The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2019-03-19_08a Fair Oaks-Halcyon CUP MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: MATTHEW DOWNING, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWENTY-THREE (23) RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A 506 SQUARE FOOT NEIGHBORHOOD COFFEE SHOP; LOCATION – 362-382 S. HALCYON ROAD; APPLICANT – STACY BROMLEY; REPRESENTATIVE – STEVEN PUGLISI ARCHITECTS DATE: MARCH 19, 2019 SUMMARY OF ACTION: Approval of the project would result in the construction of twenty-three (23) residential units and a 506 square foot neighborhood coffee shop in the Office Mixed Use zoning district. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: None. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving the proposed project. BACKGROUND: Location The project site is located in the Office Mixed-Use (OMU) zoning district on the northwest corner of South Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue, and includes four (4) existing residences on five (5) existing lots totaling approximately 69,175 square feet (1.59 acres) as described in Table 1 below. The property is surrounded by development on all sides, including residential development to the west, commercial/office development to the north, the Arroyo Grande Community Hospital to the east, and Harloe Elementary to the south (Attachment 1). Topography of the site is relatively flat and currently takes vehicular access from South Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue. Existing vegetation on the site includes approximately ten (10) trees including Coast Live Oak, Magnolia, Podocarpus, and fruit trees. Remaining vegetation consists primarily of weeds and grasses with some existing residential vegetation. PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 19, 2019 PAGE 2 Table 1: Property Statistics Property Size Existing Use Parcel A 16,450 sq. ft. Vacant Residence Parcel B 5,620 sq. ft. Vacant Residence Parcel C/Parcel D 39,576 sq. ft. Vacant Residence/Vacant Land Parcel E 7,687 sq. ft. Vacant Residence Total Approx. 69,175 sq. ft. Pre-Application Review The applicant processed Pre-Application 16-001 in January and February 2016 to obtain preliminary feedback from the Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) on a similarly dense project designed in a different configuration and without the commercial use. Issues identified included residential unit type and classification, access distances being too close to the nearby intersection, emergency service access, water consumption and neutralization, open space provisions, and design of utilities. The applicant revised the project based on these comments and subsequently submitted the application now under consideration. Staff Advisory Committee The Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) reviewed the project on December 20, 2017. Items of discussion included the project’s relationship to preliminary design alternatives for the Halcyon Road Complete Street Plan, drainage and stormwater retention, parking and the requirement for garages to remain clear and used for parking, location of trash enclosures, and inclusion of permeable pavers. Members of the SAC were in support of the project with conditions included in the prepared Resolution. Architectural Review Committee The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) reviewed the project on March 5, 2018 (Attachment 2). The ARC discussed parking locations, CC&Rs, existing Oak trees and landscaping, existing street trees, lighting, and refuse collection on the site. Members of the SAC were in support of the project, including possible reductions in required Oak replanting requirements due to limited areas suitable for planting, support for the architectural style of the project, and the affordable by design nature of the project resulting from the smaller lots. The ARC recommended the Planning Commission approve the project with conditions included in the prepared Resolution. Planning Commission The Commission was scheduled to consider the proposed project that the February 5, 2019 meeting; however, at the request of the applicant, consideration of the project was continued to a date uncertain. The Commission elected to receive public comment on the project at that meeting (Attachment 3). The project has not changed since that time. PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 19, 2019 PAGE 3 ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Legislative vs. Judicial Acts Every decision a local government makes can be placed into one of three categories – legislative, quasi-judicial or ministerial: • Legislative acts are those that create policy, such as general plan updates, zoning ordinances or specific plans. These acts establish local law – rules that apply to everybody within the jurisdiction. Under California law, legislative acts are subject to initiative and referendum. • Quasi-judicial acts are those that apply policy (created through legislative acts) to projects, such as consideration of tentative maps or use permits. These acts are discretionary, based on the decision-makers’ interpretation and application of policy to a particular project. Quasi-judicial acts are not subject to initiative or referendum. • Ministerial acts are those that require no discretion on the part of the local government, such as the mandatory issuing of a permit if certain conditions are met. The proposed project is a quasi-judicial action – if approved by the Planning Commission, it will grant the property owner entitlements to develop the property in substantial conformance with the approved plans, subject to any conditions of approval. Project Description The proposed mixed-use project consists of the subdivision of five (5) existing lots into twenty-three (23) lots and the construction of twenty-three (23) residential units and a small, neighborhood serving commercial use across the street from Arroyo Grande Community Hospital, which is the nineteenth (19) largest employer in the County1. The units are proposed to be market rate units, fitting the “affordable by design” concept with small lots, connected residences, and minimized site maintenance and upkeep. The twenty-three (23) units will be in five (5) separate clusters, each two-story and including seventeen (17) total three-bedroom, five (5) two-bedroom, and one (1) studio unit. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the number of units per plan type and unit size. Table 2: Residential Unit Details Plan Type Number of Units Number of Floors Size of Units (sq. ft.) Studio 1 1 506 Unit A – 3-Bedroom 8 2 1,731 1 San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, 2019 https://slochamber.org/our-community/community-profile/major-employers/ PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 19, 2019 PAGE 4 Plan Type Number of Units Number of Floors Size of Units (sq. ft.) Unit A – 2-Bedroom 4 2 1,731 Unit B – 3-Bedroom 5 2 1,863 Unit C – 3-Bedroom 4 2 1,753 Unit C – 2-Bedroom 1 2 1,753 Total 23 n/a Approx. 39,350 General Plan The General Plan is the foundational development policy document for the City and defines the framework for how the physical, economic, and human resources are to be managed. The General Plan underwent a comprehensive update that was adopted by the City Council in 2001. At that time, the General Plan designated the subject property for Mixed Use land uses, which remains the case today. Development of a primarily residential mixed-use project meets General Plan Policies LU5-11, LU11-1, and LU11-2 of the Land Use Element and Goal A.5 of the Housing Element, which state: LU5-11: Promote a mixture of residential and commercial uses along Mixed Use corridors including substantial landscaping and streetscape improvements. LU11-1: Require that new development be at an appropriate density or intensity based upon compatibility with the majority of existing surrounding land uses. LU11-2: Require that new development should be designed to create pleasing transitions to surrounding development. A.5: The City shall encourage housing compatible with commercial and office uses and promote “mixed use” and “village core” zoning districts to facilitate integration of residential uses into such areas. Development Standards The subject property is zoned OMU. Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) Subsection 16.36.020.H. states that the primary purpose of the OMU district is to provide areas for the establishment of corporate, administrative, and medical offices and facilities, commercial services that are required to support major business medical development, and multi-family housing. Retail facilities and support business are encouraged to serve nearby office and residential uses. The proposed project qualifies as a mixed-use development with multi-family housing even though the residences will be sold individually, due to the design of these residences conforming to the Cityhouse development building style with three or more attached dwellings where no unit is located over another unit. The development is allowed in the OMU zoning district following approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The development standards for the OMU district and the proposed project are identified in the following table: PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 19, 2019 PAGE 5 Table 3: Site Development Standards for the OMU Zoning District Development Standards OMU District CUP 16-007 Notes Maximum Density – Mixed Use Projects 20 dwelling units/acre 31 density units total 18 units/acre Code met Maximum Density Multi-family Housing 15 dwelling units/acre None Not applicable – Project is mixed use. If the project were not mixed use, maximum density would be 23.85 density equivalent units. Minimum Density 75% of maximum density 24.75 units Code met Minimum Lot Size 10,000 sq. ft. 1,935 – 6,450 per lot Individual lot sizes may be reduced through the CUP process Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 30’ minimum Individual lot width may be reduced through the CUP process Front Yard Setback 0-10 feet 10 feet Code met Rear Yard Setback 0-15 feet 15 feet to west 10 – 12 feet to north Code met Side Yard Setback 0-5 feet 0 feet Buildings connected to each other, Code met Street Side Yard Setback 0-15 feet 15 feet Code met Building Size Limits 35 feet or 3 stories 50,000 square-feet max 27’ 6” 1,863 square-feet Code met Site Coverage and Floor Area Ratio 70% site coverage Floor Area Ratio: 1 59.27% coverage/Floor Area Ratio Code met Off-Street Parking Covered in Table 6 below See Table 6 PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 19, 2019 PAGE 6 Density As identified above, the maximum density for a mixed use project in the OMU zoning district is 20 dwelling units per acre. The 1.59-acre site can accommodate up to 31.8 density equivalent units. Since the site is located in the OMU zone, residential density is calculated differently than the traditional residential zoning districts. Mixed use densities outlined in AGMC Subsection 16.36.030.C. are as follows: Table 4. Residential Densities in Mixed-Use Zones Residential Dwelling Unit Type Density Equivalent Live/Work Unit .5 Studio .5 1-bedroom .75 2-bedroom 1 3-bedroom 1.5 4-bedroom 2 As outlined above, the proposed project, while containing twenty-three (23) physical units, has a density equivalency of thirty-one (31) units, as outlined below: Table 5. Proposed Project Density Unit Type Number of Units Density Equivalent per Unit Total Studio 1 0.5 0.5 2-Bedroom 5 1 5 3-Bedroom 17 1.5 25.5 Total 31 The density of the proposed project meets the maximum density for a mixed-use project in the OMU district. However, if the commercial component of the project were removed, as identified in Table 3, the project site would have a maximum density of 23.85 units. This could result in essentially the same site plan being viable, as a conversion of all 3-bedroom units to 2-bedroom units would meet this reduced density. However, it is not recommended to eliminate this neighborhood service commercial use, as it provides an opportunity to provide access to a service for residents in the adjoining residential neighborhood as well as the large number of employees within one-quarter mile of the site. It is also important to note that the intent of the Mixed-Use districts is to provide high density housing if housing is to be constructed. The reason for this is that commercial corridors, including the Halcyon Road corridor, will be more successful when supported by high density housing. This is particularly true for projects including a neighborhood service commercial use, where the blending of commercial and residential uses will help create economically sustainable corridors. PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 19, 2019 PAGE 7 Attainable Housing In the 2013 General Plan Housing Element update, the City identified the importance of providing housing to workers who are increasingly finding housing to be financially out of reach. This can cause issues for local businesses when they cannot recruit or retain qualified employees. The Housing Element considers this problem to be an issue of “Attainable Housing”. Policy A.14 mandates that the City shall promote infill housing opportunities through an attainable housing program. While the AGMC has not yet been amended to include a formal definition of “Attainable Housing”, the Housing Element identifies qualities anticipated to be part of the definition, including: • Projects in mixed-use districts; • Infill projects; • Projects that include elements that exceed the mandatory California Green Building Code Standards in Title 24; • Projects that include universal design elements; • Projects including single-room occupancy units; and • Projects with a high percentage of rental units. Under this outline of “Attainable Housing”, the proposed project meets several of these qualities and fills an important housing market niche in the community. Additionally, the project will pay its proportional share of affordable housing in-lieu fees to help develop affordable housing projects elsewhere in the City, such as the recently approved HASLO and Habitat for Humanity projects. Traffic As part of the environmental review process for the project, the applicant contracted with a civil engineer to prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) (Attachment 4). The TIAR includes trip generation using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation factors. The TIAR was reviewed by the City’s on-call traffic engineer, administered by and reporting to the City, to evaluate the TIAR’s compliance with the City’s Draft TIAR Guidelines and recommendations were made regarding necessary modifications to the report. The applicant submitted an updated TIAR in response to the City’s peer review (Attachment 5), which concluded that the Level of Service at the study intersections would not be significantly impacted as a result of the project. Public comments regarding the project have identified the existing congestion at the Fair Oaks Avenue/S. Halcyon Road intersection (the “Fair Oaks/Halcyon intersection”) and the vicinity as points of opposition toward the project. Separately from the proposed project, the City has been developing the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan (HRCSP), which is currently in the environmental review phase of project development. The HRCSP will address multi-modal transportation along the Halcyon Corridor. A factor taken into account in the HRCSP is the regional traffic accommodated along the PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 19, 2019 PAGE 8 Halcyon Corridor as a result from development in neighboring jurisdictions. Additionally, the proposed project was utilized during the development of the HRCSP to ensure appropriate future traffic forecasts were considered and proposed improvements could be accommodated on the project site. At the Fair Oaks/Halcyon intersection, the DRAFT HRCSP identifies two alternatives that will accommodate the forecasted traffic on the Halcyon Corridor, including a traditional signalized intersection OR a roundabout. While the HRCSP is not being considered by the Planning Commission at this time, both of those improvement alternatives have been taken into account with the proposed project’s site plan and the project has been conditioned to dedicate right-of-way necessary to accommodate the roundabout, which has a greater land dedication need, to ensure either intersection improvement can be accommodated depending upon future action by the Council (refer to Condition of Approval #65 in the prepared Resolution). However, the proposed project is not triggering either intersection improvement identified in the HRCSP; those improvements will be necessary due to regional growth regardless of the Planning Commission’s action on the proposed project. Mitigation measures and conditions of approval developed for the proposed project would additionally require the applicant to pay the project’s pro-rata share contribution for the intersection improvements identified in the HRCSP. Access The project site proposes two (2) public access points, with one each from Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue. Through discussions with the developer and traffic engineer, these access points have been located as far as feasible from the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue signalized intersection. Emergency access is accommodated through the site from both access points. A comment was made regarding the offset nature of the Fair Oaks Avenue driveway when compared to the driveway across the street at Harloe Elementary. It is important to note that a driveway already exists on the Fair Oaks Avenue frontage of the project site, approximately forty feet (40’) or so from the intersection of Fair Oaks Avenue and Halcyon Road. The limited project frontage on Fair Oaks Avenue makes it physically impossible to line up this access point with the school’s driveway. Therefore, the existing driveway’s location is not preferable and was required to be moved to its proposed location. Parking A total of 62 parking spaces are required of the proposed project. These requirements are broken down in Table 6 below. While Development Code Section 16.56.050 (Common Parking Facilities) allows the total parking requirement to be reduced by 20% for shared uses, the proposed project exceeds required parking by one (1) additional space without any shared use parking reduction. This includes an additional accessible space on site as conditioned by the Architectural Review Committee. The open parking spaces must include the provision of joint use by a proper legal agreement approved by PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 19, 2019 PAGE 9 the City Attorney, which must then be recorded with the County Recorder. This will be accomplished through the CC&Rs that will be required of the project. Table 6: Parking Calculations Residential Parking Commercial Parking Total Development Code Requirements Studio: 1 space/unit (1 space) One space per 100 sq. ft. of public area: • Interior: 350 sq. ft. (3.5 spaces) • Patio: 161 sq. ft. (1.5 spaces) • Total: 511 sq. ft. (5 spaces) 2+ bedroom: 2 spaces/unit (44 spaces) Guest parking: 0.5 space/unit (11.5 spaces) Total: 56.5 spaces 5 spaces 62 spaces Proposed Parking 2+ bedroom units: 44 spaces 19 open spaces (including 2 ADA spaces) 63 spaces Architecture The architectural character of the development is considered “Bungalow”, utilizing a mix of exterior colors and materials as listed in Table 7 (Attachment 6). The project includes consistent roof heights with varying roof projections. The ARC was in support of the proposed project and mixture of colors and materials. Table 7: Building Materials and Colors Building 1 Composition Shingles “Aged Bark” Cement Plaster (stucco, light lace texture) “French Toast” Fiber Cement Trim (Cedar lap texture) “Pewter Green” Accent Color “Garnet” Accent Stone “Caramel” Building 2 Composition Shingles “Aged Bark” Cement Plaster (stucco, light lace texture) “Desert Beige” Fiber Cement Trim (Cedar lap texture) “Griffen” Accent Color “Raisen” Accent Stone None PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 19, 2019 PAGE 10 Building 3 Composition Shingles “Aged Bark” Cement Plaster (stucco, light lace texture) “Ironstone” Fiber Cement Trim (Cedar lap texture) “Greek Villa” Accent Color “Spiced Cider” Accent Stone None Building 4 Composition Shingles “Aged Bark” Cement Plaster (stucco, light lace texture) “Desert Beige” Fiber Cement Trim (Cedar lap texture) “Griffen” Accent Color “Raisen” Accent Stone “Caramel” Building 5 Composition Shingles “Aged Bark” Cement Plaster (stucco, light lace texture) “Bisque” Fiber Cement Trim (Cedar lap texture) “Retreat” Accent Color “Garnet” Accent Stone None Coffee Shop Standing Seam Metal Roof “Koko Brown” Cement Plaster (stucco, light lace texture) “Desert Beige” Fiber Cement Trim (Cedar lap texture) “Roycroft Copper Red” Accent Color “Simple White” Accent Stone None Trees and Landscaping As identified previously, ten (10) existing trees are proposed to be removed with the proposed project. These trees include a number of Coast Live Oaks, along with various other tree species. One (1) existing, 36” Coast Live Oak on the western side of the project site is proposed to remain as part of development of the project. The Municipal Code calls for oak replacement at a 3:1 ratio, which would total fifteen (15) replacement oaks. The landscape plan only includes nine (9) replacement oaks. The landscape plan additionally includes Olive, Chinese Pistache, Arbutus Marina or Tristania Laurina, and Desert Willows to be installed throughout the site. Additional drought tolerant ground cover is proposed in the common areas, primarily adjacent to the parking areas. The northwestern corner of the site is identified for a drainage basin to allow stormwater infiltration. The final landscape plan will be required to comply with the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance as is common for recent developments. Signage Signage for the coffee shop has not been identified, although it is anticipated that signage would be desired in order for the commercial use to be successful. Any future sign proposal would be processed in accordance with the requirements of the AGMC. PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 19, 2019 PAGE 11 ADVANTAGES: The proposed project will develop a mixed-use project consistent with the General Plan including a small, neighborhood serving commercial use and maintaining emergency access. The design of the development respects neighboring residential projects and lessens impacts to those properties, creating a more pleasing transition from the more intensive healthcare uses further east on Fair Oaks Avenue. The proposed project accommodates the intersection improvements outlined in the Draft Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan, which would allow for either alternative to be pursued, depending on future action taken by the City Council on that project. The project additionally provides twenty-three (23) new residential units in the community, which is currently experiencing a housing shortage. DISADVANTAGES: The proposed project would develop an underutilized site designated for mixed land uses with a predominantly residential project, limiting the tax generating uses that could be proposed on the site. However, the predominantly residential project would result in less traffic generation compared to a more commercial development, which has been a concern expressed by comments made regarding the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project (Attachment 7). Mitigation is required for air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology/water quality, noise, recreation, transportation/traffic, tribal cultural resources, and utilities/service systems. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT: A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300’ of the project site, was published in The Tribune, and posted at City Hall and on the City’s website on March 8, 2019. A sign announcing the public hearing was previously posted at the site and was updated to reflect the current meeting date in accordance with City policy. The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2. Several items of correspondence have been received regarding the proposed project and are included as Attachment 8. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Minutes of the March 5, 2018 Architectural Review Committee meeting 3. Minutes of the February 5, 2019 Planning Commission meeting 4. Transportation Impact Analysis Report 5. Updated Transportation Impact Analysis Report 6. Color sheet 7. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MARCH 19, 2019 PAGE 12 8. Correspondence received regarding the project 9. Project plans (previously distributed to the Commission) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007; LOCATED AT 362 – 382 SOUTH HALCYON ROAD; APPLIED FOR BY STACY BROMLEY WHEREAS, the project site is approximately 1.59 acres, zoned Office Mixed Use (OMU), and located at the northwest corner of S. Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue, which includes five (5) existing lots; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16-002 and Conditional Use Permit 16-007 for the subdivision and development of twenty-three (23) residential units, including one (1) studio above an approximately 750 square foot neighborhood coffee shop, five (5) 2-bedroom units, and seventeen (17) 3-bedroom units; and WHEREAS, the coffee shop results in the project being categorized as a mixed-use project, allowing a maximum density of twenty (20) dwelling units per acre, which totals 31.8 units on the 1.59-acre project site; and WHEREAS, the project has been designed to accommodate future intersection improvements at S. Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection as outlined in the Draft Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan; and WHEREAS, the Staff Advisory Committee considered the project on December 20, 2017 and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS , the Architectural Review Committee considered the project on March 5, 2018 and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS , the Planning Commission was scheduled to consider the project on September 18, 2018, but continued the public hearing to a date uncertain at the request of the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was again scheduled to consider the project on February 5, 2019, but continued the public hearing to a date uncertain at the request of the applicant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has reviewed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on February 5, 2019; and RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation, and public hearing, the following circumstances exist: Vesting Tentative Tract Map Findings: 1. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with goals, objectives, policies, plans, programs, intent and requirements of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, as well as any applicable specific plan, and the requirements of this title. The proposed tract map would allow the subdivision of five (5) existing lots totaling 1.59 acres into twenty-three (23) lots in the OMU zoning district, for development of a mixed-use project that is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, plans, programs, intent and requirements of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, including Policies LU5-11, LU11-1, LU11-2, and A.5 of the Land Use Element and Housing Element, respectively. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is approximately 1.59 acres of underutilized land in a mixed-use zoning district and is physically suitable for the mixed-use project, including multi- family residences in the Cityhouse design. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is physically suitable as designed for the density of development with appropriate modifications to individual lots sizes and widths that may be reduced through the Conditional Use Permit process. 4. The design of the tentative tract map or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The proposed tract map has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for implementation of CEQA and impacts have been mitigated to less than significant levels. 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision would result in a development of appropriate density, consistent with the density for mixed use projects in the OMU district, and would include all necessary infrastructure, roadway improvements, and parking. 6. The design of the tentative tract map or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public-at-large for access through, or use of, property within the proposed tentative tract map or that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided, and that these alternative RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. The design of the tentative tract map will not conflict with any public or private easements and will accommodate future intersection improvements for the S. Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection as required by the Draft Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan. 7. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements as prescribed in Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the California Water Code. The proposed discharge of waste into the existing system is conditioned to meet all applicable requirements. 8. Adequate public services and facilities exist or will be provided as the result of the proposed tentative tract map to support project development. There are adequate provisions for public services to serve the project development and no deficiencies exist. The provisions for water, sanitation and public utilities were examined through the environmental review process, and it was determined that adequate public services will be available for the proposed project and will not result in adverse impacts. Conditional Use Permit Findings: 1. The proposed use is permitted within the subject district pursuant to the provisions of this section and complies with all the applicable provisions of this title, the goals, and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City. The proposed use of the site for residential development in a mixed use project is permitted within the OMU zoning district and the project complies with all applicable provisions of the Arroyo Grande General Plan and Municipal Code. 2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located. The proposed use of the site for multi-family residential development in a mixed use project will not impair the integrity of the OMU district due to the intent of the district to provide areas for the establishment of corporate, administrative, and medical offices and facilities, commercial services that are required to support major business medical development, and multi-family housing. 3. The site is suitable for the type and intensity of use or development that is proposed. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 The site is approximately 1.59 acres of underutilized land in the OMU zoning district and meets the development standards of the OMU zoning district, the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, and is suitable for the intensity of the development. 4. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure public health and safety. The provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities were evaluated through the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project and it was determined that adequate public services will be available for the proposed project and will not result in substantially adverse impacts. 5. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as it will comply with all applicable codes and standards of the Municipal Code and in accordance with conditions of approval specifically developed for the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration as set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16-002 and Conditional Use Permit 16-007 as set forth in Exhibit “C”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, with the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. On motion by Commissioner _______, seconded by Commissioner _______, and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19th day of March, 2019 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 _______________________________ GLENN MARTIN CHAIR ATTEST: _______________________________ PATRICK HOLUB SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: _______________________________ TERESA MCCLISH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 6 EXHIBIT ‘A’ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002 & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007 362 – 382 S. HALCYON ROAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. This approval authorizes the construction of a mixed-use project including an approximately 506 square foot, neighborhood retail use (coffee shop) with a 388 square foot outdoor patio, and 23 residential units totaling 30.5 total density equivalent units. 2. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 3. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval and mitigation measures for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16-002 and Conditional Use Permit 16-008. 4. This application shall automatically expire on March 19, 2021 unless a building permit is issued or an extension is granted. 5. Development shall conform to the Office Mixed Use requirements except as otherwise approved. 6. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting of March 21, 2019 and marked Exhibit “B”. 7. The applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless at his/her sole expense any action brought against the City, its present or former agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in any way relating to the implementation thereof, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his/her obligations under this condition. 8. A copy of these conditions and mitigation measures shall be incorporated into all construction documents. 9. At the time of application for construction permits, plans submitted shall show all development consistent with the approved site plan, floor plan, architectural RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 7 elevations and landscape plan. 10. Signage shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 16.60 of the Development Code. 11. Development shall comply with Development Code Sections 16.48.070, “Fences, Walls and Hedges”; 16.48.120, “Performance Standards”; and 16.48.130 “Screening Requirements”, except as otherwise modified by this approval. 12. Setbacks, lot coverage, and floor area ratios shall be as shown on the development plans including those specifically modified by these conditions. 13. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.56, “Parking and Loading Requirements”. All parking spaces adjacent to a wall, fence, or property line shall have a minimum width of 11 feet. 14. All parking areas of five or more spaces shall have an average of one-half foot- candle illumination per square foot of parking area for visibility and security during hours of darkness. 15. Trash enclosures shall be screened from public view with landscaping or other appropriate screening materials, and shall be made of an exterior finish that complements the architectural features of the main building. The trash enclosure area shall accommodate recycling container(s). The location and function of the trash enclosures shall be reviewed and approved by South County Sanitation prior to approval of the improvement plans. 16. Noise resulting from construction and operational activities shall conform to the standards set forth in Chapter 9.16 of the Municipal Code. Construction activities shall be restricted to the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM Monday through Friday and 9 AM to 5 PM on Saturdays. No construction shall occur on Sundays or City observed holidays. 17. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall coordinate construction activities and times with Harloe Elementary School and provide concurrence between the parties. 18. At the time of application for construction permits, the applicant shall provide details on any proposed exterior lighting. The lighting plan shall include the height, location, and intensity of all exterior lighting consistent with Section 16.48.090 of the Development Code. All lighting fixtures shall be shielded so that neither the lamp nor the related reflector interior surface is visible from adjacent properties. All lighting for the site shall be downward directed and shall not create spill or glare to adjacent properties. All lighting shall be energy efficient (e.g. LED) and architecturally harmonious with building designs. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 8 19. All new construction shall utilize fixtures and designs that minimize water and energy usage. Such fixtures shall include, but are not limited to, low flow showerheads, water saving toilets, instant water heaters and hot water recirculating systems. Water conserving designs and fixtures shall be installed prior to final occupancy. 20. Landscaping in accordance with the approved landscaping plan shall be installed or bonded for before final building inspection/establishment of use. The landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect subject to review and approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. The landscape plan shall be in conformance with Development Code Chapter 16.84 (Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance) and shall include the following: a. Tree staking, soil preparation and planting detail; b. The use of landscaping to screen ground-mounted utility and mechanical equipment; c. The required landscaping and improvements. This includes: i. Deep root planters shall be included in areas where trees are within five feet (5’) of asphalt or concrete surfaces and curbs; ii. Water conservation practices including the use of low flow heads, drip irrigation, mulch, gravel, drought tolerant plants; iii. An automated irrigation system using smart controller (weather based) technology; iv. The selection of groundcover plant species shall include native plants; v. Turf areas shall be limited in accordance with Section 16.84.040 of the Development Code. 21. All trees to be pruned shall be pruned under supervision of a Certified Arborist using the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Pruning Standards. 22. For projects approved with specific exterior building colors, the color and manufacturer shall be identified on building plans, consistent with those approved by the Planning Commission. The developer shall paint a test patch on the building including all colors. The remainder of the building may not be painted until inspected by the Community Development Department to verify that colors are consistent with the approved color board. A 48-hour notice is required for this inspection. 23. All new electrical panel boxes shall be installed inside the building(s) for commercial buildings. 24. All Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be located near a fire hydrant, adjacent to a fire access roadway, and screened to the maximum extent permitted by the Fire Chief. 25. Double detector check valve assemblies shall be screened and located directly adjacent to or within the respective building to which they serve. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 9 26. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment and all other mechanical equipment, whether on the ground, on the structure or elsewhere, shall be screened from public view with materials architecturally compatible with the main structure. It is especially important that gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and large water piping systems be completely screened from public view. All roof-mounted equipment which generates noise, solid particles, odors, etc., shall cause the objectionable material to be directed away from residential properties. 27. All conditions of this approval run with the land and shall be strictly adhered to, within the time frames specified, and in an on-going manner for the life of the project. Failure to comply with these conditions of approval may result in an immediate enforcement action. If it is determined that violation(s) of these conditions of approval have occurred, or are occurring, this approval may be revoked pursuant to Development Code Section 16.08.100. SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS 28. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.20 "Land Divisions". 29. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.64 "Dedications, Fees and Reservations." 30. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.68 "Improvements". 31. The applicant shall submit Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) that are administered by a subdivision homeowners' association, formed by the applicant for the area within the subdivision. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and recorded prior to or concurrently with the final map. At a minimum, the CC&R's shall: a. Provide for maintenance of the driveways, common areas, sewer lines and other facilities; b. Prohibit additions to the units; c. Require garages to be kept clear for parking cars at all times; and d. Inform residents of the water conservation requirements placed on this project. 32. An operations and maintenance agreement shall be submitted for all drainage facilities. 33. The applicant shall remove all structures in conflict with new lot lines. 34. A building permit will not be issued until drainage facilities are functional to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 35. The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way necessary to implement Alternative 2 of the RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 10 Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan to accommodate a roundabout at Fair Oaks Avenue and South Halcyon Road. 36. Preliminary Title Report, a current preliminary title report shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to checking the map. If the property owner is a Limited Liability Company (LLC), provide names and contact information for the individual owners. A current subdivision guarantee shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to recording the Map. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING 37. The developer shall comply with Development Code Chapter 16.80 “Inclusionary Affordable Housing Requirements”. Should the developer decide to pay in-lieu fees, the fee shall be equal to one percent (1%) of total development costs for each unit within the development. BUILDING AND LIFE SAFETY DIVISION AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS BUILDING CODES 38. The project shall comply with the most recent editions of the California Building Standards Code, as adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande. FIRE LANES 39. The applicant shall post designated fire lanes, per Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code. This includes painting, stenciling, and signage. FIRE FLOW/FIRE HYDRANTS 40. Project shall have a fire flow in accordance with the California Fire Code. 41. Fire hydrants shall be installed, per Fire Department and Public Works Department standards and per the California Fire Code. SECURITY KEY BOX 42. The applicant must provide an approved "security key vault," per Building and Fire Department guidelines and per the California Fire Code for the commercial building. FIRE SPRINKLER 43. All buildings must be fully sprinklered per Building and Fire Department guidelines and per the California Fire Code. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 11 ABANDONMENT / NON-CONFORMING 44. The applicant shall show proof of properly abandoning all non-conforming items such as septic tanks, wells, underground piping and other undesirable conditions. DEMOLITION PERMIT / RETAINING WALLS 45. A demolition permit must be applied for, approved and issued. All asbestos and lead shall be verified if present and abated prior to permit issuance. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 46. One week prior to scheduling of final inspection or any issuance of certificate of occupancy, a project inspection by the Building, Planning, and Engineering Divisions and Public Works Department is required. 47. The applicant shall fund outsourced plan check services, as required. ENGINEERING DIVISION CONDITIONS POST CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, AND ANNUAL STORMWATER CONTROL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 48. The Applicant shall develop, implement and provide the City a: a. Prior to a building or grading permit a Stormwater Control Plan that clearly provides engineering analysis of all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls complying with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 5.2.2. b. Prior to final acceptance an Operations and Maintenance Plan and Maintenance Agreements that clearly establish responsibility for all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls complying with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 5.2.3. c. Annual Maintenance Notification after acceptance of improvements indicating that all Water Quality Treatment, Runoff Retention, and Peak Flow Management controls are being maintained and are functioning as designed. d. Stormwater reports must be completed by either a Registered Civil Engineer or Qualified Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Developer (QSD). GENERAL CONDITIONS 49. The developer shall sweep streets in compliance with Standard Specifications Section 13-4.03F. 50. For work requiring engineering inspections, working hours shall comply with RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 12 Standard Specification Section 5-1.01. 51. Provide trash enclosure in compliance with Engineering Standard 9060 with solid/rain-deflecting roof. Drain of trash enclosure to tie into the sewer interceptor or the onsite water quality BMP. 52. All project improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the most recent version of the City of Arroyo Grande Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards. 53. The property owner shall provide maintenance of all landscaping placed in and adjacent to the development. 54. Submit as-built plans at the completion of the project or improvements as directed by the Community Development Director in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 9.3E. Provide One (1) set of paper prints and electronic documents on CD or flash drive in both AutoCAD and PDF format. 55. Submit three (3) full-size paper copies and one (1) electronic PDF file of approved improvement plans for inspection purposes during construction. 56. Preserve existing survey monuments and vertical control benchmarks in compliance with Standard Specifications Section 5-1.26A 57. Provide one (1) new vertical control survey benchmark, per City Standard, as directed by City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 58. Improvement plans must comply with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 1 and shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer or qualified specialist licensed in the State of California and approved by the Public Works Department and/or Community Development Department. The following plan sheet shall be provided: a. Site Plan i. The location and size of all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm drainage facilities within the project site and abutting streets or alleys. ii. The location, size and orientation of all trash enclosures. iii. All existing and proposed parcel lines and easements crossing the property. iv. The location and dimension of all existing and proposed paved areas. v. The location of all existing and proposed public or private utilities. vi. Location of 100-year flood plain and any areas of inundation within project area. b. Grading Plan with Cross Sections RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 13 c. Retaining Wall Plan and Profiles d. Roadway Improvements Plan and Profiles e. Storm Drainage Plan and Profile f. Utilities - Water and Sewer Plan and Profile g. Utilities – Composite Utility h. Signing and Striping i. Erosion Control j. Landscape and Irrigation Plans for Public Right-of-Way k. Tree Protection Plan l. Details m. Notes n. Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures o. Other improvements as required by the Community Development Director. (NOTE: All plan sheets must include City standard title blocks) p. Engineers estimate for construction cost based on County of San Luis Obispo unit cost. 59. Submit all retaining wall calculations for review and approval by the Community Development Director including any referenced geotechnical report. 60. Prior to approval of an improvement plan the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City for inspection of the required improvements. 61. Applicant shall fund outsourced plan and map check services, as required. 62. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining an encroachment permit for all work within a public right-of-way. STREET IMPROVEMENTS 63. Obtain approval from the Public Works Director prior to excavating in any street recently over-laid or slurry sealed. The Director shall approve the method of repair of any such trenches, but shall not be limited to an overlay or type 2 slurry seal. 64. Remove existing roadway striping and markers prior to any overlay or slurry seal work to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Use only thermoplastic roadway striping. 65. The property owner shall offer for dedication to the public the right-of-way necessary on Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue for future City improvement and implementation of the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan. CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK 66. Install new concrete curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the project frontage along Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue, as directed by the Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 14 and Public Works Director. 67. Driveway crossings shall have a decorative treatment and the applicant shall color any such new facilities as directed by the Community Development Director. 68. Install ADA compliant facilities where necessary or verify that existing facilities are compliant with State and City Standards. 69. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 70. Install tree wells with root barriers for all trees planted adjacent to curb, gutter and sidewalk to prevent damage due to root growth. DEDICATIONS AND EASEMENTS 71. All necessary private/public fire, water main, sewer, open space, and drainage easements shall be reserved on the map. 72. A Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be dedicated a minimum 6 feet wide adjacent to all street right-of-ways. The PUE shall be wider where necessary for the installation or maintenance of the public utility vaults, pads, or similar facilities. 73. An onsite water and sewer Public Utility Easement (PUE) shall be dedicated over the facilities. 74. Access shall be denied to Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue except in those driveway locations indicated on the approved plans. 75. A drainage, sewer main and/or water main easement(s) shall be dedicated to the public on the map. 76. Abandonment of public streets and public easements shall be listed on the final map of parcel map, in accordance with Section 66499.20½ of the Subdivision Map Act. 77. All easements, abandonments, or similar documents to be recorded as a document separate from a map, shall be prepared by the applicant on 8 1/2 x 11 City standard forms, and shall include legal descriptions, sketches, closure calculations, and a current preliminary title report. The applicant shall be responsible for all required fees, including any additional required City processing. 78. The subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement for the completion and guarantee of improvements required. The subdivision agreement shall be on a form acceptable to the City. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 15 GRADING AND DRAINAGE 79. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT, the developer shall submit two (2) copies of the final project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or a Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP) consistent with the San Luis Obispo Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWCB) requirements. 80. All grading shall be performed in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance and Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards. 81. Drainage facilities shall be designed in compliance with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 5.1.2. 82. Submit a soils report for the project shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and supported by adequate test borings. All earthwork design and grading shall be performed in accordance with the approved soils report. The date of the soils report shall be less than 3 years old at the time of submittal. 83. The applicant shall dedicate a pedestrian access easement(s) for any ADA sidewalk extension. 84. Infiltration basins shall be designed based on soil percolation tests. Infiltration test shall include adequate borings depth and frequency to support design recommendations. 85. The applicant shall submit an engineering study regarding flooding related to the project site. Any portions of the site subject to flooding from a 100-year storm shall be shown on the tentative map or other recorded document, and shall be noted as a building restriction. WATER 86. Whenever possible, all water mains shall be looped to prevent dead ends. The Public Works Director must grant permission to dead end water mains. 87. The applicant shall extend the public water main to adequately serve the project across the property frontage. 88. A Reduced Pressure Principle (RPP) backflow device is required on all water lines to the structure and landscape irrigation. 89. A Double Detector Check (DDC) backflow device is required on the water service line to the commercial structure. 90. The DDC shall be placed inside the building or adjacent to the building. Other locations for the DDC shall be approved by the Director or Community RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 16 Development. 91. Each parcel shall have separate water meters 92. Non-potable water is available at the Soto Sports Complex. The City of Arroyo Grande does not allow the use of hydrant meters. 93. Par Lots using fire sprinklers shall have individual service connections. A fire sprinkler engineer shall determine the size of the water meters. 94. Existing water services to be abandoned shall be abandoned in compliance with Engineering Standard 6050. SEWER 95. The applicant shall extend the sewer main to adequately serve the project across the property frontage. All new sewer mains shall be a minimum diameter of 8”. 96. All sewer laterals shall comply with Engineering Standard 6810. 97. Existing sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be abandoned in compliance with Engineering Standard 6050. 98. Each parcel shall be provided a separate sewer lateral. Laterals shall be sized for the appropriate use, minimum 4”. 99. All sewer mains or laterals crossing or parallel to public water facilities shall be constructed in accordance with Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards. 100. Obtain approval from the South County Sanitation District for the development’s impact to District facilities prior to permit issuance. 101. Obtain approval from the South County Sanitation District prior to relocation of any District facilities. 102. Submit a will-serve letter from South County Sanitary stating that the property access and location of trash receptacles is adequate for trash collection service. PUBLIC UTILITIES 103. The developer shall comply with Development Code Section 16.68.050: All projects that involve the addition of over 100 square feet of habitable space shall be required to place service connections underground - existing and proposed utilities. 104. All new and relocated dry utilities shall be shown on a utility plan. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 17 105. Prior to approving any building permit within the project for occupancy, all conditions of approval for project are satisfied. 106. Public Improvement Plans shall be submitted to the public utility companies for review and approval. Utility comments shall be forwarded to the Director of Public Works for approval. 107. Street lighting shall comply with Engineering Standard 1010 Section 3.1.2.Q. TREE PRESERVATION/TREE REMOVAL PLAN 108. Prior to issuance of grading permit and during construction the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the Community Tree Ordinance, including the approval of a tree removal permit prior to removal. 109. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the developer shall submit a tree preservation and tree removal plan to the Director of Public Works/City Arborist for undeveloped parcels or lots with trees. The plan shall include the location, size and species of all trees located on the lot or on adjoining lots, where development could affect the roots or limbs of trees on adjacent property. 110. All significant trees to be removed as designated by the Director of Public Works/City Arborist shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio and planted on site. With the approval of the Public Works Director, tree removal shall be mitigated by planting on site, off-site, or payment of in-lieu fees (at the current street tree fee rate for a 15-gallon tree). Larger trees may be required to mitigate tree removal. Prior to release of gas meters per unit, all trees shall be planted or fees paid. 111. Prior to any work on the site, all trees to remain on site shall be marked with paint/ribbon and protected by a five (5') foot vinyl or chain link fence. The fence shall be located at a minimum of eight (8') foot radius from the trunk of the tree. 112. All trees to be pruned, shall be pruned under supervision of a Certified Arborist using the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Pruning Standards. PUBLIC SAFETY CONDITIONS 113. Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant to submit exterior lighting plan for Police Department approval. 114. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall post handicapped parking, per the California Building Code. 115. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install a burglary [or robbery] alarm system per Police Department guidelines, and pay the Police Department alarm permit application fee (for commercial use only). RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 18 116. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, for any parking lots available to the public located on private lots, the developer shall post private property “No Parking” signs in accordance with the handout available from the Police Department. FEES AND BONDS The applicant shall pay all applicable City fees, including the following: 117. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PERMIT a. Map check fee for Tract Map. b. Plan check for grading plans (based on an approved earthwork estimate). c. Plan check for improvement plans (based on an approved construction cost estimate). d. Permit Fee for grading plans (based on an approved earthwork estimate). e. Inspection Fee of public works construction plans (based on an approved construction cost estimate). f. Plan Review Fee (based on the current Building Division fee schedule). NOTE: The applicant is responsible to pay all fees associated with outside plan review consultants) 118. FEES TO BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT a. Water Neutralization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. b. Water Distribution fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. c. Water Meter charge to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. d. Water Availability charge, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. e. Traffic Impact fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. f. Traffic Signalization fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. g. Sewer Connection fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. h. South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District Connection fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. i. Drainage fee, as required by the area drainage plan for the area being developed. j. Construction Tax, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. k. Alarm Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of development. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 19 l. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. m. Building Permit Fee, to be based on codes and rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 119. FEES TO BE PAID OR LAND DEDICATED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP/PARCEL MAP a. Park Development fee, the developer shall pay the current park development fee, and/or donate land in-lieu of, for each lot approved, in accordance with City Ordinance 313 C.S. b. Park Dedication, the developer shall dedicate, in accordance with City Ordinance 313 C.S., land for park purposes. c. Park Improvement fee, the developer shall pay the current park improvement fee, for each lot approved, in accordance with City Ordinance 313 C.S. BONDING SURETY 120. The applicant shall provide bonds or other financial security for the following. All bonds or security shall be in a form acceptable to the City, and shall be provided prior to recording of the map, unless noted otherwise. The minimum term for Improvement securities shall be equal to the term of the subdivision agreement. a. Faithful Performance, 100% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements. b. Erosion Control and Landscape, 100% of the approved estimated cost of all erosion control work during construction and the estimated cost of all final landscaping after construction is complete. This bond is refundable upon successful completion of the work, less expenses uncured by the City in maintaining and/or restoring the site. c. Labor and Materials, 50% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements. d. One Year Guarantee, 10% of the approved estimated cost of all subdivision improvements. This bond is required prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements. e. Monumentation, 100% of the estimated cost of setting survey monuments. f. Tax Certificate, In accordance with Section 16.68.130 of the Development Code, the applicant shall furnish a certificate from the tax collector’s office indicating that there are no unpaid taxes or special assessments against the property. g. Accessory Structures, the applicant shall remove or bond for removal of all accessory structures not sharing a parcel with a residence h. Curb Cuts, the applicant shall construct or bond for construction of individual curb cuts and paved driveways for parcels. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CONDITIONS 121. All street trees that are damaging existing sidewalk infrastructure shall be replaced by more suitable species. 122. One (1) additional ADA conforming space shall be included in the project. MITIGATION MEASURES A negative declaration with mitigation measures has been adopted for this project. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented as conditions of approval and shall be monitored by the appropriate City department or responsible agency. The applicant shall be responsible for verification in writing by the monitoring department or agency that the mitigation measures have been implemented. 123. MM AQ-1. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non- California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: • Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location. • Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater that 5 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: During Construction 124. MM AQ-2. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: During Construction 125. MM AQ-3. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the State’s 5-minute idling limit. Responsible Party: Developer RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 21 Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: During Construction 126. MM AQ-4. The project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (adjacent residential development): • Staging a queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted; • Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and • Signs that specify no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division (via APCD) Timing: During Construction 127. MM AQ-5. The project shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage nitrogen oxide (NOX), reactive organic cases (ROG), and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions: • Maintain all construction equipment in property tune according to manufacturer’s specifications; • Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off- road); • Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation; • Use on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On- Road Regulation; • Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance; • Electrify equipment when feasible; • Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and • Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 22 propane or biodiesel 128. MM AQ-6. The project shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402). • Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible; • Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required when wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used; • All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed; • Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities; • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be shown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; • 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; • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site; • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23.114; • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site; • Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible; • A listing of all required mitigation measures should be included on grading and building plans; and, • The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 23 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: During Construction MM AQ-7. Prior to the start of the project, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for equipment to be used during construction by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: Prior to start of work 129. MM AQ-8. Burning of vegetative material on the development site shall be prohibited. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division, Building Division Timing: During Construction 130. MM AQ-9. Should hydrocarbon-contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APCD shall be notified within forty-eight (48) hours of such contaminated soil being discovered to determine if an APCD permit is required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered: • Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal. • Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six (6) inches of packed, uncontaminated soil or other TPH – non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate. • Covered piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted. • During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance. • Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: During Construction RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 24 131. MM AQ-10. The project shall implement a minimum of eight (8) Standard Mitigation Measures as stated in Table 3-5 of the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: Prior to permit issuance 132. MM AQ-11. Prior to any demolition at the site, the applicant shall obtain a Notification of Demolition and Renovation form approved by the APCD. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Building Division Timing: Prior to demolition permit issuance 133. MM AQ-12. Proposed truck routes shall be evaluated and selected to ensure routing patters have the least impact to residential dwellings and other sensitive receptors, such as schools, parks, day care centers, nursing homes, and hospitals. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: Prior to permit issuance 134. MM BIO-1. All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the arborist report by Greenvale Tree Company dated October 2017, in addition to Mitigations Measures MM BIO-2 through BIO-4. Where conflicts exist, the more restrictive shall apply. 135. MM BIO-2: All trees to be retained shall be protected during construction, and shall be clearly identified on construction plans and marked in the field for preservation with highly visible construction fencing at a minimum around the dripline. A Tree Protection Zone equivalent to one foot (1’) of zone per one inch (1”) of tree diameter at breast height shall surround each tree. No construction activities such as grading, vehicle parking, or storage of materials shall be conducted within the tree protection zones. The fencing shall be installed prior to any site clearing or grading activities, and shall remain in place until construction is complete. The fence shall be a minimum of 4’ tall and supported by stakes at least every 10’ on center. Weatherproof signs shall be permanently posted on the fences, stating, at minimum, the following: “Tree Protection Zone. No personnel, materials, or vehicles allowed. Do not move or remove this fence.” Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Community Development Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit and during construction RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 25 136. MM BIO-3: Any trees intentionally or unintentionally killed or removed that are greater than or equal to two (2) inches diameter at breast height (DBH) shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. Replacement trees shall be limited to in-kind replacement of appropriate native tree species. All trees to be removed shall be clearly marked on construction plans and marked in the field with flagging or paint. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Community Development Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit and during construction 137. MM BIO-4: Tree removals shall be scheduled to occur in the fall and winter (between September 15 and February 15), after fledging and before the initiation of the nesting season. If trees or vegetation 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. If active nests are observed, the contractor shall either: 1) wait for such nesting birds to fledge and leave the project site; 2) establish 100-foot exclusion zones until young have fledged; or 3) consult with the appropriate resource agencies for guidance prior to site disturbance. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division, Public Works Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading or Tree Removal Permit and during construction 138. MM CUL-1: An archaeological and Native American monitor shall be present during project related ground disturbing activities. A standard clause shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division, Public Works Department Timing: Prior to and during construction 139. MM CUL-2: If a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, and an archaeological and/or Native American monitor is not present, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a qualified archaeologist, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s), as necessary, determines whether the uncovered resource requires further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be included RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 26 in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA 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, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s) as necessary, 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 CCIC, located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials 140. MM CUL-3: If human remains are encountered during earth-disturbing activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that all work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and that the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will designate and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: During construction 141. MM GEO-1: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical study prepared for the project by Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. dated November 2017. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division, Building Division Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit 142. MM GHG-1: Prior to issuance of a building permit, all construction plans shall incorporate the following GHG-reducing measures where applicable: • Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 27 • Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Design should provide 50% tree coverage within 10 years of construction using low ROG emitting, low maintenance native drought resistant trees. • No residential wood burning appliances. • Trusses for south-facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle dead weight loads of standard solar-heated water and photovoltaic panels. Roof design shall include sufficient south-facing roof surface, based on structures size and use, to accommodate adequate solar panels. For south facing roof pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the ideal average solar exposure shall be used. • Increase the building energy rating by 20% above Title 24 requirements. Measures used to reach the 20% rating cannot be double counted. • Plant drought tolerant, native shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer. • Utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient, recycled, and sustainable) available locally if possible. • Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems. • Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows (passive solar design). • Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water heaters. • Utilize built-in energy efficient appliances (i.e. Energy Star®). • Utilize double-paned windows. • Utilize energy efficient interior lighting. • Install energy-reducing programmable thermostats. • Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling needs. • Eliminate high water consumption landscape (e.g., plants and lawns) in residential design. Use native plants that do not require watering and are low ROG emitting. • Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks / lockers to service the residential units. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Community Development Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or Building Permit 143. MM HYD-1: The following BMPs shall be incorporated into the project: • Run-off Control. Maintain post-development peak runoff rate and average volume of runoff at levels that are similar to pre-development levels. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 28 • Labeling and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities. Label new storm drain inlets with “No Dumping – Drains to Ocean” to alert the public to the destination of stormwater and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain. • Common Area Litter Control. Implement a trash management and litter control program to prevent litter and debris from being carried to water bodies or the storm drain system. • Food Service Facilities. Design the food service facility to have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment that is connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area shall be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned. • Refuse Areas. Trash compactors, enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Install a self- contained drainage system that discharges to the sanitary sewer if water cannot be diverted from the areas. • Outdoor Storage Controls. Oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, and other chemicals stored outdoors must be in containers and protected from drainage by secondary containment structures such as berms, liners, vaults or roof covers and/or drain to the sanitary sewer system. Bulk materials stored outdoors must also be protected from drainage with berms and covers. Process equipment stored outdoors must be inspected for proper function and leaks, stored on impermeable surfaces and covered. Implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control and develop a spill cleanup plan for storage areas. • Cleaning, Maintenance and Processing Controls. Areas used for washing, steam cleaning, maintenance, repair or processing must have impermeable surfaces and containment berms, roof covers, recycled water wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer may require pretreatment systems and/or approval of an industrial waste discharge permit. • Street/parking lot Sweeping: Implement a program to regularly sweep streets, sidewalks and parking lots to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Debris resulting from pressure washing should be trapped and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Washwater containing any cleaning agent or degreaser should be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 29 Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit 144. MM NOI-1: Construction activities shall be restricted to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. No construction shall occur on Saturday or Sunday. Equipment maintenance and servicing shall be confined to the same hours. To the greatest extent possible, grading and construction activities should occur during the middle of the day to minimize the potential for disturbance of neighboring noise sensitive uses. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Community Development Department Timing: During construction 145. MM NOI-2: All equipment will have sound-control devices that are no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. No equipment will have an unmuffled exhaust. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Building Division, Engineering Division Timing: During construction 146. MM NOI-3: Equipment mobilization areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas shall be placed in a central location as far from existing residences as feasible. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Building Division, Engineering Division Timing: Prior to and during construction 147. MM REC-1: The developer shall pay all applicable City park development and impact fees. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Building Division Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit 148. MM TT-1: The developer shall either implement southbound, westbound, and eastbound turn pocket modifications outlined in the TIAR completed for the project (ATE 2018) or pay pro-rata share contributions for the improvements as identified in the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 30 Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division, Timing: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit 149. MM TCR-1: Implement MM CUL-1 and CUL-3. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: During construction 150. MM UTL-1: The development shall include Low Impact Develop, water conserving fixture, and water conserving landscape strategies identified in the Water Conservation Plan (In Balance 2017). Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Building Division Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 1 of 50 INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Conditional Use Permit 16-007 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16-002 362-382 South Halcyon Road City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, California August 2018 EXHIBIT "B" Copy on file in the Community Development Department H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 569 Higuera Street Suite A San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: P1.0 1/29/19 Halcyon KDJTITLE SHEETFAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: PRELIMINARYPROJECT DESCRIPTION THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF HALCYON AND FAIR OAKS AVENUE IN ARROYO GRANDE. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY 4 LOTS WITH 5 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, 4 OF WHICH ARE VACANT AND ONLY ONE IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSIST OF 22 TOWNHOMES, A STUDIO APPARTMENT AND COFFEE SHOP. THERE ARE THREE FLOOR PLAN TYPES PROPOSED, WITH BOTH TWO AND THREE BEDROOM OPTIONS. ALL RESIDENT AND GUEST PARKING WILL BE ON SITE AND WILL TAKE ACCESS FROM FAIR OAKS AVENUE AND FROM HALCYON. DIRECTORY OWNERS:FAIR OAKS AVENUE INVESTERS LLC 214 Whitley Street Arroyo Grande, CA ARCHITECT (Representative):STEVEN PUGLISI ARCHITECTS 569 Higuera St. Suite A San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (o)595-1962 (f) 595-1980 CIVIL ENGINEER:GARING TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES 141 S Elm Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (o)489-1321 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:FIRMA 187 Tank Farm Rd. Suite 230 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (o)781-9800 SOILS / GEOLOGIST GEOSOLUTIONS 220 High St San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (o)543-8539 SHEET INDEX P1.0 TITLE SHEET 1 of 2 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 2 of 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN L-1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPING DESIGN P2.0 EXISTING SITE PLAN P2.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN P2.2 DIMENSION PLAN P3.0 UNIT A- FLOOR PLANS P3.1 UNIT A- FLOOR PLANS- 2 Bedroom Option P3.2 UNIT B- FLOOR PLANS P3.3 UNIT C- FLOOR PLANS P4.0 BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONS P4.1 BUILDING 2 ELEVATIONS P4.2 BUILDING 3 ELEVATIONS P4.3 BUILDING 4 ELEVATIONS P4.4 BUILDING 5 ELEVATIONS P5.0 COFFEE SHOP 17 TOTAL SHEETS SITE DATA GENERAL SITE INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS:382 Halcyon, Arroyo Grande 387 Halcyon, Arroyo Grande 370 Halcyon, Arroyo Grande 364 Halcyon, Arroyo Grande ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:077-204-031 077-204-026 077-204-037 077-204-036 LOT SIZE:69,176 square feet (1.58 acres) LAND USE DESIGNATION:MFR- Very High Density CURRENT SITE(S) USAGE:4 Vacant Residences 1 Occupied Residence ZONING DESIGNATION:OMU- Office Mixed Use AREA OF DISTURBANCE:69,176 sf (1.58 acres) SITE PERCENT SLOPE:<10% SETBACKS: Front (Halcyon)10 ft Side 5 ft Side (Fair Oaks)15 ft Rear 15' LOT AREA STATISTICS: Total Building Area 26,526 SF 38% Flatwork 8,210 SF 12% Road / Driveway 20,177 SF 29% Landscape 14,335 SF 21% FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIR OAKS BLVD, ARROYO GRANDE CA PROJECT STATISTICS PARKING REQUIREMENTS 2 covered spaces per unit 44 Guest parking 0.5 per unit 11 Parking Spaces Required =55 PROPOSED PARKING 2 covered spaces per unit 44 Guest parking 0.5 per unit 19 Parking Spaces Provided =63 ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 1.58 Acres x 20 DU 31.6 Therfore 31 Density Units PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 2 Bedroom Units 5 @ 1 DU Each 5 3 Bedroom Units 17 @ 1.5 DU Each 25.5 Studio 1 @ 0.5 DU Each 0.5 Total Density 31 BUILDING DATA BUILDING AREA PLAN A Lower Floor Living Area 694 SF Garage Storage 454 SF Upper Floor Living Area 1037 SF Total Living Area 1,731 SF PLAN B Lower Floor Living Area 867 SF Garage Storage 454 SF Upper Floor Living Area 996 SF Total Living Area 1,863 SF PLAN C Lower Floor Living Area 694 SF Garage Storage 454 SF Upper Floor Living Area 1037 SF Total Living Area 1,731 SF STUDIO Living Area 506 SF Entry Deck 30 SF COFFEE SHOP Floor Area 506 SF Outdoor Patio 388 SF BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35'0" Building 1 (5 Units)27'6" Building 2 (2 Units)27'6" Building 3 (4 Units)27'6" Building 4 (3 Units)27'6" Building 5 (8 Units)27'6" Coffee Shop / Studio 25'5" CALIFORNIA CODE REFERENCES THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH: 2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC) 2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC) 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC) 2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CEnC) 2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE (GGBSC) All amendments to the CA Codes adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande, and all other codes, regulations, and approvals established by the City of Arroyo Grande. EXHIBIT "C" COFFEE SHOPNORTH 187.00'EAST 110.00'NORTH 96.24'S89° 55'19" E 189.36'N00° 52'48" 283.51'24" MAG MULTI TRUNK LEMON 24" OAK 10" OAK 18" PODOCA RPUS 10" PEAR 6" OAK 30" OAK 60" OAK 36" OAK 12" OAK BLOCK WALLEAST 283.71' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK 9 TOTAL 24" BOX OLEA EUROPA / OLIVE PISTACIA CHINENSI/ CHINESE PISTACHE ARBUTUS MARINA OR TRISTANIA LAURINA CHILOPSIS LINEARIS /DESERT WILLOW DROUGHT TOLERANT GROUND COVERS, SHRUBS & VINE ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. / MANZANITA CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS SPP. / CEANOTHUS CULITVARS CISTUS SUNSET / RED ROCKROSE LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS / PURPLE LANTANA DIETES BICOLOR / FORTNIGHT LILY PENNISETUM ORIENTALE / ORIENTAL FOUNTAINGRASS AGAVE ATTENUATA /FOXTAIL AGAVE ALOE X NOBILIS APTENIA CORDIFOLIA RIBES SANGUINEUM / RED CURRANT RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA / COFFEEBERRY PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA / BOSTON IVY TRISTANIA CONFERTA/ BRISBANE BOX HALCYON ROADExisting Oak Trees to be retained: Smooth river cobbles within canopy with drip irrigation at canopy drip line only PRELIMINARY PLANT LIST TREES Drought tolerant ground cover and shrubs, typical FAIR OAKS AVE. Oaks being removed from site is 5 total with 9 relacement oaks. Oaks to be removed, typical Vine, typical Vine, typical 42" solid fence with 18" vinyl lattice on top, vine on inside L-1 Fair Oaks Multifamily Residential Project APRIL 04, 2018 05'10'20'30'40' Scale: 1" = 20'-0" North File Name: firma_Halcyon_Prelim_21645 Last Date Modified: 4/04/18 ﬁrma l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n i n g • e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t u d i e s 187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 phone: 805.781.9800 fax: 805.781.9803 Water Conservation Notes Planting and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water. the following factors have been incorporated to aid in the success of the project landscape: 1.Irrigation system to be a fully automatic underground system utilizing either low-precipitation spray heads, bubblers, or drip emitters, or a combination thereof. Irrigation hydrozones shall be separated with control valves and controller stations into appropriate and compatible zones. 2.Irrigation controller shall be weather (E.T.) based and designed to automatically adjust irrigation in response to changes in the plant's water needs as weather conditions change. 3.Plant materials proposed are selected for their compatibility to climatic and site conditions, resistance to wind, and drought tolerance. 4.All planters shall be mulched with a 3” minimum layer of organic mulch throughout. 5.Plant materials proposed shall be grouped into distinct hydrozones utilizing plants with similar water needs. 6.Water needs of plant material proposed have been evaluated utilizing the WUCOLS Project (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species) prepared by the University of California Cooperative extension, February 1992. All plant materials proposed are selected for low to moderate water needs in this climate. H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP2.0 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJEXISTING SITE PLANFAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: 24" MAG MULTI TRUNK LEMON 24" OAK 10" OAK 18" PODOC ARPUS 10" PEAR 6" OAK 30" OAK 60" OAK 36" OAK 12" OAK BLOCK WALL8' BLOCK WALL4' BLOCK WALL 6' BLOCK WALL24" MAG MULTI TRUNK LEMON 24" OAK 10" OAK 18" PODOC ARPUS 10" PEAR 6" OAK 30" OAK 60" OAK 36" OAK 12" OAK FAIR OAKS AVE HAYCYON RD24" MAG MULTI TRUNK LEMON 24" OAK 10" OAK 18" PODOC ARPUS 10" PEAR 6" OAK 30" OAK 60" OAK 36" OAK 12" OAK BLOCK WALL8' BLOCK WALL4' BLOCK WALL 6' BLOCK WALLNORTH 187.00'EAST 110.00'NORTH 96.24'S89° 55'19" E 189.36'N00° 52'48" 283.51'EAST 283.71' EXISTING SITE PLAN Scale: 1" = 20 ft 1 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 ± 12'-3"± 25'-11"± 65'-1"± 59'-2" ± 50'-8"± 26'-7" ± 129'-10" ± 46'-4"± 49'-8"± 11'-1"± 30'-11"± 63'-8"10 0 10 20 4052 4 6 8 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" 3 3 3 3 EXISTING SITE PLAN REFERENCE NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Existing vacant residence to be removed Existing concrete driveway to be removed Existing tree to be removed Existing tree to remain Existing accessory structure to be removed Existing wall to be removed NOT TO SCALE TO SAN LUIS OBISPO N ELM STTO SANTA MARIA101 1 HALCYONLOS BERROS RDFAIR OAKS AVEFAR R O L L RD OAK PARK BLVDTHE PIKE GRANDE AVE JAME S WAY PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP not to scale H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP2.1 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: 24" MAG MULTI TRUNK LEMON 24" OAK 10" OAK 18" PODOC ARPUS 10" PEAR 6" OAK 30" OAK 60" OAK 36" OAK 12" OAK BLOCK WALL8' BLOCK WALL4' BLOCK WALL 6' BLOCK WALL24" MAG MULTI TRUNK LEMON 24" OAK 10" OAK 18" PODOC ARPUS 10" PEAR 6" OAK 30" OAK 60" OAK 36" OAK 12" OAK FAIR OAKS AVE HAYCYON RDA A A B B B B A A C C C C C A A A A A A A BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3 BUILDING 4 BUILDING 5 A COFFEE SHOPNORTH 187.00'EAST 110.00'NORTH 96.24'S89° 55'19" E 189.36'N00° 52'48" 283.51'EAST 283.71' ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN Scale: 1" = 20 ft Approx 50'-11"Approx 78'-1" 10 0 10 20 4052 4 6 8 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE EXISTING COMMERCAIL USE 1 2 1 2 12 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 6 9 5 8 10 9 11 5 12 Typ 12 Typ 12 Typ 12 Typ 13 13 14 14 7 SITE PLAN REFERENCE NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Property Line Setback Line New driveway entrance per city standards. Guest Parking Accessible parking Existing oak tree to remain Existing Magnolia tree to remain Coffee shop patio Trash Enclosure, per Detail C this sheet. Bike rack, per detail A this sheet. Community Mail Boxes, per Detail B this sheet. Entry walk Private patio and entry 5'-0" Privacy Wall NOT TO SCALE TO SAN LUIS OBISPO N ELM STTO SANTA MARIA101 1 HALCYONLOS BERROS RDFAIR OAKS AVEFAR R O L L RD OAK PARK BLVDTHE PIKE GRANDE AVE JAME S WAY PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP not to scale FLOOR AREA RATIO Lot Footprint Lot Size FAR 1 1,148 4,221 27% 2 1,148 2,010 57% 3 1,148 2,010 57% 4 1,148 2,010 57% 5 1,148 2,010 57% 6 1,148 2,010 57% 7 1,148 2,010 57% 8 1,148 2,692 43% 9 1,148 3,258 35% 10 1,148 1,965 58% 11 1,148 1,950 59% 12 1,148 1,935 59% 13 1,148 2,240 51% 14 506 6,450 8% 15 1,148 3,261 35% 16 1,148 4,954 23% 17 1,321 4,532 29% 18 1,321 3,090 43% 19 1,321 3,090 43% 20 1,321 5,160 26% 21 1,148 3,795 30% 22 1,148 2,070 55% 23 1,148 2,415 48% Total 26,454 69,138 38% Total Lot Size 69,176 Total Paving 28,387 Total Landscape 14,335 BIKE RACKA PARKING 44 Garage Spaces Provided (2 per dwelling) 19 Guest Spaces Provided (11 Required) SETBACKS Front (Halcyon):10 ft Side :5 ft Side (Fair Oaks):15 ft Rear:15 ft PROPOSED DENSITY 5- 2 Bedroom @ 1*= 5 17- 3 Bedroom @ 1.5*=25.5 1-Studio @0.5*= 0.5 Total density:31 *(2 bedroom equivalent) PROPOSED UNITS Unit A-3 Bedroom 8 Unit A- 2 Bedroom 4 Unit B-3 Bedroom 5 Unit C- 3 Bedroom 4 Unit C-2 Bedroom 1 Live Work- Studio 1 Total 23 Units ALLOWED DENSITY 1.58 AC x 20 = 31.6 Therefore: 31 UNIT LEGEND A Private Patio Proposed Unit Footprint Two car garage Building entrance Unit Type (Dot indicates a 2 Bedroom Unit) Open Landscape Area CLUSTER MAIL BOXESB PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSUREC H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP2.2 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJDIMENSION SITE PLANFAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: A A A B B B B A A C C C C C A A A A A A A BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3 BUILDING 4 BUILDING 5 A COFFEE SHOPNORTH 187.00'EAST 110.00'NORTH 96.24'S89° 55'19" E 189.36'N00° 52'48" 283.51'EAST 283.71' DIMENSION SITE PLAN Scale: 1" = 20 ft ±5'-0"90'-0"±40'-0"±10'-7"240'-0"±33'-0" ±12'-11"40'-0"±27'-3"120'-0"±27'-3"40'-0"15'-0" Setback 10'-0"42'-0"34'-0"150'-0"±47'-6"15'-0"55'-0"±31'-0"60'-0"±52'-11"40'-0"42'-0"10'-0"24'-0"16'-0" 21'-0"18'-0"24'-0"21'-6" 24'-0"15'-0"Setback5'-0" Setback5'-0"Setback5'-0"Setback10'-0" Setback NOT TO SCALE TO SAN LUIS OBISPO N ELM STTO SANTA MARIA101 1 HALCYONLOS BERROS RDFAIR OAKS AVEFAR R O L L RD OAK PARK BLVDTHE PIKE GRANDE AVE JAME S WAY PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP not to scale H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP3.0 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJUNIT A FLOOR PLANS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: Unit A- Elevator Option UP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" POWDER 3'6" x 8'7" Storage LIVING ROOM 16'5" x 16'7" DINING 12'0" x 8'7" KITCHEN 12'0" x 10'0" StorageUP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" POWDER 3'6" x 8'7" Storage LIVING ROOM 16'5" x 16'7" DINING 12'0" x 8'7" KITCHEN 12'0" x 10'0" Storage UNIT A- Lower Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 40'-0"3'-0"37'-0"29'-4"40'-0"29'-4" 8'-5"20'-11" 2 0 1 2 4 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" Lower Floor: Living Area 694 SF Garage / Storage 454 SF Upper Floor: Living Area 1037 SF Total Living Area 1,731 SF Unit A- Elevator Option DN M. BEDROOM 13'8" x 15'5" M. BATH 6'0" x 12'7" W.I.C. 13'6" x 5'3" BATH 11'0" x 5'6" LAUNDRY 6'0" x 6'11" BEDROOM 3 11'6" x 11'8" BEDROOM 2 11'6" x 11'8" HALL UNIT A- Upper Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 40'-0"3'-0"37'-0"29'-4" 8'-5"14'-7 1/2"6'-3 1/2" 29'-4"40'-0"3'-0"37'-0"2 0 1 2 4 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP3.1 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJUNIT A FLOOR PLANS 2 Bedroom Option FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: Unit A- Elevator Option UP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" POWDER 3'6" x 8'7" Storage LIVING ROOM 16'5" x 16'7" DINING 12'0" x 8'7" KITCHEN 12'0" x 10'0" StorageUP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" POWDER 3'6" x 8'7" Storage LIVING ROOM 16'5" x 16'7" DINING 12'0" x 8'7" KITCHEN 12'0" x 10'0" Storage UNIT A- Lower Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 40'-0"3'-0"37'-0"29'-4"40'-0"29'-4" 8'-5"20'-11" 2 0 1 2 4 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" Lower Floor: Living Area 694 SF Garage / Storage 454 SF Upper Floor: Living Area 1037 SF Total Living Area 1,731 SF Unit A- Elevator Option DN M. BEDROOM 13'8" x 15'5" M. BATH 6'0" x 12'7" W.I.C. 13'6" x 5'3" LAUNDRY 6'0" x 6'11" DEN 12'0" x 12'7" BEDROOM 2 13'0" x 11'8" HALL BATH 11'0" x 5'6" UNIT A- Upper Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 40'-0"3'-0"37'-0"29'-4" 8'-5"14'-7 1/2"6'-3 1/2" 29'-4"40'-0"3'-0"37'-0"2 0 1 2 4 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" UP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" BATH 8'8" x 5'6" Storage LIVING ROOM 15'11" x 16'7" KITCHEN / DINING 15'11" x 12'0" BEDROOM 3 12'2" x 10'6" Storage UP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" BATH 8'8" x 5'6" Storage LIVING ROOM 15'11" x 16'7" KITCHEN / DINING 15'11" x 12'0" BEDROOM 3 12'2" x 10'6" Storage UNIT B- Lower Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 6'-6"45'-6"16'-10"12'-6"12'-0"40'-0"52'-0"29'-4"52'-0"8'-5"20'-11" 29'-4"11'-0"2'-7"5'-6"20'-11"H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP3.2 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJUNIT B FLOOR PLANS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: Lower Floor: Living Area 867 SF Garage / Storage 454 SF Upper Floor: Living Area 996 SF Total Living Area 1,863 SF 6 : 12 6 : 126 : 126 : 126 : 12 6 : 12 6 : 126 : 126 : 126 : 12 DN M. BEDROOM 13'8" x 15'5" M. BATH 6'0" x 14'7" W.I.C. 7'3" x 5'3" BATH 11'0" x 5'6" LAUNDRY 6'0" x 6'11" DEN 12'7" x 12'0" BEDROOM 2 13'0" x 11'8" UNIT B- Upper Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 33'-6"6'-6"8'-5"40'-0"29'-4"40'-0"29'-4"6'-3"12'-2"13'-4"2'-6"13'-6" H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP3.3 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJUNIT C FLOOR PLANS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: Lower Floor: Living Area 694 SF Garage / Storage 454 SF Upper Floor: Living Area 1059 SF Total Living Area 1,753 SF UP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" POWDER 6'0" x 7'11" Storage LIVING ROOM 11'9" x 16'7" KITCHEN 12'0" x 10'0" DINING 12'0" x 8'7" StorageUP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" POWDER 6'0" x 7'11" Storage LIVING ROOM 11'9" x 16'7" KITCHEN 12'0" x 10'0" DINING 12'0" x 8'7" Storage UNIT C- Lower Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 29'-4"37'-0"3'-0"8'-5"20'-11" 29'-4"40'-0"40'-0"6'-11"20'-11"19'-1"DN M. BEDROOM 13'8" x 15'5" M. BATH 6'0" x 12'7" W.I.C. 13'6" x 5'3"LAUNDRY 6'0" x 6'11" BEDROOM 3 11'6" x 11'8" BEDROOM 2 11'6" x 11'8" HALL BATH 11'0" x 5'6" UNIT C- Upper Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 37'-0"3'-0"8'-5"14'-7 1/2"6'-3 1/2"3'-0"37'-0"40'-0"29'-4"40'-0"12'-2"24'-10"13'-4"5'-3"6'-3"12'-2"29'-4" H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP4.0 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJBUILDING 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: C C C C C BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2 COFFEE SHOP S89° 55'19" E 189.36'N00° 52'48" 283.51'BUILDING REFERENCE PLAN Scale: 1" = 40 ft A B C D BUILDING 1- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"A 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH WOOD TRIM STONE VENEER PAINTED WOOD BEAMS WOOD GATE STUCCO WALL WITH VINYL LATTICE BUILDING 1- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"D 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES GARAGE DOOR STUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM BUILDING 1- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"C 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate HtASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH TRIMSTUCCO BUILDING 1- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"B 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate HtASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH TRIM STUCCO STUCCO WALL WITH VINYL LATTICE WOOD BRACKETS H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP4.1 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJBUILDING 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: A BUILDING 2 A COFFEE SHOP S89° 55'19" E 189.36' BUILDING REFERENCE PLAN Scale: 1" = 40 ft A B D C BUILDING 2- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"A 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES GARAGE DOORSTUCCO ENTRY DOOR VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM PAINTED WOOD BEAMS BUILDING 2- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"C 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH TRIM STUCCO EXTERIOR DOOR BUILDING 2- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"D 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH TRIM STUCCO BUILDING 2- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"B 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH TRIMSTUCCO WOOD BRACKET H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP4.2 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJBUILDING 3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: B B B B BUILDING 3 BUILDING REFERENCE PLAN Scale: 1" = 40 ft A B D C BUILDING 3- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"D 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES GARAGE DOORSTUCCO ENTRY DOOR VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM STONE VENEER BUILDING 3- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"B 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH TRIM STUCCO STONE VENEER WOOD GATE PAINTED WOOD BEAMS BUILDING 3- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"C 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH TRIM STUCCO STONE VENEER BUILDING 3- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"A9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg Height H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP4.3 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJBUILDING 4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: A A A BUILDING 4NORTH 187.00'EAST 110.00' BUILDING REFERENCE PLAN Scale: 1" = 40 ft A B D C BUILDING 4- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"A 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES GARAGE DOORSTUCCO ENTRY DOOR VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM BUILDING 4- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"C 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES STUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM EXTERIOR DOOR PAINTED WOOD BEAMS BUILDING 4- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"D 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht24'-11" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES STUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM BUILDING 4- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"B 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES STUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM PAINTED WOOD BEAMS H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP4.4 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJBUILDING 5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: A A A A A A A A BUILDING 5 NORTH 187.00'EAST 283.71' BUILDING REFERENCE PLAN Scale: 1" = 40 ft D B A C BUILDING 5- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"A 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES GARAGE DOORSTUCCO ENTRY DOOR VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM ASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES BUILDING 5- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"B 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES STUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM EXTERIOR DOOR PAINTED WOOD BEAMS BUILDING 5- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"C 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES STUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM BUILDING 5- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"D 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES STUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP5.0 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJCOFFEE SHOP FLOOR PLANS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: Coffee Shop Floor Area 506 SF Outdoor Patio 388 SF Live Work Studio Living Area 506 SF Entry Deck 30 SFPOWDER3'6" x 8'7"UP COFFEE SHOP Service Patio Patio LOWER FLOOR- Coffee Shop Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 0 1 2 4 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"A9'-1"8'-0"± 25'-5"PAINTED WOOD GUARDRAIL STUCCO PRIVACY WALL Revised: January 11, 2018DNDN STUDIO UPPER FLOOR- Studio Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 0 1 2 4 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"B STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFINGSTUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM TRELLIS PAINTED WOOD GUARDRAIL Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"C STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFINGSTUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM STUCCO WALL WITH LATTICE SCREEN Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"D STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFINGSTUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM STUCCO WALL WITH LATTICE SCREEN TRELLIS ATTACHMENT 1 PROJECT SITE 2 PROJECT SITE 3 NOT A PART ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2018 ARROYO GRANDE CITY HALL, 300 E. BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CA 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Warren Hoag called the Regular Architectural Review Committee meeting to order at 2:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL ARC Members: Chair Warren Hoag and Committee Members Mary Hertel, Colleen Kubel, and Keith Storton were present. Vice Chair Berlin was absent. City Staff Present: Community Development Director Teresa McClish, Planning Manager Matt Downing, and Planning Technician Sam Anderson were present. 3. FLAG SALUTE Committee Member Hertel led the Flag Salute. 4. AGENDA REVIEW None. 5. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS None. 6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 7. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of the Minutes from the February 5, 2018 Regular Architectural Review Meeting was continued to a date certain of April 2, 2018 in order to allow for a quorum. 8. PROJECTS 8.a. CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007; SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWENTY-THREE (23) RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A 506 SQUARE FOOT NEIGHBORHOOD COFFEE SHOP; LOCATION — 362-382 S. HALCYON ROAD; APPLICANT — STACY BROMLEY; REPRESENTATIVE — STEVEN PUGLISI ARCHITECTS (Downing) Planning Manager Downing presented the staff report and responded to questions from the Committee regarding parking reductions, ADA parking space requirements, CC&Rs, existing Oak trees on site, if an HOA would exist for the project, the intent of the surrounding wall, waste facilities, utility line locations and undergrounding requirements, if a lighting plan would be eventually reviewed, and drainage. Steve Puglisi and Kim Johnson, architects, Stacy Bromley, applicant, Kirby Gordon, property owner, and Dave Foot, landscape architect, spoke in support of the project and responded to questions regarding the height of the wall along Halcyon Road, waste facility locations, ATTACHMENT 2 Minutes:ARC PAGE 2 Monday, March 5, 2018 the location of certain units, ADA parking spaces, existing street trees, and Oak tree removal. The Committee spoke in support of the project, commenting that the parking reduction was justified and that replacing the five (5) Oak trees proposed to be removed with only nine (9) replacement Oaks as opposed to the required fifteen (15) felt appropriate in light of the scale of the project. The Committee complimented the architectural style of the project, proposed colors, landscaping choices, the inclusion of the coffee shop as part of the project, and the affordable by design" nature of the project. Committee Member Storton made a motion, seconded by Committee Member Kubel, to recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with the conditions that: 1. All street trees that are damaging existing sidewalk infrastructure are replaced by more suitable species; and 2. One (1) additional ADA conforming space be including in the project. The motion also contained the comment that the shared parking reduction was appropriate, and the choice to replace the five (5) Oaks proposed to be removed with only nine (9) replacement Oaks instead of the required fifteen (15) was appropriate as well. AYES: Storton, Kubel, Hertel, Hoag NOES: None ABSENT: Berlin 9. DISCUSSION ITEMS 9.a. Color Board Review for Conditional Use Permit 16-005 (Anderson) Planning Technician Anderson presented the color board to the Committee. The Committee complimented the proposed color choices and provided a consensus opinion that the proposed colors would be acceptable. 10. COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS Chair Hoag informed the Committee that he would be absent from the March 19, 2018 and April 16, 2018 regular meetings. Committee Member Storton informed the Committee that he would be absent from the March 19, 2018 regular meeting. Committee Member Kubel apologized for missing the February 5, 2018 meeting due to a personal emergency. 11. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS Planning Manager Downing updated the Committee on the Halcyon Road Complete Street project, the East Grand Avenue Master Plan project, and the historic designation process for the Tabernacle. ACTION MINUTES MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2019 ARROYO GRANDE COUNCIL CHAMBERS 215 EAST BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Martin called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Planning Commission: Commissioners Frank Schiro, Andrea Montes, Jamie Maraviglia, and Chair Glenn Martin were present. Staff Present: Community Development Director Teresa McClish, Planning Manager Matt Downing, and Assistant Planner Andrew Perez were present. 3. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Schiro led the flag salute. 4.AGENDA REVIEW None. 5. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Heather Carden, 847 Todd Lane, voiced concern about the increase in the amount of cars that use Todd Lane to avoid the Fair Oaks Avenue and Halcyon Road intersection congestion, and suggested that one side of Todd Lane should be closed or the speed limit on Fair Oaks reduced to minimize potential for traffic incidents. 6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The Commission received the following material after preparation of the agenda: 1.Memo dated February 5, 2019 from Planning Manager Downing regarding Agenda Item 8.a. outlining a request by the applicant to postpone the item to a future hearing. 2.Memo dated February 4, 2019 from Planning Manager Downing regarding public comment related to Agenda Item 8.a. 3.Memo dated February 5, 2019 from Planning Manager Downing regarding public comment related to Agenda Item 8.a. 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.a. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MINUTES Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the December 18, 2018 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Action: Commissioner Schiro moved to approve the consent agenda. Chair Martin seconded and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Schiro, Martin, Maraviglia, Montes NOES: None ABSENT: None 8.PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.a CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF ATTACHMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 MINUTES FEBRUARY 5, 2019 TWENTY-THREE (23) RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A 506 SQUARE FOOT NEIGHBORHOOD COFFEE SHOP; LOCATION – 362-382 S. HALCYON ROAD; APPLICANT – STACY BROMLEY; REPRESENTATIVE – STEVEN PUGLISI ARCHITECTS (Downing) Planning Manager Downing announced the applicant’s request to postpone the item to allow for a fifth Planning Commissioner to be appointed by the City Council, recommended that the Commission receive public comment on the item, and continue the public hearing to a date unknown. Chair Martin opened the public comment period. Speaking from the public were: Linda Busek, 240 Aspen Street, spoke in opposition to the project, stating that it is too dense of a project with insufficient parking that will exacerbate traffic congestion at the Fair Oaks Avenue and Halcyon Road intersection; Ericka Horn, 431 Woodland Drive, spoke in opposition to the project, stating that the project does not meet General Plan objectives and will result in unsafe turning movements; Betty Johnson, 839 Fair Oaks Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project, stating it will increase traffic and create conflicts with emergency personnel at the hospital; Bob Merrick, 906 Fair Oaks Avenue, spoke in opposition to the project, stating concerns with light trespass, impacts from the trash enclosure adjacent to his property, and impacts to traffic; Karen White, spoke in opposition to the project, stating impacts to traffic, and concern that the development will use “Halcyon” in the title which will be misleading because it is not in the Village of Halcyon. Jim DeCecco, 140 Vista Del Mar, spoke in opposition to the project, stating concerns with its compatibility with the Halcyon Complete Streets Plan project; Tracy Scovil, 909 Cameron Court, spoke in opposition to the project, stating concerns with the cumulative traffic impacts of the development and the recently completed medical building; Ed Cox, 867 Todd Lane, spoke in opposition to the project, stating concerns with the amount of proposed parking, and the likelihood of cars from this development parking on the street. Tori Perkins, spoke in opposition to the project, stating concerns with the traffic impacts to an already congested intersection at Fair Oaks Avenue and Halcyon Road. Sharon Height, spoke in opposition to the project, stating concerns with the traffic impacts to both streets that serve as thoroughfares, and the cumulative impacts of the development and the recently completed medical building. Gary Reinhart, 301 Creekview Court, spoke in opposition to the project, stating concerns with traffic because the traffic study does not take into account the medical building fully operational, and this location is not appropriate for this type of development. Hearing no further public comments, Chair Martin closed the public hearing. Action: Chair Martin moved to continue the item to a date uncertain. Commissioner Schiro seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Martin, Schiro, Montes, Maraviglia NOES: None ABSENT: None 9. NON-PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 10. ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE JANUARY 1, 2019 Case No. Applicant Address Description Action Planner PPR18-028 Tiffany & Mitch Brewer 644 Garfield Place Establishment of a vacation rental in the SF district A A. Perez I 1 DD N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Sant21 13arbar·a, CA El311 CJ 1=1icl·1ccwd I_, F'ool, P. . Bccit1~ A. Bcllt:Jll, /\.ICF>, P'TP January 24, 2017 l<im Johnson Steven Puglisi Architects 569 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 17001 L01 RECEIVED JUL 2 1 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) has prepare the following traffic study for the Fair Oaks Residential Project (the "Project") proposed in the City of Arroyo Grande. It is understood that the traffic study will be submitted to the City for environmental review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is located on the northwest corner of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection in the southern portion of the City of Arroyo Grande (see attached Figure 1 -Project Site Location). The surrounding land uses include the residential tracks northwest and southeast of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection, the Arroyo Grande Community Hospital northeast of the intersection and the Harloe Elementaty School southwest of the intersection. The Project is proposing to redevelop several parcels that contain 4 residential units (vacant) with a new development that contains 22 townhome units and a 500 SF coffee shop. Figure 2 illustrates the Project Site Plan. As shown, access is proposed via 1 driveway on Halcyon Road and 1 driveway on Fair Oaks Boulevard. SCOPE OF WORK ATE discussed the Project and the required traffic study with Mr. Jim Garing, Interim City Engineer, at the City of Arroyo Grande. A Memorandum of Assumptions (MOA) was then submitted to the City by ATE that outlined the basic parameters and assumptions for the traffic study. As outlined in the MOA approved by the City, the traffic study focuses on operations at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection for Existing and Existing + Project conditions during the AM and PM peak hour periods. lrnpm:t Tr·e:111sit ATTACHMENT 4 l<irn Johnson Page 2 January 24, 2017 The traffic study also evaluates queuing at the intersection to determine if modifications should be made to the lane striping on Halcyon Road and/or Fair Oaks Boulevard in order to provide access to the Project site. EXISTING CONDITIONS Figure 3 illustrates the Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boufevard ;intersectipn. Existing traffic volumes were provided by the City for the analysis (copy of count dat~1 attached for reference). As required by City policy, Existing levels of service were calculated for the iirntersection using the methodologies outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).1 Levels of service are based on the average number of seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak periods. Table 1 lists the Existing levels of service for the AM and PM peak hour periods (levels of service worksheets are attached for reference). Table 1 Existing Levels of Service Delay/LOS(a) Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Halcyon Rd/F Oaks Blvd Signal 27.7 Sec./LOS C 23.5 Sec./LOS C (a) LOS based on average delay per vehicle pursuant to HCM methodology. The data presented in Table 1 show that the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection currently operates at LOS C during the AM and PM peak hour periods, which meet the City's LOS C operating standard. IMPACT ANALSIS Project Trip Generation Trip generation estimates were calculated for the Project using rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual.2 The ITE rates for Townhomes (ITE Land Use #230) and for Coffee Shop without Drive-Through Window (ITE Land Use #936) were selected for the proposed Project. Table 2 presents the trip generation estimates for the Project. A worksheet showing the detailed calculations is attached for reference. Highway Cap~city Manual, National Research Council, 2010. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 9th Edition, 2012. l<im Johnson Page 3 Table 2 Project Trip Generation I.and Use Size Townhomes(a) 22 DU Coffee Shop(b) 500 SF Totals (a) ITE rates per dwelling unit (ITE #230). (b) ITE rates per 1,000 SF (ITE #936). ADT Rate 5.81 822.21 AM Peak Hour Trips Rate Trips 128 0.44 10 411 108.38 54 539 64 January 24, 2017 PM Peak Hour Rate Trips 0.52 11 40.75 20 31 As shown in Table 2, the Project is forecast to generate 539 average daily trips, with 64 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 31 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution percentages were developed for assigning Project traffic to the adjacent street network based on the existing traffic pattern at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection and consideration of the surrounding land uses and population centers. The Project trip distribution percentages are listed in Table 3. Figure 4 shows the distribution and assignment of Project traffic on the study-area street network. Table 3 Project Trip Distribution ---- Origin/Destination Direction Distribution % -" lorth Halcyon Road 35% South 30% Fair Oaks Boulevard East 20% West 15% Total 100% Existing + Project Intersection Operations Levels of service were calculated for the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection assuming the Existing + Project traffic volumes shown on Figure 5. Tables 4 and 5 compare the Existing and Existing + Project levels of service for the AM and PM peak hour periods. The tables also identify the significance of Project-added traffic based on City thresholds. l<im Johnson Page 4 January 24, 2017 Table 4 Existing + Project levels of Service m AM Peak Hour -· Delay/LOS(a) Pmject Added -- Intersection Existing Existing + Project Trips Impact? -- Halcyon Rd/Fair Oaks Blvd 27.7 Sec./LOS C 28.6 Sec./LOS C 50 No ---- (a) LOS based on average delay per vehicle pursuant to HCM methodology. Table 5 Existing + Project levels of Service m PM Peak Hour Delay/LOS(a) Project Added Intersection Existing Existing + Project Trips Impact? Halcyon Rd/Fair Oaks Blvd 23.5 Sec./LOS C 23.8 Sec./LOS C 20 No (a) LOS based on average delay per vehicle pursuant to HCM methodology. The data presented in Tables 4 and 5 indicate that the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection is forecast to continue to operate at LOS C during the AM and PM peak hour periods with the addition of Project traffic. The Project would not significantly impact the level of service for the intersection based on City thresholds. Existing + Project Intersection Queues Vehicle queues at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection were evaluated to determine if the existing turn pocket would accommodate the Existing + Project traffic volumes as well as to evaluate access to/from the Project site (see Site Access for additional analysis). The SYNCHRO software program was used to forecast vehicle queues, which employs the HCM operations methodology for signalized intersections. The queue model predicts average queue forecasts (SO'h percentile) and peak queue forecasts (95 111 percentile) during the peak hour periods. The 95 111 percentile queue forecasts represent the peak queues that occur during the busiest signal cycles during the peak hour periods and are recommended for design of vehicle turn lane storage lengths. Table 6 shows the Existing and Existing + Project peak queue forecasts (queue forecast worksheets are attached for reference). l<im Johnson Page S January 24, 2017 Table 6 Hakyori !Road/fair Oaks Boulevard Vehide Q1JJe1JJes arid Storage lengths -_9_5% Queue Storage AM Peak Hour P'M Peak Hour Pocket histing Existing lane Group length histing + Project Existing ___ _:1-_J~roject Northbound Left 11 S(a) 24 Feet 33 Feet 33 Feet 35 Feet Northbound Thru + Right NA 185 Feet 185 Feet 148 Feet 144 Feet Southbound Left 130(a) 146 Feet 147 Feet 154 Feet 150 Feet Southbound Thru + Right NA 70 Feet 73 Feet 128 Feet ·125 Feet Eastbound Left 80 Feet 71 Feet 80 Feet 67 Feet 79 Feet Eastbound Thru + Right NA 130 Feet 139 Feet 92 Feet 97 Feet Westbound Left 80 Feet(a) 115 Feet 115 Feet 176 Feet 171 Feet Westbound Thru + Right NA 93 Feet 97 Feet 123 Feet 121 Feet ---- (a) Painted turn pocket transitions to a two-way-left-turn lane. Thus, vehicle storage length exceeds painted pocket length. The 95th percentile peak queue forecasts shown in Table 6 for Existing and Existing + Project conditions exceed the painted left-turn pockets present on the southbound and westbound approaches. However, the painted left-turn pocket transition to two-way-left-turn lanes on both of these approaches. Although the Existing and Existing + Project queues forecast for exceed the painted left-turn pockets, they extend into the adjacent two-way-left-turn lanes and do not block through movements in the adjacent through lanes. Given than the Existing and Existing + Project queues extend beyond the painted left-turn pockets, it is recommended that the City consider modifying the southbound and westbound turn pocket lengths by changing the existing painted turn pockets to provide open ended turn pockets that transition into the adjacent two-way-left-turn lanes. As taken for the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 3 , the graphic to the right i II ustrates such left-turn lane striping. -;- f{) rn r1 ~+- t:'\anual _Qn Uniform Traffic Control Devices, US Department of Transportation, Millennium Edition, 2000. Kirn Johnson Page 6 January 24, 201 7 SITE ACCESS Access for the existing 4 residential units that would be removed from the site is provided via 4 driveways on Halcyon Road and 1 driveway on Fair Oaks Boulevard. The Halcyon Road driveways are located about 40 feet north, 70 feet north, 160 feet north, and 215 feet north of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection. The existing driveway on Fair Oaks Boulevard is located about 50 west of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection. The Project would remove the existing driveways and provide access via 1 driveway on Halcyon Road and ·1 driveway on Fair Oaks Boulevard (see Figure 2 -Project Site Plan). The driveway proposed on Halcyon Road is about 200 feet north of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection (and north of the existing driveways that will be removed). The driveway proposed on Fair Oaks Boulevard is about 125 west of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection (and west of the existing driveway that will be removed). Vehicle delays for entering and existing the site driveways were forecast using the Existing + Project traffic volumes shown on Figure 5. Table 7 shows the vehicle delays at the Project driveways. Table 7 Existing + Project Driveway Operations Delay/LOS(a) Driveway/Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Halcyon Rd Driveway Inbound Left Turn 8.3 Sec./LOS A 8.8 Sec./LOS A Inbound Right Turn 0.0 Sec./LOS A 0.0 Sec./LOS A Outbound Left+ Right Turns 12.0 Sec./LOS B 13.3 Sec./LOS B Fair Oaks Blvd Driveway Inbound Left Turn 7.7 Sec./LOS A 7.8 Sec./LOS A Inbound Right Turn 0.0 Sec./LOS A 0.0 Sec./LOS A Outbound Left+ Right Turns 11.6 Sec./LOS B 11.6 Sec./LOS B (a) LOS based on average delay per vehicle pursuant to HCM methodology. As shown in Table 7, the driveway analysis found that delays would be relatively low for vehicles entering and exiting the Project site. The vehicle delays equate to LOS A-B operations. The Existing + Project queues listed in Table 6 show that southbound queues on Halcyon Road that form at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection are forecast to extend up to 150 feet in the left-turn lane and up to 125 feet in the through lanes during the PM peak hour (lower forecasts during the AM peak hour). The Project driveway proposed on Halcyon Road is about 200 feet north of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection. Thus, queues forming at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection would not affect access at the driveway proposed on Halcyon Road -even during the busiest signal cycles during the AM and PM peak hour periods. l<im Johnson Page 7 January 24, 201 7 Similarly, the Existing + Project queues listed in Table 6 show that eastbound queues on Fair Oaks Boulevard that form at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection are forecast to extend up to 80 feet in the left-turn lane and up to 139 feet in the through lane during the AM peak hour (lower forecasts during the PM peak hour). The Project driveway proposed on Fair Oaks Boulevard is about 125 feet east of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection. Queues forming in the left-turn lane at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Boulevard intersection would not affect access at the driveway proposed on Fair Oaks Boulevard. Queues forming in the through lane are forecast up to 139 feet and could temporarily block access to the driveway during the busiest signal cycles within the AM peak hour period. However, during those peak periods, vehicles would enter and exit the driveway after the queues are cleared by the eastbound green phase at the intersection. This concludes our traffic impact study for the Fair Oaks Residential Project proposed in the City of Arroyo Grande. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with the Project. Associated Transportation Engineers By: Richard L. Pool, PE Principal Engineer RLP/DLD Attachments ~ (§ LL! (/) cl:'. 0 f-:J I-lJ 0 z LL. z 0 1-- 0 0 _J w 1-- UJ tJ w 0 Cl!:'. 0... 0 0 " * ~ i it ' \ ]' / , . .,, yj•i. 1· z ~11-+-----1 N! H' (/) ~· I !--+---+---~)' ~ 0 0 0 "' Ul LLI ;;; z)2 D::'. ~ ~ I-lJ 0 ::E z bk. iii Assoc1ATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS PROJECT SIT!=/ w ..... 00 N (.,rJ 00 \.!) 00 ,........_ ---. .,......._N __. WN .,!::::. 00 N <..D ---Jtl 67(68)_j 111 (160)-22(20)-y ""O ro 0 ~ c 0 >-u CT.i I ...c ......, :::J 0 VJ (147)161 ---(126)175 ,(112)160 lt :::? ~-:::: lr! O''d" -(j'I .,!::::. N._.._, w .,!::::. \.!) 0 00 \.!) EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ~ N NOTTO SCALE Fair Oaks Avenue LEGEND Lcxxixx -(A.M.JP.M. Peak Hour Volume FIGURE EKM -ATE#17001 8 AssoCIATED T RANSPORTATiON E NGINEERS '° N ~ ~ N 2:::::: f .:: ,_ 0 j LI L(24)9 2(4)_J PROJECT -·---·.----------------------------·-··---········-·-----------------··-····-----!:> N~ ~-' :::s Jj 2(3)-11 t 1(2J--i ~ '° ::;:w .!:2 _. o Lrno 033 -(5)3 j f [__ y--(0)0 3(9)_J 1 t r 3(6)-\Co§ 3(8)---y :i;:::::; 0 u <1l 0 O::'. c 0 >-u <1l I _c ...... :::i 0 Vl Fair Oaks Avenue 8 LEGEND 0 -Distribution Percentage L(XXJXX -(A.M.)P.M. Peak Hour Volume P DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT ~ N NOTTO SCALE FIGURE EKM-ATE#17001 '° N ~ ~N >-ro $ Q) > '-0 8;. ~I L(24)9 J l -(179)256 2(4)_J 200(248)-Assoc1ATED TRANSPORTATION E NGINEERS U1 'l 'l N~ ~--.::..::s Jt Driveway 2(3)-h I 1(2}! ~a; w _. 00 N O"I r...o l...O ~'° _. 0 a; .!>. 0 o~~ ~ f;:3 ~ L(148)161 ~ ~ 8 -(131)178 J i l 1(112)160 70(77)_J 1 t r 114(166)-r:3 ~ '.::> 2s(2sJ1 ~ g; :;::: N~~ -0 ~ ~ c 0 >-u ~ I ..s:: ...... 5 u; 'l .!>. '° _. 00 0 EXISTING + PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Fair Oaks Avenue LEGEND ~ N Lrxx)XX -(A.M.)P.M. Peak Hour Volume NOTTO SCALE FIGURE EKM -A TE#l 7001 en Associated Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Worksheet Land Use Size 1. Townhomes(a) 22 DU ADT Rate I Trips 5.81 128 2. Coffee Kiosk(b) 500 SF 822.21 411 Projed Total: 539 FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT A.M. Rate Trips In% Trips Out% 0.44 10 17% 2 83% 108.38 54 51% 28 49% 64 30 (a) Trip generation rates are per unit based on !TE rates for Residential Condominium/Townhouse (!TE #2.30). Trips 8 26 34 Trip generation rates are per 1,000 SF based on !TE rates for Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window (!TE #936). Rate Trips P.M. I In % I Trips I Out % I Trips : 0.52 11 67% 7 33% 4 40.75 20 50% 10 50% 10 31 17 14 Metro Traftic Data Inc. 310 N. Irwin Street-Suite 20 Hanford, CA 93230 800-975-6938 Phone/Fax '>'AW1.metrotraHicdata.com LOCATION ---~!:!'!lc:yon Road @ Fair Oaks Ave COUNTY ____________ San Luis Obispo Turning i\/lovement Report Prepared For: LONGITUDE -120.591599° OMNl·Means 943 Reserve Drive Roseville, CA B5678 COLLECTION DATE Tuesday, Seplember 16, 2C_l1_4 __ _ WEATHER _______ S_'u_n~ny~a_n_d g1ear _______ _ Northbound Southbound Eastbound .. Westbound -· Time Loft Thru Right Trucks Left Thru -~!J_IJ_I_ Trucks Left Thru Righi Trucks Left Thru Right ___ Trucks ---:T:oOAM -7:15AM 1 81 22 4 14 51 2 2 9 21 1 0 8 12 8 2 7:15 AM -7:30 AM 1 110 55 2 36 52 5 0 16 56 2 0 24 18 14 1 7:30 AM -7:45 AM 3 126 41 1 82 62 3 6 13 63 3 0 42 40 57 1 7:45 AM -8:00 AM 5 113 17 6 21 59 15 1 10 20 4 1 34 50 64 3 8:00 AM -8:15 AM 6 117 11 2 10 49 15 1 29 21 11 0 12 18 ·12 2 8:15 AM -8:30 AM 8 89 9 0 14 50 10 2 33 8 4 0 12 22 15 0 --8:30 AM -B:45 AM 1 93 23 4 11 51 2 2 14 23 8 1 14 8 11 1 8:45 AM -9:00 AM 0 B7 26 4 11 58 4 3 10 12 4 0 16 19 25 1 TOTAL 25 816 204 23 199 432 56 17 134 224 37 2 162 187 206 11 ---Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right TruckS 2:00 PM -2:15 PM 4 67 19 11 14 87 14 5 9 15 ' 1 25 24 25 2 2:15PM · 2:30 PM 5 79 24 3 24 73 18 4 g 18 2 0 24 :;1 21 2 ,_ 2:30 PM -2:45 PM 6 94 19 7 24 117 19 2 9 28 5 0 35 . ~~ 24 5 2:45.PM.-3;00 PM 6 146 28 3 41 94 1fi 5 35 41 6 1 27 26 2 3:00 PM -3:15 PM 2 BB 2fl 3 46 85 ~-4 16 28 :1 3 52 14 61 5 3:15 PM -3:30 PM 9 81 2? l 18 92 10 8 7 14 8 () 46 56 50 5 3:30 PM • 3:45 PM 2 81 22 2 21 so 10 2 11 21 2 1 39 3D 28 :l 3:45 PM· 4:00 PM 5 84 28 2 25 94 12 s 6 g 6 3 34 33 25 0 ~OPM-4:15PM 3 80 12 1 17 91 14 4 11 25 2 1 35 :12 15 2 -4:15 PM -4:30 PM 4 72 23 2 14 92 14 3 2 20 7 0 40 30 25 1 4:30 PM -4:45 PM 2 71 20 2 18 93 11 1 6 20 8 2 39 38 23 2 4:45 PM -5:00 PM ll 77 27 1 13 85 14 _ _Q_~_ ·r 23 3 0 33 41 20 0 5:00 pM -5:15 PM 3 64 15 1 16 95 18 0 15 1G 3 0 44 43 31 0 5:15 PM -5;30 PM 2 59 33 2 19 102 13 0 10 23 3 0 49 51 15 0 5:30 PM· 5:45 PM 3 68 18 1 15 94 8 2 12 33 4 2 37 l,2 27 0 -5:45 PM.· 6:00 PM 3 6fi 25 1 6 78 6 0 12 19 3 1 35 47 16 1 TOTAL 68 1277 364 49 338 1462 210 45 177 353 63 ..........__ ___ _J_~ 594 _ _j_ 626 432 30 "';JQY1[1Ji.11!g'LQ!ll3.9 .. ~Q PHF PM 58 388 129 0.898 AM o:rro 1.6% AM 38 222 149 0.696 PM 0.904 3.3% 0.61 0.785 AM PM 67 68 t. 147 161 126 175 Fair Oaks Avenue - 111 160 @ North T 112 160 0.65 0.663 E.tl£ 22 20 t AM PM PHF , -- 0.89 15 466 124 AM 0.736 23 409 98 PM South Halcyon Road Page 1of3 7 310 N. Irwin Street-Suite 20 Hanford, CA 93230 800-975-()()38 PlionelFax \WN1.melrotrnfficdata.com ·rurning IVlovernent Report LATITUDE LONGITUDE Prepared For: 35.11271"/' -120.59159fJ0 OMNI-Means 943 Heserve Drive Roseville, CA 9567B COLLECTION DATE 911612014 WEATHER _____ s_·,_mny ~!1d Clear ---·----- Northbound Bikes N.Leg southbound Bikes S.Leg Eastbound Bikes E.Leg Westbound Bil<es ·-w:-c;9 Time Left~ Peds Left Thru Right Peds L~ft Thru Right Peds Left Ihru Right Peds 7:00 .AM -7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 10·--3 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM -7:30 AM 5 () ------1 10 0 9 0 3 0 0 0 ·---:i--2 0 0 ~ .. "f:30 AM -7:45 AM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 -~-~- 7:45 AM -8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 () 2 8:00 AM -8:15 AM 1 0 0 •. 2 0 [) 5 ci 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 8:15 AM -8:30 AM 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 21 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 22 -· 8:30 AM • 8:45 AM 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 8:45 AM -9;00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 () 0 0 0 0 ... TOTAL 3 0 2 16 0 0 1 54 3 24 0 6 0 3 0 30 .. ·-. -~ -· -'"·-.--·-Southbound Bikes S.Leg Eastbound Bikes E.Leg Westbound Bikes No1thbound Bikes N.Leg W.Leg Peds Left Thru Pads f-- Right Peds Peds Time Left Thru Right Right Left Thru Left Thru Right ---2:00 PM -2:15 PM 0 2 0 4 () 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 9 -·-------0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9··-2:15 PM· 2:30 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 () 0 .. 2:30 PM -2:45 PM 0 1 1 () 0 0 0 ?.O 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 3 ... 2:45 PM -3:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 (] 20 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 6 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 0 0 0 .. 13 0 0 0 21 0 0 '{) 0 0 :J 0 0 -.... . .. 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 2 3:30 PM -3:45 PM 0 0 13 -() -0 0 -~---~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3:45 PM -4:00 PM 0 -1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 1 0 ·>--a-0 0 0 4:00 PM· 4:15 PM ---a----0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 4:15 PM· 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 4:30 PM -4:45 PM 0 -~ 1---· 0 ... 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 7 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 () 5:00 PM -5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 .. -5:15 PM -5:30 PM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 + 0 5:30 PM -5:45 PM 0 I 0 0 1-+-0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5:45 PM -6:·00 PM 0 I 0 0 () 0 0 ! 2 0 2 2 0 0 6 0 -~ TOTAL 0 7 4 12 0 3 1 137 2 8 4 56 6 24 2 41 ·-· --~-- Northbound Biki:s N.Log -, ·-,Southbound Bikes S.Lcg Eastbound Bikes E.Leg Westbound BikeS W.Leg PEAK HOUR "Loft Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right -Peds Left Thru Right Pcds Left Thru Right Peds 7:15 AM· 8:15 AM 3 0 0 8 [) 0 1 20 0 20 0 4 0 3 0 5 -· --------_ .. _. -- 2:30 PM -3:30 PM 0 1 1 6 0 0 0 108 0 0 0 4"/ 2 0 1 11 -·--· ---·--- _South Halcyon 1'59.a.Q Bikes Peds Pcds <> AM Peak Total 27 37 PM 0 0 0 6 PM Peak Total 5 172 AM 0 0 B 11 5 AM PM 0 0 0 ----- 0 20 @ 3 0 Fair_Q9!s_s A_yenue North 0 0 ---r 0 2 t ... A v 4 47 ~ iii a. AM PM Pods<>, 20 3 0 0 AM 108 0 PM Pagu 2 of 3 8 COLLECTION CYCLE Metro Traffic Data Inc. 310 N. Irwin Street -S!Jile 20 Hanford, CA 93230 800-875·6938 Phone/Fax Turning Movement Report Prepared For: N/S E/W CONTROL COMMENTS All approaches havo protected left f!Jrns. @ North OMNI-Means 943 Heserve Drive r<osevillo, CA 956'/8 Page 3 of3 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR 1: HALCYON & FAIR OAKS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary ,,.> ""' f ._.. '-~ t !' ~. i ..I -+ Mbvenf(tnf ~al ga:t 8!3R WaE~ warn· Wa8 fu8[2f:] !\113t NBS Sf3L SBT sag Lane Configurations "l ~ "l + (I "i t~ 'ft t~ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 68 160 20 112 126 147 15 466 124 149 222 38 Future Volume (veh/h) 68 160 20 112 126 147 15 466 124 149 222 38 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 88 208 26 145 164 191 19 605 161 194 288 49 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 113 294 37 183 410 349 40 848 225 238 1268 213 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.31 0.31 0.13 0.42 0.42 1 1774 3033 510 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 88 0 234 145 164 191 19 386 380 194 167 170 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1827 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1733 1774 1770 1773 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 0.0 7.9 5.2 4.9 7.0 0.7 12.7 12.7 6.9 3.9 4.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 0.0 7.9 5.2 4.9 7.0 0.7 12.7 12.7 6.9 3.9 4.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.29 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 113 0 330 183 410 349 40 542 531 238 740 741 V /C Ratio{X) 0.78 0.00 0.71 0.79 0.40 0.55 0.48 0.71 0.72 0.82 0.23 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 174 0 504 231 573 487 136 542 531 285 740 741 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.1 0.0 25.1 28,6 21.8 22.6 31.5 20.1 20.1 27.5 12.2 12.2 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 11.4 0.0 2.8 13.7 0.6 1.3 8.7 7.8 8.0 14.2 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3},s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 0.0 4.2 3.2 2.6 3.1 0.4 7.3 7.2 4.3 2.0 2.1 LnGrp Delay(d},s/veh 41.5 0.0 27.9 42.3 22.4 23.9 40.3 27.9 28.1 41.7 12.9 13.0 LnGre LOS D c D c c D c c D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 322 500 785 531 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.7 28.7 28.3 23.4 Approach LOS c c c c Phs 3 4 8 Phs Duration (G+ Y +Re), s 13.3 11.2 16.3 6.0 8.7 18.9 Change Period (Y+Rc}, s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 20.0 8.5 18.0 5.0 25.5 6.4 20.1 Max Q ClearTime (g_c+li), s 8.9 14.7 7.2 9.9 2.7 6.0 5.2 9.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 7.0 0.0 2.3 HCM 2010 Ctr! Delay 27.7 HCM2010LOS c ATE Synchro 9 Report 10 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR 1: HALCYON & FAIR OAKS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary ~ -+ t -("" .......... -\.. ~ t ~ \,. ! Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 67 22 160 175 161 23 409 98 129 388 58 Future Volume (veh/h) 67 22 160 175 161 23 409 98 129 388 58 Number 7 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q {Ob), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1827 1827 1900 1827 1827 1827 1827 1827 1900 1827 1827 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 123 24 178 194 179 26 454 109 143 431 64 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 104 217 42 221 389 330 51 885 211 180 1190 176 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1740 1486 290 1740 1827 1553 1740 2782 663 1740 3035 448 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 0 147 178 194 179 26 282 281 143 245 250 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1740 0 1776 1740 1827 1553 1740 1736 1710 1740 1736 1748 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.0 4.5 5.9 5.5 6.0 0.9 7.8 7.9 4.7 5.9 6.0 Cycle Q Clear(g __ c), s 2.5 0.0 4.5 5.9 5.5 6.0 0.9 7.8 7.9 4.7 5.9 6.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 0,26 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 104 0 259 221 389 330 51 552 544 180 680 685 V/C Ratio{X) 0.71 0.00 0.57 0.81 0.50 0.54 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.80 0.36 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 216 0 544 252 597 507 160 552 544 201 680 685 HOM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1;00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 Upstream Filter{!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay(d), s/veh 27.1 0.0 2B.4 25.0 20.4 20.6 28.1 16.3 16.4 25.8 12.7 12.1: Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 8.7 0.0 2.0 15.7 1.0 1.4 7.6 3.4 3.5 17.8 1.5 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back0f0(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.0 2.3 3.8 2.9 2.7 0.5 4.2 4.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 LnGrpDelay(d),s/veh 35:9 0.0 25.3 40;6 21.4 22.0 35.7 19.7 19.8 43.6 14.1 14.2 Vol, veh/h 221 551 589 638 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.9 27.8 20.5 20.8 Approach LOS c c c c 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+ Y +Re), s 10.6 23.2 13.1 6.2 27.5 8.0 17.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4;5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.8 18.7 8.5 18.0 5.4 20.1 7.3 19.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+li), s 6.7 9.9 7,9 6.5 2.9 8.0 4.5 8.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.0 2.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 2.0 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.5 HCM 2010 LOS c ATE Synchro 9 Report 11 EXISTING + Pl~OJECT AM PEAK HOUR 1: HALCYON & FAIR OAKS HCM 2010 .,)-"). vi +-'\.. ~ t ~ \. ~ ..; ......... MovGmerit:;,······ ttat. EElJ EBR WBL wst: WIBR NBl FJs'f.• ·· NElR~.\ .ss~ ··<s.s'h 8f3R Lane Configurations ~ ~ "} + (f "l t~ "} t~ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 77 i66 28 112 131 148 24 466 124 150 223 48 Future Volume (veh/h) 77 166 28 112 131 148 24 466 124 150 223 48 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 100 216 36 145 170 192 31 605 161 195 290 62 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 128 295 49 183 410 349 58 835 222 238 1174 247 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1557 260 1774 1863 1583 1774 2768 735 1774 2911 613 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 100 0 252 145 170 192 31 386 380 195 175 177 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1817 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1733 1774 1770 1755 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 0.0 8.7 5.3 5.2 7.1 1.1 12.9 13.0 7.1 4.3 4.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 0.0 8.7 5.3 5.2 7.1 1.1 12.9 13.0 7. 1 4.3 4.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.35 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 128 0 345 183 410 349 58 534 523 238 713 707 V /C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.73 0.79 0.41 0.55 0.53 0.72 0.73 0.82 0.24 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 185 0 493 227 551 468 150 534 523 281 713 707 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.2 O;O 25.3 29.1 22.2 22.9 31.6 20.7 20.7 27;9 13.1 13.1 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 12.4 0.0 3.2 14.2 0.7 1.4 7.4 8.3 8.5 14.9 0.8 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh b.b 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.0 4.6 3.3 2.7 3.2 0.7 7.6 7.5 4.5 2.2 2.3 LnGrpOelay(d),s/veh 42.7 0.0 28.5 43.3 22.9 24.3 38.9 29.0 29.3 42.8 13.9 14.0 LnGr2 LOS . D c D c c D c c D B B Approach Vol, veh/h .·· 352 507 797 547 Approach Delay, s/veh 32.5 29.2 29.5 24.3 Approach LOS c c c c 1 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.4 24.5 17.1 6.7 31.2 9.3 19. 1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 20.0 8.5 18.0 5.6 24.9 6.9 19.6 Max Q Clear Time (g~_c+li ), s 9.1 15.0 7.3 10.7 3.1 6.5 5.7 9.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 6.9 0.0 2.4 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.6 HCM2010LOS c ATE Synchro 9 Report 12 EXISTING +PROJECT PM r-EAK HOUR 1: HALCYON & FAIR OAKS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary ..> ........... ...,, .f ........... '-~ t !" ~ i Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 25 160 178 161 27 410 98 129 389 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 25 160 178 161 27 410 98 129 389 60 Number 7 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Ob), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1827 1827 1900 1827 1827 1827 1827 1827 1900 1827 1827 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 78 127 28 178 198 179 30 456 109 143 432 67 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 106 218 48 220 394 335 57 880 209 180 1165 180 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.15 0.15 0 .. 13 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1740 1451 320 1740 1827 1553 1740 2785 661 1740 3016 465 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 78 0 155 178 198 179 30 283 282 143 247 252 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1740 0 1770 1740 1827 1553 1740 1736 1710 1740 1736 1745 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 0.0 4.8 5.9 5.6 6.0 1.0 7.9 8.0 4.8 6.0 6.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 0.0 4.8 5.9 5.6 6.0 1.0 7.9 8.0 4.8 6.0 6.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.27 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 106 0 266 220 394 335 57 548 540 180 670 674 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 o:oo 0.58 0.81 0.50 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.80 0.37 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 173 0 538 250 636 540 162 548 540 200 670 674 HCMPlatoon Ratio 1.00 i.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.3 0.0 23.4 25.2 20.4 20.6 28.2 16.6 16.6 25.9 13.0 13.0 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 9.4 0.0 2.0 15.9 1.0 1.3 7.2 3.4 3.6 18. 1 1.6 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back0f0(50%),veh/ln 1.5 0.0 2.5 3.8 3.0 2.7 0.6 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.7 0.0 25.4 41.i 21.4 21.9 35.4 20.0 20.2 44.0 14.6 14.6 233 Approacl1 Delay, s/veh 29.2 27.9 Approach LOS c c Phs 1 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.6 23.2 12.0 13.4 6.4 27.4 8.1 17.3 Change Perioa {Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.8 18.7 8.5 18.0 5.5 20.0 5.9 20.6 Max 9 Clear Time (g __ c+l1 ), s . 6.8 mo, 7~9 6:8 3.0 8. 1 4.6 8.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.0 2.1 0.0 5.1 0.0 2.2 HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.8 HCM2010 LOS c ATE Synchro 9 Report 13 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR 1: HALCYON & FAIR OAKS Queues ..)' _. f ........ 4.... ~ t \. + Lane Group Flow (vph) 88 234 145 164 191 19 766 194 337 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.65 0.70 0.35 0.34 0.15 0,76 0.76 0.20 Control Delay 47.0 34.3 50.6 25.0 4.4 35.3 28.2 50.7 11.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 47.0 34.3 50.6 25.0 4.4 35.3 28.2 50.7 11.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 38 91 62 61 0 8 151 82 36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 71 130 #115 93 18 24 185 #146 70 Internal Link Dist (ft) 673 775 500 415 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 150 Base Capacity (vph) 162 478 215 537 611 126 1013 266 1644 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.54 0.49 0.67 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.76 0.73 0.20 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ATE Synchro 9 Report 14 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR 1: HALCYON & FAIR OAKS Queues ...> -+ ~ .,...._ '-~ t ~ J, Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 147 178 194 179 26 563 143 495 vie Ratio 0.38 0.45 0.73 0.44 0.35 0.17 0.52 0.73 0.33 Control Delay 33.4 25.3 47.8 24.4 6.1 31.2 19.5 53.5 14.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 33.4 25.3 47.8 24.4 6.1 31.2 19.5 53.5 14.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 46 66 68 0 9 85 54 53 Queue Length 95th (ft) 67 92 #176 123 42 33 148 #154 128 Internal Link Dist (ft) 673 775 500 415 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 150 Base Capacity (vph) 211 545 246 598 629 156 1080 197 1517 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.35 0.27 0.72 0.32 0.28 0.17 0.52 0.73 0.33 volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ATE Synchro 9 Report 15 EXISTING + PROJECT AIVI PEAK HOUR 1: HALCYON & FAIR OAKS Queues ...> ......... -('" .,._ '-~ t \.. i Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 252 145 170 192 31 766 195 352 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.68 0.70 0.36 0.34 0.22 0.76 0.76 0.23 Control Delay 48.3 35.0 51.4 25.4 4.5 36.2 28.6 51 .7 13.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 48.3 35.0 51.4 25.4 4.5 36.2 28.6 51.7 13.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 98 63 64 0 13 154 84 38 Queue Length 95th (ft) #80 139 #115 97 18 33 185 #147 73 Internal Link Dist (ft) 673 775 500 415 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 150 Base Capacity (vph) 173 475 213 525 602 141 1005 264 1532 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.53 0.68 0.32 0.32 0.22 0.76 0.74 0.23 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ATE Synchro 9 Report 16 EXISTING + Pl~OJECT PM rEAK HOUR 1: HALCYON & FAIR OAKS Queues ...> .f ~ 4.-.. ~ t \. J. Lane Group Flow (vph) 78 155 178 198 179 30 565 143 499 vie Ratio 0.46 0.50 0.72 0.51 0.38 0.19 0.52 0.72 0.33 Control Delay 37.9 26.7 46.5 26.6 6.4 30.8 19.0 52.1 14.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 37.9 26.7 46.5 26.6 6.4 30.8 19.0 52.1 14.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 49 66 67 0 11 85 53 52 Queue Length 95th (ft) #79 97 #171 121 42 35 144 #150 125 Internal Link Dist (ft) 673 775 500 415 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 150 150 Base Capacity (vph) 172 549 248 634 655 160 1089 198 1524 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vie Ratio 0.45 0.28 0:72 0.31 0.27 0.19 0.52 0.72 0.33 volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. ATE Synchro 9 Report 17 EXISTING + PROJECT Al\!1 rJEAK HOUR 2: FAIR OAKS & DRIVEWAY Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Traffic Vol, veh/h Future Vol, veh/h Conflicting Peds, #/hr Sign Control RT Channelized Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade,% Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles, % Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap-1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-tManeuvsr Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM LOS HCM Lane VIC Ratio HCM Contro!Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) ATE 4 248 4 248 0 0 Free Free -None 92 2 4 221 4.12 2.218 1348 1348 0.003 7;7 A 0 0 0 92 2 270 0 0 A -0.054 -11.6 B 0.2 HCM 2010 TWSC 179 24 23 6 179 24 23 6 0 0 0 0 Free Free Stop Stop -None None 0 0 0 0 0 92 92 92 92 2 2 2 2 195 26 25 7 0 486 208 208 278 6.42 6.22 5.42 5.42 3.518 3.318 540 832 827 769 538 832 538 827 767 Synchro 9 Report 18 EXISTING + PROJECT PM t-'EAK HOUR 2: FAIR OAKS & DRIVEWAY Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 200 Future Vol, veh/h 2 200 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 Sign Control Free Free RT Channelized -None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage,# 0 Grade,% 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 Heavy Vehicles,% 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 217 Conflicting Flow All 288 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 4.12 Critical Hdwy Sig 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1274 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % MovCap~1 Maneuver 1274 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 " 0.021 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 -11.6 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 ATE 256 9 256 9 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 92 92 2 2 278 10 0 9 9 0 Stop 0 0 0 92 2 10 505 283 222 6.42 5.42 5.42 3.518 527 765 815 526 526 765 813 11.6 B HCM 2010 TWSC 2 2 0 Stop None 92 2 2 283 6.22 3.318 756 756 Synchro 9 Report 19 EXISTING + PROJECT Al\!1 PEAK HOUR 3: HALCYON & DRIVEWAY Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 2 Future Vol, veh/h 3 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop 690 690 0 0 Free Free RT Channelized None -None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade,% Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles,% Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Sig 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap-i Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 vaµa1;1w (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HOM Control Delay {s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95!h %tile Q(veh) ATE 0 0 0 92 2 3 833 456 377 6.84 5.84 5.84 3.52 307 605 663 307 428 605 662 i 0.001 8,3. A 0 0 0 0 92 92 92 2 2 2 2 1 750 228 457 0 6.94 4.14 3.32 2.22 775 1100 775 1100 0 HCM 2010 TWSC 419 1 419 1 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 92 92 2 2 455 1 0 0 Synchro 9 Report 20 EXISTING + PROJECT Pl\Jr , ,EAK HOUR 3: HALCYON & DRIVEWAY Int Delay, s/veh 0 veh/h 2 1 Future Vol, veh/h 2 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop 1 640 1 640 0 0 Free Free RT Channelized None -None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # Grade,% Peak Hour Factor Heavy Vehicles,% Mvmt Flow Conflicting Flow All Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy Pot Cap-1 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage2 HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) ATE 0 0 0 92 2 2 978 628 350 6.84 5.84 5.84 3.52 248 494 684 248 370 494 683 0.001 8.8 A 0 92 2 1 315 6.94 3.32 681 681 -0.007 -13.3 B 0 0 0 0 92 92 2 2 1 696 629 0 4.14 2.22 949 949 HCM 2010 TWSC 577 2 577 2 0 0 Free Free -None 0 0 92 92 2 2 627 2 0 Synchro 9 Report 21 ASSOCIATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS 100 N. Hope Avenue, Suite 4, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 • (805) 687-4418 • FAX (805) 682-8509 Since 187B Richard L. Pool, P.E. Scott A. Schell, AICP, PTP June 15, 2018 Stacy Bromley Robert Baker Trust 214 Whitley Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE RECEIVED JUN 2 1 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ARROYO ~RAN DE FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 1 7001 LOS Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) previously prepared a traffic study for the Fair Oaks Residential Project (the "Project") proposed in the City of Arroyo Grande.1 That study was peer reviewed by Omni-Means on behalf of the City. Based on the peer review, the City requested that the traffic study be updated to include analyses of additional intersections, address potential cumulative impacts, as well as provide additional analyses of the site access and circulation system, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities adjacent to the Project site. The following study addresses the additional tasks requested by the City. It is understood that the updated traffic study will be submitted to the City for environmental review. SCOPE OF WORK January 2017 Study ATE initially discussed the Project and the required traffic study with Mr. Jim Garing, Interim City Engineer, at the City of Arroyo Grande in late 2016. ATE then submitted a Memorandum of Assumptions (MOA) to the City that outlined the basic parameters and assumptions for the traffic study. As outlined in the MOA approved by the City, the January 2018 study focused on operations at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection for Existing and Existing+ Project conditions; as well as site access and circulation. The January 2017 study also evaluated queuing at the intersection to determine if modifications should be made to the lane striping on Halcyon Road and/or Fair Oaks Avenue in order to provide access to the Project site. Traffic Study for the Fair Oaks Residential Project, Associated Transportation Engineers, January 2017. Engineering • Planning • Parking ., Signal Systems .. Impact Reports ., Bikeways ., Transit ATTACHMENT 5 Stacy Bromley Traffic Study Update Page 2 June 15, 2018 Upon peer review of the January 2017 study, City staff requested that the traffic study be updated. The following updated study includes analysis of additional intersections, analysis of Cumulative and Cumulative + Project conditions, as well as additional analysis of the site access and circulation system. As requested by the City, the updated study also addresses transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities adjacent to the Project site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project site is located on the northwest corner of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection in the southern portion of the City of Arroyo Grande, as shown on Figure 1 (attached). The surrounding land uses include the residential tracts northwest and southeast of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection, the Arroyo Grande Community Hospital northeast of the intersection, and the Harloe Elementary School southwest of the intersection. The Project is proposing to combine several parcels that contain 4 vacant residential units and develop the site with 23 multi-family residential units and a 506 SF coffee shop. Figure 2 illustrates the Project Site Plan. As shown, access is proposed via 1 driveway on Halcyon Road and 1 driveway on Fair Oaks Avenue. LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS & IMPACT THRESHOLDS The City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Circulation Element specifies minimum level-of-service standards for all the streets and intersections within the City's jurisdiction. In section CT2, the City establishes the following performance standards for acceptable LOS: "CT2: Attain and maintain Level of Service (LOS) 'C' or better on all streets and controlled intersections. CT2-1: Where deficiencies exist, mitigate to an LOS 'D' at a minimum and plan improvement to achieve LOS 'C' (LOS 'E' or 'F' unacceptable significant adverse impact unless Statement of Overriding Considerations or CEQA Findings approved). The design and funding for such planned improvements shall be sufficiently definite to enable construction within a reasonable period of time." In addition to the City of Arroyo Grande designated LOS "C" as the minimum acceptable LOS standard on City facilities, Caltrans LOS policy for state highways will also be implemented. The Caltrans published Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (dated December 2002) states the following: "Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS "C" and LOS "D11 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." Stacy Bromley Page 3 June 15, 2018 Consistent with Caltrans policies quoted above and City policies, LOS "C" has been taken as the general threshold for acceptable operations at study intersections and roadway segments maintained by the City, and LOS "D" has been taken as the general threshold for acceptable operations at study intersections and roadways maintained by the State. Per the City's Draft TIAR Guidelines for signalized intersections, should LOS 11 D 11 or "E" conditions exist under the "No Project" scenario, any additional delay introduced by the project of more than 7.5 seconds is considered a significant impact. Likewise, if LOS "F" conditions exist under the "No Project" scenario, any additional delay introduced by the project of 5.0 seconds or more is considered a significant impact. For unsignalized intersections, the project is considered to have a significant impact if an unacceptable LOS condition results at currently acceptable LOS intersection, or if the delay is increased by more than 5.0 seconds at an intersection that is already operating at an unacceptable condition under the "No Project" scenario. EXISTING CONDITIONS Figure 3 illustrates the Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study-area intersections. Existing traffic volumes were provided by the City for the analysis (copy of count data attached for reference). As required by City policy, Existing levels of service were calculated for the intersections using the methodologies outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).2 Levels of service are based on the average number of seconds of delay per vehicle during the peak hour period. Table 1 lists the Existing levels of service for the AM and PM peak hour periods (levels of service worksheets are attached for reference). Table 1 Existing levels of Service Oelay/LOS(a) Intersection Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Halcyon Rd/US 101 SB/El Camino Real Signal 28.5 Sec./LOS C 33.5 Sec./LOS C Halcyon Rd/Grand Ave Signal 33.8 Sec./LOS C 28.9 Sec./LOS C Halcyon Rd/Fair Oaks Ave Signal 27.7 Sec./LOS C 23.5 Sec./LOS C (a) LOS based on average delay per vehicle pursuant to HCM methodology. The data presented in Table 1 show that the study-area intersections operate at LOS C during the AM and PM peak periods, which meet the City's LOS C operating standard. _Highway Capacity Manual, National Research Council, 2016. Stacy Bromley Page 4 June 15, 2018 PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACT ANALSIS Project Trip Generation Trip generation estimates were calculated for the Project using rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual.3 The ITE rates for Multi-Family Housing (ITE Land Use #220) and for Coffee Shop without Drive-Through Window (ITE Land Use #936) were selected as the best fit for the proposed uses. Table 2 presents the trip generation estimates for the Project. A worksheet showing the detailed calculations is attached for reference. Table 2 Project Trip Generation Land Use Size Multi-Family Housing(a) 23 DU Coffee Shop(b) 506 SF Totals (a) ITE rates per dwelling unit (ITE #220). (b) ITE rates per 1,000 SF (ITE #936). ADT Rate Trips 7.32 168 822.21 411 579 AM Peak Hour Rate Trips 0.46 11 101.14 51 62 PM Peak Hour Rate Trips 0.56 13 36.31 18 31 As shown in Table 2, the Project is forecast to generate 579 average daily trips, with 62 trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 31 trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Trip Types. As shown in Table 2, most of the traffic generated by the Project would be generated by the coffee shop. Coffee shops generate high volumes of traffic -particularly during the AM peak hour. Studies show that traffic generated by coffee shops include "primary" trips and "pass-by" trips. Primary trips are trips with the sole purposed on visiting the coffee shops (for example, people that leave home, drive to the coffee shop, and then return home). Pass-By trips come from the existing traffic streams on roadways that provide direct access to the site (for example, people traveling along Halcyon Road and along Fair Oaks Avenue that are passing the site and decide to turn into the coffee shop as part of their longer trip). The ITE Trip Generation Handbook includes studies of coffee shops that show pass-by trips comprise 83 to 95% of coffee shop traffic (ITE Code 938). However, these ITE studies are for smaller coffee kiosks with drive-thru facilities. There are no ITE studies for coffee shops without a drive-thru window (such as the proposed Project). The ITE studies show a 43% pass-by percentage for High- Turnover Sit-Down Restaurants (ITE Code 932) without drive-thru windows -which is similar use to the proposed coffee shop. There are no other ITE studies for similar uses. Given the pass-by study data available, a 40% pass-by rate is assumed for the proposed coffee shop in order to provide a conservative analysis. Table 3 shows the breakdown of the primary and pass-by trips for the Project. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 10th Edition, 2017. Stacy Bromley Page 5 Table 3 Project Trip Generation -Trip Type Breakdown June 15, 2018 Land Use ADT AM Peak PM Peak Multi-Family Housing Primary Trips (100%) 168 11 13 Pass-By Trips (0%) 0 0 0 Totals 168 11 13 Coffee Shop Primary Trips (60%) 247 31 11 Pass-By Trips (40%) 164 20 7 - Totals 411 51 18 Totals -- Primary Trips 415 42 24 Pass-By Trips 164 20 7 - Totals 579 62 31 Project Trip Distribution Primary Trips. The trip distribution percentages used for assigning the primary trips to the study-area street network are listed in Table 4. This trip distribution pattern was developed based on the existing traffic patterns at the study-area intersections and consideration of the surrounding land uses and population centers. Figure 4 shows the distribution and assignment of the Project's primary trips. Table 4 Project Trip Distribution -Primary Trips Origin/Destination Direction Distribution % US 101 via Halcyon Road North 10% El Camino Real west of Halcyon Road North 5% Grand Avenue east of Halcyon Road North 5% Grand Avenue west of Halcyon Road North 15% Halcyon Road south of Fair Oaks Avenue South 30% Fair Oaks Avenue east of Halcyon Road East 20% Fair Oaks Avenue west of Halcyon Road West 15% Total 100% Pass-By Trips. The pass-by trips that would be generated by the coffee shop would create new turning movements at the Project's driveway on Fair Oaks Avenue (the driveway that serves the coffee shop) and change the existing turning movements at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection. Figure 5 shows the pass-by trips at the Project's driveway on Fair Oaks Avenue and at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection. Stacy Bromley Page 6 June 15 1 2018 Total Trips. The primary and pass-by trips were combined for the following impact analysis. Figure 6 shows the Project's trip additions to the study-area intersections during the AM and PM peak hour periods. Existing + Project Intersection Operations Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the Existing + Project traffic volumes shown on Figure 7. Tables 5 and 6 compare the Existing and Existing + Project levels of service for the AM and PM peak hour periods. The tables also identify the significance of Project-added traffic based on City thresholds. Table 5 Existing + Project levels of Service -AM Peak Hour Delay/LOS(a) Project Added Intersection Existing Existing + Project Delay Trips Impact? Halcyon Rd/US 101 SB/El Camino Real 28.5 Sec./LOS C 28.5 Sec./LOS C 0.0 Sec 6 NO Halcyon Rd/Grand Ave 33.8 Sec./LOS C 34.2 Sec./LOS C 0.4 Sec 14 NO Halcyon Rd/Fair Oaks Ave 27.7 Sec./LOS C 28.5 Sec./LOS C 0.8 Sec 37 NO (a) LOS based on average delay per vehicle pursuant to HCM methodology. Table 6 Existing + Project levels of Service -PM Peak Hour Delay/LOS(a) Project Added Intersection Existing Existing + Project Delay Trips Impact? Halcyon Rd/US 101 SB/El Camino Real 33.5 Sec./LOS C 33.5 Sec./LOS C 0.0 Sec 3 NO Halcyon Rd/Grand Ave 28.9 Sec./LOS C 29.0 Sec./LOS C 0.1 Sec 9 NO Halcyon Rd/Fair Oaks Ave 23.5 Sec./LOS C 23.8 Sec./LOS C 0.3 Sec 16 NO (a) LOS based on average delay per vehicle pursuant to HCM methodology. The results presented in Tables 5 and 6 show that the study-area intersections are forecast to continue to operate at LOS C during the AM and PM peak hour periods with the addition of Project traffic. The Project would not significantly impact the levels of service at the study-area intersections based on City thresholds. Existing + Project Intersection Queues Vehicle queues at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection were evaluated to determine if the existing turn pockets would accommodate the Existing + Project traffic volumes as well as to evaluate access to/from the Project site (see Site Access for additional analysis). The SIMTRAFFIC software program was used to forecast vehicle queues, which employs the HCM operations methodology for signalized intersections. The queue model predicts average queue forecasts (50 th percentile) and peak queue forecasts (95 th percentile) during the peak hour periods. The 95 th percentile queue forecasts Stacy Bromley Page 7 June 15, 2018 represent the peak queues that occur during the busiest signal cycles during the peak hour periods and are recommended for design of vehicle turn lane storage lengths. Table 7 shows the Existing and Existing + Project peak queue forecasts (queue forecast worksheets are attached for reference). Table 7 Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue -Vehicle Queues and Storage Lengths 95% Queue Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Pocket Existing Existing Lane Group Length Existing + Project Existing + Project Northbound Left 115(a) 30 Feet 65 Feet 33 Feet 35 Feet Northbound Thru + Right NA 151 Feet 156 Feet 148 Feet 144 Feet Southbound Left 130(a) 129 Feet 136 Feet 154 Feet 150 Feet Southbound Thru + Right NA 96 Feet 96 Feet 128 Feet 125 Feet Eastbound Left 80 Feet 62 Feet 102 Feet 67 Feet 79 Feet Eastbound Thru + Right NA 136 Feet 138 Feet 92 Feet 97 Feet Westbound Left 80 Feet(a) 68 Feet 123 Feet 176 Feet 171 Feet Westbound Thru + Right NA 99 Feet 169 Feet 123 Feet 121 Feet (a) Painted turn pocket transitions to a two-way-left-turn lane. Thus, left-turn vehicle queues can extend into the two-way-left-turn lane and not block adjacent through lanes. The 95 th percentile peak queue forecasts shown in Table 7 for Existing and Existing + Project conditions exceed the painted left-turn pockets on the southbound and westbound approaches. The painted left-turn pocket transition to two-way-left-turn lanes on both of these approaches. Although the Existing and Existing + Project queue forecasts exceed the painted left-turn pockets, they can extend into the adjacent two-way-left-turn lanes and do not block through movements in the adjacent through lanes. Given that the Existing and Existing + Project queues extend beyond the painted left-turn pockets, it is recommended that the City consider modifying the southbound and westbound turn pocket lengths by changing the existing painted turn pockets to provide open ended turn pockets that transition into the adjacent two-way-left-turn lanes (see Mitigation Measures). The 95 th percentile peak queues for the eastbound left turns are also forecast to exceed the painted left- turn pocket. The existing left-turn pocket contains 80 feet of storage and the Existing + Project peak queue forecast is 102 feet. It is recommended that the eastbound left-turn pocket be extended to 105 feet in order to accommodate the peak queues. SITE ACCESS & CIRCULATION Access for the existing 4 residential units that would be removed is currently provided via 4 driveways on Halcyon Road and 1 driveway on Fair Oaks Avenue. The Halcyon Road driveways are located about 40 feet north, 70 feet north, 160 feet north, and 215 feet north of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection. The existing driveway on Fair Oaks Avenue is located about 50 feet west of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection. Stacy Bromley Page 8 June 15, 2018 The Project would remove the existing driveways and provide access via 1 driveway on Halcyon Road and 1 driveway on Fair Oaks Avenue (see Figure 2 -Project Site Plan). The driveway proposed on Halcyon Road is about 200 feet north of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection (and north of the existing driveways that will be removed). The driveway proposed on Fair Oaks Avenue is about 125 west of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection (and west of the existing driveway that will be removed). Impact Thresholds The City's impact thresholds for site access and circulation state, "The project is considered to have a significant impact if it would: • Result in interference with traffic flow on public streets at access driveways; • Result in potential internal circulation conflicts for pedestrian and/or motorists; • Result in on-site circulation, access and parking areas that fail to meet standard design guidelines; or, • Fail to provide adequate accessibility for service and delivery trucks on-site, including access to truck loading areas." Halcyon Road Driveway. Vehicle delays for entering and exiting the Halcyon Road driveway were forecast using the Existing + Project traffic volumes shown on Figure 7. Table 8 shows the vehicle delays for the Halcyon Road driveway. Table 8 Existing + Project Driveway Operations -Halcyon Road Driveway Delay/LOS(a) Driveway/Movement ' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Halcton Rd Drivewat Inbound Left Turn 8.3 Sec./LOS A 8.8 Sec./LOS A Inbound Right Turn 0.0 Sec./LOS A 0.0 Sec./LOS A Outbound Left+ Right Turns 12.0 Sec./LOS B 13.3 Sec./LOS B (a) LOS based on average delay per vehicle pursuant to HCM methodology. As shown in Table 8, delays would be relatively low for vehicles entering and exiting the Halcyon Road driveway. The vehicle delays equate to LOS A-B operations. The driveway on Halcyon Road is 24 feet wide (12-foot inbound lane + 12-foot outbound lane), which meets standards for two-way traffic flows. The driveway "throat" (distance between the street to the onsite parking spaces) is about 27 feet, which allows for a vehicle to exit Halcyon Road onto the site and not impede traffic flows on Halcyon Road if the vehicle is required to stop on the site to wait for a parking maneuver in the first garage located on the site. Stacy Bromley Page 9 June 15, 2018 The Existing + Project queues show that southbound queues on Halcyon Road that form at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection are forecast to extend up to 150 feet in the left-turn lane and up to 125 feet in the through lanes during the PM peak hour (queues are lower during the PM peak hour -see Table 7). The Project driveway proposed on Halcyon Road is about 200 feet north of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection. Thus, southbound queues forming at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection would not affect access at the driveway proposed on Halcyon Road -even during the busiest signal cycles during the AM and PM peak hour periods. The Halcyon Road driveway is located on a segment of Halcyon Road that is relatively flat and straight. Thus, adequate sight distances can be provided at the driveway. The segment of Halcyon Road north of Fair Oak Avenue is currently marked with red curbs since on-street parking is prohibited. As noted, there are 4 existing driveways that would be closed as part of the development. It is recommended that the Halcyon Road curb be painted red along the Project's frontage after the frontage improvements are constructed. Fair Oaks Avenue Driveway. Vehicle delays for entering and exiting the Fair Oaks Avenue driveway were forecast using the Existing+ Project traffic volumes shown on Figure 7. Table 9 shows the vehicle delays for the Fair Oaks Avenue driveway. Table 9 Existing + Project Driveway Operations -Fair Oaks Avenue Driveway Delay/LOS(a) Driveway/Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Fair Oaks Ave Driveway Inbound Left Turn 7.7 Sec./LOS A 7.8 Sec./LOS A Inbound Right Turn 0.0 Sec./LOS A 0.0 Sec./LOS A Outbound Left+ Right Turns 11.6 Sec./LOS B 11.6 Sec./LOS B (a) LOS based on average delay per vehicle pursuant to HCM methodology. As shown in Table 9, delays would be relatively low for vehicles entering and exiting the Fair Oaks Avenue driveway. The vehicle delays equate to LOS A-B operations. The driveway on Fair Oaks Avenue is 24 feet wide (12-foot inbound lane + 12-foot outbound lane), which meets standards for two-way traffic flows. The driveway "throat" (distance between the street to the onsite parking spaces) is about 21 feet, which would allow for a vehicle to exit Fair Oaks Avenue onto the site and not impede traffic flows on Fair Oaks Avenue if the vehicle is required to stop for a parking maneuver that might occur in the first parking space located on the site. The Existing + Project queues that form on the eastbound approach at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection are forecast to extend up to 102 feet in the left-turn lane and up to 138 feet in the through lane during the AM peak hour (shorter queues are forecasts during the PM peak hour -see Table 7). The Project's driveway proposed on Fair Oaks Avenue is about 125 feet east of the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection. Queues forming in the left-turn lane at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection would not affect access at the driveway proposed on Fair Oaks Avenue. Stacy Bromley Page 10 June 15, 2018 Queues forming in the through lane are forecast up to 139 feet and could temporarily block access to the driveway during the busiest signal cycles within the AM peak hour period. However, during those peak periods, vehicles would enter and exit the driveway after the queues are cleared by the eastbound green phase at the intersection. The Fair Oaks Avenue driveway is located on a segment of Fair Oaks Avenue that is relatively flat and straight. Thus, adequate sight distances can be provided at the driveway. It is recommended that the curb along the north side of Fair Oaks Avenue be painted red adjacent to the driveway to ensure adequate sight distances are provided for drivers exiting the Project site. On-Site Circulation. The onsite circulation system is design for two-way traffic flows throughout the development. Given the size of the Project, traffic volumes will be low. The onsite drive aisles are 24 feet wide (or more in some areas) and sufficient in width to provide two-way flows. Furthermore, the on-site parking layout meets City standards. Emergency Access. The site access and circulation system includes two points of access (Halcyon Road driveway + Fair Oaks Avenue driveway). The onsite circulation system has been designed to meet Fire Department standards and therefore provides for adequate emergency access, Truck Access. The Project would not generate truck traffic since it is a residential use. Given the small size of the proposed coffee shop (506 SF), supplies for the coffee shop are anticipated to be made by the owner and/or employees in standard sized vehicles. BICYCLES AND PEDESTRIANS Impact Thresholds The City's impact thresholds for bicycle and pedestrian facilities state, "The project is considered to have a significant impact if it would: • Fail to meet requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; • Disrupt existing or planned pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities or conflict with adopted pedestrian and/or bicycle plans, guidelines, policies, or standards; • Fail to provide accessible and safe pedestrian connection between building and to adjacent streets and transit faci I ities; or, • Add bicycle and/or pedestrian trips to an existing facility or service that does not meet current standards. 11 Fair Oaks Avenue contains Class II bike lanes (on-street painted bike lanes) east and west of Halcyon Road. The segment of Halcyon Road does not contain any designated bike facilities in the Project vicinity but the City is planning to implement Class II bike lanes on the street in the future (as shown on the City's Bicycle & Trails Master Plan). The Project includes bike racks within the site for bike riders. Stacy Bromley Page 11 June 15, 2018 Sidewalks are present on Halcyon Road and on Fair Oaks Avenue adjacent to the Project site. In addition, the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection contains ADA ramps on each corner of the intersection as well as crosswalks and pedestrian push buttons for pedestrians crossing the intersection. The Project's street frontage improvements along Halcyon Road and along Fair Oaks Avenue would maintain the existing pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the Project site. TRANSIT Impact Thresholds The City's impact thresholds for transit facilities state, "The project is considered to have a significant impact if it would: • Create demand for public transit services above the capacity that is provided or plannedi or, • Disrupt existing or planned transit facilities and services or conflicts with adopted transit plans, guidelines, policies, or standards." The City of Arroyo Grande public transportation is provided by South County Area Transit (SCAT), a branch of San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA). The Project site is served by SCAT Routes 27 and 28, which circulate within the Arroyo Grande-Grover Beach-Oceano area. Both routes include hourly service between the hours of 7 AM and 8 PM. SCAT Route 27 runs in a clockwise direction and Route 28 runs in a counter-clockwise direction within the Arroyo Grande-Grover Beach- Oceano area. The Route 27 and 28 transit stops are located at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection immediately east of the Project site. The Project would not alter the existing SCAT Route 27 and 28 transit stops located at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection (existing stop are located on Fair Oaks Avenue just east of the intersection). As shown in Table 3, the residential portion of the Project is forecast to generate 168 daily trips. Less than 5% of the residential trips are forecast to use the public transit system (less than 10 transit riders per day). The coffee shop is not anticipated to generate transit rider trips. The additional transit trips generated by the Project would not impact the capacity of the existing transit service provided by SCAT Routes 27 and 28 within the Arroyo Grande-Grover Beach-Oceano area. CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Cumulative traffic conditions were forecast assuming the traffic that will be generated by approved projects and pending developments in the study area (a copy of cumulative list provided by the City is attached for reference). Traffic was estimated for the approved and pending projects by applying trip generation rates published in the ITE Trip Generation manual. Traffic generated by the approved and pending development projects was then added to the Existing traffic volumes to produce the Cumulative traffic forecasts. The Cumulative traffic forecasts are shown on Figure 8. Cumulative + Project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 9. Stacy Bromley Intersection Operations Page 12 June 15, 2018 Levels of service were calculated for the study-area intersections assuming the Cumulative and Cumulative + Project traffic volumes shown on Figures 8 and 9. Tables 10 and 11 compare the Cumulative and Cumulative + Project levels of service for the AM and PM peak hour periods. The tables also identify the significance of Project-added traffic based on City thresholds. Table 10 Cumulative + Project levels of Service -AM Peak Hour Delay/LOS(a) Project Added Cumulative Intersection Cumulative + Project Delay Trips Impact? Halcyon Rd/US 101 SB/El Camino Real 28.8 Sec./LOS C 28.9 Sec./LOS C 0.1 Sec 6 NO Halcyon Rd/Grand Ave 35.3 Sec./LOS D 35.7 Sec./LOS D 0.4 Sec 14 NO Halcyon Rd/Fair Oaks Ave 30.0 Sec./LOS C 31.1 Sec./LOS C 1 .1 Sec 37 NO (a) LOS based on average delay per vehicle pursuant to HCM methodology. The data in Table 10 shows that the Halcyon Road/Grand Avenue intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour period under Cumulative and Cumulative + Project conditions. The Project would add 0.4 seconds to the delay per vehicle, which is below the City's impact thresholds for intersections forecast to operate at LOS D (LOS D threshold = additional delay by the project of more than 7.5 seconds is considered a significant impact). The other study-area intersections are forecast to operate at LOS C during the AM peak hour. Thus, the Project would not generate significant cumulative impacts at the study-area intersections during the AM peak hour based on the City's adopted impact criteria. Table 11 Cumulative + Project levels of Service -PM Peak Hour Delay/LOS(a) Project Added Cumulative Intersection Cumulative + Project Delay Trips Impact? Halcyon Rd/US 101 SB/El Camino Real 34.5 Sec./LOS C 34.5 Sec./LOS C 0.0 Sec 3 NO Halcyon Rd/Grand Ave 30.9 Sec./LOS C 31 .2 Sec./LOS C 0.3 Sec 9 NO Halcyon Rd/Fair Oaks Ave 25.5 Sec./LOS C 25.8 Sec./LOS C 0.3 Sec 16 NO (a) LOS based on average delay per vehicle pursuant to HCM methodology. Table 11 show that the study-area intersections are forecast to operate at LOS C during the PM peak hour under Cumulative and Cumulative + Project conditions, which meet the City's LOS C standard. Thus, the Project would not generate significant cumulative impacts at the study-area intersections during the PM peak hour based on the City's adopted impact criteria. Stacy Bromley MITIGATION MEASURES Page 13 . June 1 5, 2018 The impact analysis found that Existing + Project peak queue forecasts at the Halcyon Road/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection would exceed the existing left-turn storage lanes on several approaches. As shown in Table 7, the 95 th percentile peak queue forecasts exceed the left-turn pockets present on the southbound, eastbound, and westbound approaches (see Table 7). The following mitigation measures are recommended for these potential impacts. Southbound and Westbound Left-Turn Pockets. The painted left-turn pockets on the southbound and westbound approaches transition to two- way-left-turn lanes. Although the Existing and Existing + Project queues are forecast to exceed the painted left-turn pockets, they would extend into the adjacent two-way-left-turn lanes and not block vehicles in the adjacent through lanes. Given that the queues extend beyond the painted left-turn pockets, it is recommended that the City consider modifying the southbound and westbound left-turn pockets by changing the existing painted turn pockets to provide open ended turn pockets that transition into the adjacent two-way-left-turn lanes. As taken from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices4, the graphic to the right illustrates such left-turn lane striping. Eastbound Left-Turn Pocket. The 95th percentile peak queue for eastbound left turns is forecast to exceed the painted left-turn pocket assuming the Existing + Project traffic volumes. The existing left- turn pocket contains 80 feet of storage and the Existing + Project peak queue is forecast at 102 feet. It is recommended that the turn pocket be extended to 105 feet to accommodate the peak queues. We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this updated traffic study for the Fair Oaks Residential Project. Associated Transportation Engineers Richard L. Pool, PE Principal Engineer RLP/DLD Attachments Cc: Kim Johnson, Steven Puglisi Architects No. 18,030 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, US Department of Transportation, Millennium Edition, 2000. AssoCIATED TRANSPORTATION E NGINEERS PROJECT SITE LOCATION IN] NOTTO SCALE FIGURE EKM-ATE#l 7001 Assoc1ATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS E::15) AR~H.ITECTURAL SITE PLAN PROJECT SITE PLAN I'll NOTTO SCALE FIGURE EKM -ATE#17001 * I PROJECT SITE! AssociATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS I 2.. n -< 0 ::i ;;:1::1 0 ~ 3 Fair Oaks Avenue EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND JJ -' N U7 o:, N '--l -::: N t:; oo~ L(14)20 u, N CXl -(64)63 5TL r(4l7 293(196)_j 1 l r-46(40)-w vi~ 214(122)7 ~-'.::::! :s: ~Wl N <.O '--l <.D 171 w 1.-=-l -'-I:> N-' -1:> ~ N Cl'\N L(37)32 Q'\W -'.::::! 8.::; -(593)609 _j t L r(156J153 80(58~ 71 r 647(388)-~ ~ 152(136)7 ~ '.i'.;: ~ .9-::S.S -'N-' -1:> w Cl'\ Cl'\ Cl'\ <.D i.J w -' o:, N U7 0:, '-Cl L(147)161 0:, ~~ N -' WN-1:> o:, N '-Cl -(126)175 JTL r(112J160 67(68)_j Ir 111(160)-1~-:::; 22(20)7 u, Cl'\ N ~Cl'\-!:> N~~ w -1:> '° 0 0:, '° L(XX)XX -(AMJPM Peak Hour Volume N NOTTO SCALE FIGURE EKM-ATE#17001 Assoc1ATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS :c PJ n a ::, ;;:::, 0 PJ a.. Fair Oaks Avenue 2 3 LEGEND L N L w J T LI r(3l2 ~ 1 ! r 1(1)7 399 -' ---' N L(1)1 _J j I I r\~;~ ! 1(4l_J 7 I 1(4)~ 0'0 2(6)7 c::;:;::;: L(XX)XX -(AM)PM Peak Hour Volume 0 -Distribution Percentage * -Via El Camino Real Ramps NOTTO SCALE FIGURE PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT -PRIMARY TRIPS EKM-ATEi/17001 Assoc!ATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS Coffee Shop Driveway N N ~ co L(8)3 J-i L --(-2)-1 0(2)_j 0(-2)--I I --->. ___,_ ____ ----I WW J-T l 1 (3)_j ----1 (3)7 t) co ~ C 0 >-u (tj I ..c :J 0 r.f) L r Fair Oaks Avenue 7 t r --MM -I ,,_ ~ I LEGEND L(XX)XX -(AM)PM Peak Hour Volume PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT -PASS-BY TRIPS u\1 NOTTO SCALE FIGURE EKM-ATE#l 7001 * I PROJECT SITE I AssoCIATED TRANSPORTATION E NGJNEERS I P) n a ::l ?;:J 0 P) 0... 3 1 -' L w ---J TL r _j -1 l r$--~~ 1(1)7 ~~ 0-' 2 I N L w ~-JTL r(3J2 _j l r-7 ~~ ~WW 1(1)7 S~N µJ ---! NO-' L(1)1 ---tS ~ -(2)2 <.O~~ J\ L r(O)O -2(7)_j 1 l r~ 1(4)--CO? 3(9)7 ~w .i:,c5 Fair Oaks Avenue J LEGEND '~(XX)XX -(AM)PM Peak Hour Volume i\11 NOTTO SCALE FIGURE PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT -TOTAL PS EKM-ATE#17001 * I PROJECT SITE I AssoclATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS I Pl n --< 0 :::; si Pl a.. 3 I Fair Oaks Avenue EXISTING+ PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND p --'-N U1 co N CO ::; ~ t::; oo~ L(14)20 U1 .]:,. co -(64)63 JTL r(4J7 293(196)_j 1 1 r-46(40)-'.:i:G'.:i: 215(123)7 0 <.D ~ o~.t:,. ~O'> NO '-l <.D w w ..... .]:,. NW-1:s * t3 ~ L(37)32 -::J ~,::::; -(593)609 J l L r(159J155 80(s8i---J l l r 647(388)-~ l ~ -'WN 153(137~ w ui co / y -=~.:::: 3 w -' co w Cl\ CO 0 o~~ N--'-'.:j;;; Nu, '-l O 0 JTL 69(75)_j 112(164)-25(29)7 --'-N--'-.)::,. w '-l '-l '-l ..... L(148)162 28)177 12)160 1 , r-N~-:=: .]:,. O'> N ~w-1:s N~~ '-l.)::,. <.D 0 CO <.D LcxX)XX -(AM)PM Peak Hour Volume N NOTTO SCALE FIGURE EKM-ATE#1 * I PROJECT SITE! Assoc1ATED TRANSPORTATION E NGINEERS I Pl n --< 0 :::; ;;,.:; 0 Pl CL 3 Fair Oaks Avenue CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND W-J -' N U1 <.D .):s <.D L(14J20 ~~w -' N W O-'~ Cl' .):s 0:, -(64)63 JTL r(4)7 298(200)_J 'I -47(42)-1-~l .):s Cl' 0:, 220(125)7 oo~ U1 ~ .j:,, ~'-1 NW 0:, ..i,,. w -' U1 w N W ..lS, * '.i2 TJ L(37)32 -:::::! 2 c -(602)622 J i l r(163)16s 81 (s9i-J -1 t r 659(394)--:::, w 'N 16s(142h ~ i::'.i ~ ~N::: p w -' 0:, U1 '-1 0:, 0 er,~~ N -' :j;: NO"> W W<.D _JTL 73(77)_J 116(169)-24(23)7 Cl' .j:,, \.0 CO <.D N L(160J212 ---(130) 188 r(11sJ11~ -1 t r--=:~:: O">O">W ~ °' U1 rv~~ ·'-1.J:s-' -' 0 ow , L(XX)XX -(AM)PM Peak Hour Volume NOTTO SCALE FIGURE EKM-ATE#l 7001 * I PRO!ECT SITE l Assoc1ATED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS I P.l n '< 0 ::l ?J 0 P.l a. 3 Fair Oaks Avenue CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND .... tv U1 <.O ./>. <.O ~'N t:; L(14)20 ~~§ -(64)63 J I L r(4)7 29s(2oo)_J 7 I r 47(42)-':j;:a,§ 220(125)7 ~ 8 .i,. 2 w -' (.,n tv w ./>. ~'-I tv w 0:, ./>. ~~~ L(37)32 .::::J ~-::: ~(602)622 J \ L r(163)168 81 (59~ 7 1! r-659(394)-~ ~ ..l. -' w tv 16s(142h w c.n 0:, 0:, tv '° ~ N::: 0\ ./>. <.O 0:, <.O tv 3 w -' o:, v7 '-I 0:, 0 O\~~ ~ tv-' ./>. tv 0\ W W<.O _J~TL 73(77)_J 116(169)-24(23)7 L(160J212 -(130)188 r(11 s)173 1 t r-:::::;: ~-=: 0\ 0\ w ~ 0\ U1 tv~~ ·'-I ..f::::i. ---l. _, 0 ow L(XX)XX -(AM)PM Peak Hour Volume ir\li NOTTO SCALE FIGURE EKM-ATE#l 7001 AssoCIATED T RANSPORTAT!ON E NGINEERS I ~ (") a ::; ?O 0 Pl a.. Fair Oaks Avenue CUMULATIVE+ PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEGEND JJ -'W Ul 0 .J:so L(14)20 ~~w -'NW 0-'~ a-, °' 0:, -(64)63 J~TL 1(4)7 298(200)_j 1 l r-47(42)-~°'co 221(126)7 g~~ ~ '-1 N.J:s 0:, _J:s l?I w ~ -' Ul N Ul .J:s ~~~ L(37)32 .::::J .::::; .::::; -(602)622 j I l r-(166)170 81(59~ 7 ! r-659(394)--::; w 'G 166(143)y ~ ~ ;:S ~~~ -' N -' a-, Ul <.O <.O O .j:,. -µ w -' 0:, (.,7 '-1 0:, -' L(161)213 0:, ~~ N -' v, N '-1 N -' 0 ·---(132)190 J~TL r-(115)173 75(84)_j t r.! 117(173)~ l~~ N .J:s-' 27(32)7 Ul a-, W ~ W Ul w~~ -'.J:,.-' -' 0 ow I I L(XX)XX -(AM)PM Peak Hour Volume [N NOTTO SCALE FIGURE EKM- Metro Traffic Data Inc. 310 N. Irwin Street -Suite 20 Hanford, CA 93230 800-975-6938 Phone/Fax wwv-1.metrotrafficdata.com LOCATION El Camino Real@ Halcyon Rd/ 101 SB Ramps COUNTY ______ S_a_n_L_u_is_O_b_is~p_o _____ _ LATITUDE LONGITUDE Prepared For: 35.123147° OMNI-Means 943 Reserve Drive Roseville, CA 95678 ---------------- -120.591586° ---------------- COLLECTION DATE ____ T_h_u_rs_d~ay~,_M_a_rc_h_3_0~, 2_0_1_7 ___ _ WEATHER ----------------Clear Northbound Southbound I Eastbound Wesibound Time I Left I I hru I Right Truclcs I LeJt Thru Right 1 rucf.;:s Left 1 hru Right Trucks Left I 1 hru I Right I Trucks 7:00 AM -7:·J 5 AM 49 15 4 0 3 40 7 1 46 8 12 2 1 13 5 2 7:'15 Ali/I -7:30 AM 74 21 1 0 1 45 14 3 53 11 21 3 1 16 2 1 7:30 Ali/I 7:45 AM 104 20 2 2 1 52 20 1 67 8 30 3 3 11 4 0 7:45 Ali/I -8:00 AM 105 8 1 4 2 66 36 4 45 11 34 0 0 16 2 2 8:00 AM -B:·I 5 AM 113 18 1 2 2 47 19 1 44 11 28 1 0 14 4 5 B:15 AM -8:30 AM 77 11 0 0 3 37 30 5 40 10 30 4 1 23 4 1 8:30 AM -8:45 AM 86 15 1 1 4 43 20 0 40 20 28 3 0 16 3 0 8:45 AM -9:00 AM 64 10 0 1 3 52 27 5 52 13 36 5 1 20 3 2 TOTAL 672 118 10 10 19 382 173 20 387 92 219 21 7 129 27 13 -----·--- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Time Left Thru Right Truclrn Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 4:00 PM -4:15 PM 72 10 0 0 9 58 29 3 59 12 62 4 2 10 7 1 4:15 PM -4:30 PM 68 15 0 1 5 81 52 1 62 6 57 2 1 12 6 1 4:30 PM -4:45 PM 56 17 4 2 9 72 33 3 71 15 47 5 2 12 6 1 4:45 PM -5:00 PM 70 5 0 0 11 82 34 2 68 10 59 1 1 26 6 2 5:00 PM -5:15 PM 85 22 0 0 8 52 33 3 92 15 51 1 3 13 2 1 5:15 PM -5:30 PM 64 17 0 0 4 76 30 0 67 14 53 1 2 16 5 1 5:30 PM -5:45 PM 73 13 4 0 1 61 34 0 71 17 45 2 1 9 3 0 5:45 PM -6:00 PM 58 11 0 1 4 57 44 0 67 9 50 0 0 12 5 3 TOTAL 546 110 8 4· 51 539 289 12 557 98 424 16 12 110 40 10 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:30 AM -8:30 AM 399 57 4 8 8 202 105 11 196 40 122 8 4 64 14 8 4:15 PM -5:15 PM 279 59 4 3 33 287 152 9 293 46 214 9 7 63 20 5 101 SB Ramp_§ PHF Trucks PM 152 287 33 0.855 AM 0.932 2.9% AM 105 202 8 0.757 PM 0.969 1.8% PHF 0,875 0.852 AM PM 293 196 j L 14 20 El Camino Real 46 40 ... ... 64 63 El Camino Real North 214 122 4 7 PM AM 0.732 0.682 PHF PHF 0,871 399 57 4 AM 0.799 279 59 4 PM Hac',lon Road Page 1 of 3 1\/lerro Traffic Data Inc. u in 310 N. Irwin Street -Suite 20 Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For: OMNI-Means 800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 943 Reserve Drive www.metrotrafficdata.com Roseville, CA 95678 LOCATION Halcyon Road @ Grand Avenue LATITUDE 35.118698" COUNTY San Luis Obispo LONGITUDE -120.591592' COLLECTION DATE Thursday, March 30, 2017 WEATHER Clear Nor(hbound I Southbound I Eastbound iJVestbound Time Le-ft Thru I Right Trucks J Lefc I Thru I RigM I Trucks Lef( I Thru Right I Trucks I LGri: Thru I Right Trucks 7;00 Al\/1 -7:·15 Al\/1 17 34 50 2 2 32 11 2 18 63 10 1 16 54 6 7 7:15 Al\/1 • 7:30 Al\/1 28 68 84 5 3 41 9 1 13 105 33 5 24 79 4 9 7:30 Al\/1 -7:45 Al\/1 24 77 96 5 3 92 11 g 18 107 60 4 32 121 3 6 7:45 AM -8:00 AM 41 128 83 9 4 54 28 1 14 114 36 6 52 196 10 10 8:00 Al\/1 -8:15 AM 27 68 50 5 4 43 17 0 14 80 21 9 41 158 9 9 B:·15 AM • 8:30 Al\/1 38 76 49 1 10 47 11 4 12 87 19 10 31 118 15 11 8:30 Al\/1 -8:45 Al\/1 39 60 49 5 9 24 19 1 19 127 29 7 31 133 11 11 8:45 AM -9:00 AM 30 70 40 2 5 27 6 1 15 88 25 4 23 122 8 4 TOTAL 244 581 501 34 40 360 112 19 123 771 233 46 250 981 66 67 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Truclcs left Tl1ru Right Trucks 4:00 PIVI -4:15 PM 44 36 44 2 18 113 42 3 17 163 30 2 45 150 4 3 4:15 PM -4:30 PM 43 59 51 4 12 86 24 2 18 158 31 7 41 153 10 5 4:30 PM -4:45 PM 29 41 33 2 13 82 37 4 17 198 38 4 41 149 8 7 4:45 PM -5:00 PM 35 63 45 0 8 56 36 3 17 131 29 5 44 172 8 6 5:00 PM -5:15 Pl\/1 39 73 40 3 13 117 28 1 28 160 54 2 27 135 6 3 5:15 PM -5:30 PM 23 69 46 2 11 86 19 2 15 163 45 5 36 145 6 4 5:30 PIVI -5:45 PM 23 50 31 4 13 79 17 2 16 121 35 3 32 168 9 4 5:45 PM -6:00 PM 25 80 31 3 8 76 15 3 16 91 33 0 23 87 3 4 TOTAL 261 471 321 20 96 695 218 20 144 1185 295 28 289 1159 54 36 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Righi Trucks 7:30 AM -8:30 AM 130 349 278 20 21 236 67 14 58 388 136 29 156 593 37 36 4:15 PM -5:15 PM 146 236 169 9 46 341 125 10 80 647 152 18 153 609 32 21 Halcyon Road PHF Trucks PM 125 341 46 0.81 AM 0.806 4.0% AM 67 236 21 0.764 PM 0.950 2.1% PHF 0.869 0.786 AM PM 80 58 37 32 E Grand Ave 647 388 @ 593 609 E Grand Ave North 152 136 ~ 156 153 PM AM 0.762 0.886 PHF PHF 0.751 130 349 278 AM 0.9 146 236 169 PM HaiC',IOn Road Page 1 of3 Metro Traffic Data Inc. 310 N. !nYin Street -Suite 20 Hanford, CA 93230 800-975-6938 Phone/Fax www.metrotrafficdata.com LOCATION __ __:S...:H.:ca::.lc'"y-'-'on-'--R:.:o:ca::.d...,@"'--'--F"--ai ... rO=-a--'k'--s-'--A ... ve~-- COUNTY ______ s ... a ... n ... L ... u ... is_O_b.c.is~po _____ _ urninQJ 1\/iovenient Prepared For: LATITUDE 35.112717° LONGITUDE ______ ·.:c12=-0-".5--'9-'--15::.9.c9_0 ____ _ OMNl~Means 943 Reserve Drive Roseville, CA 95678 COLLECTION DATE ____ 7_·u_e_sd_a=y, ... S_e~pl_e_m_be_r_1_6~, 2_0_14 ___ _ WEATHER ______ S_u_n~ny~a_n_d_C_le_a_r ____ _ Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Time Left Thru Rig))t Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Lefi Thru Right Trucfts Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM· 7:15 AM 1 81 22 4 14 51 2 2 g 21 1 0 8 12 8 2 7:15 AM -7:30 AM 1 110 55 2 36 52 5 0 16 56 2 0 24 18 14 1 7:30 AM -7:45 AM 3 126 41 1 82 62 3 6 13 63 3 0 42 40 57 1 7:45 AM -8:00 AM 5 113 17 6 21 59 15 1 10 20 4 1 34 50 64 3 8:00 AM. 8:15 AM 6 117 11 2 10 49 15 1 29 21 11 0 12 18 12 2 8:15 AM -8:30 AM 8 89 9 0 14 50 10 2 33 8 4 0 12 22 15 0 B:30 AM • 8:45 AM 1 93 23 4 11 51 2 2 14 23 8 1 14 B 11 1 8:45 AM -9:00 AM 0 87 26 4 11 58 4 3 10 12 4 0 16 19 25 1 TOTAL 25 816 204 23 199 432 56 17 134 224 37 2 162 187 206 11 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Rig(l! Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 2:00 PM -2:15 PM 4 67 19 11 14 87 14 5 g 15 3 1 25 24 25 2 2:15 PM -2:30 PM 5 79 24 3 24 73 18 4 g 18 2 0 24 31 21 2 2:30 PM -2:45 PM 6 94 19 7 24 117 19 2 g 28 5 0 35 17 24 5 2:45 PM -3:00 PM 6 146 28 3 41 94 15 5 35 41 6 1 27 28 26 2 3:00 PM -3:15 PM 2 88 29 3 46 B5 14 4 16 28 3 3 52 74 61 5 3:15 PM -3:30 PM 9 81 22 7 18 92 10 8 7 14 8 0 46 56 50 5 3:30 PlVI -3:45 PM 2 81 22 2 27 90 10 2 11 21 2 1 39 39 28 3 3:45 PM -4:00 PM 5 84 28 2 25 94 12 5 6 9 6 3 34 33 25 0 4:00 PM -4:15 PM 3 80 12 1 17 91 14 4 11 25 2 1 35 32 15 2 4:15 PM· 4:30 PM 4 72 23 2 14 92 14 3 2 20 2 0 40 30 25 1 4:30 PM -4:45 PM 2 71 20 2 19 93 11 1 6 20 8 2 39 38 23 2 4:45 PM -5:00 PM 9 77 27 1 13 85 14 0 7 23 3 0 33 41 20 0 5:00 PM • 5:15 PM 3 64 15 1 16 95 18 0 15 16 3 0 44 43 31 0 5:15 PM. 5:30 PM 2 59 33 2 19 102 13 0 10 23 3 0 49 51 15 0 5:30 PM -5;45 PM 3 66 18 1 15 94 8 2 12 33 4 2 37 42 27 0 5:45 PM -6:00 PM 3 66 25 1 6 78 6 0 12 19 3 1 35 47 16 1 TOTAL 68 1277 364 49 338 1462 210 45 177 353 63 15 594 626 432 30 Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound PEAK HOUR Left Thru Rigl1! Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thrn Right Trucks 7:15 AM -8:15 AM 15 466 124 11 149 222 38 8 68 160 20 1 11-2 126 147 7 2:30 PM· 3:30 PM 23 409 98 20 129 388 58 19 67 111 22 4 160 175 161 17 South Halcyon Road PHF Trucks PM 58 388 129 0.898 AM 0.770 1.6% AM 38 222 149 0.696 PM 0.904 3.3% PHF 0.61 0.785 AM PM 67 68 147 161 Fair Oaks Avenue 111 160 @ 126 175 Fair Oaks Avenue North 22 20 112 160' PM AM 0.65 0.663 PHF 0.89 15 466 124 AM 0.736 23 409 98 PM South Halcyon Road Page 1 of3 ----l 7 Associated Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Worksheet Land Use Size 1. Multifamily Housing(a) 23 DU 2. Coffee Shop(b) 500 SF Project Total: ADT Rate Trips 7.32 168 822.21 411 579 FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT A.M. Rate Trips In% Trips Out% 0.46 11 23% 3 77% 101.14 51 51% 26 49% 62 29 (a) Trip generation rates are per unit based on ITE rates for Multifamily Housing (!TE #220). Trips 8 25 33 (b) Trip generation rates are per 1,000 SF based on ITE rates for Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window (ITE #936). Rate Trips 0.56 13 36.31 18 31 P.M. I in % I Trips I Out % I Trips I 63% 50% 8 9 17 37% 50% 5 9 14 City of Arroyo Grande -Major Projects -January 17, 2018 Project Index Map# (if applicable) Location Description APN Applicant Status CUP 12-002 880 oak Park Blvd New 70-bed convalescent facility and 16 unit independent living on 007-771-074 Russ Sheppe!l Approved Nothing constructed 1.8 acres 2218 Old Middlefield Way #C Mountain View, CA 94043 TTM 02-005 Grace lane 15 single-family homes and 4 apartments on 30 arces Don McHaney Mostly Constructed 1 !ct remains 1566 West Grand Ave Grover Beach, CA 93433 TTM/CofC 08-002 MavSt. 7 residential lots Jensen Approved under construction VTTM 01-001 Tract 1998 la Canada 15 single-family homes Castlerock Development Approved none constructed TTM 04-002 East Cherry Ave 28 single-family homes Creekside Estates of Arroyo Grande, LLC 1complete PO Box12910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 TTM 07-002 Tract 2968 451 Hidden Oak Road 10 single-family homes on 11 acres 007-070-017 Greg Nester Approved none constructed VTTM 04-004 415 East Branch Street 24 townhouses and 13,000 SF retail/office building 007-206-004 DB & M Property~ LLC Approved none constructed on 2.78 acres VTTM 13-001 Tract 3045 Huasna Road 12 residential lots 007-862-001 through Beck, Weinhold, Van Ness Complete 007-862-012 VTTM 13-002 Corbett Canyon 11 residential lots Pace Approved none constructed CUP 12-007 The Pike and So. Elm St. 18 townhomes and 5 studio apartments {28 density equivalent units) 077-332-002 through Mr. Peter Burtness Complete 077-332-022 P.O. Box 1140 Santa Barbara, CA 93102 TPM 11-002 250 Ridgeview Way 3 residential lots 007-241-024 Jerome White Complete 250 Rldgeview Way VTPM 09-001 379 Alder Street 4 residential lots 077-204-008 Approved Under Review PUD 09-001 Kornreich Architects TPM 07-002 Plrle Street 2 residential Jots 077-171-020 John Dollinger Complete PUD 07-002 APN 077-171-020 VTTM09-002 Pearwood Avenue 8 residential lots City of Arroyo Grande and Robert Zogata Approved none constructed 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 TTM 3018 Tract 3018 Old Ranch Road 4 residential lots and 1 public faci!ity Jot 007-011-052 through City of Arroyo Grande Complete 007-011-056 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 TTM 13-002 Tract 3054 1029 Ash Street 8 resldentia! lots 077-192-083 Stacey Bromley Approved under construction 214 Whitely Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 SPA GPA Tract 3072 SW Corner of E. Grand 36 residences & 15,600 sq. ft. commercial 077-131-052 and 077-NKT Development Approved under construction TTM Avenue & Courtfand Street 131-054 684 Higuera Street,Sulte B CUP San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 GPA, DCA, CUP, E. Cherry Avenue and Traffic 51 new residences, cultural center, unknown commercial dev. 007-621-076 Mangano Homes, Inc. Approved none constructed Specific Plan Way 007-621-077 Dorfman Homes, !nc. 007-624-078 AG Valley Japanese Welfare Assoc. TPM 14-001 383 Alder Street 4 residential lots 077-204-009 PB Companies, LLC Pending PUD 14-002 3480 S. Higuera Street, Suite 130 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 GPA 14-001 Tract 3048 The Heights at Vista De! Mar Annexation, General Plan Amendment and Prezoning for new 22 unit Jason Blankenship Approved none constructed DCA14-003 residential subdivision 332 Creekvlew Way Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 CUP 15-006 Fair Oaks Ave and 50,000 sq. ft medical office building 006-572-002 through Triple P, LLC Approved not constructed MER 15-002 Woodland Drive 006-572-005 7210 Lewis Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93420 CUP 15-007 325 E. Branch Street 51 room boutique hotel 007-202-031 NKT Commercial Approved under construction 684 Higuera Street, Suite B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 TPM 15-001 1177 Ash Street 4-1BR residential units 077-182-004 GTA -Jeff Emrick Pending Under review PUD 15-001 PPR 15-015 1173 Fair Oaks Avenue Addition of 8 units to existing apartment complex 077-272-005 John Tibbits Pending MEX 15-007 PPR 15-013 159 Brisco Road Construction of 4 residential units 077-051-057 Joyce Baker Approved Under review TPM 15-002 PM AG 15-3093 189 Brisco Road Construciton of 4 residential units 077-051-050 Ed Shapiro Approved Under review PUD 15-002 CUP 16-007 Tract 3100 382 Halcyon Constniction of 19 residentiat units 077-204-031 Robert Baker Pending CUP 16-008 727 El Camino Rea! Popeye's loulslana Kitcher. 006-151-027 ELA Foods !nc. Pending MER 16-001 CUP 17-002 345 South Halcyon Dignity health 4,975 sq. ft. hospital expansion 006-391-046 Dignity Health Approved under construction --~-·-""""~--· Associated Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Worksheet CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CUMULATIVE PROJECT LIST ADT A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR Land Use Size Rate Trips Rate Trips In% Trips Out¾ Trips Rate Trips In% Trips Out% Trips 1. 880 Oak Park Blvd -Convalescent Facility(: 70 Beds 3.06 214 0.17 12 72% 9 28% 3 0.22 15 33% 5 67% 10 880 Oak Park Blvd -Independent Living (b) 16 Units 2.02 32 0.07 1 60% 1 40% 0 0.18 3 53% 2 47% 1 2. Grace Lane -Single Family (c) 15 SFD 9.44 142 0.74 11 25% 3 75% 8 0.99 15 63% 9 37% 6 Grace Lane -Apartments (d) 4 Apts 7.32 29 0.46 2 23% 0 77% 2 0.56 2 63% 1 37% 1 3. May Street (c) 7 SFD 9.44 66 0.74 5 25% 1 75% 4 0.99 7 63% 4 37% 3 4. La Canada (c) 15 SFD 9.44 142 0.74 11 25% 3 75% 8 0.99 15 63% 9 37% 6 5. East Cherry Avenue (c) 28 SFD 9.44 264 0.74 21 25% 5 75% 16 0.99 28 63% 18 37% 10 6. 451 Hidden Oak Road (c) 10 SFD 9.44 94 0.74 7 25% 2 75% 5 0.99 10 63% 6 37% 4 7. 415 East Branch Street (d) 24 Units 7.32 176 0.46 11 23% 3 77% 8 0.56 13 63% 8 37% 5 415 East Branch Street (e) 13,000 SF 37.75 491 0.94 12 62% 7 38% 5 3.81 50 48% 24 52% 26 8. Huasna Road (c) 12 SFD 9.44 113 0.74 9 25% 2 75% 7 0.99 12 63% 8 37% 4 9. Corbett Canyon (c) 11 SFD 9.44 104 0.74 8 25% 2 75% 6 0.99 11 63% 7 37% 4 10. The Pike and So. Elm Street (d) 18 Units 7.32 132 0.46 8 23% 2 77% 6 0.56 10 63% 6 37% 4 The Pike and So. Elm Street (d) 5 Apts 7.32 37 0.46 2 23% 0 77% 2 0.56 3 63% 2 37% 11. 250 Ridgeview Way (c) 3 SFD 9.44 28 0.74 2 25% 1 75% 1 0.99 3 63% 2 37% 12. 379 Alder Street (c) 4 SFD 9.44 38 0.74 3 25% 1 75% 2 0.99 4 63% 3 37% 13. Pine Street (c) 2 SFD 9.44 19 0.74 1 25% 0 75% 1 0.99 2 63% 1 37% 1 14. Pearwood Avenue (c) 8 SFD 9.44 76 0.74 6 25% 2 75% 4 0.99 8 63% 5 37% 3 15. Old Ranch Road -Residential (c) 4 SFD 9.44 38 0.74 3 25% 1 75% 2 0.99 4 63% 3 37% 1 Old Ranch Road -Public Facility Lot (c) 1 SFD 9.44 9 0.74 1 25% 0 75% 1 0.99 1 63% 1 37% 0 16. 1029 Ash Street (c) 8 SFD 9.44 76 0.74 6 25% 2 75% 4 0.99 8 63% 5 37% 3 17. Fair Oaks Avenue and Woodland Drive (f) 50,000 SF ,34.80 1,740 2.78 139 78% 108 22% 31 3.46 173 28% 48 72% 125 18. 325 E. Branch Street (g) 51 Rooms 8.36 426 0.47 24 59% 14 41% 10 0.97 49 32% 16 68% 33 19.1177 Ash Street (c) 4 SFD 9.44 38 0.74 3 25% '1 75% 2 0.99 4 63% 3 37% 1 20. 1173 Fair Oaks Avenue (d) 8 Apts 7.32 59 0.46 4 23% 1 77% 3 0.56 4 63% 3 37% 1 21. 159 Brisco Road (c) 4 SFD 9.44 38 0,74 3 25% 1 75% 2 0.99 4 63% 3 37% 1 22. 189 Brisco Road (c) 4 SFD 9.44 38 0.74 3 25% 1 75% 2 0.99 4 63% 3 37% 1 23. 382 Halycon Road (c) 19 SFD 9.44 179 0.74 14 25% 4 75% 10 0.99 19 63% 12 37% 7 24. 345 South Halcyon (h) 4,975 SF 10.72 53 0.89 4 68% 3 32% 1 0.97 5 32% 2 68% 3 TOTALS: 4,891 336 180 156 486 219 267 (a) Trip generation based on !TE Code #620 (Nursing Homa). (b) Trip generation based on !TE Code #253 (Concregate Care Facility). (c) Trip generation based on ITE Code #210 (Single-Family Housing). (d) Trip generation based on ITE Code #220 (Multi-Family Housing), (e) Trip generation based on ITE Code #820 (Shopping Center). (f) Trip generation based !TE Code #720 (Med'1cal Office Building) (g) Trip generation based on !TE Code#310 (Hotel). (h) Trip generation based on !TE Code #610 (Hospital). EXISTING Af\/1 PEAK HOUR 'I: HALCYON/US 101 SB & EL CAMINO REAL HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary ...,. =Jl!,, ---.. -( ~ -\.. ~ t r \. ! ..,, Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations lj fl> lj fl> , 4 r' 4 r' Traffic Volume (veh/h) 196 40 122 4 64 14 399 57 4 8 202 105 Future Volume (veh/h) 196 40 122 4 64 14 399 57 4 8 202 105 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Ob), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 -i.oo 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ., .00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln '1845 1845 1900 1845 1845 1900 1845 '1845 1845 ·1900 '1845 '1845 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 211 43 131 4 69 15 473 0 0 9 217 113 Adj No. of Lanes 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 ·1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 255 92 280 9 130 28 953 0 425 18 444 393 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1757 402 1226 1757 1469 319 3514 0 1568 73 1768 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 211 0 174 4 0 84 473 0 0 226 0 113 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1757 0 1628 1757 0 1788 1757 0 1568 1841 0 1568 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 0.0 6.8 0.2 0.0 3.3 8.4 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 4.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 0.0 6.8 0.2 0.0 3.3 8.4 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 4.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.18 i.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 255 0 372 9 0 158 953 0 425 462 0 393 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.00 0.47 0.43 0.00 0.53 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 369 0 629 119 0 437 953 0 425 462 0 393 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filler(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.6 0.0 24.6 36.6 0.0 32.1 22.6 0.0 0.0 23.6 0.0 22.3 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 0.0 0.9 27.9 0.0 2.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfO(50%),veh/ln 4.9 0.0 3.1 0.2 0.0 1.8 4.3 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 2.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.4 0.0 25.5 64.4 0.0 34.9 24.5 0.0 0.0 27.3 0.0 24.1 LnGr LOS D C E C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 385 88 473 339 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.7 36.2 24.5 26.2 Approach LOS C D C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.5 4.9 21.3 23.0 15.2 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 5.0 28.5 18.5 15.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 10.4 2.2 8.8 9.7 10.6 5.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 0.0 1.5 1.1 0.3 1.2 Intersection Summar~ HCM 2010 Ctr! Delay 28.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes ATE Synchro 9 Report HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary ~ ._ t J, Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ f,, ~ f,, ~ 4' r' 4' r' Traffic Volume (veh/h) 196 40 123 4 64 ·14 400 59 4 8 204 105 Future Volume (veh/h) 196 40 123 4 64 14 400 59 4 8 204 105 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 ·1,00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1845 1900 "1845 1845 1900 1845 1845 1845 1900 "1845 1845 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 211 43 132 4 69 15 475 0 0 9 219 113 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 i Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 255 91 281 9 130 28 953 0 425 18 444 393 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1757 400 1228 1757 1469 319 3514 0 1568 73 1768 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 211 0 175 4 0 84 475 0 0 228 0 113 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1757 0 1628 1757 0 1788 1757 0 1568 1841 0 1568 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 0.0 6.9 0.2 0.0 3.3 8.4 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 4.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 0.0 6.9 0.2 0.0 3.3 8.4 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 4.3 Prop In Lane 1 .00 0.75 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 255 0 372 9 0 158 953 0 425 462 0 393 V JC Ratio(X) 0.83 0.00 0.47 0.43 0.00 0.53 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 369 0 629 119 0 437 953 0 425 462 0 393 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.6 0.0 24.6 36.6 0.0 32.1 22.6 0.0 0.0 23.6 0.0 22.3 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 9.8 0.0 0.9 27.9 0.0 2.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.9 0.0 3.2 0.2 0.0 1.8 4.3 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 2.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.4 0.0 25.5 64.5 0.0 34.9 24.5 0.0 0.0 27.4 0.0 24.1 LnGr LOS D C E C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 386 88 475 341 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.6 36.2 24.5 26.3 Approach LOS C D C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+ Y+Rc), s 24.5 4.9 21.3 23.0 15.2 11.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 5.0 28.5 18.5 15.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 10.4 2.2 8.9 9.8 10.6 5.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 0.0 1.5 1.1 0.3 1.2 Intersection Summart HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes ATE Synchro 9 Report CUMULATIVE AIVI PEAK HOUR 1: HALCYON/US 'i O'i SB 81 EL CAMINO REAL HCM 20·10 Signalized Intersection Summary ~m,,;:,,.. ''P "'~-"="'--,, " -~ , ~~~,<=" . = ~--=~~=~ _..,. "t ~ ....., ~ ~ t I' \. ! ~ ~ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ti, lj ti, ~ 4 r 4 r1 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 200 42 125 4 64 14 405 60 8 8 214 106 Future Volume (veh/h) 200 42 125 4 64 14 405 60 8 8 214 106 Number 7 4 14 3 8 i8 5 2 12 6 16 Initial Q (Ob), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) ·1.00 1.00 1.00 ·1.00 1.00 1.00 "1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1845 ·1900 1845 1845 1900 1845 1845 1845 1900 ·1345 ·1345 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 215 45 134 4 69 15 481 0 0 9 230 114 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 ·1 0 2 0 1 0 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 259 95 282 9 130 28 950 0 424 17 443 392 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.23 0.23 0,01 0.09 0.09 0.27 0.00 0.00 0,25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1757 410 1220 1757 1469 319 3514 0 1568 69 1772 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 215 0 179 4 0 84 481 0 0 239 0 114 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1757 0 1629 1757 0 1788 1757 0 1568 1841 0 1568 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.8 0.0 7.0 0.2 0.0 3,3 8.6 0,0 0.0 8.3 0.0 4.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.8 0.0 7.0 0.2 0.0 3.3 8.6 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 4.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.75 1.00 0,18 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 259 0 376 9 0 159 950 0 424 460 0 392 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0,00 0.48 0.43 0.00 0.53 0.51 0,00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 368 0 628 119 0 435 950 0 424 460 0 392 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.6 0.0 24.6 36.7 0.0 32.2 22.8 0,0 0.0 23.9 0.0 22.4 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 10.3 0.0 0.9 27.9 0,0 2.7 1.9 0,0 0.0 4.1 0.0 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5,0 0.0 3.2 0.2 0.0 1.8 4.4 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 2.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.0 0.0 25.5 64,6 0,0 35.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 24.3 LnGr LOS D C E C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 394 88 481 353 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.9 36.3 24.7 26.8 Approach LOS C D C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.5 4.9 21.6 23.0 15.4 11.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20,0 5.0 28.5 18.5 15,5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 10.6 2.2 9.0 10.3 10.8 5.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 0.0 1.6 1.1 0.3 1.3 Intersection Summart HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.8 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes ATE Synchro 9 Report CUMULATlVE + PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR i: HALCYON/US 10'1 SB 8, EL CAMINO REAL HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary _.J, ~ .... f ~ '-"" t I" \.. ! _.)' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations , f,i, ' f,i, ~ 4' p 4' ' Traffic Volume (veh/h) 200 42 126 4 64 14 406 62 8 8 216 106 Future Volume (veh/h) 200 42 126 4 64 14 406 62 8 8 216 106 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 -12 6 16 Initial Q (Ob), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) "1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 i.00 1.00 "1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 "1845 1900 1845 "1845 1900 "1845 1845 1845 1900 "1845 1845 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 215 45 135 4 69 15 485 0 0 9 232 114 ,l\dj No. of Lanes 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 259 94 282 9 130 28 950 0 424 17 443 392 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1757 407 1222 1757 1469 319 3514 0 1568 69 1772 1568 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 215 0 180 4 0 84 485 0 0 241 0 114 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1757 0 1629 1757 0 1788 1757 0 1568 1841 0 1568 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.8 0.0 7.1 0.2 0.0 3.3 8.6 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.8 0.0 7.1 0.2 0.0 3.3 8.6 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.0 4.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.18 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 259 0 376 9 0 159 950 0 424 460 0 392 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.00 0.48 0.43 0.00 0.53 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 368 0 628 119 0 435 950 0 424 460 0 392 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.6 0.0 24.6 36.7 0.0 32.2 22.9 0.0 0.0 23.9 0.0 22.4 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 10.3 0.0 0.9 27.9 0.0 2.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 1.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackO/O(50%),veh/ln 5.0 0.0 3.2 0.2 0.0 1.8 4.4 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 2.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.0 0.0 25.5 64.6 0.0 34.9 24.8 0.0 0.0 28.2 0.0 24.3 LnGr LOS D C E C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 395 88 485 355 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.9 36.3 24.8 26.9 Approach LOS C D C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.5 4.9 21.6 23.0 15.4 11.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 5.0 28.5 18.5 15.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 10.6 2.2 9.1 10.4 10.8 5.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 0.0 1.6 1.1 0.3 1.3 Intersection Summart HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes ATE Synchro 9 Report EXiSTING PM PEAK HOUR 1: HALCYON/US 'I O'I SB 8t EL CAMiNO REAL HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary ~-~ - .,} ~ ""). f ~ '-"" t I' ~ + .,, Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations , ti, , ti, ~ 4 'f 4 ' Traffic Volume (veh/h) 293 46 214 7 63 20 279 59 4 33 287 ·152 Future Volume (veh/h) 293 46 214 7 63 20 279 59 4 33 287 152 Number 7 4 14 3 8 i8 5 2 ·12 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) ·1.00 i.00 ·1.00 1.00 1.00 ·1.00 ·1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln i863 1863 1900 '1863 1863 1900 1863 '1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 302 47 221 7 65 21 332 0 0 34 296 157 Adj No. of Lanes 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 346 79 373 16 124 40 808 0 361 51 448 427 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.28 0.28 0.0·1 0.09 0.09 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 285 1341 1774 1350 436 3548 0 1583 191 1662 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 302 0 268 7 0 86 332 0 0 330 0 157 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1626 1774 0 1786 1774 0 1583 1853 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.8 0.0 11.9 0.3 0.0 3.8 6.7 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.8 0.0 11.9 0.3 0.0 3.8 6.7 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 6.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.82 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 346 0 452 16 0 163 808 0 361 500 0 427 VIC Ratio(X) 0.87 0.00 0.59 0.44 0.00 0.53 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 478 0 692 106 0 385 808 0 361 500 0 427 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.6 0.0 26.0 41.1 0.0 36.2 27.4 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 24.7 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 12.3 0.0 1.2 17.9 0.0 2.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 2.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfO(50%),veh/ln 7.9 0.0 5.5 0.2 0.0 2.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 3.2 'LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.8 0.0 27.3 59.0 0.0 38.8 29.0 0.0 0.0 33.8 0.0 27.1 LnGr LOS D C E D C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 570 93 332 487 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.6 40.3 29.0 31.6 Approach LOS D D C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.5 5.2 27.7 27.0 20.8 12.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Grnax), s 19.0 5.0 35.5 22.5 22.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 8.7 2.3 13.9 15.2 15.8 5.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s · 0.9 0.0 2.3 1.6 0.5 1.8 1lntersection Summar~ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 33.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes ATE Synchro 9 Report EXISTING + PROJECT PiVI PEAK HOUR 'i: HALCYON/US 101 SB 8i EL CAMINO REAL HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary ..> ...... '" f ~ '-"" t !" \. + .., Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ti, 1lij ti, 1lij 4' r 4' r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 293 46 215 7 63 20 279 60 4 33 288 152 Future Volume (veh/h) 293 46 215 7 63 20 279 60 4 33 288 152 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 "16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1 .00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln "1863 "1863 -1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 -1900 1863 "1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 302 47 222 7 65 21 332 0 0 34 297 157 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 i 0 2 0 0 -1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 346 79 373 16 124 40 808 0 361 51 448 427 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 284 1342 1774 1350 436 3548 0 1583 190 1663 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 302 0 269 7 0 86 332 0 0 331 0 157 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1626 1774 0 1786 1774 0 1583 1853 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.8 0.0 11.9 0.3 0.0 3.8 6.7 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.8 0.0 11.9 0.3 0.0 3.8 6.7 0.0 0.0 13.2 0.0 6.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 346 0 452 16 0 164 808 0 361 500 0 427 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.00 0.60 0.44 0.00 0.53 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 478 0 692 106 0 385 808 0 361 500 0 427 HCM Platoon Ratio 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.6 0.0 26.1 41.1 0.0 36.2 27.4 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 24.7 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 12.3 0.0 1.3 17.9 0.0 2.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 2.4 Initial Q Delay(d3).s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.9 0.0 5.5 0.2 0.0 2.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 3.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.9 0.0 27.3 59.0 0.0 38.8 29.0 0.0 0.0 33.9 0.0 27.1 LnGr LOS D C E D C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 571 93 332 488 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.6 40.3 29.0 31.7 Approach LOS D D C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.5 5.2 27.7 27.0 20.8 12.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.0 5.0 35.5 22.5 22.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 8.7 2.3 13.9 15.2 15.8 5.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 0.0 2.3 1.6 0.5 1.8 'intersection Summa!:Y HCM 2010 Ctr! Delay 33.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes ATE Synchro 9 Report CUMULATIVE PM PEAK HOUR 1: HALCYON/US 1.0'! SB 8, EL CAMINO REAL HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary ...> ~ ""), f ~ -\.. ~ f I' \. ! .,/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1'i ii, 1'i ii, 1'i 4 ' 4 ri1 Traffic Volume (veh/h) 298 47 220 7 63 20 284 73 4 33 299 154 Future Volume (veh/h) 298 47 220 7 63 20 284 73 4 33 299 154 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 6 16 Initial Q (Ob), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 ·1.00 1.00 ·1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 i.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln "1863 1863 1900 '1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 ·1900 "1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 307 48 227 7 65 21 184 228 0 34 308 159 Adj No. of Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 351 80 377 16 125 40 387 406 345 50 457 433 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 284 1342 1774 1350 436 1774 1863 1583 184 1669 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 307 0 275 7 0 86 184 228 0 342 0 159 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1626 1774 0 1786 1774 1863 1583 1854 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.9 0.0 12.1 0.3 0.0 3.8 7.5 9.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.9 0.0 12.1 0.3 0.0 3.8 7.5 9.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 6.7 Prop In Lane i.00 0.83 1.00 0.24 i.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 351 0 457 16 0 165 387 406 345 507 0 433 V /C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.00 0.60 0.44 0.00 0.52 0.48 0.56 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 460 0 677 107 0 389 387 406 345 507 0 433 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.1 0.0 25.7 40.7 0.0 35.7 28.2 28.8 0.0 26.7 0.0 24.2 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 13.8 0.0 1.3 17.9 0.0 2.5 4.2 5.5 0.0 7.0 0.0 2.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.1 0.0 5.6 0.2 0.0 2.0 4.1 5.2 0.0 7.9 0.0 3.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46,0 0.0 26.9 58.6 0.0 38.2 32.3 34.3 0.0 33.7 0.0 26.6 LnGr LOS D C E D C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 582 93 412 501 Approach Delay, s/veh 37.0 39.8 33.4 31.4 Approach LOS D D C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.5 5.2 27.7 27.1 20.8 12.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 5.0 34.4 22.6 21.4 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l 1 ), s 11.0 2.3 14.1 15.6 15.9 5.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.0 2.3 1.6 0.5 1.9 Intersection Summart HCM 2010 Ctr! Delay 34.5 HCM 2010 LOS C otes ATE Synchro 9 Report HCM 2010 ~ ~ t + Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' 1j:i, , 1j:i, ~ 4 ' 4 ' Traffic Volume (veh/h) 298 47 22i 7 63 20 284 74 4 33 300 154 Future Volume (veh/h) 298 47 221 7 63 20 284 74 4 33 300 154 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped,Bil<e /-\dj(/\_pb T) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 ·1900 1863 '1863 1900 1863 1863 '1863 ·1900 1863 '1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 307 48 228 7 65 21 184 228 0 34 309 159 Adj No. of Lanes ·1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 351 80 378 16 125 40 387 406 345 50 457 433 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.28 0.28 0.0·1 0.09 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.27 027 027 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 283 1343 1774 1350 436 1774 1863 1583 184 1670 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 307 0 276 7 0 86 184 228 0 343 0 159 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1626 1774 0 1786 1774 1863 1583 1854 0 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.9 0.0 12.1 0.3 0.0 3.8 7.5 9.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.9 0.0 12.1 0.3 0.0 3.8 7.5 9.0 0.0 13.6 0.0 6.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 351 0 457 16 0 165 387 406 345 507 0 433 VIC Ratio(X) 0.88 0.00 0.60 0.44 0.00 0.52 0.48 0.56 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 460 0 677 107 0 389 387 406 345 507 0 433 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.1 0.0 25.7 40.7 0.0 35.7 28.2 28.8 0.0 26.7 0.0 24.2 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 13.8 0.0 1.3 17.9 0.0 2.5 42 5.5 0.0 7.1 0.0 2.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back0fO(50%),veh/ln 8.1 0.0 5.6 0.2 0.0 2.0 4.1 5.2 0.0 8.0 0.0 3.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.0 0.0 27.0 58.6 0.0 38.2 32.3 34.3 0.0 33.8 0.0 26.6 LnGr LOS D C E D C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 583 93 412 502 Approach Delay, s/veh 37.0 39.8 33.4 31.5 Approach LOS D D C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.5 5.2 27.7 27.1 20.8 12.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 5.0 34.4 22.6 21.4 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 11.0 2.3 14.1 15.6 15.9 5.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 0.0 2.3 1.6 0.5 1.9 Intersection Summarl HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 34.5 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes ATE Synchro 9 Report EXISTl'NG AM PEAK HOUR 2: HALCYON 8( GRAND HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary - _.)-...... " -( += '-~ t r \. J, ..,, Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ tt r ' t~ ~ t ~ 4~ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 388 136 156 593 37 130 349 278 21 236 67 Future Volume (veh/h) 58 388 136 156 593 37 130 349 278 21 236 67 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 "l.00 1.00 ·1.00 1.00 "l.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln '1845 1845 1845 1845 1845 1900 1845 1845 1845 1900 1845 ·1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 72 479 168 193 732 46 160 431 343 26 291 83 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 ·1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 113 753 337 236 954 60 500 525 447 34 390 116 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.2·1 0.21 0.13 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1757 3505 1568 1757 3350 210 1757 1845 1568 223 2558 763 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 72 479 168 193 383 395 160 431 343 214 0 186 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1757 1752 1568 1757 1752 1808 1757 1845 1568 1834 0 1710 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 10.5 7.9 9.0 16.8 16.9 6,0 18.4 16.9 9.4 0.0 8.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 10.5 7,9 9.0 16.8 16.9 6.0 18.4 16.9 9.4 0.0 8.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.12 0.45 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 113 753 337 236 499 515 500 525 447 279 0 260 VIC Ratio(X) 0.64 0.64 0.50 0.82 0.77 0.77 0.32 0.82 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.71 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 198 770 344 386 572 590 657 690 586 403 0 376 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.5 30.1 29.1 35.5 27.6 27.6 23.7 28.1 27.6 34.3 0.0 34.0 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 5.9 1.7 1.1 6.9 5.4 5.3 0.4 6.0 4.5 5.3 0.0 3.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 5.2 3.6 4.8 8.8 9.1 3.0 10.2 7.8 5.2 0.0 4.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.3 31.7 30.2 42.4 33.0 32.9 24.1 34.1 32.0 39.6 0.0 37.6 LnGre LOS D C C D C C C C C D D Approach Vol, veh/h 719 971 934 400 Approach Delay, s/veh 32.6 34.8 31.6 38.7 Approach LOS C C C D Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.5 15.8 22.6 17.3 9.9 28.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 9.5 27.5 Max Q Clear Time (g __ c+l1 ), s 20.4 11.0 12.5 11.4 5.4 18.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.6 0.3 3.9 1.4 0.0 5.1 Intersection Summar~ HCM 2010 Ctr! Delay 33.8 HCM 2010 LOS C ATE Synchro 9 Report EXiSTlNG + PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR 2: HALCYON 8( GRAND HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary ,..,~-------~ ...> ...,.. ~ 'f ~ "'---~ t I'" \., + .,.,' 'ivlovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations , tt f ~ tfl. lj t rt 4f.. Traffic Volume (veh/h) 58 388 137 159 593 37 131 352 2s·I 21 239 67 Future Volume (veh/h) 58 388 137 159 593 37 131 352 281 21 239 67 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) -1.00 -1 .00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 "1.00 -1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1845 1845 "1845 ·1345 1900 "1845 "1845 1845 -1900 1845 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 72 479 169 196 732 46 162 435 347 26 295 83 Adj No. of Lanes 2 -1 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 113 744 333 238 951 60 503 528 449 34 393 116 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1757 3505 1568 1757 3350 210 1757 1845 1568 221 2568 756 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 72 479 169 196 383 395 162 435 347 216 0 i88 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1757 1752 1568 1757 1752 1808 1757 1845 1568 1834 0 1711 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 i0.6 8.1 9.2 17.0 17.0 6.1 18.7 17.2 9.6 0.0 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 10.6 8.1 9.2 17.0 17.0 6.1 18.7 17.2 9.6 0.0 8.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.12 0.44 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 113 744 333 238 498 513 503 528 449 281 0 262 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.64 0.51 0.82 0.77 0.77 0.32 0.82 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.72 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 197 765 342 383 569 586 653 686 583 400 0 374 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.7 30.5 29.5 35.6 27.8 27.8 23.8 28.2 27.7 34.5 0.0 34.1 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 5.9 1.8 1.2 7.5 5.6 5.4 0.4 6.3 4.8 5.7 0.0 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfO(50%),veh/ln 1.8 5.3 3.6 5.0 9.0 9.2 3.0 10.3 8.0 5:3 0.0 4.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.6 32.2 30.7 43.1 33.4 33.3 24.1 34.5 32.5 40.1 0.0 37.9 LnGr~ LOS D C C D C C C C C D D Approach Vol, veh/h 720 974 944 404 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.1 35.3 32.0 39.1 Approach LOS C D C D Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.8 16.0 22.5 17.5 9.9 28.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.5 18.5 18.5 18.5 9.5 27.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 20.7 11.2 12.6 11.6 5.4 19.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.6 0.3 3.8 1.4 0.0 5.1 Intersection Summar~ HCM 2010 Ctr! Delay 34.2 HCM 2010 LOS C ATE Synchro 9 Report F{ HCM 2010 ~ f + =+ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL. SBT SBR Lane Configurations lu tt rt ' t'f:i. ~ t rt 4'f:i. Traffic Volume (veh/h) 59 394 142 163 602 37 138 352 289 21 248 67 Future Volume (veh/h) 59 394 142 163 602 37 138 352 289 21 248 67 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) ·1.00 1.00 1.00 ·1.00 1.00 1.00 ·1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1845 '1845 1845 1845 1900 1845 1845 1845 1900 1845 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 73 486 175 201 743 46 170 435 357 26 306 83 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0,81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Percent Heavy Veil, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 113 741 331 242 956 59 502 527 448 33 404 115 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0,16 0.16 0. 16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1757 3505 1568 1757 3353 208 1757 1845 1568 215 2596 737 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 73 486 175 201 388 401 170 435 357 222 0 193 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1757 1752 1568 1757 1752 1808 1757 1845 1568 1834 0 1715 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 10.9 8.5 9.6 17.5 17.5 6.6 18.9 18. i 10.0 0.0 9.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 10.9 8.5 9.6 17.5 17.5 6.6 18.9 18.1 10.0 0.0 9.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.12 0.43 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 113 741 331 242 500 515 502 527 448 285 0 267 VIC Ratio(X) 0.65 0.66 0.53 0.83 0.78 0.78 0.34 0.83 0.80 0.78 0.00 0.72 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 190 762 341 374 565 583 644 676 574 395 0 369 I-ICM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.3 31.0 30.1 36.1 28.2 28.2 24.3 28.7 28.4 34.9 0.0 34.5 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 6.1 2.0 1.4 8.9 6.0 5.9 0.4 6.6 6.0 6.5 0.0 4.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 5.5 3.8 5.2 9.2 9.5 3.2 10.6 8.5 5.6 0.0 4.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.3 33.0 31.5 44.9 34.3 34.1 24.7 35.3 34.4 41.4 0.0 38.9 LnGr~ LOS D C C D C C C D C D D Approach Vol, veh/h 734 990 962 415 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.9 36.4 33.1 40.2 Approach LOS C D C D Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.1 16.4 22.7 17.9 10.0 29.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.5 18.3 18.7 18.5 9.3 27.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 20.9 11.6 12.9 12.0 5.5 19.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.6 0.3 3.8 1.4 0.0 5.0 Intersection Summar~ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 35.3 HCM 2010 LOS D ATE Synchro 9 Report + 8t GRAND HCM 20i0 Intersection Summary ..... t + ~ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' tt f ' t~ ' t f 4~ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 59 394 i43 166 602 37 139 355 292 21 25·1 67 Future Volume (veh/h) 59 394 143 166 602 37 139 355 292 21 251 67 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) ·1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1845 1845 1845 ·1845 1845 1900 1845 ·1345 1845 1900 1845 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 73 486 177 205 743 46 172 438 360 26 310 83 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cap, veh/h 113 730 327 246 953 59 504 529 450 33 408 114 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1757 3505 1568 1757 3353 208 1757 1845 1568 213 2606 731 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 73 486 177 205 388 401 172 438 360 224 0 195 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1757 1752 1568 1757 1752 1808 1757 1845 1568 1834 0 1716 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 11.0 8.7 9.8 17.6 17.6 6.7 19.2 18.4 10.2 0.0 9.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 11.0 8.7 9.8 17.6 17.6 6.7 19.2 18.4 10.2 0.0 9.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 i.00 1.00 0.12 0.43 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 113 730 327 246 498 514 504 529 450 287 0 268 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.67 0.54 0.83 0.78 0.78 0.34 0.83 0.80 0.78 0.00 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 189 758 339 372 562 580 640 672 571 393 0 367 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.5 31.4 30.5 36.2 28.4 28.4 24.4 28.8 28.5 35.0 0.0 34.7 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 6.1 2.1 1.6 9.6 6.2 6.0 0.4 6.8 6.3 6.9 0.0 4.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 5.5 3.9 5.4 9.4 9.7 3.3 10.7 8.7 5.7 0.0 4.8 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.6 33.6 32.1 45.7 34.6 34.5 24.8 35.6 34.8 41.9 0.0 39.2 LnGre LOS D C C D C C C D C D D Approach Vol, veh/h 736 994 970 419 Approach Delay, s/veh 34.4 36.9 33.4 40.7 Approach LOS C D C D Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.3 16.6 22.5 18.0 10.0 29.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.5 18.3 18.7 18.5 9.3 27.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 21.2 11.8 13.0 12.2 5.5 19.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.6 0.3 3.7 1.4 0.0 5.0 Intersection Summai:y HCM 2010 Ctr! Delay 35.7 HCM 2010 LOS D ATE Synchro 9 Report E)OSTl!\IG PM PEAK HOUR 2: HALCYON 81 GRAND HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary ...> ....., t 'f +-'-·"'\ t I" \. J, .,, Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ tt r' ~ tl,, ~ t r' 4l,, Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 644 152 153 609 32 146 236 169 46 341 ·125 Future Volume (veh/h) 80 644 152 153 609 32 146 236 169 46 341 125 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) ·1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln '1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 '1863 1863 1863 1900 i863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 84 678 160 161 641 34 154 248 178 48 359 132 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 1 2 0 ·1 1 1 0 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 131 928 415 209 1046 55 312 327 278 61 466 181 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.12 0.31 0.31 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3539 1583 1774 3419 181 1774 1863 1583 305 2339 907 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 84 678 160 161 331 344 154 248 178 291 0 248 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1831 1774 1863 1583 1848 0 1703 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 12.8 6.1 6.5 11.7 11.8 5.8 9.3 7.7 11.0 0.0 10.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 12.8 6.1 6.5 11.7 11.8 5.8 9.3 7.7 11.0 0.0 10.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.16 0.53 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 131 928 415 209 541 560 312 327 278 368 0 339 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.73 0.39 0.77 0.61 0.61 0.49 0.76 0.64 0.79 0.00 0.73 Avail Cap(c._a), veh/h 229 1036 464 326 614 636 447 469 399 465 0 429 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.1 24.7 22.2 31.4 21.8 21.8 27.3 28.8 28.1 27.9 0.0 27.6 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 5.1 2.4 0.6 6.0 1.4 1.4 1.2 4.3 2.4 7.1 0.0 4.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 6.5 2.7 3.5 5.9 6.1 2.9 5.1 3.5 6.3 0.0 5.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.2 27.1 22.8 37.4 23.2 23.2 28.5 33.1 30.6 35.0 0.0 32.2 LnGr~ LOS D C C D C C C C C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 922 836 580 539 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.3 25.9 31.1 33.7 Approach LOS C C C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.4 13.1 23.8 19.1 9.9 27.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 13.5 21.5 18.5 9.5 25.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 11.3 8.5 14.8 13.0 5.4 13.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.6 0.2 4.4 1.6 0.1 6.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.9 HCM 2010 LOS C ATE Synchro 9 Report HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary ~ ~ t ! Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ tt r1 'i tfi. ~ t r1 4fi. Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 644 153 155 609 32 147 237 171 46 343 ·125 Future Volume (veh/h) 80 644 153 155 609 32 147 237 171 46 343 125 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 '16 Initial Q (Ob), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) ·1.00 '1.00 'I.DO ·1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln '1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1900 '1863 1863 '1863 1900 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 84 678 161 163 641 34 155 249 180 48 361 132 Adj No. of Lanes 1 2 ·1 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 132 912 408 211 1035 55 313 329 280 61 469 181 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.12 0.30 0.30 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3539 1583 1774 3419 181 1774 1863 1583 304 2344 903 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 84 678 161 163 331 344 155 249 180 292 0 249 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1831 1774 1863 1583 1848 0 1703 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 12.9 6.1 6.5 11.7 11.8 5.8 9.3 7.7 11 .0 0.0 10.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 12.9 6.1 6.5 11.7 11.8 5.8 9.3 7.7 11.0 0.0 10.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.16 0.53 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 132 912 408 211 536 554 313 329 280 370 0 341 V /C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.74 0.39 0.77 0.62 0.62 0.49 0.76 0.64 0.79 0.00 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 240 1003 449 347 608 629 449 472 401 468 0 431 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.9 24.9 22.4 31.2 21.9 21.9 27.1 28.6 27.9 27.8 0.0 27.4 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 5.1 2.7 0.6 5.9 1.6 1.5 1.2 4.3 2.5 7.0 0.0 4.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile Back0/0(50%),veh/ln 1.8 6.6 2.8 3.5 5,9 6.1 2.9 5.2 3.6 6.3 0.0 5.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.9 27.6 23.0 37.1 23.4 23.4 28.4 32.9 30.4 34.7 0.0 32.0 LnGr~ LOS D C C D C C C C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 923 838 584 541 Approach Delay, s/veh 27.8 26.1 30.9 33.5 Approach LOS C C C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.4 13.2 23.3 19.1 9,9 26.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 14.3 20.7 18.5 9.9 25.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 11.3 8.5 14.9 13.0 5.4 13.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.6 0.2 4.0 1.7 0.1 6.6 :intersection Summar~ HCM 2010 Ctr! Delay 29.0 HCM 2010 LOS C ATE Synchro 9 Report CUMULATIVE PM PEAK HOUR 2: HALCYON 8, GRAND HCM 201 O Signalized Intersection Summary ~~~~~ ..J-~ '" ,("" ~ '-""\ t I" \. J, .,/ Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL. WBT Wl3R NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' tt r1 ' t~ ~ + r1 4'~ Traffic Volume (veh/h) s-1 659 165 168 622 37 168 249 192 46 353 ·125 Future Volume (veh/h) 81 659 165 168 622 37 168 249 192 46 353 125 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) ·1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 "1863 1863 "1863 "1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1900 "1863 ·1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 85 694 174 177 655 39 177 262 202 48 372 132 Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 130 908 406 223 1047 62 321 337 286 60 476 178 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3539 1583 1774 3395 202 1774 1863 1583 298 2370 887 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 85 694 174 177 341 353 177 262 202 298 0 254 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1827 1774 1863 1583 1848 0 1706 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 13.8 7.0 7.4 12.6 12.6 6.9 10.2 9.1 11.7 0.0 10.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c}, s 3.6 13.8 7.0 7.4 12.6 12.6 6.9 10.2 9.1 11.7 0.0 10.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.16 0.52 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 130 908 406 223 546 564 321 337 286 371 0 343 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.76 0.43 0.79 0.62 0.63 0.55 0.78 0.71 0.80 0.00 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a}, veh/h 207 980 439 324 606 626 421 443 376 458 0 423 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.3 26.2 23.7 32.4 22.6 22.6 28.4 29.8 29.3 29.0 0.0 28.6 Iner Delay (d2}, s/veh 5.4 3.4 0.7 8.3 1.7 1.7 1.5 6.4 4.0 8.1 0.0 5.3 Initial Q Delay(d3},s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%},veh/ln 1.9 7.2 3.1 4.1 6.4 6.6 3.5 5.8 4.3 6.8 0.0 5.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.8 29.6 24.4 40.7 24.3 24.2 29.9 36.1 33.3 37.1 0.0 33.9 LnGr~ LOS D C C D C C C D C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 953 871 641 552 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.5 27.6 33.5 35.6 Approach LOS C C C D Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.3 14.1 24.0 19.8 10.1 28.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.1 13.9 21.1 18.9 8.9 26.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l 1 ), s 12.2 9.4 15.8 13.7 5.6 14.6 Green Ext Time (p_c}, s 1.6 0.2 3.7 1.6 0.0 6.9 Intersection Summar~ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.9 HCM 2010 LOS C ATE Synchro 9 Report CUMULATIVE + PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR 2: HALCYON 81 GRAND HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary ~--~~~~~ . . _,.> ~-"t -( ~ '-"" t I" \.. J, .,, Movement EBL EBT EBA WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ tt rt , tti. "i t r' 4t+ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 3-1 659 166 170 622 37 169 250 194 46 355 125 Future Volume (veh/h) 81 659 166 170 622 37 169 250 194 46 355 125 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 ., 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) ., .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 ·]863 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 1900 '1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 85 694 175 179 655 39 178 263 204 48 374 132 Adj No. of Lanes 2 1 2 0 ·1 1 i 0 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veil, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 130 905 405 224 1049 62 321 337 287 60 478 178 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3539 1583 1774 3395 202 1774 1863 1583 297 2374 884 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 85 694 175 179 341 353 178 263 204 299 0 255 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/17/ln 1774 1770 1583 1774 1770 1827 1774 1863 1583 1848 0 1707 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 13.9 7.1 7.5 12.6 12.6 7.0 10.3 9.3 1 i .8 0.0 10.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 13.9 7.1 7.5 12.6 12.6 7.0 10.3 9.3 11.8 0.0 10.7 Prop In Lane i.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.i6 0.52 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 130 905 405 224 547 565 321 337 287 372 0 344 V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.77 0.43 0.80 0.62 0.62 0.55 0.78 0.71 0.80 0.00 0.74 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 199 976 437 322 611 631 420 441 375 457 0 422 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.5 26.3 23.8 32.4 22.6 22.6 28.5 29.9 29.4 29.1 0.0 28.7 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 5.4 3.5 0.7 8.7 1.7 1.6 1.5 6.5 4.3 8.3 0.0 5.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 7.2 3.1 4.2 6.4 6.6 3.5 5.9 4.4 6.8 0.0 5.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.9 29.8 24.5 41.2 24.3 24.3 30.0 36.4 33.7 37.4 0.0 34.1 LnGr~ LOS D C C D C C C D C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 954 873 645 554 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.7 27,7 33.8 35.9 Approach LOS C C C D Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.3 14.2 24.1 19.9 10.1 28.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4,5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.1 13.9 21.1 18.9 8.6 26.4 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 12.3 9.5 15.9 13.8 5.6 14.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.5 0.2 3.7 1.6 0.0 7.0 1ntersection Summart HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.2 HCM 2010 LOS C ATE Synchro 9 Report HCM 2010 ~ ._ t ! Movement EBL EBT EBA WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBA SBL SBT SBA Lane Configurations ~ ~ ~ t r1 ~ t~ ' t~ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 68 160 20 112 126 147 15 466 124 149 222 38 Future Volume (veh/h) 68 160 20 112 126 147 15 466 124 149 222 38 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 ., 6 16 Initial Q (Ob), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 'l.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 '1863 '1863 1863 1863 1863 ·1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 88 208 26 145 164 191 19 605 161 194 288 49 Adj No. of Lanes ·1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 113 294 37 183 410 349 40 848 225 238 1268 213 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.3'1 0.31 0.13 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1624 203 1774 1863 1583 1774 2768 735 1774 3033 510 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 88 0 234 145 164 191 19 386 380 194 '167 170 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1827 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1733 1774 1770 1773 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 0.0 7.9 5.2 4.9 7.0 0.7 12.7 12.7 6.9 3.9 4.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 0.0 7.9 5.2 4.9 7.0 0.7 12.7 12.7 6.9 3.9 4.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.29 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 113 0 330 183 410 349 40 542 531 238 740 741 VIC Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.71 0.79 0.40 0.55 0.48 0.71 0.72 0.82 0.23 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 174 0 504 231 573 487 136 542 531 285 740 741 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.1 0.0 25.1 28.6 21.8 22.6 31.5 20.1 20.1 27.5 12.2 12.2 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 11.4 0.0 2.8 13.7 0.6 1.3 8.7 7.8 8.0 14.2 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfO(50%),veh/ln 1.9 0.0 4.2 3.2 2.6 3.1 0.4 7.3 7.2 4.3 2.0 2.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.5 0.0 27.9 42.3 22.4 23.9 40.3 27.9 28.1 41.7 12.9 13.0 LnGrQ LOS D C D C C D C C D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 322 500 785 531 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.7 28.7 28.3 23.4 Approach LOS C C C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.3 24.5 11.2 16.3 6.0 31.8 8.7 18.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 20.0 8.5 18.0 5.0 25.5 6.4 20.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 8.9 14.7 7.2 9.9 2.7 6.0 5.2 9.0 Green Ext Time (p __ c), s 0.1 3.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 7.0 0.0 2.3 Intersection Summar~ HCM 2010 Ctr! Delay 27.7 HCM 2010 LOS C ATE Synchro 9 Report EXliST!NG + PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR 3: HALCYON 8t FAIR OAKS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary -::!:'-~~""'~--~~___.-- ___;. ~ t .--~ '-"' t I" '. ! .I Movement ESL EST EBR WBL. WBT WBR NBL. NBT NBR SBL. SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ~ ' t '{' ., t~ ~ t~ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 164 29 1·12 128 148 24 463 ·124 150 220 47 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 164 29 112 128 148 24 463 124 150 220 47 Number 7 4 ·14 3 8 i8 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 "1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ·1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 "1863 1863 "1863 1863 "1863 ·1900 1863 "1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 97 213 38 145 166 192 31 601 161 195 286 61 Adj No.of Lanes 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 124 291 52 183 413 351 58 834 223 238 1175 247 Arrive On Green 0.07 0."19 0.19 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.30 0.30 0.13 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1540 275 1774 1863 1583 1774 2763 739 1774 2912 612 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 97 0 251 145 166 192 31 . 384 378 195 172 175 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1814 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1732 1774 1770 1755 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 0.0 8.6 5.3 5.0 7.1 1. 1 12.8 12.9 7.1 4.3 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 0.0 8.6 5.3 5.0 7. 1 1.1 12.8 12.9 7.1 4.3 4.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.35 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 124 0 343 183 413 351 58 534 523 238 714 708 VIC Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.73 0.79 0.40 0,55 0.53 0.72 0.72 0.82 0.24 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 182 0 493 228 554 471 150 534 523 281 714 708 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.3 0.0 25.3 29.0 22.0 22.8 31.5 20.6 20.7 27.9 13.1 13.1 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 12.2 0.0 3.2 14.2 0.6 1.3 7.4 8.1 8.4 14.9 0.8 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfO(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.0 4.6 3.3 2.7 3.2 0.7 7.4 7.3 4.5 2.2 2.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.5 0.0 28.5 43.2 22.6 24.1 38.9 28.8 29.0 42.8 13.9 13.9 LnGr~ LOS D C D C C D C C D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 348 503 793 542 Approach Delay, s/veh 32.4 29.1 29.3 24.3 Approach LOS C C C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.4 24.5 11.3 17.0 6.7 31.2 9.1 19.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.5 20.0 8.5 18.0 5.6 24.9 6.8 19.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l 1 ), s 9.1 14.9 7.3 10.6 3.1 6.4 5.6 9.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 6.9 0.0 2.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.5 HCM 2010 LOS C ATE Synchro 9 Report Baseline intersection: 3: HALCYON & FAIR OAKS ~~ovement EB EB WB WB WB Directions Served L TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 56 138 70 96 95 Average Queue (ft) 44 89 53 69 57 95th Queue (ft) 62 136 68 96 99 Link Distance (ft) 707 809 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) "150 150 ·150 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing t=>enalty (veh) 0 NB NB NB L T TR 31 117 142 10 74 99 30 123 151 546 546 150 SB L 127 75 129 ·150 6/8/2018 SB SB T TR 65 81 26 56 61 96 966 966 SimTraffic Report Page 1 + Baseline Intersection: 3: HALCYON 8, FAIR OAKS Movement EB EB WB WB Directions Served L TR L T Maximum Queue (ft) 91 120 133 155 Average Queue (ft) 68 79 64 111 95th Queue (ft) "I02 138 123 169 Link Distance (ft) 707 809 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 4 WB NB NB NB R L T TR 170 52 159 132 59 33 94 82 ·151 65 156 ·145 546 546 150 150 0 0 0 SB L 135 72 136 ·150 0 0 6/8/2018 SB SB T TR 64 86 27 58 62 96 966 966 Sim Traffic Report Page 1 CUMULATIVE AM PEAK HOUH 3: HALCYON 8( FAIR OAKS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary ~-- .,.> ~ ... f ~ '-~ t I"' \.. i .,,,I 'Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR I\JBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ti, "'i t ,, ~ tti, ~ tti, Traffic Volume (veh/h) 77 "169 23 115 i30 160 16 466 "135 169 223 43 Future Volume (veh/h) 77 169 23 115 130 160 16 466 135 169 223 43 Number 7 4 14 3 8 -is 5 2 12 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 "1.00 1.00 ·1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/I1/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863 "1863 "1863 1900 1863 "1863 ·1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 100 219 30 149 169 208 21 605 175 219 290 56 Adj No. of Lanes 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 128 294 40 187 403 342 42 840 243 262 1288 245 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.02 0.31 0.31 0:I5 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1604 220 1774 1863 1583 1774 2711 783 1774 2967 565 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 100 0 249 149 i69 208 21 394 386 219 171 175 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1824 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1725 1774 1770 1763 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 0.0 9.2 5.8 5.6 8.4 0.8 14.1 14.1 8.5 4.3 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g __ c), s 3.9 0.0 9.2 5.8 5.6 8.4 0.8 14.1 14.1 8.5 4.3 4.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00 0.32 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 128 0 335 187 403 342 42 548 535 262 768 765 V /C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.74 0.80 0.42 0.61 0.50 0.72 0.72 0.83 0.22 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 182 0 463 237 530 451 125 548 535 312 768 765 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.4 0.0 27.4 31.0 24.0 25.1 34.2 21 .7 21.8 29.4 12.6 12.6 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 12.8 0.0 4.2 13.8 0.7 1.7 8.7 7.9 8.2 15.3 0.7 0.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 0.0 5.0 3.6 2.9 3.8 0.5 8.0 7.9 5.2 2.2 2.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.2 0.0 31.6 44.8 24.7 26.8 42.9 29.7 29.9 44.7 13.3 13.3 LnGre LOS D C D C C D C C D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 349 526 801 565 Approach Delay, s/veh 35.5 31.2 30.1 25.4 Approach LOS D C C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 26.5 12.0 17.5 6.2 35.3 9.6 19.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 22.0 9.5 18.0 5.0 29.5 7.3 20.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 10.5 16.1 7.8 11.2 2.8 6.4 5.9 10.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.3 0.1 1.9 0.0 7.7 0.0 2.3 Intersection Summarl HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.0 HCM 2010 LOS C ATE Synchro 9 Report CUMULATIVE+ PROJECT AIVI PEAK HOUR 3: HALCYON 81 FAIR OAKS HCM 20·10 Signalized Intersection Summary ...,. ~ ..... 'f ~ -\... ~ t I"' \.. + .,.., Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' ti, ' + ' ' tti. ' tti. Traffic Volume (veh/h) 84 173 32 115 ·132 '161 25 463 135 170 221 52 Future Volume (veh/h) 84 173 32 115 132 161 25 463 135 170 221 52 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pb T) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i .00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln "1863 1863 1900 1863 i863 1863 "1863 1863 ·1900 "1863 "1863 ·1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 109 225 42 149 171 209 32 601 175 221 287 68 Adj No. of Lanes 1 ·1 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 139 293 55 186 406 345 58 826 240 264 1200 280 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.31 0.31 0.15 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1527 285 1774 1863 1583 1774 2707 787 1774 2850 665 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 109 0 267 149 171 209 32 392 384 221 176 179 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1812 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1724 1774 1770 1745 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 0.0 i0.1 5.9 . 5.7 8.6 1.3 14.3 14.3 8.7 4.6 4.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 0.0 10.1 5.9 5.7 8.6 1.3 14.3 14.3 8.7 4.6 4.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.38 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 139 0 347 186 406 345 58 540 526 264 745 735 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.00 0.77 0.80 0.42 0.61 0.55 0.73 0.73 0.84 0.24 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 189 0 452 234 511 435 140 540 526 308 745 735 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.6 0.0 27.6 31.5 24.3 25.4 34.3 22.4 22.4 29.9 13.4 13.5 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 13.7 0.0 5.8 14.4 0.7 1.7 7.9 8.3 8.6 16.2 0.7 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %le BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 0.0 5.6 3.6 3.0 3.9 0.8 8.2 8.1 5.4 2.4 2.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.3 0.0 33.5 45.9 25.0 27.1 42.2 30.7 31.0 46.0 14.2 14.3 LnGr~ LOS D C D C C D C C D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 376 529 808 576 Approach Delay, s/veh 37.2 31.7 31.3 26.4 Approach LOS D C C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.2 26.5 12.1 18.3 6.9 34.9 10.2 20.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.5 22.0 9.5 18.0 5.7 28.8 7.7 19.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 10.7 16.3 7.9 12.1 3.3 6.8 6.4 10.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.2 0.1 1.8 0.0 7.6 0.0 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.1 HCM 2010 LOS C ATE Synchro 9 Report EXISTING Pl!VI PEAi< HOW~ 3: HALCYON (~ FAIR OAKS HCM 20·10 Signalized Intersection Summary ~~~-------~~ .,J-=+ ..... -("" ~ '-~ t I'" \.. ! ,.I Movement ESL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations i, ~ ' t rr ' t~ 1llj t~ Traffic Volume (veh/h) 67 111 22 160 175 161 23 409 98 ·129 388 58 Future Volume (veh/h) 67 111 22 160 175 161 23 409 98 129 388 58 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 6 "16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1827 "!827 1900 1827 1827 1827 1827 ·/827 1900 1827 1827 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 123 24 178 194 179 26 454 109 143 431 64 Adj No. of l.anes 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 104 217 42 221 389 330 51 885 211 180 1190 176 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.32 0.32 0.-10 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1740 1486 290 1740 1827 1553 1740 2782 663 1740 3035 448 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 0 147 178 194 179 26 282 281 143 245 250 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1740 0 1776 1740 1827 1553 1740 1736 1710 1740 1736 1748 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.0 4.5 5.9 5.5 6.0 0.9 7.8 7.9 4.7 5.9 6.0 Cycle Q Clear(g __ c), s 2.5 0.0 4.5 5.9 5.5 6.0 0.9 7.8 7.9 4.7 5.9 6.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.16 i.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.26 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 104 0 259 221 389 330 51 552 544 180 680 685 V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.00 0.57 0.81 0.50 0.54 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.80 0.36 0.36 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 216 0 544 252 597 507 160 552 544 201 680 685 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.1 0.0 23.4 25.0 20.4 20.6 28.1 16.3 16.4 25.8 12.7 12.7 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 8.7 0.0 2.0 15.7 1.0 1.4 7.6 3.4 3.5 17.8 1.5 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.0 2.3 3.8 2.9 2.7 0.5 4.2 4.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.9 0.0 25.3 40.6 21.4 22.0 35.7 19.7 19.8 43.6 14.1 14.2 LnGr~ LOS D C D C C D B B D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 221 551 589 638 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.9 27.8 20.5 20.8 Approach LOS C C C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.6 23.2 12.0 13.1 6.2 27.5 8.0 17.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.8 18.7 8.5 18.0 5.4 20.1 7.3 19.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+/1 ), s 6.7 9.9 7.9 6.5 2.9 8.0 4.5 8.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.0 2.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 2.0 Intersection Summar~ HCM 2010 Ctr! Delay 23.5 HCM 2010 LOS C ATE Synchro 9 Report EXiiSTil\lG + PRO,H::CT PM PE.AK HOUR 3: HALCYON 8, FAIR OAKS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary -_-,~~~~ ~ ~ 't f ~-...... ~ t I" \.. ! ""' Movement ESL EBT EBA WBL WBT WBA NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBA Lane Configurations ~ ts, ~ t f ~ tfs. , tfs. Traffic Volume (veh/h) 69 112 25 160 177 162 27 409 98 130 388 60 Future Volume (veh/h) 69 112 25 160 177 162 27 409 98 130 388 60 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A__pb T) "1.00 -1.00 ·1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1827 '1827 1900 1827 "1827 1827 i827 "1827 1900 1827 1827 ·1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 124 28 178 197 180 30 454 109 144 431 67 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 -1 2 0 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 106 215 48 220 392 333 57 880 210 181 1168 180 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 1740 1443 326 1740 1827 1553 1740 2782 663 1740 3015 466 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 77 0 152 178 197 180 30 282 281 144 247 251 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1740 0 1769 1740 1827 1553 1740 1736 1710 1740 1736 1745 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 0.0 4.7 5.9 5.6 6.1 i .0 7.8 8.0 4.8 6.0 6.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 0.0 4.7 5.9 5.6 6.1 1.0 7.8 8.0 4.8 6.0 6.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.18 1 .00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.27 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 106 0 263 220 392 333 57 549 541 181 672 676 V/C Ratio(X) 0.73 0.00 0.58 0.81 0.50 0.54 0.52 0.51 0.52 0.80 0.37 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 218 0 539 250 590 502 162 549 541 200 672 676 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.3 0.0 23.4 25.1 20.4 20.6 28.1 16.5 16.5 25.9 12.9 13.0 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 9.2 0.0 2.0 15.9 1.0 1.4 7.2 3.4 3.5 18.2 1.5 1.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 0.0 2.5 3.8 2.9 2.7 0.6 4.3 4.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.5 0.0 25.4 41.0 21.4 22.0 35.4 19.9 20.1 44.1 14.5 14.5 LnGr~ LOS D C D C C D B C D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 229 555 593 642 Approach Delay, s/veh 29.2 27.9 20.8 21.1 Approach LOS C C C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+ Y +Re), s 10.6 23.2 12.0 13.3 6.4 27.4 8.1 17.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.8 18.7 8.5 18.0 5.5 20.0 7.4 19.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 6.8 10.0 7.9 6.7 3.0 8.1 4.6 8.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.2 0.0 2.1 0.0 5.1 0.0 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 23.8 HCM 2010 LOS C ATE Synchro 9 Report EXISTi1NG PM PEAK HOUR Baseline 6/8/20i 8 ~----~=------=~~,__.-!'!': ____ ~~-~ Intersection: 3: HALCYON 8, FAIR OAKS Movement EB EB WB WB WB Directions Served L TR L T R Ma)(imum Queue (ft) 57 74 169 197 89 Average Queue (ft) 48 57 87 109 51 95th Queue (ft) 63 83 163 221 87 Link Distance (ft) 707 809 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) ·150 150 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 6 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 20 8 NB NB NB L T TR 51 mo ·147 22 115 92 55 i99 156 546 546 150 5 1 SB L ·126 82 140 ·150 SB SB T TR 66 86 48 69 74 111 966 966 SimTraffic Report Page 1 + Baseline Intersection: 3: HALCYON 8, FAIR OAKS Movement EB EB WB WB WB Directions Served L TR L T R Maximum Queue (fl) 57 91 155 96 53 Average Queue (ft) 33 77 127 72 39 95th Queue (ft) 65 89 160 96 58 Link Distance (ft) 707 809 Upstream BIi< Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150 ·150 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 NB NB NB L T TR 31 205 133 9 143 82 29 212 149 546 546 150 4 1 SB L 89 64 89 ·150 6/8/2018 SB SB T TR 108 49 112 966 ·152 77 160 966 SimTraffic Report Page 1 CUMULATIVE PM PEAi< HOUR 3: HALCYON 8( FAIR OAKS HCM 20·10 Signalized Intersection Summary ~~,_.~ ...> -+ ,. -("" •-'-~ t I" \. J, ...,' Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ~ ti, 'i t l' ~ tti, 'i tti, Traffic Volume (veh/h) 73 116 24 173 "188 212 27 410 -J03 150 388 76 Future Volume (veh/h) 73 116 24 173 188 212 27 410 103 150 388 76 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 6 16 Initial Q (Ob), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 'l.00 1.00 ·1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1827 1827 ·1900 1827 1827 1827 1827 1827 1900 '1827 '1827 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 81 129 27 192 209 236 30 456 114 167 431 84 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 ., 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 107 224 47 234 413 351 57 818 203 207 1112 215 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.03 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1740 1466 307 1740 1827 1553 1740 2757 684 1740 2902 562 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 81 0 156 192 209 236 30 286 284 167 257 258 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1740 0 1773 1740 1827 1553 1740 1736 1706 1740 1736 1728 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.8 0.0 5.0 6.5 6.1 8.4 1.0 8.4 8.5 5.7 6.5 6.6 Cycle Q Clear(g __ c), s 2.8 0.0 5.0 6.5 6.1 8.4 1.0 8.4 8.5 5.7 6.5 6.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.32 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 107 0 271 234 413 351 57 515 506 207 665 662 VIC Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.58 0.82 0.51 0.67 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.81 0.39 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 172 0 526 244 618 525 158 515 506 215 665 662 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(!) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.0 0.0 23.9 25.5 20.5 21.4 28.9 17.9 18.0 26.0 13.5 13.6 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 10.4 0.0 1.9 18.8 1.0 2.2 7.4 4.3 4.4 19.3 1.7 1.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfO(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 2.6 4.3 3.1 3.8 0.6 4.6 4.7 3.8 3.4 3.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.4 0.0 25.8 44.3 21.5 23.7 36.2 22.2 22.4 45.3 15.2 15.3 LnGr~ LOS D C D C C D C C D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 237 637 600 682 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.1 29.2 23.0 22.6 Approach LOS C C C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.7 22.5 12.7 13.8 6.5 27.7 8.2 18.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 18.0 8.5 18.0 5.5 20.0 6.0 20.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 7.7 10.5 8.5 7.0 3.0 8.6 4.8 10.4 Green Ext Time (p __ c), s 0.0 3.8 0.0 2.3 0.0 5.1 0.0 2.2 Intersection Summa!Y HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25.5 HCM 2010 LOS C ATE Synchro 9 Report CUMULATIVE + PROJECT P!VI PEAK HOUR 3: HALCYON 8, FAIR OAKS HCM 20·10 Signalized Intersection Summary -~~~ - .,.,. ~ .... -f ~ 4.... ~ t I" \.. J, .,, Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ' ti> , t ff , tti. , tti. Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 ·117 27 173 190 213 31 410 103 151 388 78 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 117 27 173 190 213 31 410 103 151 388 78 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) i.00 1.00 i.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1827 1827 1900 1827 "1827 1827 1827 ·1827 1900 1827 '1827 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 83 130 30 192 211 237 34 456 114 168 431 87 Adj No.of Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Percent Heavy Veh, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Cap, veh/h 108 222 51 234 416 353 62 817 203 208 1095 220 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.38 0.38 Sat Flow, veh/h 1740 1437 332 1740 1827 1553 1740 2757 684 1740 2883 578 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 83 0 160 192 211 237 34 286 284 168 258 260 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1740 0 1768 1740 1827 1553 1740 1736 1706 1740 1736 1725 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 0.0 5.1 6.6 6.2 8.5 1.2 8.5 8.6 5.7 6.6 6.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 0.0 5.1 6.6 6.2 8.5 1.2 8.5 8.6 5.7 6.6 6.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 0.33 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 108 0 274 234 416 353 62 514 506 208 659 655 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.00 0.58 0.82 0.51 0.67 0.54 0.56 0.56 0.81 0.39 0.40 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 174 0 521 239 607 516 162 514 506 214 659 655 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.2 0.0 24.0 25.7 20.6 21.5 29.0 18.1 18.1 26.2 13.8 13.8 Iner Delay (d2), s/veh 11.0 0.0 2.0 19.4 1.0 2.2 7.2 4.3 4.5 19.7 1.7 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 0.0 2.6 4.4 3.2 3.8 0.7 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.5 3.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.2 0.0 26.0 45.1 21 .6 23.7 36.1 22.4 22.6 45.9 15.5 15.6 LnGr~ LOS D C D C C D C C D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 243 640 604 686 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.5 29.4 23.3 23.0 Approach LOS C C C C Timer 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.8 22.6 12.7 14.0 6.7 27.7 8.3 18.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.5 18.1 8.4 18.0 5.7 19.9 6.1 20.3 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1 ), s 7.7 10.6 8.6 7.1 3.2 8.7 4.9 10.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.9 0.0 2.3 0.0 5.1 0.0 2.2 Intersection Summar~ HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25.8 HCM 2010 LOS C ATE Synchro 9 Report STONE: Manuf:Boral Cultured Stone Style: Country Ledgestone Color: Caramel ACCENT COLOR: Manuf:Sherwin Williams Paint Color: Garnet (SW 2801) TRIM: Manuf:Sherwin Williams Paint Color:Pewter Green (SW 6208) WINDOWS: Manuf:Milgard Style:Montecito Vinyl Color:Sand STUCCO: Manuf:Merlex Color:French Toast (P 18) ROOF: Manuf:CertainTeed Style: Presidential Shake TL Color:Aged Bark Note: Colors and material are representative. Refer to manufacturer for true color and material sample. Date:6/5/18 Sheet No.: H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.15 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S TATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI Drawn By:KDJNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBUILDING 1 COLOR & MATERIALS P6.0 Job:Halcyon PROJECT: FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIR OAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 569 Higuera Street Suite A San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 SHEET: ATTACHMENT 6 WINDOWS: Manuf:Milgard Style:Montecito Vinyl Color:Sand ROOF: Manuf:CertainTeed Style:Presidential Shake TL Color:Aged Bark Note: Colors and material are representative. Refer to manufacturer for true color and material sample. ACCENT COLOR: Manuf:Sherwin Williams Paint Color:Raisen (SW 7630) TRIM: Manuf:Sherwin Williams Paint Color:Griffen (SW 7026) STUCCO: Manuf:Merlex Color:Desert Beige (P 174) Date:6/5/18 Sheet No.: H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.15 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S TATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI Drawn By:KDJNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBUILDING 2 COLOR & MATERIALS P6.1 Job:Halcyon PROJECT: FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIR OAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S an L uis O bis p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 SHEET: ACCENT COLOR: Manuf:Sherwin Williams Paint Color:Spiced Cider (SW 7702) TRIM: Manuf:Sherwin Williams Paint Color:Greek Villa (SW 7551) WINDOWS: Manuf:Milgard Style:Montecito Vinyl Color:Sand STUCCO: Manuf:Merlex Color:Ironstone (P810) ROOF: Manuf:CertainTeed Style:Presidential Shake TL Color:Aged Bark Note: Colors and material are representative. Refer to manufacturer for true color and material sample. Date:6/5/18 Sheet No.: H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.15 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S TATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI Drawn By:KDJNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBUILDING 3 COLOR & MATERIALS P6.2 Job:Halcyon PROJECT: FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIR OAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S an L uis O bis p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 SHEET: ACCENT COLOR: Manuf:Sherwin Williams Paint Color:Raisen (SW 7630) TRIM: Manuf:Sherwin Williams Paint Color:Griffen (SW 7026) WINDOWS: Manuf:Milgard Style:Montecito Vinyl Color:Sand STUCCO: Manuf:Merlex Color:Desert Beige (P 174) ROOF: Manuf:CertainTeed Style:Presidential Shake TL Color:Aged Bark Date:6/5/18 Sheet No.: H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.15 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S TATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI Drawn By:KDJNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBUILDING 4 COLOR & MATERIALS P6.3 Job:Halcyon PROJECT: FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIR OAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S an L uis O bis p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 SHEET: Note: Colors and material are representative. Refer to manufacturer for true color and material sample. STONE: Manuf:Boral Cultured Stone Style:Country Ledgestone Color:Caramel ACCENT COLOR: Manuf:Sherwin Williams Paint Color:Garnet (SW 2801) TRIM: Manuf:Sherwin Williams Paint Color:Retreat (SW 6207) WINDOWS: Manuf:Milgard Style:Montecito Vinyl Color:Sand STUCCO: Manuf:Merlex Color:Bisque (P141) ROOF: Manuf:CertainTeed Style:Presidential Shake TL Color:Aged Bark Date:6/5/18 Sheet No.: H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.15 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S TATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI Drawn By:KDJNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONBUILDING 5 COLOR & MATERIALS P6.4 Job:Halcyon PROJECT: FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIR OAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S an L uis O bis p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 SHEET: Note: Colors and material are representative. Refer to manufacturer for true color and material sample. Note: Colors and material are representative. Refer to manufacturer for true color and material sample. COLORATION IMAGINATION ✭ ENERGY STAR® Qualied SIGNATURE ® 200 STANDARD COLORS SIGNATURE ® 300 METALLIC ** Minimum quantities and/or extended lead times required. Please inquire. Metallic coatings are directional. Panels and trim must be installed oriented in the same direction to prevent perceived shade variances. Siliconized PolyesterPolar White is a Straight Polyester. BURNISHED SLATE ✭ SR .34 SRI 36 POLAR WHITE ✭ SR .58 SRI 68 CHARCOAL GRAY ✭ SR .38 SRI 41 LIGHT STONE ✭ SR .56 SRI 66 RUSTIC RED ✭ SR .37 SRI 39 KOKO BROWN ✭ SR .35 SRI 37 FERN GREEN ✭ SR .29 SRI 29 COAL BLACK ✭ SR .34 SRI 35 HAWAIIAN BLUE** ✭ SR .31 SRI 31 SOLAR WHITE** ✭ SR .71 SRI 86 COPPER METALLIC** ✭ SR .46 SRI 51 SILVER METALLIC ✭ SR .52 SRI 58 ACCENT COLOR: Manuf:Sherwin Williams Paint Color:Simple White (SW7021) TRIM: Manuf:Sherwin Williams Paint Color:Roycroft Copper Red (SW 2839) WINDOWS: Manuf:Milgard Style:Montecito Vinyl Color:Espresso ROOF: Manuf:MBCI Style:Standing Seam Metal Color:Koko Brown Date:6/5/18 Sheet No.: H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.15 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S TATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI Drawn By:KDJNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONCOFFEE SHOP COLOR & MATERIALS P6.5 Job:Halcyon PROJECT: FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIR OAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S an L uis O bis p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 SHEET: STUCCO: Manuf:Merlex Color:Desert Beige (P 174) INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 1 of 50 INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Conditional Use Permit 16-007 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16-002 362-382 South Halcyon Road City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, California August 2018 ATTACHMENT 7 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 2 of 50 Project: Conditional Use Permit 16-007 & Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16-002 Lead Agency: City of Arroyo Grande Document Availability:  City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420  http://www.arroyogrande.org/ Project Description: The proposed project is a mixed-use project including a 506 square-foot neighborhood coffee shop with 388 square-foot outdoor patio, and 22 residential units totaling 30.5 total density equivalent units located within the Office Mixed-Use (OMU) zone located at 362-382 S. Halcyon Road, Arroyo Grande (APNs: 007-204-036, -037, -026, and -031). The proposed project includes the subdivision of five (5) existing lots into 22 residential town home parcels ranging in size from 1,935 square-feet to 5,160 square-feet and one 6,450 square foot commercial parcel. The structures are proposed to be 2-stories (27.5 feet) in height. A total of sixty-three (63) parking spaces are provided for the project. Summary Document Preparation: Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Arroyo Grande (the City) has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project and finds that these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City. The City, as lead agency, also confirms that the project mitigation measures detailed in these documents are feasible and will be implemented as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. _________________________________ _____ __________________ Reviewed by: Teresa McClish, AICP Date Community Development Director _________________________________ ____________ Prepared by: Matthew Downing, AICP Date Planning Manager INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 3 of 50 Table of Contents: 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction and Regulatory Guidance..................................................................................................... 5 Lead Agency .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Purpose and Document Organization ....................................................................................................... 5 Summary of Findings................................................................................................................................. 6 Revisions ................................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Project Description .................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 7 Project Location ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Background and Need for Project ............................................................................................................. 8 Project Description.................................................................................................................................... 8 Required Public Agency Approvals ........................................................................................................... 9 Related Projects ........................................................................................................................................ 9 3. Environmental Checklist ......................................................................................................................... 10 Project Information ................................................................................................................................. 10 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................................... 11 Determination ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................... 12 4. Environmental Issues .............................................................................................................................. 13 I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................. 13 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................................... 13 III. Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 15 IV. Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................... 19 V. Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 21 VI. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................... 22 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................... 24 VIII Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................... 27 IX Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 28 X. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................................ 30 XI. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................. 31 XII. Noise ................................................................................................................................................. 31 XIII. Population and Housing ................................................................................................................... 33 XIV. Public Services ................................................................................................................................. 33 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 4 of 50 XV. Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 35 XVI. Transportation/Traffic ..................................................................................................................... 36 XVII. Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 37 XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................................... 38 5. Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................................ 40 6. References .............................................................................................................................................. 41 7. Summary of Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 42 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 5 of 50 1. Introduction Introduction and Regulatory Guidance The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the City of Arroyo Grande (the City) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15000 et seq. An Initial Study is conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment [CEQA Guidelines §15063(a)]. If there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064(a). However, if the lead agency determines that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant mitigate the potentially significant effects to a less-than-significant level, a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared instead of an EIR [CEQA Guidelines §15070(b)]. The lead agency prepares a written statement describing the reasons a proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why an EIR need not be prepared. This IS/MND conforms to the content requirements under CEQA Guidelines §15071. Lead Agency The lead agency is the public agency with primary approval authority over the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15051(b)(1), "the lead agency will normally be an agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose." The lead agency for the proposed project is the City of Arroyo Grande. The contact person for the lead agency is: Matthew Downing, AICP Planning Manager City of Arroyo Grande 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 T: (805) 473-5420 E: mdowning@arroyogrande.org Purpose and Document Organization The purpose of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. Mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the project to eliminate any potentially significant impacts or reduce them to a less-than-significant level. This document is organized as follows: 1. Introduction This chapter provides an introduction to the project and describes the purpose and organization of this document. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 6 of 50 2. Project Description This chapter describes the background and scope of the project, 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. References This chapter identifies the references and sources used in the preparation of this IS/MND. It also provides a list of those involved in the preparation of this document. 7. Summary of Mitigation Measures This chapter summarizes the mitigation measures incorporated into the project as a result of the Initial Study. Summary of Findings Section 3 of this document contains the Environmental (Initial Study) Checklist that identifies the potential environmental impacts (by environmental issue) and a brief discussion of each impact resulting from implementation of the proposed project. In accordance with §15064(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be prepared if the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment after the inclusion of mitigation measures in the project. Based on the available project information and the environmental analysis presented in this document, there is no substantial evidence that, after the incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment. It is proposed that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. Revisions None. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 7 of 50 2. Project Description Introduction This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the City of Arroyo Grande (the City) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The proposed project is a mixed-use project including a 506 square-foot neighborhood coffee shop with 388 square-foot outdoor patio, and 22 residential units totaling 30.5 total density equivalent units located within the Office Mixed-Use (OMU) zone located at 362-382 S. Halcyon Road, Arroyo Grande (APNs: 007-204-036, -037, -026, and -031). The proposed project includes the subdivision of five (5) existing lots into 22 residential town home parcels ranging in size from 1,935 square-feet to 5,160 square-feet and one 6,450 square foot commercial parcel. The structures are proposed to be 2-stories (27.5 feet) in height. A total of sixty-three (63) parking spaces are provided for the project. Project Location The project site is located within the City of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. The project site is bounded by S. Halcyon Road to the east and Fair Oaks Avenue to the south as shown in the map below. Area Intentionally Left Blank INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 8 of 50 Background and Need for Project The City’s General Plan and Development Code provide for a mix of commercial uses in the Office Mixed-Use zoning district of Arroyo Grande. The proposed project will subdivide and develop the property with 22 residential townhomes for sale in the community and a small neighborhood coffee shop. Project Description VTTM 16-002 The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map will subdivide the existing five (5) parcels into 22 residential townhome parcels and one (1) commercial parcel. Access to the site will be provided via common driveways, with one (1) accessed from Halcyon Road, and a second accessed from Fair Oaks Avenue. Remaining site improvements and parking will be jointly managed and maintained through a homeowner’s association. PROJECT SITE Arroyo Grande Community Hospital Harloe Elementary School INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 9 of 50 CUP 16-007 A Conditional Use Permit is required for the small lot, mixed use subdivision, in accordance with the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code. The proposed Conditional Use Permit will allow for the construction of 22 townhomes and the neighborhood coffee shop. Required Public Agency Approvals No other public agency approvals are required for the proposed project. Related Projects The proposed project is not related to any other past, present, or future planned projects. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 10 of 50 3. Environmental Checklist Project Information Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 16-007 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16-002 Lead Agency Name & Address: City of Arroyo Grande 300 East Brach Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Contact Person & Telephone Number: Matthew Downing, AICP Planning Manager (805) 473-5420 Project Location: 362-382 S. Halcyon Road, Arroyo Grande, California Project Sponsor Name & Address: Stacy Bromley 214 Whitley Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 General Plan Designation: Mixed-Use (MU) Zoning: Office Mixed-Use (OMU) Description of Project: Refer to page 8 Surrounding Land Uses & Setting: The project site is surrounded by commercial uses to the north, residential uses to the west, Harloe Elementary School to the south, and Arroyo Grande Community Hospital to the east Approval Required from Other Public Agencies: None INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 11 of 50 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 Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that, although the original scope of the proposed project COULD have had a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect because revisions/mitigations to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or its functional equivalent will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment. However, at least one impact has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document, pursuant to applicable legal standards, and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, as described in the report's attachments. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the impacts not sufficiently addressed in previous documents. I find that, although the proposed project could have had a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or mitigated, pursuant to an earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, all impacts have been avoided or mitigated to a less-than- significant level and no further action is required. _________________________________ ________________________________ Matthew Downing, AICP Date Planning Manager INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 12 of 50 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers, except "No Impact", that are adequately supported by the information sources cited. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact does not apply to the project being evaluated (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on general or project-specific factors (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must consider the whole of the project-related effects, both direct and indirect, including off-site, cumulative, construction, and operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether that impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate when there is sufficient evidence that a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change may occur in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project that cannot be mitigated below a level of significance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 4. A "Mitigated Negative Declaration" (Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures, prior to declaration of project approval, has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR (including a General Plan) or Negative Declaration [CCR, Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, § 15063(c)(3)(D)]. References to an earlier analysis should: a) Identify the earlier analysis and state where it is available for review. b) Indicate which effects from the environmental checklist were adequately analyzed in the earlier document, pursuant to applicable legal standards, and whether these effects were adequately addressed by mitigation measures included in that analysis. c) Describe the mitigation measures in this document that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and indicate to what extent they address site-specific conditions for this project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate references to information sources for potential impacts into the checklist or appendix (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances, biological assessments). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should include an indication of the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. A source list should be appended to this document. Sources used or individuals contacted should be listed in the source list and cited in the discussion. 8. Explanation(s) of each issue should identify: a) the criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate the significance of the impact addressed by each question; and b) the mitigation measures, if any, prescribed to reduce the impact below the level of significance. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 13 of 50 4. Environmental Issues I. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The project site is currently partially developed but in a blighted condition. The site is relatively flat with typical residential vegetation and other ruderal species, with frontages on S. Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion a-b: The project site and its vicinity do not include scenic vistas nor does it include other scenic resources. No impact. c: The project site is currently in a blighted condition. Although construction of the project would impact the visual appearance of the site, the site would be substantially cleaned up and the blighted conditions remediated. Additionally, the City’s Architectural Review Committee has considered the project’s architecture, with special attention given to the massing and exterior materials and colors, and found that the proposed development is appropriate for the parcel and the proposed use. Less than significant. d: The project would include new light sources by way of exterior building lights and potential signage for the coffee shop. However, these new light sources will be shielded, downcast, and within appropriate illumination levels, in compliance with the Development Code. Therefore, any impact associated with a new source of light would be minimal. Less than significant. II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Environmental Setting The California Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) classify agricultural lands into five (5) 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 site is classified as “Urban INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 14 of 50 and Built-Up Land” based on the California Department of Conservation’s (CDOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) and San Luis Obispo County Important Farmland Map (CDOC 2014). 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. 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. The project site is not designated or zoned for ag use nor is it near land zoned for ag 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. Discussion a-e: No impacts. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 15 of 50 III. Air Quality Environmental Setting 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 Ocean 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 (APCD 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. The project site is not located within an area identified as having a potential for Naturally Occuring Asbestos (NOA) to occur based on the APCD’s NOA Map (APCD 2017). Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. The CARB has identified the following typical groups who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14 years of age, 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 to the south of the project site. The proposed project will construct 22 townhomes and a small neighborhood coffee shop, which individually does not exceed the threshold of significance in the APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2012). However, given that the site is in close proximity to sensitive receptors (residential development, hospital, elementary school), mitigation is required to reduce potential air quality impacts during construction. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 16 of 50 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-d: Construction and operational impacts of the proposed project will likely be less than significant when typical mitigation measures are included in the project. The proposed project will also generate short-term emissions during construction. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Less than significant with mitigation MM AQ-1: On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for o peration on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:  Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location.  Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater that 5 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area. MM AQ-2: Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. MM AQ-3: Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the State’s 5-minute idling limit. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 17 of 50 MM AQ-4: The project shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (adjacent residential development):  Staging at queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;  Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;  Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and  Signs that specify no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site. MM AQ-5: The project shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage nitrogen oxide (NOX), reactive organic cases (ROG), and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions:  Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;  Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road);  Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off- road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation;  Use on-raod heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;  Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligibile by proving alternative compliance;  Electrify equipment when feasible;  Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and  Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel. MM AQ-6: The project shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402):  Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;  Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required when wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used;  All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed;  Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities;  Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be shown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established;  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; INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 18 of 50  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;  Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site;  All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23.114;  Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site;  Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible;  A listing of all required mitigation measures should be included on grading and building plans; and,  The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. MM AQ-7: Prior to the start of the project, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for equipment to be used during construction by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912. MM AQ-8: Burning of vegetative material on the development site shall be prohibited. MM AQ-9: Should hydrocarbon-contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APCD shall be notified within forty-eight (48) hours of such contaminated soil being discovered to determine if an APCD permit is required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered:  Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal.  Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six (6) inches of packed, uncontaminated soil or other TPH – non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate.  Covered piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted.  During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance.  Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil. MM AQ-10: The project shall implement a minimum of eight (8) Standard Mitigation Measures as stated in Table 3-5 of the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 19 of 50 MM AQ-11: Prior to any demolition at the site, the applicant shall obtain a Notification of Demolition and Renovation form approved by the APCD. MM AQ-12: Proposed truck routes shall be evaluated and selected to ensure routing patters have the least impact to residential dwellings and other sensitive receptors, such as schools, parks, day care centers, nursing homes, and hospitals. e: The proposed project would construct 22 new townhomes and a new 506 square foot neighborhood coffee shop. These uses are not classified as odor generating facilities within Table 3-3 of the SLO County APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Therefore, the proposed project would not be anticipated to create significant levels of odors under CEQA. Less than significant IV. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The site is currently partially developed with a single-family residence and has a number of existing trees, some of which are proposed to be removed as part of the project. Ground cover at the site is a mixture of ruderal plants and weeds, with some residential landscaping on those portions previously developed with housing. The site is not located in or near a creek or tributary 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 Game 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 Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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? INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 20 of 50 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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-d & f: No impacts. e: There are two trees on site, one 36” Coast Live Oak and one 24” Magnolia, that are proposed to remain. Several other trees, including five (5) Coast Live Oak trees with diameters that range from 10” to 60”, are proposed to be removed. Tree protections measures shall be in place prior to and during all construction activities. Removal of the remaining trees is allowed with an approved tree removal permit. Additionally, an arborist report prepared by Greenvale Tree Company (2017) was submitted that outlines the tree protection measure to ensure the safety of the trees proposed to remain on the site. Less than significant with mitigation MM BIO-1: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the arborist report by Greenvale Tree Company dated October 2017, in addition to Mitigations Measures MM BIO-2 through BIO-4. Where conflicts exist, the more restrictive shall apply. MM BIO-2: All trees to be retained shall be protected during construction, and shall be clearly identified on construction plans and marked in the field for preservation with highly visible construction fencing at a minimum around the dripline. A Tree Protection Zone equivalent to one foot (1’) of zone per one inch (1”) of tree diameter at breast height shall surround each tree. No construction activities such as grading, vehicle parking, or storage of materials shall be conducted within the tree protection zones. The fencing shall be installed prior to any site clearing or grading activities, and shall remain in place until construction is complete. The fence shall be a minimum of 4’ tall and supported by stakes at least every 10’ on center. Weatherproof signs shall be permanently posted on the fences, stating, at minimum, the following: “Tree Protection Zone. No personnel, materials, or vehicles allowed. Do not move or remove this fence.” MM BIO-3: Any trees intentionally or unintentionally killed or removed that are greater than or equal to two (2) inches diameter at breast height (DBH) shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. Replacement trees shall be limited to in-kind replacement of appropriate native tree species. All trees to be removed shall be clearly marked on construction plans and marked in the field with flagging or paint. MM BIO-4: Tree removals shall be scheduled to occur in the fall and winter (between September 15 and February 15), after fledging and before the initiation of the nesting season. If trees or vegetation 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 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 21 of 50 site. If active nests are observed, the contractor shall either: 1) wait for such nesting birds to fledge and leave the project site; 2) establish 100-foot exclusion zones until young have fledged; or 3) consult with the appropriate resource agencies for guidance prior to site disturbance. V. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting This section is largely based on the Phase I Archaeological Surface Survey prepared for the project (Environmental Consulting Services, 2017). The earliest inhabitants of Arroyo Grande Valley were the northern or Obispeno Chumash Indians. Given the long history of the Chumash occupying this region, many archaeological sites have been identified within the City limits, including sites within one-half mile of the project site. The property has been previously graded, making it less likely that cultural resources are present on the site. Nevertheless, isolated archaeological materials could still be present given the extensive history of Chumash Indians inhabiting this area. There are no historic buildings or structures on the project site. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion a: No impacts. b-d: Although the Phase I survey did not find evidence of significant cultural resources during the investigation, the survey report concluded that it is possible significant cultural resources could be buried below the surface, and therefore recommended an archaeological monitor be present during any excavation of native soil. Due to the project’s close proximity to a well know cultural site, a Native American monitor shall also be required. Less than significant with mitigation. MM CUL-1: An archaeological and Native American monitor shall be present during project related ground disturbing activities. A standard clause shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. MM CUL-2: If a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, and an archaeological and/or Native American monitor is not present, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 22 of 50 notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a qualified archaeologist, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s), as necessary, 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 unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA 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, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s) as necessary, 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 CCIC, located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. MM CUL-3: If human remains are encountered during earth-disturbing activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that all work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and that the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will designate and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. 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 site encompasses an urban area that is generally flat within the city of Arroyo Grande at elevations ranging from 75 to 100 feet above mean sea level. 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 main trace of the Wilmar Avenue Fault is the closest fault to the project site. According to the City’s General Plan, the Wilmar Avenue Fault is a potentially active fault adjacent to the City of Arroyo Grande. The Wilmar Avenue Fault is exposed in a sea cliff in Pismo Beach, and the buried trace of the fault is INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 23 of 50 inferred to strike northwest-southeast parallel and adjacent to US 101 beneath portions of Arroyo Grande. This potentially active fault poses a moderate potential fault rupture hazard to the City. Near surface soils generally consist of dark brown poorly graded sand. 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? 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: A Geotechnical Engineering Report of the project site was performed by Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. (2017). This investigation concluded that the project site is suitable for the proposed development if the recommendations contained within the report are implemented. Additionally, compliance with appropriate building and engineering standards would typically indicate that risks to people and structures, including those related to unstable soil conditions, were properly safeguarded against. Less than significant with mitigation. MM GEO-1: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical study prepared for the project by Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. dated November 2017. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 24 of 50 e: The project does not propose installation of any septic disposal systems. No impact. 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), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. These are most commonly emitted through the burning of fossil fuels (i.e., 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. 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 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: A 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. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 25 of 50 The City of Arroyo Grande adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) on November 26, 2013. The City’s CAP is a long-range plan to reduce GHG emissions from City government operations and community activities within Arroyo Grande and prepare for the anticipated effects of climate change. To achieve the state- recommended target of 15% below 2005 levels (71,739 metric tons of CO2 equivalent [MT CO2e]) by 2020 and prepare for the anticipated effects of climate change, the CAP identifies climate action measures. Collectively, the measures identified in the CAP have the potential to reduce GHG emissions within Arroyo Grande by 5,371 MT CO2e (17% below the 2005 baseline) by 2020 and meet the reduction target. For most projects, the Bright-Line Threshold of 1,150 MT CO2e per year (MT CO2e/yr) will be the most applicable threshold. 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 CARB (or other regulatory agencies) and will be “regulated” by CARB, the federal government, or other entities. For example, new vehicles will be subject to increased fuel economy standards and emission reductions, large and small appliances will be subject to stricter emissions standards, and energy delivered to consumers will increasingly come from renewable sources. Other programs that are intended to reduce the overall GHG emissions include Low Carbon Fuel Standards, Renewable Portfolio standards, and the Clean Car standards. As a result, even the emissions that result from projects that produce fewer emissions than the threshold will be subject to emission reductions. Under CEQA, an individual project’s GHG emissions will generally not result in direct significant impacts. This is because the climate change issue is global in nature. However, an individual project could be found to contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact. Projects that have GHG emissions above the noted thresholds may be considered cumulatively considerable and require mitigation. 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: The San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has adopted GHG significance thresholds. These thresholds are based on AB 32 GHG emission reduction goals, which take into consideration the emission reduction strategies outlined in the Air Resource Board’s Scoping Plan. The GHG significance thresholds include one (1) qualitative threshold and two (2) quantitative thresholds options for evaluation of operational GHG emissions. The qualitative threshold option is based on a consistency analysis in comparison to a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, or equitably similar adopted policies, ordinances and programs. If a project complies with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy that is specifically applicable to the project, then the project would be considered less than INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 26 of 50 significant. The City’s Climate Action Plan was developed to be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) to mitigate emissions and climate change impacts and therefore se rves as a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy for the City. As previously stated, under CEQA, an individual project’s GHG emissions will generally not result in direct significant impacts because the climate change issue is global in nature. However, an individual project could be found to contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact. APCD has established mitigation measures to reduce project-level GHG emissions, which are consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Less than significant with mitigation. MM GHG-1: Prior to issuance of a building permit, all construction plans shall incorporate the following GHG-reducing measures where applicable:  Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools.  Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Design should provide 50% tree coverage within 10 years of construction using low ROG emitting, low maintenance native drought resistant trees.  No residential wood burning appliances.  Trusses for south-facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle dead weight loads of standard solar-heated water and photovoltaic panels. Roof design shall include sufficient south-facing roof surface, based on structures size and use, to accommodate adequate solar panels. For south facing roof pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the ideal average solar exposure shall be used.  Increase the building energy rating by 20% above Title 24 requirements. Measures used to reach the 20% rating cannot be double counted.  Plant drought tolerant, native shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer.  Utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient, recycled, and sustainable) available locally if possible.  Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems.  Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows (passive solar design).  Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water heaters.  Utilize built-in energy efficient appliances (i.e. Energy Star®).  Utilize double-paned windows.  Utilize energy efficient interior lighting.  Install energy-reducing programmable thermostats.  Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling needs.  Eliminate high water consumption landscape (e.g., plants and lawns) in residential design. Use native plants that do not require watering and are low ROG emitting.  Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks / lockers to service the residential units. b: The project as proposed does not conflict with any regional or local plans or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Less than significant. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 27 of 50 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, no clean-up sites are identified within the project area. The project site does not contain hazardous waste and there is no evidence of Underground Storage Tanks (UST), pits, sumps, clarifiers, or other potential hazardous material conditions that might impact the underlying soil or groundwater. Only household trash was observed at the site and consisted of plastic, glass, paper, and metal. 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? 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-h: No impacts. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 28 of 50 IX Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting The project site is partially developed, was previously graded in areas, and is covered with a mix of weeds and residential vegetation. Existing soils are dark brown poorly graded sand. The project site is located within the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed, a coastal basin with headwaters that originate at approximately 3,100 feet above mean sea level and eventually drain to the Pacific Ocean. Arroyo Grande Creek drains the 157-square-mile watershed and is the dominant surface water feature in the city. Flows in the creek are dominated by two factors: winter rains and Lopez Dam. Arroyo Grande Creek is included on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for elevated concentrations of fecal coliform and Escherichia coli (E. coli). The project site will be required to construct on site facilities to comply with post construction stormwater requirements. Low-impact development (LID) techniques are required to be implemented by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and will act to filter drainage water. 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? 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? INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 29 of 50 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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-e: Development of the previously partially developed property will result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface area. Post Construction Stormwater Requirements (PCSRs) have been developed for the project to provide the required retention volume and the usage of Low LID standards for a 95th percentile design storm event. These include biofiltration and underground clarifiers and storage tanks. Less than significant impact. b. The anticipated increase in water consumption by the project will result from the new residences and neighborhood coffee shop. The property is zoned commercial and water use projections and supplies for this property have already been included within the Water Master Plan. Less than significant impact. f: The State Water Quality Control Board requires municipalities, via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, to minimize negative impacts on aquatic ecosystems and degradation of water quality to the maximum extent practicable. Permittees must implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) that reduce pollutants in storm water runoff to the technology-based standard of Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) to protect water quality. The goals of post-construction BMPs are to prevent and control erosion and sedimentation, provide source control of potential pollutants, control and treat runoff, and protect wetlands and water quality resources. Post- construction BMPs are required to achieve stormwater quality standards through site-planning measures. Vegetative swales or other biofilters are recommended as the preferred choice for post - construction BMPs for all projects with suitable landscape areas, because these measures are relatively economical and require limited maintenance. For projects where landscape based treatment is impracticable, or insufficient to meet required design criteria, other post-construction BMPs should be incorporated. All post-construction BMPs must be maintained to operate effectively. Implementation of the BMPs listed below will reduce the potential impacts to water quality to a less than significant level. Less than significant with mitigation. MM HYD-1: The following BMPs shall be incorporated into the project:  Run-off Control. Maintain post-development peak runoff rate and average volume of runoff at levels that are similar to pre-development levels.  Labeling and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities. Label new storm drain inlets with “No Dumping – Drains to Ocean” to alert the public to the destination of stormwater and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 30 of 50  Common Area Litter Control. Implement a trash management and litter control program to prevent litter and debris from being carried to water bodies or the storm drain system.  Food Service Facilities. Design the food service facility to have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment that is connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area shall be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned.  Refuse Areas. Trash compactors, enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Install a self-contained drainage system that discharges to the sanitary sewer if water cannot be diverted from the areas.  Outdoor Storage Controls. Oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, and other chemicals stored outdoors must be in containers and protected from drainage by secondary containment structures such as berms, liners, vaults or roof covers and/or drain to the sanitary sewer system. Bulk materials stored outdoors must also be protected from drainage with berms and covers. Process equipment stored outdoors must be inspected for proper function and leaks, stored on impermeable surfaces and covered. Implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control and develop a spill cleanup plan for storage areas.  Cleaning, Maintenance and Processing Controls. Areas used for washing, steam cleaning, maintenance, repair or processing must have impermeable surfaces and containment berms, roof covers, recycled water wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer may require pretreatment systems and/or approval of an industrial waste discharge permit.  Street/parking lot Sweeping: Implement a program to regularly sweep streets, sidewalks and parking lots to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Debris resulting from pressure washing should be trapped and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Washwater containing any cleaning agent or degreaser should be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. g-j: No impact. X. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The project site is identified as Mixed-Use (MU) in the City’s Land Use Map and zoned Office Mixed-Use (OMU). The proposed type and scale of development of 22 townhome style residential units and an approximately 500 square foot neighborhood coffee shop will be consistent with both the MU land use category and OMU zoning district. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 31 of 50 Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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, b, c: No impacts. 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. XII. Noise Environmental Setting The Noise Element of the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan provides policy framework for addressing potential noise impacts. The Noise Element establishes maximum allowable noise exposure levels for transportation and non-transportation noise sources. The standards applied to transportation noise sources are based on average-daily noise exposure levels (in A-weighted decibels [dBA] Community Noise Equivalent Level/day-night equivalent level [CNEL/Ldn]). For noise-sensitive land uses exposed to non-transportation noise, the maximum allowable noise exposure standards vary depending on the duration of exposure and time of day. The Noise Element’s 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). Noise exposure throughout the City is primarily caused by automobile traffic on surface streets and US Highway 101, with intermittent noise generated by agricultural operations and construction activities. The site is surrounded by commercial INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 32 of 50 uses to the north and east, a residential neighborhood to the west, and Harloe Elementary School to the south. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate or expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards? b) Generate or expose people to excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels? c) Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project (above levels without the project)? d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project, in excess of noise levels existing without the project? e) Be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport? If so, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) Be in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion a, b, d: During construction of the proposed project, the use of construction vehicles and equipment has the potential to generate excessive levels of noise; however, this is only a temporary increase. All construction activities will comply with applicable City policies regarding noise. Less than significant impact with mitigation MM NOI-1: Construction activities shall be restricted to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. No construction shall occur on Saturday or Sunday. Equipment maintenance and servicing shall be confined to the same hours. To the greatest extent possible, grading and construction activities should occur during the middle of the day to minimize the potential for disturbance of noise to neighboring sensitive uses. MM NOI-2: All equipment will have sound-control devices that are no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. No equipment will have an unmuffled exhaust. MM NOI-3: Equipment mobilization areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas shall be placed in a central location as far from sensitive receptors as feasible. c: Additional noise will be created as a result of the commercial activity. However, the size of the coffee shop will limit the anticipated amount of activity at the site. Therefore, any impacts are anticipated to be Less than significant impacts. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 33 of 50 e, f: No impacts. XIII. Population and Housing Environmental Setting Arroyo Grande’s population has grown from 3,291 in 1960 to 17,252, based on the 2010 Census. At the time of the 2010 Census, there were 7,628 housing units in the City, 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 persons, 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. The project site is partially developed. The proposed project is an infill development. Existing dilapidated residences will be demolished and reconstructed with the proposed project. 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, b, c: Four (4) existing residences are located on the project site and would be demolished with the proposed project. Twenty-two (22) new residences will be constructed as part of the project. The new residences are within densities anticipated in the General Plan; therefore, Less Than Significant Impact. 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. The California Division of Forestry (CAL FIRE) provides fire protection to surrounding communities and areas, including the County of San Luis Obispo, as well as back up support in Arroyo Grande. CAL FIRE has four substations in the area, at INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 34 of 50 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 City of Arroyo Grande’s police station is adjacent to the project at 200 North Halcyon Road. 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 directly adjacent to the proposed project 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, Harloe Elementary School, is adjacent to the project area. Parks. Ten City parks, a 26-acre sports complex, and a community garden are located within the City of Arroyo Grande. There are no public parks within the project. Park facilities are further discussed in Section XV, Recreation, below. 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 proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the zoning code. The proposed project would be required to comply with the relevant provisions of the California Building Code and INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 35 of 50 Fire Code. The project would result in new residences at the subject property and the project would be required to pay appropriate fees for the project’s need for these important resources. The proposed project would not induce population growth outside of that anticipated in the General Plan and would not include a use that would significantly increase the demand for public services, which, in turn, would necessitate the construction of new facilities that would adversely affect the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 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. The project site is located less than one half mile (considered to be a comfortable walking distance) to both a creek path with active recreation equipment, as well as Harloe Elementary School. The project is not proposed in a location that will affect any trail, park, or other recreational resource. 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: The added residences will increase demand for City park and other recreation facilities. The payment of park development (Quimby) and impact fees for the development will adequately mitigate the project’s impact on recreational facilities. Less than significant with mitigation MM REC-1: The developer shall pay all applicable City park development and impact fees. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 36 of 50 XVI. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting This section is largely based on the Transportation Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) prepared for the project (Associated Tranportation Engineers 2017) and Updated TIAR (Associated Transportation Engineers 2018). The City’s street network consists of a hierarchy of street types which serve different functions. These include freeways, arterials, collectors, local streets and alleyways. Freeways route traffic through the community and are characterized by large traffic volumes and high- speed travel. Arterials link residential and commercial districts and serve shorter through traffic needs. Due to the heavier traffic on arterials, adjacent land uses are intended to be a mix of commercial and multi-family residential. Collector streets link neighborhoods to arterials and are not intended for through traffic but are nonetheless intended to move traffic in an efficient manner. Local streets are designed to serve only adjacent land uses and are intended to protect residents from through traffic impacts. Access to the project site is provided via two (2) driveways. The proposed project will develop one driveway on S. Halcyon Road (Driveway #1). Fair Oaks Avenue is proposed to have a separate full access driveway (Driveway #2). Driveways #1 and #2 appear to have adequate throat depth based upon geometrics of the project plans. 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) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 37 of 50 Discussion a, b: The Arroyo Grande General Plan Circulation Element specifies minimum level-of-service standards for all streets and intersections within the City’s jurisdiction. In section CT2, the following performance standards for acceptable LOS are established: 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. Consistent with City policies quoted above, LOS “C” has been taken as the general threshold for acceptable operations at study intersections and roadway segments maintained by the City, and LOS “C” has been taken as the general threshold for acceptable operations at study intersections. Separately from the proposed project, the City has been developing the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan. This will address multi-modal transportation along the Halcyon Corridor. The project TIAR indicates that while intersection operations will not be impacted as part of the proposed project, the southbound, westbound, and eastbound left-turn pockets will have vehicular queues that extend beyond the painted turn pockets. AS a result, these turn pockets should be extended to accommodate peak queues. However, due to the improvements and restriping associated with the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan, the applicant may pay pro-rata share contributions toward the City completing those improvements, which will adequately address the impact. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. MM TT-1: The developer shall either implement southbound, westbound, and eastbound turn pocket modifications outlined in the TIAR completed for the project (ATE 2018) or pay pro-rata share contributions for the improvements as identified in the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan. c-f: No impact XVII. Tribal Cultural Resources Environmental Setting As discussed in Section V. Cultural Resources, the earliest inhabitants of Arroyo Grande Valley were the northern or Obispeno Chumash Indians. Given the long history of the Chumash occupying this region, many archaeological sites have been identified within the City limits, including sites within one-half mile of the project site. The property has been previously graded, making it less likely that cultural resources are present on the site. Nevertheless, isolated archaeological materials could still be present given the extensive history of Chumash Indians inhabiting this area. On September 5, 2017, local Native American tribal groups that requested consultation under AB 52 were formally noticed that the application for the proposed project was deemed complete and invited INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 38 of 50 to provide consultation on the proposed project. The City received no correspondence from local Native American tribal groups related to this project. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in Subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Discussion a-i) No impact a-ii) As discussed in Section V. Cultural Resources, it is unlikely that Tribal Cultural Resources will be impacted due to previous grading on the site. However, as a precaution, if cultural resources are encountered during the construction process, development activities at the site shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has been employed to view and assess the discovery and prepare a mitigation plan. Therefore, potential impacts associated with tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation. MM TCR-1: Implement MM CUL-1 through CUL-3. XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The project site is located within the incorporated City Limits of Arroyo Grande. Utilities will be served by the City. 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, INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 39 of 50 diversion, and disposal of solid waste and is served by the Cold Canyon Landfill located approximately 4 miles north of Arroyo Grande 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? 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? a: Wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated by the South County Sanitation District, which has adequate capacity to accommodate the increase. Less than significant impact b, c: No impact d: The 2012 Water System Master Plan provides water demand factors based on land use. The project site is located in the Mixed-Use Land Use category, which has a demand factor of 1,788 gallons per day per acre (gpd/acre). The project site is 1.58 acres, which results in water demand of 2,825.04 gpd. This amount of demand is covered by existing resources in the projected build-out population of 20,000 residents. Additionally, a Water Use Analysis was performed by in Balance Green Consulting (2017) that identifies, through the use of Low Impact Development, water conserving fixtures, and water conserving landscape, the project would anticipate a water consumption of 38 gallons per person per day, which is identified as a very low per capita use. By comparison, the average water use of the four (4) existing residences on the project site was 108.61 gallons per day. Lastly, all new development in the City is required to either implement a water neutralization program or pay a water neutralization fee to offset increased water demand generated by the development. Therefore, through implementation of the INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 40 of 50 water conserving strategies, there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project, even in light of recent, cyclical drought conditions. Less than significant with mitigation. MM UTL-1: The development shall include the Low Impact Development, Water conserving fixture, and water conserving landscape strategies identified in the Water Conservation Plan (In Balance 2017). e-g: No impact 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: Although partially developed, the project site does not contain any significant or threatened flora or fauna, and because it is surrounded by urban development, the site does not have any potential to serve as a wildlife corridor. Isolated prehistoric materials may be present on the project site but the project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory with implementation of identified mitigation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. b: There are no short-term environmental goals, either in the project description or the identified mitigation measures, that will be achieved to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. Therefore, no impact. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 41 of 50 c: The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan as it relates to future growth, both in general terms and specifically as it relates to the project site. While the proposed project will have project specific impacts, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, it will not result in any cumulatively considerable environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d: With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 6. References Associated Transportation Engineers. 2017. Traffic Study for the Fair Oaks Residential Project. Associated Transportation Engineers. 2018. Updated Traffic Study for the Fair Oaks Avenue Project. Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. 2017. Geotechnical Engineering Report. California Department of Conservation. 2016. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Available at: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciftimeseries/. Accessed on: June 1, 2018. California Department of Toxic Substance Control. 2018. Envirostor. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed on June 1, 2018. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2018. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. Accessed on June 1, 2018 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2018. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed on June 1, 2018. California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2018. GeoTracker. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed on June 1, 2018. 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. ————. 2003. General Plan Update – Housing Element. City of Arroyo Grande, California. ————. 2009. Land Use Map. City of Arroyo Grande, Community Development Department. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 42 of 50 ————. 2010. Development Code. Available at: http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=16194&stateId=5&stateName=California. Accessed on June 1, 2018. ————. 2010. Zoning Map. City of Arroyo Grande, Community Development Department. ————.2012. Bicycle and Trails Master Plan. City of Arroyo Grande, California. Environmental Consultant Services. 2017. Phase I Archaeological Surface Survey at 370 Halcyon Road. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2018. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=nipomo%2Cca. Accessed on April 26, 2018 Greenvale Tree Company. 2017. Arborist Report. In Balance Green Consulting. 2017. Fair Oaks Ave Water Conservation Plan. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution District (APCD). 2012. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution District Referral Letter. 2017. San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare. 2010. San Luis Obispo County Bike Map – South County. Available at: www.rideshare.org. Accessed on August 23, 2011. 7. Summary of Mitigation Measures MM AQ-1: On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:  Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location.  Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater that 5 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: During Construction MM AQ-2: Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 43 of 50 Timing: During Construction MM AQ-3: Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the State’s 5 minute idling limit. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: During Construction MM AQ-4: The project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (adjacent residential development):  Staging a queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;  Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;  Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and  Signs that specify no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: During Construction MM AQ-5: The project shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage nitrogen oxide (NOX), reactive organic cases (ROG), and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions:  Maintain all construction equipment in property tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;  Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road);  Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off- road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation;  Use on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;  Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance;  Electrify equipment when feasible;  Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and  Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel. MM AQ-6: The project shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402).  Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;  Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency would be INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 44 of 50 required when wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used;  All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed;  Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities;  Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be shown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established;  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;  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;  Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site;  All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23.114;  Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site;  Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible;  A listing of all required mitigation measures should be included on grading and building plans; and,  The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: During Construction MM AQ-7: Prior to the start of the project, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits for equipment to be used during construction by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: Prior to start of work INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 45 of 50 MM AQ-8: Burning of vegetative material on the development site shall be prohibited. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division, Building Division Timing: During Construction MM AQ-9: Should hydrocarbon-contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APCD shall be notified within forty-eight (48) hours of such contaminated soil being discovered to determine if an APCD permit is required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered:  Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal.  Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six (6) inches of packed, uncontaminated soil or other TPH – non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate.  Covered piles shall be designed in such a way as to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted.  During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance.  Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: During Construction MM AQ-10: The project shall implement a minimum of eight (8) Standard Mitigation Measures as stated in Table 3-5 of the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: Prior to permit issuance MM AQ-11: Prior to any demolition at the site, the applicant shall obtain a Notification of Demolition and Renovation form approved by the APCD. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Building Division Timing: Prior to demolition permit issuance MM AQ-12: Proposed truck routes shall be evaluated and selected to ensure routing patters have the least impact to residential dwellings and other sensitive receptors, such as schools, parks, day care centers, nursing homes, and hospitals. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: Prior to permit issuance INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 46 of 50 MM BIO-1: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the arborist report by Greenvale Tree Company dated October 2017, in addition to Mitigations Measures MM BIO-2 through BIO-4. Where conflicts exist, the more restrictive shall apply. MM BIO-2: All trees to be retained shall be protected during construction, and shall be clearly identified on construction plans and marked in the field for preservation with highly visible construction fencing at a minimum around the dripline. A Tree Protection Zone equivalent to one foot (1’) of zone per one inch (1”) of tree diameter at breast height shall surround each tree. No construction activities such as grading, vehicle parking, or storage of materials shall be conducted within the tree protection zones. The fencing shall be installed prior to any site clearing or grading activities, and shall remain in place until construction is complete. The fence shall be a minimum of 4’ tall and supported by stakes at least every 10’ on center. Weatherproof signs shall be permanently posted on the fences, stating, at minimum, the following: “Tree Protection Zone. No personnel, materials, or vehicles allowed. Do not move or remove this fence.” Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Community Development Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit and during construction. MM BIO-3: Any trees intentionally or unintentionally killed or removed that are greater than or equal to two (2) inches diameter at breast height (DBH) shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. Replacement trees shall be limited to in-kind replacement of appropriate native tree species. All trees to be removed shall be clearly marked on construction plans and marked in the field with flagging or paint. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Community Development Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit and during construction. MM BIO-4: Tree removals shall be scheduled to occur in the fall and winter (between September 15 and February 15), after fledging and before the initiation of the nesting season. If trees or vegetation 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. If active nests are observed, the contractor shall either: 1) wait for such nesting birds to fledge and leave the project site; 2) establish 100-foot exclusion zones until young have fledged; or 3) consult with the appropriate resource agencies for guidance prior to site disturbance. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division, Public Works Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading or Tree Removal Permit. MM CUL-1: An archaeological and Native American monitor shall be present during project related ground disturbing activities. A standard clause shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 47 of 50 Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: Prior to and during construction. MM CUL-2: If a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, and an archaeological and/or Native American monitor is not present, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a qualified archaeologist, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s), as necessary, 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 unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA 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, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s) as necessary, 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 CCIC, located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. MM CUL-3: If human remains are encountered during earth-disturbing activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that all work in the adjacent area shall stop immediately and that the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will designate and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: During construction MM GEO-1: All construction plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical study prepared for the project by Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. dated November 2017. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division, Building Division Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading or Building Permit INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 48 of 50 MM GHG-1: Prior to issuance of a building permit, all construction plans shall incorporate the following GHG-reducing measures where applicable:  Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools.  Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Design should provide 50% tree coverage within 10 years of construction using low ROG emitting, low maintenance native drought resistant trees.  No residential wood burning appliances.  Trusses for south-facing portions of roofs shall be designed to handle dead weight loads of standard solar-heated water and photovoltaic panels. Roof design shall include sufficient south-facing roof surface, based on structures size and use, to accommodate adequate solar panels. For south facing roof pitches, the closest standard roof pitch to the ideal average solar exposure shall be used.  Increase the building energy rating by 20% above Title 24 requirements. Measures used to reach the 20% rating cannot be double counted.  Plant drought tolerant, native shade trees along southern exposures of buildings to reduce energy used to cool buildings in summer.  Utilize green building materials (materials which are resource efficient, recycled, and sustainable) available locally if possible.  Install high efficiency heating and cooling systems.  Design building to include roof overhangs that are sufficient to block the high summer sun, but not the lower winter sun, from penetrating south facing windows (passive solar design).  Utilize high efficiency gas or solar water heaters.  Utilize built-in energy efficient appliances (i.e. Energy Star®).  Utilize double-paned windows.  Utilize energy efficient interior lighting.  Install energy-reducing programmable thermostats.  Use roofing material with a solar reflectance values meeting the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling needs.  Eliminate high water consumption landscape (e.g., plants and lawns) in residential design. Use native plants that do not require watering and are low ROG emitting.  Provide storage space in garage for bicycle and bicycle trailers, or covered racks / lockers to service the residential units. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Community Development Department Timing: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit or Building Permit MM HYD-1: The following BMPs shall be incorporated into the project:  Run-off Control. Maintain post-development peak runoff rate and average volume of runoff at levels that are similar to pre-development levels.  Labeling and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities. Label new storm drain inlets with “No Dumping – Drains to Ocean” to alert the public to the destination of stormwater and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain. INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 49 of 50  Common Area Litter Control. Implement a trash management and litter control program to prevent litter and debris from being carried to water bodies or the storm drain system.  Food Service Facilities. Design the food service facility to have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment that is connected to a grease interceptor prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning area shall be large enough to clean the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned.  Refuse Areas. Trash compactors, enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Install a self-contained drainage system that discharges to the sanitary sewer if water cannot be diverted from the areas.  Outdoor Storage Controls. Oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, and other chemicals stored outdoors must be in containers and protected from drainage by secondary containment structures such as berms, liners, vaults or roof covers and/or drain to the sanitary sewer system. Bulk materials stored outdoors must also be protected from drainage with berms and covers. Process equipment stored outdoors must be inspected for proper function and leaks, stored on impermeable surfaces and covered. Implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control and develop a spill cleanup plan for storage areas.  Cleaning, Maintenance and Processing Controls. Areas used for washing, steam cleaning, maintenance, repair or processing must have impermeable surfaces and containment berms, roof covers, recycled water wash facility, and discharge to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer may require pretreatment systems and/or approval of an industrial waste discharge permit.  Street/parking lot Sweeping: Implement a program to regularly sweep streets, sidewalks and parking lots to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Debris resulting from pressure washing should be trapped and collected to prevent entry into the storm drain system. Washwater containing any cleaning agent or degreaser should be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM NOI-1: Construction activities shall be restricted to between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. No construction shall occur on Saturday or Sunday. Equipment maintenance and servicing shall be confined to the same hours. To the greatest extent possible, grading and construction activities should occur during the middle of the day to minimize the potential for disturbance of neighboring noise sensitive uses. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Community Development Department INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION August 2018 CUP 16-007; VTTM 16-002 Page 50 of 50 Timing: During construction MM NOI-2: All equipment will have sound-control devices that are no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. No equipment will have an unmuffled exhaust. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Building Division, Engineering Division Timing: During construction MM NOI-3: Equipment mobilization areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas shall be placed in a central location as far from existing residences as feasible. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande –Building Division, Engineering Division Timing: Prior to and during construction MM REC-1: The developer shall pay all applicable City park development and impact fees. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande –Building Division Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM TT-1: The developer shall either implement southbound, westbound, and eastbound turn pocket modifications outlined in the TIAR completed for the project (ATE 2018) or pay pro-rata share contributions for the improvements as identified in the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Engineering Division Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit MM TCR-1: Implement MM CUL-1 and CUL-3. Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande –Engineering Division Timing: During Construction MM UTL-1: The development shall include the Low Impact Development, Water conserving fixture, and water conserving landscape strategies identified in the Water Conservation Plan (In Balance 2017). Responsible Party: Developer Monitoring Agency: City of Arroyo Grande – Building Division Timing: Prior to issuance of Building Permit March 15: 2018 City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission 300 E Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Dr. Scott E. Adams 310 So. Halcyon #101 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 805- RECEIVED MAR 16 2018 COMMUNITY 0EVELOPMENt CITYOFARROYOQRAN0 t RE: Application of Fair Oaks Investors for Development at the Corner of Halcyon and Fair Oaks Dear Planning Commission: I am in support of the application of Fair Oaks Investors for the mixed-use project proposed near my office. I purchased my Commercial condo in April 1996 and have practiced there for the past 22 years. There is a critical need for work force type housing close to the hospital. With the new Medical Office Complex being constructed next to the hospital there is an even greater need for housing. There is absolutely no need for additional office space. Therefore, this is the right use for the property. The project as proposed is well conceived and will be of great benefit to the City and the medical community. Please include my letter of unqualified support in the public records. Thank you! ATTACHMENT 8 03/14/2018 12:19PM FA X 8053461688++ March 13, 2018 City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission 300 ~ Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 ROBERT D KITT0,0.0.S. S Dr. Robert Kitto Dove Court Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 805- RE: Proposed Development Across the Street from Arroyo Grande Hospital Dear Planning Staff and Commissioners: - I ~0001/000 1 RECEIVED -, MAR 16 2018 COMMUNITY j -crry OF ARR~~OEGLORAPMENT NOE I would like to register my support for the proposed townhome development across the street from Arroyo Grande Hospital. This is an excellent location for a PUD project. There is a real need for moderately priced townhomes, especially within walking distance to a major employer like Dignity Health. The proposed project is \\'.ell laid-out on the lots and has a pleasing design in keeping with the neighborhood. As a medical professional and longtime resident of Arroyo Grande, I urge you to approve this excellent project as submitted. Please include my letter as part of the public comments. Thank you. Dr. Robert Kitto City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: Comments & Concerns on Fairoaks & Halcyon mixed use project RECEIVED SEP 1 7 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE I first would like to express my condolences go to the owners trying to improve the property at Halcyon and Fairoaks ... This project has come a long way from ideals started years ago and you are still having to work and adjust your dreams and ideas to work with what everyone else· sees as best. Yes, the saying shows so true "no one likes change." I truly feel a neighborhood coffee shop, is much needed for community. Its placement it would be good for staff both at hospital and Harloe School, not to mention local neighbors. Please consider also that local seniors in this corridor, the high school teens and parents will utilize this resource also . This would be a huge benefit to local moral and be a boost for the business. Concerns to be explained in depth later: ❖ Time Frames ❖ Speed Limits & zones ❖ Project density ❖ Left hand turns ❖ Distractions and Accidents General thoughts on the pro ject: I appreciate this proposed project is not a 2 story block, progress architecture style apartment complex, a full commercial mini strip mall or another medical complex raising up on this major intersection. These I fear would be a true blight to our community in this corridor. Time Frames: When is the construction intended to begin? Will this go in conjunction while Harloe is under construction? We currently are having more than usual traffic congestion with the change in student arrivals and departures? There is 2 or 3 years involved and started into phases for construction at Harloe. I have my concerns that no consideration in negative mitigation has been given to the timelines of both projects being ongoing? And or other projects in the works in the vicinity or corridor area? Speed Limits & zones: My other concerns are the fluctuating speed limits. Currently why we have 35/40 MPH (which has changed several times over the last 10 years) at different locations coming down Halcyon with it dropping to 25 for school zone just at Fairoaks where the school is. I do not have the knowledge for current traffic laws and traffic studies to understand the logistics of our current situation. I haven't understood the reasoning of traffic studies to keep the speed limits to the traveled speed of the flow of traffic average use when we are near a school or residential with speed standards themselves. Then a school zone defined only as the actual block of the school itself? I have asked in the past but not gotten any answer that makes sense . I would like to actually understand not just hear an officer say we've researched it and there is no other way to legally do anything. Currently drivers cruising down halcyon need more warning to lower speed. It is understood that 35-40 mph seems like much more like 50 MPH when the car or truck whizzes by you. Many communities, and here in the central coast, have lighted warnings a block or two away from the school on busy road to reduce speed. Project Density I am not sure but I believe 22 townhomes is a high density that in itself for that area will cause addition traffic problems at peek times of the day. I would recommend maybe a lesser density allowing for additional open space, additional parking, outside eating at the coffee shop or having an animal friendly area. Having 65 parking spaces sounds like a lot but in retrospect this is not enough. Doing the numbers it seems that there will likely 44 used just for residents/tenants leaving 21 for needed for handicapped, visitors and the coffee shop. Families are growing and everyone is having more vehicles each unit will have on average 2 cars and upward of 4. Add one teenager to a residence and you now days have another vehicle unlike years ago. This would potentially take up any of the 21 additional spaces that should be for visitors of the tenants or the business and patrons. I few extra spaces could be useful as we will be losing street parking which is at a premium before school and after school for pickups and for additional support staff working at Harloe. Looking at things realistically parents are going to utilize open parking in the complex, posted "residents only" or not. This is a current epidemic at the hospital and medical complex just below the project site currently. Let alone blocking current residences driveways. Unfortunately this seems a fact of life that the residents of the five cities will not respect current parking restrictions in order to pick up their children. This all boils down to potential multiple complaints from the surrounding businesses and residents -potential additional public funds for additional police and other workers to take care of the issues, issues we already have and will be adding on top of. Left Hand Turns: I have a concern in allowing left turns out of the suggested development /complex from either driveway ... ! am urging that physical mitigation within the physical drive itself be required, as the additional cross traffic would be too much for most drivers. The areas of both driveways coincide with existing left turn lanes. Then there is the concern if you can only turn right of additional traffic forced down Fairoaks and on Alder through the neighborhood/ residential areas would be too much. We are already going to increase the traffic flow in this neighborhoods corridor with other construction projects near by and with the medical building at Fairoaks and Woodland. Yes many of the employees, facilities and patients going into the building for I believe two of the three floors, are already stuffed into the hospital currently and we have them on our roads now. Adding additional traffic stated is to be only from a few new practices and their patients. Yet already we have a huge problem with the flow of traffic from and to the high school though this corridor and have other new construction that will be adding traffic. Just to restate the proposed project wants to add 22 more families and palrons of the busin~s;;-to the traffic equation and expe.ct not to have ad~itional pr.ob,!ems. tl cJ.ded ~ /;;/'-iG,, lCf,~4 ~trr~ ("y ~ T l'/tAVYtl~ ~), j /Jrn.a q: WIH'~ ~~ Distractions and Accidents d::-k ..:fi~ ~~ ..r ~ 4-.5 lht..f.~, We have already an epidemic of accidents in this small corridor between Dodson to Sandalwood on Halcyon and Woodland to Alder on Fairoaks. Regular accidents are occurring ranging from the near pedestrian vs vehicle collisions; to regular weekly fender benders to more severe crashes let alone cars running into houses. I can personally say, it is not just "teenage drivers" but the majority are impatient drivers and the parents who are in a hurry to pick up or drop off kids from one school and then another, trying to beat traffic to get a parking space .... Inattentively with phones actively in use, others watching the light change or oncoming traffic to be able to turn right, not being aware of people crossing both ways in cross walks, running left turn signals not just on yellow but stone cold red when people are already walking in the crosswalk, parents dropping and picking up students with running cars in the red zones at the lights on Fairoaks and Halcyon, or in the ending/closing lane on Halcyon right after Fairoaks, drivers creating "new lanes" utilizing bike lanes on school corner or narrow street space near curb on hospital side of Fairoaks. That said has any consideration been given or urging of Cal Trans for the 101 on ramp from Traffic way with 22 more families going to work, most likely not in this local area and using the freeway? I feel that there should be considerations made for the increase traffic of these new families to take into the equation when figuring true actual use adding the existing and proposed new construction projects in the works when planning the flow of traffic to get to the highway, be it via Traffic Way or Grand. Realistically the majority of the residents in the five cities works out of the area and commute from home to work Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please feel free to reach out to me if any clarification is needed. Sincerely Amy Sue Caperton Woodland drive Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420 805. September I 7, 2018 Community Development Department 300 East Branch Street Arroyo G raind'e, CA 93420 RE: Fair Oaks/Ha lcyon Mixed I.Js.e Project REC .EIIV'ED SEP' 1 7 2018 COM UNITY DEV ,!:LOPME T CITY OF A·RROYQ GRANDE I have lived ,on Alder Street (one block from thrs ,corner) for 44 years and I have watched the a,rea grow and grow, of c•ourse to _ e e".<pected . This most c1urrent project is going to impact our area more tihan any others i1n the past, an .a,rea not suitable tor a project of this size, with a school on one· corner, a, hospita1I on another right across tile street. With the projects I know of a1lre;:i,dy approved, and in the works (Dodson Way/Halcyon apartments, and the Ha cyon Road Comp lete Str,eets), the traffic situation will be oLJrt of control. It's just too many homes/act1ivity for thfs already very busy corner. And . a coffee sho p will add continued chaos thr,oughout the diary In the Mitigated Negatiive Declaration document it is mentioned "intersection ope.rattons w·u not be impacted as part of the· propo,sed project" (one of many incorrect as:sump-ti'ons), it is impHe d the traffic/driveway situation will be mitigat.edl with the improvements/restripin:g a1s.:sociatedl with the !H alcyon Road Complete Streets, Plan. 11 can fin d n,o place on the website witih a stairt date, end date, or actual appmved plans for this project, so how can 'this be used as mitigation for this. most current is sue? We real v need an outside ag'ency to take a look at this project, determtne wh:at the prob!ems/benefiits may be-!!2!, the City, who is of course in the position to bene 1t i n irevenue from i ts ff'luition, at the ourrent residents expensie. ,(Traffic, Water, Congestion, etc.) "*Addiitionallv,. it would certainly be be·nefic 1al to have a large sign 1posrtloned on th,e property on the Fair Oaks side, such as the one on Hal'cyon, descdhin.e the project, to mak,e the residents more awa11e of what ~s p inned for the area. How wou'ld yo1,1 tlhin 'k siomeone drivi 1ng in a vehh;le would be able to notice the s gn on busy H';;lllii;yon Road, let alone read ,a,ny of it ,going, 40 in ph?· Although II do agree the area in question ee<ls some improvement, I aim very much opposed to h plans as shown with the 22 homes, and ,coffee sho p. Please scale this down to something .Q!ll part of Arroyo Grande can realistically acoommodat.e. I 1e Madson Alder (805,) @cha rter, ne·t CC: Planning Commlss1ori Members; Mack, Mart.in, George, Schill"O 1 Matt Downing From:Ericka Horn Sent:Tuesday, September 18, 2018 1:03 PM To:Teresa McClish; Matt Downing Cc:Jim Hill; Caren Ray; Barbara Harmon; Kristen Barneich; Tim Brown Subject:Opposition to proposed 22 unit housing/mixed use development at Halcyon & Fair Oaks Attachments:petition_signatures_jobs_13525239_20180918174403.pdf; petition_comments_jobs_ 13525239_20180918194754.pdf Dear Planning Commission, Your assistance with this message being brought to the attention of the Planning Commission ahead of the meeting tonight is appreciated. Please find attached a copy of change.org petition I started in opposition of the proposed 22 unit housing/mixed use project proposed at Fair Oaks & Halcyon. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of community concerns and the impact this project will have for generations to come. To date, 146 people have signed the petition, 66 of which are Arroyo Grande residents per the summary attached. I am opposed to such a high density project on an already congested intersection because I believe it posed serious safety issues for the adjacent school, Harloe Elementary of which my two children attend. See the comments on the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/arroyo-grande-planning-commission-opposition-to-22-unit-housing-development-at- halcyon-fair- oaks?recruiter=8671607&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition Thank you for your service to our community. Respectfully, Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande Resident Recipient:Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Letter:Greetings, I oppose the proposed 22 housing unit development at 362-382 S. Halcyon Road (corner of Halcyon & Fair Oaks Blvd). I believe this will increase traffic at the already strained intersection. In my opinion it will increase traffic and congestion resulting in impacts to Harloe Elementary school including reducing safety. Additional impacts related to parking overflow or reduced street parking, and reduced visibility due to increase inhabitants may also result. My top priority in opposing this development as proposed is the safe for the community. Comments Name Location Date Comment Rachel Cogley Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 This would be terrible in an already impacted area. Jennifer Avila Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 It’s too close to our school Leslie Cosgrove Nipomo, CA 2018-09-06 This is not the place for this. Gina Butler Santa Maria, CA 2018-09-06 For the safety of the children!! Don’t need the traffic conjestion!! Allison Caswell terborch Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Parent sharon mulkey oceano, CA 2018-09-06 this is a horrible location for such an intense-use project. that intersection area is maxed out already with a larger-than-average school site and the only hospital for this entire area! if this project has already been green-lighted, WE MUST INSIST ON THE SMALLEST "FOOTPRINT" THAT IS LEGALLY WITHIN OUR REACH. let's all try our best to get/stay involved with this project - don't let them destroy our wonderful neighborhood character! Myra Goryance Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 This will have an impact on traffic, water, and Harloe Elementary School that surpasses negative and is an irrisponsable development that needs to stop in Arroyo Grande. Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Thank you for your support Myra. You can make a difference.Please consider submitting a letter of opposition by (1) mailed or otherwise delivered to the Community Development Department, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420; (2) provided in person at a public hearing. Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM. Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Thank you for your support Sharon. You can make a difference.Please consider submitting a letter of opposition by (1) mailed or otherwise delivered to the Community Development Department, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420; (2) provided in person at a public hearing. Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM. Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Thank you Allison! You can make a difference.Please consider submitting a letter of opposition by (1) mailed or otherwise delivered to the Community Development Department, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420; (2) provided in person at a public hearing. Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM. Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Thank you Gina! You can make a difference.Please consider submitting a letter of opposition by (1) mailed or otherwise delivered to the Community Development Department, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420; (2) provided in person at a public hearing. Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM. Name Location Date Comment Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Thank you Leslie! You can make a difference.Please consider submitting a letter of opposition by (1) mailed or otherwise delivered to the Community Development Department, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420; (2) provided in person at a public hearing. Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM. Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Thank you Jennifer! You can make a difference.Please consider submitting a letter of opposition by (1) mailed or otherwise delivered to the Community Development Department, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420; (2) provided in person at a public hearing. Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM. Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Thank you Rachel! You can make a difference.Please consider submitting a letter of opposition by (1) mailed or otherwise delivered to the Community Development Department, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420; (2) provided in person at a public hearing. Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM. Erin Alves Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Traffic and impact of Harloe would be a nightmare! How about a nice park instead. Diana Foster Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 There is so much chaos around the school already. I can't imagine cars exiting and entering the projected site. Very concerned about safety for neighbors as well as students. Twenty two housing units are way to many, I bet not affordable either. Can't we have any open space anymore? Rebecca Mckenzie Arroyo grande, CA 2018-09-07 The intersection is so crazy between the school and the hospital. Having that many new houses and cars in an already impacted traffic are just seems like a really poor idea. Not to mention a shortage of parking anytime the school has an event. June Austin US 2018-09-07 When I pick up my granddaughter from Harloe, I always observe so much traffic on Halcyon already and Fair Oaks. Also so much speeding in the school zone. This project would create so much more of that. Sharon TerBorch San Luis Obispo, CA 2018-09-07 This is already a very busy intersection. The thought of having one of the two driveways into and out of this proposed project across the street from Harloe is terrifying! Kids and parents jay walk getting to and from the school's main entrance and office. The addition of a major driveway to the already busy street (Fair Oaks) is a recipe for disaster. Sharlotte Wilson Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 This project is not appropriate for this area along with traffic mitigation. Nellie Madson Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-10 Thank you for thinking of the neighbors—it is very much appreciated. Diana Foster Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-10 I'm on Maple and Alder Street and my grandson goes to Harloe, so I consider myself a neighbor too. Are you related to Art? Name Location Date Comment Ruthie Osburn Oceano, CA 2018-09-10 I work at the hospital and I see first hand how congested the intersection is and how dangerous it is for both the Harloe and highschool students to safely navigate the intersection when drivers are already impatient. Recipient:Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Letter:Greetings, I oppose the proposed 22 housing unit development at 362-382 S. Halcyon Road (corner of Halcyon & Fair Oaks Blvd). I believe this will increase traffic at the already strained intersection. In my opinion it will increase traffic and congestion resulting in impacts to Harloe Elementary school including reducing safety. Additional impacts related to parking overflow or reduced street parking, and reduced visibility due to increase inhabitants may also result. My top priority in opposing this development as proposed is the safe for the community. Signatures Name Location Date Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-04 Victoria Ramos Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-05 Janice Reid Arroyo Grande, CA, CA 2018-09-05 Nicole Miller Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-05 Erika Cota Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Nicole DeMatteo Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Kimberly Hallowell North Hollywood, CA 2018-09-06 Maris Manzano La Habra, CA 2018-09-06 Jasmine House Atascadero, CA 2018-09-06 Renee Reyes Shell Beach, CA 2018-09-06 Sunday Perales Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Colleen Elliot Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Kristen Wallin Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Travis Robbins Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Tawnya Hahn Salinas, CA 2018-09-06 Patricia Dougall San Luis Obispo, CA 2018-09-06 Bea Mehrens Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Amber Freitas San Luis Obispo, CA 2018-09-06 Rachel Cogley Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Christie Streeper Los Angeles, CA 2018-09-06 Name Location Date Holly Lopez Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Vanessa Swier Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Alyssa Byrum Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 holly rettler Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 David Johnson Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Stephanie Uclaray Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Greg Howard San Francisco, CA 2018-09-06 Kristi Martin Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Kelli Johnston Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Jennifer Avila Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Lindsey Mihlhauser Nipomo, CA 2018-09-06 Patty Robasciotti Grover Beach, CA 2018-09-06 Barbara Main Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Leslie Cosgrove Nipomo, CA 2018-09-06 Krista Bandy Santa Maria, CA 2018-09-06 Laurie Zepeda Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Lea Dawson Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Melissa Richison San Luis Obispo, CA 2018-09-06 Carolyn Jolly Pismo Beach, CA 2018-09-06 brad armstrong San Luis Obispo, CA 2018-09-06 Monika Cancilla Alameda, CA 2018-09-06 April Burr Los Angeles, CA 2018-09-06 Name Location Date Gina Butler Santa Maria, CA 2018-09-06 Allison Caswell terborch Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Amy Iversen Grover Beach, CA 2018-09-06 Tina Holley Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Caitlin Wright Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Kelly Gash Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Anita Gaskill San Luis Obispo, CA 2018-09-06 Monica Mccall Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Kristen Weems Atascadero, CA 2018-09-06 Sharon Mulkey Nipomo, CA 2018-09-06 Cindy Felix US 2018-09-06 Diane Schmidt San Luis Obispo, CA 2018-09-06 Henry Geiger Crescent City, CA 2018-09-06 CHARLES JOHNSTON ARROYO GRANDE, CA 2018-09-06 Morgan Northcote Salinas, CA 2018-09-06 Myra Goryance Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Christopher Koehler Santa Maria, CA 2018-09-06 Erin Alves Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Betty Mills Seattle, WA 2018-09-06 Jaime Nuño Irving, TX 2018-09-06 Tori Perkins Arroyo grande, CA 2018-09-06 Rachel Higgins Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Name Location Date Tim Burton Arroyyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Josh Wilbur Arroyo grande, CA 2018-09-06 Kathy Mihlhsuser Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Bev Beaudoin Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Diana Foster Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Gerald Marlin Carrollton, GA 2018-09-06 Rebecca Mckenzie Arroyo grande, CA 2018-09-07 Jamie Rogers Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 June Austin US 2018-09-07 Terry Peterson Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 Shannon Hirase US 2018-09-07 Adria Beaman Grover Beach, CA 2018-09-07 Wendy Golembiewski Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 Shannan Mihlhauser San Luis Obispo, CA 2018-09-07 Jennifer Atoigue Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 Vanessa Wells San Luis Obispo, CA 2018-09-07 Summer Sproston Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 Leslie Maxwell Santa Maria, CA 2018-09-07 Dawn Macgregor Grover Beach, CA 2018-09-07 Colette Reyes Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 Cassandra Booth Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 Becky Haddad Nipomo, CA 2018-09-07 Name Location Date Tracy Sparks Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 Sharon TerBorch San Luis Obispo, CA 2018-09-07 Amy Galvan US 2018-09-07 Rick Gargano San Luis Obispo, CA 2018-09-07 Hilary Key Santa Maria, CA 2018-09-07 Kim JohnstonJimenez Santa Maria, CA 2018-09-07 Marlene tynon Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 Lori Waters Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 Tracy Scovil Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 Tabitha Tabarez Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 Sharlotte Wilson Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 Brittany Nelson Arroyo grande, CA 2018-09-07 Tania Chavez Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 Joanne Steffen Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-08 Elizabeth Seitzer Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-08 Jennifer Stewart Los Angeles, CA 2018-09-08 Joanne Colli Santa Maria, CA 2018-09-08 TIMOTHY MARTIN Guadalupe, CA 2018-09-08 Lynn F Stewart Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-08 Jeremy Burns Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-08 Malissa Lashley Silverton, OR 2018-09-08 Pamala Forsythe Oceano, CA 2018-09-08 Name Location Date Danielle Stucky Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-08 Kelley Haines Pismo Beach, CA 2018-09-08 theresa Graham US 2018-09-08 Brittany Quaresma Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-08 Lauren Koellish Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-08 Kelly Langen Grover Beach, CA 2018-09-08 Amanda Fries San Luis Obispo, CA 2018-09-08 Lee Whitmer San Luis Obispo, CA 2018-09-08 Christie Rosenbaum Fresno, CA 2018-09-08 Roxana Fernandez Schererville, IN 2018-09-09 Weston Weems Atascadero, CA 2018-09-09 Steve Beaudoin Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-09 Linae Amado Newark, CA 2018-09-09 Nellie Madson Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-10 Tracy Watson Pismo Beach, CA 2018-09-10 Ruthie Osburn Oceano, CA 2018-09-10 JoAnn Richardson Atascadero, CA 2018-09-10 Gary soto OCEANO, CA 2018-09-10 Hui Xu US 2018-09-11 Angela Bolton Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-11 Amanda Rivera US 2018-09-11 Magdalena Bolton Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-11 Name Location Date Julia Bri US 2018-09-11 Arianna Manning US 2018-09-11 Mayra Flores US 2018-09-12 Ftalebdoost@yahoo.com Talebdoost US 2018-09-12 Brianna Hallerbach US 2018-09-13 Gina Hasbun US 2018-09-13 Carla Jones US 2018-09-13 Patrick Polvinale US 2018-09-13 Neil Riordan US 2018-09-14 Jacqueline Conway US 2018-09-14 Robert Camire US 2018-09-15 Yousef Shehab US 2018-09-15 Jonathan Haag US 2018-09-15 Brian Baker US 2018-09-15 Sharon LiPira US 2018-09-15 Analisa Miller US 2018-09-17 September 18, 2018 Dear Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Members, Please reconsider the project being proposed at the corner of Halcyon and Fair Oaks (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007). There are several problems with this project, and it should be denied or modified to address the following issues: Density: There are already a number of high density/high traffic projects in the area including the new medical office building behind the hospital, expansion of the hospital itself, and another proposed project at Halcyon and Dodson Way. These projects are all going to bring a lot of traffic and congestion to an already very busy intersection. Reduce the total number of housing units. Safety: This project is dangerous to the school and the children, families, and staff who must walk, drive, and park in the area to Harloe Elementary and Arroyo Grande High School. The exits from the proposed project onto Fair Oaks and Halcyon endanger those people and would add to the considerable traffic in the area, especially before and after school. A three story building overlooking the school could also endanger students by exposing them to the view of predators and others who mean them harm. The height of project should be limited to fit with the neighborhood. Traffic/Road Improvements: Traffic is extremely busy especially in the morning hours as students, parents, and the general public on their way to work, must navigate the roads and that intersection to schools and the highway. Traffic already backs up on Halcyon and wait times are increasing at that intersection’s lights. Drivers already take shortcuts through neighborhood streets to avoid that intersection and the proposed project will cause more traffic through nearby neighborhoods. How does all of this impact the Halcyon Complete Streets Plan? Existing Zoning: This is residential area with only 1 or 2 story homes and businesses. This project is too big and does not fit in with the existing area. If approved, it would be out of place and change the atmosphere of the surrounding area. Thank you for your consideration, Tracy Scovil Project on Halcyon/Fair Oaks Dear Planning Commissioners: RECEIVED SEP 1 8 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE A-1 'PIAnll\1t C.-/lf\m15~C,\,,,. The project at Halcyon & Fair Oaks needs to be delayed until the infrastructure aspect of the project has been taken into consideration. With our budget crisis in AG, we cannot afford to blindly go forward with high density projects like this. Water with our sewer, electric, etc .. The second point that needs to be made is traffic mitigation measures need to be assessed around Margaret Harloe School before any new project is approved. It is already a traffic nightmare. We have no idea how much traffic the new Hospital Expansion will create as well. There is a substantial risk to our children's safety as it is and then to add such a large number of homes directly across the street. We cannot go forward with project in it's present form without thinking about adding a new traffic light on Halcyon at Dodson Way, and absolutely no entrance or exit on Fair Oaks, and reduce the size of the project to one that is sustainable. I spoke with Matt in Planning today and it was brought to my attention that the other project next doolclose to Dodson Way has been approved by you and it can not be appealed. We must move much slower on this project as it will have major problems, that are foreseeable and unforeseeable. Sharlotte Wilson Bambi Ct. Arroyo Grande 805- 1 Matt Downing From:Robert Merrick Sent:Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:40 PM To:Matt Downing Subject:Proposed Development at Fair Oaks Avenue and Halycon January 31, 2019 Mr. Matthew Downing, Planning Manager City of Arroyo Grande, California Dear Matt It’s Bob Merrick and Barbara Finn, 906 Fair Oaks Avenue, in Arroyo Grande. Barbara and I very much appreciate the time you took to review and discuss the plans for the development of the project at Fair Oaks and Halcyon way back in October. We have delayed writing you until there was a time specific for the planning meeting, thinking that our concerns for the project would be fresh in your mind receiving them shortly before the public meeting. Our conversation with you was most informative and gave us a better understanding of the scope of the project and how it might affect us at 906 Fair Oaks Avenue. Our current home has been in our family since 1952 and the family has witnessed many transitions in the neighborhood over those sixty plus years. Certainly the condition of the property adjacent to us and slated for development, is as your report rightly notes “blighted.” The renderings that we have seen, one via a short local television spot and the other the plans that you reviewed with us, will certainly remediate the present condition of this seemingly forgotten corner, but they also raise some serious concerns on our part. The first of these concerns pertains to those areas where our property (906 Fair Oaks Avenue) and the planned development are contiguous. The plans we reviewed with you, indicated that the builder proposes to construct parking, mailboxes, and trash/garbage receptacles along the east border of our property. The east side of our home is the location of three bedrooms. We could not tell from the drawings the final positioning of the trash area and how it would be enclosed or what kind of lighting was planned and the positioning of same for the parking area. No one wants a trash collection area near a bedroom window! Or to have to find themselves staring at lighting that might be on 24-7 or cars parking a few feet from their bedroom windows. As for the North side of our property, it was not clear to us how the builder proposed to landscape and finish these areas. So, our concerns are the impact of light, sound, and the exact proximity of of the above to our property. We assume that our concerns will be available to the builders and hope that they will be addressed at the meeting planned for February 5, 2019. Second, falls into traffic concerns. As you realize, traffic challenges will be most acute during the school year, Monday through Friday, and then in the mornings and afternoon. At present our traffic is a combination of school drop-offs and pick ups and commuters. Adding the proposed development’s residential and commercial traffic to the normal flow appears problematic to us, especially with a two lane exit/entrance on Fair Oaks, and seems to have the potential to become a bottleneck of sorts and just plain dangerous. Neither of us claims to know much about planning for traffic flow; however, we do have no small amount of experience navigating in and out of our driveway, and can only conclude from experience that the Fair Oaks exit/entrance may well present very significant challenges both to those who will do the planning and those who will work to pilot their vehicles in and out of the proposed entrance. What do you think? We look forward to hearing the thinking of the city and its planning for the increased traffic in this area. In summary, traffic and our adjacent areas to the proposed project are the focal points of our concerns. Thank you so much for listening and walking us through the proposed plans. Sincerely, 2 Bob Merrick Barbara Finn 906 Fair Oaks Avenue 1 Matt Downing From:Arthur Madson Sent:Sunday, February 03, 2019 8:46 PM To:Matt Downing Subject:Fair Oaks/Halcyon Mixed Use Project RE: Planning Commission meeting to be held on February 5, 2019 23 Residential Units and Neighborhood Coffee Shop Please take into consideration the impacts of a development of this size on not only the neighbors in the area, but also the traffic congestion, street parking (or lack of), safety issues of the school children and also the overall picture with the upcoming planned projects. In my opinion, after seeing what goes on first hand, day after day here for 44 years, this project is way out of proportion for this busy corner. I realize there is a need for improvement of some degree here, but please consider scaling it down to at least half as many homes, and get rid of the coffee shop idea (which will only mean more traffic throughout the entire day). Again, as I mentioned in my letter to the Community Development Department, dated September 17, 2018 (in preparation for the Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 2018), please scale this project down to something our part of Arroyo Grande can realistically accommodate. Respectfully, Nellie Madson 404 Alder (one block from Halcyon/Fair Oaks intersection) Sent from my IPAD Monday, February 4, 2019 TO: Arroyo Grande City Planning Commission FROM: Dr. Andrew Dibbern RE: CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWENTYTHREE (23) RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A 506 SQUARE FOOT NEIGHBORHOOD COFFEE SHOP; LOCATION – 362-382 S. HALCYON ROAD; APPLICANT – STACY BROMLEY; REPRESENTATIVE – STEVEN PUGLISI ARCHITECTS I strongly support the proposed 23 housing unit development and coffee shop proposed at 362-382 S. Halcyon Road (corner of Halcyon & Fair Oaks Blvd). In my opinion, the development will be a improvement for the location. I do not believe it will adversely affect traffic and increase congestion around Harloe Elementary School. To the contrary, the proposed plan will improve traffic flow and pedestrian safety to the area. Now having had 2 students enrolled at Harloe Elementary, child safety on all levels is a personal issue with me and my family. The proposed plan affirmatively takes into account and promotes safety for the students. The development will be a vast improvement over the structures that are there now. Some have been condemned and sit vacant. They have been a source of concern for local law enforcement as they can be attractive to the homeless and a draw for illegal conduct. The development plans appear to be complimentary to the community in both aesthetics and utility. Please consider: • The development will serve to be very useful for Arroyo Grande Hospital employees, traveling nurses and such. It will provide attractive, appropriate, affordable housing for local residents. • The development construction project will affect the local economy in a positive way through providing numerous local jobs and stimulating local business activity. • The project has adequate onsite parking and street parking will not be affected in a negative way. • There is exceedingly adequate access to the project site. According to the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan, the project traffic impact analysis report indicates that intersection operations will not be impacted as part of the proposed project. • Water use impact: The project site is located in the Mixed-Use Land Use category, which has a demand factor of 1,788 gallons per day per acre (gpd/acre). The project site is 1.58 acres, which results in potential water demand of 2,825.04 gpd. This is well within acceptable parameters. With kind regards, Dr. Andrew Dibbern California St. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Monday, February 4, 2019 RE: SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16-002, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-007, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWENTYTHREE (23) RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A 506 SQUARE FOOT NEIGHBORHOOD COFFEE SHOP; LOCATION – 362-382 S. HALCYON ROAD; APPLICANT – STACY BROMLEY; REPRESENTATIVE – STEVEN PUGLISI ARCHITECTS Dear Arroyo Grande City Planning Commissioners, I urge you to deny the conditional use permit. I oppose the proposed 23 housing unit development and coffee shop proposed at 362-382 S. Halcyon Road (corner of Halcyon & Fair Oaks Blvd). I believe this will increase traffic at the already strained intersection. In my opinion it will increase traffic and congestion resulting in impacts to Harloe Elementary school including reducing safety. Additional impacts related to parking overflow or reduced street parking, and reduced visibility due to increase inhabitants may also result. My top priority in opposing this development as proposed is the safe for the community. When this project was originally on the Planning Commission agenda back in September, I started a change.org petition. To date, the petition has garnered over 220 signatures of which 69 are listed specifically as Arroyo Grande residents. You cannot ignore opposition in these numbers. More needs to be done to evaluate the true impact. At the very least a comprehensive traffic impact study should be conducted due to the recent construction in the immediate area including the yet to open Matthew Will Medical complex. Planning Commissioners please consider: o How does this project fit into the Safe Routes to Schools program of which the City of Arroyo Grande is a member? o How does this project fit into the already discussed Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan? o Parking: Street parking will be negatively impacted due to the project. Even if the project has adequate onsite parking, the street parking will likely be impacted negatively. o Traffic: Access to the project site is provided via two (2) driveways. The proposed project will develop one driveway on S. Halcyon Road (Driveway #1). Fair Oaks Avenue is proposed to have a separate full access driveway (Driveway #2), this one will add traffic on the primary parking lot/drop off side of the school. Residents will be navigating out of the development likely at the same time as school traffic. Pedestrians will now have an additional driveway to navigate. Additionally, this may result in loss of a street parking space as the area that currently has the driveway is currently used for parking (this is visible on Google maps). Crossing guards for Harloe risk their lives every school day for the safety of our children, increasing traffic is irresponsible. o Separately from the proposed project, the City has been developing the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan. This will address multi-modal transportation along the Halcyon Corridor. The project TIAR indicates that while intersection operations will not be impacted as part of the proposed project, the southbound, westbound, and eastbound left-turn pockets will have vehicular queues that extend beyond the painted turn pockets. o Water/Drought: The project site is located in the Mixed-Use Land Use category, which has a demand factor of 1,788 gallons per day per acre (gpd/acre). The project site is 1.58 acres, which results in water demand of 2,825.04 gpd. More people = more water use o Use of Harloe: There are no public parks within the project, which means families in the development will likely use Harloe as a recreation facility, put more strain and use on already over-used equipment. Concerned Citizen, Ericka Horn Woodland Drive Recipient:Arroyo Grande Planning Commission Letter:Greetings, I oppose the proposed 22 housing unit development at 362-382 S. Halcyon Road (corner of Halcyon & Fair Oaks Blvd). I believe this will increase traffic at the already strained intersection. In my opinion it will increase traffic and congestion resulting in impacts to Harloe Elementary school including reducing safety. Additional impacts related to parking overflow or reduced street parking, and reduced visibility due to increase inhabitants may also result. My top priority in opposing this development as proposed is the safe for the community. Comments Name Location Date Comment Rachel Cogley Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 This would be terrible in an already impacted area. Jennifer Avila Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 It’s too close to our school Leslie Cosgrove Nipomo, CA 2018-09-06 This is not the place for this. Gina Butler Santa Maria, CA 2018-09-06 For the safety of the children!! Don’t need the traffic conjestion!! Allison Caswell terborch Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Parent sharon mulkey oceano, CA 2018-09-06 this is a horrible location for such an intense-use project. that intersection area is maxed out already with a larger-than-average school site and the only hospital for this entire area! if this project has already been green-lighted, WE MUST INSIST ON THE SMALLEST "FOOTPRINT" THAT IS LEGALLY WITHIN OUR REACH. let's all try our best to get/stay involved with this project - don't let them destroy our wonderful neighborhood character! Myra Goryance Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 This will have an impact on traffic, water, and Harloe Elementary School that surpasses negative and is an irrisponsable development that needs to stop in Arroyo Grande. Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Thank you for your support Myra. You can make a difference.Please consider submitting a letter of opposition by (1) mailed or otherwise delivered to the Community Development Department, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420; (2) provided in person at a public hearing. Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM. Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Thank you for your support Sharon. You can make a difference.Please consider submitting a letter of opposition by (1) mailed or otherwise delivered to the Community Development Department, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420; (2) provided in person at a public hearing. Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM. Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Thank you Allison! You can make a difference.Please consider submitting a letter of opposition by (1) mailed or otherwise delivered to the Community Development Department, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420; (2) provided in person at a public hearing. Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM. Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Thank you Gina! You can make a difference.Please consider submitting a letter of opposition by (1) mailed or otherwise delivered to the Community Development Department, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420; (2) provided in person at a public hearing. Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM. Name Location Date Comment Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Thank you Leslie! You can make a difference.Please consider submitting a letter of opposition by (1) mailed or otherwise delivered to the Community Development Department, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420; (2) provided in person at a public hearing. Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM. Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Thank you Jennifer! You can make a difference.Please consider submitting a letter of opposition by (1) mailed or otherwise delivered to the Community Development Department, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420; (2) provided in person at a public hearing. Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM. Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Thank you Rachel! You can make a difference.Please consider submitting a letter of opposition by (1) mailed or otherwise delivered to the Community Development Department, 300 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420; (2) provided in person at a public hearing. Planning Commission public hearing tentatively scheduled for September 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM. Erin Alves Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 Traffic and impact of Harloe would be a nightmare! How about a nice park instead. Diana Foster Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-06 There is so much chaos around the school already. I can't imagine cars exiting and entering the projected site. Very concerned about safety for neighbors as well as students. Twenty two housing units are way to many, I bet not affordable either. Can't we have any open space anymore? Rebecca Mckenzie Arroyo grande, CA 2018-09-07 The intersection is so crazy between the school and the hospital. Having that many new houses and cars in an already impacted traffic are just seems like a really poor idea. Not to mention a shortage of parking anytime the school has an event. June Austin US 2018-09-07 When I pick up my granddaughter from Harloe, I always observe so much traffic on Halcyon already and Fair Oaks. Also so much speeding in the school zone. This project would create so much more of that. Sharon TerBorch San Luis Obispo, CA 2018-09-07 This is already a very busy intersection. The thought of having one of the two driveways into and out of this proposed project across the street from Harloe is terrifying! Kids and parents jay walk getting to and from the school's main entrance and office. The addition of a major driveway to the already busy street (Fair Oaks) is a recipe for disaster. Sharlotte Wilson Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-07 This project is not appropriate for this area along with traffic mitigation. Nellie Madson Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-10 Thank you for thinking of the neighbors—it is very much appreciated. Diana Foster Arroyo Grande, CA 2018-09-10 I'm on Maple and Alder Street and my grandson goes to Harloe, so I consider myself a neighbor too. Are you related to Art? Name Location Date Comment Ruthie Osburn Oceano, CA 2018-09-10 I work at the hospital and I see first hand how congested the intersection is and how dangerous it is for both the Harloe and highschool students to safely navigate the intersection when drivers are already impatient. carolyn moody pismo beach, CA 2018-12-26 I'm signing because the area is becoming too built up and causing rents to skyrocket Nellie Madson Arroyo Grande, CA 2019-02-03 Nothing has changed since this first came up in September. Still, the traffic for 23 homes, congestion, water consumption, overuse of an already problem area, more parking on the street, and with the thought of the Halcyon Complete Streets, this is just wrong. Please think this proposal through, this is only going to add to an already over used area. Nellie Madson Arroyo Grande, CA 2019-02-03 Additionally, the coffee shop is ridiculous, and will only add more traffic and congestion. This is NOT an area where this type of commercial business is welcome. Name City State Postal CodeCountry Signed On Monika Cancilla Alameda CA 94502 US 9/6/2018 Nicole Miller Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/5/2018 Erika Cota Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Nicole DeMatteo Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Sunday Perales Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Colleen Elliot Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Kristen Wallin Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Travis Robbins Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Bea Mehrens Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Rachel Cogley Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Holly Lopez Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Alyssa Byrum Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 holly rettler Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 David Johnson Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Stephanie Uclaray Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Kristi Martin Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Kelli Johnston Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Jennifer Avila Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Barbara Main Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Laurie Zepeda Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Lea Dawson Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Allison Caswell terborch Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Tina Holley Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Caitlin Wright Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Kelly Gash Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Monica Mccall Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 CHARLES JOHNSTON ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Myra Goryance Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Tori Perkins Arroyo grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Rachel Higgins Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Josh Wilbur Arroyo grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Kathy Mihlhsuser Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Bev Beaudoin Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Diana Foster Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Rebecca Mckenzie Arroyo grande CA 93420 US 9/7/2018 Jamie Rogers Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/7/2018 Terry Peterson Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/7/2018 Wendy Golembiewski Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/7/2018 Jennifer Atoigue Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/7/2018 Summer Sproston Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/7/2018 Colette Reyes Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/7/2018 Cassandra Booth Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/7/2018 Tracy Sparks Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/7/2018 Marlene tynon Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/7/2018 Lori Waters Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/7/2018 Tracy Scovil Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/7/2018 Tabitha Tabarez Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/7/2018 Brittany Nelson Arroyo grande CA 93420 US 9/7/2018 Tania Chavez Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/7/2018 Joanne Steffen Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/8/2018 Elizabeth Seitzer Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/8/2018 Lynn F Stewart Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/8/2018 Jeremy Burns Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/8/2018 Danielle Stucky Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/8/2018 Brittany Quaresma Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/8/2018 Lauren Koellish Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/8/2018 Steve Beaudoin Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/9/2018 Nellie Madson Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/10/2018 Angela Bolton Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/11/2018 Magdalena Bolton Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/11/2018 Karen Cabreana Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/19/2018 Sharon Sindel Arroyo Grande CA 93420 US 1/27/2019 Victoria Ramos Arroyo Grande CA 93421 US 9/5/2018 Vanessa Swier Arroyo Grande CA 93433 US 9/6/2018 Erin Alves Arroyo Grande CA 93445 US 9/6/2018 Ericka Horn Arroyo Grande CA US 9/4/2018 Sharlotte Wilson Arroyo Grande CA US 9/7/2018 Janice Reid Arroyo Grande, CA CA 93905 US 9/5/2018 Tim Burton Arroyyo Grande CA 93420 US 9/6/2018 Jasmine House Atascadero CA 93422 US 9/6/2018 Kristen Weems Atascadero CA 93422 US 9/6/2018 Weston Weems Atascadero CA 93422 US 9/9/2018 JoAnn Richardson Atascadero CA 93442 US 9/10/2018 Rick Awad Bethel 45106 US 1/13/2019 Mona Brutus Brockton US 1/7/2019 Michael Friedmann Bronx 10461 US 12/4/2018 Riley Collins Brunswick 21716 US 11/26/2018 Gerald Marlin Carrollton GA 30117 US 9/6/2018 Adam Kaluba Cincinnati 45249 US 1/10/2019 Alexander Shelly Clovis 93619 US 11/3/2018 Henry Geiger Crescent City CA 95531 US 9/6/2018 K B Cypress 77433 US 12/28/2018 kendra sears Denver 80241 US 11/14/2018 Michelle Lambert Frederick 21702 US 11/26/2018 Utkarsh Nath Fremont 94555 US 2/4/2019 Christie Rosenbaum Fresno CA 93720 US 9/8/2018 Kelly Langen Grover Beach CA 93420 US 9/8/2018 Patty Robasciotti Grover Beach CA 93433 US 9/6/2018 Amy Iversen Grover Beach CA 93433 US 9/6/2018 Adria Beaman Grover Beach CA 93433 US 9/7/2018 Dawn Macgregor Grover Beach CA 93433 US 9/7/2018 TIMOTHY MARTIN Guadalupe CA 93434 US 9/8/2018 Leen Alabed Irvine 92618 US 1/28/2019 Jaime Nuño Irving TX US 9/6/2018 Joseph Gagne Jacksonville 32223 US 12/31/2018 Anita Daugherty Jacksonville 32224 US 12/30/2018 Maris Manzano La Habra CA 90633 US 9/6/2018 Christie Streeper Los Angeles CA 90016 US 9/6/2018 April Burr Los Angeles CA 90016 US 9/6/2018 Jennifer Stewart Los Angeles CA 90096 US 9/8/2018 Kimberly Wade Malverne 11565 US 11/3/2018 Gail Miller-Shapiro Middleton 1949 US 12/10/2018 Ruth Salazar Monee 60449 US 12/21/2018 David Mueller Mount Prospect 60056 US 1/22/2019 Linae Amado Newark CA 94560 US 9/9/2018 Joana Reis Newington 6111 US 11/30/2018 Ann Carone Newington 6111 US 11/30/2018 Anthony Evans Newington 6111 US 12/1/2018 el corrado Newington 6111 US 12/4/2018 Lindsey Mihlhauser Nipomo CA 93444 US 9/6/2018 Sharon Mulkey Nipomo CA 93444 US 9/6/2018 Becky Haddad Nipomo CA 93444 US 9/7/2018 Leslie Cosgrove Nipomo CA US 9/6/2018 Kimberly Hallowell North Hollywood CA 91606 US 9/6/2018 Pamala Forsythe Oceano CA 93445 US 9/8/2018 Ruthie Osburn Oceano CA 93445 US 9/10/2018 Gary soto OCEANO CA 93445 US 9/10/2018 Inger Douglas Orange Park 32073 US 1/7/2019 carolyn moody pismo beach CA 93448 US 12/26/2018 Carolyn Jolly Pismo Beach CA 93449 US 9/6/2018 Kelley Haines Pismo Beach CA 93449 US 9/8/2018 Tracy Watson Pismo Beach CA 93449 US 9/10/2018 cathy rupp Pittsburgh 15213 US 12/23/2018 William Frisbie Post Falls 83877 US 1/28/2019 Kelly McLaughlin Providence 2906 US 12/10/2018 Morgan Northcote Salinas CA 93901 US 9/6/2018 Tawnya Hahn Salinas CA 93905 US 9/6/2018 Greg Howard San Francisco CA 94119 US 9/6/2018 Patricia Dougall San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US 9/6/2018 Amber Freitas San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US 9/6/2018 Melissa Richison San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US 9/6/2018 Anita Gaskill San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US 9/6/2018 Shannan Mihlhauser San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US 9/7/2018 Sharon TerBorch San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US 9/7/2018 Rick Gargano San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US 9/7/2018 Amanda Fries San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US 9/8/2018 Lee Whitmer San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US 9/8/2018 Diane Schmidt San Luis Obispo CA 93405 US 9/6/2018 Vanessa Wells San Luis Obispo CA 93405 US 9/7/2018 brad armstrong San Luis Obispo CA US 9/6/2018 Gina Butler Santa Maria CA 93454 US 9/6/2018 Christopher Koehler Santa Maria CA 93454 US 9/6/2018 Krista Bandy Santa Maria CA 93455 US 9/6/2018 Hilary Key Santa Maria CA 93455 US 9/7/2018 Leslie Maxwell Santa Maria CA 93458 US 9/7/2018 Kim JohnstonJimenez Santa Maria CA 93458 US 9/7/2018 Joanne Colli Santa Maria CA 93454-9608US 9/8/2018 Roxana Fernandez Schererville IN 46375 US 9/9/2018 Betty Mills Seattle WA 98168 US 9/6/2018 Renee Reyes Shell Beach CA 93449 US 9/6/2018 Malissa Lashley Silverton OR 97381 US 9/8/2018 Amelie Tatou 30317 US 1/27/2019 Cindy Felix US 9/6/2018 June Austin US 9/7/2018 Shannon Hirase US 9/7/2018 Amy Galvan US 9/7/2018 theresa Graham US 9/8/2018 Hui Xu US 9/11/2018 Amanda Rivera US 9/11/2018 Julia Bri US 9/11/2018 Arianna Manning US 9/11/2018 Mayra Flores US 9/12/2018 Talebdoost US 9/12/2018 Brianna Hallerbach US 9/13/2018 Gina Hasbun US 9/13/2018 Carla Jones US 9/13/2018 Patrick Polvinale US 9/13/2018 Neil Riordan US 9/14/2018 Jacqueline Conway US 9/14/2018 Robert Camire US 9/15/2018 Yousef Shehab US 9/15/2018 Jonathan Haag US 9/15/2018 Brian Baker US 9/15/2018 Sharon LiPira US 9/15/2018 Analisa Miller US 9/17/2018 Navid Daneshpour US 9/21/2018 Debra Castruita US 9/21/2018 Rami Aljiryes US 9/21/2018 Fred Aljiryes US 9/21/2018 nany santoso US 9/21/2018 Ananya Devarajan US 9/21/2018 Mehran Golestaneh US 9/21/2018 Esmaeil Safaee US 9/21/2018 Danubia Conwell US 9/21/2018 Mike O’Keefe US 9/21/2018 jean liu US 9/25/2018 Cierra Leocadio US 9/25/2018 Chris Chocek US 9/25/2018 Chad Raus US 9/25/2018 Myoung Choe US 9/25/2018 WILLIAM RANNEY US 9/25/2018 CRYSTAL HIRSCH US 9/25/2018 Melissa Melissa Rorick US 9/27/2018 Mark Koritz US 9/27/2018 owen payne US 9/28/2018 Maddson Brown US 10/3/2018 Alex Andrushko US 10/3/2018 Lollie Roduner US 10/4/2018 Michelle Wesner US 10/4/2018 halls halls US 10/4/2018 Kevin Wiegand US 10/4/2018 Mary Larson US 10/5/2018 Andrejs Malikovs US 10/7/2018 Debra Harris US 10/7/2018 Jaylynn Sessions US 10/10/2018 Carole Hagen US 10/17/2018 Molly Gillrup US 10/17/2018 Josh Blake US 10/17/2018 Nettie Guel US 10/17/2018 Maryann Thompson US 10/17/2018 Raymond Griffith US 10/18/2018 Tatiana Pouncy US 10/18/2018 Lorna Zamora US 10/18/2018 Rajaith Sutherland US 10/19/2018 Julie Ruganis US 10/19/2018 Darby Middlebrooks US 10/21/2018 Christian Melendez US 10/22/2018 tucciarone tucciarone US 10/22/2018 Stephen Murphy US 10/23/2018 Cynthia Mello US 11/28/2018 February 5, 2019 Dear Planning Commissioners, Below is a supplemental summary of the issues I have upon further review of the comprehensive staff report regarding the proposed 23 unit housing development with a coffee kiosk at Halcyon & Fair Oaks Blvd. This project calls for installing a primarily residential project in an office/mixed use zone. By adding one small commercial unit/kiosk this proposed project dramatically increases the allowable density for residential units. This is not a mixed used development this is residential project for which the applicant wants variances on residential standards through the condition use process. On page 52 of your package the P-2.1 drawing highlights the limited commercial/mixed use of this project. If you put your thumb over the lower right corner of the drawing on the coffee kiosk, does that look like a mixed-use project to you? • The OMU District Minimum lot size per unit is 10,000 sq feet, yet the development is proposing approximately 2,000 to 6,645 square feet which requires a conditional use permit to be approved. • The OMU minimum lot width is 100 feet, the project proposes just 30 feet. • The proposed project would install 23 high density units with 2K lot size next to standard single-family residents. This development disrupts the character of the area. This project is not consistent with the three land use objectives outlined on Page 4 of the staff report. The following addresses each of the three objectives: LU5-11: Promote a mixture of residential and commercial uses along Mixed Use corridors including substantial landscaping and streetscape improvements. • This project does not promote a mixture of commercial and residential, it is predominantly residential. The coffee kiosk is not of sufficient retail/commercial size to warrant the approval of conditional use permit. LU11-1: Require that new development be at an appropriate density or intensity based upon compatibility with the majority of existing surrounding land uses. • This development proposal is far denser than anything around it on either side. LU11-2: Require that new development should be designed to create pleasing transitions to surrounding development. • This development does not create a transition between land uses, this project creates a highly dense cluster of development of disproportionate size, density, and height of adjacent properties at a high traffic intersection. • The coffee kiosk will create on attritive nuisance to the school. The plans indicate two access points, only one of which is currently in use by one single family residence. The proposed driveway on Fair Oaks is slightly offset from Harloe Elementry’s driveway. Offset driveways, especially for highly used driveways, will create conflicting turning movements. I cannot not determine from the traffic study if the AM and PM Peaks took into account the AM and PM peaks for Harloe’s day or just for commuters. Can the Planning Commission verify that the traffic study accounts for not only traffic in the peak hour AM and PM but also the AM & PM from the school traffic? The Planning Commission should verify that this housing development has been designed to accommodate future Halcyon Road improvements including all necessary land dedications which must include space for permeant road improvements and the necessary temporary construction easements. This could present a challenge since it is my understanding that these improvements have only been developed to a planning level and do not included information for any necessary roadway vertical changes. On page 119 of the packet, the traffic study includes mitigation measures for impacts to Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks which include restriping of the southbound, westbound, and eastbound turn pockets. This should be addressed a condition of approval if this commission ultimately moves forward with the development. This highly dense housing development and coffee kiosk calls for roadway that are 20 feet wide from curb to curb. The development requires people to park in the garage. Has the applicant demonstrated that vehicles can realistically maneuver in and out of parking and/or garage spaces? Has anyone reviewed this analysis? Is it available for public inspection? Other concerns I have about this project is that it lacks residential common open space for recreation. This will burden Harloe Elementary School, since it is likely this development will lean on Harloe heavily to provide outdoor use space. The staff report indicates that 15 oaks trees are requirement to be planted to mitigate planned tree removals, this project is providing 9. The City of Arroyo Grande’s primary water source is Lopez Lake. This development will use more water than the existing uses. Our water supple is finite and with the ever change weather patterns, the past cannot be used to predict the future. The intensity, duration and frequency of rain events is changing without a clear understanding of what the future holds. Depending on how much rain we get in the coming weeks, our primary water source will be 8% less than what it was last year. Below of a graph of Lopez Lake Capacity over the last year. We should take extreme caution when approving high intensity water uses. In closing, I ask that the Planning Commission give pause to a project that has many inconsistencies with the general plan and many gaps in burden of mitigation for future traffic impacts. The applicant stands to profit greatly from this market rate project and as such should be responsible to ensuring these mitigations are properly addressed and accounted for so that the city does not bear the cost in the future. I urge the Planning Commission not to approve this project at this density and deny the approval of a conditional use permit as a mixed-use project without a greater balance of commercial to residential space. Additionally, adequate recreation space/outdoor common areas should be provided within the property as a condition of approval. Respectfully submitted, Ericka Horn Woodland Drive 1 Matt Downing From:marshalee Sent:Tuesday, February 05, 2019 2:44 PM To:Matt Downing Subject:Fwd: Halcyon/Fair Oaks 23 units Hi Matt, Would you please make sure the planning commissioners receive this email before tonights hearing? Thank you, Marsha Lee Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Date: February 5, 2019 at 2:42:41 PM PST To: agcity Subject: Halcyon/Fair Oaks 23 units Dear Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, The following are comments for your consideration at tonights hearing for the above project: 1) Please continue this project to future date and request redesign with a better mix of land use products that would reduce overall trip generation trip generation, more open space, more on site parking and greater setbacks on Halcyon and Fair Oaks for children safety and to better meet the General Plan policies LU5-11, 11- 1, 11-2 and A-5. 2) This is an attached, for-sale residential market rate project, not an AFFORDABLE housing project (even though the design is promoted as “affordable by design”. FYI- Since the units are around 1800 SF the market price would be around $600-700k based on new foot construction SF prices. 3) Also, the proposed project does not represent a Mixed-Use Village Core Project as identified in the General Plan. The 500 SF coffee shop doesn't appear to be viable for the size as well as at this location (parking and access issues). Please consider a better mix of uses (perhaps live-work may have less trip generation.) 3) The proposed project is under-parked. Looking at the existing adjacent neighborhoods you will see full garages and 3-4 cars parked on the street, especially for 3 bedroom homes. 4) The traffic study does not adequately consider the traffic generation for the new medical building, the Harloe Elementary, Arroyo Grande High School, neighborhood, and Mesa/Hwy 1 commuter traffic flows. The Level of Service is already D. MOST IMPORTANT - This is already a very congested corner and potentially hazardous for safe children crossing. Please look at a better mix of uses and reduce density to reduce trip generation. Widen setbacks on Fair Oaks and Halcyon for pedestrian /children safety and to better meet the General Plan policies. Include more open space on the corner for safety. Thank you for you attention to these important safety concerns. 2 Marsha Lee Arroyo Grande resident Sent from my iPhone 1 Matt Downing Subject:Proposed Fair Oaks/Halycon development From: Lisa Leutwyler Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 9:47 AM To: Caren Ray Russom; kbarnich@arroyogrande.org; Jimmy Paulding; Keith Storton; Lan George Subject: Proposed Fair Oaks/Halycon development Dear Mayor and Council, Although I don’t live in Arroyo Grande, I do have a comment regarding this development. I’m not against it per se, but am against the fact that from what I read and heard, it will not be affordable housing. It sounds like it might be built cheaper or as the Trib said “affordable by design” (which may cause problems down the line), and that the developer will be paying ‘in‐lieu of’ fees to be able to develop it. How does that help the current affordable housing shortage now? And how many other developers will want to do that? Our county as a whole does not need more $700,000.00 + townhomes or houses. This doesn’t help the general workforce. We need true affordable housing! Look at the mess in San Luis that is happening on Madonna. Tons of high priced houses very close together, un‐needed office & commercial space since they are so many vacant stores & office space now. Thank you, Lisa Leutwyler Sent from Lisa's iPad 🌈 February 5, 2019 Dear Jimmy Paulding, I am writing you about the consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16-002, Conditional Use Permit 16-007, the subdivision and construction of 23 residential units at 362-382 S. Halcyon Road. Assuming that the Planning Commission adopts a resolution approving this project, you will be asked to approve those plans. I strongly oppose this project ad do many of my neighbors, and I urge you to keep our concerns in mind when it comes time for you to review the situation. One reason that my family chose to buy our home in Arroyo Grande was the quality of our public schools. Recently more and more residential projects have been approved and built, e.g. the Cherry Lane Development and the affordable housing units on Halcyon. My concern is regarding the increasing classroom sizes. I have to believe when these developments are built a certain percentage will be occupied with families of school aged children. Aside from a development impact fee provided to the school district, is there any consideration of increasing/impacting student enrollments at our schools? While overcrowding the schools is a concern, another concern I have is regarding the City’s budget. I believe that Arroyo Grande should focus on commercial development as those tax dollars generate more income than residential development. This particular project is on a site designated for mixed land use, and the residential development would limit the tax generation potential for this site. I would also ask that you share this letter with the Planning Commission as I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting tonight. Thank you for your patience, and consideration of my letter. Respectfully, James Wiggin 1 Matt Downing Subject:Fair Oaks Townhome Project From: Jack Hardy Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 3:52 PM To: Teresa McClish Subject: Fair Oaks Townhome Project Teresa McClish, I am writing you to show my support for the proposed “Fair Oaks Townhomes” project located at the corner of Fair Oaks and Halcyon Road in Arroyo Grande. Arroyo Grande is in need of housing and this is a wonderfully designed and needed addition to the community. Based on my 25 years in the real estate industry in Arroyo Grande, I can tell you first hand this is a project that will be a great addition to the community. Please place this correspondence in the public record. Thank you for your time. Sincerely Jack Hardy President & CEO Century 21 Hometown Realty 102 Bridge St. Arroyo Grande, CA. 93420 DRE 01177941 February 10, 2019 City of Arroyo Grande RECEIVED FEB 1 4 2019 Matt Downing, Planning Manager 300 East Branch COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 16-002 Fair Oaks Residential/Mixed Use Project Dear Matt: Please consider this letter and its comments as support for the above-mentioned project. After reading the documentation, conditions of approval and letters (pro and con) and carefully considering all sides, I have come to the conclusion that this project is a good fit for the site. This parcel has been an eyesore and underutilized for many years, and this project is an opportunity to improve our neighborhood. A. Commercial vs residential 1. Housing a. The project is not apartments, but townhomes designed to be affordable by nature. and it adds much needed housing stock to the Ci ty for all residents. b. The project provides housing near employers (think: hospital, rehab center, County Mental Health, etc). 2. Commercial a. Would residents/neighbors prefer a shopping center or strip mall at that location? I think not. 3. Commercial vs. residential: those are pretty much the choices for that location B. Traffic Again, Commercial vs residential 1. Residential use results in far fewer trips per day than commercial/business use so residential is the best use for the site from a traffic p ers pe ctive 2. According to the Updated Traffic Report dated 06/15/18, the existin g intersection cumulative im pacts (Halcyon, US101 SB, Halcyon/Grand) is as follows: a. AM peak hour cumulative 'existing' LOS (level of service) grade is 'C' for 2 of 3 intersections and 'D' for the other According to the same report, the existin g intersection cumulative im pact PLUS the pro ject grade is LOS 'C', or the same as before the project. c. There was also no LOS grade difference between the 'before or 'after' scenarios for the PM peak hour studied 1 3. In real time, the difference shown in the report (pg. 12) is equal to or less than 1.1 second wait time and low enough to seem insignificant. This appears to meet the City's impact threshold policy and is consistent with Caltrans policies. This delay would not seem to be a huge inconvenience to drivers. Conclusion: • Adds much needed housing stock to the City • Residential use would be preferable by far to commercial use at that location • LOS (level of service) impact for traffic with the project included is within City standards (major intersections taken into consideration). Yes, I know that the project may not satisfy all of the wishes of some of our residents/neighbors, but I believe it satisfies some of the wishes we might all have. It will be an asset to the community, and more specifically, to the South Halcyon Road corridor. Sincerely, Susan Henslin Cameron Ct Arroyo Grande, CA 2 ,- Dear Neighbor, If you are interested in having input and forming a team to pursue a course(s) of action to address the noted concerns and possibly add others -now is the time to do so. Actions always give power to words. If you want to be part of the action, have real input consider joining our action team. You are needed. CONTACT: ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: 1 Matt Downing From:Gloria Telecky Sent:Thursday, March 14, 2019 1:53 PM To:Matt Downing Subject:RE: Proposed Development Halcyon/Fair Oaks Arroyo Grande Planning Commission,(please submit w/staff report) The density of the proposed 23 residential units plus a coffee shop is too high for this area considering the amount of traffic it is going to generate on these two city street that are all ready handling a high volume of traffic. This is not including all the additional traffic that the new medical building is going to generate when its operating at full capacity. Where I live on the corner of Woodland and Fair Oaks I cannot stress enough my concern for the safety and welfare for our students attending school and our local residents having to access these two busy streets. A traffic count done four and a half years ago is not adequate to base the use of Fair Oaks on. We need one done now or preferably when the new medical building is in full use before approving a high density development like the one proposed. Thank you for your attention to these safety and welfare concerns of mine. Gloria Telecky H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 569 Higuera Street Suite A San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: P1.0 1/29/19 Halcyon KDJTITLE SHEETFAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: PRELIMINARYPROJECT DESCRIPTION THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF HALCYON AND FAIR OAKS AVENUE IN ARROYO GRANDE. THE SITE IS CURRENTLY 4 LOTS WITH 5 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, 4 OF WHICH ARE VACANT AND ONLY ONE IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSIST OF 22 TOWNHOMES, A STUDIO APPARTMENT AND COFFEE SHOP. THERE ARE THREE FLOOR PLAN TYPES PROPOSED, WITH BOTH TWO AND THREE BEDROOM OPTIONS. ALL RESIDENT AND GUEST PARKING WILL BE ON SITE AND WILL TAKE ACCESS FROM FAIR OAKS AVENUE AND FROM HALCYON. DIRECTORY OWNERS:FAIR OAKS AVENUE INVESTERS LLC 214 Whitley Street Arroyo Grande, CA ARCHITECT (Representative):STEVEN PUGLISI ARCHITECTS 569 Higuera St. Suite A San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (o)595-1962 (f) 595-1980 CIVIL ENGINEER:GARING TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES 141 S Elm Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (o)489-1321 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:FIRMA 187 Tank Farm Rd. Suite 230 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (o)781-9800 SOILS / GEOLOGIST GEOSOLUTIONS 220 High St San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (o)543-8539 SHEET INDEX P1.0 TITLE SHEET 1 of 2 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 2 of 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN L-1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPING DESIGN P2.0 EXISTING SITE PLAN P2.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN P2.2 DIMENSION PLAN P3.0 UNIT A- FLOOR PLANS P3.1 UNIT A- FLOOR PLANS- 2 Bedroom Option P3.2 UNIT B- FLOOR PLANS P3.3 UNIT C- FLOOR PLANS P4.0 BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONS P4.1 BUILDING 2 ELEVATIONS P4.2 BUILDING 3 ELEVATIONS P4.3 BUILDING 4 ELEVATIONS P4.4 BUILDING 5 ELEVATIONS P5.0 COFFEE SHOP 17 TOTAL SHEETS SITE DATA GENERAL SITE INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS:382 Halcyon, Arroyo Grande 387 Halcyon, Arroyo Grande 370 Halcyon, Arroyo Grande 364 Halcyon, Arroyo Grande ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:077-204-031 077-204-026 077-204-037 077-204-036 LOT SIZE:69,176 square feet (1.58 acres) LAND USE DESIGNATION:MFR- Very High Density CURRENT SITE(S) USAGE:4 Vacant Residences 1 Occupied Residence ZONING DESIGNATION:OMU- Office Mixed Use AREA OF DISTURBANCE:69,176 sf (1.58 acres) SITE PERCENT SLOPE:<10% SETBACKS: Front (Halcyon)10 ft Side 5 ft Side (Fair Oaks)15 ft Rear 15' LOT AREA STATISTICS: Total Building Area 26,526 SF 38% Flatwork 8,210 SF 12% Road / Driveway 20,177 SF 29% Landscape 14,335 SF 21% FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIR OAKS BLVD, ARROYO GRANDE CA PROJECT STATISTICS PARKING REQUIREMENTS 2 covered spaces per unit 44 Guest parking 0.5 per unit 11 Parking Spaces Required =55 PROPOSED PARKING 2 covered spaces per unit 44 Guest parking 0.5 per unit 19 Parking Spaces Provided =63 ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 1.58 Acres x 20 DU 31.6 Therfore 31 Density Units PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY 2 Bedroom Units 5 @ 1 DU Each 5 3 Bedroom Units 17 @ 1.5 DU Each 25.5 Studio 1 @ 0.5 DU Each 0.5 Total Density 31 BUILDING DATA BUILDING AREA PLAN A Lower Floor Living Area 694 SF Garage Storage 454 SF Upper Floor Living Area 1037 SF Total Living Area 1,731 SF PLAN B Lower Floor Living Area 867 SF Garage Storage 454 SF Upper Floor Living Area 996 SF Total Living Area 1,863 SF PLAN C Lower Floor Living Area 694 SF Garage Storage 454 SF Upper Floor Living Area 1037 SF Total Living Area 1,731 SF STUDIO Living Area 506 SF Entry Deck 30 SF COFFEE SHOP Floor Area 506 SF Outdoor Patio 388 SF BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35'0" Building 1 (5 Units)27'6" Building 2 (2 Units)27'6" Building 3 (4 Units)27'6" Building 4 (3 Units)27'6" Building 5 (8 Units)27'6" Coffee Shop / Studio 25'5" CALIFORNIA CODE REFERENCES THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH: 2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC) 2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC) 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC) 2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CEnC) 2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE (GGBSC) All amendments to the CA Codes adopted by the City of Arroyo Grande, and all other codes, regulations, and approvals established by the City of Arroyo Grande. ATTACHMENT 9 COFFEE SHOPNORTH 187.00'EAST 110.00'NORTH 96.24'S89° 55'19" E 189.36'N00° 52'48" 283.51'24" MAG MULTI TRUNK LEMON 24" OAK 10" OAK 18" PODOCA RPUS 10" PEAR 6" OAK 30" OAK 60" OAK 36" OAK 12" OAK BLOCK WALLEAST 283.71' QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK 9 TOTAL 24" BOX OLEA EUROPA / OLIVE PISTACIA CHINENSI/ CHINESE PISTACHE ARBUTUS MARINA OR TRISTANIA LAURINA CHILOPSIS LINEARIS /DESERT WILLOW DROUGHT TOLERANT GROUND COVERS, SHRUBS & VINE ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. / MANZANITA CULTIVARS CEANOTHUS SPP. / CEANOTHUS CULITVARS CISTUS SUNSET / RED ROCKROSE LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS / PURPLE LANTANA DIETES BICOLOR / FORTNIGHT LILY PENNISETUM ORIENTALE / ORIENTAL FOUNTAINGRASS AGAVE ATTENUATA /FOXTAIL AGAVE ALOE X NOBILIS APTENIA CORDIFOLIA RIBES SANGUINEUM / RED CURRANT RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA / COFFEEBERRY PARTHENOCISSUS TRICUSPIDATA / BOSTON IVY TRISTANIA CONFERTA/ BRISBANE BOX HALCYON ROADExisting Oak Trees to be retained: Smooth river cobbles within canopy with drip irrigation at canopy drip line only PRELIMINARY PLANT LIST TREES Drought tolerant ground cover and shrubs, typical FAIR OAKS AVE. Oaks being removed from site is 5 total with 9 relacement oaks. Oaks to be removed, typical Vine, typical Vine, typical 42" solid fence with 18" vinyl lattice on top, vine on inside L-1 Fair Oaks Multifamily Residential Project APRIL 04, 2018 05'10'20'30'40' Scale: 1" = 20'-0" North File Name: firma_Halcyon_Prelim_21645 Last Date Modified: 4/04/18 ﬁrma l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t s p l a n n i n g • e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t u d i e s 187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 phone: 805.781.9800 fax: 805.781.9803 Water Conservation Notes Planting and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water. the following factors have been incorporated to aid in the success of the project landscape: 1.Irrigation system to be a fully automatic underground system utilizing either low-precipitation spray heads, bubblers, or drip emitters, or a combination thereof. Irrigation hydrozones shall be separated with control valves and controller stations into appropriate and compatible zones. 2.Irrigation controller shall be weather (E.T.) based and designed to automatically adjust irrigation in response to changes in the plant's water needs as weather conditions change. 3.Plant materials proposed are selected for their compatibility to climatic and site conditions, resistance to wind, and drought tolerance. 4.All planters shall be mulched with a 3” minimum layer of organic mulch throughout. 5.Plant materials proposed shall be grouped into distinct hydrozones utilizing plants with similar water needs. 6.Water needs of plant material proposed have been evaluated utilizing the WUCOLS Project (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species) prepared by the University of California Cooperative extension, February 1992. All plant materials proposed are selected for low to moderate water needs in this climate. H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP2.0 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJEXISTING SITE PLANFAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: 24" MAG MULTI TRUNK LEMON 24" OAK 10" OAK 18" PODOC ARPUS 10" PEAR 6" OAK 30" OAK 60" OAK 36" OAK 12" OAK BLOCK WALL8' BLOCK WALL4' BLOCK WALL 6' BLOCK WALL24" MAG MULTI TRUNK LEMON 24" OAK 10" OAK 18" PODOC ARPUS 10" PEAR 6" OAK 30" OAK 60" OAK 36" OAK 12" OAK FAIR OAKS AVE HAYCYON RD24" MAG MULTI TRUNK LEMON 24" OAK 10" OAK 18" PODOC ARPUS 10" PEAR 6" OAK 30" OAK 60" OAK 36" OAK 12" OAK BLOCK WALL8' BLOCK WALL4' BLOCK WALL 6' BLOCK WALLNORTH 187.00'EAST 110.00'NORTH 96.24'S89° 55'19" E 189.36'N00° 52'48" 283.51'EAST 283.71' EXISTING SITE PLAN Scale: 1" = 20 ft 1 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 ± 12'-3"± 25'-11"± 65'-1"± 59'-2" ± 50'-8"± 26'-7" ± 129'-10" ± 46'-4"± 49'-8"± 11'-1"± 30'-11"± 63'-8"10 0 10 20 4052 4 6 8 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" 3 3 3 3 EXISTING SITE PLAN REFERENCE NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Existing vacant residence to be removed Existing concrete driveway to be removed Existing tree to be removed Existing tree to remain Existing accessory structure to be removed Existing wall to be removed NOT TO SCALE TO SAN LUIS OBISPO N ELM STTO SANTA MARIA101 1 HALCYONLOS BERROS RDFAIR OAKS AVEFAR R O L L RD OAK PARK BLVDTHE PIKE GRANDE AVE JAME S WAY PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP not to scale H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP2.1 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: 24" MAG MULTI TRUNK LEMON 24" OAK 10" OAK 18" PODOC ARPUS 10" PEAR 6" OAK 30" OAK 60" OAK 36" OAK 12" OAK BLOCK WALL8' BLOCK WALL4' BLOCK WALL 6' BLOCK WALL24" MAG MULTI TRUNK LEMON 24" OAK 10" OAK 18" PODOC ARPUS 10" PEAR 6" OAK 30" OAK 60" OAK 36" OAK 12" OAK FAIR OAKS AVE HAYCYON RDA A A B B B B A A C C C C C A A A A A A A BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3 BUILDING 4 BUILDING 5 A COFFEE SHOPNORTH 187.00'EAST 110.00'NORTH 96.24'S89° 55'19" E 189.36'N00° 52'48" 283.51'EAST 283.71' ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN Scale: 1" = 20 ft Approx 50'-11"Approx 78'-1" 10 0 10 20 4052 4 6 8 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USE EXISTING COMMERCAIL USE 1 2 1 2 12 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 6 9 5 8 10 9 11 5 12 Typ 12 Typ 12 Typ 12 Typ 13 13 14 14 7 SITE PLAN REFERENCE NOTES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Property Line Setback Line New driveway entrance per city standards. Guest Parking Accessible parking Existing oak tree to remain Existing Magnolia tree to remain Coffee shop patio Trash Enclosure, per Detail C this sheet. Bike rack, per detail A this sheet. Community Mail Boxes, per Detail B this sheet. Entry walk Private patio and entry 5'-0" Privacy Wall NOT TO SCALE TO SAN LUIS OBISPO N ELM STTO SANTA MARIA101 1 HALCYONLOS BERROS RDFAIR OAKS AVEFAR R O L L RD OAK PARK BLVDTHE PIKE GRANDE AVE JAME S WAY PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP not to scale FLOOR AREA RATIO Lot Footprint Lot Size FAR 1 1,148 4,221 27% 2 1,148 2,010 57% 3 1,148 2,010 57% 4 1,148 2,010 57% 5 1,148 2,010 57% 6 1,148 2,010 57% 7 1,148 2,010 57% 8 1,148 2,692 43% 9 1,148 3,258 35% 10 1,148 1,965 58% 11 1,148 1,950 59% 12 1,148 1,935 59% 13 1,148 2,240 51% 14 506 6,450 8% 15 1,148 3,261 35% 16 1,148 4,954 23% 17 1,321 4,532 29% 18 1,321 3,090 43% 19 1,321 3,090 43% 20 1,321 5,160 26% 21 1,148 3,795 30% 22 1,148 2,070 55% 23 1,148 2,415 48% Total 26,454 69,138 38% Total Lot Size 69,176 Total Paving 28,387 Total Landscape 14,335 BIKE RACKA PARKING 44 Garage Spaces Provided (2 per dwelling) 19 Guest Spaces Provided (11 Required) SETBACKS Front (Halcyon):10 ft Side :5 ft Side (Fair Oaks):15 ft Rear:15 ft PROPOSED DENSITY 5- 2 Bedroom @ 1*= 5 17- 3 Bedroom @ 1.5*=25.5 1-Studio @0.5*= 0.5 Total density:31 *(2 bedroom equivalent) PROPOSED UNITS Unit A-3 Bedroom 8 Unit A- 2 Bedroom 4 Unit B-3 Bedroom 5 Unit C- 3 Bedroom 4 Unit C-2 Bedroom 1 Live Work- Studio 1 Total 23 Units ALLOWED DENSITY 1.58 AC x 20 = 31.6 Therefore: 31 UNIT LEGEND A Private Patio Proposed Unit Footprint Two car garage Building entrance Unit Type (Dot indicates a 2 Bedroom Unit) Open Landscape Area CLUSTER MAIL BOXESB PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSUREC H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP2.2 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJDIMENSION SITE PLANFAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: A A A B B B B A A C C C C C A A A A A A A BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3 BUILDING 4 BUILDING 5 A COFFEE SHOPNORTH 187.00'EAST 110.00'NORTH 96.24'S89° 55'19" E 189.36'N00° 52'48" 283.51'EAST 283.71' DIMENSION SITE PLAN Scale: 1" = 20 ft ±5'-0"90'-0"±40'-0"±10'-7"240'-0"±33'-0" ±12'-11"40'-0"±27'-3"120'-0"±27'-3"40'-0"15'-0" Setback 10'-0"42'-0"34'-0"150'-0"±47'-6"15'-0"55'-0"±31'-0"60'-0"±52'-11"40'-0"42'-0"10'-0"24'-0"16'-0" 21'-0"18'-0"24'-0"21'-6" 24'-0"15'-0"Setback5'-0" Setback5'-0"Setback5'-0"Setback10'-0" Setback NOT TO SCALE TO SAN LUIS OBISPO N ELM STTO SANTA MARIA101 1 HALCYONLOS BERROS RDFAIR OAKS AVEFAR R O L L RD OAK PARK BLVDTHE PIKE GRANDE AVE JAME S WAY PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP not to scale H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP3.0 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJUNIT A FLOOR PLANS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: Unit A- Elevator Option UP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" POWDER 3'6" x 8'7" Storage LIVING ROOM 16'5" x 16'7" DINING 12'0" x 8'7" KITCHEN 12'0" x 10'0" StorageUP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" POWDER 3'6" x 8'7" Storage LIVING ROOM 16'5" x 16'7" DINING 12'0" x 8'7" KITCHEN 12'0" x 10'0" Storage UNIT A- Lower Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 40'-0"3'-0"37'-0"29'-4"40'-0"29'-4" 8'-5"20'-11" 2 0 1 2 4 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" Lower Floor: Living Area 694 SF Garage / Storage 454 SF Upper Floor: Living Area 1037 SF Total Living Area 1,731 SF Unit A- Elevator Option DN M. BEDROOM 13'8" x 15'5" M. BATH 6'0" x 12'7" W.I.C. 13'6" x 5'3" BATH 11'0" x 5'6" LAUNDRY 6'0" x 6'11" BEDROOM 3 11'6" x 11'8" BEDROOM 2 11'6" x 11'8" HALL UNIT A- Upper Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 40'-0"3'-0"37'-0"29'-4" 8'-5"14'-7 1/2"6'-3 1/2" 29'-4"40'-0"3'-0"37'-0"2 0 1 2 4 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP3.1 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJUNIT A FLOOR PLANS 2 Bedroom Option FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: Unit A- Elevator Option UP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" POWDER 3'6" x 8'7" Storage LIVING ROOM 16'5" x 16'7" DINING 12'0" x 8'7" KITCHEN 12'0" x 10'0" StorageUP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" POWDER 3'6" x 8'7" Storage LIVING ROOM 16'5" x 16'7" DINING 12'0" x 8'7" KITCHEN 12'0" x 10'0" Storage UNIT A- Lower Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 40'-0"3'-0"37'-0"29'-4"40'-0"29'-4" 8'-5"20'-11" 2 0 1 2 4 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" Lower Floor: Living Area 694 SF Garage / Storage 454 SF Upper Floor: Living Area 1037 SF Total Living Area 1,731 SF Unit A- Elevator Option DN M. BEDROOM 13'8" x 15'5" M. BATH 6'0" x 12'7" W.I.C. 13'6" x 5'3" LAUNDRY 6'0" x 6'11" DEN 12'0" x 12'7" BEDROOM 2 13'0" x 11'8" HALL BATH 11'0" x 5'6" UNIT A- Upper Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 40'-0"3'-0"37'-0"29'-4" 8'-5"14'-7 1/2"6'-3 1/2" 29'-4"40'-0"3'-0"37'-0"2 0 1 2 4 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" UP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" BATH 8'8" x 5'6" Storage LIVING ROOM 15'11" x 16'7" KITCHEN / DINING 15'11" x 12'0" BEDROOM 3 12'2" x 10'6" Storage UP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" BATH 8'8" x 5'6" Storage LIVING ROOM 15'11" x 16'7" KITCHEN / DINING 15'11" x 12'0" BEDROOM 3 12'2" x 10'6" Storage UNIT B- Lower Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 6'-6"45'-6"16'-10"12'-6"12'-0"40'-0"52'-0"29'-4"52'-0"8'-5"20'-11" 29'-4"11'-0"2'-7"5'-6"20'-11"H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP3.2 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJUNIT B FLOOR PLANS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: Lower Floor: Living Area 867 SF Garage / Storage 454 SF Upper Floor: Living Area 996 SF Total Living Area 1,863 SF 6 : 12 6 : 126 : 126 : 126 : 12 6 : 12 6 : 126 : 126 : 126 : 12 DN M. BEDROOM 13'8" x 15'5" M. BATH 6'0" x 14'7" W.I.C. 7'3" x 5'3" BATH 11'0" x 5'6" LAUNDRY 6'0" x 6'11" DEN 12'7" x 12'0" BEDROOM 2 13'0" x 11'8" UNIT B- Upper Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 33'-6"6'-6"8'-5"40'-0"29'-4"40'-0"29'-4"6'-3"12'-2"13'-4"2'-6"13'-6" H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP3.3 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJUNIT C FLOOR PLANS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: Lower Floor: Living Area 694 SF Garage / Storage 454 SF Upper Floor: Living Area 1059 SF Total Living Area 1,753 SF UP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" POWDER 6'0" x 7'11" Storage LIVING ROOM 11'9" x 16'7" KITCHEN 12'0" x 10'0" DINING 12'0" x 8'7" StorageUP GARAGE 20'0" x 20'0" POWDER 6'0" x 7'11" Storage LIVING ROOM 11'9" x 16'7" KITCHEN 12'0" x 10'0" DINING 12'0" x 8'7" Storage UNIT C- Lower Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 29'-4"37'-0"3'-0"8'-5"20'-11" 29'-4"40'-0"40'-0"6'-11"20'-11"19'-1"DN M. BEDROOM 13'8" x 15'5" M. BATH 6'0" x 12'7" W.I.C. 13'6" x 5'3"LAUNDRY 6'0" x 6'11" BEDROOM 3 11'6" x 11'8" BEDROOM 2 11'6" x 11'8" HALL BATH 11'0" x 5'6" UNIT C- Upper Floor Plan Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 37'-0"3'-0"8'-5"14'-7 1/2"6'-3 1/2"3'-0"37'-0"40'-0"29'-4"40'-0"12'-2"24'-10"13'-4"5'-3"6'-3"12'-2"29'-4" H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP4.0 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJBUILDING 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: C C C C C BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2 COFFEE SHOP S89° 55'19" E 189.36'N00° 52'48" 283.51'BUILDING REFERENCE PLAN Scale: 1" = 40 ft A B C D BUILDING 1- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"A 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH WOOD TRIM STONE VENEER PAINTED WOOD BEAMS WOOD GATE STUCCO WALL WITH VINYL LATTICE BUILDING 1- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"D 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES GARAGE DOOR STUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM BUILDING 1- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"C 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate HtASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH TRIMSTUCCO BUILDING 1- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"B 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate HtASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH TRIM STUCCO STUCCO WALL WITH VINYL LATTICE WOOD BRACKETS H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP4.1 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJBUILDING 2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: A BUILDING 2 A COFFEE SHOP S89° 55'19" E 189.36' BUILDING REFERENCE PLAN Scale: 1" = 40 ft A B D C BUILDING 2- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"A 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES GARAGE DOORSTUCCO ENTRY DOOR VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM PAINTED WOOD BEAMS BUILDING 2- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"C 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH TRIM STUCCO EXTERIOR DOOR BUILDING 2- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"D 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH TRIM STUCCO BUILDING 2- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"B 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH TRIMSTUCCO WOOD BRACKET H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP4.2 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJBUILDING 3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: B B B B BUILDING 3 BUILDING REFERENCE PLAN Scale: 1" = 40 ft A B D C BUILDING 3- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"D 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES GARAGE DOORSTUCCO ENTRY DOOR VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM STONE VENEER BUILDING 3- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"B 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH TRIM STUCCO STONE VENEER WOOD GATE PAINTED WOOD BEAMS BUILDING 3- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"C 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES VINYL WINDOWS WITH TRIM STUCCO STONE VENEER BUILDING 3- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"A9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg Height H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP4.3 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJBUILDING 4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: A A A BUILDING 4NORTH 187.00'EAST 110.00' BUILDING REFERENCE PLAN Scale: 1" = 40 ft A B D C BUILDING 4- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"A 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES GARAGE DOORSTUCCO ENTRY DOOR VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM BUILDING 4- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"C 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES STUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM EXTERIOR DOOR PAINTED WOOD BEAMS BUILDING 4- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"D 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht24'-11" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES STUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM BUILDING 4- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"B 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES STUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM PAINTED WOOD BEAMS H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP4.4 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJBUILDING 5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: A A A A A A A A BUILDING 5 NORTH 187.00'EAST 283.71' BUILDING REFERENCE PLAN Scale: 1" = 40 ft D B A C BUILDING 5- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"A 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES GARAGE DOORSTUCCO ENTRY DOOR VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM ASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES BUILDING 5- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"B 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES STUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM EXTERIOR DOOR PAINTED WOOD BEAMS BUILDING 5- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"C 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES STUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM BUILDING 5- Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"D 9'-6" Plate Ht9'-1" Plate Ht27'-6" Max Bldg HeightASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLES STUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI H C 1 2 9 3 8 08.31.17 VETS L G UP REN. DATE I NE AT C E TICRADESNECIL S T ATEOF CA L I F O R N ISI SHEET №PROJECT: DATE: JOB: DRAWN: REV.: A R C H I T E C T S INC Steven Puglisi 5 69 Higuera Street Suite A S a n L uis O b is p o CA 93401 Ph: 805.595.1962 Fx: 805.595.1980 All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by the drawings are owned by, and the property of, Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. and were created and developed for use, and in conjunction with, the specific project described herein. None of these ideas, designs and arrangements or plans shall be used by, or disclosed to any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose without permission of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC.. Filing these drawings with a public agency is not a publication of same, and no copying, reproduction or use thereof is permissible without the consent of Steven Puglisi, ARCHITECTS, INC. SHEET: NOT FORCONSTRUCTIONP5.0 6/5/18 Halcyon KDJCOFFEE SHOP FLOOR PLANS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FAIR OAKS RESIDENTIAL HALCYON AT FAIROAKS, ARROYO GRANDE CA Stacy Bromley PROJECT STATISTICS: Coffee Shop Floor Area 506 SF Outdoor Patio 388 SF Live Work Studio Living Area 506 SF Entry Deck 30 SFPOWDER3'6" x 8'7"UP COFFEE SHOP Service Patio Patio LOWER FLOOR- Coffee Shop Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 0 1 2 4 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"A9'-1"8'-0"± 25'-5"PAINTED WOOD GUARDRAIL STUCCO PRIVACY WALL Revised: January 11, 2018DNDN STUDIO UPPER FLOOR- Studio Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 0 1 2 4 8 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"B STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFINGSTUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM TRELLIS PAINTED WOOD GUARDRAIL Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"C STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFINGSTUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM STUCCO WALL WITH LATTICE SCREEN Exterior Elevations Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"D STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFINGSTUCCO VINYL WINDOW WITH TRIM STUCCO WALL WITH LATTICE SCREEN TRELLIS