-6 PM. Come ask questions, discuss the alternatives and provide
your input.
#ArroyoGrande #BriscoRoad #BriscoInterchangeProject
3,324
People Reached
1,023
Engagements
Dianne McGrail Seriously? What about El Campo offramp. Susie N Marc Barnum
Susie N Marc Barnum Someone is stopping it and im not sure who. They are paying like $80000 for the 4th
study..something like that. We are going to study it to death and ignore the fatalities.
Simon Smith Just kill the NB 101 @ El Campo. Done. Check.
Bev Diggles #3. The money should be spent on something more important, like El Campo road intersection.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Brisco ramp as it now. It was a real headache when it was closed. There
are alternative routes for people that don’t like it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Brisco Road Interchange Project
Social Media Comments
a/o 2/13/19
Kristen Fellows Barneich shared City of Arroyo Grande's photo.
February 6 at 4:12 PM
Please attend to provide input on the Brisco intersection and the alternatives listed below. Thank you!
Jennie Reed These two “alternatives” are terrible! Who came up with them?!
Robert Marvos just thinking two other options as an option close brisco on ramp and off ramp. improve
grande ave off and on ramp. another option close brisco on and off ramp and a north bound off ramp at
oak park next carl's jr. it seems the infrastracure is all ready there. the area should of been completed
before the area behind the movie. theater was built
John Waller These options already exist, Northbound on and off ramp across from the cemetery and
Panera's. And another on ramp at Oak Park. Does not seem to be a need to build anything.
Bev Diggles John Waller spot on
Robby Fox Gussman Worked well when Briscoe was temporarily closed.
Jeff Techau My understanding is that it did not work well, and that at times of heavy traffic, cars would
sometimes back up on the Grand and Camino Mercado exit ramps enough to cause an unsafe situation
for exiting traffic, and perhaps even impact freeway traffic.…See More
Alan Stephenson The issue isn't entering or exiting 101, it's what moving the ramps does to the side
streets which are already effed-up due to poor signaling, etc.
Beatrice McComb Spencer Honestly, how many times over how many years do the residents have to
come give input? Until the city gets the answer they’re hoping for, or until the residents who have been
involved with this blasted project from the beginning are dead? (Only half …See More
Brisco Road Interchange Project
Social Media Comments
a/o 2/13/19
Will Reichardt Beatrice McComb Spencer mirrors my very sentiments precisely !!
Beatrice McComb Spencer Will, the biggest waste of AG taxpayer funds in a while. We need an
accounting on this but the city will not be forthcoming with it.
Sharlotte Wilson Beatrice McComb Spencer thank you this mirrors my response.
Jan Ratterree I so agree! Apparently the input we gave was not the answer they wanted.
Sarah Diggs Closing the northbound on/off ramps are a terrible idea. They are much needed access
points. Honestly, this feels like AG is trying to solve a problem it doesnt have. I'm in and around that
interchange often and never have issues navigating. (Except for that year + that the ramps were closed)
Beatrice McComb Spencer Sarah, the intersections around the Brisco interchange currently (and have
for many years) operated with such poor LOS (levels of service D or F), that something needs to be done.
Traffic backs up on El Camino from Brisco to Halcyon, on Branch from Ra…See More
Jeff Techau I kind of agree with Sarah. We've spent years of research and dollars, and are looking at
millions of dollars of construction, so people don't have to sit through a couple traffic light cycles? First
world problems.
Beatrice McComb Spencer At some point the city has to address their failing traffic issues. They’re not
supposed to operate less than level C. This has been D or F since Wal Mart came to town. Very poor
planning.
Brisco Road Interchange Project
Social Media Comments
a/o 2/13/19
Sarah Diggs Beatrice McComb Spencer 10 years here in AG and travel through that area almost daily.
I've never waited more than one light in any direction.
Bev Diggles Sarah Diggs you are correct. It is a non issue.
Bev Diggles Beatrice McComb Spencer the only time the Brisco ramps are an issue is when they are
closed. That is a problem. Keeping them open keeps traffic moving.
Beatrice McComb Spencer Sarah, we travel through there every day, multiple times a day for the last 30
years. The city has paid tens?, hundreds? of thousands for traffic studies over the last 25 years. The data
confirms the failing LOS.
Beatrice McComb Spencer Bev, our first responders disagree.
Sarah Diggs Beatrice McComb Spencer could the "failing LOS" be solved with better light timing?
The bigger traffic issue is in front of AGHS. I would love to see the city pay for some studies around
AGHS during school hours, sports events, clark center events.... Pretty much all hours of the day, every
day. Now that's a very real traffic crisis that puts kids/pedestrians at risk daily.
Beatrice McComb Spencer Sarah, have you seen the plans for the roundabout at Fair Oaks?
Bev Diggles Beatrice McComb Spencer they are wrong.
Beatrice McComb Spencer Bev, the traffic counts are wrong or the first responders response times are
wrong?
Sarah Diggs Beatrice McComb Spencer I have not. Is it at fair oaks and traffic way or fair oaks and
orchard? What do you think of it?
Brisco Road Interchange Project
Social Media Comments
a/o 2/13/19
Beatrice McComb Spencer Sarah, I believe FO/Traffic Wy. It seems like it would be a tight squeeze. The
one proposed for Branch calls for a good portion of the library parking lot and the hill below St Pat’s
school to be removed in order to make room.
Sarah Diggs Beatrice McComb Spencer hmmm... Well if that's correct, AG got it wrong again.
FO/Orchard (which includes the offramp from 101 which backs up onto the freeway most mornings) is
the more dangerous intersection by far.
Beatrice McComb Spencer Sarah 😆😆, I’m very familiar with it. We had kids at AGHS for 14 straight years.
It may well be at Orchard, either way there’s not a lot of space. Check it out.
Sarah Diggs Beatrice McComb Spencer all learning to drive during that time too. Eeek!
Sarah Diggs mine just got his permit. I'm terrified!
Beatrice McComb Spencer Sarah � you’ll survive. It won’t be cheap, but hang in there, you’ll survive.
Sharlotte Wilson Beatrice McComb Spencer we are seeing the same kind of lack of planning on Halcyon
with all the high density development. Let’s not forget this City Council is a extension of the same City
Council that approved Walmart center without making the developers pay for the infrastructure.
Beatrice McComb Spencer Sharlotte, I know exactly what you’re dealing with. Many times I’m unable to
make a left turn from our driveway on Halcyon. Turning right takes me towards the school, smack dab
where the big project is proposed. No issues have been resolved, but the city needs revenue so projects
keep being approved.
Sharlotte Wilson Beatrice McComb Spencer we both have lived here a long time we are the ones helping
the newer residents to understand the current planing doesn’t need to look like this. Let’s remind them
why they left their previous cities because if they don’t remember this City will look like what they left.
Brisco Road Interchange Project
Social Media Comments
a/o 2/13/19
Many many residents need to come to Planning Commission and City Council meetings or they will
decide for us.
Sarah Diggs Beatrice McComb Spencer what is your ideal solution for this area?
Jan Ratterree Beatrice McComb Spencer how do they come up with these roundabouts. With the East
Cherry Development, the traffic studies recommended a roundabout at Traffic Way and Grand. Until it
was brought up by John Mack that there isn't enough space for one. The…See More
Erin Alves Would adding a southbound lane at traffic way alleviate the southbound congestion at Brisco?
Probably not.. just thinking out loud....
I think the most important thing is to not kick the can down the road. I’m in favor of spending more if it
will alleviate congestion. With home being built on Cherry and probably near Harloe AG is growing its
population.
Sharlotte Wilson Erin Alves at some point in time we must have the developers pay for these traffic
infrastructures. It’s not okay for the citizens of Arroyo Grande to pay this bill.
Erin Alves
💯💯
Robert Marvos a good regional planner can solve the problem no has the guts to take any heat from the
voters and tell the voters what they need. the people in this country do not think past their nose's and i
prefer the discusion. but a decesion has to be made and we have to unfortunatly take the advice of
some one who has the technical knowledge
Colleen Martin Robert Marvos the budget must be considered also.
Brisco Road Interchange Project
Social Media Comments
a/o 2/13/19
Jan Ratterree First, the studies that have been done, and those recommendations need to be posted.
Also the cost of those studies that have been done. How do you make an informed choice without the
studies? I'm confused on the need to widen Grand Ave overpass.
Colleen Martin Close the ramps!
Bev Diggles Colleen Martin no!
Alan Stephenson One of the issues pointed out in the council meetings is that this interferes with
emergency vehicle response times.
Jacie Caballero Close Brisco on and off ramp. Improve grand avenue on and off ramps to handle
Increased traffic and alleviate danger from cars backed up on freeway or close Brisco on and off ramps
and then just add a new off ramp at rodeo drive in addition to the existing one on grand. Northbound
ramps are not an issue.
Alan Stephenson Have you attended any of the prior public discussions on this? What you describe is
effectively understood to be the best answer. The problem is looking at it from above. If you look at it
from ground level and realize the various elevations and what that would do to the design of the ramps,
it's not workable.
Colleen Martin Jacie Caballero close the ramp, improve the existing ones and call it a day!
The City of AG has no money folks.
Alan Stephenson Colleen Martin - Again, that still severely impacts the surrounding surface streets,
hinders emergency response vehicles, and harms local businesses.
Jacie Caballero Alan Stephenson no as It doesn’t appear that any ideas we have are ever really heard or
implemented. Just like voting here in California doesn’t change much when you’re a conservative. But
thank you for the support. I honestly think this would work.
Brisco Road Interchange Project
Social Media Comments
a/o 2/13/19
AJ Dury WE ALREADY DID THIS - QUITE A WHILE AGO. But when Mayor Hill's name was attached to it the
council majority didn't give any cares about the public's input. The amount of our money the
government wastes, by spinning their own wheels while getting paid to do nothing is ponderous. Effing
PONDEROUS.
Sharlotte Wilson AJ Dury what would you like to see done? You input is very valuable. Thank you
Bev Diggles AJ Dury exactly. A waste of time, money and energy on something that works fine.
El Campo Road is the place to spend the time, money and energy.
Jan Ratterree Bev Diggles these two traffic issues are quite different. El Campos usage is a drop in the
bucket compared to the Brisco area.
Bev Diggles Jan Ratterree Brisco poses no danger and no problems.
El Campo is fatally dangerous. Has been for 40 years yet nothing changes.
Sharlotte Wilson Bev Diggles El Campo needs to close there is no reason a person can’t use a safer
option.
Alan Stephenson As my immediate area and potentially my street in particular could/would be affected,
I attended a fair number of meetings on this in the past.
There seems to be consensus on a best solution and equal consensus that it's also too costly owing to
the ne…See More
Sharlotte Wilson Alan Stephenson well said. This City Council is hell bent to develop all the rest of the
undeveloped areas in our City. We had a Council just like them in The late 90’s through until now. We
must hold them accountable to have developers pay for the necessary infrastructure if building is going
to take place. We removed Council and Mayors before because they were not listening to the citizens.
We can do it again!!!
From:Larry Herbst
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco Road Alternatives
Date:Thursday, February 07, 2019 1:34:45 PM
I am a voting resident of Arroyo Grande and have lived here for 8 years. I live very near Brisco
Rd and use the interchange frequently to access 101 N & S as well as continuing on Brisco to
Grand. The backups on W. Branch and El Camino at busy times of day need to be addressed
for quality of life here in AG.
I experienced the temporary closings of both 101 northbound on and off ramps and was
disappointed to see the interchange restored to the original configuration. I have examined
both alternatives and feel that either one would address the congestion. I favor the first
alternative solely due to the estimated $9M it would save the city over the second alternative.
Lawrence Herbst
Avenida De Diamante
From:Lou Camara
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco Road Interchange Project
Date:Friday, February 08, 2019 9:22:41 AM
To: Robin Dickerson- City Engineer,
I have a home in Arroyo Grande ( Brisco Road, and have been following the issue of the
Brisco Road Interchange for some time now. After reviewing the proposed alternatives, I liked to
express my preference for Alternative 4C the “Round a Bout” Proposal. Although this alternative is a
more expensive proposition, it is the far superior alternative for improving traffic circulation long-
term in the area. Access to highway 101 north from Brisco Road is very important to the residents
that live along Brisco Road. Closing off access to highway 101 as shown in alternative 1 will create
additional traffic congestion to local roadways and other interchange access points to highway 101
located both north and south of Brisco Road. The closure will also cause increased vehicular travel
times and associated air pollution. The proposed “round a bout” (Alternative 4C) will reduce traffic
congestion at the interchange, reduce long term maintenance and increase public safety. “Round a
bouts” have been shown to be a far superior alternative than standard signalized intersection
control facilities in that they eliminate potential head-up or “T-bone” type collusion conflicts. They
also provide environmental benefits by reducing traffic idling times at intersections, thus providing
air quality benefits. I’m aware of these benefits as having been involved in the recent construction of
a “round a bout” improvement in Hanford, California. The improvement is located on Highway 43 at
Lacey Boulevard. Arroyo Grande is a first class community and deserves a first class transportation
system to provide a long term traffic solution to the area. Again, I am in support of Alternative 4C. If
you have questions, please contact me at .
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Lou Camara,
Arroyo Grande property owner and Public Works Director – Hanford
From:Marianne Moss
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco Road Interchange
Date:Sunday, February 10, 2019 12:21:27 PM
I will be unable to attend the meeting on Wednesday to provide citizen input, but I would like
to inquire if the closing of the on-ramp at Brisco Road while leaving the off-ramp open has
ever been considered as an alternative. As a resident of Brisco Road, the closure of both ramps
was great for us, but I read that the traffic increased too much at Grand Avenue. If the
northbound exit at Brisco Road was left open, northbound drivers could still exit to access the
shopping centers, and the two northbound entrances within a mile of Brisco Road should be
able to handle the increased traffic going north onto the freeway. This would also free up the
dedicated left turn freeway entrance lane under the bridge to handle traffic more efficiently. I
am probably overlooking some aspect that has already been considered that would eliminate
this alternative, but it would certainly save a lot of money and inconvenience to us local
residents while one of the more elaborate solutions is under construction.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marianne Moss
Brisco Road
From:Barbara Stilwell
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco Road Project
Date:Friday, February 08, 2019 9:45:07 AM
I appreciate being allowed to comment by email as I will be unable to attend the meeting.
In my opinion -- Alt.1 is the best option. I remember how nice it was having the freeway
ramps closed for a few months. Brisco is an important road to get from one side of the
freeway to the other. The 101 on and off ramps just complicate things.
The other freeway exits -- Grand and Camino Mercado are close enough for drivers to exit the
freeway and with a little improvement should be acceptable to
most drivers.
The Estimated Cost is also less for Alt. 1. All in all a more sensible option.
I look forward to seeing what decision is eventually made, and appreciate all
the hours you have spent on this perplexing problem.
My vote is for Alt.1.
Barbara Stilwell
From:Vicki Campolmi
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco Road
Date:Sunday, February 10, 2019 4:08:54 PM
As a resident of Arroyo Grande, and one that has sent emails for plans similar to this plan in
the past numerous years. I vote for Alt 1, which is the plan that most of us have wanted for
years. Thank you, Vicki Campolmi
From:Gmail Judi
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco underpass
Date:Thursday, February 14, 2019 1:30:35 PM
I am in favor of Alternative #1. When the northbound on and off ramps on Brisco Road were closed and
the traffic light halted, the traffic flowed through there with no stoppage and no problems. I live off James
Way and hesitated to use that underpass because of the difficulty getting through. I would use Oak Park
which is always busy and out of my way. When the ramps were closed for several months I used Brisco
regularly and it was so convenient and easy to use. It creates a much needed and easier traffic flow then
is currently available. I urge the city council to vote yes on Alternative #1.
Judi Pollack
Village Glen Dr.
Arroyo Grande
resident of Arroyo Grande for 30 years
From:Nicholas Jones
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 6:23:13 PM
I suggest having cal trans builds a three lane freeway and constuct Brisco around that.
From:Robby Gussman
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco
Date:Thursday, February 14, 2019 6:12:29 PM
Close on and off ramp and leave alone. Dragging on for sooo long. Robby Gussman
Sent from my iPad
From:Kathi Flores
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Date:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 12:27:32 PM
Thank you for the opportunity to provide suggestions for improving this nightmare
intersection!
Shut down both ramps to the freeway at these intersections.
Camino Mercado,Oak Park and Grand Ave. ramps are not that far away and closer
to businesses. We don’t need more traffic on Branch, Grace Lane, Rodeo or El Camino.
Alternative suggested solutions:
1) Traffic lights need to be sync’d so that traffic turning right have time to proceed without
being trapped under the freeway bridge.
2) Add a "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED" sign for southbound traffic on Branch at Brisco.
Vehicles are constantly blocking the intersection to those trying to turn left on the
green arrow.
There is currently a “No Right Turn On Red” sign posted on the El Camino & Halcyon
to eliminate this problem.
3) During rush hour or after St. Patrick School lets out, assign police to patrol those
intersections for those who cannot read or ignore the signs posted.
WE ARE ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL ALTERNATIVE 4C THAT
WOULD IMPACT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS MORE SO THAT IT DOES
CURRENTLY.
Hopefully your final decision will do the right thing for those who live in the area.
Thank you
Kathleen Flores
Rodeo Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA
From:Karen
To:brisco
Subject:closure of on/off ramps
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 8:39:13 AM
The first alternative (closure of the on/off ramps at Brisco
and Hwy 101) worked great during the trial period. This
alternative is the best one and should be the permanent
solution to the traffic back ups on Branch and Brisco. It
worked great then, it'll work great in the future.
Karen Iwrey
f Karen For Your Cats
When injustice becomes law,
rebellion becomes duty.
From:Deborah
To:brisco
Subject:Designs
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 1:04:08 PM
I propose alternative 1.
Deborah handley
Arroyo grande resident
Sent from my iPhone
From:Sara Arine
To:brisco
Subject:First Alternative
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 4:25:37 PM
My family and I are in favor of the first alternative.
Thank you.
From:Teresa McClish
To:Robin Dickerson; Patrick Holub
Subject:FW: BRISCO INTERCHANGE PROJECT
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 8:11:47 AM
Attachments:emaillogo 190eb98f-3dbf-4ac8-a0d6-5f778ed0ba4d1111111111111111111111111111111111.png
For public record file
Teresa McClish, AICP
Community Development Director
Community Development, City of Arroyo Grande
Tel: 805-473-5422 | www.arroyogrande.org
300 E. Branch St | Arroyo Grande | CA | 93420
City Hall Business Hours: M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm; Closed Fridays
The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email
correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public
Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law.
From: Dennis & Claudine Lingo [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 8:17 PM
To: Caren Ray Russom <crayrussom@arroyogrande.org>; Kristen Barneich
<kbarneich@arroyogrande.org>; Jimmy Paulding for Supervisor <>; Keith
Storton <kstorton@arroyogrande.org>; Lan George <lgeorge@arroyogrande.org>; Jim Bergman
<jbergman@arroyogrande.org>; Teresa McClish <tmcclish@arroyogrande.org>; Kelly Wetmore
<kwetmore@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: BRISCO INTERCHANGE PROJECT
This is to provide comments for entry into public record regarding proceeding with the subject
project. I've provided comments numerous times in the past regarding this project, so these
comments may not be new to you!
Dennis Lingo and Claudine Lingo, Grace Lane residents, strongly oppose Alternative 4C for
the following reasons:
1. This option exceeds the estimated cost of Alternative 1 by more than $10 million. The City
recently had to reduce hours city staff is available to the public (i.e., closing to the public on
Fridays) due to staffing reductions resulting from a lack of funding in the budget. I'm sure the
staffing costs would be significantly less than $10+ million it will cost for Alternative 4C
rather than Alternative 1. So I'm wondering where the City is going to find the money to fund
the $10+ million cost of Alternative 4C if it can't fund the positions that were eliminated
resulting in the public having no access to City staff on Fridays.
2. Alternative 4C which would move the northbound 101 exit ramp to West Branch and
Rodeo, installing a traffic circle, routing traffic by St. Patrick's school and sports field, and
realigning Rodeo to route traffic up Grace Lane (a residential street) does not seem to be the
best solution to the congestion on Brisco. The impact on Grace Lane would certainly diminish
the quality of life for Grace Lane residents and would further exacerbate the current speeding
problem on Grace Lane.
3. I've raised the issue several times that many (if not most) Grace Lane residents were
unaware of the Brisco Interchange project when they bought their houses since it was not
included in the disclosures as required by law. If you didn't live here at the time the
interchange project was being developed (or didn't pay attention to the news), you would not
have known about. I can't speak for all Grace Lane residents, but it would certainly have
deterred us from buying a house on Grace Lane.
4. When the Brisco offramp was closed during the test period, it is my understanding that it
had little impact on the businesses on West Branch and Rancho Parkway. Furthermore, if
business was lost, it wasn't the result of lack of access since it was much easier for residents to
get from the east side of 101 to the businesses on West Branch and Rancho Parkway then.
5. I don't know what all of the alternatives considered were for the interchange project. It
seems to me that an alternative should have been one that provided for closure of the Brisco
ramp, creating an offramp at Rodeo with signage directing traffic to Rancho Parkway where
there are no schools, sports fields and residential driveways and is the access point to
businesses, and installing speed bumps on Grace Lane to deter traffic from using Grace Lane
(as was done on Rodeo before Grace Lane was constructed). It seems that would have been a
win-win for Grace Lane residents and businesses.
So in closing, my husband and I strongly oppose Alternative 4C and would strongly suggest
implementing Alternative 1 with the modifications noted in item #5 above.
Sincerely,
Claudine and Dennis Lingo
From:Jessica Matson
To:Teresa McClish; Robin Dickerson
Cc:Patrick Holub
Subject:FW: Brisco Interchange Public Information Meeting
Date:Friday, February 08, 2019 8:05:52 AM
Attachments:emaillogo 190eb98f-3dbf-4ac8-a0d6-5f778ed0ba4d1111111111111111111111111111111111.png
Jessica Matson
Executive Assistant/Deputy City Clerk
Legislative and Information Services, City of Arroyo Grande
Tel: 805-473-5414 | www.arroyogrande.org
300 E. Branch St | Arroyo Grande | CA | 93420
City Hall Business Hours: M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm; Closed Fridays
The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email
correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public
Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law.
From: Keith Storton
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 9:12 PM
To: Alicia Lara
Subject: Re: Brisco Interchange Public Information Meeting
Alicia and Chuck,
Thank you for contacting me and providing your historical information and perspective.
Obviously this is a big decision that will impact our community well into the future.
I look forward to the informational meeting (and ultimately our Council meeting in March) to
deliberate this issue and arrive to a hopeful decision that help move us forward.
This has has been a lengthy and exhaustive process for all involved. Thank you for engaging
and taking part.
You communication will be added to the public record.
~Keith Storton
On Feb 7, 2019, at 8:23 PM, Alicia Lara <ailara13@hotmail.com> wrote:
Honorable Mayor and the City Council of Arroyo Grande:
A brief background on our group. The Royal Oaks Stakeholders Group representing
over 50 households, has been closely following the Brisco Project since January 2011; a
time which precedes the tenure of this current City Council. As homeowners, we were
first notified by mail when the Brisco Project was before the Traffic Committee in
January 2011. However, unbeknownst to most of us, the project had already been
approved by the then City Council in October 2010, without direct notification to our
group – even though it will most definitely have an impact in our area. We realize none
of you were on the Council at that time, so you are likely unaware of the multiple
neighborhood meetings that occurred in 2011. At one of our neighborhood meetings at
Grace Church, the City requested we appoint a committee to provide input for our
group of over 50 households. We both attended multiple City/Brisco Sub-
Committee/Consultants meetings over the years.
As timing has it, neither of us will be available to attend the informational meeting on
February 13th which we saw posted on social media early this morning. Quite
disappointing to say the least; after all these years of participating at meetings and
providing input, at the most important time - the decision making, neither of us will
have an opportunity to attend to speak directly with each of you at the informational
meeting. With that, we respectfully request you each review the following.
As co-chairs of our stakeholders’ group, we are reiterating the continuing and solid
consensus from our stakeholders group that the desired outcome is Alternative 1. We
believe that Alternative 1 is the best compromise for Arroyo Grande's businesses and
it's residents in regard to business growth well-being and safe and reasonable traffic
flow.
The City of Arroyo Grande not unlike many cities, continues to struggle to meet a
balanced budget. Alternative 4c adds a much greater impact to the imbalance and
long-term debt. City Hall is already closed on Fridays, offering less public services to the
general public, while having to continue to pay police and fire costs 24/7, which are the
largest cost to any city budget. As a sizeable amount of funds have already been
expended to this point, Alternative 1 from a fiscal and service perspective is the
responsible way to go.
We have many necessary, needed and important issues and resultant projects for
which our tax dollars as well as grants are required in Arroyo Grande. Given those
General Fund obligations, it is perplexing that City staff has determined “the City is in a
position to be able to fund either Alternative 1 or 4C.“ The extra burden alone of
Alternative 4c given the current state of the budget does not take the budget in a
direction that will be fiscally prudent nor beneficial for the residents of Arroyo Grande.
From a service perspective the “improvements” to Grand Avenue under Alt 4c, do
nothing to widen it for pedestrian/bicycle access, nor bring it in line with current codes.
Camino Mercado is already showing signs of needed upgrading due to its proximity to
shopping/restaurants, in addition to extra traffic from those avoiding the clog under
the US 101 overpass at Brisco Rd; Alt 4c does not include needed improvements in this
area. Because Alt 4c includes a roundabout with less room for Grand Ave oncoming
traffic to US 101 and Brisco exiting traffic from US 101, many folks may avoid it
altogether, and Grand Ave/Camino Mercado may see more traffic, with no
improvements to the east side. In addition, Alt 4c does little to address the Brisco US
101 underpass traffic clog.
Alt 1 addresses the needed improvements at Grand Avenue, Camino Mercado and the
clog of traffic under the Brisco US 101 interchange. As residents who live right in the
Brisco Project vicinity, we are well aware of the traffic patterns. As we have come to
find out in discussions with those Arroyo Grande residents who do not live in our
neighborhood, but primarily reside on the seaside of US 101, the Brisco underpass with
only room for three lanes causes aggravation for those folks as well.
We realize that the City of Arroyo Grande pays only a portion of the total amount from
the AG coffers. Approximately $6M is made up from federal, state, SLOCOG, etc. funds
– all Taxpayer dollars nonetheless.
We ask that you thoroughly review this project to better understand the magnitude of
the effect of your decision on all the business owners and residents of Arroyo Grande.
Please make a fiscally responsible and logical decision for all of the business owners
and residents of Arroyo Grande and approve Alternative 1. We thank you for your time
and consideration.
Respectfully,
Chuck Kass
Emerald Bay Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Alicia Lara
Mercedes Lane
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
From:James Green
To:brisco
Subject:Input
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 8:31:39 AM
My choice is Alt. #1
James Green
S. Halcyon Rd.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Warm Regards,
James Green
Government Affairs Specialist
San Luis Obispo County Farm Bureau
From:Arlene Versaw
To:brisco
Subject:Interchange
Date:Thursday, February 14, 2019 3:09:13 PM
I would like to go on record as supporting alternative #1 as the most cost effective.
Arlene Versaw, Turnstone St., AG
"Only truth and transparency can guarantee freedom." - John McCain
"Freedom of the press ensures that the abuse of every other freedom can be known, can be
challenged and even defeated". Kofi Annan
From:-
To:brisco
Subject:Opinion on design options 2.7.19
Date:Thursday, February 07, 2019 7:46:53 PM
Alt 1 is my preference based on the benefits and costs. I have long been a proponent of
eliminating the ramp at Brisco.
Many thanks,
--
-Steve Burdick
From:Virginia Roof
To:brisco
Subject:Please no roundabout
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 5:43:48 PM
Thanks for taking my feedback online. I support the proposal to close the offramp, but not
the roundabout. I would also love to see additional sidewalk along Brisco to support
pedestrian traffic, including kids walking to school.
Thanks again,
Virginia Roof
Miller Way, AG
Get Outlook for Android
From:Matt Walker
To:brisco
Subject:Public Input for Brisco Interchange Project
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 12:40:30 PM
Hi,
There was a period of time where the northbound on and off ramps were closed. I thought that was
terrific! It definitely made it easier and quicker to get from 1 side of the freeway to the other. So my
recommendation is to keep it like that. Thanks
Best regards,
Matt Walker
Corbett Canyon Road
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
e-mail:
phone & FAX:
From:Judi Kodaj
To:brisco
Subject:Question
Date:Thursday, February 07, 2019 1:47:13 PM
If alt 1 is chosen, I believe that the off ramps at Brisco should remain open. Close the on ramps, but leave the off
ramps open. Wouldn't that save money plus help the traffic?
The other more expensive alternative is not explained clear enough to make a decision.
Jk
Sent from my iPad
From:Orinator
To:Patrick Holub
Subject:Re: Brisco Interchange Public Information Meeting
Date:Friday, February 08, 2019 12:57:46 PM
Attachments:emaillogo 190eb98f-3dbf-4ac8-a0d6-5f778ed0ba4d1111111111111111111111111111111111.png
I live in Nipomo. Alternative 4C get's my vote! And 2nd place is "do nothing" because
I've never really found the Brisco situation to be too onerous. Alternative 1 would be a
disaster! Closing the Brisco on/off ramps is probably just the nudge I'd need to start
doing my shopping in Santa Maria, rather than AG.
That shopping district needs a dedicated, grown-up access ramp. 4C may cost a lot
more, but better access would probably benefit the community for many decades to
come.
Thanks,
Suzanne Green
On Thursday, February 7, 2019, 12:37:33 PM PST, Patrick Holub <pholub@arroyogrande.org> wrote:
Community Stakeholders,
The City of Arroyo Grande is hosting another Public Information Meeting regarding the Brisco Interchange
Project. Please see attached flyer. The meeting will be held Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 4:00 pm
at the Arroyo Grande Council Chambers, located at 215 East Branch Street. Discussion topics will include
the project history, project status, the three project design alternatives (Alt 1, Alt 4C and No build), and
potential phasing. Staff will be available for discussion and to answer questions. The project is
tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council in March 2019 to determine the alternative that the
City will move forward into design and ultimately into construction.
Both Alternative 1 and 4C are feasible alternatives. Both alternatives fulfill the purpose and need of the
project with different design concepts and cost. The City is in a position to be able to fund either
Alternative 1 or 4C. This decision involves the whole community and your presence at the Public
Information Meeting can help inform you prior to this important decision.
If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Robin Dickerson, City Engineer, at 805-
473-5441. If you can’t make this meeting, but would still like to provide input, please email
brisco@arroyogrande.org. More information regarding the project can be found on the City’s website at
www.arroyogrande.org.
Patrick Holub
Permit Technician
Community Development, City of Arroyo Grande
Tel: 805-473-5443 | www.arroyogrande.org
300 E. Branch St | Arroyo Grande | CA | 93420
City Hall Business Hours: M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm; Closed Fridays
The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email
correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public
Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law.
From:marshaleemjl@gmail.com
To:brisco
Subject:Re: Hwy design overview
Date:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 12:20:25 PM
Hi - I have reviewed the 3 Alternative designs and have the following comments:
2) Alternative 1 is the safest alternative. Closing the northbound on and off ramps at Brisco will facilitate traffic
movement. Together with the Camino Mercado and 101 improvements; and Grand Ave improvements to north and
southbound ramps and bridge widening it will be safer.
2) Alt 4c will cause safety concerns on 101 because the on and off ramps along 101 through AG will be close
together. (Note how close the on-off ramps are on 101 in SLO- too close for safe movement.)
3) Alt 1 is cost efficient and leaves other options for the future.
Thank you,
Marsha Lee
Sent from my iPhone
From:Mike McCurdy
To:brisco
Subject:Support alternative 1
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 8:50:26 AM
Hello - as someone who has driven the areas around Brisco when the ramps were closed, I
strongly support the permanent closing of these ramps as it freed up that area tremendously
and didn’t have a noticeable impact on the areas just north and south of the Brisco ramps. No
opinion on your proposed other 14,000,000 work in support of the closings. Thanks, Mike
McCurdy Pismo Beach
From:Trisha
To:brisco
Subject:Support For Alternative 1
Date:Thursday, February 07, 2019 1:57:34 PM
I want to email my support for Alternative 1.
I would also like to see the sidewalk of this option extended further West toward Oceanview
Elementary school to make a safe walking route to school for the kids.
Thank you,
Trisha Coffey
Miller Way
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
From:Benjamin Oakley
To:brisco
Cc:Benjamin Oakley
Subject:Support for Second Alternative - Roundabout
Date:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 9:16:51 AM
With regards to the Brisco Road Interchange Project, I send this email to voice support for
second alternative:
Relocates the northbound ramps at Brisco Road to West Branch Street at Rodeo Drive with
a round-about.
Completes intersection improvements at Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive.
Complete intersection improvements at East Grand Avenue and HWY 101.
I am a resident of Arroyo Grande, and I use the Brisco Road offramp on a daily basis. I would
like the City to maintain some on/off ramps in the area. The second alternative accomplishes
this, and the roundabout will better accommodate the heavy traffic flow in this interchange.
Thanks,
Ben Oakley
Sierra Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
From:Stewart Morse
To:brisco
Subject:Third Alternative, No Build, Leave as is
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 9:42:52 AM
Hello-
I am a new resident to Arroyo Grande (business & home owner), but have been in
Pismo Beach since 2005.
Third Alternative, No Build, Leave as is. I believe the Brisco interchange is not that
bad, and would cost too much to change.
We would rather see money spent on other roads and projects:
For instance, we live in Berry Gardens, and it’s a challenge to tell people how to get
here when they take the freeway. We tell them to use the Oak Park exit, but it doesn’t
exit on Oak Park (north or south 101). Then when they leave, we have to tell them
Oak Park, then left at AJ Spur’s (because we can’t remember frontage road’s name)
going north to take the south 101 on ramp. Makes no sense.
I’d rather see fixing the south bound Grand Ave freeway on ramp by adding a full exit
lane past Fair Oaks
Also, I see no easy way to go North on the 101 from the new Cherry Ave housing
development.
Sincerely,
Stewart Morse
From:VONIE GRIMM
To:brisco
Subject:We think alternative 1 is best
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 9:14:33 AM
We like alternative 1. The on and off ramp should be moved to Grand Avenue to alleviate
congestion at brisco road. Thanks
Vonie Grimm
N Alpine
Arroyo Grande
Get Outlook for Android
From:John Anderson
To:brisco; Caren Ray Russom; Jimmy Paulding
Subject:Brisco Interchange Project
Date:Sunday, February 17, 2019 1:16:57 PM
After listening to the very thoughtful input from the project managers and the public at the
recent meeting, these are my thoughts on the Brisco Road Interchange Project:
Despite concerns voiced about traffic at certain interchanges by constituents, none of them
are traffic engineers. Their concerns should be taken seriously but let the trained
professionals make the final determinations.
Costs of the options: If a sales tax is used then the cost is spread to everyone shopping in A.G,
not just the residents. Yes, $10 million difference between Alt 1 and Alt 4C sounds like a lot
but how much difference is there per household when spread among thousands of
households or persons?
No Build: Not an option.
Alt 1:
A viable option but I am concerned about the impact on the Shell gas station. I am not
in favor of a design that would put the owners out of business.
This option would work for a while as proven by the temporary shutdown of the Brisco
on/off ramps during the study. I don’t know if there was a negative effect on the
businesses adjacent to the Brisco Road and El Camino Real interchange. If so,
Alternative 4C would be more attractive.
How long will this option be viable before increasing traffic begins to clog the Grand
Ave and Oak Park on/off ramps? Adding the Rodeo Drive interchange years down the
road will only escalate the cost.
Alt 4C:
As my camp counselor told me when I was 14 years old, “It only costs a little more to
go first class”. Well $10 million is not a little more but it may be when spread among
thousands. My choice. If you are going to do something, do it right the first time.
I love roundabouts. They work very well wherever they are installed. Those who do
not love them are either not familiar with them or lousy drivers.
Crosswalks near the roundabout could have the pavement warning lights installed,
similar to Higuera St in downtown San Luis Obispo.
Thank you for listening,
John Anderson
Nipomo, CA
From:Gordon E Hall
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco Interchange
Date:Friday, February 15, 2019 10:54:58 AM
I prefer Alternate #2 with the roundabout. Alternate #3 is not acceptable.
Gordon E Hall
Rodeo Dr, Arroyo Grande
From:Jim Broz
To:brisco
Subject:financial data
Date:Thursday, February 21, 2019 11:52:52 AM
I live at Rodeo Drive - I attended the February 13 meeting
and had a few questions regarding financial data:
When will the Comprehensive annual report for 6/30/18
be available?
Is there an interim financial report?
Are there detailed budgets including sources of funds for
ALT 1 and ALT 4c available?
Thank you
Jim Broz
mob.
From:Carolyn or Dave Scheeff
To:brisco
Subject:interchange
Date:Friday, February 15, 2019 3:18:46 PM
I am in favor of Alternative 1, which closes the current interchange at Brisco and 101. During the trail period of this
closure, traffic moved so much better than before. Also, it seems that there are too many off ramps in the area
already. The ones at Oak Park and Grand Avenue are sufficient.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Scheeff
From:Kathi Flores
To:brisco
Subject:Re: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project
Date:Thursday, February 21, 2019 12:58:34 PM
We encourage your to contact CalTrans to provide a NO RIGHT TURN ON RED sign until
some permanent solutions can be made about this intersection. There continues, on a daily
basis, to have vehicles block this intersection as explained in my initial email (below). If is
very frustrating when trying to turn left from Branch at Brisco with the intersection blocked
with vehicles who have turned right on the RED light.
Thank you
Kathleen Flores
On Feb 12, 2019, at 12:27 PM, Kathi Flores <KNBflores@earthlink.net> wrote:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide suggestions for improving this
nightmare intersection!
Shut down both ramps to the freeway at these intersections.
Camino Mercado,Oak Park and Grand Ave. ramps are not that far away and
closer
to businesses. We don’t need more traffic on Branch, Grace Lane, Rodeo or El
Camino.
Alternative suggested solutions:
1) Traffic lights need to be sync’d so that traffic turning right have time to
proceed without being trapped under the freeway bridge.
2) Add a "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED" sign for southbound traffic on Branch at
Brisco.
Vehicles are constantly blocking the intersection to those trying to turn left on the
green arrow.
There is currently a “No Right Turn On Red” sign posted on the El Camino &
Halcyon
to eliminate this problem.
3) During rush hour or after St. Patrick School lets out, assign police to patrol
those intersections for those who cannot read or ignore the signs posted.
WE ARE ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL
ALTERNATIVE 4C THAT WOULD IMPACT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS
MORE SO THAT IT DOES CURRENTLY.
Hopefully your final decision will do the right thing for those who live in the area.
Thank you
Kathleen Flores
Rodeo Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA
From:Steve Oakley
To:brisco
Subject:Support 2nd Alternative
Date:Monday, February 18, 2019 3:54:25 PM
Dear Sirs:
San Luis Obispo County has some of the worse interchanges I've seen. Theater Drive in Paso Robles is
bad, but the Brisco Road interchange in Arroyo Grande is worse. Honestly, I don't know how our county
has so many bad ones? Regardless, I've reviewed the options at www.arroyogrande.org regarding the
Brisco Road Interchange Project I am in support of the second alternative:
I think the West Branch Street at Rodeo Drive round-about is a creative solution.
Though I live in Pismo Beach, near Oak Park Blvd, I use the Brisco Road off-ramps on a daily basis. The
roundabout will better accommodate the heavy traffic flow in this area.
Thanks,
Stephen Oakley
Pismo Beach, CA 93448
From:Gary Thies
To:brisco
Subject:The Brisco Road Project
Date:Tuesday, March 12, 2019 8:16:56 PM
Dear City Council;
I live at Rodeo Drive, am a little late, presenting my comments/feelings on the
upcoming Brisco road project.
I am a little surprised, why there is any consideration, other than closing the on-off
ramps at the Brisco road exchange!
Please consider...
1. The North-bound on-ramp, presently is dangerous!
The 101 traffic approaching the Camino Merchado off-ramp many times will
not yield to the North-bound on ramp traffic! We have experienced this
many times..Closing it would be a blessing..
2. Why wonder how Alt #2 will be received, and frankly, work? The city has already
proven, with the test study, that Alt #1 works! And, is much cheaper..does
the City really have "Pots" of money as mentioned at the last meeting?
3. Why spend $10,400,000 more, (which is just an estimate by the way) on a project
that may work?
4. The Round-about option will not reduce traffic flow at the present Branch St./Brisco
intersection, only reroute it through the Round-about, then back through the
intersection! Also, it does not solve the problem of traffic from El Camino
Real. It still needs to access the on-ramp, and traffic leaving 101, still needs to access
Brisco road in some cases.
Bottom line, Alt #2 just reroutes traffic from one point to another, costs alot of money,
will not alleviate traffic and will upset alot of residents on Rodeo Drive and Grace
lane, by increasing traffic there. The Catholic grade school there is already suffering
from existing traffic..
Thanks for your interest..
Gary Thies
Rodeo Dr.
Arroyo Grande
From:Bob Perez
To:brisco
Subject:Alternative Designs Overview
Date:Saturday, March 16, 2019 11:05:19 AM
We are “unable” to attend the March 26, 2019 City Council Meeting regarding The Briscoe Interchange Project,
therefore, please do the “fiscally responsible decision” to approve “ALT 1” at an estimated cost of $12,300,000.00
without phasing.
Thank you kindly,
Robert and Mardell Perez
Grace Lane
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(Robert)
(Mardell)
From:Dennis & Claudine Lingo
To:Caren Ray Russom; Kristen Barneich; Jimmy Paulding for Supervisor; Keith Storton; Lan George; Jim Bergman;
Teresa McClish; Kelly Wetmore
Subject:BRISCO INTERCHANGE PROJECT
Date:Tuesday, February 12, 2019 8:17:32 PM
This is to provide comments for entry into public record regarding proceeding with the subject
project. I've provided comments numerous times in the past regarding this project, so these
comments may not be new to you!
Dennis Lingo and Claudine Lingo, Grace Lane residents, strongly oppose Alternative 4C for
the following reasons:
1. This option exceeds the estimated cost of Alternative 1 by more than $10 million. The City
recently had to reduce hours city staff is available to the public (i.e., closing to the public on
Fridays) due to staffing reductions resulting from a lack of funding in the budget. I'm sure the
staffing costs would be significantly less than $10+ million it will cost for Alternative 4C
rather than Alternative 1. So I'm wondering where the City is going to find the money to fund
the $10+ million cost of Alternative 4C if it can't fund the positions that were eliminated
resulting in the public having no access to City staff on Fridays.
2. Alternative 4C which would move the northbound 101 exit ramp to West Branch and
Rodeo, installing a traffic circle, routing traffic by St. Patrick's school and sports field, and
realigning Rodeo to route traffic up Grace Lane (a residential street) does not seem to be the
best solution to the congestion on Brisco. The impact on Grace Lane would certainly diminish
the quality of life for Grace Lane residents and would further exacerbate the current speeding
problem on Grace Lane.
3. I've raised the issue several times that many (if not most) Grace Lane residents were
unaware of the Brisco Interchange project when they bought their houses since it was not
included in the disclosures as required by law. If you didn't live here at the time the
interchange project was being developed (or didn't pay attention to the news), you would not
have known about. I can't speak for all Grace Lane residents, but it would certainly have
deterred us from buying a house on Grace Lane.
4. When the Brisco offramp was closed during the test period, it is my understanding that it
had little impact on the businesses on West Branch and Rancho Parkway. Furthermore, if
business was lost, it wasn't the result of lack of access since it was much easier for residents to
get from the east side of 101 to the businesses on West Branch and Rancho Parkway then.
5. I don't know what all of the alternatives considered were for the interchange project. It
seems to me that an alternative should have been one that provided for closure of the Brisco
ramp, creating an offramp at Rodeo with signage directing traffic to Rancho Parkway where
there are no schools, sports fields and residential driveways and is the access point to
businesses, and installing speed bumps on Grace Lane to deter traffic from using Grace Lane
(as was done on Rodeo before Grace Lane was constructed). It seems that would have been a
win-win for Grace Lane residents and businesses.
So in closing, my husband and I strongly oppose Alternative 4C and would strongly suggest
implementing Alternative 1 with the modifications noted in item #5 above.
Sincerely,
Claudine and Dennis Lingo
From:Katie Merlo
To:Caren Ray Russom; Keith Storton; Lan George; Jim Bergman; tmclish@arroyogrande.org; Kelly Wetmore;
hello@jimmypaulding.org; Kristen Barneich
Subject:BRISCO INTERCHANGE PROJECT
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2019 3:39:43 PM
Greetings Madam Mayor and Council Members:
I am writing to you as a concerned citizen of Arroyo Grande, a resident of Grace Lane, as
well as a parent of St. Patrick School located at 900 W. Branch St. I feel that the
implementation of option 4C is not only fiscally irresponsible as a tax paying citizen, but also
strongly feel that it will have a negative impact on both the surrounding neighborhoods as well
as the families and children that attend St. Patrick School.
The school holds various events throughout the entire year, not just the school year. These
events include, but are not limited to; school-related functions and sporting events, Arroyo
Grande Little League baseball games and weekly Grace Five Cities services. In addition, the
gym is rented out throughout the week to other outside groups. Let’s not forget the various
events and outside activities also being held at Grace Bible Church on the corner of Rodeo
Drive and Grace Lane on a regular basis. That being said, the area surrounding the school and
Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane already sees an increased flow of traffic! I fear the implementation
of option 4C would make the congestion in these neighborhoods even worse. I also feel that
the increased traffic could put students and families crossing Rodeo Drive in harms way. It is a
school zone and should remain that way. It is not a freeway exit!
Not only do I have a concern as a parent of the school, but my husband, myself and our 3
children were the first home on Grace Lane. When we purchased our home in 2011 there was
no disclosure statement or anything of the sort notifying us that our street was designated as a
“collector” street. In fact, when we moved in, there were no speed limit signs posted and no
evidence of striping done on the roadway. We attended a city council meeting with the
findings of the first speed study only to learn of the “collector” street designation. There’s no
doubt in my mind that we would have chosen a different location for our “forever home” had
we known it was not considered residential and the speed limit would be 35mph! Residents
on our street are already struggling with speeding traffic on a daily basis. Logic tells me that
having the freeway exit flow through our neighborhood would only increase the amount of
speeding cars and decrease our home values greatly.
Because I live in the neighborhood, I frequently use other on and off ramps (Ranch
Parkway/Grand Ave) when entering and exiting the freeway to avoid the Brisco congestion. I
do use the Brisco intersection when I navigate my way across town on occasion and have
noticed that improved signage and arrows could exist to reduce the confusion some drivers
have. When the on/off ramps were closed a while back, I also noticed a large reduction in
traffic and ease of flow in the area.
I urge you to put the safety of your community and it’s citizens first, and make the fiscally
responsible decision to choose option 1.
Regards,
Katie Merlo
Sent from my iPhone
From:Tyler Brown
To:brisco
Subject:Brisco Project
Date:Friday, March 15, 2019 12:08:33 PM
I have lived on Rodeo Dr. since 1994. The traffic count on Grace Lane should be redone while St. Pat’s is still in
session. The last count was done while the school was out and my feeling is you will see a significant increase in the
use of Grace Lane. The truth is that Grace Lane is already becoming an onramp, and if you were to route traffic
from Rodeo to a roundabout for 101 you would use the proposal to build a roundabout at the base of Rodeo, people
from the East side of A.G. you would in affect create a main line for North bound traffic. You should rename Grace
Lane to Grace Parkway. I’m totally against the Rodeo proposal. I bought a house the abuts Grace Lane and the
traffic and noise have already changed my quality of life. NO on the Rodeo Proposal! Can you send me a summary
of the last town hall meeting, I wasn’t able to attend the last meeting. Thanks!
Tyler Brown
Rodeo Dr.
A.G.
From:Linda Dahlgren
To:brisco
Subject:Briscoe intersection
Date:Tuesday, March 19, 2019 9:23:01 AM
The 1st alternative seems like the best. It will eliminate the long lines at all sides of the lights, be safer for drivers
and be financially much better.
Linda Dahlgren
Via Bandolero
Arroyo Grande
Sent from my iPhone
Brisco project
alternative 4C
concerns 3/19/19
Cost - City Finances $22.7 million
1. As of 3/19/19 - the June 30, 2018 Annual Comprehesive Finanacial Report is still not
ready. This was due by 12/31/18. This is the third straight year in which they are late.
a) when will they be availabe?
b) how can the City commit to such a large commitment using "stale" financials?
c) in addition to the late financials the city office is now closed on Fridays - when
will it return to normal?
d) how much more staff will be needed? At what cost?
e) is the pension liability fully funded -if not should it not be a priority?
f) is there a penalty for the late filing of the annual report?
2. Is there a detailed budget available
a) does it include the source of funds?
b) what is the anticipated cost of capital - is it in the project budget?
c) is a finder's fee etc. for obtaining the financing in the budget?
d) how much is in to cover unforseen costs?
e) does it really solve the problem?
Safety
3. What is the nomal speed for vehicles entering a roundabout? (google roundabouts - click on Pedestri
4. Isn't the exit speed of vehicles coming off 101 somewhat higher?
5. What are the safety statistics for roundabouts that include a major highway? Pedestrians?
6. Isn't the gross difference in speed for the vehicles entering a roundabout a problem?
Other projects
7. In June of 2017 State of California identified Lopez Dam as a "high hazard".
a) has the City followed up on this?
b) is it accurate?
c) what might it cost?
d) would this not be a top priority?
e) how bad might the flooding be?
8. What about a fix for Campo Rd. - there was a tragic loss of life last year. This is NOT a new problem.
a) what has the City done in this regards?
b) what is the comparison of serious accidents here vs Brisco?
9. What other projects will not get done to pay the debt service? Roads are already in need of repairs.
Impacts
10. Will the Brisco project impact the parking at the library/polling place?
a) if so how many places might be lost?
b) how might it affect special events?
ian Safety Guide)
From:jandaport@aol.com
To:Caren Ray Russom; Kristen Barneich; Jimmy Paulding; Keith Storton; Lan George; Robin Dickerson; Teresa
McClish; Jessica Matson; Jim Bergman
Cc:brisco; ailara13@hotmail.com; kassmanagement@sbcglobal.net; jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov
Subject:CONCERNED RESIDENT RE: BRISCO FREEWAY INTERCHANGE
Date:Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:24:25 AM
Dear Ms. Dickerson, Ms. McClish, Ms. Matson, Mr. Bergman and members of the AG
City Council:
In preparation of your staff report and consideration of which Alternative to select
regarding the Brisco Freeway Interchange, we would like to provide all of you with our
comments based on the last Public Hearing and with previous emails we sent the City
of AG regarding the proposed Alternatives. Our emails go back as far as 2015, when
the City Council was comprised of different members.
The Round-About will be dangerously close to St. Patrick's School and the South County Library and
appears to be less than pedestrian friendly. Children from St. Patrick's School, as well as Royal Oak
residents and others, will need to follow a lengthy and circuitous path to get to the library. It appears that
a pedestrian will need to cross the Round-About in several places around the circle to get to the library
and to the other side of W. Branch to Brisco and El Camino.
We worry that large trucks delivering merchandise to Walmart, Foods For Less and other national
merchants/chains in the immediate area will have difficulty negotiating the Round-About.
In addition, if we interpret the plans correctly, it appears the north and south bound on and off ramps will
remain open and traffic signals at Brisco, W. Branch and El Camino will remain. We worry about
emergency vehicles needing to pass through the W. Branch/Brisco area. AG Hospital and the ambulance
company are in the immediate area. The underpass is too narrow. Cars currently stack up in all lanes of
the underpass. Cars also block the north bound on ramp. We often see ambulances unable to get
through in either direction. Even with a Round-About and carefully timed traffic signals, this dangerous
situation will exist. There will be too many traffic signals in too little space to accommodate so many
vehicles.
We know that the City of AG and Cal Trans are capable of working with the Achadjians to accommodate
their specific needs and the traffic mitigation needed.
A Round-About is not the solution.
We continue to support Alternative 1 (if it is affordable) or "no build."
Please see our emails below.
Respectfully,
Andrea and Jeff Portney
Emerald bay Drive
AG, 93420
-----Original Message-----
From: jandaport <jandaport@aol.com>
To: jason.wilkinson <jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov>; brisco <brisco@arroyogrande.org>; jhill
<jhill@arroyogrande.org>; cray <cray@arroyogrande.org>; tbrown <tbrown@arroyogrande.org>;
kbarneich <kbarneich@arroyogrande.org>; bharmon <bharmon@arroyogrande.org>
Cc: kassmanagement <kassmanagement@sbcglobal.net>; ailara13 <ailara13@hotmail.com>
Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 10:52 pm
Subject: CONCERNED RESIDENT RE: BRISCO FREEWAY INTERCHANGE
Dear Mr. Wilkinson and AG City Council:
I have been a resident of AG for 28 years. I live in the Royal Oak neighborhood, off
of Rodeo Drive. I am very concerned about the traffic congestion at Brisco Road
and US 101. Last year's temporary closure of the north bound on and off ramps
facilitated traffic flow that I haven't seen in all the years I have lived here. I was
disappointed when the experiment was discontinued.
Please give the Brisco freeway interchange careful consideration. The decisions you
make regarding this project will forever impact our neighborhood, nearby
neighborhoods and the community at-large.
Of the two alternatives approved by Caltrans, I encourage you to approve
Alternative 1.
Alternative 4C, with its new auxiliary lanes, roundabout, reconfigured intersections,
Park and Ride Lot, will bring more traffic and congestion to the Royal Oak area and
into my neighborhood - Rodeo Drive, Grace Lane, Mercedes Lane and Emerald Bay
Drive. A residential neighborhood is not an acceptable location for a roundabout
and/or a Park and Ride Lot.
Alternative 4C is projected to be more than twice the cost of Alternative 1. Knowing
that the City of Arroyo Grande faces serious budget challenges over the coming
years, Alternative 1 is the most cost effective solution and it may be possible for the
project to be completed in phases that will fit within our city's revenue and budget
constraints.
Alternative 1 addresses the traffic congestion at Brisco Road.
Alternative 1 provides upgrades to Grand Avenue.
Alternative 1 provides upgrades to Calle Mercado.
Alternative 1 includes much needed sound walls along El Camino Real.
Alternative 1 will decrease the traffic through the Royal Oak area and
surrounding neighborhoods.
Please approve Alternative 1.
Respectfully,
Andrea Portney
Emerald Bay Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
-----Original Message-----
From: jandaport <jandaport@aol.com>
To: brisco <brisco@arroyogrande.org>; dthompson <dthompson@arroyogrande.org>; jhill
<jhill@arroyogrande.org>; jguthrie <jguthrie@arroyogrande.org>; bharmon
<bharmon@arroyogrande.org>; tbrown <tbrown@arroyogrande.org>; kbarneich
<kbarneich@arroyogrande.org>
Cc: <>
Sent: Tue, Dec 15, 2015 5:01 pm
Subject: Brisco Road Project - Resident Comments
Dear Arroyo Grande City Council Members and Arroyo Grande City Manager:
We emailed each of you on October 26 about the Brisco Road Project. In light of the "experiment"
coming to an end and knowing that final evaluations and decisions are impending, we want you to know
that we support permanently closing the northbound on and off ramps at Brisco Road and Highway 101.
We have lived on Emerald Bay Drive in the Royal Oak neighborhood for 25+ years. Over the years,
traveling through the Brisco Road underpass and access to and from the freeway, from any direction,
has become increasingly congested.
There are too many traffic signals in too little space to accommodate so many vehicles. Simultaneously,
this small area must accommodate cars exiting the freeway from the north and south, cars getting on
the freeway traveling north and south, as well as those traveling on West Branch, Brisco Road and El
Camino Real. The gridlock is intolerable.
The temporary closure of the northbound on and off ramps at Brisco Road has created an improved
flow of traffic. Currently the traffic flow is the best we've experienced in all the years we have lived here.
What a simple solution!
We support the least expensive alternative to solving Brisco Road's traffic problem. We prefer a "no
build" solution. A permanent closure would cost far less and create less inconvenience to area
residents and commuters than the other solutions proposed.
Thank you for arranging the temporary closure for traffic flow analysis. While you have been collecting
data, this closure has provided residents and commuters a chance to see how a simple solution can
result in great benefit for all. Though habits are hard to change, during this short traffic experiment we
have become adjusted to utilizing alternative routes through and around the Brisco Road interchange
and accessing Highway 101.
We respectfully request that the Council recommend the permanent closure of the northbound ramps at
Brisco Road.
Sincerely,
Andrea and Jeff Portney
Emerald Bay Drive
-----Original Message-----
From: >
To: brisco <brisco@arroyogrande.org.>; kbarneich <kbarneich@arroyogrande.org>; tbrown
<tbrown@arroyogrande.org>; jguthrie <jguthrie@arroyogrande.org>; bharmon
<bharmon@arroyogrande.org>; jhill <jhill@arroyogrande.org>
Cc: ailara13 <>
Sent: Mon, Oct 26, 2015 11:56 am
Subject: Brisco Road Project - Plans
Dear Council Members and Staff:
Regarding the Brisco Road Project:
We are opposed to a Roundabout.
We support Alternative 1 (if it is affordable) or "no build."
Respectfully,
Andrea and Jeff Portney
Emerald Bay Drive
From:Teresa McClish
To:Robin Dickerson; Patrick Holub
Subject:FW: Brisco interchange
Date:Wednesday, March 20, 2019 4:53:40 PM
Attachments:emaillogo_190eb98f-3dbf-4ac8-a0d6-5f778ed0ba4d1111111111111111111111111111111111.png
For Brisco attachments.
Teresa McClish, AICP
Community Development Director
Community Development, City of Arroyo Grande
Tel: 805-473-5422 | www.arroyogrande.org
300 E. Branch St | Arroyo Grande | CA | 93420
City Hall Business Hours: M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm; Closed Fridays
The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email
correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public
Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law.
From: Araxie Achadjian
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 1:10 PM
To: Teresa McClish <tmcclish@arroyogrande.org>
Cc: Caren Ray Russom <crayrussom@arroyogrande.org>; Jimmy Paulding
<jpaulding@arroyogrande.org>; Lan George <lgeorge@arroyogrande.org>; Kristen Barneich
<kbarneich@arroyogrande.org>; Keith Storton <kstorton@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: Brisco interchange
Hello Ms. McClish,
As you know, we own Arroyo Grande Shell, and have expressed our concern to the
significant impact that the “First Alternative” for the Brisco Interchange Project would
have on our property and business. It is our understanding that in evaluating the
estimated costs for the various Alternatives, staff may have taken into consideration
certain projected costs to reimburse affected parties as a result of the proposed street
widening, which in our case will essentially eliminate two of our four gasoline pumps,
and require demolition / reconstruction of certain of our buildings.
The purpose of this email is simply to request that in evaluating the costs and
presenting the alternatives to the City Council, that all costs be considered. We very
strongly believe that the removal of a portion of our property and business will
effectively impact our entire business, as the business is unlikely to survive a
reconfiguration and/or a lengthy closure. While we do not have any expertise in these
matters, it is our understanding that where a governmental entity takes a portion of
property from someone, compensation for damages must include the reduction in
value of the rest of the owner’s property and business (“severance damage”). The
substantial impairment to our business and property from the proposed Project is
such that we could not continue operating the business, and as you probably know, a
service station is not the type of business that can simply be moved to another
location, so that the good will of our business would be lost as well.
Again, we are addressing this issue with you simply to make certain that in preparing
a Staff Report on the proposed alternatives, consideration is given to the full cost of
Alternative 1.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
Katcho and Araxie Achadjian
From:Robin Dickerson
To:Patrick Holub
Subject:FW: BRISCO RD INTERCHANGE
Date:Thursday, March 21, 2019 2:58:48 PM
Please upload and redact
Robin Dickerson, P.E.
City Engineer
Community Development, City of Arroyo Grande
Tel: 805-473-5441| www.arroyogrande.org
300 E. Branch St | Arroyo Grande | CA | 93420
City Hall Business Hours: M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm; Closed Fridays
The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error, please
advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email correspondence with the
City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and therefore
may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law.
-----Original Message-----
From: ]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 6:01 PM
To: Robin Dickerson <rdickerson@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: BRISCO RD INTERCHANGE
Thank you for your interest in public input!! Unfortunately, the brisco@arroyogrande.org web address did not work.
Here are my thoughts: Alternative one is a terrible idea. It would cause even more congestion on grand ave and
camino mercado at peak traffic times. If something has to be done, alternative two is better than one. At least there
will still be the same number of on and off ramps. Alternative 3 (do nothing) is my favorite. My family uses the
Halcyon/ Brisco interchange going to and from the freeway to our home. Wendy Ragan
From:Robin Dickerson
To:Patrick Holub
Subject:FW: Briscoe Rd
Date:Thursday, March 21, 2019 2:55:58 PM
Attachments:image001.png
emaillogo_190eb98f-3dbf-4ac8-a0d6-5f778ed0ba4d1111111111111111111111111111111111.png
Please redact and upload
Robin Dickerson, P.E.
City Engineer
Community Development, City of Arroyo Grande
Tel: 805-473-5441 | www.arroyogrande.org
300 E. Branch St | Arroyo Grande | CA | 93420
City Hall Business Hours: M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm; Closed Fridays
The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email
correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public
Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law.
From: Kelly Wetmore
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 1:42 PM
To: Robin Dickerson <rdickerson@arroyogrande.org>
Cc: Teresa McClish <tmcclish@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: FW: Briscoe Rd
Kelly Wetmore
Director of Legislative and Information Services/City Clerk
Legislative and Information Services, City of Arroyo Grande
Tel: 805-473-5418 | www.arroyogrande.org
300 E. Branch St | Arroyo Grande | CA | 93420
City Hall Business Hours: M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm; Closed Fridays
The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email
correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public
Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Robert Kelly" <>
Date: Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:06 PM -0700
Subject: Briscoe Rd
To: "Caren Ray Russom" <crayrussom@arroyogrande.org>
Regarding the options for Briscoe Rd and Hwy 101, I am opposed to the $23M roundabout option because I had an accident in one some time ago and feel they are unsafe vs the less expensive $11M option. The closing the of NB on-ramp to Hwy 101 worked just fine and Camino Mercado is a good alternative. I live in Rancho Grande and travel south on W. Branch street all of the time. I do not want to have to navigate a roundabout!Seeing as how the city is strapped for money, respectfully I think it would be ludicrous to pick an unsafe alternative that is double the cost. Kelly
Can you please forward this email to the other council members? Thank you. Sent from my iPhone
From:Robin Dickerson
To:Patrick Holub
Subject:FW: CONCERNED RESIDENT RE: BRISCO FREEWAY INTERCHANGE
Date:Thursday, March 21, 2019 2:59:10 PM
Attachments:emaillogo_190eb98f-3dbf-4ac8-a0d6-5f778ed0ba4d1111111111111111111111111111111111.png
Please upload and redact
Robin Dickerson, P.E.
City Engineer
Community Development, City of Arroyo Grande
Tel: 805-473-5441 | www.arroyogrande.org
300 E. Branch St | Arroyo Grande | CA | 93420
City Hall Business Hours: M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm; Closed Fridays
The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email
correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public
Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law.
From: jandaport@aol.com [mailto ]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2019 10:24 AM
To: Caren Ray Russom <crayrussom@arroyogrande.org>; Kristen Barneich
<kbarneich@arroyogrande.org>; Jimmy Paulding <jpaulding@arroyogrande.org>; Keith Storton
<kstorton@arroyogrande.org>; Lan George <lgeorge@arroyogrande.org>; Robin Dickerson
<rdickerson@arroyogrande.org>; Teresa McClish <tmcclish@arroyogrande.org>; Jessica Matson
<jmatson@arroyogrande.org>; Jim Bergman <jbergman@arroyogrande.org>
Cc: brisco <brisco@arroyogrande.org>; ; ;
jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov
Subject: CONCERNED RESIDENT RE: BRISCO FREEWAY INTERCHANGE
Dear Ms. Dickerson, Ms. McClish, Ms. Matson, Mr. Bergman and members of the AG City Council:
In preparation of your staff report and consideration of which Alternative to select regarding the Brisco
Freeway Interchange, we would like to provide all of you with our comments based on the last Public
Hearing and with previous emails we sent the City of AG regarding the proposed Alternatives. Our emails
go back as far as 2015, when the City Council was comprised of different members.
The Round-About will be dangerously close to St. Patrick's School and the South County Library and
appears to be less than pedestrian friendly. Children from St. Patrick's School, as well as Royal Oak
residents and others, will need to follow a lengthy and circuitous path to get to the library. It appears that
a pedestrian will need to cross the Round-About in several places around the circle to get to the library
and to the other side of W. Branch to Brisco and El Camino.
We worry that large trucks delivering merchandise to Walmart, Foods For Less and other national
merchants/chains in the immediate area will have difficulty negotiating the Round-About.
In addition, if we interpret the plans correctly, it appears the north and south bound on and off ramps will
remain open and traffic signals at Brisco, W. Branch and El Camino will remain. We worry about
emergency vehicles needing to pass through the W. Branch/Brisco area. AG Hospital and the ambulance
company are in the immediate area. The underpass is too narrow. Cars currently stack up in all lanes of
the underpass. Cars also block the north bound on ramp. We often see ambulances unable to get
through in either direction. Even with a Round-About and carefully timed traffic signals, this dangerous
situation will exist. There will be too many traffic signals in too little space to accommodate so many
vehicles.
We know that the City of AG and Cal Trans are capable of working with the Achadjians to accommodate
their specific needs and the traffic mitigation needed.
A Round-About is not the solution.
We continue to support Alternative 1 (if it is affordable) or "no build."
Please see our emails below.
Respectfully,
Andrea and Jeff Portney
Emerald bay Drive
AG, 93420
-----Original Message-----
From: jandaport
To: jason.wilkinson <jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov>; brisco <brisco@arroyogrande.org>; jhill
<jhill@arroyogrande.org>; cray <cray@arroyogrande.org>; tbrown <tbrown@arroyogrande.org>;
kbarneich <kbarneich@arroyogrande.org>; bharmon <bharmon@arroyogrande.org>
Cc: kassmanagement <>; ailara13 <>
Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 10:52 pm
Subject: CONCERNED RESIDENT RE: BRISCO FREEWAY INTERCHANGE
Dear Mr. Wilkinson and AG City Council:
I have been a resident of AG for 28 years. I live in the Royal Oak neighborhood, off
of Rodeo Drive. I am very concerned about the traffic congestion at Brisco Road
and US 101. Last year's temporary closure of the north bound on and off ramps
facilitated traffic flow that I haven't seen in all the years I have lived here. I was
disappointed when the experiment was discontinued.
Please give the Brisco freeway interchange careful consideration. The decisions
you make regarding this project will forever impact our neighborhood, nearby
neighborhoods and the community at-large.
Of the two alternatives approved by Caltrans, I encourage you to approve
Alternative 1.
Alternative 4C, with its new auxiliary lanes, roundabout, reconfigured intersections,
Park and Ride Lot, will bring more traffic and congestion to the Royal Oak area and
into my neighborhood - Rodeo Drive, Grace Lane, Mercedes Lane and Emerald
Bay Drive. A residential neighborhood is not an acceptable location for a
roundabout and/or a Park and Ride Lot.
Alternative 4C is projected to be more than twice the cost of Alternative 1. Knowing
that the City of Arroyo Grande faces serious budget challenges over the coming
years, Alternative 1 is the most cost effective solution and it may be possible for the
project to be completed in phases that will fit within our city's revenue and budget
constraints.
Alternative 1 addresses the traffic congestion at Brisco Road.
Alternative 1 provides upgrades to Grand Avenue.
Alternative 1 provides upgrades to Calle Mercado.
Alternative 1 includes much needed sound walls along El Camino Real.
Alternative 1 will decrease the traffic through the Royal Oak area and
surrounding neighborhoods.
Please approve Alternative 1.
Respectfully,
Andrea Portney
Emerald Bay Drive
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
-----Original Message-----
From: jandaport
To: brisco <brisco@arroyogrande.org>; dthompson <dthompson@arroyogrande.org>; jhill
<jhill@arroyogrande.org>; jguthrie <jguthrie@arroyogrande.org>; bharmon
<bharmon@arroyogrande.org>; tbrown <tbrown@arroyogrande.org>; kbarneich
<kbarneich@arroyogrande.org>
Cc: ailara13
Sent: Tue, Dec 15, 2015 5:01 pm
Subject: Brisco Road Project - Resident Comments
Dear Arroyo Grande City Council Members and Arroyo Grande City Manager:
We emailed each of you on October 26 about the Brisco Road Project. In light of the "experiment"
coming to an end and knowing that final evaluations and decisions are impending, we want you to
know that we support permanently closing the northbound on and off ramps at Brisco Road and
Highway 101.
We have lived on Emerald Bay Drive in the Royal Oak neighborhood for 25+ years. Over the years,
traveling through the Brisco Road underpass and access to and from the freeway, from any direction,
has become increasingly congested.
There are too many traffic signals in too little space to accommodate so many vehicles.
Simultaneously, this small area must accommodate cars exiting the freeway from the north and south,
cars getting on the freeway traveling north and south, as well as those traveling on West Branch,
Brisco Road and El Camino Real. The gridlock is intolerable.
The temporary closure of the northbound on and off ramps at Brisco Road has created an improved
flow of traffic. Currently the traffic flow is the best we've experienced in all the years we have lived
here. What a simple solution!
We support the least expensive alternative to solving Brisco Road's traffic problem. We prefer a "no
build" solution. A permanent closure would cost far less and create less inconvenience to area
residents and commuters than the other solutions proposed.
Thank you for arranging the temporary closure for traffic flow analysis. While you have been collecting
data, this closure has provided residents and commuters a chance to see how a simple solution can
result in great benefit for all. Though habits are hard to change, during this short traffic experiment we
have become adjusted to utilizing alternative routes through and around the Brisco Road interchange
and accessing Highway 101.
We respectfully request that the Council recommend the permanent closure of the northbound ramps
at Brisco Road.
Sincerely,
Andrea and Jeff Portney
Emerald Bay Drive
-----Original Message-----
From: jandaport <>
To: brisco <brisco@arroyogrande.org.>; kbarneich
<kbarneich@arroyogrande.org>; tbrown <tbrown@arroyogrande.org>; jguthrie
<jguthrie@arroyogrande.org>; bharmon <bharmon@arroyogrande.org>; jhill
<jhill@arroyogrande.org>
Cc: ailara13 <>
Sent: Mon, Oct 26, 2015 11:56 am
Subject: Brisco Road Project - Plans
Dear Council Members and Staff:
Regarding the Brisco Road Project:
We are opposed to a Roundabout.
We support Alternative 1 (if it is affordable) or "no build."
Respectfully,
Andrea and Jeff Portney
Emerald Bay Drive
From:Sherrill Massingham
To:brisco
Subject:Suggestion for Brisco road project
Date:Friday, March 15, 2019 6:23:40 PM
I would like to add a change that could be implemented now to make the Branch Street &
Brisco intersection safer, regardless of what future changes are decided with the freeway
on/off ramps.
My recommendation is to add a “No Right on Red” sign for the east-bound Branch Street
turn. There are near collisions there daily.
Cars going east-bound on Branch and turning right onto Bristol don’t seem to focus on either
the North-bound freeway traffic exiting and turning left on a green light onto Brisco nor the
west-bound Branch street traffic that have a ‘green turn light’ to turn left onto Brisco. Many
times they will turn when they see the freeway cars stop not realizing the Branch street west-
bound cars are now turning! They are causing turning cars with green lights to stop mid turn
and wait for they’re right on a red. This sometime blocks the intersection because they’ve
prevented cars from finishing their turn before the light changes.
I use this intersection daily and when turning left from west-bound Branch onto Brisco today I
had to again slam on my breaks to avoid a car that wasn’t looking and turned right on a red
light just as I was turning onto Brisco. A traffic sign that makes these cars wait a few seconds
for their green light before turning would make this a safer and less congested intersection.
Thank you,
Sherrill Massingham
Village Glen Drive
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
From:Ken McDaniel
To:brisco
Subject:Traffic options
Date:Thursday, March 14, 2019 11:30:10 AM
Hello,
As a resident of AG since 1984 and a frequent user of the subject intersection, I would like to
support alternative #1, closing the of/off ramps, for two main reasons. Number one is cost. It
seems ridiculous to spend $10M more for alt #2 unless there are significant traffic advantages, which
I fail to see. Number two reason is that the temporary closure seemed to virtually eliminate the
traffic congestion which is at the heart of the problem. I would like to know the feelings of the City
Council as the decision gets closer. When is the next public meeting on this topic? Thanks,
Ken McDaniel
W BRAN
C
H
S
T
BRISC
O
HWY 101
N
HWY 101
S
EL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
FEB13
4:00 PM
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
Brisco Road Interchange Project
RD
ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS OVERVIEW WHEN:
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
4:00 p.m - 6:00 p.m
WHERE:
Arroyo Grande
City Council Chambers
215 E Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
The First Alternative - Alt 1
• Close the northbound on and off-ramps at Brisco Rd and US 101
• Complete intersection improvements at Camino Mercado and US 101
• Complete intersection improvements on the north and southbound ramps
at Grand Ave and US 101
• Complete bridge widening on Grand Ave
•Estimated cost $12,300,000
The Second Alternative - Alt 4c
• Relocate the northbound ramps at Brisco Rd to W Branch St at Rodeo Dr
• Complete intersection improvements at Grace Ln and Rodeo Dr
• Complete intersection improvements on the southbound ramps at Grand
Ave and US 101
•Estimated cost $22,700,000
The Third Alternative
• No build
Website: www.arroyogrande.org
Email: brisco@arroyogrande.org
Phone: (805) 473-5441
The City of Arroyo Grande will hold a public information meeting on February 13, 2019, from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. to
discuss the Brisco Interchange Project, including the three proposed alternative designs described below.
City Staff will be available to answer questions, discuss the alternative designs, and field public input. The Arroyo Grande
City Council has not yet chosen one of the alternatives, and the project is tentatively scheduled to be on the Council’s
agenda in March.
If you have any questions regarding this meeting, please contact Robin Dickerson, City Engineer, at (805) 473-5441. If you
can’t make this meeting, but would still like to provide input, please email brisco@arroyogrande.org. More
information about the project can be found on the City’s website at www.arroyogrande.org.
ATTACHMENT 8
Brisco Interchange Public Information Meeting
February 13, 2019
Arroyo Grande City Hall, 300 E Branch Street
1.CITY STAFF PRESENT: Director Teresa McClish, City Engineer Robin Dickinson, Assistant Planner
Andrew Perez, and Permit Technician Patrick Holub
2.PROJECT OVERVIEW: (McClish):
Director McClish provided an overview of the project and presented details about each alternative.
QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC:
What improvements will happen at the Rodeo Dr/Grace Ln intersection with Alt. 4C/
After deducting other potential funding sources, how much will the City owe for each alternative?
Will pedestrian access be improved at the Brisco St. undercrossing?
Was the impact to property values of the neighborhoods nearest the proposed roundabout studied?
With soundwalls on only the westside of Hwy 101, is there potential for an increase in noise on the
eastside? (Need to verify with noise consultant)
Have the economic impacts to the businesses with closure of northbound ramps been considered?
Since the congestion seems to be caused by the Brisco on-ramp, why is the northbound Brisco off-ramp
being closed?
Doesn’t the closure of the Brisco ramps ject shift the burden to the Camino Mercado and Grand Avenue
ramps?
When will a detailed budget and cost estimate for the project be available?
When will the City’s comprehensive financial reports for 2018 be available?
Have improvements to the Oak Park Blvd overpass been considered as an alternative?
What is the estimated construction duration for each alternative?
Why will Brisco Street be restriped under the overpass?
Is widening Brisco Street under the overpass feasible?
What is the existing level of service for the street network at this intersection (Brisco & Branch)?
Will on-street parking on Rodeo Dr. be eliminating with the implementation of Alternative 4C?
How will pedestrians cross Rodeo Dr. if a roundabout is constructed?
What impacts will Alternative 4C have on the library parking lot?
Will further studies produce other viable alternatives?
How does Alternative 4C impact freeway access for motorists coming from the Mesa via Halcyon St.?
ATTACHMENT 9
Did one of the studies examine the feasibility of a right turn only lane from Brisco that would yield onto
W Branch to avoid congestion at the signal? (Review studies for this answer)
Will traffic heading west that gets stopped at the signal at Brisco back up into the roundabout? (Review
studies for this answer)
Why was widening the underpass at Brisco deemed infeasible?
Who makes the ultimate decision on what alternative is implemented?
Why aren’t both the construction of a roundabout and improvements to the Grand Avenue and Camino
Mercado ramps proposed?
Can tractor-trailers navigate the roundabout to get products to the 5 Cities center?
Would this project/alternatives ever end up as a ballot measure?
Will there be a meeting held by Cal Trans to receive public comment?
How will financing work, and how will phasing impact the costs?
Will the PowerPoint presentation and exhibits be shared with the public?
Is the addition of a Class II bike lane proposed with the widening of the Grand Avenue overpass?
Will there be bike lanes incorporated into the design of the roundabout?
DIRECTOR MCCLISH CONDUCTED AN INFORMAL POLL OF THE 60-70 MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE
Alternative 1: 30-40%
Alternative 4C: 30-40%
No Build Option: 20-30%
PUBLIC COMMENT
Araxie Achadjian, presented a letter to City Council and spoke in opposition to Alternative 1, stating that
the impacts to their Shell gas station will include a reduction of pumps from four (4) to two (2) resulting
in a potential violation of their contractual obligation and loss of revenue (Attachment 1).
Ken Price, SLO Bike Club, stated that regardless of which design is chosen, pedestrian and bicycle safety
should be a priority in the design, and suggested that a pedestrian/bicycle overpass be incorporated into
the design to aid in crossing the freeway which is currently difficult and dangerous.
Female (did not give name), spoke in opposition to the project, stating that each alternative is too
expensive, existing traffic conditions are not that bad, and suggested that the money be used to improve
existing facilities such as bike lanes and sidewalks.
Wendell Shultz, submitted a letter to City Council in support of the “no build” alternative because
congestion at this intersection is nonexistent, other than a short period of time in the early evening
(Attachment 2).
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ALT 4cNorthbound Ramp RelocationNo Buildȏ &ORVHWKHQRUWKERXQGRQDQGRUDPSVDWBrisco Rd and US 101ȏ &RPSOHWHLQWHUVHFWLRQLPSURYHPHQWVDW&DPLQR0HUFDGRDQG86ȏ &RPSOHWHLQWHUVHFWLRQLPSURYHPHQWVRQWKHQRUWKDQGVRXWKERXQGUDPSVDW*UDQG$YHDQG86ȏ &RPSOHWHEULGJHZLGHQLQJRQ*UDQG$YH•Estimated cost $12,300,000Project Background7KH%ULVFR5RDGΖQWHUFKDQJH3URMHFWKDVEHHQXQGHUZD\IRUDSSUR[LPDWHO\\HDUV7KHSXUSRVHRIWKHSURMHFWLVWRSURYLGHFRQJHVWLRQUHOLHIDOOHYLDWHWUDɝFEDFNXSV TXHXLQJ DQGLPSURYHWKHWUDɝFRSHUDWLRQVDW%ULVFR5RDGDQG867KHSXUSRVHLVDOVRWRFRQWLQXHWRDFFRPPRGDWHDFFHVVWRH[LVWLQJDQGSODQQHGORFDOGHYHORSPHQW1XPHURXVGHVLJQDOWHUQDWLYHVKDYHEHHQGHYHORSHGDQGDQDO\]HG&XUUHQWO\WKHSURMHFWLVLQWKH3URMHFW$SSURYDODQG(QYLURQPHQWDO'HWHUPLQDWLRQ 3$ (' SKDVH7KHQH[WSKDVHZLOOEHWKHGHVLJQSKDVHRQFHDQDOWHUQDWLYHKDVEHHQVHOHFWHG&RQVWUXFWLRQLVSURJUDPPHGWREHJLQLQMore Information: www.arroyogrande.org | Email: brisco@arroyogrande.org | Phone: (805) 473-5441 | Address: 300 E Branch St, Arroyo Grande, CA, 93420ALT 1Northbound Ramp Closureȏ 5HORFDWHWKHQRUWKERXQGUDPSVDW%ULVFR5GWR:%UDQFK6WDW5RGHR'Uȏ &RPSOHWHLQWHUVHFWLRQLPSURYHPHQWVDW*UDFH/QDQG5RGHR'Uȏ &RPSOHWHLQWHUVHFWLRQLPSURYHPHQWVRQWKHVRXWKERXQGUDPSVDW*UDQG$YHDQGUS 101•Estimated cost $22,700,000ȏ 1REXLOG%ULVFRUDPSVZRXOGUHPDLQDVLVȏ 1RFKDQJHVWRLQWHUVHFWLRQDW&DPLQR0HUFDGRDQG86ȏ 1RFKDQJHVWRLQWHUVHFWLRQDW(*UDQG$YHand US 101•No CostPROsȏ $OOHYLDWHFRQJHVWLRQat Brisco Rd and US101ȏ /RZHUFRVWDOWHUQDWLYHCONsȏ /RVVRIRQ RUDPSDQGFRQQHFWLYLW\WRFRUHFRPPHUFLDODUHDȏ 'LYHUWVWUDɝFWRH[LVWLQJUDPSVPROsȏ 0DLQWDLQVFRQQHFWLYLW\DQGRQ RUDPSȏ $OOHYLDWHFRQJHVWLRQDWBrisco Rd and US 101CONsȏ +LJKHUFRVWDOWHUQDWLYHPROsȏ 1RFRVWDOWHUQDWLYHCONsȏ 'RHVQRWDOOHYLDWHFRQJHVWLRQDW%ULVFRRd and US 101%ULVFR+DOF\RQ5RDGΖQWHUFKDQJH0RGLȴFDWLRQV3URMHFW7ZRIHDVLEOHEXLOGDOWHUQDWLYHVKDYHEHHQLGHQWLȴHGIRUWKHSURMHFWDVZHOODVWKHUHTXLUHGQREXLOGRSWLRQ7KH&LW\&RXQFLOLVWHQWDWLYHO\VFKHGXOHGWRFRQVLGHUWKHSURMHFWDWWKH0DUFK &RXQFLOPHHWLQJ6LJQXSIRUQRWLȴFDWLRQVDWZZZDUUR\RJUDQGHRUJXQGHUWKH1RWLI\0HWDECamino Mercado IntersectionBrisco RoadIntersectionE Grand AveIntersectionBrisco Road / W Branch Street / Rodeo DriveIntersectionBrisco Road / W Branch Street / El Camino RealIntersectionBrisco RoadW Branch St(O&DPLQR5HDOBrisco RoadW Branch St(*UDQG$YH&DPLQR0HUFDGRW Branch StW Branch StBrisco Road
W BRAN
C
H
S
T
BRISC
O
HWY 10
1
N
HWY 10
1
S
EL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
MAR266:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Brisco Road Interchange Project
RDALTERNATIVE DESIGNS OVERVIEW
WHEN:
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
6:00 p.m
WHERE:
Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
215 E Branch St
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Alt 1 or Phased Alt 1
• Close the northbound on and off-ramps at Brisco Rd and US 101
• Complete intersection improvements at Camino Mercado and US 101
• Complete intersection improvements on the north and southbound ramps
at Grand Ave and US 101
• Complete bridge widening on Grand Ave
• Phasing to include deferral and/or removal of soundwalls & Grand Ave
southbound on ramp
•Estimated cost $12,300,000 without phasing
Alt 4c or Phased Alt 4c
• Relocate the northbound ramps at Brisco Rd to W Branch St at Rodeo Dr
• Complete intersection improvements at Grace Ln and Rodeo Dr
• Complete intersection improvements on the southbound ramps at Grand
Ave and US 101
• Phasing to include deferral and/or removal of soundwalls & Grand Ave
southbound on ramp
•Estimated cost $22,700,000 witout phasing
Website: www.arroyogrande.org
Email: brisco@arroyogrande.org
Phone: (805) 473-5441
The City of Arroyo Grande will hold a regularly scheduled City Council meeting on March 26, 2019, starting at 6:00pm.
The Brisco Interchange Project update, including the proposed alternative designs described below, will be discussed
and a recommendation on selected alternative will be made. The Council will also discuss project phasing to reduce
costs. The City encourages the public to attend and provide input on this decsion.
If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please contact Robin Dickerson, City Engineer, at (805) 473-5441. If you
can’t make this meeting, but would still like to provide input, please email brisco@arroyogrande.org. More information
about the project can be found on the City’s website at www.arroyogrande.org.
ATTACHMENT 10