Agenda Package - PC_Aug02_2022PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday, August 2, 2022, 6:00 p.m.
Hybrid City Council Chamber/Virtual Zoom Meeting
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
Please click the link below to join the Zoom Meeting:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83255848846
Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846
Or by Telephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799
In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the
Ralph M. Brown Act, this Planning Commission meeting is being conducted in a hybrid in-person/virtual format.
Meetings will be broadcast live on Channel 20 and streamed on the City’s website and www.slo-span.org.
Members of the public may participate and provide public comment on agenda items during the meeting by
joining the Zoom meeting or by submitting written public comments to the Clerk of the Commission at pc-
publiccomment@arroyogrande.org.
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.ROLL CALL
3.FLAG SALUTE
Chair Martin
4.AGENDA REVIEW
The Commission may revise the order of agenda items depending on public interest and/or special
presentations.
5.COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
This public comment period is an invitation to members of the community to present issues,
thoughts, or suggestions on matters not scheduled on this agenda. Comments should be limited to
those matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Members of the public may
provide public comment remotely by joining the Zoom meeting utilizing one of the methods provided
below. Please use the “raise hand” feature to indicate your desire to provide public comment.
Click the link below to join the webinar:
• https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89129208197; Webinar ID: 891 2920 8197
• Or Telephone Attendee: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799; 1-253-215-8782; Press * 9 to “raise
hand” for public comment
The Brown Act restricts the Commission from taking formal action on matters not published on the
agenda. In response to your comments, the Chair or presiding official may:
• Direct City staff to assist or coordinate with you.
• A Commissioner may state a desire to meet with you.
• It may be the desire of the Commission to place your issue or matter on a future agenda.
Please adhere to the following procedures when addressing the Commission:
• Comments should be limited to 3 minutes or less.
• Your comments should be directed to the Commission as a whole and not directed to an individual
Commissioner.
• Slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any Commissioner or member of the audience
shall not be permitted.
6.WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Correspondence or supplemental information for the Planning Commission received after Agenda
preparation. In compliance with the Brown Act, the Commission will not take action on
correspondence relating to items that are not listed on the Agenda, but may schedule such matters
for discussion or hearing as part of future agenda consideration.
7.CONSENT AGENDA
7.a.Approval of Minutes
(HOLUB)
Recommended Action:
Approve the Minutes of the June 7, 2022 Regular Meeting
7.b.Consideration of Lot Line Adjustment 22-002; Location – 718 Cornwall Avenue; Applicant –
Hunstad Homes, Kevin Hunstad
(HOLUB)
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving Lot Line
Adjustment 22-002.
8.PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.a.Consideration of Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Traffic Way
Bridge Replacement Project
(PEREZ)
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Traffic Way Bridge Replacement project
and adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the IS/MND.
8.b.Discuss and Consider Amendments to Short Term Rental Ordinance
(HOLUB)
Recommended Action:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending the
City Council adopt amendments to the Short Term Rental Ordinance (Attachment 1).
9.NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
None.
10.NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SINCE JUNE 7, 2022
ITEM NO. 1: PLOT PLAN REVIEW 22-028; ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL IN AN
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE; LOCATION – 1400 BLACKBERRY AVENUE; APPLICANT –
Page 2 of 243
WILLIAM REEDY
After making the findings specified in Section 16.16.080 of the Municipal Code, the Community
Development Director approved the above referenced project for the establishment of a Vacation
Rental in the Single Family (SF) zoning district. The deadline to appeal this project is at 5:00 pm on
August 3, 2022.
ITEM NO. 2: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 22-006; CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,591 SQUARE
FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE; LOCATION – 208
LARCHMONT DRIVE; REPRESENTATIVE – CODY McLAUGHLIN; APPLICANT – SCOTT PACE
After making the findings specified in Section 16.16.130 of the Municipal Code, the Community
Development Director approved the above referenced project for the construction of a new single
family residence and attached garage in the Single Family (SF) zoning district. The deadline to
appeal this project is at 5:00 pm on August 3, 2022.
ITEM NO. 3: PLOT PLAN REVIEW 22-026; ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL IN A
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE; LOCATION – 1136 EAST GRAND AVENUE; APPLICANT – EAST
GRAND VILLAGE, LLC; REPRESENTATIVE – WILLIAM RUOFF
After making the findings specified in Section 16.16.080 of the Municipal Code, the Community
Development Director approved the above referenced project for the establishment of a Vacation
Rental in the Fair Oaks Mixed Use (FOMU) zoning district. The deadline to appeal this project is at
5:00 pm on August 3, 2022.
ITEM NO. 4: PLOT PLAN REVIEW 22-021; ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL IN AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE; LOCATION – 615 EMAN COURT; APPLICANT – CORY
O’KEEFE
After making the findings specified in Section 16.16.080 of the Municipal Code, the Community
Development Director approved the above referenced project for the establishment of a Vacation
Rental in the Single Family (SF) zoning district. The deadline to appeal this project is at 5:00 pm on
August 3, 2022.
ITEM NO. 5: PLOT PLAN REVIEW 22-010; MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY; LOCATION – 1275 ASH STREET; APPLICANT – AT&T;
REPRESENTATIVE – AARON MIANO-RODRIGUEZ, SMARTLINK
After making the findings specified in Section 16.16.080 of the Municipal Code, the Community
Development Director approved the above referenced project for the modifications to an existing
unmanned wireless telecommunications site to provide 5G capability in the Public Facilities (PF)
zoning district. The deadline to appeal this project is at 5:00 pm on August 3, 2022.
ITEM NO. 6: PLOT PLAN REVIEW 22-030; ESTABLISHMENT OF A HOMESTAY IN AN
Page 3 of 243
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE; LOCATION – 820 PLATA ROAD; APPLICANT –
MICHAEL LEONG
After making the findings specified in Section 16.16.080 of the Municipal Code, the Community
Development Director approved the above referenced project for the establishment of a Homestay in
the Residential Suburban (RS) zoning district. The deadline to appeal this project is at 5:00 pm on
August 3, 2022.
ITEM NO. 7: PLOT PLAN REVIEW 22-035; ESTABLISHMENT OF A VACATION RENTAL IN AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE; LOCATION – 426 CROWN HILL STREET; APPLICANT
– BROOKE FRASER
After making the findings specified in Section 16.16.080 of the Municipal Code, the Community
Development Director approved the above referenced project for the establishment of a Vacation
Rental in the Village Residential (VR) zoning district. The deadline to appeal this project is at 5:00
pm on August 3, 2022.
ITEM NO. 8: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 22-004; CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,324 SQUARE-
FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A 772 SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE; LOCATION – 305
RODEO COURT; APPLICANT – CHUCK AND SHARON BELMONT; REPRESENTATIVE –MARK
VASQUEZ, DESIGN GRAPHICS
After making the findings specified in Section 16.16.130 of the Municipal Code, the Community
Development Director approved the above referenced project for the construction of a new single
family residence and attached garage in the Rodeo Court subdivision. The deadline to appeal this
project is at 5:00 pm on August 3, 2022.
11.COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the Planning Commission.
12.STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Correspondence/Comments as presented by the City Manager.
13.ADJOURNMENT
All staff reports or other written documentation, including any supplemental material distributed to a
majority of the Planning Commission within 72 hours of a regular meeting, relating to each item of
business on the agenda are available for public inspection during regular business hours in the City
Clerk’s office, 300 E. Branch Street, Arroyo Grande. If requested, the agenda shall be made
available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by the Americans
with Disabilities Act. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, contact
the Legislative and Information Services Department at 805-473-5400 as soon as possible and at
least 48 hours prior to the meeting date.
This agenda was prepared and posted pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2 Agenda
reports can be accessed and downloaded from the City’s website at www.arroyogrande.org If you
would like to subscribe to receive email or text message notifications when agendas are posted, you
can sign up online through the “Notify Me” feature.
Planning Commission Meetings are cablecast live and videotaped for replay on Arroyo Grande’s
Page 4 of 243
Government Access Channel 20. The rebroadcast schedule is published at www.slo-span.org.
Page 5 of 243
1
ACTION MINUTES
MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 7, 2022, 6:00 p.m.
Hybrid City Council Chamber/Virtual Zoom Meeting
215 East Branch Street, Arroyo Grande
Commission Members Present: Chair Glenn Martin, Commissioner Frank
Schiro, Vice Chair Jamie Maraviglia, Kevin
Buchanan
Commission Members Absent: Commissioner Jim Guthrie
Staff Present: Planning Manager Andrew Perez, Community
Development Director Brian Pedrotti
Given the recent increase in COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County, and in compliance with
Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M.
Brown Act, this meeting was held by teleconference.
_____________________________________________________________________
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Martin called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00pm.
2.ROLL CALL
Chair Martin performed the roll call. Commissioner Guthrie was absent.
3.F LAG SALUTE
Vice Chair Maraviglia led the flag salute.
4.AGENDA REVIEW
None.
5.COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
6.WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7.CONSENT AGENDA
Moved by Commissioner Schiro
Seconded by Vice Chair Maraviglia
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 6 of 243
2
Approve Consent Agenda Items 7.a and 7.b., with the recommended courses of action.
AYES (4): Chair Martin, Commissioner Schiro, Vice Chair Maraviglia, and Kevin Buchanan
ABSENT (1): Commissioner Guthrie
Passed (4 to 0)
7.a Approval of Minutes
(HOLUB)
7.b Proposed Street Names for Creekside Mixed-Use Development; Location – 415 E. Branch
St; Applicant – DB&M Properties
(PEREZ)
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
9. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
9.a Consideration of a Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2022-23 through 2026-
27 Consistent with General Plan
(HOLUB)
Planning Manager Perez presented the staff report and explained the purpose of the discussion
and answered questions about specific items as they relate to the General Plan.
The Planning Commission appreciated the City's strategy with regards to the Pavement
Management Program. The Commission directed staff to investigate the purpose of the Public
Safety Video Cameras and report back at the next meeting.
Moved by Chair Martin
Seconded by Commissioner Schiro
Adopt a Resolution finding that the Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the General
Plan.
AYES (4): Chair Martin, Commissioner Schiro, Vice Chair Maraviglia, and Kevin Buchanan
ABSENT (1): Commissioner Guthrie
Passed (4 to 0)
10. NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS SINCE MAY 17, 2022
Received.
11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None.
Page 7 of 243
3
12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Director Pedrotti announced that an application for grant funding for the Brisco Intersection project was
submitted to the State by staff.
Director Pedrotti summarized City Council's discussion about the SB 9 Ordinance and its direction to
staff.
13. ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting adjourned at 6:39pm.
_________________________
Patrick Holub
Assistant Planner
_________________________
Glenn Martin, Chair
Page 8 of 243
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
BY: Patrick Holub, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration of Lot Line Adjustment 22-002; Location – 718 Cornwall
Avenue; Applicant – Hunstad Homes, Kevin Hunstad
DATE: August 2, 2022
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Approval of the Lot Line Adjustment will relocate an existing property line between two
parcels on Cornwall Avenue.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution approving Lot Line
Adjustment 22-002.
BACKGROUND:
The subject properties are located at the west end of Cornwall Avenue near the
intersection of North Rena Street. The existing parcel assigned Assessor’s Parcel
Number 006-154-032 has two underlying lots and a portion of a third which were all
created with the Western Addition in 1894 (Attachment 2). The subdivision in 1894
subdivided the existing lot, among others, into a series of 25’x125’ rectangular lots. These
small lots have been informally combined and packaged into a series of larger lots since
the original subdivision. 718 Cornwall, in its current configuration, is a collection of two of
these lots and a 50’x25’ portion of a third. The lots included within the parcel are lots 3
and 4 as well as the westerly 50 feet of the easterly 100 feet of lot 15 in block 9 of the
Western Addition. An existing residence straddles the underlying lot line between lots 3
and 4. The proposed lot line adjustment would recognize the existing lot lines while
making further development of the individual parcels possible to increase the total number
of dwelling units allowed at the property. In addition to the recognition of legal, underlying
Page 9 of 243
City Council
Consideration of Lot Line Adjustment 22-002; Location – 718 Cornwall Avenue; Applicant
– Hunstad Homes, Kevin Hunstad
August 2, 2022
Page 2
lot lines, the proposed project would extinguish the applicant’s portion of lot 15, merging
a 25’x25’ portion with both lots 3 and 4.
Staff Advisory Committee
The Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) reviewed the proposed project on July 21, 2022 and
discussed issued related to the underlying lots and the property’s existing structures.
Members of the SAC were supportive of the project and recommended approval to the
Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The proposed Lot Line Adjustment will result in a modification of the number of parcels
as well as their widths, depths and parcel area (Attachment 2). The existing parcel
dimensions are as follows:
Table 1. Existing Parcel Sizes
Parcel Number Lot Area Width Depth Zoning
Lot 3 3,125 sf 25’ 125’ SF
Lot 4 3,125 sf 25’ 125’ SF
Ptn. Lot 15 1,250 sf 50’ 25’ SF
A total of 1,250 square feet will be exchanged as a result of this proposal, with 625 square
feet being conveyed to each of parcels 3 and 4, resulting in a final lot area of 3,750 square
feet for each lot. The lot line adjustment would result in the lot sizes as shown in Table 2
below.
Table 2. Proposed Parcel Sizes
Parcel Number Lot Area Width Depth Zoning
Lot 3 3,750 sf 25’ 150’ SF
Lot 4 3,750 sf 25’ 150’ SF
Standards for Approval
The Municipal Code states that the Planning Commission shall approve or conditionally
approve a lot line adjustment if it does not:
Create any new lots
Include any lots or parcels created illegally
Impair any existing access or create a need for access to any adjacent lots or
parcels
Impair any existing easements or create a need for any new easements serving
adjacent lots or parcels
Constitute poor land planning or undesirable lot configurations due to existing
environmental conditions or current zoning development standards;
Page 10 of 243
City Council
Consideration of Lot Line Adjustment 22-002; Location – 718 Cornwall Avenue; Applicant
– Hunstad Homes, Kevin Hunstad
August 2, 2022
Page 3
Require substantial alteration of any existing improvements or create a need for
any new improvements; or
Create a nonconforming lot in the development district in which it exists .
The existing structure on the property creates a non-conforming situation that will need
to be rectified prior to the lot line adjustment being finaled. As a condition of approval, the
applicant will be required to demolish the existing structure prior to recording the finalized
lot line adjustment certificate.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution approving Lot Line Adjustment 22 -002;
2. Modify and adopt the attached Resolution approving Lot Line Adjustment 22 -002;
3. Do not adopt the attached Resolution and instead provide direction for staff to
return with an appropriate Resolution including findings for denial of Lot Line
Adjustment 22-002; or
4. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Granting the lot line adjustment will allow the property owner to develop up to a total of
six (6) units on the existing property that was previously only eligible to support three (3)
dwelling units. The extinguishment of the portion of lot 15 at the rear of the parcel will
allow for logical development on an otherwise undevelopable portion of property and will
facilitate a comprehensive development project on this parcel.
DISADVANTAGES:
None identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and deemed categorically exempt per section 15305(a) of the CEQA
Guidelines regarding minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new
parcel.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
Per Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.12.030 (B), a public hearing is not required
for approval of a lot line adjustment. The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s
website in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. APN Map
3. Proposed Lot Line Adjustment
Page 11 of 243
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT NO. 22-002; LOCATED AT 718 CORNWALL
AVENUE; APPLIED FOR BY KEVIN HUNSTAD
WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Lot Line Adjustment No. 22-002 to adjust three (3)
underlying lot lines on the parcel located at 718 Cornwall Avenue, resulting in a total of
two (2) 25’x150’ rectangular parcels; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment meets the standards identified in the
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Table 16.12.030 (B) requires that lot line adjustments be
reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the project at its meeting on August 2,
2022; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that this project is consistent with the City’s
General Plan and Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study and deliberation, the
proposed lot line adjustment does not:
1. Create any new lots;
2. Include any lots or parcels created illegally;
3. Impair any existing access or create a need for access to any adjacent lots or
parcels;
4. Impair any existing easements or create a need for any new easements serving
adjacent lots or parcels;
5. Constitute poor land planning or undesirable lot configurations due to existing
environmental conditions or current zoning development standards;
6. Require substantial alteration of any existing improvements or create a need for
any new improvements;
7. Create a nonconforming lot in the development district in which it exists, except
as allowed in Municipal Code Section 16.48.110.
Page 12 of 243
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby approves Lot Line Adjustment No. 22-002 as set forth in Exhibit
“B” 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 a motion by Commissioner _____, seconded by Commissioner ______ and by the
following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of August, 2022.
Page 13 of 243
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 3
_______________________________
GLENN MARTIN,
CHAIR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
PATRICK HOLUB,
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
BRIAN PEDROTTI
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Page 14 of 243
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 4
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 22-002
718 CORNWALL AVENUE
This approval authorizes a lot line adjustment between the underlying lot lines on the
parcel located at 718 Cornwall Avenue (APN 006-154-032).
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all Federal, State, County and City
requirements as are applicable to this project.
2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approva l for Lot Line Adjustment
22-002.
3. Development shall occur in substantial conformance with the plans presented to
the Planning Commission at their meeting of August 2, 2022 and marked Exhibit
“B”.
4. This approval shall automatically expire on August 2, 2024 unless the lot line
adjustment is recorded or an extension is granted pursuant to Section 16.12.140
of the Development Code.
5. Future development shall conform to the applicable zoning dis trict requirements
except as otherwise approved.
6. The applicant agrees 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 this 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 ag ents,
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.
7. The applicant shall submit all information required by Municipal Code Section
16.20.140.
8. The applicant shall pay processing and plan check fees at the time they are due.
9. The applicant shall have a licensed land surveyor in the State of Cali fornia
Page 15 of 243
RESOLUTION NO.
PAGE 5
prepare the Lot Line Adjustment on City-approved forms.
10. The Lot Line Adjustment is preferred to be finalized by recording a Lot Line
Adjustment Map, and by subsequent deed transfers.
11. A current preliminary title report shall be submitted to the Com munity
Development Department prior to checking the final documents.
12. 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.
13. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit, and demolish the existing
structure prior to final recordation of the lot line adjustment certificate.
Page 16 of 243
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description
For APN/Parcel lD(s):
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CIry OF ARROYO GRANDE, COUNTY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ANO IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL ONE:
LOTS 3 AND 4 AND THE WESTERLY 50 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 1OO FEET OF LOT 15 IN BLOCK 9 OF
THE WESTERN ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ARROYO GRANDE, IN THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE,
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED APRIL 10,
1894, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNry.
PARCEL TWO:
c EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS, INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL
PU ES R AND ACROSS THE NORTHWESTERLY 1O FEET AS DISCLOSED ON A CERTAIN
DOCUM ENTITLED GRANT OF ACCESS EASEMENT RECORDED APRIL 03,2002, INSTRUMENT NO,
200202 2 E OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,
3
CLTA Preliminary Report Folm - Modified (11.17.06)
SCA00024O2.doc / UDdated: 07.10.1S
Pnnled: 04.25.22 @ 09:25 AM by RA
cA-sPS-1-22-FSLC{O22200326
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 17 of 243
4 25122. 1:55PM San Luis Obispo C ornty Tax Collector- property Tax lnfornEtion Delail
Se cured Property Tax Oetail
Assessee lnformation
KELSEY RICHARD L
Property lnformation
Bitl #: 202'1122 006,154,032
essment Number: 006,154,032
How is myjalUilldsblldled3
Print / Sa\e Payment lnfo
Last Updated: 412212022
CY AG WESTERN ADD BL 9 LTS 3 4PTN LT15 A
Billlnformation
Bill Dale: 1012912021
Original Bill for Fiscal Year: 2021122
P a ylne-0111!gqry
I nstallment I nformation
First lnstallment Second lnstallment Total
2t1t2022Due Date:1'l t1t2021
Delinquent after:12110t2021
$177.39 $177.39 $39.78Tax Amount
lnterest 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0_00Penalty0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00Cost
Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00
$354.78Total$177.39 $177.39
$177.39 $177.39 $354.78Amount Paid
Date Paid 11t18t2021 f t1a12021
2200869 2200869Batch Number
Online Web Payment Online Web PaymentPayment Type
$0.00 $0.00Balance$0.00 -
TI
https://serv ces.slocountytaxorg /D etai Laspfl bl Bil lnurn= 006,'1 54,032&csus= 0 1t2
Itt"- Btiil
411112022
Page 18 of 243
o>Le,(r!
! Ed=
E IEs
sEip
> U5v
EQ*H
B
^e
LO
I(ooo A\J_/oi.$
@
(,-
I
sNrd"tv xruot s\j;
VN3C HjT'ONS
oo, ,4
1S
1S
r.$J
$i
E
lrJ
lr-
Ld
n?
ci
dlo-
a
t6
=t
UJ
uJrz
=lrJo
4&
zI
o
zIEL]
U,
l
?c$a
2,,a
,a3
'-a!'ii
a
I
E
a
a
E
8 ?
E
t t
!ir!F:
ilor",bf
315
oroa
@[:I E
EEA
a
\-
o()
'.()
F-- -t.
'!-!-l.r--
-l
_ !.:
B
ffi
__d
*Eo
tt__
iun
" E.i$_
I
3
m:-T-
"i--a-----!| ---- ---
a - ------
_ _ J.__
ry-16-If@]EII@E
_q
-.L
IItelil
EOIE
'r't3€
Fo
D
-!al i -
ilil
il
Page 19 of 243
N21°22'33"W 150.00'S68°38'47"W 50.00'S21°24'50"E 150.00'N21°21'13"W 150.00'N68°38'42"E 50.00'
10
1 102102ATTACHMENT 3Page 20 of 243
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Development Director
BY: Andrew Perez, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration of Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project
DATE: August 2, 2022
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
A recommendation to City Council to adopt the IS/MND for the project will provide
necessary environmental clearance in order to proceed with final design for the project.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
The City has secured grant funding that will pay approximately 88% of the project costs .
Nevertheless, over $1.4 million is required from the City to pay for the remainder of the
project costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Traffic Way Bridge Replacement project
and adopt a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt the IS/MND.
BACKGROUND:
The Traffic Way Bridge was constructed in 1932 and consists of six spans of 38 feet each,
for a total bridge length of 228 feet. The bridge was originally part of the highway system
and was relinquished to the City in 1960. The bridge is a cast -in-place reinforced concrete
tee-beam with a longitudinal construction joint near the bridge centerline. The bridge
measures 40 feet between curbs and has 6-foot sidewalks on both sides with an open
concrete railing that is mounted to the edge of the bridge. The bridge originally carried
four lanes of traffic but was reconfigured in 2008 to have three lanes of through traffic with
shoulders for a Class II bike route. The Traffic Way Bridge is a reinforced concrete
structure which is supported by abutments on each end of the bridge as well as concrete
piles.
Page 21 of 243
Planning Commission
Consideration of Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Traffic Way
Bridge Replacement Project
August 2, 2022
Page 2
In 2016 a Caltrans inspection revealed signs of deck cracking, failed expansion joints,
spalling concrete, concrete abrasion, and creek channel erosion. In March 2018, Caltrans
determined the bridge to be a high risk and identified the bridge as a replacement project.
The purpose of the project is to replace the scour critical bridge, improve public safety,
stabilize Arroyo Grande Creek, and reduce future maintenance costs. If the bridge is not
replaced, the condition will continue to deteriorate and eventually bridge closure will be
required.
On July 24, 2018, the City Council approved an updated Master Service Agreement and
Program Supplement Agreement for the replacement of the Traffic Way Bridge in order
for the City to expend Federal or State funds through the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) on this project.
On October 8, 2019, the City Council approved the contract for consultant services with
Quincy Engineering, Inc. for design of a replacement bridge on Traffic Way. Over the
past couple of years, the design team has reviewed closure options, completed the
geotechnical samplings and report, completed a topographic survey prepared the
necessary environmental studies, prepared the IS/MND, coordinated with various utility
companies and have the design about 55% complete.
In June, City staff completed the review of the IS/MND prepared by SWCA (a
subconsultant for Quincy. On June 21, 2022 the City issued the IS/MND for the 30 -day
public review period. On July 21, 2022 the 30-day review period was closed.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The purpose of an initial study is to identify whether a project may have a significant effect
on the environment. The mitigated negative declaration identifies specific mitigation
measures that will reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. With assistance
from the City’s consultant, SWCA Environmental Consultants, it was determined that the
bridge replacement project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the
implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND. The IS/MND was
prepared and made available for public comment and published on the State
Clearinghouse’s website on June 21, 2022. No public comments were received during
the 30-day review period. The IS/MND is provided as Exhibit A of the draft Resolution
(Attachment 1).
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that an IS/MND evaluate potential
project related impacts to twenty (20) environmental issue areas. The IS/MND identified
potential impacts to twelve (12) issue areas requiring measures to mitigate potential
impacts: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, land use and
planning, public services, utilities and service systems, wildfire, hazards and hazardous
resources, tribal cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and noise. The IS/MND
Page 22 of 243
Planning Commission
Consideration of Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Traffic Way
Bridge Replacement Project
August 2, 2022
Page 3
includes analyses of each environmental area, potential impacts, and necessary
mitigation measures.
There have been several technical studies and agency concurrences prepared in support
of the MND and concurrent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for which
Caltrans is the lead agency and is currently processing a Categorical Exemption. Once
the environmental clearance is complete, the City may proceed with final plans,
specifications and estimates.
ALTERNATIVES:
The following alternatives are provided for the Commission’s consideration:
1. Recommend that City Council adopt the IS/MND for the proposed Traffic Way
Bridge Replacement project; or
2. Modify staff’s recommendation and recommend the City Council adopt the
IS/MND; or
3. Do not recommend that City Council adopt the IS/MND and request further
information from staff; or
4. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Recommending adoption of the MND will allow staff to finalize the analysis of potential
environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures prior to the final design of the
project.
DISADVANTAGES:
None identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by SWCA
Consultants and reviewed by City Staff. The purpose is 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.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2. No public comments have been received prior to the
publication of the staff report.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
Page 23 of 243
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE TRAFFIC WAY
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Traffic Way Bridge was built in 1932; and
WHEREAS, in 2016 an inspection revealed signs of deck cracking, failed expansion
joints, spalling concrete, concrete abrasion, and creek channel erosion; and
WHEREAS, in 2018 the Bridge was determined to be high risk and identified as a
replacement project; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2018, City Council approved an updated Master Service
Agreement and Program Supplement Agreement for the replacement of the Traffic Way
Bridge; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in June 2022
to evaluate potential impacts to the environment consistent with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for the
30-day public review period on June 21, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the public review period closed on July 21, 2022 and no comments were
received; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande, after giving notices
thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on August 2, 2022 concerning the review
of the environmental document and carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the
staff report offered in the case as presented; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo
Grande hereby recommends the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the project as attached hereto as Exhibit “A” 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:
Page 24 of 243
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 2nd day of August, 2022.
Page 25 of 243
_______________________________
GLENN MARTIN
CHAIR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
PATRICK HOLUB
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
BRIAN PEDROTTI
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Page 26 of 243
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Traffic Way over
Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge
Replacement Project, Arroyo Grande,
San Luis Obispo County, California
JUNE 2022
PREPARED FOR
City of Arroyo Grande
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
EXHIBIT A
Page 27 of 243
Page 28 of 243
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE
TRAFFIC WAY OVER ARROYO GRANDE CREEK
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT,
ARROYO GRANDE, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
California Department of Transportation
District 5
50 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
City of Arroyo Grande
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Prepared by
Annika Kiemm, B.S., Environmental Planner
SWCA Environmental Consultants
1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-7095
www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 53479
June 2022
Page 29 of 243
Page 30 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
i
CONTENTS
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 Roadway Alignment ........................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Design Criteria and Construction Data ............................................................................... 6
1.4 Required Discretionary Approvals ............................................................................................ 7
2 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Evaluation ................................................................ 8
I. Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................. 9
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................................ 12
III. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 15
IV. Biological Resources ............................................................................................................... 22
V. Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. 40
VI. Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 44
VII. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................... 45
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................... 50
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 53
X. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................. 58
XI. Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................ 63
XII. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................... 65
XIII. Noise ........................................................................................................................................ 67
XIV. Population and Housing .......................................................................................................... 71
XV. Public Services ........................................................................................................................ 72
XVI. Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 75
XVII. Transportation ......................................................................................................................... 76
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 79
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................. 82
XX. Wildfire ................................................................................................................................... 84
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................... 87
3 References ........................................................................................................................................... 89
Appendices
Appendix A. California Emissions Estimator Model (Version 2020.4.0) Annual and Winter Results
Page 31 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ii
Figures
Figure 1. Project vicinity map. ...................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Project location map. ..................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Habitat map. ................................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 4. City of Arroyo Grande 2005 GHG emissions inventory by sector. ............................................. 52
Tables
Table 1. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designations ................................ 16
Table 2. SLOAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Construction Operations ........................................... 18
Table 3. Estimated Construction Emissions ............................................................................................... 19
Table 4. Plant Community/Habitat Present within the Project Area .......................................................... 23
Table 5. Invasive Species Observed in the Project Area ............................................................................ 25
Table 6. Jurisdictional Areas Present within the BSA ................................................................................ 27
Table 7. Estimate of Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas .................................................................................. 30
Table 8. Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies within the Project Area .................................. 42
Table 9. General Plan Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Near Transportation Noise Sources ............... 67
Table 10. Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ....................................... 70
Page 32 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1
1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Arroyo Grande (City) proposes to replace the existing Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge
49C-0380 at Traffic Way (Traffic Way bridge). Traffic Way follows a north–south corridor
approximately 0.1 mile east of U.S. Highway (US) 101 in the city of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo
County, California. Traffic Way bridge provides vehicular access over Arroyo Grande Creek, which runs
through the city of Arroyo Grande parallel to State Route (SR) 227. The surrounding land is generally
level and is primarily comprised of an urbanized business district. The existing bridge is hydraulically
inadequate as it is subject to creek bed degradation and prone to scour issues. The existing piers and
abutments have experienced scour issues for the past several years, making this bridge “scour critical”
and in need of replacement. The changes in the creek have exposed the embedment of the supporting piles
and the risk level for further damage to the bridge is high.
The project goals include the following:
1. Replace the scour critical bridge.
2. Accommodate a consistent 35 miles per hour (mph) posted speed corridor.
3. Minimize impacts to nearby businesses during construction.
4. Stay within the existing City right-of-way (ROW).
The purpose of the project is to replace the scour critical bridge, improve public safety, stabilize Arroyo
Grande Creek, and reduce future maintenance costs. If the bridge is not replaced, the condition will
continue to deteriorate and eventually bridge closure will be required.
1.1 Project Location
The project site is in the city of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California (Figure 1). The
project site encompasses the existing Traffic Way bridge, which is located in the central portion of the
city of Arroyo Grande, approximately 0.1 mile (580 feet) east of US 101 and 0.05 mile (250 feet) south of
SR 227. Temporary construction access would require the use of existing unnamed, unpaved agricultural
access roads located to the west of US 101, crossing under the existing US 101 bridge, and continuing
east of US 101 through an open field that is part of an urban development associated with the Village
Creek Plaza. The open field would be used for construction equipment storage and construction access to
the project site (Figure 2). Traffic Way is oriented southeast to northwest at the project site and is one of
only a few ways to cross Arroyo Grande Creek that runs east to west and divides the city.
1.2 Environmental Setting
The project site is in the city of Arroyo Grande (see Figure 1), and encompasses the existing Traffic Way
bridge, which is located in the central portion of the city of Arroyo Grande, approximately 0.1 mile (580
feet) east of US 101 and 0.05 mile (250 feet) south of SR 227. The primary land use immediately adjacent
to the project site is mixed commercial. There is land currently zoned and developed for agricultural use
located approximately 0.15 mile west, beyond US 101.
The project site is within the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed, which is a coastal basin located in southern
San Luis Obispo County. The watershed is dominated by agricultural land uses, including vineyards,
ranches, and row crops. Arroyo Grande Creek watershed has an average rainfall of 15 to 28 inches per
year (SLO Watershed Project 2020). The project area supports arroyo willow thicket, ruderal,
agricultural, developed/disturbed, and ornamental habitats (SWCA Environmental Consultants [SWCA]
2021e).
Page 33 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2
Figure 1. Project vicinity map.
Page 34 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3
Figure 2. Project location map.
Page 35 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
4
1.3 Project Description
The portion of Traffic Way north of the Traffic Way bridge is three lanes with shoulders and sidewalks
and quickly transitions into an intersection with West Branch Street. To the south, the roadway is wider to
account for a right-turn pocket onto Station Way, and parking is allowed on the north side of the roadway.
Traffic Way is classified as an on-system arterial road by California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) California Road System (CRS) Map 8S45 (Caltrans 2021a) and the City of Arroyo Grande
2001 General Plan (City of Arroyo Grande 2001a). Traffic volumes through the site are approximately
9,600 vehicles per day per the 2020 Bridge Inspection Report (Caltrans 2020). Traffic Way has a posted
speed limit of 35 mph in both directions.
The original bridge was constructed in 1932 and consists of six spans of 38 feet each, for a total bridge
length of 228 feet. The bridge was originally part of the highway system and was relinquished to the City
in 1960. The bridge is a cast-in-place reinforced concrete tee-beam with a longitudinal construction joint
near the bridge centerline. The bridge measures 40 feet between curbs and has 6-foot sidewalks on both
sides with an open concrete railing that is mounted to the edge of the bridge. The bridge originally carried
four lanes of traffic but was reconfigured around 2008 to have three lanes of through traffic with
shoulders for a Class II bike route. The Caltrans historic bridge inventory lists the bridge as a Category 5
(ineligible for historic bridge consideration) bridge.
1.3.1 Roadway Alignment
Traffic Way is classified as a minor arterial per Caltrans classifications and as an arterial roadway per the
City of Arroyo Grande 2001 General Plan and has an anticipated future average daily trip rate of 12,550
vehicles a day. Until 2008, the bridge carried four lanes of traffic (two in each direction). Striping
modifications have changed the number of lanes across the bridge to three and added shoulders for bike
traffic. The bridge centerline is on a radius of 1,800 feet and the intersection of West Branch Street is on a
slight skew that is signalized. Lane additions, lane drops, turn lanes, medians, parking, and bike and
pedestrian circulation have resulted in unsymmetrical geometry across the bridge.
HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT
Due to the limited ROW and extensive development adjacent to the ROW at all four bridge quadrants,
replacing the bridge on the existing alignment is highly desirable. This option would also reduce
environmental impacts. The exact alignment would be controlled by the staging of this project and if the
road or single lanes can be closed to traffic.
VERTICAL ALIGNMENT
The proposed vertical alignment would be dependent on the hydraulic requirements of the creek and
which bridge alternative is selected. It would be desirable to match the existing profile as closely as
possible to reduce the project footprint of the bridge replacement. Based on the preliminary hydraulic
water surface and existing or proposed structure depth, it may only be necessary to raise the roadway
profile slightly for roadway drainage purposes, but this would be confirmed after the hydraulic analysis
has been completed.
STAGED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION OR ROADWAY DETOUR
Construction of a new bridge at Arroyo Grande Creek would have impacts to the traveling public and
some impacts to nearby businesses. It is always the primary design goal to minimize traffic,
environmental, and ROW impacts while providing flexibility to the contractor.
Page 36 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
5
In 2019 the comparative impact of a full closure and a partial closure of Traffic Way during construction
was evaluated. A full closure was recommended after consideration of several factors, such as project
schedule, ROW, environmental impacts, construction costs, and traffic impacts. On July 28, 2020, the
City Council unanimously voted for the full closure of Traffic Way. Closing the road to traffic would
have several benefits as it would reduce construction duration, reduce environmental and ROW impacts,
and be the most cost-efficient approach. The biggest drawback would be the increased temporary traffic,
which would navigate a detour route through the downtown village of Arroyo Grande. Traffic analysis
showed this was a feasible solution if Bridge Street would be temporarily converted to a one-way road.
BRIDGE CONSIDERATIONS
Alternative bridge length and span configurations were considered based on topographic surveys,
hydraulics, and cost. It would be necessary to lay out the new bridge such that the new foundations do not
conflict with the existing bridge foundations. The existing bridge piles would be cut off below grade and
remain in place. This assumption would need to be hydraulically verified since it would be undesirable
for the existing abandoned piles to become visible and result in future maintenance. The number of spans
considered was influenced by the roadway profile relative to the hydraulic water surface.
PROPOSED BRIDGE TYPE
Given the necessary bridge span lengths, a post-tensioned concrete box girder bridge type was selected as
the proposed design. A review of the existing bridge maintenance reports indicates a long history of
debris removal from the upstream side of bridge piers and scour. A new structure with either longer spans
or a reduction in intermediate foundations and wider hydraulic opening would reduce future maintenance
issues.
The most ideal span configuration at this location would depend on the water surface elevation. Caltrans
criteria for the hydraulic design of bridges state that bridges must be designed to pass the 2% probability
of annual exceedance flow (50-year design discharge) with freeboard to pass anticipated drift, or the flood
of record (usually the 100-year design discharge) with no freeboard, whichever is greater. Typically, the
50-year discharge with freeboard (2 feet is often assumed) controls the design.
Several alternative bridge designs were considered, as described in the Draft Type Selection Report,
Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge at Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project (Quincy Engineering 2021).
The final bridge design alternatives included a single-span bridge and a three-span bridge. The single-
span cast-in-place/pre-stressed box girder design was selected as the final proposed bridge project and
approved by Caltrans (personal communication, Quincy Engineering 2021) and is assessed in this
document as the proposed project.
The proposed single-span bridge design includes a long and deep clear-span box girder, though the
overall bridge would be shorter than the existing bridge. Eliminating all supports would greatly minimize
environmental and hydraulic impacts. The deeper structure would result in large foundation loads at the
abutments. Due to scour and seismic deficiencies, full replacement of the existing bridge foundations and
complete bridge removal is required.
FOUNDATIONS
Due to the extensive history of scour on-site, the new bridge design includes cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH)
piles under the bridge abutments. Installation of the CIDH piles would require contractor equipment
access within the creek channel. The number, type, and size of piles required at the abutments would be
determined during the design process. Ungrouted rock slope protection (RSP) would be placed around the
Page 37 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
6
abutments along the banks to prevent further erosion. RSP would be placed immediately below the bridge
abutments and extend beyond the edges of the bridge rails on the north and south banks.
BRIDGE WIDTH AND CROSS SECTION
The new bridge would consist of three lanes with 5-foot-wide shoulders and 6-foot-wide sidewalks.
Traffic Way is classified as an Urban Arterial and, per the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), lane widths can vary from 10 to 12 feet depending on the
surrounding conditions. The City is proposing three 11-foot lanes to match the existing stripes and
geometry of the approach roadway. To accommodate a Class II bike route, 5-foot-minimum shoulders are
proposed next to the vertical curb faces. Current Caltrans Standards suggest 6-foot sidewalks on all
structures. To accommodate the geometry and provide standard bridge railings, the overall bridge width is
anticipated to measure 59 feet 4 inches. The existing bridge is 52 feet wide; therefore, the overall increase
in width would be 7 feet to meet modern standards.
1.3.2 Design Criteria and Construction Data
UTILITIES
Below the bridge, there is one 12-kilovolt (kV) Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) electrical line
wrapped in a 6-inch steel casing that is roughly 4 feet from the south edge of deck. There are also three
4-inch conduits hanging together under the bridge that are assumed to be AT&T telephone lines based on
AT&T mapping and coordination with local personnel. The City owns and operates an 8-inch polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) waterline that sits in a 12-inch steel casing and crosses Arroyo Grande Creek at the south
edge of the deck. Based on coordination with City personnel, the waterline is planned to be turned off
during construction with shutoff valves on each side of the bridge. During construction of the new bridge,
all existing utilities on the bridge would have to be relocated.
The City has an 18-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) storm drain system on the west side of the bridge
that drains directly into the creek after collecting stormwater from two inlets just past the end of the
bridge. The inlet on the north side of Traffic Way would be modified and may need to be replaced, which
may cause small adjustments to the RCP in that location. The outlet of the RCP on the south side of the
bridge would also be impacted due to grading and RSP improvements. A larger storm drainage system
east of the bridge collects stormwater from the east and drains through a 54-inch RCP that runs down
Traffic Way and outlets into Arroyo Grande Creek between the bridge and the Village Creek Plaza. The
outlet is lined with a concrete apron that runs down to the low-flow water elevation. The 54-inch RCP
outlet would be adjusted to fit the proposed design and construction needs. The project would maintain
current drainage patterns with some impacts to the existing systems within the project limits.
GEOTECHNICAL/FOUNDATIONS
Yeh and Associates performed geotechnical test borings at the site from October 12 to October 15, 2020,
and from November 2 to November 5, 2020. The exploration consisted of four borings to depths ranging
from approximately 89.5 to 121.5 feet below the ground or existing bridge deck surface. Shallower
infiltration tests and streambed samples would be taken at a later date when the roadway drainage plan is
better understood. The bridge would be supported by CIDH concrete piles embedded into the underlying
Pismo Formation sandstone bedrock, or older alluvium, and decomposed Pismo Formation. The draft
foundation report is located in Appendix E of the Type Selection Report (Quincy Engineering 2021). The
CIDH pile foundations would involve drilling holes with an auger, possibly using slurry, followed by
placement of reinforcing cages and casting of pile concrete. CIDH piles offer an advantage over driven
piles in that the drilling process produces less noise and vibration, which could minimize construction
impacts to nearby businesses and local fish species. Temporary casings may be required to control caving.
Page 38 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
7
ARROYO GRANDE CREEK PERMANENT IMPACTS
Bridge replacement would require creek slope excavation, backfill, and RSP to protect the abutments and
roadway approach. The single-span bridge would clear span the creek and would not require intermediate
channel supports. The removal, or cutting below grade, of the existing pier supports in the creek would
improve the current conditions in Arroyo Grande Creek at the Traffic Way bridge. The proposed bridge
configuration would require new foundations, which would be drilled pile foundations and would consist
of CIDH piles. Driven piles are being avoided to minimize adverse effects to aquatic species and the
nearby historic building.
ARROYO GRANDE CREEK TEMPORARY IMPACTS
The proposed project includes minor modification/alteration to the creek, as a temporary access road
would be placed in the creek to allow for contractor access. This access road is necessary to facilitate
removal of the existing bridge and placement of the temporary bridge supports (falsework) for
construction of the replacement bridge, as well as access for drilling the CIDH foundations. Vegetation
below and adjacent to the bridge would be cleared. Cofferdams, stream diversion, and dewatering may
also be required to provide a dry work area during construction. Following construction, the temporary
fill for the access road and diversion would be removed and the creek would be restored to
preconstruction topographic contours.
Construction would require removal of the existing bridge superstructure and foundations. The existing
bridge concrete deck would be broken up into smaller pieces by excavators mounted with a concrete
breaker “hoe-ram” attachment. The concrete debris would fall to a cleared channel work pad below the
bridge for later removal offsite. After the deck is removed, cranes would remove sections of the concrete
girders. The existing concrete abutments and piers would then be broken down for removal from the site.
The existing bridge piles would be removed 3 to 5 feet below the existing ground line.
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Equipment anticipated to be used for the project includes excavators, dozers, cranes, dump trucks,
concrete trucks, concrete pumps, and pile-drilling equipment. Removal of the existing bridge would
require excavators, hoe rams, cranes, and dump trucks. Construction is currently anticipated to be
completed within 9 months (between May 1, 2022, and January 31, 2023).
1.4 Required Discretionary Approvals
The following discretionary approvals are anticipated to be required for the project:
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB);
• Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW);
• Section 404 Nationwide Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE);
• Formal Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA
Fisheries); and
• San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) construction permit.
Page 39 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
8
2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The proposed project could have a "Potentially Significant Impact" for environmental factors checked
below. Please refer to the attached pages for discussion on mitigation measures or project revisions to
either reduce these impacts to less than significant levels or require further study.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☒ Public Services
☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources ☒ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials ☐ Recreation
☒ Air Quality ☒ Hydrology and Water Quality ☐ Transportation
☒ Biological Resources ☒ Land Use and Planning ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources
☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☒ Utilities and Service Systems
☐ Energy ☒ Noise ☒ Wildfire
☒ Geology and Soils ☐ Population and Housing ☒ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL 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 proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. 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 is required.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measure based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Date: Signed:
Page 40 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
9
I. Aesthetics
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
(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) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of
the site and its surroundings? (public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Setting
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes that it is the policy of the state to take all
action necessary to provide people of the state “with… enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic and historic
environmental qualities” (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21001[b]). A scenic vista is
generally defined as a high-quality view displaying good aesthetic and compositional values that can be
seen from public viewpoints. Some scenic vistas are officially or informally designated by public
agencies or other organizations. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur if the project
would significantly degrade the scenic landscape as viewed from public roads or other public areas. A
proposed project’s potential effect on a scenic vista is largely dependent on the degree to which it would
complement or contrast with the natural setting, the degree to which it would be noticeable in the existing
environment, and whether it detracts from or complements the scenic vista.
The California Scenic Highway Program was created by the State Legislature in 1963 with the intention
of protecting and enhancing the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors. A
highway may be designated scenic depending on how much of the natural landscape can be seen by
travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the
traveler’s enjoyment of the view. Designated and eligible Scenic Highways within San Luis Obispo
County include US 101, SR 46, portions of SR 41, SR 1, and Lake Nacimiento Drive. US 101 is located
approximately 0.1 mile west of the project site (Caltrans 2021c).
The City of Arroyo Grande Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element (ACOSE) includes goals
and policies intended to protect visually accessible scenic resources. Scenic resources protected under the
City’s ACOSE may include agricultural land, open spaces, hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, valleys,
landmark trees, woodlands, wetlands, streambeds, and banks, as well as aspects of the built environment
of historic nature or that are unique to the city (City of Arroyo Grande 2007).
The project site consists of Traffic Way bridge, which is located in an urban area in the central portion of
the city and surrounded by one- and two-story commercial development in all directions. The existing
Traffic Way bridge spans Arroyo Grande Creek, which is a perennial stream with a dense riparian
Page 41 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
10
canopy. The project site is developed with designated bike lanes; pedestrian infrastructure, including
sidewalks and crosswalks; and vegetative landscaping. The project site is located approximately 260 feet
west of the recently rehabilitated historic Bridge Street bridge, which underwent construction in 2020 and
was completed in 2021 (SWCA 2021f).
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
For CEQA purposes, a scenic vista is generally defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a
highly valued landscape or scenic resource for the benefit of the general public. A substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista would occur if the proposed project would significantly degrade the scenic
landscape as viewed from public roads or other public areas. The City’s ACOSE identifies scenic
resources as agricultural land, open spaces, hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, valleys, landmark trees,
woodlands, wetlands, streambeds, and banks, as well as aspects of the built environment of historic or
unique nature. The project site provides views of commercial development to the north and commercial
development and distant hillsides to the south. Views to the east and west are dominated by trees
associated with Arroyo Grande Creek. The proposed project includes replacement of the existing Traffic
Way bridge to reduce risk caused by erosion surrounding the foundation of the bridge. Construction
activities would result in temporary construction-related views during the 7-month construction period,
including construction equipment and vehicles, workers, and signage. In addition, construction activities
would include vegetation removal below and adjacent to the bridge as necessary for equipment access and
installation of the new bridge foundations. Construction-related views would be temporary in nature and
would not result in a permanent adverse change to existing views in the project area.
Following construction activities, the proposed bridge would retain the same alignment as the original
bridge structure and would consist of a single-span bridge with no piers within the creek bed. Therefore,
the project would result in an overall improvement in the views of the bridge and Arroyo Grande Creek.
The proposed bridge structure would accommodate the same number of vehicle lanes, Class II bicycle
lanes, and pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, light posts, and fencing) as the existing bridge structure. In
addition, the project includes revegetation within impacted areas. The proposed bridge structure would be
designed in accordance with applicable City and Caltrans design guidelines and standards and would be
similar in appearance to the existing bridge. The project would result in the replacement of the existing
Traffic Way bridge and does not include components that would significantly change the existing
viewshed of the project site; therefore, the project would not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista
and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
There are no designated state scenic highways within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
US 101 is considered an eligible state scenic highway by Caltrans and is located approximately 0.1 mile
west of the Traffic Way bridge (Caltrans 2021c). Temporary construction access would require the use of
existing unnamed, unpaved agricultural access roads located west of US 101, crossing under the existing
US 101 bridge, and continuing east of US 101 through an open field that is part of an urban development
associated with Village Creek Plaza. The open field would be used for construction equipment storage
and construction access to the project site. Based on Google Earth Pro imagery, the portion of US 101 that
extends through the project site consists of native trees that block views east of US 101. Therefore, views
of most of the construction and all operational components of the project from US 101 would be
obstructed by intervening vegetation. Construction of the project may result in temporary, intermittent
views of workers, vehicles, and equipment accessing the site west of US 101; however, following project
Page 42 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
11
construction, construction crews, vehicles, and equipment would vacate the area and the project site
would be returned to preconstruction conditions. The project would require tree removal for development
at the bridge site and would not require tree removal within the viewshed of US 101. In addition, the
project includes revegetation of disturbed areas to avoid permanently degrading visual resources within
the project area. The project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic
highway; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (public
views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The project site is located in an urbanized area of the city of Arroyo Grande in the Village Mixed-Use
(VMU) and Village Downtown Core (VDC) zoning designations (City of Arroyo Grande 2018). The
City’s Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District provides guidelines
and standards for development in the VDC, VMU, Village SF-Low (VSF-L), Village SF-Medium (VSF-
M), Village MF-Medium (VMF-M), and Village Community Facility (VCF) zoning designations that are
intended to protect the historic buildings, character, and architecture that reflect the city’s heritage (City
of Arroyo Grande 1994). In addition, the City’s Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay
District (D-2.11) – Traffic Way and Station Way provide goals to encourage design that would not detract
from the neighboring village districts (City of Arroyo Grande 2014). However, the design guidelines
would not apply to the project because the project is limited to replacement of an existing bridge and does
not include the development of new buildings that would be subject to building design guidelines or other
zoning standards.
The City’s ACOSE includes goals and policies intended to protect visual resources, including agricultural
land, open spaces, hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, valleys, landmark trees, woodlands, wetlands,
streambeds and banks, as well as aspects of the built environment of historic nature or that are unique to
the city (City of Arroyo Grande 2007). In addition to temporary construction views, proposed
construction activities would result in the removal of vegetation below and adjacent to the bridge as
necessary for equipment access and installation of the new bridge foundations. Following construction
activities, the proposed bridge would retain the same alignment as the original bridge structure and would
consist of a single-span bridge with no piers within the creek bed. Therefore, the project would result in
an overall improvement in the views of the bridge and Arroyo Grande Creek. The proposed bridge
structure would accommodate the same number of vehicle lanes, Class II bicycle lanes, and pedestrian
facilities (sidewalks, light posts, and fencing) as the existing bridge structure. In addition, the project
includes revegetation of disturbed project areas. Therefore, the project would be consistent with goals and
policies of the City’s ACOSE.
The project would result in temporary construction views during the 7-month construction period;
however, implementation of the project would not result in a significant permanent change to the existing
viewshed and does not include any components that would be inconsistent with zoning or other
regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
There are 12 existing outdoor light posts along the railings of the Traffic Way bridge that are used for
nighttime lighting. Replacement of the Traffic Way bridge would include replacement of existing light
posts along the bridge. New outdoor lighting along the proposed bridge would be consistent with the
intensity of existing lighting along the existing bridge. In addition, new outdoor lighting would be
Page 43 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
12
required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 16.48.090(A), which establishes outdoor lighting
requirements for nonresidential uses within the city to prevent light pollution from degrading nighttime
views of the area. Therefore, based on the nature of development and required compliance with the City
Municipal Code, impacts related to nighttime lighting would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The project would result in temporary construction-related views during the 7-month construction period.
However, implementation of the project would not result in a significant permanent change to the existing
viewshed. Any vegetation that is removed during project construction would be revegetated following
project activities. The project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic
highway. Nighttime lighting along the proposed bridge would be consistent with existing nighttime
lighting conditions. The new bridge would be consistent with the level of development of the existing
bridge and would not result in new components that would be inconsistent with zoning or other
regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, potential impacts related to aesthetic resources would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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 Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range
Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
(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 or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Page 44 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
13
Setting
The California Department of Conservation (CDOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP) produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural
resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and current land use. For environmental
review purposes under CEQA, the FMMP categories of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land are considered
“agricultural land.” Other non-agricultural designations include Urban and Built-up Land, Other Land,
and Water. According to the FMMP, the project site is located on land that is designated as urban and
built-up land (CDOC 2016).
The Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local
governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels
of land to agriculture or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments
that are much lower than normal because they are based on farming and open space uses as opposed to
full market value. The project site does not include land within the Agriculture land use designation and is
not subject to a Williamson Act contract.
According to PRC Section 12220(g), forest land is defined as land that can support 10% native tree cover
of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or
more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality,
recreation, and other public benefits. Timberland is defined as land, other than land owned by the federal
government and land designated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection as experimental forest
land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to
produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.
The City’s ACOSE includes Objectives Ag1 through Ag6 and corresponding policies for the protection of
agricultural resources, including, but not limited to, the conservation of prime agricultural land and soils,
conservation of groundwater for agricultural operations, and the promotion of the coexistence of
agricultural and urban land uses (City of Arroyo Grande 2007).
The project site is designated as Urban and Built-up Land by the FMMP (CDOC 2016). Based on the
City’s Land Use Map, there is no designated forest land or timberland within the city (City of Arroyo
Grande 2018). The existing Traffic Way bridge is not located within designated agricultural land, forest
land, or timberland. There is FMMP-designated Prime Farmland- and Agriculture-zoned land located
approximately 0.15 mile (800 feet) west of the existing Traffic Way bridge, immediately west of the
US 101 southbound lane (CDOC 2016; City of Arroyo Grande 2018).
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project 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?
According to the CDOC FMMP, most of the project site is designated as Urban and Built-up Land, and
land located approximately 800 feet west of the project site is designated as Prime Farmland by the
FMMP (CDOC 2016). Temporary construction access would require the use of existing unnamed,
unpaved agricultural access roads located within the designated Prime Farmland. Proposed construction
staging would occur in an open field used for urban commercial development and would not be located in
the nearby agricultural land. Existing agricultural access roads would remain accessible to ongoing
agricultural operations throughout the proposed construction period. Therefore, temporary use of the
Page 45 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
14
existing agricultural access roads would not result in impacts to existing farmland. Further, all
construction access and staging areas would be returned to their original condition following construction;
therefore, implementation of the project would not result in the permanent conversion of designated
Prime Farmland to non-agricultural use, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
The Traffic Way bridge is located in the VMU and VCD zoning designations (City of Arroyo Grande
2018). Land located immediately west of the US 101 southbound lane is within the Agriculture zoning
designation and is currently developed and used for agricultural operations, including cropland (City of
Arroyo Grande 2018). Temporary access would require the use of existing unnamed, unpaved agricultural
access roads located within the agricultural land. The project would not prohibit ongoing agricultural
operations because existing agricultural access roads would remain accessible to ongoing agricultural
operations throughout the proposed construction period. Temporary use of the existing agricultural roads
would not result in conversion of or other impacts to existing farmland and all construction access areas
would be returned to their original condition following construction. In addition, the project site is not
under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract, and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project 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))?
According to the City’s zoning map, there is no designated forest land or timberland within the city (City
of Arroyo Grande 2018). Therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with zoning for
forest land or timberland, and no impact would occur.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
As previously described in threshold II(c), there is no designated forest land or timberland within the city
(City of Arroyo Grande 2018). Since there is no designated forest land within the project area, proposed
tree removal would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and
no impact would occur.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Based on the CDOC FMMP, there is designated Prime Farmland located approximately 0.15 mile west of
the Traffic Way bridge (CDOC 2016). This area is also within the Agriculture zoning designation and is
currently developed and used for agricultural operations. Temporary construction access would require
the use of existing unnamed, unpaved agricultural access roads located west of US 101, crossing under
the existing US 101 bridge, and continuing east of US 101 through an open field that is part of an urban
development associated with Village Creek Plaza. The open field is within the VMU zoning designation
and is not used for agricultural operations. The field would be used for construction staging and access to
the bridge site. Temporary use of the existing agricultural access roads would not prohibit access for
ongoing agricultural operations and would not result in impacts to existing farmland. Further, all
construction access and storage areas would be returned to preconstruction conditions following
construction activities. The project does not include long-term features that would interfere with soil
Page 46 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
15
quality, air quality, water quality, or groundwater supply that could permanently affect nearby agricultural
land. In addition, according to the City’s zoning map, there is no designated forest land or timberland
within the city (City of Arroyo Grande 2018). Therefore, the project would not result in changes to the
environment that could convert farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest use, and
impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The project would require the temporary use of existing agricultural access routes located on designated
Prime Farmland and land zoned for agricultural uses; however, implementation of the project would not
permanently convert any Prime Farmland or agriculturally zoned land to non-agricultural uses. The
project would not result in adverse impacts to forest land or timberland because there is no designated
forest land or timberland within the city. Therefore, potential impacts related to agricultural resources
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
III. Air Quality
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Setting
San Luis Obispo County is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin, (SCCAB), which also includes
Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Air quality within the SCCAB is regulated by several jurisdictions,
including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB),
and San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). Each of these jurisdictions
develops rules, regulations, and policies to attain the goals or directives imposed upon them through
legislation. The CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air
pollution control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of
1988. The State Department of Public Health established California Ambient Air Quality Standards
(CAAQS) in 1962 to define the maximum amount of a pollutant (averaged over a specified period of
time) that can be present without any harmful effects on people or the environment. The CARB adopted
the CAAQS developed by the Department of Public Health in 1969, which had established CAAQS for
Page 47 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
16
10 criteria pollutants: particulate matter (under 10 microns [PM10] and under 2.5 microns [PM2.5]), ozone
(O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfate, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), visibility-reducing
particles, lead (Pb), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride.
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) later required the USEPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment, and also set
deadlines for their attainment. The USEPA has established NAAQS for six criteria pollutants (all of
which are also regulated by CAAQS): CO, Pb, NO2, O3, PM10 and PM2.5, and SO2. California law
continues to mandate compliance with CAAQS, which are often more stringent than national standards.
However, California law does not require that CAAQS be met by specified dates as is the case with
NAAQS. Rather, it requires incremental progress toward attainment. The SLOAPCD is the agency
primarily responsible for ensuring that NAAQS and CAAQS are not exceeded and that air quality
conditions within the county are maintained.
The state and national attainment status designations pertaining to San Luis Obispo County are
summarized in Table 1. San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as a nonattainment area with
respect to the state O3 and PM10 standards. In addition, the eastern portion of the county is designated
nonattainment for the national O3 standards. The county is designated attainment or unclassified for the
remaining national and state standards.
Table 1. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designations
Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards1 National Standards1
Concentration Attainment Status Primary Attainment Status
Ozone (O3)
1-hour 0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3)
Non-Attainment
-- Non-Attainment
Eastern San Luis
Obispo County
Attainment
Western San Luis
Obispo County2 8-hour 0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
0.070 ppm
(137 μg/m3)
Respirable Particle
Matter (PM10)
24-hour 50 μg/m3 Non-Attainment 150 μg/m3 Unclassified/
Attainment AAM 20 μg/m3 –
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
24-hour No State
Standard Attainment 35 μg/m3 Unclassified/
Attainment AAM 12 μg/m3 12 μg/m3
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
1-hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
Attainment
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
Unclassified
8-hour 9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
1-hour 0.18 ppm
(339 μg/m3) Attainment
100 ppb
(188 μg/m3) Unclassified
AAM 0.030 ppm
(57 μg/m3)
0.053 ppm
(100 μg/m3)
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
1-hour 0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3)
Attainment
75 ppb
(196 mg/m3)
Unclassified
3-hour –
Secondary:
0.5 ppm
(1,300 μg/m3)
24-hour 0.04 ppm
(105 μg/m3)
0.14 ppm
(for certain areas)
AAM – 0.030 ppm
(for certain areas)
Page 48 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
17
Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standards1 National Standards1
Concentration Attainment Status Primary Attainment Status
Lead
30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3
Attainment
–
No Attainment
Information
Calendar Quarter – –1.5 µg/m3
(for certain areas)
Rolling 3-Month
Average – 0.15 μg/m3
Visibility-Reducing
Particle Matter 8-hour Extinction of 0.23
per kilometer Attainment
No
Federal
Standards
Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3) Attainment
Vinyl Chloride 24-hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3)
No Attainment
Information
Notes:
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter, pp, = parts per million, AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean
1 Unclassified (USEPA/federal definition): Any area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the
national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for that pollutant.
2 San Luis Obispo County has been designated non-attainment east of the -120.4 degree longitude line, in areas of San Luis Obispo County that
are south of latitude 35.45 degrees, and east of the -120.3 degree longitude line, in areas of San Luis Obispo County that are north of latitude
35.45 degrees.
Source: SLOAPCD 2019.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) is identified as a toxic air contaminant by the CARB. Serpentine
and other ultramafic rocks are fairly common throughout the county and may contain NOA. If these areas
are disturbed during construction, NOA-containing particles can be released into the air and have an
adverse impact on local air quality and human health. According to the SLOAPCD’s NOA map, the
project site is not located in an area the SLOAPCD has identified as having the potential for NOA to be
present (SLOAPCD 2021).
The SLOAPCD’s San Luis Obispo County 2001 Clean Air Plan (2001 Clean Air Plan) is a
comprehensive planning document intended to evaluate long-term air pollutant emissions and cumulative
effects and provide guidance to the SLOAPCD and other local agencies on how to attain and maintain the
state standards for O3 and PM10 (SLOAPCD 2001). The 2001 Clean Air Plan presents a detailed
description of the sources and pollutants that impact the jurisdiction’s attainment of state standards, future
air quality impacts to be expected under current growth trends, and an appropriate control strategy for
reducing O3 precursor emissions, thereby improving air quality.
The SLOAPCD has developed and updated their CEQA Air Quality Handbook (most recently updated
with a November 2017 Clarification Memorandum) to help local agencies evaluate project-specific
impacts and determine if air quality mitigation measures are needed, or if potentially significant impacts
could result (SLOAPCD 2012, 2017). General screening criteria are used by the SLOAPCD to determine
the type and scope of air quality assessment required for a particular project (Table 1-1 in the
SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook). These criteria are based on project size in an urban setting
and are designed to identify those projects with the potential to exceed the SLOAPCD’s significance
thresholds. A more refined analysis of air quality impacts specific to a given project is necessary for
projects that exceed the screening criteria identified in Table 2, below, or are within 10% of exceeding the
screening criteria.
The county’s air quality is measured by a total of 10 ambient air quality monitoring stations, and pollutant
levels are measured continuously and averaged each hour, 24 hours a day. The significance of a given
pollutant can be evaluated by comparing its atmospheric concentration to federal and state air quality
standards. These standards represent allowable atmospheric containment concentrations at which the
Page 49 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
18
public health and welfare are protected and include a factor of safety. The SLOAPCD prepares an Annual
Air Quality Report detailing information on air quality monitoring and pollutant trends in the county.
Sensitive Receptors
One of the most important reasons for air quality standards is the protection of those members of the
population who are most sensitive to the adverse health effects of air pollution, termed “sensitive
receptors.” The term “sensitive receptors” refers to specific population groups, as well as the land uses
where individuals would reside for long periods. Commonly identified sensitive population groups
include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill. Commonly identified sensitive land
uses would include facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others
who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Residential dwellings, schools, parks,
playgrounds, childcare centers, convalescent homes, and hospitals are examples of sensitive land uses.
The nearest sensitive receptor locations include a private single-family residence, located approximately
367 feet southeast from the boundary of the project site, and medical offices, located approximately 290
feet southwest from the boundary of the project site (SWCA 2021d).
Health Risk from a Nearby High-Volume Roadway
Diesel‐fueled trucks and cars travel on US 101, which is considered a high‐volume roadway, so future
residents living in any proposed residential units near US 101 could be exposed to diesel particulate
matter (DPM), which has been classified by the state as a toxic air contaminant and a carcinogen.
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Thresholds
The SLOAPCD thresholds for determining the significance of impacts for total emissions expected from a
project’s construction activities are provided in Table 2. The SLOAPCD has discretion to require
mitigation for projects that would not exceed the mitigation thresholds if those projects would result in
special impacts, such as the release of DPM emissions or asbestos near sensitive receptors.
Table 2. SLOAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Construction Operations
Pollutant
Threshold1
Daily
Quarterly
Tier 1
Quarterly
Tier 2
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) + Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
(combined)
137 lbs 2.5 tons 6.3 tons
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 7 lbs 0.13 tons 0.32 tons
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10), Dust 2 -- 2.5 tons --
Notes:
lbs = pounds
1 Daily and quarterly emission thresholds are based on the California Health and Safety Code and the CARB Carl Moyer Guidelines.
2 Any project with a grading area greater than 4.0 acres of worked area can exceed the 2.5-ton PM10 quarterly threshold.
Source: SLOAPCD 2012.
Page 50 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
19
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
In order to be considered consistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan, a project must be consistent with the
land use planning and transportation control measures and strategies that are outlined in the Clean Air
Plan (SLOAPCD 2012). Operation of the project may result in infrequent maintenance trips to and from
the site on an as-needed basis. Because the project would not generate regular daily vehicle trips,
transportation control measures, such as encouraging use of alternative transportation options,
telecommuting, and measures intended to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), would not be applicable
to the project. The project consists of replacing the existing Traffic Way bridge and does not propose
commercial, residential, or other development that would be applicable to land use planning measures,
such as provision of mixed-use development, planning compact communities with higher densities, and
balancing jobs and housing. Traffic Way currently consists of a Class II bike lane and pedestrian
facilities. The proposed bridge would retain the Class II bike lane and pedestrian facilities to allow for a
connected community and to encourage alternative modes of travel within the city’s downtown.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with the 2001 Clean Air Plan, and impacts would be less than
significant.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Project air pollutant emissions were estimated using the most recent version of the California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod 2020.4.0). Based on estimated construction phase length, grading volumes,
and other factors, estimated construction-related emissions that would result from the project were
calculated and compared to applicable SLOAPCD thresholds in Table 3. The CalEEMod results are
included in Appendix A.
Table 3. Estimated Construction Emissions
Pollutant
Project
Construction
Emissions
(Daily)
Project
Construction
Emissions
(quarterly)
SLOAPCD Thresholds1 Does the
Project
exceed
SLOAPCD
Thresholds? Daily
Quarterly
Tier 1
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) +
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
(combined)
9.34 lbs/day 0.15 tons/quarter 137 lbs 2.5 tons No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.32 lbs/day 0.008 tons/quarter 7 lbs 0.13 tons No
Fugitive Particulate Matter
(PM10), Dust 2
-- 0.018 tons/quarter -- 2.5 tons No
Notes:
lbs = pounds
1 Daily and quarterly emission thresholds are based on the California Health and Safety Code and the CARB Carl Moyer Guidelines.
2 Any project with a grading area greater than 4.0 acres of worked area can exceed the 2.5-ton PM10 quarterly threshold.
Source: SLOAPCD 2012.
As shown in Table 3, the project would not exceed daily or quarterly SLOAPCD thresholds for
construction-related emissions. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase in identified criteria pollutants, and construction-related impacts would be less than significant.
Page 51 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
20
Implementation of the project would not result in new uses that could increase operational emissions.
Operation of the project would include continued operation of the Traffic Way bridge and may require
infrequent vehicle trips for maintenance activities on an as-needed basis. The Traffic Way bridge provides
passage over Arroyo Grande Creek and, based on the 2016 Bridge Inspection Report, traffic volumes
through the site are approximately 9,600 vehicles per day. Traffic Way is classified as an urban arterial
roadway and has an estimated future average daily traffic (ADT) rate of 11,000 based on estimated
growth within the city. Replacement of the bridge is not anticipated to result in an increase in vehicle trips
compared to existing conditions. The proposed replacement bridge would be paved and would not result
in increased particulate matter during operation. Therefore, the project would not result in new
development that would generate operational emissions or increased VMT. Operational impacts
associated with generation of criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
The nearest sensitive receptor locations include a private single-family residence, located approximately
367 feet southeast from the boundary of the project site, and medical offices, located approximately 290
feet southwest from the boundary of the project site (SWCA 2021d). According to the SLOAPCD CEQA
Air Quality Handbook, projects that occur within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors have the potential to
result in adverse impacts involving construction emissions (SLOAPCD 2012). Therefore, based on the
proximity to the nearest sensitive receptor locations, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 has been included to
require limitations on diesel idling during the construction phase of the project to reduce potential impacts
related to air quality emissions near sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Construction of the proposed project would generate odors associated with construction smoke, dust, and
equipment exhaust and fumes. Proposed construction activities would not differ significantly from those
resulting from any other type of construction project. Any construction odors would be temporary and
limited to the construction phase of the proposed project. The SLOAPCD NOA Map indicates the project
site is not located within an area identified as having potential for NOA to be present (SLOAPCD 2021).
The Traffic Way bridge was originally constructed in 1932 and has been in use for 89 years; therefore,
there is potential for asbestos-containing material (ACM) to be released during decommissioning of the
existing bridge. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 has been included to reduce impacts related to potential release
of ACM during decommissioning of the bridge. With implementation of the identified mitigation
measure, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Conclusion
The project would be consistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan. The project would not exceed
construction-related or operational air pollutant emission thresholds as established by the SLOAPCD.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, construction of the project is not anticipated to result
in significant air quality emissions that could adversely affect nearby sensitive receptor locations.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 has been included to reduce potential impacts related to ACM during
decommissioning of the existing bridge. Therefore, with implementation of the identified mitigation
measures, impacts would be less than significant.
Page 52 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
21
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 Idling Control Techniques. During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles,
the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:
Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On- and Off-Road
Equipment.
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors, if feasible;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be
permitted;
c. Use of alternative-fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible;
and
d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and
enforced at the construction site.
California Diesel Idling Regulations. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with
13 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 2485. 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:
a. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5
minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the
regulation; and
b. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power
a heater, an air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle
during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5 minutes at
any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted
in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of
the 5-minute idling limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can
be reviewed at the following website: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.
MM AQ-2 Asbestos Material in Demolition. Demolition activities can have potential negative air
quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal
of asbestos-containing material (ACM). ACMs could be encountered during demolition
or remodeling of the existing bridge. Asbestos can also be found in utility pipes/pipelines
(transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If utility pipelines are scheduled for removal or
relocation or a building(s) is proposed to be removed or renovated, various regulatory
requirements may apply, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]
61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include but are not limited to:
(1) notification to the APCD; (2) an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos
Inspector; and (3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM.
More information on asbestos can be found at:
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
Page 53 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
22
IV. Biological Resources
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or 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, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Setting
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 provides legislation to protect federally listed plant
and animal species. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of 1984 ensures legal protection for
plants listed as rare or endangered and wildlife species formally listed as endangered or threatened, and
also maintains a list of California Species of Special Concern (SSC). SSC status is assigned to species
that have limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific,
recreational, or educational value. Under state law, the CDFW has the authority to review projects for
their potential to impact special-status species and their habitats.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects all migratory birds, including their eggs, nests, and
feathers. The MBTA was originally drafted to put an end to the commercial trade in bird feathers, popular
in the latter part of the 1800s. The MBTA is enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
and potential impacts to species protected under the MBTA are evaluated by the USFWS in consultation
with other federal agencies and are required to be evaluated under CEQA.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters
of the United States. These waters include wetland and non-wetland waterbodies that meet specific
criteria. USACE jurisdiction regulates almost all work in, over, and under waters listed as “navigable
Page 54 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
23
waters of the U.S.” that results in a discharge of dredged or fill material within USACE regulatory
jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Under Section 404, USACE
regulates traditional navigable waters (TNWs), wetlands adjacent to TNWs, relatively permanent non-
navigable tributaries that have a continuous flow at least seasonally (typically 3 months), and wetlands
that directly abut relatively permanent tributaries.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards
(RWQCBs) regulate discharges of fill and dredged material in California, under Section 401 of the CWA
and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, through the State Water Quality Certification
Program. State Water Quality Certification is necessary for all projects that require a USACE permit, or
fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact waters of the State. Based on the
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), Arroyo Grande Creek and associated wetland habitat is
located below the project site (USFWS 2021).
City Municipal Code Section 12.16.070 is designed to preserve, enhance, and revitalize the City’s urban
forest. The Community Tree Program sets forth guidelines and policies with regards to:
• Street tree requirements for new development;
• Landmark trees;
• Responsibility for tree-damaged sidewalks and public improvements;
• Privately owned trees affecting the public ROW;
• Tree removal in residential, mixed-use, and commercial zones;
• Public utility company requirements; and
• Installation, maintenance, and removal of trees relating to property development.
Regulated trees include street trees within the public ROW fronting the property, landmark trees, and any
oak trees with a trunk width over 12 inches in diameter when measured 4.5 feet from the base. Removing
them is prohibited without first obtaining a permit. The permit is available when the removal is deemed
appropriate. Any removal of a regulated tree without a permit is considered to be a misdemeanor violation
with a minimum $150.00 tree replacement fee.
The project area is in an urbanized portion of the city and is surrounded by commercial, recreational,
community, and residential land uses. The Traffic Way bridge extends over Arroyo Grande Creek, which
is a perennial stream with a dense riparian canopy. Elevations within the project area are approximately
125 feet above mean sea level (msl). Vegetation communities within the project area are identified in
Table 4 and Figure 3 (SWCA 2021e).
Table 4. Plant Community/Habitat Present within the Project Area
Plant Community/Habitat Total Acres within Project Area
Arroyo Willow Thicket (includes Stream Channel1) 3.81
Ruderal 2.30
Ruderal/Agriculture 3.28
Ornamental/Landscaped 0.28
Developed/Disturbed 5.53
Total 15.2
1 Stream channel, delineated by ordinary high-water mark (OHWM), is within the riparian canopy.
Source: SWCA 2021e.
Page 55 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
24
Figure 3. Habitat map.
Page 56 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
25
The following evaluation is based on the Natural Environment Study (NES) prepared by SWCA for the
proposed project in September 2021 (SWCA 2021e). The NES includes the results of literature and
database reviews of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory, a species list from the
USFWS, and environmental documents that have been prepared for other projects in the general area. The
NES also includes the results of the field and botanical surveys conducted in May 2019 and February
2020 and a Wetland Delineation conducted in February 2020. Based on the background review, 30
special-status plant species and 32 special-status animal species have been documented within the vicinity
of the project site. However, based on habitat types, soil conditions, and elevations present within the
project area, only the following four special-status plant species and six special-status animal species
were determined to have the potential to occur within the project area:
• Special-Status Plants
o black-flowered figwort (Scrophularia atrata)
o Gambel’s watercress (Nasturtium gambelii)
o marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola)
o San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum)
• Special-Status Animals
o California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii)
o least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)
o South-Central California Coast steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS)
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
o southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)
o Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)
o western pond turtle (Emys marmorata)
During field surveys of the project area, no special-status plants or animals or evidence of special-status
plants or animals were observed (SWCA 2021e).
Invasive Species
A total of 30 invasive plant species included on the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) Inventory
were observed in the project area, as shown in Table 5 (SWCA 2021e). Five species with a Cal-IPC
category rating of High, 16 species with a Cal-IPC category rating of Moderate, and nine species with a
Cal-IPC category rating of Limited were observed (SWCA 2021e).
Table 5. Invasive Species Observed in the Project Area
Scientific Name Common Name Cal-IPC Rating
Arundo donax giant reed High
Avena barbata slender wild oat Moderate
Avena fatua common wild oat Moderate
Brassica nigra black mustard Moderate
Bromus diandrus ripgut brome Moderate
Bromus tectorum cheatgrass High
Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Moderate
Centaurea calcitrapa purple star thistle Moderate
Page 57 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
26
Scientific Name Common Name Cal-IPC Rating
Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Moderate
Conium maculatum poison hemlock Moderate
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Moderate
Delairea odorata cape ivy High
Erodium cicutarium redstem filaree Limited
Festuca myuros rattail fescue Moderate
Festuca perennis Italian ryegrass Moderate
Foeniculum vulgare fennel High
Hedera helix English ivy High
Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum seaside barley Moderate
Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum hare barley Moderate
Hypochaeris glabra smooth cat's ear Limited
Hypochaeris radicata hairy cat's ear Moderate
Medicago polymorpha burclover Limited
Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda buttercup Moderate
Raphanus sativus wild radish Limited
Ricinus communis castor bean Limited
Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Limited
Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree Limited
Silybum marianum milk thistle Limited
Stipa miliacea var. miliacea Smilo grass Limited
Vinca magor bigleaf periwinkle Moderate
Source: SWCA 2021e.
Wetlands
According to the USFWS NWI surface water and wetland mapper, there is a riverine feature and
associated freshwater/forested shrub wetland that extends through the project area (USFWS 2021). A
wetland delineation was conducted in February 2020 for the portion of Arroyo Grande Creek that extends
through the project area. Arroyo Grande Creek within the project area has been modified and currently
supports an approximately 15-foot-wide channel and steep banks. Very slow flowing water and no
vegetation was observed within the creek channel at the time of the wetland delineation survey (SWCA
2021e, 2021h). Based on the conditions observed in the field, Arroyo Grande Creek is likely subject to
USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB jurisdiction due to the presence of a clearly identifiable ordinary high-
water mark (OHWM), the evidence of a defined bed and bank, connectivity to the Pacific Ocean, a TNW,
presence of riparian vegetation, and evidence of wetland hydrology (SWCA 2021e, 2021h). Within the
project area, 0.37 acre of federal and 1.89 acres of state jurisdictional wetland features were identified, as
shown in Table 6.
Page 58 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
27
Table 6. Jurisdictional Areas Present within the BSA
Jurisdictional Feature Total Jurisdictional Areas Present
Federal – Clean Water Act (Sections 404/401 applicable) 0.37 acre (16,204 square feet)
State – California Fish and Game Code
(Sections 1600–1602 applicable), Porter Cologne Act
1.89 acre (82,328 square feet)
Source: SWCA 2021e.
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS
Literature and database reviews of the CDFW CNDDB, CNPS Electronic Inventory, and USFWS
Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) identified 30 special-status plant species that have the
potential to occur in the project area. Based on habitat types, soil conditions, and elevation within the
project area, four special-status plant species were identified as having the potential to occur within the
project site; however, no special-status species were observed on-site during appropriately timed
botanical surveys conducted in May 2019 and February 2020 (SWCA 2021e). The four special-status
plant species considered to have the potential to occur within the project site are discussed below.
Black-Flowered Figwort
Black-flowered figwort is a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.2 species that typically occurs in
coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal dune, coastal scrub, and riparian scrub habitats. Suitable habitat for
this species occurs within the riparian habitat on-site (see Figure 3). Proposed ground disturbance and
vegetation removal during construction activities has the potential to result in take of this species if
present within the project area. No black-flowered figwort was observed during appropriately timed
botanical surveys (SWCA 2021e).
Gambel’s Watercress
Gambel’s watercress is a CRPR 1B.2 species that typically occurs in freshwater or brackish marshes and
swamps. Suitable habitat for this species occurs within and adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek on-site (see
Figure 3). Proposed ground disturbance and vegetation removal within Arroyo Grande Creek has the
potential to result in take of this species if present within the project area. No Gambel’s watercress was
observed during appropriately timed botanical surveys (SWCA 2021e).
Marsh Sandwort
Marsh sandwort is a CRPR 1B.1 species that typically occurs in slow-moving water and tall emergent
vegetation. It uses the tall emergent vegetation as structural support. Suitable habitat for this species
occurs within and adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek on-site (see Figure 3). Proposed ground disturbance
and vegetation removal within Arroyo Grande Creek has the potential to result in take of this species if
present within the project area. No marsh sandwort was observed during appropriately timed botanical
surveys (SWCA 2021e).
Page 59 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
28
San Bernardino Aster
San Bernardino aster is a CRPR 1B.2 species that typically occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal scrub,
lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, and valley and foothill
grassland near ditches, streams, and springs. Suitable habitat for this species occurs near Arroyo Grande
Creek on-site (see Figure 3). Proposed ground disturbance and vegetation removal adjacent to Arroyo
Grande Creek has the potential to result in take of this species if present within the project area. No San
Bernardino aster was observed during appropriately timed botanical surveys (SWCA 2021e).
Implementation of the project is not anticipated to adversely impact special-status plant species because
there were no special-status plant species observed during appropriately timed botanical surveys.
However, since there is suitable habitat present within the project area, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has
been included to require preconstruction botanical surveys prior to the initiation of construction activities.
In addition, there is potential for proposed construction activities to result in the spread of invasive
species. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been included to avoid or minimize the potential for construction
activities to result in the spread of invasive species. Therefore, potential impacts related to special-status
plant species would be less than significant with mitigation.
SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMALS
Literature and database reviews of the CDFW CNDDB and a species list from the USFWS IPaC
identified 32 special-status animal species that have been documented within the project region. Based on
the presence of habitat types and site conditions within the project area, six special-status animal species
were identified as having the potential to occur within the project area; however, no special-status species
were observed on-site during field surveys conducted in May 2019 and February 2020 (SWCA 2021e).
The six special-status animal species that have the potential to occur in the project site are discussed in
further detail below.
California Red-Legged Frog
The California red-legged frog (CRLF) is federally threatened and considered an SSC by CDFW. CRLF
typically occur in a variety of areas, including aquatic, riparian, and upland habitats. The Arroyo Grande
Creek bed and bank has the potential to provide suitable aquatic and upland habitat and for this species
(SWCA 2021e). Although no CRLF were observed within the project area, there is the potential for
CRLF to migrate into the project area during proposed construction activities. Therefore, there is potential
for work within and adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek to adversely affect CRLF if present within the
project area. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been included to reduce potential impacts to CRLF.
South-Central California Coast DPS Steelhead
The project area is located within designated critical habitat for South-Central California Coast DPS
steelhead. South-Central California Coast DPS steelhead is federally listed as threatened and is considered
an SSC. Suitable habitat for steelhead on the Pacific Coast includes clear, cool water with abundant
instream cover (e.g., submerged branches, rocks, logs), well-vegetated stream margins, relatively stable
water flow, and a 1:1 pool-to-riffle ratio (SWCA 2021e). Although there were no steelhead identified
within Arroyo Grande Creek during field surveys, based on the presence of designated critical habitat for
this species, there is potential for work within and adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek to adversely affect
this species if present within the project area during proposed construction activities. Mitigation Measure
BIO-4 has been included to avoid or minimize potential impacts to steelhead.
Page 60 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
29
Western Pond Turtle
Western pond turtle is considered an SSC by CDFW. This species typically occurs where water persists
year-round in ponds along foothill streams or in broad washes near the coast. The ponds favored by turtles
typically support emergent and floating vegetation such as cattails and algal mats. They also bask on half-
submerged logs, rocks, or flat shorelines close to the edge of water. Therefore, the Arroyo Grande Creek
bed and bank has the potential to provide suitable habitat for this species. In addition, western pond turtle
has been previously documented within Arroyo Grande Creek, approximately 0.5 mile north of the
project area; therefore, there is potential for this species to migrate into the project area during proposed
construction activities (SWCA 2021e). Work within and adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek has the
potential to adversely affect this species if present during proposed construction activities. Mitigation
Measure BIO-5 has been included to avoid or minimize potential impacts to southwestern pond turtle.
Nesting Migratory Birds (Least Bell’s Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher)
Least Bell’s vireo is a federal and state endangered species. Federal critical habitat has been designated
for the species within the project region; however, the project area is not within the boundaries of the
designated critical habitat. Least Bell’s vireo requires riparian areas to breed and typically inhabits
structurally diverse woodlands along watercourses. This species typically occurs in riparian habitat types,
including cottonwood-willow woodlands/forests, oak woodlands, and mule fat scrub (SWCA 2021e).
Southwestern willow flycatcher is a federal and state endangered species. Southwestern willow flycatcher
requires dense riparian habitats, including cottonwood, willow, and/or tamarisk vegetation for nesting
(SWCA 2021e). Riparian trees and vegetation within the project area have the potential to provide
suitable habitat for these species and other nesting migratory bird species. Although no least Bell’s vireo
or southwestern willow flycatcher were observed within the project area, there is potential for these
species to migrate into and nest within the project area during proposed construction activities. Therefore,
proposed vegetation removal and construction noise could adversely affect nesting migratory birds,
including least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher, if present within the project area.
Mitigation Measure BIO-6 has been included to reduce potential impacts to nesting migratory birds.
Roosting Bats (Townsend’s Big-eared Bat)
Typically, roosting bat species, including Townsend’s big-eared bat, forage over a wide variety of habitat
types, including, but not limited to, grassland, wetland, shrub, and wooded habitats. Species may roost in
caves and rock crevices. Bridges, buildings, and tree cavities are also occasionally used for roosting. No
bats or evidence of bat activity (e.g., guano, urine staining, etc.) was observed during visual
reconnaissance surveys of the project area; however, the existing bridge and the riparian vegetation may
support suitable roosting habitat or structure for bat species (SWCA 2021e). Therefore, there is potential
for proposed bridge decommissioning, vegetation removal, and construction noise to adversely affect
roosting bats, including Townsend’s big-eared bat, if present within the project area. Mitigation Measure
BIO-7 has been included to reduce potential impacts to roosting bats if present within the project area.
Proposed construction activities have the potential to adversely affect special-status animal species if
present within the project area during implementation. Mitigation Measures BIO-3 through BIO-7 have
been included to reduce potential impacts to special-status animal species. Therefore, potential impacts
related to special-status animal species would be less than significant with mitigation.
Page 61 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
30
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
The project area supports arroyo willow thicket and other riparian vegetation, which is considered a
sensitive natural community by the CDFW, and streams and riparian communities are considered
sensitive by the City (see Figure 3). Approximately 0.82 acre of arroyo willow thicket would be
temporarily impacted by the project (SWCA 2021e). Additionally, other native riparian trees located
within the footprint of disturbance for the proposed bridge would be removed during project activities.
The project includes revegetation of impacted areas; however, approximately 0.26 acre of arroyo willow
thicket would be permanently removed. Mitigation Measure BIO-8 has been included to protect arroyo
willows outside of the proposed impact area and would require a compensatory mitigation program for
impacted arroyo willow and riparian habitat. In addition, the Arroyo Grande Creek stream channel is
considered a sensitive habitat because it is federally designated as steelhead critical habitat (SWCA
2021e). Mitigation Measure BIO-9 has been included to reduce impacts to Arroyo Grande Creek during
proposed construction activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
A total of 0.37 acre of federal and 1.89 acres of state jurisdictional features was identified within the
project area, which includes the riparian corridor of Arroyo Grande Creek (SWCA 2021e, 2021h). The
project includes replacing the existing Traffic Way bridge to reduce risk caused by scour. Construction of
the new foundation would require work within and adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek, which flows under
the Traffic Way bridge. The project is estimated to result in 0.4 acre of permanent impacts and 1.26 acres
of temporary impacts to Arroyo Grande Creek, as shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Estimate of Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Jurisdiction
Impacts
Permanent Temporary
Federal – Clean Water Act (Sections 404/401 applicable)* 0.03 0.19
State – California Fish and Game Code
(Sections 1600–1602), Porter Cologne Act
0.37 0.89
Total 0.40 1.26
* Delineated by OHWM.
Source: SWCA 2021e.
In addition to direct impacts, proposed construction activities have the potential to result in increased
erosion and siltation that may result in runoff from the project site and indirectly impact wetland areas.
Mitigation Measure BIO-9 would avoid or minimize potential impacts related to work within and adjacent
to Arroyo Grande Creek. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9 would reduce potential
impacts related to work within Arroyo Grande Creek, and impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation.
Page 62 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
31
d) Would the project 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?
Based on a query of the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project for Essential Habitat
Connectivity, the project area is not located within an Essential Connectivity Area (SWCA 2021e).
However, it is reasonable to assume that the portion of the Arroyo Grande Creek riparian corridor within
the project area may be used by wildlife as a movement corridor (SWCA 2021e). As previously discussed
in threshold IV(a), the project area is located within designated critical habitat for steelhead and there is
suitable habitat for this species within Arroyo Grande Creek. Although steelhead were not identified
within Arroyo Grande Creek during field surveys, based on the presence of designated critical habitat for
steelhead, there is potential for work within and adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek to adversely affect
steelhead if present within the project area during proposed construction activities. Mitigation Measure
BIO-4 has been included to avoid or minimize potential impacts to steelhead. In addition, work within
and adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek has the potential to result in indirect impacts, including increased
erosion, sedimentation, and pollution that may affect water quality and disturb migratory fish species.
Mitigation Measure BIO-9 has been included to reduce potential impacts to Arroyo Grande Creek during
proposed construction activities that could result in indirect impacts to migratory fish species.
There is potential for nesting migratory birds to migrate into and nest within riparian trees and other
vegetation within the project area during proposed construction activities. There is potential for proposed
vegetation removal and construction noise to adversely affect nesting migratory birds if present within the
project area. Mitigation Measure BIO-6 has been included to reduce potential impacts to nesting
migratory birds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
City Municipal Code Section 12.16.070 requires projects that propose to remove street trees within the
public ROW fronting the property, landmark trees, and any oak trees with a trunk width over 12 inches in
diameter when measured 4.5 feet from the base to obtain a tree removal permit prior to removal of any
trees. The project proposes to remove arroyo willows and other riparian vegetation and would not remove
any trees covered by the City Municipal Code. The project includes revegetation of impacted areas;
however, approximately 0.26 acre of arroyo willow thicket would be permanently removed. Mitigation
Measure BIO-8 has been included to protect arroyo willows outside of the proposed impact area and
would require a compensatory mitigation program for impacted arroyo willow and riparian habitat.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
A Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was prepared for Arroyo Grande Creek in 2004 to address protection
of habitat for steelhead and CRLF. The HCP extends approximately 10 miles, and its boundaries include
Arroyo Grande Creek downstream from Lopez Dam to the flood control channel at Fair Oaks Boulevard.
The project would require work within Arroyo Grande Creek and has the potential to adversely affect
CRLF and/or steelhead if present within the project area during proposed construction activities. As
previously discussed in threshold IV(a), Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 have been included to
reduce potential impacts to CRLF and/or steelhead if present within the project area during proposed
construction activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Page 63 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
32
Conclusion
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 have been included to reduce potential impacts related to
biological resources. Therefore, with implementation of the identified mitigation, impacts would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1 Preconstruction Botanical Surveys. Prior to construction, a preconstruction survey shall
be conducted to ensure special-status plant species are not present within the project area.
If Gambel’s watercress or marsh sandwort are found within the project area, all work will
be stopped immediately, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be notified, and work
will not commence until consultation is completed. If other special-status plant species
are present, the location and number of individuals will be recorded and suitable
measures will be incorporated into the project plans, such as seed collection and
replanting of special-status species, to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to these
species. Observations of these or other special-status species shall be documented on
California Natural Diversity Database forms and submitted to the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife upon project completion.
MM BIO-2 Invasive Species Control. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce
potential impacts related to the spread of invasive species:
During construction, the project contractor will make all reasonable efforts to
limit the use of imported soils for fill. Soils currently existing on-site should be
used for fill material. If the use of imported fill material is necessary, the
imported material must be obtained from a source that is known to be free of
invasive plant species, or the material must consist of purchased clean material
such as crushed aggregate, sorted rock, or similar. To avoid the spread of
invasive species, the contractor shall:
a. Stockpile topsoil and redeposit the stockpiled soil on-site at a sufficient
depth to preclude germination or spread of those species after
construction is complete; or,
b. Transport the topsoil to a permitted landfill for disposal.
Prior to construction, project plans will clearly identify the type of species,
location, and methodology of removal and disposal of invasive exotic species
found within the project site. Removal and disposal of invasive exotic plants and
wildlife must be in accordance with state law and/or project authorizations from
resource agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Programmatic Biological
Opinion). In particular, for those invasive exotic plant species that are
particularly difficult to remove (e.g., jubata grass [Cortaderia jubata]), a
combination of cutting and application of herbicide would likely be required, and
thus require a request for an amendment to the standard conditions of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Programmatic Biological Opinion. In addition,
removal of crayfish or bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeiana) must be conducted
lawfully using methodologies outlined in the California Fish and Game Code.
During construction, the biological monitor(s) will ensure that the spread or
introduction of invasive exotic plant and wildlife species is avoided to the
maximum extent possible.
Page 64 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
33
All erosion control materials including straw bales, straw wattles, or mulch used
on-site must be free of invasive species seed.
MM BIO-3 California Red-Legged Frog. The following measures shall be implemented to reduce
potential impacts to California red-legged frog:
Only U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologists will participate in
activities associated with the capture and handling of California red-legged frogs.
Biologists authorized under the Programmatic Biological Opinion do not need to
re-submit their qualifications for subsequent projects conducted pursuant to the
Programmatic Biological Opinion, unless the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
revoked their approval at any time during the life of the Programmatic Biological
Opinion.
Ground disturbance will not begin until written approval is received from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the biologist(s) is qualified to conduct the
work. The California Department of Transportation will request approval of the
biologist(s) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist will survey the project area
no more than 48 hours before the onset of work activities. If any life stage of the
California red-legged frog is found and these individuals are likely to be killed or
injured by work activities, the approved biologist will be allowed sufficient time
to move them from the site before work activities begin. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service-approved biologist will relocate the California red-legged frogs
the shortest distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat and will
not be affected by the activities associated with the project. The relocation site
should be in the same drainage to the extent practicable. The California
Department of Transportation will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service on the relocation site prior to the capture of any California red-legged
frogs.
Before any activities begin on a project, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-
approved biologist will conduct a training session for all construction personnel.
At a minimum, the training will include a description of the California red-legged
frog and its habitat, the specific measures that are being implemented to conserve
the California red-legged frog for the current project, and the boundaries within
which the project may be accomplished. Brochures, books, and briefings may be
used in the training session, provided that a qualified person is on hand to answer
any questions.
A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist will be present at the work
site until California red-legged frogs have been relocated out of harm’s way,
workers have been instructed, and disturbance of the habitat has been completed.
After this time, the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department will
designate a person to monitor on-site compliance with minimization measures.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist will ensure that this
monitor receives the training outlined in (4) above and in the identification of
California red-legged frogs. If the monitor or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-
approved biologist recommends that work be stopped because California red-
legged frogs would be affected in a manner not anticipated by the California
Department of Transportation, City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department,
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the review of the proposed action,
they will notify the resident engineer (the engineer that is directly overseeing and
Page 65 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
34
in command of construction activities) immediately. The resident engineer will
either resolve the situation by eliminating the adverse effect immediately or
require that actions that are causing these effects be halted. If work is stopped,
the California Department of Transportation, City of Arroyo Grande Public
Works Department, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be notified as soon
as is reasonably possible.
During project activities, trash that may attract predators will be properly
contained, removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly. Following
construction, trash and construction debris will be removed from work areas.
All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles will occur at
least 60 feet from riparian habitat or waterbodies and in a location from where a
spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat (e.g., on a slope that drains
away from the water). The monitor will ensure contamination of habitat does not
occur during such operations. Prior to the onset of work, the California
Department of Transportation and City of Arroyo Grande Public Works
Department will ensure that a plan is in place for prompt and effective response
to any accidental spills. All workers will be informed of the importance of
preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.
Habitat contours will be returned to their original configuration at the end of
project activities. This measure will be implemented in all areas disturbed by
activities associated with the project, unless the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
California Department of Transportation, and City of Arroyo Grande Public
Works Department determine that it is not feasible or modification or original
contours would benefit the California red-legged frog.
The number of access routes, size of staging areas, and the total area of activity
will be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the project. Environmentally
Sensitive Areas will be established to confine access routes and construction
areas to the minimum area necessary to complete construction and minimize the
impact to California red-legged frog habitat; this goal includes locating access
routes and construction areas outside of wetlands and riparian areas to the
maximum extent practicable.
The California Department of Transportation and City of Arroyo Grande Public
Works Department will attempt to schedule work for times of the year when
impacts to the California red-legged frog would be minimal. For example, work
that would affect large pools that may support breeding would be avoided, to the
maximum degree practicable, during the breeding season (November–May).
Isolated pools that are important to maintain California red-legged frogs through
the driest portions of the year would be avoided, to the maximum degree
practicable, during the late summer and early fall. Habitat assessments, surveys,
and technical assistance between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
California Department of Transportation during project planning will be used to
assist in scheduling work activities to avoid sensitive habitats during key times of
year.
To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, the California
Department of Transportation and City of Arroyo Grande Public Works
Department will implement Best Management Practices outlined in any
authorizations or permits issued under the authorities of the Clean Water Act that
it receives for the specific project. If Best Management Practices are ineffective,
Page 66 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
35
the California Department of Transportation will attempt to remedy the situation
immediately, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
If a work site is to be temporarily dewatered by pumping, intakes will be
completely screened with wire mesh not larger than 0.2 inch to prevent
California red-legged frogs from entering the pump system. Water will be
released downstream at an appropriate rate to maintain downstream flows during
construction. Upon completion of construction activities, any diversions or
barriers to flow will be removed in a manner that would allow flow to resume
with the least disturbance to the substrate. Alteration of the streambed will be
minimized to the maximum extent possible; any imported material will be
removed from the streambed upon completion of the project.
Unless approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, water will not be
impounded in a manner that may attract California red-legged frogs.
A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist will permanently remove
any individuals of exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and centrarchid
fishes from the project area, to the maximum extent. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service-approved biologist will be responsible for ensuring their activities are in
compliance with the California Fish and Game Code.
If the California Department of Transportation and the City of Arroyo Grande
Public Works Department demonstrate that disturbed areas have been restored to
conditions that allow them to function as habitat for the California red-legged
frog, these areas will not be included in the amount of total habitat permanently
disturbed.
To ensure that diseases are not conveyed between work sites by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service-approved biologist, the fieldwork code of practice developed by
the Declining Amphibian Task Force will be followed at all times.
Project sites will be re-vegetated with an assemblage of native riparian, wetland,
and upland vegetation suitable for the area. Locally collected plant materials will
be used to the extent practicable. Invasive, exotic plants will be controlled to the
maximum extent practicable. This measure will be implemented in all areas
disturbed by activities with the project, unless the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
California Department of Transportation, and City of Arroyo Grande Public
Works Department have determined that it is not feasible or practical.
The California Department of Transportation and City of Arroyo Grande Public
Works Department will not use herbicides as the primary method to control
invasive, exotic plants. However, if the California Department of Transportation
and City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department determine the use of
herbicides is the only feasible method for controlling invasive plants at a specific
project site, it will implement the following additional measures to protect
California red-legged frog:
a. The California Department of Transportation and City of Arroyo Grande
Public Works Department will not use herbicides during the breeding
season for California red-legged frog.
b. The California Department of Transportation and City of Arroyo Grande
Public Works Department will conduct surveys for California red-legged
frog immediately prior to the start of herbicide use. If found, California
red-legged frog will be relocated to suitable habitat far enough from the
project area that no direct contact with herbicide would occur.
Page 67 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
36
c. Giant reed and other invasive plants will be cut and hauled out by hand
and painted with glyphosate-based products, such as Aquamaster® or
Rodeo®.
d. Licensed and experienced California Department of Transportation staff
or a licensed and experienced contractor will use a hand-held sprayer for
foliar application of Aquamaster® or Rodeo® where large monoculture
stands occur at an individual project site.
e. All precautions will be taken to ensure that no herbicide is applied to
native vegetation.
f. Foliar applications of herbicide will not occur when wind speeds are in
excess of 3 miles per hour.
g. No herbicides will be applied within 24 hours of forecasted rain.
h. Application of herbicides will be done by qualified California
Department of Transportation staff, City of Arroyo Grande staff, or
contractors to ensure that overspray is minimized, application is made in
accordance with the label recommendations, and required and reasonable
safety measures are implemented. A safe dye will be added to the
mixture to visually denote treated sites. Application of herbicides will be
consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of
Pesticide Programs Endangered Species Protection Program county
bulletins.
i. All herbicides, fuels, lubricants, and equipment will be stored, poured, or
refilled at least 60 feet from riparian habitat or water bodies in a location
where a spill would not drain directly toward aquatic habitat. The
California Department of Transportation and City of Arroyo Grande
Public Works Department will ensure that a plan is in place for a prompt
and effective response to accidental spills. All workers will be informed
of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to
take should a spill occur.
MM BIO-4 South-Central California Coast Steelhead. The following measures shall be
implemented to reduce potential impacts to South-Central California Coast steelhead:
Avoid or reduce the area of permanent structures, such as rock slope protection,
within the ordinary high-water mark on-site. Selection of the single-span bridge
design reduces the need for additional support structures located within the
ordinary high-water mark (structures will still be present on the stream banks).
Removal of the existing piles within the ordinary high-water mark would result
in improvements to steelhead habitat in the vicinity of the bridge.
Prior to initiation of stream diversion/dewatering, a qualified biologist shall
conduct a worker environmental training program, including a description of
steelhead, steelhead critical habitat, its legal/protected status, proximity to the
project site, avoidance/minimization measures to be implemented during the
project, and the implications of violating Federal Endangered Species Act and
permit conditions.
In-stream work will take place between June 1 and October 15 in any given year,
when the surface water within Arroyo Grande Creek is likely to be at seasonal
minimum. Deviations from this work window will only be made with permission
from the relevant regulatory agencies. During in-stream work, a qualified
biologist who is approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Page 68 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
37
Administration National Marine Fisheries Service and has experience in
steelhead biology and ecology, aquatic habitats, biological monitoring (including
diversion/dewatering), and capturing, handling, and relocating fish species will
be retained. During in-stream work, the biological monitor(s) will continuously
monitor placement and removal of any required stream diversions and will
capture stranded steelhead and other native fish species and relocate them to
suitable habitat, as appropriate. The approved biologist(s) will capture steelhead
stranded as a result of diversion/dewatering and relocate steelhead to the nearest
suitable in-stream habitat. The approved biologist(s) will note the number of
steelhead observed in the affected area, the number of steelhead relocated, and
the date and time of the collection and relocation.
During in-stream work, if pumps are incorporated to assist in temporarily
dewatering the site, intakes will be completely screened with no larger than
0.2-inch (5-millimeter) wire mesh to prevent steelhead and other sensitive
aquatic species from entering the pump system. Pumps will release the diverted
water so that suspended sediment will not re-enter the stream. The form and
function of pumps used during the dewatering activities will be checked daily, at
a minimum, by a qualified biological monitor to ensure a dry work environment
and minimize adverse effects to aquatic species and habitats.
MM BIO-5 Western Pond Turtle. Prior to construction, a biologist determined qualified by the
California Department of Transportation shall survey the Biological Study Area and
capture and relocate any western pond turtles, if present, to suitable habitat upstream of
the Biological Study Area. Observations of these or other special-status species shall be
documented on California Natural Diversity Database forms and submitted to the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife upon project completion. If western pond
turtle or other special concern aquatic species are observed during construction, they will
likewise be relocated to suitable upstream habitat by the qualified biologist.
MM BIO-6 Nesting Migratory Birds. The following measures shall be included at appropriate times
to reduce potential impacts to nesting migratory birds:
Prior to construction, when feasible, tree removal will be scheduled to occur from
September 16 through February 14, outside of the typical nesting bird season, to
avoid potential impacts to nesting birds.
If construction activities are proposed during the typical nesting season (February
15 to September 15), a nesting bird survey will be conducted by qualified
biologists no more than two weeks prior to the start of construction to determine
presence/absence of nesting birds within the project area and immediate vicinity.
The California Department of Transportation will be notified if federally listed
nesting bird species are observed during the surveys and will facilitate
coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, if necessary, to determine
an appropriate avoidance strategy. Likewise, coordination with California
Department of Fish and Wildlife will be facilitated by the City of Arroyo Grande
Public Works Department if necessary to devise a suitable avoidance plan for
state-listed nesting bird species. If raptor nests are observed within the project
area during the preconstruction nesting bird surveys, the nest(s) shall be
designated an Environmental Sensitive Area and protected by a minimum
500-foot avoidance buffer until the breeding season ends or until a qualified
biologist determines that all young have fledged and are no longer reliant upon
the nest or parental care for survival. Similarly, if active passerine nests are
Page 69 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
38
observed within the project area during the preconstruction nesting bird surveys,
the nest(s) shall be designated an Environmentally Sensitive Area and protected
by a minimum 250-foot avoidance buffer until the breeding season ends or until a
qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged and are no longer
reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. Resource agencies may
consider proposed variances from these buffers if there is a compelling biological
or ecological reason to do so, such as protection of a nest via concealment due to
site topography.
MM BIO-7 Roosting Bats. The following measures shall be included at appropriate times to reduce
potential impacts to roosting bats:
Prior to construction, a visual survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist,
at dawn and at dusk, to identify potential roosting bat activity. This survey shall
be conducted between 2 and 4 weeks prior to bridge and/or tree removal
activities. If roosting bat activity is identified during the preconstruction survey
process, the City of Arroyo Grande will coordinate with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding the biological significance of the bat
population and appropriate measures that could be used to exclude bats from
roosting under the bridge. Measures may include, but are not limited to, the
installation of exclusionary devices by a qualified individual.
If it is determined that a substantial impact to individual bat species or a
maternity roost will occur, then the City of Arroyo Grande will compensate for
the impact through the development and implementation of a mitigation plan in
coordination with California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
MM BIO-8 Arroyo Willow. The following measures shall be included at appropriate times to reduce
potential impacts to Arroyo Grande Creek:
Prior to initiation of any construction activities, including vegetation clearing or
grubbing, sturdy high-visibility fencing will be installed to protect the arroyo
willow thickets adjacent to the designated work areas. This fencing will be
placed so that unnecessary adverse impacts to the adjacent habitats are avoided.
No construction work (including storage of materials) will occur outside of the
specified project limits. The fencing will remain in place during the entire
construction period, be monitored periodically by a qualified biologist, and be
maintained as needed by the contractor.
Prior to construction, the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department will
prepare a comprehensive Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that provides
for a 1:1 restoration ratio for temporary impacts and a 3:1 enhancement ratio for
permanent impacts, unless otherwise directed by regulatory agencies. To the
extent feasible, mitigation activities will be implemented within the project area
and/or the Arroyo Grande Creek riparian corridor and areas in and adjacent to the
project area that support invasive plant species, contain agricultural trash, and
have erosion. These areas provide the most optimal mitigation opportunities on-
site. Areas within the disturbance area where landscape trees and shrubs would
be removed may also provide opportunities for planting native trees and riparian
species. Any revegetation will be conducted using only native plant species. The
final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will identify the specific mitigation
sites and it will be implemented immediately following project completion.
Page 70 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
39
MM BIO-9 Arroyo Grande Creek. The following measures shall be included at appropriate times to
reduce potential impacts to Arroyo Grande Creek:
Prior to construction, the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department will
obtain a Section 404 Permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board, and a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife for project-related impacts that will
occur in areas under state and federal jurisdiction.
Prior to construction, the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department will
retain a qualified biological monitor(s) to monitor construction and ensure
compliance with the avoidance and minimization efforts outlined within all the
project environmental documents. At a minimum, monitoring will occur during
initial ground disturbance activities and vegetation removal within the Arroyo
Grande Creek corridor. Monitoring may be reduced to part time once initial
disturbance and vegetation removal activities are complete. The duration of
monitoring should be at least once per week throughout the remaining
construction phases, unless specified otherwise by permitting agencies.
Prior to construction, all personnel will participate in an environmental
awareness training program conducted by a qualified biologist. The program
shall include a description of the sensitive aquatic resources and federally
designated critical habitat within the project area and the boundaries within
which the project may be accomplished. If appropriate, the biologist may train
and designate a representative of the City of Atascadero or other designee to
provide training to subcontractors or personnel who will be on-site for short
durations during the project.
Construction activities within jurisdictional areas will be conducted during the
dry season when stream flows will be at annual lows (June 1–October 15) in any
given year, or as otherwise directed by the regulatory agencies. Deviations from
this work window can be made with permission from the relevant regulatory
agencies.
Prior to initiation of any construction activities, including vegetation clearing or
grubbing, sturdy high-visibility fencing will be installed to protect the
jurisdictional areas adjacent to the designated work areas. This fencing will be
placed so that unnecessary adverse impacts to the adjacent habitats are avoided.
No construction work (including storage of materials) will occur outside of the
specified project limits. The fencing will remain in place during the entire
construction period, be monitored periodically by a qualified biologist, and be
maintained as needed by the contractor.
Prior to construction, the contractor will prepare a Hazardous Materials Response
Plan to allow for a prompt and effective response to any accidental spills.
Workers will be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the
appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.
Prior to construction, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared
for the project. Provisions of this plan will be implemented during and after
construction as necessary to avoid and minimize erosion and stormwater
pollution in and near the work area.
During construction, erosion control measures (e.g., silt fencing, fiber rolls, and
barriers) will remain available on-site and will be utilized as necessary to prevent
Page 71 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
40
erosion and sedimentation in jurisdictional areas. No synthetic plastic mesh
products will be used for erosion control and use of these materials on-site is
prohibited. Erosion control measures and other suitable Best Management
Practices used will be checked to ensure that they are intact and functioning
effectively and maintained daily throughout the duration of construction. The
contractor will also apply adequate dust control techniques, such as site watering,
during construction to protect water quality.
During construction, water quality monitoring of turbidity will be required while
water is flowing.
During construction, the cleaning and refueling of equipment and vehicles will
occur only within a designated staging area and at least 60 feet (20 meters) from
the creek banks. At a minimum, equipment and vehicles will be checked and
maintained daily to ensure proper operation and avoid potential leaks or spills.
During construction, trash will be contained, removed from the work site, and
disposed of regularly. Following construction, trash and construction debris will
be removed from the work areas. Vegetation removed from the construction site
will be taken to a certified landfill to prevent the spread of invasive species. If
soil from weedy areas (such as areas with poison hemlock or other invasive
exotic plant species) must be removed off-site, the top 6 inches (152 millimeters)
containing the seed layer in areas with weedy species will be disposed of at a
permitted landfill.
During construction, no pets will be allowed on the construction site.
V. Cultural Resources
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to §
15064.5?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Setting
The project is located within lands traditionally occupied by the Obispeño Chumash. The term Chumash
initially applied only to the people living on Santa Cruz Island (SWCA 2021a). Chumash now refers to
the entire linguistic and ethnic group of societies that occupied the coast between San Luis Obispo and
northwestern Los Angeles County, including the Santa Barbara Channel Islands, and inland to the
southern edge of the San Joaquin Valley. Neighboring groups included the Salinan, Southern Valley
Yokuts, and Tataviam to the north and the Gabrielino (Tongva) to the east. Chumash place names in the
project vicinity include Pismu (Pismo Beach), Tematatimi (along Los Berros Creek), and Tilhini (near
San Luis Obispo) (SWCA 2021a).
Page 72 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
41
Most Chumash managed to maintain a presence in the area into the early twentieth century as cowboys,
farmhands, and town laborers. The Catholic Church provided some land near Mission Santa Inés for ex-
neophytes. This land eventually was deeded to the U.S. government in 1901 as the 127-acre Santa Ynez
Reservation. Since the 1970s, Chumash descendants living in the city of Santa Barbara and the rural areas
of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties have formed social and political organizations
to aid in cultural revitalization, to protect sacred areas and archaeological sites, and to petition for federal
recognition. Today, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is the only federally recognized Chumash
tribe (SWCA 2021a).
San Luis Obispo County possesses a rich and diverse cultural heritage and has an abundance of historic
and prehistoric cultural resources dating as far back as 9,000 B.C. The City protects and manages cultural
resources in accordance with the provisions detailed by CEQA and local ordinances. PRC Section 5024.1
requires that any properties that can be expected to be directly or indirectly affected by a proposed project
be evaluated for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility. The purpose of the
CRHR is to maintain listings of the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be
protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from material impairment and substantial adverse change.
As defined by CEQA, a historical resource includes:
1. A resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR.
2. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency
determines to be historically significant or significant. The architectural, engineering, scientific,
economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural records of California
may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is
supported by substantial evidence.
Resources are evaluated for eligibility for the CRHR under the following four criteria:
• Criterion 1. The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
• Criterion 2. The resource is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
• Criterion 3. The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic values; and
• Criterion 4. The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
The following evaluation is based on Archaeological Survey Report for the Traffic Way over Arroyo
Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project, Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California (ASR;
SWCA 2021a) and Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande
Creek Bridge Replacement Project, Federal Project No. BRLS-5199(030), Arroyo Grande, San Luis
Obispo County, California (HRER; SWCA 2021b).
The ASR includes a records and literature search and a field survey of the project area. Based on the
records and literature search, 29 previous cultural resource studies had been conducted within the project
site and within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site. Of the 29 previous cultural resource studies in the
area, five overlap with the project area and are identified in Table 8.
Page 73 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
42
Table 8. Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies within the Project Area
CCIC Report
Number Title of Study Proximity to
Project Area
SL-03479 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Village Center, Wesley and Branch Streets APN: 07-
191-01, 37, 38 Arroyo Grande, CA
Within
SL-03747 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for a Property at 136 Bridge Street in
the city of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California
Within
SL-06194 Historic Resources Evaluation Report: State Route 227 Relinquishment Arroyo Grande,
San Luis Obispo, California
Within
SL-06195 Archaeological Survey Report: Highway 227 Relinquishment to the city of Arroyo Grande,
San Luis Obispo County, California
Within
SL-06356 Historical Resources Compliance Report, State Route 227 Relinquishment, Arroyo Grande Within
Source: SWCA 2021a.
Based on the records and literature search, none of the 29 cultural resource studies, including the five
studies within the project area, resulted in the identification of archaeological resources (SWCA 2021a).
In addition, the field survey conducted for the project did not identify any unknown cultural resource sites
(SWCA 2021a).
Research for the HRER includes a query of online archival resources, including recorded maps from the
County of San Luis Obispo (County) Surveyor, biographical information and local news articles available
through Ancestry.com, Newspapers.com, GenealogyBank.com, and the California Digital Newspaper
Collection. In addition, the local Caltrans District 5 office provided information from the Bridge
Inspection Records Information System (BIRIS) and as-builts from 1931 of both the Traffic Way bridge
and the new alignment of Traffic Way through the western edge of Arroyo Grande. In January 2021,
SWCA emailed letters to two local historical societies, requesting information about additional resources
(SWCA 2021b). In addition, a site visit to the project area was conducted in November 2020 to take
photographs and notes of the built environment resources within and adjacent to the project area (SWCA
2021b). Based on research and field methods, the HRER concludes that Traffic Way bridge is not eligible
for listing in the CRHR (SWCA 2021b).
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Based on the HRER prepared for the project, the Traffic Way bridge is not eligible for listing in the
CRHR (SWCA 2021b). Therefore, decommissioning the existing bridge and constructing the replacement
bridge within the same alignment would not result in adverse effects to a historical resource. In addition,
the project does not include demolition or removal of any buildings or other structures surrounding the
Traffic Way bridge. As discussed in Section XIII, Noise, vibration from construction activities would not
result in damage to historic buildings within the Village Core. Therefore, the project would not result in
substantial adverse change in a historical resource, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
The project site is located within and adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek. Based on the ASR prepared for
the project, there are no previously recorded archaeological resource sites within the project area (SWCA
2021a). Based on the negative field survey, there is low potential for known or unknown cultural
resources to occur within the project area. Therefore, proposed ground disturbance activities are not
Page 74 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
43
anticipated to adversely affect any known or unknown cultural resource sites within the project area.
Mitigation Measure CR-1 has been included in the unlikely event that previously unidentified cultural
resources are uncovered during proposed ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, the project would not
result in adverse impacts to known or unknown cultural resources and impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
There are no known human remains or cemeteries located within or in the immediate vicinity of the
project site and the potential for inadvertent discovery of human remains during construction is
considered to be low. The project would be required to comply with the State of California Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5, which outlines the protocol for unanticipated discovery of human remains.
This code section states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be
notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will
notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine 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. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The project would not result in substantial adverse change to historical resources and is not anticipated to
disturb any human remains. The project would be required to comply with Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5, which outlines the protocol for unanticipated discovery of human remains. Mitigation
Measure CR-1 has been included to avoid potential impacts associated with the inadvertent discovery of
unknown cultural resources during construction activities. Therefore, with implementation of the
identified mitigation measure, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM CR-1 In the event that cultural resources are encountered during project activities, all ground-
disturbing activities within a 25-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City of Arroyo
Grande shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a qualified
archaeologist assesses the find and determines the need for further study. If the find
includes Native American-affiliated materials, a local Native American tribal
representative will be contacted to work in conjunction with the approved archaeologist
to determine the need for further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be
included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this
requirement.
Page 75 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
44
VI. Energy
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Setting
PG&E has historically been the primary electricity provider for the City. On August 13, 2019, the City
Council adopted a resolution joining Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) under a joint powers
agreement (JPA) implementing the community choice aggregation program authorized by Ordinance No.
700. Through that resolution, the City Council committed to joining Central Coast Community Energy
(3CE; formerly MBCP) and, beginning in January 2020, 3CE became the City’s primary electricity
provider. 3CE is striving to provide 100% carbon-free energy mix to the City by 2030.
The City’s ACOSE establishes objectives and policies to achieve energy conservation. These goals
include development standards and design guidelines that consider refinement to minimize unnecessary
energy use. The City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan (City of Arroyo Grande 2013) identifies
transportation as the largest contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at 44%. The City’s Climate
Action Plan includes climate action measures intended to conserve energy, reduce VMT, divert solid
waste from landfills, reduce water consumption, and plant trees to reduce GHG emissions.
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during
project construction or operation?
During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and
equipment. The energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would be typical
of other similar construction activities in the county. Federal and state regulations in place require the use
of fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles and require wasteful activities, such as diesel idling, to be
limited. Construction contractors, in an effort to ensure cost efficiency, would not be expected to engage
in wasteful or unnecessary energy and fuel practices. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 includes
limitations on diesel idling during the construction phase of the project. Energy consumption during
construction would not conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy and would not be wasteful,
unnecessary, or inefficient, and, therefore, would be less than significant with mitigation.
Following construction, the project would operate as a bridge and would not require significant use of
energy resources, such as electricity and natural gas. There are 12 existing light posts that provide
nighttime illumination of the bridge. The new bridge would include nighttime lighting at a similar scale
and intensity as existing lighting conditions and would not lead to a significant change in operational
energy use compared to existing conditions. Infrequent maintenance trips may be needed for the bridge;
however, operation of the bridge would not facilitate new vehicle tips that may result in an overall
Page 76 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
45
increase in ADT to and from the site. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial increase in
operational energy use and operational impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
As previously described, operation of the project would result in operation of a bridge and would not
require significant use of energy resources, such as electricity and natural gas. There are 12 existing light
posts that provide nighttime illumination of the bridge. The new bridge would include nighttime lighting
at a similar scale and intensity as existing lighting conditions and would not result in higher operational
energy use. Operation of the project may also include infrequent maintenance and repair trips on an as-
needed basis; however, the overall increase in vehicle trips to and from the project site as a result of the
project would be negligible. Operational energy use would be limited in nature and would not result in a
substantial increase in energy use compared to existing conditions, which is consistent with applicable
energy efficiency plans, including the County of San Luis Obispo EnergyWise Plan (County of San Luis
Obispo 2011). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The proposed project would be required to comply with state and local energy efficiency standards during
construction. Additionally, operation of the project would require a negligible amount of energy and
would be consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the SLOAPCD’s Clean Air Plan related to
renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
VII. Geology and Soils
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Directly or indirectly cause 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? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Page 77 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
46
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(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 direct or indirect risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Setting
The city of Arroyo Grande is located within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, which is
characterized by its many elongated 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 city is
situated along the interface of the coastal range and the gently sloping coastal terrace, which extends to
the shoreline. The city encompasses an urban landscape in the southern portion of San Luis Obispo
County at an elevation of approximately 50 to 400 feet above msl.
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act) is a California state law that was
developed to regulate development near active faults and mitigate the surface fault rupture potential and
other hazards. The Alquist-Priolo Act identifies active earthquake fault zones and restricts the
construction of habitable structures over known active or potentially active faults. The County of San Luis
Obispo General Plan Safety Element identifies three active faults that traverse through the county and are
currently zoned under the Alquist-Priolo Act: the San Andreas, the Hosgri-San Simeon, and the Los Osos
(County of San Luis Obispo 1999). The city of Arroyo Grande is not underlain by the San Andreas, the
Hosgri-San Simeon, or the Los Osos Faults.
There are a number of active or potentially active fault systems throughout San Luis Obispo County and,
given the past history of earthquakes in the area, experts agree that the probability of a damaging
earthquake occurring is high. Mapped faults within the city of Arroyo Grande include the potentially
active Wilmar Avenue Fault and the inactive Pismo Fault. The Wilmar Avenue Fault is exposed in the sea
cliff near Pismo Beach and the buried trace of the fault is inferred to strike northwest–southeast parallel
and adjacent to US 101 beneath portions of Arroyo Grande. The potentially active fault presents a
moderate potential fault rupture hazard to the City. The inactive Pismo Fault presents a very low potential
fault rupture hazard. Further studies to evaluate the activity of the faults are warranted, prior to placing
structures near the mapped fault traces (Mathe 2015). Based on the DOC Fault Activity Map of
California, the project area is underlain by the Wilmar Avenue fault line (CDOC 2015).
The estimated peak ground acceleration (g) for the bridge site is approximately 0.8g. The site response for
periods less than about 0.35 second is controlled by a magnitude (M) 7.0 earthquake on the Los Osos
Fault, mapped approximately 3 miles east of the site. The site response for periods greater than about 0.35
seconds is controlled by a M7.2 earthquake on the Wilmar Avenue Fault. A near-fault factor was applied
to the acceleration response spectral (ARS) curve (a formula to determine seismic loadings) because the
Page 78 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
47
site is located less than 15 miles from a potentially controlling fault. The estimated average shear wave
velocity for the site is approximately 450 meters per second, characteristic of a Type C very dense soil or
soft rock site.
Liquefaction potential increases with earthquake magnitude and ground shaking duration. Low-lying
areas adjacent to creeks, rivers, beaches, and estuaries underlain by unconsolidated alluvial soil are most
likely to be vulnerable to liquefaction. The portions of the city with high liquefaction potential are those
areas underlain by younger alluvium (Qa), which includes most of the low-lying downtown areas south of
Branch Street and along Grand Avenue (City of Arroyo Grande 2001a).
Landslides and slope instability can occur as a result of wet weather, weak soils, improper grading,
improper drainage, steep slopes, adverse geologic structure, earthquakes, or a combination of these
factors. Despite current codes and policies that discourage development in areas of known landslide
activity or high risk of landslide, there is a considerable amount of development that is impacted by
landslide activity in the county each year. A majority of the existing development in Arroyo Grande is
located on gently inclined alluvial valley sediments, which has low to very low potential for slope
stability hazards. However, the residences located on the hilly terrain north of Branch Street have greater
potential for landslide activity (City of Arroyo Grande 2001a).
Shrink/swell potential is the extent to which the soil shrinks as it dries out or swells when it gets wet.
Extent of shrinking and swelling is influenced by the amount and kind of clay in the soil. Shrinking and
swelling of soils can cause damage to building foundations, roads and other structures. A high
shrink/swell potential indicates a hazard to maintenance of structures built in, on, or with material having
this rating. Moderate and low ratings lessen the hazard accordingly.
The City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Safety Element includes objectives for reducing the potential for
loss of life and property resulting from geologic and seismic hazards (City of Arroyo Grande 2001a).
Paleontological resources are fossilized remains of ancient environments, including fossilized bone, shell,
and plant parts; impressions of plant, insect, or animal parts preserved in stone; and preserved tracks of
insects and animals. Paleontological resources are considered nonrenewable resources under federal and
state law. Paleontological sensitivity is defined as the potential for a geologic unit to produce
scientifically significant fossils, as determined by rock type, past history of the rock unit in producing
fossil materials, and fossil sites that have been recorded in the unit. Paleontological resources are
generally found below ground surface in sedimentary rock units. The boundaries of the sedimentary rock
unit are used to define the limits of paleontological sensitivity in a given region. According to the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), Arroyo Grande is underlain by the Pismo Formation, which is primarily
comprised of massive gray or white arkosic sandstone that is fine- to medium-grained, moderately well
sorted, soft to hard, and friable. Based on marine megafossils from the area, the formation is from the late
Pliocene era (USGS 2021a).
The City’s ACOSE does not identify goals or policies related to the preservation of paleontological
resources; however, the County of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
(COSE) identifies a policy for the protection of paleontological resources from the effects of development
by avoiding disturbance where feasible. Where substantial subsurface disturbance is proposed in
paleontologically sensitive units, Implementation Strategy CR 4.5.1 (Paleontological Studies) requires a
paleontological resource assessment and mitigation plan be prepared to identify the extent and potential
significance of resources that may exist within the proposed development and provide mitigation
measures to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources.
Page 79 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
48
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a-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.
a-ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
a-iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
a-iv) Landslides?
The project is located in a seismically active region and there is always potential for seismic ground
shaking to occur. The city of Arroyo Grande is not underlain by any Alquist-Priolo Faults that occur
within the project region, including the San Andreas, the Hosgri-San Simeon, or the Los Osos Faults
(Mathe 2015). However, the project is underlain by the Wilmar Avenue Fault, which increases the
likelihood for the project to experience seismic ground shaking at some point during its lifetime (CDOC
2015). In addition, the project site is at moderate risk for liquefaction and at low risk for landslide
(County of San Luis Obispo 2021). Topography at the project site is relatively flat, which further reduces
the potential for landslides to occur.
The proposed bridge would be required to be designed in a manner that would avoid or minimize risk of
loss, injury, or death as a result of seismic activity and related ground-failure. The project would be
required to meet or exceed the most current AASHTO bridge requirements, which have been developed
to establish design requirements to safeguard public health, safety, and general welfare through structural
strength, stability, and other standards. The project would also be required to meet or exceed seismic
design standards identified in Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC), Version 2.0 (Caltrans 2019).
Roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle path elements would be required to comply with AASHTO’s A Policy
on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (“The Green Book;” AASHTO 2018) and relevant City
standards. Through compliance with applicable structural and other design standards, the proposed bridge
would be designed to withstand risk associated with potential seismic events. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The project includes replacing the existing Traffic Way bridge to reduce risk caused by scour. Proposed
construction activities have the potential to result in increased erosion at the project site. Mitigation
Measure BIO-9 includes measures to reduce potential impacts related to work within Arroyo Grande
Creek. Mitigation Measure BIO-9(4) would require work to be conducted during the dry season (June 1–
October 15) to avoid increased runoff from the project site due to rain or flood flows. Mitigation Measure
BIO-9(7) would require the project to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) with Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid or minimize erosive runoff during project
construction. Mitigation Measure BIO-9(8) identifies BMPs to be implemented during construction
activities to reduce erosive runoff from the site. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9
would reduce potential impacts related to increased erosion and sedimentation during construction of the
project. The proposed bridge would be paved and would extend over Arroyo Grande Creek and associated
soils; therefore, operational components of the project are not anticipated to increase long-term erosion
on-site. Further, the project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 13.24.120,
Page 80 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
49
which requires the preparation and implementation of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to
reduce short- and long-term impacts associated with erosion. Therefore, with implementation of the
identified mitigation measures, construction and operation of the project would not result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-site and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) Would the project 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) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
As previously mentioned, the project site is at moderate risk for liquefaction and low risk for landslide
(County of San Luis Obispo 2021). According to the USGS Areas of Land Subsidence in California Map,
the project site is not located within an area of known subsidence (USGS 2021b). Typically, expansive
soils have a high shrink/swell potential due to a high clay content within the soils. The project site is
underlain by soils that contain some clay materials (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] Natural
Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2021). Therefore, there is potential for soils at the project site to
experience some expansion.
As previously described, the project would be required to meet or exceed the most current AASHTO
bridge requirements, which have been developed to establish design requirements to safeguard public
health, safety, and general welfare through structural strength, stability, and other standards. The project
would also be required to meet or exceed seismic design standards identified in Caltrans SDC, Version
2.0 (Caltrans 2019). In addition, roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle path elements would be required to
comply with AASHTO’s “The Green Book” (AASHTO 2018) and relevant City standards. Based on
required compliance with applicable design standards, the structural components of the proposed bridge
would be designed to safeguard public safety and avoid or minimize the potential for risk related to
development on unstable or expansive soils. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
The project does not include the development of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems;
therefore, no impact would occur.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
Arroyo Grande is underlain by the Pismo Formation (USGS 2021b), which has a high potential fossil
yield for marine fossils (California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC] 2005). Proposed construction
activities would primarily be conducted within the footprint of the existing Traffic Way bridge, which
reduces the likelihood for unknown paleontological resources to occur within the project area. However,
the proposed bridge includes deeper foundations to safeguard against risk associated with scour;
therefore, the project would require deeper excavation. Although unlikely based on previous development
within and surrounding the project site, there is potential for proposed ground-disturbing activities within
native soils to disturb paleontological resources if present within the project area. Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 has been included to require paleontological monitoring during work within native soils.
Therefore, the project would not result in adverse impacts to potential paleontological resources present
within the project area and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Page 81 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
50
Conclusion
The proposed bridge would be required to be designed and constructed according to AASHTO and
Caltrans standards and requirements, which would reduce the potential for risk of loss, injury, or death as
a result of seismic or other geologic stresses. Mitigation Measure BIO-9 has been included to reduce
impacts related to erosion from the project site. In addition, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 has been included
to reduce potential impacts related to paleontological resources. Therefore, with implementation of the
identified mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-9.
MM GEO-1 All project-related ground disturbance that occurs in previously undisturbed native soils
shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. However,
the frequency of monitoring may be reduced at the discretion of the qualified
paleontologist if the disturbed geologic units are determined to have a low potential to
yield significant fossil resources upon further examination of the geologic units during
grading operations. In the event that a subsurface fossil is discovered within the project
area during project activities, all work within the vicinity of the find shall cease until the
qualified paleontological monitor can assess the significance of the find. Field data forms
shall be used to record pertinent geologic data. Any recovered fossils shall be prepared to
the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate
analysis, and reposited in a designated paleontological curation facility. The qualified
paleontologist shall prepare a paleontological mitigation and monitoring report to be filed
with the City of Arroyo Grande, as lead agency, and the repository.
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Setting
GHGs 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 (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).
Page 82 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
51
CO2 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 CARB, transportation (vehicle
exhaust) and electricity generation are the main sources of GHG in the state.
The passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006), recognized
the need to reduce GHG emissions and set the GHG 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 GHG emissions from significant sources through regulation, market
mechanisms, and other actions. Subsequent legislation (i.e., Senate [SB] Bill 97, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions bill) directed the CARB to develop statewide thresholds.
San Luis Obispo County Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy
San Luis Obispo County’s 2019 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) was adopted by the San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) in June 2019. The purpose of the 2019 RTP is to encourage
a fully integrated, intermodal, transportation system that facilitates the safe and efficient movement of
people, goods, and information throughout the region. The 2019 RTP also includes the region’s
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). An SCS identifies a forecasted development pattern for the
region, which is informed by the inventory of existing land use throughout the region, along with the
identification of sites where future development can be located, while still reducing VMT and GHG
emissions.
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
The City’s Climate Action Plan (City of Arroyo Grande 2013) is a long-range plan aimed to reduce GHG
emissions from City operations, developments, and community activities throughout the city in
anticipation of the effects of climate change. The primary purposes of the Climate Action Plan are the
following:
• Summarizes the results of the City of Arroyo Grande 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Update, which identifies the major sources and quantities of GHG emissions produced within
Arroyo Grande and forecasts how these emissions may change over time.
• Identifies the quantity of GHG emissions that Arroyo Grande will need to reduce to meet its
target of 15% below 2005 levels by the year 2020, consistent with AB 32.
• Sets forth City government and community-wide GHG reduction measures, including
performance standards which, if implemented, would collectively achieve the specified emission
reduction target.
• Identifies proactive strategies that can be implemented to help Arroyo Grande prepare for
anticipated climate change impacts.
• Sets forth procedures to implement, monitor, and verify the effectiveness of the City’s Climate
Action Plan measures and adapt efforts moving forward as necessary.
The City’s Climate Action Plan is designed as a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan, consistent with State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). This allows for the streamlining of the GHG analysis on a project
level by using a programmatic GHG reduction plan meeting certain criteria. Project-specific analysis of
GHG emissions is required if GHG emissions from a project would be cumulatively considerable
notwithstanding compliance with the Climate Action Plan.
The City’s Climate Action Plan included an inventory of community-wide GHG emissions. The
inventory was prepared for purposes of identifying major sources and quantities of GHG emissions
Page 83 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
52
produced in Arroyo Grande in 2005 and to forecast how these emissions may change over time. Based on
the GHG emissions inventory prepared in 2005, the city emitted approximately 84,399 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). As shown in Figure 4, the largest contributors of community-wide
GHG emissions were the transportation (44%), residential energy (30%), and commercial/industrial
energy (14%) sectors. The remainder of emissions resulted from the solid waste (7%) and off-road (5%)
sectors.
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2013.
Figure 4. City of Arroyo Grande 2005 GHG emissions inventory by sector.
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The proposed construction period is anticipated to be 7 months long. During construction, fossil fuels and
natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. Federal and state regulations in place
require fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles and prohibit wasteful activities, such as diesel idling.
Construction contractors, in an effort to ensure cost efficiency, would not be expected to engage in
wasteful or unnecessary energy and fuel practices. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 includes
limitations on diesel idling during the construction phase of the project. Therefore, construction activity is
not anticipated to result in significant emissions. During the 7-month construction period, the project
would require the temporary closure of Traffic Way, which would require a temporary traffic detour route
through the Village Core of the city. Temporary striping would be implemented along East Branch,
Mason, and Bridge Streets to allow traffic to navigate the detour more efficiently; however, detours
would be expected to result in temporary delays along these roadways, which could increase GHG
emissions from vehicle idling. Following construction, detours would be removed, and traffic flow would
return to pre-construction conditions. Therefore, any increase in GHG emissions from vehicle idling
would be temporary in nature and would not result in a new, permanent source of GHG emissions in the
area. Therefore, greenhouse gas emissions generated during construction would not be substantial enough
to have a significant cumulative impact on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation.
Operation of the project would include continued operation of the Traffic Way bridge and may require
infrequent maintenance trips on an as-needed basis. The Traffic Way bridge provides vehicle passage
over Arroyo Grande Creek. Based on the 2016 Bridge Inspection Report, traffic volumes through the site
are approximately 9,600 vehicles per day. Traffic Way is classified as an urban arterial roadway and has
Page 84 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
53
an estimated future ADT rate of 11,000 based on estimated growth within the city. Replacement of the
bridge is not anticipated to facilitate an increase vehicle trips in comparison to existing conditions.
Therefore, the project would not result in new development that would generate operational GHG
emissions or increased VMT. Operational impacts associated with generation of GHG emissions would
be less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As previously described, project construction is estimated to generate temporary GHG emissions resulting
from the operation of construction equipment and construction worker vehicles. Federal and state
regulations in place require fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles and prohibit wasteful activities, such as
diesel idling. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 includes limitations on diesel idling during the
construction phase of the project. Therefore, GHG emissions generated during construction is not
anticipated to be substantial enough to have a significant cumulative impact on the environment and
construction impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Replacement of the bridge is not anticipated to facilitate an increase or otherwise change vehicle trips in
comparison to existing conditions. Because the project would not result in new development that would
generate increased operational GHG emissions or VMT, the project would be consistent with the City’s
Climate Action Plan. Further, as described in Section III, Air Quality, the project would not conflict with
the 2001 Clean Air Plan. Implementation of the project would result in de minimis GHG emissions above
baseline conditions; therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an appliable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and impacts would be less than
significant.
Conclusion
Construction activities would be conducted in accordance with Federal and state laws regarding diesel
idling and are not anticipated to generate a significant amount of GHG emissions. In addition, Mitigation
Measure AQ-1 includes limitations on diesel idling during the construction phase of the project.
Operation of the project would not result in a new land uses that could significantly increase GHG-
emissions or facilitate an increase in VMT, which would be consistent with the City’s Climate Action
Plan and the SLOAPCD’s 2001 Clean Air Plan. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure
AQ-1, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Page 85 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
54
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(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 Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Setting
According to the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database, there
are no active hazardous materials sites within or adjacent to the project site (DTSC 2021). In addition, the
SWRCB Geotracker database indicates that there are three previously active leaking underground storage
tanks located approximately 600 feet west and 280 feet south and one previously active cleanup program
site located approximately 300 feet west of the project site (SWRCB 2021). There are no currently active
sites located within or adjacent to the project site (DTSC 2021; SWRCB 2021). Given the developed
condition of the majority of the city, it is highly likely that the surface soils along existing roadways are
affected by deposition of contaminants, including aerial lead, oils, fuels, and other lubricants.
The purpose of the City’s Safety Element is to be prepared for disaster and to manage development to
reduce risk. Hazards identified in the City’s Safety Element include flooding, dam inundation, dam
failure, fire, geologic and seismic hazards, landslides, hazardous trees, and radiation hazards (City of
Arroyo Grande 2001a).
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Temporary construction activities would include the use of construction equipment, vehicles, and
commonly used hazardous substances, including, but not limited to, paint, solvents, oils, fuel, and
gasoline. Commonly used hazardous substances within the project site would be transported, stored, and
used according to regulatory requirements and existing procedures for the handling of hazardous
Page 86 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
55
materials. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-9(6) would require the project to prepare a Hazardous
Materials Response Plan to be implemented in the event of an accidental spill during proposed
construction activities. Operation of the project may result in infrequent maintenance trips on an as-
needed basis and would not require the use of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. Therefore,
impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than
significant with mitigation.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
As previously discussed, temporary construction activities would include the use of construction
equipment, vehicles, and commonly used hazardous substances including, but not limited to, paint,
solvents, oils, fuel, and gasoline. Commonly used hazardous substances within the project site would be
transported, stored, and used according to regulatory requirements and existing procedures for the
handling of hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure BIO-9(6) would require the project to prepare a
Hazardous Materials Response Plan to be implemented in the event of an accidental spill during
construction activities. The Traffic Way bridge was constructed in 1932 and is 89 years old; therefore,
there is potential for the bridge to contain ACM and proposed decommissioning of the bridge may release
ACM, if present. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 has been included to reduce impacts related to potential
release of ACM during decommissioning of the bridge. Operation of the project may result in infrequent
maintenance trips on an as-needed basis and would not require the use of hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials that would create a significant hazard in the event of accidental release. With implementation of
the identified mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts related to accidental hazardous materials
spills and potential release of ACM during proposed construction activities, impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
The project site is located approximately 0.24 mile southeast of Valley View Adventist Academy.
Although the project is located within 0.25 mile of a school, operation of the project would not require the
use of hazardous materials. Short-term construction activities may require commonly used hazardous
materials (i.e., fuel, gasoline, solvents, oils, paints), which would be transported, stored, and used
according to regulatory requirements and existing procedures for the handling of hazardous materials. In
addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-9(6) would require the project to prepare a Hazardous Materials
Response Plan to be implemented in the event of an accidental spill during project construction. In
addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 has been included to reduce impacts related to the potential release of
ACM during decommissioning of the bridge. Operation of the project would not require the long-term use
of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of Valley View Adventist Academy.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Based on a query of the DTSC EnviroStor database and SWRCB GeoTracker database, there are three
previously active leaking underground storage tanks located approximately 600 feet west and 280 feet
south and one previously active cleanup program site located approximately 300 feet west of the project
site; however, there are no currently active sites located within or adjacent to the project site (DTSC 2021;
Page 87 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
56
SWRCB 2021). Therefore, the project would not be located on a known hazardous materials site that
could create significant hazard to the public, and no impacts would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working
in the project area?
The closest airport to the project site is the Oceano County Airport, located approximately 2.5 miles
southwest of the project site. The project does not include the development of residential units, offices, or
other buildings that could expose occupants to excessive noise or safety hazards. Therefore, the project
would not be located within 2 miles of an airport or expose project occupants to excessive noise or other
safety hazards, and no impacts would occur.
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project includes replacement of the exiting Traffic Way bridge that allows traffic to cross over
Arroyo Grande Creek in the central portion of the city. Construction activities would result in the
temporary closure of the Traffic Way bridge and may require other traffic controls and detours on
surrounding roadways. The construction period would extend approximately seven months and temporary
closures of roadways and associated detours could result in temporary delays in emergency response and
evacuation in the city.
Five Cities Fire authority (FCFA) Station 1 is located approximately 300 feet south of the Traffic Way
bridge along Traffic Way and road closures and/or traffic controls may impact FCFA emergency response
times. The project would maintain FCFA access during the 7-month construction period by implementing
detours. In order to maintain access, FCFA Station 1 would be provided a Global Positioning System
(GPS) Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) device during the construction phase to transmit a signal to
the controller box and allow northbound traffic along Traffic Way a green light during a call for
emergency response. While this situation would be most prominent during the school year due to an
increase in vehicle traffic along Traffic Way, year-round visitor serving uses would continue to contribute
to congestion within the project area during construction activities. Additionally, since wildfire
occurrence is highest during the summer, it could be reasonably assumed that an increase in calls for fire
protection services would occur during this time. In addition to the provision of a GPS EVP device,
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 has been included to ensure notice is provided to local emergency services
prior to implementation of any road closures or detour routes. The project would implement road detours
in order to maintain public access throughout the city during closure of Traffic Way. Based on
implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 and proposed project components to allow emergency
access during construction, the project would not result in significant impacts related to emergency access
or evacuation.
The project would result in the replacement of the Traffic Way bridge to avoid potential risk to the public
related to scour and would not result in the permanent closure of Traffic Way bridge or surrounding
roadways that could impede long-term emergency access and/or evacuation. Therefore, the project would
not substantially impair or interfere with the City’s Safety Element, Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan (LHMP; Mathe 2015), or other emergency response or evacuation plans; therefore,
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Page 88 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
57
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
The project area is located in a developed portion of the city within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA)
and is not designated as a state or local fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) (California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2021). The project would replace the existing Traffic Way
bridge, which would reduce risk related to erosion surrounding the foundation of the bridge. Replacement
of the existing bridge would not increase long-term fire hazard within the project area. Because
construction would be limited to the dry season (June 1-October 15), there is potential for construction
activities to increase the risk of accidental wildfire ignition at the project site. The project would be
required to comply with International Fire Code (IFC) Section 3312, which establishes regulations to
reduce the risk of wildfire ignition during construction, such as the removal of combustible waste
materials (i.e., paper, rags, wood, etc.) from the site, prohibiting smoking at the project site, identifying
proper refueling methods, establishing equipment standards, etc. In addition, the project would not result
in the development of new occupiable structures that could expose people or structures to wildfire risks or
otherwise exacerbate wildfire risks; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Any commonly used hazardous materials used during construction of the project would be transported,
handled, and stored according to existing regulatory requirements. Mitigation Measure BIO-9(6) would
require a Hazardous Materials Response Plan to be prepared and implemented in the event of an
accidental spill during project construction. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 has been included to
reduce potential impacts related to ACM during decommissioning of the existing Traffic Way bridge.
Operation of the project would not require the use of hazardous materials. In addition, the project site is
not located in close proximity to an airport or within a previously documented active hazardous materials
cleanup site. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 has been included to provide notice of road closures and detour
routes implemented during project construction. The project would maintain emergency access and
evacuation routes during construction and operation and would not increase the risk of wildfire within the
city. Therefore, with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-9 and AQ-2.
HAZ-1 Prior to the implementation of any lane/road closures or detour routes, the City and/or its
project contractors shall provide notice to all residents, business owners, public facilities,
and emergency response providers likely to be affected by the closure and detours,
including, but not limited to, the Five Cities Fire Authority and Arroyo Grande Police
Department. The notice shall include the following information: dates of construction,
temporary lane/road closures and detours, and contact information, including the phone
number and email address of the City staff person responsible for responding to and
addressing public complaints regarding access. The notice shall be provided at least 2
weeks prior to any planned road closure.
Page 89 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
58
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site; ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(iii) 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;
or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release
of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Setting
The project site is located in the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed, a coastal basin located in southern San
Luis Obispo County. The watershed is approximately 96,000 acres ranging from 3,100 feet elevation
above msl to the Pacific Ocean. It includes the tributaries of Tally Ho (Corbett), Tar Springs, and Los
Berros Creeks. Meadow Creek is a remnant marsh drainage that enters Arroyo Grande Creek just before
its confluence with the ocean (SLO Watershed Project 2020).
Arroyo Grande Creek is a major perennial stream that flows 22 miles from the Santa Lucia range to the
Pacific Ocean and is an important hydrological feature in southern San Luis Obispo County. The upper
portion of the creek is impounded by Lopez Dam, built in 1966, about 8 miles northeast of the city of
Arroyo Grande. Arroyo Grande Creek receives water from Lopez Lake and Tar Springs Creek and flows
east to west at the Traffic Way bridge before turning southwest toward Oceano, then emptying into the
Arroyo Grande Estuary and Pacific Ocean approximately 4 miles downstream of the project area. Oceano
Lagoon drains into Arroyo Grande Creek just upstream of confluence with the ocean (SWCA 2021e).
Page 90 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
59
According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel
06079C1602G (effective date 11/16/2012), the project site is located within Zone A and Zone AE, areas
with 1% chance of annual flooding (FEMA 2020).
The project site is located in the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin – Arroyo Grande Subbasin
(No. 3-12.02) (County of San Luis Obispo 2021). The Arroyo Grande Subbasin is approximately 7 miles
long, oriented in a northeastern to southwestern direction. The Arroyo Grande Subbasin is not considered
a high-priority basin and has ample water supply to meet the water demand of the city. However, a
groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) for the subbasin is being prepared to facilitate sustainable
groundwater management and use (County of San Luis Obispo 2020).
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
The project includes replacing the existing Traffic Way bridge to reduce risk caused by scour.
Construction of the new foundation would require work within Arroyo Grande Creek, which runs under
the Traffic Way bridge. Ground disturbance has the potential to increase erosion and sedimentation
on-site and construction equipment and vehicle use has the potential to increase pollution on-site that
could runoff and degrade water quality. Mitigation Measure BIO-9 includes measures to reduce potential
impacts related to work within Arroyo Grande Creek. Mitigation Measure BIO-9(4) would require work
to be conducted during the dry season (June 1–October 15) to avoid increased runoff from the project site
due to rain or flood flows. Mitigation Measure BIO-9(6) would require the project to prepare a Hazardous
Material Response Plan to be implemented in the event of accidental fuel, oil, paint, or other hazardous
materials spills. Mitigation Measure BIO-9(7) would require the project to prepare and implement a
SWPPP with BMPs to avoid or minimize erosive runoff during project construction. Mitigation Measure
BIO-9(8) identifies BMPs to be implemented during construction activities to reduce erosive runoff from
the site. Mitigation Measure BIO-9(9) would require daily water quality monitoring while water is
flowing to ensure project activities are not adversely affecting the water quality of Arroyo Grande Creek.
Mitigation Measure BIO-9(10) requires vehicle washing and refueling to occur at least 60 feet from
Arroyo Grande Creek to avoid accidental fuel spills or other pollutants from entering the creek.
Mitigation measure BIO-9(11) requires trash to be contained and removed from the project site to avoid
solid waste from entering the creek during construction of the project. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-9 would reduce potential impacts related to water quality degradation during construction
of the project.
The project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 13.24.120, which requires the
preparation and implementation of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to reduce short- and long-
term impacts associated with erosion that could runoff from the project site and degrade water quality.
The project would also be subject to Central Coast RWQCB Post-Construction Stormwater Requirements
(PCRs) (Resolution R3-20132-0032025) to ensure long-term reduction of pollutant discharges (Central
Coast RWQCB 2013). Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9 to reduce potential
sources of pollution during construction activities and required compliance with the City Municipal Code
and RWQCB PCRs, construction and operation of the project would not substantially degrade water
quality, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Page 91 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
60
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The project site is located in the Santa Maria River Valley Groundwater Basin – Arroyo Grande
Subbasin. Any water needed for construction (i.e., dust suppression) would be limited in volume and
would be supplied from off-site sources. Operation of the project does not require any new connections to
groundwater or sustained groundwater use that could substantially decrease groundwater supplies. In
addition, the proposed bridge replacement would occur within the development footprint of the existing
bridge and would not result in additional impervious surfaces that could interfere with groundwater
recharge at the site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
c-i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
The project includes replacing the existing Traffic Way bridge to reduce risk caused by scour.
Construction of the new foundation would require work within Arroyo Grande Creek, which runs under
the Traffic Way bridge. The project is anticipated to result in 0.4 acre of permanent impacts and 1.26
acres of temporary impacts to Arroyo Grande Creek. Proposed ground-disturbing construction activities
have the potential to result in increased erosion and siltation that may result in runoff from the project
site. Mitigation Measure BIO-9 includes measures to reduce potential impacts related to work within
Arroyo Grande Creek. Mitigation Measure BIO-9(4) would require work to be conducted during the dry
season (June 1–October 15) to avoid increased runoff from the project site due to rain or flood flows.
Mitigation Measure BIO-9(7) would require the project to prepare and implement a SWPPP with BMPs
to avoid or minimize erosive runoff during project construction. Mitigation Measure BIO-9(8) identifies
BMPs to be implemented during construction activities to reduce erosive runoff from the site. Therefore,
implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9 would reduce potential impacts related to increased erosion
and sedimentation during construction of the project.
Replacement of the Traffic Way bridge would reduce risk associated with erosion of the existing
foundation. Operational components of the project are not anticipated to increase long-term erosion or
siltation on-site. The project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section 13.24.120,
which requires the preparation and implementation of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to
reduce short- and long-term impacts associated with erosion. The project would also be subject to
RWQCB PCRs (Resolution R3-20132-0032025) to ensure long-term reduction of pollutant discharges.
Therefore, with implementation of the identified mitigation measures and required compliance with the
City Municipal Code and RWQCB PCRs, construction and operation of the project would not result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-site, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c-ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Implementation of the project would result in a new Traffic Way bridge within the same alignment as the
existing bridge. Following construction activities, the project would not result in additional impervious
surface areas that could contribute to an increase of surface water runoff. The project would require work
within Arroyo Grande Creek for installation of the new foundation. The foundation would be constructed
in accordance with Caltrans hydraulic design standards in order to maintain the creek’s ability to convey
potential flood flows. Therefore, installation of the new bridge foundation within Arroyo Grande Creek
would not result in flooding. Mitigation Measure BIO-9 includes measures to reduce potential impacts
Page 92 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
61
related to work within Arroyo Grande Creek. Mitigation Measure BIO-9(4) would require work to be
conducted during the dry season (June 1–October 15) to avoid increased runoff from the project site due
to rain or flood flows. Mitigation Measure BIO-9(7) would require the project to prepare and implement a
SWPPP with BMPs to avoid or minimize erosive runoff during project construction. Mitigation Measure
BIO-9(8) identifies BMPs to be implemented during construction activities to reduce erosive runoff from
the site. In addition, the project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code Section
13.24.120, which requires preparation and implementation of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
to reduce short- and long-term impacts associated with erosion. The project would also be subject to
RWQCB PCRs (Resolution R3-20132-0032025) to ensure long-term reduction of pollutant discharges.
Therefore, the project is not anticipated to substantially increase polluted or other surface water runoff
from the project site, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c-iii) 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?
The proposed bridge would be constructed within the same alignment as the existing Traffic Way bridge
and would not result in new impervious surfaces that could contribute to long-term stormwater runoff.
Construction of the project would result in in 0.4 acre of permanent impacts and 1.26 acres of temporary
impacts to Arroyo Grande Creek. Based on proposed alterations of Arroyo Grande Creek, the project has
potential to increase erosive or polluted runoff during construction that may run off from the site during
proposed construction activities. Mitigation Measure BIO-9(4) would require work to be conducted
during the dry season (June 1–October 15) to avoid increased surface water runoff from the project site
due to rain or flood flows. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-9(7) and BIO-9(8) would require the
project to prepare and implement a SWPPP and identifies BMPs to be implemented during construction
activities to reduce erosive or polluted runoff. The project would also be required to comply with City
Municipal Code Section 13.24.120, which requires preparation and implementation of an Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan to reduce short- and long-term impacts associated with erosion. The project
would also be subject to RWQCB PCRs (Resolution R3-20132-0032025) to ensure long-term reduction
of pollutant discharges. The project does not include components that require connections to any public or
private stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, with implementation of the identified mitigation during
project construction and required compliance the City Municipal Code and RWQCB PCRs, potential
impacts related to runoff would be less than significant with mitigation.
c-iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
According to FEMA FIRM Panel 06079C1602G (effective date 11/16/2012), the project site is located
within Zone A and Zone AE, areas with 1% chance of annual flooding (FEMA 2020). Construction of the
project has the potential to impede flood flows based on proposed work within Arroyo Grande Creek for
installation of the bridge foundation, which would result in 0.4 acre of permanent impacts and 1.26 acres
of temporary to the creek; however, Mitigation Measure BIO-9(4) has been included to require
construction activities to occur during the dry season (June 1–October 15) to avoid increased runoff due
to rain or flood flows. Implementation of the project would result in 0.4 acre of permanent impacts to
Arroyo Grande Creek; however, permanent impacts are not anticipated to adversely affect flood flows
because the proposed bridge would be required to comply with Caltrans hydraulic design criteria to allow
for the conveyance of flood flows. One of the objectives of the project is to replace the existing structure
with a new structure with no supports within the creek bed and a wider hydraulic opening that would
reduce maintenance issues in the future and improve creek flows through the area compared to existing
conditions (SWCA 2021g). The Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual identifies hydraulic design
criteria that require a facility be capable of conveying the base or 100-year flood and pass the 50-year
flood “without causing objectionable backwater, excessive flow velocities or encroaching on through
traffic lanes” (Caltrans 2021b). The proposed bridge would be required to comply with Caltrans
Page 93 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
62
requirements for hydraulic design; therefore, proposed permanent impacts would not substantially impede
or redirect potential flood flows and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
The project site is not located in an area that would be subject to inundation caused by tsunami or seiche;
however, the project site is located within the Lopez Dam flood inundation zone. In addition, according to
FEMA FIRM Panel 06079C1602G (effective date 11/16/2012), the project site is located within Zone A
and Zone AE, areas with one percent chance of annual flooding (FEMA 2020). Due to the project’s
location within a flood hazard and dam inundation zone, there is potential for inundation to occur.
Proposed construction activities would have the potential to increase on-site erosion and other pollutants
that could runoff in the event of project inundation. Mitigation Measure BIO-9(4) has been included to
require construction activities to occur during the dry season (June 15–October 31) to avoid increased
runoff due to rain or flood flows, which would reduce the potential for flood inundation to occur during
project construction. Further, Mitigation Measure BIO-9 has been included to reduce erosion and other
pollutants during construction of the project, which would reduce the risk of substantial pollutant release
due to project inundation during proposed construction activities.
Replacement of the Traffic Way bridge would reduce the risk associated with erosion of the existing
foundation and is not anticipated to increase long-term erosion or siltation on-site that could result in
substantial pollutant release due to project inundation. The project would be required to comply with City
Municipal Code Section 13.24.120, which requires the preparation and implementation of an Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan to reduce short- and long-term impacts associated with erosion that could
runoff from the site. The project would also be subject to RWQCB PCRs (Resolution R3-20132-
0032025) to ensure long-term reduction of pollutant discharges. Based on required compliance with the
City Municipal Code and RWQCB PCRs, implementation of the project would not increase long-term
erosion or pollutants at the site in a manner that would result in substantial pollutant release due to project
inundation. In addition, the proposed bridge would be designed in accordance with hydraulic design
criteria included in the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual to ensure adequate conveyance of
50- and 100-year flood flows. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9(4) to reduce
the potential for pollutant release associated with flood flows and required compliance with the City
Municipal Code, RWQCB PCRs, and Caltrans hydraulic design criteria, potential impacts would be less
than significant with mitigation.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
As previously identified, the project does not require any new connections to groundwater or sustained
groundwater use that could substantially decrease groundwater supplies; therefore, the project would not
conflict with a sustainable groundwater management plan. As described in threshold X(a), there is
potential for construction activities to degrade the water quality of Arroyo Grande Creek due to required
work within and adjacent to the surface water resource. Mitigation Measure BIO-9 has been included to
avoid or minimize potential impacts related to degradation of water quality related to proposed
construction activities. In addition, the project would be required to comply with City Municipal Code
Section 13.24.120, which requires the preparation and implementation of an Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plan to reduce short- and long-term impacts associated with erosion that could run off from the
site. The project would also be subject to RWQCB PCRs (Resolution R3-20132-0032025) to ensure long-
term reduction of pollutant discharges. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9 to
reduce the potential for pollutant release and required compliance with the City Municipal Code and
RWQCB PCRs, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Page 94 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
63
Conclusion
The project would require work within and adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek. Mitigation Measure BIO-9
has been included to avoid or minimize potential impacts related to erosion, sedimentation, and other
pollutants during project construction. The project would also be required to comply with City Municipal
Code Section 13.24.120 and RWQCB PCRs for long-term pollutants. The project is located within an
identified flood hazard zone and would be constructed in accordance with Caltrans standards to maintain
potential flood flows. The project does not require connection to groundwater and would not conflict with
groundwater management. In addition, the proposed bridge would be constructed within the footprint of
the existing bridge and would not result in new impervious surfaces that could increase surface runoff.
Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9 and required compliance with existing
requirements, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-9.
XI. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Setting
The City’s General Plan consists of nine elements, including the ACOSE and Land Use, Circulation,
Housing, Safety, Noise, Economic Development, and Parks and Recreation Elements, which guide and
facilitate planning and development in the city (City of Arroyo Grande 2001a). The City’s LUE identifies
zoning and land use designations for the City and includes goals and policies intended to guide growth
and development. The city is comprised of a developed urban area with agricultural land located in the
eastern and southeastern portions of the city. The project site is located within the Village Core land use
designation.
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
The project includes replacing the existing Traffic Way bridge to reduce risk associated with scour. The
proposed bridge would be developed in the same alignment and contain the same roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities as the existing bridge. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in
long-term impacts associated with dividing an established community. However, construction of the
proposed project would result in temporary impacts due to the closure of Traffic Way, which currently
provides access into the City’s Village Core.
Page 95 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
64
Temporary closure of Traffic Way during construction would require a temporary traffic detour route
through the Village Core of the city. Traffic analysis showed that this was a feasible solution if Bridge
Street was temporarily converted to a one-way, two-lane road in the northbound direction. Southbound
traffic would not be allowed on Bridge Street and would need to use an alternate route, such as Mason
Street, South Halcyon Road, or even US 101. A temporary signal would be required at the intersection of
Bridge Street and West Branch Street to accommodate the traffic flow from northbound Bridge Street to
West Branch Street. Temporary striping along East Branch, Mason, and Bridge Streets would allow
traffic to navigate the detour more efficiently but would require the temporary removal of approximately
17 on-street parking spaces. The planned striping would also allow for trucks and emergency vehicles that
typically use Traffic Way to navigate other urban streets.
The proposed temporary roadway detour would require the temporary loss of 17 existing on-street
parking spaces. Thirteen of those on-street parking spaces and one on-street loading zone are located on
the north side of West Branch Street between Bridge Street and Traffic Way. The temporary loss of on-
street parking spaces is necessary to accommodate restriping of Branch Street for two westbound lanes.
Many of these on-street spaces were temporarily removed during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-
19) pandemic in 2020 to accommodate outside dining areas for local businesses. These businesses have
requested that the City permanently approve the conversion of these parking spaces. Recognizing the
need for the temporary use of those spaces during construction of the bridge on Traffic Way, a more
permanent solution could be approved by the City after the proposed project is complete and the detour
has been removed.
In addition to the parking spaces temporarily removed on Branch Street, there would be three parking
spaces temporarily removed on Bridge Street to allow for trucks and emergency vehicles to navigate the
intersection. This would be necessary to accommodate the two-lane turning onto Branch Street from
Bridge Street.
While there would be a temporary loss of on-street parking spaces on Branch and Bridge Streets, there are
several parking lots available for use by the community frequenting the businesses in the area. On the
south side of Branch Street, Klondike Pizza operates a parking lot and currently charges a fee to park for
users that are not Klondike patrons. The City is coordinating with Klondike to provide a temporary
removal of parking fees in the Klondike parking lot during construction to alleviate some of the added
pressure of removing the 17 parking spaces. The temporary loss of 17 parking spaces would be for the
full 7-month construction period.
Closure of Traffic Way would also result in a temporary closure of a Class II bike lane and pedestrian
facilities that allow for connectivity into the Village Core along Traffic Way. Detour routes would be
made available for these facilities and are further discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, threshold
XVII(a). In addition, potential impacts related to emergency access due to the closure of Traffic Way are
further discussed in Section XVII, Transportation, threshold XVII(d).
Based on a review of local parcel maps, the proposed project would be located entirely within 100 feet of
City ROW centered along the existing road. Since the bridge replacement structures would be located as
close as possible to the existing alignment, no additional permanent ROW acquisitions are anticipated to
construct this project.
Potential impacts related to dividing an established community would be temporary and would be
minimized through the provision of detour routes through the city. In addition, following construction
activities, Traffic Way would be fully accessible to vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and would
not create a permanent barrier to movement. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Page 96 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
65
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
The project would be required to comply with the City’s General Plan, which establishes goals and
policies to guide and facilitate planning within the city. As previously identified, the City’s General Plan
consists of nine elements, including the ACOSE and the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Safety, Noise,
Economic Development, and Parks and Recreation Elements. In addition, the project would be required to
comply with requirements of the SLOAPCD 2001 Clean Air Plan, SLOCOG 2019 RTP/SCS, and City’s
Climate Action Plan. Mitigation has been provided throughout this document to reduce potential impacts
related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, GHG emissions, energy,
hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, tribal cultural
resources, and wildfire, which would be consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.
Conclusion
Potential impacts related to dividing an established community would be temporary and would be
accommodated through the provision of detour routes through the city. In addition, following construction
activities, Traffic Way would be fully accessible to vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and would
not create a permanent barrier to movement. The project would be consistent with the City’s General
Plan, City’s Climate Action Plan, SLOAPCD 2001 Clean Air Plan, and SLOCOG 2019 RTP/SCS
following implementation of mitigation measure identified throughout this document. Therefore, with
implementation of the identified mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, BIO-1 through BIO-9, CR-1, GEO-1, HAZ-1, and N-1
and N-2.
XII. Mineral Resources
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Setting
The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975 requires that the State Geologist
classify land into mineral resource zones (MRZ) according to the known or inferred mineral potential of
the land (PRC Sections 2710–2796).
Page 97 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
66
The three MRZs used in the SMARA classification-designation process in the San Luis Obispo-Santa
Barbara Production-Consumption Region are defined below (California Geological Survey [CGS] 2015):
• MRZ-1: Areas where available geologic information indicates that little likelihood exists for the
presence of significant mineral resources.
• MRZ-2: Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present,
or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. This zone shall be applied to
known mineral deposits or where well-developed lines of reasoning, based on economic–geologic
principles and adequate data, demonstrate that the likelihood for occurrence of significant mineral
deposits is high.
• MRZ-3: Areas containing known or inferred aggregate resources of undetermined significance.
According to the CDOC CGS Information Warehouse: Mineral Land Classification map, the city is
located within a SMARA Study area (CGS 2015). The 1990 General Plan did not identify any Mineral
Resource Zones within the city. According to the General Plan Integrated Program Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), the 1990 General Plan does not identify any MRZs within the city limits (City of Arroyo
Grande 2001b).
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Would the project 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?
The city is located within a SMARA study area; however, there are no identified MRZs within the city
(CGS 2015; City of Arroyo Grande 2001b). In addition, the project site has been previously developed,
which reduces the potential for unknown mineral resources to occur within the project area. Therefore,
mineral resources of value are not anticipated to be located within the project area and implementation of
the project would not result in loss of availability of important mineral resources of value to the region or
delineated in a local plan. Therefore, no impacts related to mineral resources would occur.
Conclusion
The project area is located in a previously developed area and there are no known mineral resources
located within the city. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not necessary.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Page 98 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
67
XIII. Noise
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
(a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Setting
The City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Noise Element 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 City’s noise standards for determining the compatibility for new
development near transportation noise sources are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9. General Plan Land Use Compatibility Guidelines Near Transportation Noise Sources
Land Use
Land Use Compatibility
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable Unacceptable
Residential, Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls, Meeting Halls, Churches <60 60–70 >70
Transient Lodging: Hotels and Motels <60 60–75 >75
Schools, Libraries, Museums, Hospitals, Nursing Homes <60 60–75 >75
Playgrounds and Parks <70 70–75 >75
Office Buildings <60 60–75 >75
Notes:
Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory. No noise mitigation measures are required.
Conditionally Acceptable: Use should be permitted only after careful study and inclusion of protective measures as needed to satisfy the policies
of the Noise Element.
Unacceptable: Development is usually not feasible in accordance with the goals of the Noise Element.
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2001a.
In areas where the noise environment is acceptable, new development may be permitted without requiring
noise mitigation. For areas where the noise environment is conditionally acceptable, new development
Page 99 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
68
should be allowed only after noise mitigation has been incorporated into the design of the project to
reduce noise exposure. For areas where the noise environment is unacceptable, new development in
compliance with Noise Element policies is usually not feasible. New development of noise-sensitive land
uses shall not be permitted in areas exposed to existing or projected future levels of noise from
transportation noise sources which exceed 60 dB CNEL or Ldn (70 CNEL/Ldn for playgrounds and
neighborhood parks) unless the project design includes mitigation measures to reduce noise to or below
levels identified in Table 9 (City of Arroyo Grande 2001a).
Construction noise is commonly exempt from noise standards. Pursuant to City Municipal Code Section
9.16.030, noise sources associated with construction, provided such activities do not take place before
7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. on any day except Saturday or Sunday or before 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m.
on Saturday or Sunday, constitute an exception to the City’s noise standards.
The existing ambient noise environment at the project site is dominated by vehicle noise from Traffic
Way and surrounding roadways, including West Branch Street/East Branch Street (formerly SR 227),
which is located approximately 250 feet north of the Traffic Way bridge, and US 101, which is located
approximately 550 feet south of the Traffic Way bridge. While the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
(City of Arroyo Grande 2001a) does not include noise contour maps of the city, the County’s Land Use
View tool shows the project area as being located within the 60-decibel (dB) noise contour of US 101,
and portions of the project site being located within the 65 dB and 70 dB contours of US 101 (County of
San Luis Obispo 2021).
Typical noise-sensitive receptors include, but are not limited to, hospitals, schools, daycare facilities,
elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. These are areas where the occupants are more susceptible to
the adverse environmental effects, such as noise (USEPA 2017). The project site is surrounded by
development with varying sensitivity to noise impacts. The nearest noise-sensitive land uses to the project
site include a private single-family residence, located approximately 367 feet southeast from the boundary
of the project site; medical offices, located approximately 290 feet southwest from the boundary of the
project site; and a financial office, located approximately 120 feet northwest from the boundary of the
project site.
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
The proposed project includes replacement of the existing Traffic Way bridge and would require
decommissioning of the existing bridge, excavation, and construction of the new bridge over a 7-month
construction period. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site include a private single-
family residence, located approximately 367 feet southeast from the boundary of the project site; medical
offices, located approximately 290 feet southwest from the boundary of the project site; and a financial
office, located approximately 120 feet northwest from the boundary of the project site. Noise from
construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate vicinity of
construction. Construction noise would be short term, intermittent, and often overshadowed by existing
local traffic noise from surrounding roadways, including US 101 to the west and West Branch Street to
the north.
There is potential for nearby sensitive receptor locations to experience intermittent exceedances of noise
thresholds for office and residential uses set forth in the City’s Noise Element. Noise produced by
construction equipment would be reduced over distance at a rate of about 6 dB per doubling of distance
Page 100 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
69
over hard sites (e.g., pavement) and 7.5 dB per doubling of distance over soft sites (e.g., grass). Therefore,
construction noise ranging between 80 and 90 dB at 50 feet would be reduced to noise levels between 68
and 78 dB at 200 feet and between 62 and 72 dB at 400 feet, which would exceed the maximum
allowable noise exposure from transportation noise sources threshold set forth in the City’s Noise
Element. However, noise standards set forth in the City’s Noise Element are intended to be used for
planning purposes to avoid noise conflicts between existing and proposed land uses. Noise sources
associated with construction, provided such activities do not take place before 7:00 a.m. or after
10:00 p.m. on any day except Saturday or Sunday or before 8:00 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. on Saturday or
Sunday, constitute an exception to the City’s noise standards. Mitigation Measure N-1 has been included
to ensure construction activities comply with timing established in the City Municipal Code. Mitigation
Measure N-2 has been included to require mufflers on all combustion engines during project construction
to further reduce construction-related noise impacts. Therefore, project construction activities would not
result in noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of the standards established in the City’s
General Plan or Noise Ordinance.
Temporary closure of Traffic Way during construction would require a temporary traffic detour route
through the Village Core of the city, which includes the temporary conversion of Bridge Street to a one-
way, two-lane road in the northbound direction and diversion of southbound traffic to alternate routes,
such as Mason Street, South Halcyon Road, or US 101. Implementation of detours could result in a
temporary increase in vehicle traffic and associated noise near residential and office uses along these
alternative routes. Typically, a doubling in traffic would result in an increase in noise that is perceptible to
the human ear. Vehicle traffic would be diverted to several roadways and would not be limited to a single
route; therefore, doubling of vehicle traffic is not anticipated to occur along a single roadway. Ambient
noise along these roadways is already dominated by existing vehicle traffic; therefore, any additional
diverted trips would result in a marginal increase in existing noise levels to which surrounding uses are
generally accustomed to. According to City Municipal Code Section 9.16.030, construction and
construction-related noise sources are exempt from the City’s noise standards between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Proposed
detours would be temporary in nature and would not result in a new, permanent source of mobile noise
near residential, office, or other noise-sensitive land uses. Therefore, a temporary increase in vehicle
traffic would not generate a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise and would not
exceed noise standards established in the City’s General Plan or Noise Ordinance.
Upon implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 to reduce temporary construction-related
noise near noise-sensitive land uses, implementation of the project would not result in an increase in
ambient noise that would be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan or Noise Ordinance. Therefore,
potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
The proposed project includes replacement of the existing Traffic Way bridge and would require
decommissioning of the existing bridge, excavation, and construction of the new bridge over a 7-month
construction period. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) establishes a 25-foot distance
reference point from residential structures to measure the severity of potential vibration impacts
(measured by peak particle velocity [ppv]) (FHWA 2018). With regard to human perception, vibration
levels would begin to be perceptible at levels of 0.04 inches per second (in/sec) ppv for continuous events
and 0.25 in/sec ppv for transient events. Based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration
standards for general construction equipment, typical equipment (e.g., large bulldozer) would generate a
maximum vibration level of approximately 0.089 in/sec at 25 feet, which is less than the FTA’s most
stringent vibration standard for older residential structural damage of 0.5 in/sec and would be
Page 101 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
70
intermittently perceptible to surrounding receptors but below the thresholds for annoyance (FTA 2018).
The typical vibration source levels generated by construction equipment are identified in Table 10 below.
Table 10. Representative Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment Peak Particle Velocity at 25 feet (in/sec)
Large bulldozer 0.089
Caisson drilling 0.089
Loaded trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozers 0.0003
While some construction activities may result in perceptible vibration, the project-generated vibration
levels would be well below the thresholds identified as having the potential to adversely affect
surrounding historic buildings, and the majority of construction activities and resulting vibration would
not be at levels perceptible to humans. In addition, Mitigation Measure N-1 has been included to ensure
construction activities comply with timing established in the City Municipal Code to further reduce
potential annoyance caused by construction-related vibration to sensitive receptor locations.
The project is not anticipated to adversely affect nearby sensitive receptor locations due to construction-
related vibration because surrounding private residences are all located more than 25 feet from the project
limits, no significant vibration-inducing construction methods (such as pile driving) would be used during
reconstruction or reinforcement of the slope, and construction activities would be conducted in
accordance with allowable construction hours identified in the City Municipal Code. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The project site is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the Oceano County Airport. Based on the
Airport Land Use Plan for the Oceano County Airport, the project site is not located within any of the
airport noise contours (County of San Luis Obispo 2007). Therefore, the project would not have the
potential to expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to
proximity to airport facilities and no impacts would occur.
Conclusion
Mitigation Measure N-1 has been included to ensure construction noise would be limited to the hours of
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends, in accordance with Caltrans
Standard Specifications and City Municipal Code Requirements. In addition, Mitigation Measure N-2
would further reduce construction-related noise by requiring mufflers on all combustion engines during
proposed construction activities. Construction noise would be short term, intermittent, and limited to
applicable daytime hours per City standards. With implementation of the identified mitigation measures
to further reduce construction-related noise, impacts would be less than significant.
Page 102 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
71
Mitigation Measures
MM N-1 Noise-generating construction activities shall be limited to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m.
to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday through
Sunday, excluding legal holidays observed by the City during which no noise-generating
construction activities shall be allowed. Any exceptions to this period of time would need
to be authorized by the City of Arroyo Grande on a case-by-case basis and would be
subject to the City of Arroyo Grande Noise Standards.
MM N-2 Internal combustion engines for construction equipment shall be equipped with the
muffler recommended by the manufacturer. Internal combustion engines shall not be
operated on the job site without the appropriate muffler.
XIV. Population and Housing
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Induce substantial unplanned 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 people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Setting
As of 2021, the City’s population is an estimated 17,854, which has slightly decreased from the City’s
estimated population of 17,976 in 2019 (World Population Review 2021; U.S. Census Bureau 2010). The
city has an estimated population density of 3,007 people per square mile. The median age in Arroyo
Grande is 44.6 years old. The city’s demographics are made up of 84.8% White, 4.2% Asian, 1.7% Native
American, 0.9% Black or African American, 0.4% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 7.9% other
(World Population Review 2021). There are approximately 7,026 households within the city with an
average household size of 2.53 persons. The city has a home ownership rate of 67.5%. The city has a
poverty rate is 6.16% and an unemployment rate of 2.1% (World Population Review 2021).
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned 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)?
The project includes replacement of the existing Traffic Way bridge. The project does not include the
development of new residential development that could directly induce substantial unplanned population
growth. The project does not include development of new businesses, extension of existing roads, or
development of new roads or other infrastructure that could facilitate indirect unplanned population
growth. Construction of the project would result in a short-term increase in construction workers in the
area; however, it is anticipated the workers would come from the local work force or commute to the site
and would not require housing within the city. Operation of the project may include infrequent repair or
Page 103 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
72
maintenance trips on an as-needed basis by existing City employees; however, operation of the project is
not anticipated to increase long-term employment opportunities within the city. Therefore, the project
would not directly or indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth and impacts would be
less than significant.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site is located adjacent to commercial businesses in all directions. There is housing located
approximately 367 feet southeast from the boundary of the project site; however, there is no housing
located immediately adjacent to the project site. The project would not displace existing housing or
necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; therefore, no impacts would occur.
Conclusion
The project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth and would not result in the
construction of new or displacement of existing housing. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is necessary.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
XV. Public Services
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Setting
Fire Protection Services
The FCFA is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) between the City of Arroyo Grande, City of Grover Beach,
and Oceano Community Services District, serving a population of 37,000 in a 10-square-mile service area
(FCFA 2021). The FCFA was created to increase service levels to citizens and visitors, ensure consistent
Page 104 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
73
and professional training standards, and increase operational efficiencies. The FCFA currently operates
out of three stations with an average response time of 6 minutes (FCFA 2021). The nearest FCFA Station
to the project site is Station 1, approximately 300 feet south.
Police Protection Services
The Arroyo Grande Police Department (AGPD) provides public safety services for the city of Arroyo
Grande. The AGPD is located at 200 North Halcyon Road in Arroyo Grande and consists of 29 full-time
employees (AGPD 2021). The crime rate in the region is among the lowest in California. The AGPD
responded to 17,137 documented incidents in 2016 and 17,925 documented incidents in 2017. At the
same time, the AGPD has been able to maintain a response time for emergency calls at less than
2 minutes (AGPD 2021). The AGPD is located approximately 0.65 mile west of the project site. The
California Highway Patrol (CHP) office, located at 4115 Broad Street in San Luis Obispo, serves South
County, including the city of Arroyo Grande. The nearest CHP office is located approximately 9 miles
north of the project site.
Schools
Arroyo Grande students in grades K through 12 are served by two school districts: San Luis Obispo
Coastal Unified School District and 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.
Parks
Arroyo Grande has 13 city parks, several sports facilities, and open space and wildlife preserve areas. The
nearest park is Kiwanis Park located approximately 0.1 mile east of the project site.
Libraries
The City does not provide library services to City residents. This service is provided by the San Luis
Obispo City-County Library system, which presently maintains the Arroyo Grande Library located at 800
West Branch Street, approximately 0.5 mile north of the project site.
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
As discussed in Section XX, Wildfire, the project site is located in a developed portion of the city of
Arroyo Grande in an LRA (CAL FIRE 2021). Temporary road detours could temporarily increase
emergency response times in the area; however, alternative routes and additional measures would be
implemented to ensure adequate emergency response to the project area. In addition, Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1 has been included to ensure adequate notice has been provided to local police and fire protection
services prior to the implementation of any road closures or detours. Following construction, traffic
circulation along Traffic Way and emergency response efforts would be consistent with existing
conditions and would not result in the need for new or expanded fire protection services. The project
would replace the existing Traffic Way bridge and relocate existing utility infrastructure. The project does
Page 105 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
74
not include components that could permanently exacerbate fire risk or significantly increase demand on
local fire protection services. The project would not result in the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities for fire protection. Therefore, impacts related to fire protection services for the
project would be less than significant with mitigation.
Police protection?
Temporary road detours could temporarily increase emergency response times in the area during
construction of the project; however, alternative routes would be available to ensure adequate emergency
response to the project area. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 has been included to provide notice to local
police and fire protection services prior to the implementation of proposed road closures and detour
routes. Following construction, traffic circulation along Traffic Way would be consistent with existing
conditions and would not result in a permanent change to emergency response efforts that would require
new or expanded police protection facilities. The project does not propose construction of new residential
homes, businesses, or other facilities that would create an increased demand for police protection. The
project would not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities for police
protection; therefore, impacts related to police protection for the project would be less than significant
with mitigation.
Schools?
As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the project would not induce direct or indirect
population growth. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase of school-aged
children in the area; therefore, the project would not create an increased demand on local schools and no
impacts would occur.
Parks?
As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the project would not induce direct population
growth. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a population increase that could result
in deterioration of existing recreation facilities or require the expansion of new facilities; therefore, the
project would not create an increased demand on public recreation facilities and no impacts would occur.
Other public facilities?
As discussed in Section XIV, Population and Housing, the project would not induce direct population
growth. The project does not propose features that would significantly increase the demand on public
facilities such as libraries or post offices or result in the need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities; therefore, no impacts would occur.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in the provision of or need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities. Additionally, the project does not have the potential to induce unplanned growth.
Consequently, the project would not increase demand for fire or police protection services, schools, parks,
libraries, or other public facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.
Page 106 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
75
XVI. Recreation
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Would the project 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) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Setting
The City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Parks and Recreation Element states that it is the overall goal
of the City to adequately provide for the recreational needs of residents and visitors of Arroyo Grande.
The Parks and Recreation Element acts as a guide for the development of additional park and recreation
facilities. The City currently funds public recreational facilities through the Quimby Act, federal and state
grants, land dedications and easements, trail easements, development impact fees, user fees, general
obligation bonds, revenue bonds, and cooperation with other agencies (City of Arroyo Grande 2001a).
Arroyo Grande prides itself on its beautiful array of parks, open space, and community recreational
facilities. The City provides and maintains recreational facilities, including 13 parks, the Soto Sports
Complex, fields and courts, and the James Way Oak Habitat open space and wildlife preserve (City of
Arroyo Grande 2021b). The nearest park to the project site is Heritage Square Park, located
approximately 1,000 feet east.
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project 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?
The proposed project includes replacement of the existing Traffic Way bridge and would not create a new
use that would generate unplanned population growth or increase demand on existing recreational
facilities. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in deterioration of existing facilities,
and no impact would occur.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
Traffic Way is currently designated as a Class II Bikeway in the City of Arroyo Grande Bicycle & Trails
Master Plan (City of Arroyo Grande 2012). The project includes replacement of the Traffic Way bridge,
including the existing bicycle lanes and pedestrian facilities. Following project construction, the Traffic
Way bridge would continue to provide a Class II bike lane and adequate pedestrian facilities as identified
in the 2012 Bicycle & Trails Master Plan. The project does not include the development of new or
expansion of existing recreation facilities, including bikeways; therefore, no impacts related to the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities would occur.
Page 107 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
76
Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in increased use of existing recreational facilities
that could result in deterioration. The project does not include the construction of new or expansion of
existing recreational facilities. Following project construction, the Class II bike lane and pedestrian
facilities would be maintained along Traffic Way. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and
mitigation is not required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
XVII. Transportation
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Setting
The City’s previous General Plan Circulation Element was adopted in 2001 and provides goals and
policies to maintain an acceptable level of service (LOS), create a multi-modal circulation system, and
coordinate land use and circulation (City of Arroyo Grande 2001a). The updated City of Arroyo Grande
General Plan Circulation Element was recently adopted in 2021 (City of Arroyo Grande 2021a). The
updated Circulation Element provides objectives and policy guidance for long-term planning and
implementation of the transportation system needed to serve the City’s projected development. The
objectives and policies in the updated Circulation Element are closely correlated with the City’s Land Use
Element and other elements that comprise the General Plan and are intended to enhance travel choices for
current and future residents, visitors, and workers. The updated Circulation Element also defines a
preferred transportation system that reflects the City’s financial resources and broader goals, including
providing safe and convenient access for all modes of travel while preserving the local character of the
community.
The 2019 RTP/SCS, adopted on June 5, 2019, is a long-term blueprint of San Luis Obispo County’s
transportation system (SLOCOG 2019). The RTP/SCS identifies and analyzes transportation needs of the
region and creates a framework for project priorities. SLOCOG represents and works with the County and
the cities within the county in facilitating the development of the RTP/SCS.
Page 108 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
77
Traffic Way is classified as an on-system arterial road based on Caltrans CRS Map 8S45 and the updated
Circulation Element. The original bridge was constructed in 1932 and consists of six 38-foot spans, for a
total bridge length of 228 feet. The bridge was originally part of the highway system and was relinquished
to the City in 1960. The bridge is a cast-in-place reinforced concrete tee-beam with a longitudinal
construction joint near the bridge centerline. The bridge measures 40 feet between curbs and has 6-foot
sidewalks on both sides with an open concrete railing that was mounted to the edge of the bridge. The
bridge originally carried four lanes of traffic but was reconfigured around 2008 to have three lanes of
through traffic with shoulders for a Class II bike route.
Traffic Way north of the bridge has three lanes with shoulders and sidewalks and quickly transitions into
an intersection with West Branch Street, approximately 300 feet north of the project site. South of the
bridge, Traffic Way is wider to account for a right-turn pocket onto Station Way and parking is allowed
on the north side of the roadway. Traffic volumes through the site are approximately 9,600 vehicles per
day per the 2016 Bridge Inspection Report. Traffic Way has a posted speed limit of 35 mph in both
directions.
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Traffic Way bridge provides passage over Arroyo Grande Creek. Based on the 2016 Bridge Inspection
Report, traffic volumes through the site are approximately 9,600 vehicles per day. Traffic Way is
classified as an urban arterial roadway and has an estimated future ADT rate of 11,000. The project
proposes replacement of the existing bridge and would include the same number of vehicle lanes, Class II
bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, light posts, and fencing) as the existing bridge
structure. Operation of the project may result in infrequent maintenance trips on an as-needed basis,
consistent with existing operations, and would not increase vehicle trips to or from the project site.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with the updated Circulation Element and the 2019 RTP/SCS,
which aims to reduce VMT and provide opportunities for alternative modes of transportation.
Traffic Way is designated as a Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane) in the updated Circulation Element. The
bike lane is currently striped on Traffic Way from the intersection of West Branch Street to the
northbound US 101 off-ramp intersection with Traffic Way. When Traffic Way is temporarily closed for
construction of the bridge, bicycle traffic would be required to utilize a signed detour route towards
Bridge Street, which is an existing bike route, and would allow users continued access to their desired
destination. Bicycle traffic through the Village of Arroyo Grande would be maintained throughout
construction. Following construction activities, Traffic Way would be returned to a Class II bike lane,
which is consistent with the updated Circulation Element.
A pedestrian stairway adjacent to the existing bridge, and the pedestrian walkway on Traffic Way and
across the existing bridge, provide pedestrian access from Branch Street to Village Creek Plaza. The
pedestrian stairway and pedestrian access on the existing bridge would be temporarily closed during
construction. However, pedestrian access to Village Creek Plaza from Branch Street would be maintained
via the proposed temporary roadway detour using Traffic Way south of the construction area, the existing
pedestrian crosswalk on Traffic Way at Station Way, Nelson Street, and Bridge Street to Branch Street.
Following construction, the pedestrian stairway and pedestrian access on the bridge and Traffic Way
would be fully restored. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the updated Circulation Element,
which aims to provide ample pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
The project would be consistent with the updated Circulation Element and 2012 Bicycle & Trails Master
Plan; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Page 109 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
78
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
According to the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (California
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research [OPR] 2018), projects that would not generate a potentially
significant level of VMT, that are consistent with an SCS or general plan, or that would generate or attract
fewer than 110 trips per day would not result in significant transportation impacts. The project does not
propose features that would increase long-term circulation to or from the project site. During operation, a
negligible number of trips may be required for infrequent maintenance activities on an as-needed basis,
consistent with existing operations. Implementation of the project would not result in or exceed 110 trips
per day and would not generate a significant increase in VMT. Therefore, project impacts would be less
than significant.
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
Traffic Way is classified as an urban arterial roadway and, per AASHTO standards, lane widths for urban
arterial roads can vary from 10 feet to 12 feet depending on the surrounding conditions. The project
includes three 11-foot lanes, which would match the existing stripes and geometry of the approach
roadway. Per AASHTO standards, it is recommended that a Class II bike route includes 5-foot minimum
shoulders next to vertical curb faces. In addition, current Caltrans standards recommend 6-foot sidewalks
on all structures. In order to be consistent with existing roadway design standards and recommendations,
the overall bridge width would measure 59 feet and 4 inches. The project would be consistent with
AASHTO and Caltrans roadway design standards and recommendations. Therefore, implementation of
the project would not result in hazards due to proposed roadway design measures and impacts would be
less than significant.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
Construction of the project would occur over a 7-month period and would likely require closure and/or
traffic controls along Traffic Way and surrounding roadways. FCFA Station 1 is located approximately
300 feet south of the Traffic Way bridge along Traffic Way and road closures and/or traffic controls may
impact FCFA emergency response times. In order to maintain access, FCFA Station 1 would be provided
a GPS EVP device during the construction phase to transmit a signal to the controller box and allow
northbound traffic along Traffic Way a green during a call for emergency response. It is anticipated that
this situation would be mostly prominent during the school year due to an increase in vehicle traffic along
Traffic Way. Since most of the construction would occur during the summer, impacts related to
emergency response would be limited. Other emergency response vehicles would be able to access the
project area through temporary road detours through the city. Based on proposed features to allow
emergency access during construction, the project would not result in significant impacts related to FCFA
emergency access. Following construction of the project, Traffic Way would be fully operational and
would provide adequate emergency access. Therefore, potential impacts related to emergency access
would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The project would be consistent with the updated Circulation Element and 2012 Bicycle & Trails Master
Plan. The project would generate a negligible amount of vehicle trips to and from the project site during
operation and would not exceed the established VMT threshold of 110 trips per day. Roadway design of
Traffic Way would be subject to AASHTO and Caltrans standards and recommendations and would not
result in hazardous features. The project includes components that would allow for emergency access
Page 110 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
79
during temporary closure of Traffic Way. Additionally, operation of the project would not result in
inadequate emergency access. Therefore, impacts related to transportation would be less than significant,
and no mitigation is necessary.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Setting
The project is located within lands traditionally occupied by the Obispeño Chumash. The term Chumash
initially applied only to the people living on Santa Cruz Island (SWCA 2021a). Chumash now refers to
the entire linguistic and ethnic group of societies that occupied the coast between San Luis Obispo and
northwestern Los Angeles County, including the Santa Barbara Channel Islands, and inland to the
southern edge of the San Joaquin Valley. Neighboring groups included the Salinan, Southern Valley
Yokuts and Tataviam on the north, and the Gabrielino (Tongva) to the east. Chumash place names in the
project vicinity include Pismu (Pismo Beach), Tematatimi (along Los Berros Creek), and Tilhini (near
San Luis Obispo) (SWCA 2021a).
Most Chumash managed to maintain a presence in the area into the early twentieth century as cowboys,
farmhands, and town laborers. The Catholic Church provided some land near Mission Santa Inés for ex-
neophytes. This land eventually was deeded to the U.S. government in 1901 as the 127-acre Santa Ynez
Reservation. Since the 1970s, Chumash descendants living in the city of Santa Barbara and the rural areas
of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties have formed social and political organizations
to aid in cultural revitalization, to protect sacred areas and archaeological sites, and to petition for federal
recognition. Today, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is the only federally recognized Chumash
tribe (SWCA 2021a).
Page 111 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
80
Approved in 2014, AB 52 added tribal cultural resources to the categories of resources that must be
evaluated under CEQA. Tribal cultural resources are defined as either of the following:
1. Sites, features, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; or
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k).
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). In applying these criteria
for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American Tribe.
Recognizing that tribes have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices, AB 52 requires
lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic
area of a proposed project if they have requested notice of projects proposed within that area. If the tribe
requests consultation within 30 days upon receipt of the notice, the lead agency must consult with the
tribe regarding the potential for adverse impacts on tribal cultural resources as a result of a project.
Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, the presence and/or
significance of tribal cultural resources, the level of significance of a project’s impacts on the tribal
cultural resources, and available project alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe to
avoid or lessen potential impacts on tribal cultural resources.
As part of background research for the ASR prepared for this project, the NAHC was contacted on March
16, 2020, requesting a search of their Sacred Lands File for traditional cultural resources. The NAHC
responded on March 17, 2020, indicating the results of the Sacred Lands File search were positive, and
previous studies had been conducted within the project area. The NAHC also provided a list of 11 Native
American groups, which were contacted on April 13, 2020. The following is a summary of received
responses:
• Patti Dunton, Tribal Administrator of the Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo
Counties, did not have any specific information regarding cultural resources in the project area
but requested that a cultural resource specialist from her tribe be present on-site for the proposed
undertaking.
• Mona Tucker, Chair of the yak titʸu titʸu yak tiłhini Northern Chumash Tribe of San Luis Obispo
County and Region, recognized the importance of the project area and requested to receive a copy
of the results of the records search and conduct a site visit.
Per AB 52 requirements, the City provided the opportunity for tribal consultation on July 1, 2021. Nine
tribes were contacted, and the following response was received:
• The Tribal Elders’ Council for the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians did not request any
further consultation based on the existing scope of the project and requested to be notified if the
existing scope of the project were to change.
There have been no other responses as of December 6, 2021.
Page 112 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
81
Environmental Evaluation
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:
a-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)?
a-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 Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
The City has provided notice of the opportunity to consult with appropriate tribes per the requirements of
AB 52. As discussed in Section IV, Cultural Resources, based on desktop-level review and field
investigation, the project site is not anticipated to contain tribal cultural resources that have been listed or
been found eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC
Section 5020.1. The project is located within and adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek and would require
excavation and vegetation removal for construction of the proposed bridge. Based on the ASR prepared
for the project, there are no previously recorded archaeological resource sites within the project area and
field surveys did not identify any unknown resources (SWCA 2021a). Therefore, proposed ground
disturbance activities are not anticipated to adversely affect known or unknown tribal cultural resource
sites present within the project area. In addition, based on the scope of the project, there were no requests
for consultation from tribes contacted per AB 52 requirements. Mitigation Measure CR-1 has been
included in the unlikely event unknown tribal cultural resources are uncovered during proposed ground-
disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires that work be halted in the vicinity of the find until
a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. Implementation of the identified
mitigation measure would ensure protection of tribal cultural resources during implementation of the
project; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Conclusion
There is potential for unknown tribal cultural resources to be present within the project area. Mitigation
CR-1 has been included to mitigate impacts related to discovery of tribal cultural resources during
ground-disturbing construction activities. Therefore, with implementation of the identified mitigation
measure, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure CR-1.
Page 113 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
82
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
(a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
(d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Setting
Utilities would be served by both the City and other regional entities. Water and wastewater services
within the City are provided by the City Public Works Department. The City has a franchise agreement
with South County Sanitary Service for collection, diversion, and disposal of solid waste and is served by
the Cold Canyon Landfill, located approximately 2 miles north of the city in unincorporated San Luis
Obispo County. The Cold Canyon Landfill currently has a daily capacity of 1,650 tons per day and an
estimated remaining capacity of 13,000,000 cubic yards. Currently, the estimated closure date for this
landfill is December 31, 2040 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
[CalRecycle] 2019).
There is existing utility infrastructure that crosses the Traffic Way bridge and/or is located within the
project footprint, including PG&E electrical lines, AT&T lines, a City water line, and a City storm drain
system.
Environmental Evaluation
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
As previously described, there is existing utility infrastructure that crosses the Traffic Way bridge and/or
is located within the project footprint, including PG&E electrical lines, AT&T lines, a City water line, and
Page 114 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
83
a City storm drain system. The project includes replacement of the existing Traffic Way bridge and would
require relocation of existing utility infrastructure during construction of the new bridge. Implementation
of the proposed project has the potential to result in impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, geology and soils, GHG emissions, energy, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and
water quality, noise, public services, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. As described in the
corresponding resource sections, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, BIO-1 through
BIO-9, CR-1, GEO-1, HAZ-1, and N-1 and N-2 would avoid and/or minimize potential environmental
impacts to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
The project does not require any connections to water and would not require any long-term operational
water use. During construction, water may be used for dust suppression; however, any water used during
construction would be limited in volume and would be supplied from off-site sources. The project
includes relocation of an existing City water pipe; however, the project would not increase or change the
existing use of the City’s water supply. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Operation of the project does not include connection to any public or private wastewater treatment
providers. Portable restrooms would likely be used by workers and other personnel throughout the
construction period; therefore, the project would not require short- or long-term connections to
wastewater treatment providers, and no impact would occur.
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment
of solid waste reduction goals?
Construction of the project may result in a temporary increase in solid waste, which would be disposed of
in accordance with applicable state and local laws and regulations. The project would be serviced by Cold
Canyon Landfill, which has a remaining capacity of 13,000,000 cubic yards and an estimated closure date
of 2040 (CalRecycle 2019). Operation of the project would result in infrequent maintenance on an as-
needed basis, consistent with existing operations, and would not generate waste in excess of state or local
standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure; therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
As previously described, operation of the project would not result in the long-term generation of solid
waste. Construction-related waste (i.e., excavated soils) would be disposed of according to federal and
state regulations. The project would not generate long-term solid waste and would be compliant with solid
waste reduction statutes and regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The project would require the relocation of existing utility infrastructure that may have adverse
environmental impacts. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, BIO-1 through BIO-9, CR-1, GEO-1,
HAZ-1, and N-1 and N-2 have been included to reduce potential adverse impacts to less than significant.
Page 115 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
84
The project does not require connection to the City’s water supply or wastewater system. In addition, the
project would not result in solid waste in exceedance of federal, state, or local regulations. Therefore, with
implementation of the identified mitigation, impacts related to utilities and service systems would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, BIO-1 through BIO-9, CR-1, GEO-1, HAZ-1, and N-1
and N-2.
XX. Wildfire
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
(a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
(d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Setting
In central California, the fire season usually extends from May through October; however, recent events
indicate that wildfire behavior, frequency, and duration of the fire season are changing in California.
FHSZs are defined by CAL FIRE based on the presence of fire-prone vegetation, climate, topography,
assets at risk (e.g., high population centers), and a fire protection agency’s ability to provide service to the
area (CAL FIRE 2007). FHSZs throughout the county have been designated as “Very High,” “High,” or
“Moderate.” In San Luis Obispo County, most of the area that has been designated as a “Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone” is located in the Santa Lucia Mountains, which extend parallel to the coast along
the entire length of the county. The Moderate FHSZ designation does not mean the area cannot
experience a damaging fire; rather, it indicates that the probability is reduced, generally because the
number of days a year that the area has “fire weather” is less than in high or very high FHSZs. The city of
Arroyo Grande, including the project site, is located within an LRA, and is not a designated FHSZ
(CAL FIRE 2021).
The City’s Safety Element includes the objective of reducing the threat to life, structures, and the
environment caused by fire and includes specific policies related to pre-fire management; availability of
facilities, equipment, and personnel; readiness and response; and loss prevention (City of Arroyo Grande
2001a).
Page 116 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
85
The Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP was originally adopted in 2013 and modified in 2015. The intention of
the LHMP is to implement practical mitigation solutions to minimize risk of hazards within each city
covered by the LHMP. The plan includes specific action items related to fire hazard mitigation within
each jurisdiction (Mathe 2015).
Environmental Evaluation
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project site is located in an urbanized portion of the city within an LRA (CAL FIRE 2021). The
project includes replacement of the Traffic Way bridge that allows traffic to cross over Arroyo Grande
Creek in the central portion of the city. Construction activities would result in the temporary closure of
the Traffic Way bridge and may require other traffic controls and detours on surrounding roadways. The
construction period would extend approximately 7 months and temporary closures of roadways and
associated detours may result in temporary delays in emergency response and evacuation in the city. Any
short-term road closures or traffic controls would be required to provide prior notice and use proper
detour signage for public safety and circulation.
FCFA Station 1 is located approximately 300 feet south of the Traffic Way bridge along Traffic Way and
road closures and/or traffic controls may impact FCFA emergency response times. In order to maintain
access, FCFA Station 1 would be provided a GPS EVP device during the construction phase to transmit a
signal to the controller box and allow northbound traffic a green light during a call for emergency
response. While this situation would be most prominent during the school year due to an increase in
vehicle traffic along Traffic Way, year-round visitor serving uses would continue to contribute to
congestion within the project area during construction activities. Additionally, since wildfire occurrence is
highest during the summer, it can be assumed that an increase in calls for fire protection services would
occur during this time. In addition to the provision of a GPS EVP device, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 has
been included to provide notice to local fire protection services prior to the implementation of any road
closures or detour routes. The project would also implement road detours that would maintain public
access throughout the city during closure of Traffic Way. Based on implementation of Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1 and proposed components to allow emergency access during construction, the project
would not result in significant impacts related to FCFA emergency access.
The project would result in the replacement of the Traffic Way bridge to avoid potential risk to the public
related to scour and would not result in the permanent closure of Traffic Way bridge or surrounding
roadways that could impede long-term emergency access and/or evacuation. Therefore, the project would
not substantially impair or interfere with the City’s Safety Element, the Multi-Jurisdictional LHMP, or
other emergency response or evacuation plans; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, if located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
The project area is located in a developed portion of the city in an LRA and is not designated as a State
Responsibility Area (SRA) or FHSZ. The average wind speed in the city ranges from 7.1 to 9.5 mph, with
the highest wind speeds occurring between the months of April and May (WeatherSpark 2021). The
project would result in the replacement of the Traffic Way bridge, which would reduce risk related to
Page 117 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
86
erosion surrounding the foundation of the bridge. Replacement of the existing bridge would not result in a
long-term increase in fire hazard within the project area. However, since construction would be limited to
the dry season (June 1-October 15), there is potential for construction activities to increase the risk of
wildfire ignition at the project site. The project would be required to comply with IFC Section 3312,
which establishes regulations to reduce the risk of wildfire ignition during construction and demolition
activities. Regulations include, but are not limited to, prohibiting smoking at the site, removal of
combustible waste materials (i.e., paper, rags, wood, etc.) from the project site, identifying proper
refueling methods, and establishing equipment standards. In addition, the project would not result in the
development of new buildings that could expose project occupants to wildfire risks or otherwise
exacerbate wildfire risks; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
According to the CAL FIRE FHSZ Viewer, the project site is not located within or near an SRA (CAL
FIRE 2021). There is existing utility infrastructure that crosses the Traffic Way bridge and/or is located
within the project footprint, including PG&E electrical lines, AT&T lines, a City water line, and a City
storm drain system. The project includes replacement of the existing Traffic Way bridge and would
require relocation of existing utility infrastructure with the construction of the new bridge. As previously
identified, construction would be limited to the dry season (June 1-October 15), which has the potential to
increase the risk of wildfire ignition during utility installation at the project site. The project would be
required to comply with provisions of IFC Section 3312, including regulations and standards to reduce
the potential for the use of construction equipment at the project site to generate sparks or otherwise
increase the risk of wildfire. The project would not result in development or installation of additional or
extended roads, fuel breaks, or utilities that may exacerbate long-term fire risk within the project area.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
According to the CAL FIRE FHSZ Viewer, the project site is not located within or near an SRA (CAL
FIRE 2021). The project site is located in a developed portion of the city and would not be exposed to
significant wildfire risk. The project site consists of an existing bridge over Arroyo Grande Creek and is
characterized by relatively flat topography. Implementation of the project is not anticipated to result in
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes because the project site has a low potential for wildfire that could result in post-fire
ground failure events. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
The project site is not located in an SRA. In addition, the project does not include components that would
significantly increase the potential for long-term wildfire within the project area. The project would be
required to comply with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 to ensure adequate emergency access is maintained
throughout construction and IFC Section 3312 to reduce the potential for wildfire ignition during project
construction. Since there is low potential for wildfire, implementation of the project is not anticipated to
result in any post-fire ground failure or other events. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation.
Page 118 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
87
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
(a) Does the project have the potential to 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 a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
(c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Environmental Evaluation
a) Does the project have the potential to 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 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
As discussed in the preceding sections, the project has the potential to significantly degrade the quality of
the environment, including effects on biological resources. During construction, ground disturbance
within and adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek and construction of the project may affect biological
resources, including sensitive and special-status species, sensitive natural communities, and wetland
resources. Mitigation measures are identified to reduce potential impacts a less-than-significant level,
including, but not limited to, measures intended to prevent the inadvertent take of special-status plants
and animals, avoid the spread of invasive species, reduce impacts to arroyo willow thicket and associated
riparian vegetation, and avoid or minimize potential impacts to Arroyo Grande Creek.
Page 119 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
88
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of
a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
When project impacts are considered along or in combination with other impacts, the project-related
impacts may be significant. Construction and operation of the project have the potential to create erosion
and down-gradient sedimentation, result in accidental spill or commonly used hazardous materials,
generate air quality emissions, generate excessive construction noise, and disturb special-status biological
resources, paleontological resources, and cultural resources. Mitigation measures have been incorporated
into the project to reduce project-related impacts to a less-than-significant level. Based on implementation
of identified project-specific mitigation measures, the cumulative effects of the proposed project would be
less than significant.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Implementation of the project would result in the generation of pollutants, which may affect air quality
and/or water quality. The project may result in accidental spill of commonly used hazardous materials. In
addition, the project may generate excessive noise during proposed construction activities. Mitigation
measures have been developed that would reduce these project-specific impacts to a less-than-significant
level; therefore, the project would not result in substantial, adverse environmental effects to human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, BIO-1 through BIO-9, CR-1, GEO-1,
HAZ-1, and N-1 and N-2, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Page 120 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
89
3 REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2018. A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Seventh Edition. 2018.
Arroyo Grande Police Department (AGPD). 2021. About AGPD. Available at:
http://www.agpd.org/260/About-AGPD. Accessed September 2021.
California Department of Conservation (CDOC). 2015. Fault Activity Map of California. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/. Accessed September 2021.
_____. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed September 2021.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Draft Fire Hazard Severity
Zones in Local Responsibility Areas. Available at:
http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_luis_obispo/fhszl06_1_map.40.pdf. Accessed
September 20, 2021.
_____. 2021. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed
September 20, 2021.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) 2019. SWIS Facility/Site
Activity Details Cold Canyon Landfill, In. (40-AA-0004). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1509?siteID=3171. Accessed
September 20, 2021.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2021. EnviroStor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed September 15, 2021.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria. Version 2.0.
April. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/engineering/documents/seismicdesigncriteria-sdc/202007-seismicdesigncriteria-
v2-a11y.pdf. Accessed April 2021.
———. 2020. Bridge Inspection Report. Prepared by Caltrans Structure Maintenance and Investigations.
Prepared for the City of Arroyo Grande. October 31, 2020.
———. 2021a. California Road System – Functional Classification. Available at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=026e830c914c495797c969a
3e5668538. Accessed September 23, 2021.
———. 2021b. Local Assistance Procedures Manual. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-
assistance/guidelines-and-procedures/local-assistance-procedures-manual-lapm. Accessed
September 22, 2021.
———. 2021c. Scenic Highways Mapper. Available at:
http://gisdata.dot.ca.gov/arcgis/rest/services/Highway/Scenic_Highways/MapServer. Accessed
September 2021.
California Geologic Survey (CGS). 2015. Mineral Land Classification Maps. California Geologic Survey
Information Warehouse. Available at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/mlc/. Accessed September 2021.
Page 121 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
90
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluation
Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December. Available at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. Accessed July 14, 2021.
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2005. DCPP Steam Generator Replacement Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available at:
https://ia.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/info/aspen/diablocanyon/deir/d05_geology.pdf. Accessed
September 22, 2021.
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2013. Post-Construction Stormwater
Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/lid/hydro
mod_lid_docs/2013_0032_attach1_post_construction_requirements.pdf. Accessed September
15, 2021.
City of Arroyo Grande. 1994. Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay
District. Available at: https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/280/Village-
Design-Guidelines-PDF. Accessed September 2021.
———. 2001a. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Circulation, Land Use, Safety, Noise, Parks and
Recreation Elements. Available at: https://www.arroyogrande.org/142/Planning-Division.
Accessed September 2021.
———. 2001b. Integrated Program EIR Master Plan. Available at:
http://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/2080/General-Plan-Integrated-Program-
EIR?bidId=. Accessed September 2021.
———. 2007. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element.
Available at: https://www.arroyogrande.org/142/Planning-Division. Accessed September 2021.
———. 2012. City of Arroyo Grande Bicycle & Trails Master Plan. Available at:
http://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/276/Bicycle-and-Trails-Master-Plan.
Accessed April 2021.
———. 2013. City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan. Available at:
https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/1327/Climate-Action-Plan-PDF.
Accessed September 2021.
———. 2014. Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District (D-2.11) – Traffic Way and
Station Way. Available at: https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/1351/Design-
Guidelines-and-Standards-for-Design-Overlay-District-D-211-Traffic-Way--Station-Way-PDF.
Accessed September 2021.
———. 2018. Land Use Map. Available at:
https://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/477/Land-Use-Map. Accessed September
2021.
———. 2021a. City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Circulation Element. Available at:
http://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/9843/Circulation-Element-Final. Accessed
September 2021.
———. 2021b. City Park and Facilities. Available at: https://www.arroyogrande.org/711/City-Parks-
Facilities. Accessed September 10, 2021.
Page 122 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
91
County of San Luis Obispo. 1999. Safety Element. Available at:
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building/Forms-Documents/Plans-and-
Elements/Elements/Safety-Element.pdf. December 14, 1999. Accessed September 14, 2021.
_____. 2007. Airport Land Use Plan for the Oceano County Airport. County of San Luis Obispo Airport
Land Use Commission. Adopted February 1976, amended May 2007. Available at:
https://www.sloairport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/OceanoALUP-final.pdf. Accessed
September 2020.
_____. 2011. County of San Luis Obispo EnergyWise Plan. Available at:
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Planning-Building/Energy-and-Climate/Energy-
Climate-Reports/EnergyWise-Plan.aspx. Accessed September 15, 2021.
———. 2020. Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin. Available at:
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Committees-Programs/Sustainable-
Groundwater-Management-Act-(SGMA)/Arroyo-Grande-Groundwater-Basin.aspx. Accessed
September 20, 2021.
_____. 2021. Land Use View. Available at:
https://gis.slocounty.ca.gov/Html5Viewer/Index.html?configBase=/Geocortex/Essentials/REST/
sites/PL_LandUseView/viewers/PL_LandUseView/virtualdirectory/Resources/Config/Default.
Accessed September 2021.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2020. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Available
at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed September 20, 2021.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2018. Techniques for Reviewing Noise Analysis and
Associated Noise Reports. Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/resources/reviewing_noise_analysis/fhwahep1806
7.pdf. Accessed September 2020.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
FTA Report No. 0123. Washington D.C. September 2018. Available at:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-
and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed September 2020.
Five Cities Fire Authority (FCFA). 2021. Five Cities Fire – At a Glance. Available at:
http://www.fivecitiesfireauthority.org/fivecitiesfireataglance. Accessed September 20, 2021.
Mathe, David. 2015. Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Prepared by David L. Mathe,
Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, Five Cities Fire Authority. Available at:
http://www.arroyogrande.org/DocumentCenter/View/3857/Local-Hazard-Mitigation-Plan-PDF.
Accessed September 2021.
Quincy Engineering. 2021. Draft Type Selection Report, Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge at Traffic Way
Bridge Replacement Project. Prepared for the City of Arroyo Grande. August 2021.
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). 2001. San Luis Obispo County 2001
Clean Air Plan. December. Available at: https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/business/pdf/CAP.pdf. Accessed September 2021.
Page 123 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
92
———. 2012. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April. Available at:
https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v2%20%28Updated%20Map2019%29_L
inkedwithMemo.pdf. Accessed September 2021.
_____. 2017. Clarification Memorandum for the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s
2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Available at: https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/FINAL_Clarification%20Memorandum%2020172.pdf. Accessed
July 16, 2021.
———. 2019. San Luis Obispo County Attainment Status. Available at:
https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/AttainmentStatus29January2019.pdf. Accessed September 2021.
———. 2021. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Map. Available at:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1YAKjBzVkwi1bZ4rQ1p6b2OMyvIM&ll=35
.364986805363756%2C-120.52563349999998&z=9. Accessed September 2021.
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). 2019. 2019 Regional Transportation Plan. June 5.
Available at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oc6i8wshikuirsh/__FINAL%202019%20RTP.pdf?dl=0. Accessed
September 22, 2021.
SLO Watershed Project. 2020. Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed. Available at:
http://slowatershedproject.org/watersheds/arroyo-grande-creek/. Accessed September 2021.
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). 2021a. Archaeological Survey Report for the Traffic Way
over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project, Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo
County, California. Draft. September.
———. 2021b. Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek
Bridge Replacement Project, Federal Project No. BRLS-5199(030), Arroyo Grande, San Luis
Obispo County, California. Draft. August.
———. 2021c. Land Use, Community, and Farmland Impacts Technical Memorandum for the Traffic
Way Bridge Replacement Project, Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California / SWCA
Project No. 53479. September.
———. 2021d. Noise Impact Analysis for the Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project No. 5199(030),
Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Draft. September.
———. 2021e. Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project Natural Environment Study. Draft. September.
———. 2021f. Visual Impact Assessment Memorandum for the Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project,
Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California / Federal Project No. BRLS-5199(030) /
SWCA No. 53479. Draft. August.
———. 2021g. Water Quality Assessment for the Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Project Federal
Project No. 5199(030), Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Draft. August.
———. 2021h. Wetlands and Waters Delineation and Assessment Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge At
Traffic Way Replacement Project. Draft. July.
Page 124 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
93
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. Geotracker. Available at:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed September 15, 2021.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. City of Arroyo Grande Quickfacts. Available at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/arroyograndecitycalifornia,fountainvalleycitycalifo
rnia,claremontcitycalifornia,cherrylandcdpcalifornia,nationalcitycitycalifornia,placervillecitycali
fornia#. Accessed September 10, 2021.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021. Web
Soil Survey. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
Accessed September 21, 2021.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2021a. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Available at:
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html. Accessed
September 21, 2021.
———. 2021b. National Geologic Map Database. Available at:
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/UnitRefs/SquireRefs_11983.html. Accessed September 10,
2021.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. National Wetlands Inventory Surface Waters and
Wetlands. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html. Accessed September
21, 2021.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. What are Sensitive Receptors? Available at:
https://www3.epa.gov/region1/eco/uep/sensitivereceptors.html. Accessed September 2020.
WeatherSpark. 2021. Climate and Average Weather Year Round in Arroyo Grande California, United
States. Available at: https://weatherspark.com/y/1273/Average-Weather-in-Arroyo-Grande-
California-United-States-Year-Round. Accessed September 20, 2021.
World Population Review. 2021. Arroyo Grande, California Population 2021. Available at:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/arroyo-grande-ca-population. Accessed September
20, 2021.
Page 125 of 243
Traffic Way over Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
94
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 126 of 243
APPENDIX A
California Emissions Estimator Model (Version 2020.4.0)
Annual and Winter Results
Page 127 of 243
Page 128 of 243
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Other Asphalt Surfaces 21.83 1000sqft 0.50 21,830.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)3.2 44
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement
San Luis Obispo County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 1 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 129 of 243
Project Characteristics - The project site is located in Arroyo Grande, California
Construction is estimated to occur over nine months
Land Use - The proposed bridge would be appx 59 feet wide and 370 feet long
Construction Phase - Ground disturbance is anticipated to 7 months (May - December)
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Grading - The project would result in the temporary disturbance of 3 acres
Demolition -
Trips and VMT -
On-road Fugitive Dust -
Architectural Coating -
Vehicle Trips -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Fleet Mix -
Road Dust -
Area Coating -
Consumer Products -
Landscape Equipment -
Energy Use -
Water And Wastewater -
Solid Waste -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 2 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 130 of 243
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 33.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 144.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/19/2022 1/31/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/5/2022 1/17/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/13/2022 5/12/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/18/2022 12/1/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/12/2022 1/24/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/16/2022 5/15/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/13/2022 1/25/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/19/2022 12/3/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/2/2022 5/1/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/17/2022 5/16/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/6/2022 1/18/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/14/2022 5/14/2023
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 3.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 400.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 550.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 3 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 131 of 243
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0601 0.5370 0.6713 1.1900e-
003
0.0751 0.0251 0.1002 0.0341 0.0239 0.0580 0.0000 104.8817 104.8817 0.0186 0.0000 105.3466
2024 0.0114 0.0571 0.0712 1.2000e-
004
1.1600e-
003
2.6000e-
003
3.7700e-
003
3.1000e-
004
2.4200e-
003
2.7300e-
003
0.0000 10.7402 10.7402 2.8700e-
003
0.0000 10.8120
Maximum 0.0601 0.5370 0.6713 1.1900e-
003
0.0751 0.0251 0.1002 0.0341 0.0239 0.0580 0.0000 104.8817 104.8817 0.0186 0.0000 105.3466
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0601 0.5370 0.6713 1.1900e-
003
0.0751 0.0251 0.1002 0.0341 0.0239 0.0580 0.0000 104.8816 104.8816 0.0186 0.0000 105.3465
2024 0.0114 0.0571 0.0712 1.2000e-
004
1.1600e-
003
2.6000e-
003
3.7700e-
003
3.1000e-
004
2.4200e-
003
2.7300e-
003
0.0000 10.7402 10.7402 2.8700e-
003
0.0000 10.8120
Maximum 0.0601 0.5370 0.6713 1.1900e-
003
0.0751 0.0251 0.1002 0.0341 0.0239 0.0580 0.0000 104.8816 104.8816 0.0186 0.0000 105.3465
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 4 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 132 of 243
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.9000e-
003
0.0000 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.2000e-
004
7.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 7.6000e-
004
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.9000e-
003
0.0000 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.2000e-
004
7.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 7.6000e-
004
Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
4 2-2-2023 5-1-2023 0.0029 0.0029
5 5-2-2023 8-1-2023 0.2216 0.2216
6 8-2-2023 11-1-2023 0.2186 0.2186
7 11-2-2023 2-1-2024 0.2138 0.2138
Highest 0.2216 0.2216
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 5 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 133 of 243
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.9000e-
003
0.0000 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.2000e-
004
7.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 7.6000e-
004
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.9000e-
003
0.0000 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.2000e-
004
7.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 7.6000e-
004
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 6 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 134 of 243
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 5/1/2023 5/12/2023 5 10
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/14/2023 5/15/2023 5 1
3 Grading Grading 5/16/2023 12/1/2023 5 144
4 Building Construction Building Construction 12/3/2023 1/17/2024 5 33
5 Paving Paving 1/18/2024 1/24/2024 5 5
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/25/2024 1/31/2024 5 5
OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 1,310
(Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3
Acres of Paving: 0.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 7 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 135 of 243
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 4 10.00 0.00 79.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 119.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 5 9.00 4.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 8 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 136 of 243
3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 8.7800e-
003
0.0000 8.7800e-
003
1.3300e-
003
0.0000 1.3300e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.2300e-
003
0.0289 0.0370 6.0000e-
005
1.4100e-
003
1.4100e-
003
1.3500e-
003
1.3500e-
003
0.0000 5.2091 5.2091 9.5000e-
004
0.0000 5.2328
Total 3.2300e-
003
0.0289 0.0370 6.0000e-
005
8.7800e-
003
1.4100e-
003
0.0102 1.3300e-
003
1.3500e-
003
2.6800e-
003
0.0000 5.2091 5.2091 9.5000e-
004
0.0000 5.2328
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 9 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 137 of 243
3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 2.1000e-
004
7.6800e-
003
2.2700e-
003
3.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8883 2.8883 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.8925
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.8000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
1.3000e-
003
0.0000 4.8000e-
004
0.0000 4.8000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.3610 0.3610 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3612
Total 3.9000e-
004
7.8200e-
003
3.5700e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.1700e-
003
3.2000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
3.3000e-
004
0.0000 3.2493 3.2493 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 3.2537
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 8.7800e-
003
0.0000 8.7800e-
003
1.3300e-
003
0.0000 1.3300e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.2300e-
003
0.0289 0.0370 6.0000e-
005
1.4100e-
003
1.4100e-
003
1.3500e-
003
1.3500e-
003
0.0000 5.2091 5.2091 9.5000e-
004
0.0000 5.2328
Total 3.2300e-
003
0.0289 0.0370 6.0000e-
005
8.7800e-
003
1.4100e-
003
0.0102 1.3300e-
003
1.3500e-
003
2.6800e-
003
0.0000 5.2091 5.2091 9.5000e-
004
0.0000 5.2328
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 10 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 138 of 243
3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 2.1000e-
004
7.6800e-
003
2.2700e-
003
3.0000e-
005
6.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
6.9000e-
004
1.9000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8883 2.8883 1.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.8925
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.8000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
1.3000e-
003
0.0000 4.8000e-
004
0.0000 4.8000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000 1.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.3610 0.3610 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3612
Total 3.9000e-
004
7.8200e-
003
3.5700e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.1500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.1700e-
003
3.2000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
3.3000e-
004
0.0000 3.2493 3.2493 1.8000e-
004
0.0000 3.2537
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.7000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.7000e-
004
3.0900e-
003
1.9600e-
003
0.0000 1.1000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.4275 0.4275 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4309
Total 2.7000e-
004
3.0900e-
003
1.9600e-
003
0.0000 2.7000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
3.8000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.4275 0.4275 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4309
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 11 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 139 of 243
3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0181 0.0181 0.0000 0.0000 0.0181
Total 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0181 0.0181 0.0000 0.0000 0.0181
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.7000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.7000e-
004
3.0900e-
003
1.9600e-
003
0.0000 1.1000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.4275 0.4275 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4309
Total 2.7000e-
004
3.0900e-
003
1.9600e-
003
0.0000 2.7000e-
004
1.1000e-
004
3.8000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
004
1.3000e-
004
0.0000 0.4275 0.4275 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.4309
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 12 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 140 of 243
3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0181 0.0181 0.0000 0.0000 0.0181
Total 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0181 0.0181 0.0000 0.0000 0.0181
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0559 0.0000 0.0559 0.0300 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0465 0.4161 0.5323 8.6000e-
004
0.0203 0.0203 0.0194 0.0194 0.0000 75.0108 75.0108 0.0137 0.0000 75.3519
Total 0.0465 0.4161 0.5323 8.6000e-
004
0.0559 0.0203 0.0762 0.0300 0.0194 0.0494 0.0000 75.0108 75.0108 0.0137 0.0000 75.3519
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 13 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 141 of 243
3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.2000e-
004
0.0116 3.4300e-
003
4.0000e-
005
1.0200e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.0500e-
003
2.8000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
3.1000e-
004
0.0000 4.3507 4.3507 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.3570
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.5900e-
003
2.0700e-
003
0.0188 6.0000e-
005
6.9300e-
003
4.0000e-
005
6.9700e-
003
1.8400e-
003
4.0000e-
005
1.8800e-
003
0.0000 5.1985 5.1985 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 5.2019
Total 2.9100e-
003
0.0136 0.0222 1.0000e-
004
7.9500e-
003
7.0000e-
005
8.0200e-
003
2.1200e-
003
7.0000e-
005
2.1900e-
003
0.0000 9.5492 9.5492 3.9000e-
004
0.0000 9.5589
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0559 0.0000 0.0559 0.0300 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0465 0.4161 0.5323 8.6000e-
004
0.0203 0.0203 0.0194 0.0194 0.0000 75.0107 75.0107 0.0137 0.0000 75.3518
Total 0.0465 0.4161 0.5323 8.6000e-
004
0.0559 0.0203 0.0762 0.0300 0.0194 0.0494 0.0000 75.0107 75.0107 0.0137 0.0000 75.3518
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 14 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 142 of 243
3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.2000e-
004
0.0116 3.4300e-
003
4.0000e-
005
1.0200e-
003
3.0000e-
005
1.0500e-
003
2.8000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
3.1000e-
004
0.0000 4.3507 4.3507 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 4.3570
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.5900e-
003
2.0700e-
003
0.0188 6.0000e-
005
6.9300e-
003
4.0000e-
005
6.9700e-
003
1.8400e-
003
4.0000e-
005
1.8800e-
003
0.0000 5.1985 5.1985 1.4000e-
004
0.0000 5.2019
Total 2.9100e-
003
0.0136 0.0222 1.0000e-
004
7.9500e-
003
7.0000e-
005
8.0200e-
003
2.1200e-
003
7.0000e-
005
2.1900e-
003
0.0000 9.5492 9.5492 3.9000e-
004
0.0000 9.5589
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.3200e-
003
0.0642 0.0710 1.1000e-
004
3.2000e-
003
3.2000e-
003
2.9500e-
003
2.9500e-
003
0.0000 10.0208 10.0208 3.2400e-
003
0.0000 10.1019
Total 6.3200e-
003
0.0642 0.0710 1.1000e-
004
3.2000e-
003
3.2000e-
003
2.9500e-
003
2.9500e-
003
0.0000 10.0208 10.0208 3.2400e-
003
0.0000 10.1019
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 15 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 143 of 243
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 9.0000e-
005
2.9800e-
003
9.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7472 0.7472 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7482
Worker 3.2000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
2.3500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
8.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
8.7000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.6498 0.6498 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6502
Total 4.1000e-
004
3.2400e-
003
3.2500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.0500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0600e-
003
2.8000e-
004
0.0000 3.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.3971 1.3971 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.3985
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.3200e-
003
0.0642 0.0710 1.1000e-
004
3.2000e-
003
3.2000e-
003
2.9500e-
003
2.9500e-
003
0.0000 10.0208 10.0208 3.2400e-
003
0.0000 10.1019
Total 6.3200e-
003
0.0642 0.0710 1.1000e-
004
3.2000e-
003
3.2000e-
003
2.9500e-
003
2.9500e-
003
0.0000 10.0208 10.0208 3.2400e-
003
0.0000 10.1019
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 16 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 144 of 243
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 9.0000e-
005
2.9800e-
003
9.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
1.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9000e-
004
5.0000e-
005
0.0000 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7472 0.7472 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7482
Worker 3.2000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
2.3500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
8.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
8.7000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.6498 0.6498 2.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6502
Total 4.1000e-
004
3.2400e-
003
3.2500e-
003
2.0000e-
005
1.0500e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.0600e-
003
2.8000e-
004
0.0000 3.0000e-
004
0.0000 1.3971 1.3971 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.3985
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 3.8700e-
003
0.0388 0.0459 7.0000e-
005
1.8400e-
003
1.8400e-
003
1.6900e-
003
1.6900e-
003
0.0000 6.5158 6.5158 2.1100e-
003
0.0000 6.5684
Total 3.8700e-
003
0.0388 0.0459 7.0000e-
005
1.8400e-
003
1.8400e-
003
1.6900e-
003
1.6900e-
003
0.0000 6.5158 6.5158 2.1100e-
003
0.0000 6.5684
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 17 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 145 of 243
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 5.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
003
5.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4830 0.4830 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4837
Worker 2.0000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.4100e-
003
0.0000 5.6000e-
004
0.0000 5.7000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.4060 0.4060 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4062
Total 2.5000e-
004
2.0500e-
003
1.9600e-
003
0.0000 6.8000e-
004
0.0000 6.9000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8890 0.8890 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8899
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 3.8700e-
003
0.0388 0.0459 7.0000e-
005
1.8400e-
003
1.8400e-
003
1.6900e-
003
1.6900e-
003
0.0000 6.5158 6.5158 2.1100e-
003
0.0000 6.5684
Total 3.8700e-
003
0.0388 0.0459 7.0000e-
005
1.8400e-
003
1.8400e-
003
1.6900e-
003
1.6900e-
003
0.0000 6.5158 6.5158 2.1100e-
003
0.0000 6.5684
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 18 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 146 of 243
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 5.0000e-
005
1.9000e-
003
5.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
0.0000 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4830 0.4830 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4837
Worker 2.0000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.4100e-
003
0.0000 5.6000e-
004
0.0000 5.7000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.4060 0.4060 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.4062
Total 2.5000e-
004
2.0500e-
003
1.9600e-
003
0.0000 6.8000e-
004
0.0000 6.9000e-
004
1.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.8890 0.8890 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.8899
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 1.4800e-
003
0.0131 0.0176 3.0000e-
005
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.3502 2.3502 6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.3673
Paving 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 2.1400e-
003
0.0131 0.0176 3.0000e-
005
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.3502 2.3502 6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.3673
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 19 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 147 of 243
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.5000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.0800e-
003
0.0000 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 4.4000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.3123 0.3123 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3125
Total 1.5000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.0800e-
003
0.0000 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 4.4000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.3123 0.3123 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3125
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 1.4800e-
003
0.0131 0.0176 3.0000e-
005
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.3502 2.3502 6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.3673
Paving 6.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 2.1400e-
003
0.0131 0.0176 3.0000e-
005
6.1000e-
004
6.1000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
5.7000e-
004
0.0000 2.3502 2.3502 6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.3673
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 20 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 148 of 243
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.5000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.0800e-
003
0.0000 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 4.4000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.3123 0.3123 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3125
Total 1.5000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
1.0800e-
003
0.0000 4.3000e-
004
0.0000 4.4000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 1.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.3123 0.3123 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.3125
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.5500e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.5000e-
004
3.0500e-
003
4.5300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6392
Total 5.0000e-
003
3.0500e-
003
4.5300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6392
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 21 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 149 of 243
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 0.0000 0.0347
Total 2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 0.0000 0.0347
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.5500e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 4.5000e-
004
3.0500e-
003
4.5300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6392
Total 5.0000e-
003
3.0500e-
003
4.5300e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.6392
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 22 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 150 of 243
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 0.0000 0.0347
Total 2.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.2000e-
004
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 0.0000 0.0347
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 23 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 151 of 243
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Other Asphalt Surfaces 13.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
5.0 Energy Detail
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 24 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 152 of 243
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 25 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 153 of 243
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 26 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 154 of 243
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.9000e-
003
0.0000 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.2000e-
004
7.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 7.6000e-
004
Unmitigated 1.9000e-
003
0.0000 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.2000e-
004
7.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 7.6000e-
004
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 27 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 155 of 243
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.4100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.2000e-
004
7.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 7.6000e-
004
Total 1.9000e-
003
0.0000 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.2000e-
004
7.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 7.6000e-
004
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
4.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
1.4100e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 3.0000e-
005
0.0000 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.2000e-
004
7.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 7.6000e-
004
Total 1.9000e-
003
0.0000 3.7000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.2000e-
004
7.2000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000 7.6000e-
004
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 28 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 156 of 243
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
7.0 Water Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 29 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 157 of 243
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 30 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 158 of 243
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 31 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 159 of 243
11.0 Vegetation
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:40 PMPage 32 of 33
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Page 160 of 243
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Other Asphalt Surfaces 21.83 1000sqft 0.50 21,830.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)3.2 44
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2023Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement
San Luis Obispo County, Winter
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 1 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 161 of 243
Project Characteristics - The project site is located in Arroyo Grande, California
Construction is estimated to occur over nine months
Land Use - The proposed bridge would be appx 59 feet wide and 370 feet long
Construction Phase - Ground disturbance is anticipated to 7 months (May - December)
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Grading - The project would result in the temporary disturbance of 3 acres
Demolition -
Trips and VMT -
On-road Fugitive Dust -
Architectural Coating -
Vehicle Trips -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Vehicle Emission Factors -
Fleet Mix -
Road Dust -
Area Coating -
Consumer Products -
Landscape Equipment -
Energy Use -
Water And Wastewater -
Solid Waste -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 2 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 162 of 243
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 33.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 144.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/19/2022 1/31/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/5/2022 1/17/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/13/2022 5/12/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/18/2022 12/1/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/12/2022 1/24/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/16/2022 5/15/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/13/2022 1/25/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/19/2022 12/3/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/2/2022 5/1/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/17/2022 5/16/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/6/2022 1/18/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/14/2022 5/14/2023
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 3.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 400.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 550.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 3 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 163 of 243
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 0.7297 7.3255 8.1207 0.0186 1.9931 0.3212 2.2798 0.4465 0.2955 0.7173 0.0000 1,858.231
7
1,858.231
7
0.3636 0.0000 1,864.447
5
2024 2.0099 6.2857 7.4646 0.0129 0.1780 0.2833 0.4218 0.0472 0.2607 0.2896 0.0000 1,253.660
7
1,253.660
7
0.3636 0.0000 1,262.750
2
Maximum 2.0099 7.3255 8.1207 0.0186 1.9931 0.3212 2.2798 0.4465 0.2955 0.7173 0.0000 1,858.231
7
1,858.231
7
0.3636 0.0000 1,864.447
5
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 0.7297 7.3255 8.1207 0.0186 1.9931 0.3212 2.2798 0.4465 0.2955 0.7173 0.0000 1,858.231
7
1,858.231
7
0.3636 0.0000 1,864.447
5
2024 2.0099 6.2857 7.4646 0.0129 0.1780 0.2833 0.4218 0.0472 0.2607 0.2896 0.0000 1,253.660
7
1,253.660
7
0.3636 0.0000 1,262.750
2
Maximum 2.0099 7.3255 8.1207 0.0186 1.9931 0.3212 2.2798 0.4465 0.2955 0.7173 0.0000 1,858.231
7
1,858.231
7
0.3636 0.0000 1,864.447
5
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 4 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 164 of 243
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.0104 2.0000e-
005
2.2300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.7800e-
003
4.7800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.0900e-
003
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0104 2.0000e-
005
2.2300e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.7800e-
003
4.7800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0900e-
003
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.0104 2.0000e-
005
2.2300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.7800e-
003
4.7800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.0900e-
003
Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0104 2.0000e-
005
2.2300e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.7800e-
003
4.7800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 5.0900e-
003
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 5 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 165 of 243
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 5/1/2023 5/12/2023 5 10
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/14/2023 5/15/2023 5 1
3 Grading Grading 5/16/2023 12/1/2023 5 144
4 Building Construction Building Construction 12/3/2023 1/17/2024 5 33
5 Paving Paving 1/18/2024 1/24/2024 5 5
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/25/2024 1/31/2024 5 5
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 1,310
(Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3
Acres of Paving: 0.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 6 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 166 of 243
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 6.00 89 0.20
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 4 10.00 0.00 79.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 119.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 5 9.00 4.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 7 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 167 of 243
3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.7562 0.0000 1.7562 0.2660 0.0000 0.2660 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.6463 5.7787 7.3926 0.0120 0.2821 0.2821 0.2698 0.2698 1,148.405
5
1,148.405
5
0.2089 1,153.629
0
Total 0.6463 5.7787 7.3926 0.0120 1.7562 0.2821 2.0383 0.2660 0.2698 0.5358 1,148.405
5
1,148.405
5
0.2089 1,153.629
0
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 8 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 168 of 243
3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0431 1.5175 0.4669 5.8200e-
003
0.1380 4.0300e-
003
0.1420 0.0378 3.8500e-
003
0.0417 630.8810 630.8810 0.0376 631.8218
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0403 0.0293 0.2612 7.9000e-
004
0.0989 5.8000e-
004
0.0994 0.0262 5.3000e-
004
0.0268 78.9451 78.9451 2.0600e-
003
78.9968
Total 0.0834 1.5468 0.7281 6.6100e-
003
0.2369 4.6100e-
003
0.2415 0.0640 4.3800e-
003
0.0684 709.8262 709.8262 0.0397 710.8186
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.7562 0.0000 1.7562 0.2660 0.0000 0.2660 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.6463 5.7787 7.3926 0.0120 0.2821 0.2821 0.2698 0.2698 0.0000 1,148.405
5
1,148.405
5
0.2089 1,153.629
0
Total 0.6463 5.7787 7.3926 0.0120 1.7562 0.2821 2.0383 0.2660 0.2698 0.5358 0.0000 1,148.405
5
1,148.405
5
0.2089 1,153.629
0
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 9 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 169 of 243
3.2 Demolition - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0431 1.5175 0.4669 5.8200e-
003
0.1380 4.0300e-
003
0.1420 0.0378 3.8500e-
003
0.0417 630.8810 630.8810 0.0376 631.8218
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0403 0.0293 0.2612 7.9000e-
004
0.0989 5.8000e-
004
0.0994 0.0262 5.3000e-
004
0.0268 78.9451 78.9451 2.0600e-
003
78.9968
Total 0.0834 1.5468 0.7281 6.6100e-
003
0.2369 4.6100e-
003
0.2415 0.0640 4.3800e-
003
0.0684 709.8262 709.8262 0.0397 710.8186
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.5303 0.0000 0.5303 0.0573 0.0000 0.0573 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.5348 6.1887 3.9239 9.7300e-
003
0.2266 0.2266 0.2084 0.2084 942.4317 942.4317 0.3048 950.0517
Total 0.5348 6.1887 3.9239 9.7300e-
003
0.5303 0.2266 0.7568 0.0573 0.2084 0.2657 942.4317 942.4317 0.3048 950.0517
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 10 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 170 of 243
3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0201 0.0146 0.1306 4.0000e-
004
0.0494 2.9000e-
004
0.0497 0.0131 2.7000e-
004
0.0134 39.4726 39.4726 1.0300e-
003
39.4984
Total 0.0201 0.0146 0.1306 4.0000e-
004
0.0494 2.9000e-
004
0.0497 0.0131 2.7000e-
004
0.0134 39.4726 39.4726 1.0300e-
003
39.4984
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.5303 0.0000 0.5303 0.0573 0.0000 0.0573 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.5348 6.1887 3.9239 9.7300e-
003
0.2266 0.2266 0.2084 0.2084 0.0000 942.4317 942.4317 0.3048 950.0517
Total 0.5348 6.1887 3.9239 9.7300e-
003
0.5303 0.2266 0.7568 0.0573 0.2084 0.2657 0.0000 942.4317 942.4317 0.3048 950.0517
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 11 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 171 of 243
3.3 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0201 0.0146 0.1306 4.0000e-
004
0.0494 2.9000e-
004
0.0497 0.0131 2.7000e-
004
0.0134 39.4726 39.4726 1.0300e-
003
39.4984
Total 0.0201 0.0146 0.1306 4.0000e-
004
0.0494 2.9000e-
004
0.0497 0.0131 2.7000e-
004
0.0134 39.4726 39.4726 1.0300e-
003
39.4984
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.7761 0.0000 0.7761 0.4164 0.0000 0.4164 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.6463 5.7787 7.3926 0.0120 0.2821 0.2821 0.2698 0.2698 1,148.405
5
1,148.405
5
0.2089 1,153.629
0
Total 0.6463 5.7787 7.3926 0.0120 0.7761 0.2821 1.0582 0.4164 0.2698 0.6862 1,148.405
5
1,148.405
5
0.2089 1,153.629
0
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 12 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 172 of 243
3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 4.5100e-
003
0.1587 0.0488 6.1000e-
004
0.0144 4.2000e-
004
0.0149 3.9600e-
003
4.0000e-
004
4.3600e-
003
65.9941 65.9941 3.9400e-
003
66.0925
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0403 0.0293 0.2612 7.9000e-
004
0.0989 5.8000e-
004
0.0994 0.0262 5.3000e-
004
0.0268 78.9451 78.9451 2.0600e-
003
78.9968
Total 0.0448 0.1880 0.3101 1.4000e-
003
0.1133 1.0000e-
003
0.1143 0.0302 9.3000e-
004
0.0311 144.9392 144.9392 6.0000e-
003
145.0892
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.7761 0.0000 0.7761 0.4164 0.0000 0.4164 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.6463 5.7787 7.3926 0.0120 0.2821 0.2821 0.2698 0.2698 0.0000 1,148.405
5
1,148.405
5
0.2089 1,153.629
0
Total 0.6463 5.7787 7.3926 0.0120 0.7761 0.2821 1.0582 0.4164 0.2698 0.6862 0.0000 1,148.405
5
1,148.405
5
0.2089 1,153.629
0
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 13 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 173 of 243
3.4 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 4.5100e-
003
0.1587 0.0488 6.1000e-
004
0.0144 4.2000e-
004
0.0149 3.9600e-
003
4.0000e-
004
4.3600e-
003
65.9941 65.9941 3.9400e-
003
66.0925
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0403 0.0293 0.2612 7.9000e-
004
0.0989 5.8000e-
004
0.0994 0.0262 5.3000e-
004
0.0268 78.9451 78.9451 2.0600e-
003
78.9968
Total 0.0448 0.1880 0.3101 1.4000e-
003
0.1133 1.0000e-
003
0.1143 0.0302 9.3000e-
004
0.0311 144.9392 144.9392 6.0000e-
003
145.0892
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6322 6.4186 7.0970 0.0114 0.3203 0.3203 0.2946 0.2946 1,104.608
9
1,104.608
9
0.3573 1,113.540
2
Total 0.6322 6.4186 7.0970 0.0114 0.3203 0.3203 0.2946 0.2946 1,104.608
9
1,104.608
9
0.3573 1,113.540
2
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 14 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 174 of 243
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 8.9200e-
003
0.2947 0.0953 7.6000e-
004
0.0186 4.6000e-
004
0.0190 5.3500e-
003
4.4000e-
004
5.7900e-
003
80.8336 80.8336 4.5200e-
003
80.9465
Worker 0.0362 0.0263 0.2351 7.1000e-
004
0.0890 5.2000e-
004
0.0895 0.0236 4.8000e-
004
0.0241 71.0506 71.0506 1.8600e-
003
71.0971
Total 0.0452 0.3210 0.3304 1.4700e-
003
0.1076 9.8000e-
004
0.1085 0.0290 9.2000e-
004
0.0299 151.8842 151.8842 6.3800e-
003
152.0435
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6322 6.4186 7.0970 0.0114 0.3203 0.3203 0.2946 0.2946 0.0000 1,104.608
9
1,104.608
9
0.3573 1,113.540
2
Total 0.6322 6.4186 7.0970 0.0114 0.3203 0.3203 0.2946 0.2946 0.0000 1,104.608
9
1,104.608
9
0.3573 1,113.540
2
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 15 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 175 of 243
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 8.9200e-
003
0.2947 0.0953 7.6000e-
004
0.0186 4.6000e-
004
0.0190 5.3500e-
003
4.4000e-
004
5.7900e-
003
80.8336 80.8336 4.5200e-
003
80.9465
Worker 0.0362 0.0263 0.2351 7.1000e-
004
0.0890 5.2000e-
004
0.0895 0.0236 4.8000e-
004
0.0241 71.0506 71.0506 1.8600e-
003
71.0971
Total 0.0452 0.3210 0.3304 1.4700e-
003
0.1076 9.8000e-
004
0.1085 0.0290 9.2000e-
004
0.0299 151.8842 151.8842 6.3800e-
003
152.0435
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.5950 5.9739 7.0675 0.0114 0.2824 0.2824 0.2598 0.2598 1,104.983
4
1,104.983
4
0.3574 1,113.917
7
Total 0.5950 5.9739 7.0675 0.0114 0.2824 0.2824 0.2598 0.2598 1,104.983
4
1,104.983
4
0.3574 1,113.917
7
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 16 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 176 of 243
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 8.4600e-
003
0.2880 0.0896 7.5000e-
004
0.0186 4.2000e-
004
0.0190 5.3500e-
003
4.0000e-
004
5.7500e-
003
80.3887 80.3887 4.5400e-
003
80.5022
Worker 0.0343 0.0238 0.2166 6.9000e-
004
0.0890 5.1000e-
004
0.0895 0.0236 4.7000e-
004
0.0241 68.2886 68.2886 1.6700e-
003
68.3303
Total 0.0427 0.3118 0.3062 1.4400e-
003
0.1076 9.3000e-
004
0.1085 0.0290 8.7000e-
004
0.0298 148.6773 148.6773 6.2100e-
003
148.8325
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.5950 5.9739 7.0675 0.0114 0.2824 0.2824 0.2598 0.2598 0.0000 1,104.983
4
1,104.983
4
0.3574 1,113.917
7
Total 0.5950 5.9739 7.0675 0.0114 0.2824 0.2824 0.2598 0.2598 0.0000 1,104.983
4
1,104.983
4
0.3574 1,113.917
7
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 17 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 177 of 243
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 8.4600e-
003
0.2880 0.0896 7.5000e-
004
0.0186 4.2000e-
004
0.0190 5.3500e-
003
4.0000e-
004
5.7500e-
003
80.3887 80.3887 4.5400e-
003
80.5022
Worker 0.0343 0.0238 0.2166 6.9000e-
004
0.0890 5.1000e-
004
0.0895 0.0236 4.7000e-
004
0.0241 68.2886 68.2886 1.6700e-
003
68.3303
Total 0.0427 0.3118 0.3062 1.4400e-
003
0.1076 9.3000e-
004
0.1085 0.0290 8.7000e-
004
0.0298 148.6773 148.6773 6.2100e-
003
148.8325
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.5904 5.2297 7.0314 0.0113 0.2429 0.2429 0.2269 0.2269 1,036.239
3
1,036.239
3
0.3019 1,043.785
8
Paving 0.2620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.8524 5.2297 7.0314 0.0113 0.2429 0.2429 0.2269 0.2269 1,036.239
3
1,036.239
3
0.3019 1,043.785
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 18 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 178 of 243
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0685 0.0475 0.4332 1.3700e-
003
0.1780 1.0200e-
003
0.1790 0.0472 9.4000e-
004
0.0481 136.5772 136.5772 3.3300e-
003
136.6605
Total 0.0685 0.0475 0.4332 1.3700e-
003
0.1780 1.0200e-
003
0.1790 0.0472 9.4000e-
004
0.0481 136.5772 136.5772 3.3300e-
003
136.6605
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.5904 5.2297 7.0314 0.0113 0.2429 0.2429 0.2269 0.2269 0.0000 1,036.239
3
1,036.239
3
0.3019 1,043.785
8
Paving 0.2620 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.8524 5.2297 7.0314 0.0113 0.2429 0.2429 0.2269 0.2269 0.0000 1,036.239
3
1,036.239
3
0.3019 1,043.785
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 19 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 179 of 243
3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0685 0.0475 0.4332 1.3700e-
003
0.1780 1.0200e-
003
0.1790 0.0472 9.4000e-
004
0.0481 136.5772 136.5772 3.3300e-
003
136.6605
Total 0.0685 0.0475 0.4332 1.3700e-
003
0.1780 1.0200e-
003
0.1790 0.0472 9.4000e-
004
0.0481 136.5772 136.5772 3.3300e-
003
136.6605
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.8216 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 2.0023 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 20 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 180 of 243
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.6100e-
003
5.2800e-
003
0.0481 1.5000e-
004
0.0198 1.1000e-
004
0.0199 5.2400e-
003
1.0000e-
004
5.3500e-
003
15.1753 15.1753 3.7000e-
004
15.1845
Total 7.6100e-
003
5.2800e-
003
0.0481 1.5000e-
004
0.0198 1.1000e-
004
0.0199 5.2400e-
003
1.0000e-
004
5.3500e-
003
15.1753 15.1753 3.7000e-
004
15.1845
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 1.8216 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1808 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Total 2.0023 1.2188 1.8101 2.9700e-
003
0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0159 281.8443
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 21 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 181 of 243
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 7.6100e-
003
5.2800e-
003
0.0481 1.5000e-
004
0.0198 1.1000e-
004
0.0199 5.2400e-
003
1.0000e-
004
5.3500e-
003
15.1753 15.1753 3.7000e-
004
15.1845
Total 7.6100e-
003
5.2800e-
003
0.0481 1.5000e-
004
0.0198 1.1000e-
004
0.0199 5.2400e-
003
1.0000e-
004
5.3500e-
003
15.1753 15.1753 3.7000e-
004
15.1845
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 22 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 182 of 243
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Other Asphalt Surfaces 13.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
5.0 Energy Detail
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 23 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 183 of 243
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 24 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 184 of 243
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0104 2.0000e-
005
2.2300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.7800e-
003
4.7800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.0900e-
003
Unmitigated 0.0104 2.0000e-
005
2.2300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.7800e-
003
4.7800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.0900e-
003
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 25 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 185 of 243
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.5000e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
7.7300e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 2.1000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
2.2300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.7800e-
003
4.7800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.0900e-
003
Total 0.0104 2.0000e-
005
2.2300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.7800e-
003
4.7800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.0900e-
003
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
2.5000e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
7.7300e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 2.1000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
2.2300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.7800e-
003
4.7800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.0900e-
003
Total 0.0104 2.0000e-
005
2.2300e-
003
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
4.7800e-
003
4.7800e-
003
1.0000e-
005
5.0900e-
003
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 26 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 186 of 243
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
8.0 Waste Detail
11.0 Vegetation
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/6/2021 2:42 PMPage 27 of 27
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Page 187 of 243
Page 188 of 243
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Brian Pedrotti, Community Department Director
BY: Patrick Holub, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Discuss and Consider Amendments to Short Term Rental Ordinance
DATE: August 2, 2022
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Discuss and consider the recommended changes to the Short Term Rental ordinance
(Ordinance 663) and make a recomm endation to the City Council to adopt the
amendments.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
In accordance with Chapter 3.24 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC), Short
Term Rentals are required to pay the City’s transient occupancy tax (TOT) in the amount
of 13.5% of the rent charged by the operator, 10% of which is retained by the City, 2% is
provided to the Arroyo Grande Tourism Business Improvement District (AGTBID), and
1.5% is provided to the San Luis Obispo County Tourism Marketing District (SLO TMD)
(Visit SLO Cal). The City currently receives an estimated $90,500 per year in TOT from
Short Term Rentals.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending the
City Council adopt amendments to the Short Term Rental Ordinance (Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND:
On June 10, 2014, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 663, establishing vacation
rentals and homestays (Short Term Rentals or STRs) as permitted land uses in the City’s
residential zoning districts, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permi t-Plot Plan
Review (Attachment 2). A vacation rental is defined as a structure being rented for less
than thirty (30) days without concurrently being occupied by the owner/operator, while a
homestay is defined as an owner-occupied dwelling unit where a maximum of two short-
term lodging rooms are provided for compensation. These two uses are collectively
known as Short Term Rentals.
Page 189 of 243
Planning Commission
Discuss and Consider Amendments to Short Term Rental Ordinance
August 2, 2022
Page 2
During the development of Ordinance 663, both the Planning Commission and City
Council discussed potential issues related to noise, parking, and other general nuisances.
Performance standards by which a STR application is reviewed were generated from
those discussions. Ultimately, both bodies came to the conclusion that these concerns
could be addressed by compliance with the performance st andards and abiding by
conditions of approval. Additionally, these issues were found to be similar to instances
when long-term renters, homeowners, and private guests of homeowners are the cause
of these types of nuisances. For example, Ordinance 663 requires applicants to provide
a local contact to address noise and general disturbance issues that may arise from the
STR. A 300-foot buffer between rentals on the same street is required to prevent the
oversaturation of STRs in a neighborhood.
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.230 lists the performance standards
required to be complied with in order to receive approval for and to operate a vacation
rental, which are as follows:
1. Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit-plot plan
review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license.
2. Any proposed vacation rental shall be compatible with the neighborhood in which
it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use
shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the neighborhood.
3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy of the
vacation rental shall be met.
4. All environmental health regulations shall be met.
5. The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is being
used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a fifteen -minute
drive of the property. The contact person or entity must be available via telephone
twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven days a week, to respond to complaints
regarding the use of the vacation rental. The contact person or entity shall respond,
either in person or by return telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the
complaint within three hours between seven a.m. and nine p.m., and within thirty
(30) minutes between nine p.m. and seven a.m.
6. The operator of the vacation rental shall annually, at the time of renewal of the
business license, notify the community development department of the name,
address and telephone number of the contact person required in subsection (C)(6).
7. A written notice shall be conspicuously posted inside each vacation rental unit
setting forth the name, address and telephone number of the contact person
required in subsection (C)(6). The notice shall also set forth the address of the
vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants permitted to stay overnight in
the unit, the maximum number of vehicles allowed to be parked on -site, and the
day(s) established for garbage collection. The notice shall also provide the non-
emergency number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department.
8. On-site advertising of the vacation rental is prohibited.
Page 190 of 243
Planning Commission
Discuss and Consider Amendments to Short Term Rental Ordinance
August 2, 2022
Page 3
9. The number of overnight occupants shall be limited to two persons per bedroom
and two additional persons. A bedroom shall meet the minimum size requirements
as defined in the Building Code.
10. All refuse shall be stored in appropriate containers and placed at the curb for
collection every week.
11. The operator of the vacation rental shall pay transient occupancy tax as required
by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030.
12. Establishment of a vacation rental within three hundred (300) feet of an existing
vacation rental on the same street shall not be permitted.
13. Violations. Violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for revocation
of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220.
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.240 lists the performance standards
required to be complied with in order to receive approval for and to operate a homestay,
which are as follows:
1. Operators of homestays are required to obtain a minor use permit-plot plan review
(Section 16.16.080) and a business license.
2. Any proposed homestay shall be compatible with the neighborhood in which it is
located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character. The use shall
be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the neighborhood.
3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy of the
homestay shall be met.
4. All environmental health regulations shall be met.
5. The operator shall reside on the premises.
6. Individual guest stays shall be limited to fourteen (14) days, with a seven -day
period between stays.
7. On-site advertising of the homestay is prohibited.
8. A bedroom shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the Building
Code.
9. The operator of the homestay shall pay transient occupancy tax as required by
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030.
10. Establishment of a homestay within three hundred (300) feet of an existing
homestay on the same street shall not be permitted.
11. Violations. Violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for revocation
of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220.
On September 3, 2019, the Planning Commission received a status report on the City’s
STR regulations and made a number of recommendations including:
1. Implementation of parking requirements for STRs;
2. Administrative fines for non-permitted STRs;
3. Utilization of compliance technology to address non-permitted STRs; and
4. Reconsideration of current buffer distances or methods.
Page 191 of 243
Planning Commission
Discuss and Consider Amendments to Short Term Rental Ordinance
August 2, 2022
Page 4
On October 12, 2021, the City Council directed staff to bring back a discussion item at a
future meeting to evaluate Ordinance 663 after receiving public comment expressing
concerns regarding the recent proliferation of STRs, the application and appeal process
associated with STRs, and other related issues such as the 300-foot location radius.
On March 22, 2022, the City Council conducted a study session regarding the existing
short term rental ordinance. The Council made a number of recommendations including:
Establishing a cap on the overall number of vacation rental approvals that can be
granted;
Contracting with an enforcement company to identify unpermitted rentals ;
Altering the methodology for how the buffer distance between rentals is calculated;
Establishing objective revocation triggers;
Requiring that all mailing labels for vacation rentals be provided by the City and
paid for by the applicant;
Improving the performance standards to ensure greater compatibility with the
neighborhood;
Establishing an expiration clause; and
Considering whether to impose a parking requirement.
Each of these topics is addressed in more detail later in this report.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
Trends
When Ordinance 663 went into effect in 2014, it was a first of its kind in San Luis Obispo
County. While drawing on existing regulations implemented sporadically throughout the
County, the Ordinance addressed the growing trend in home sharing by regulating both
vacation rentals and homestays.
Since the Ordinance’s implementation, the City has permitted eighty -three (83) vacation
rentals and forty-four (44) homestays. The following list represents the number of short
term rentals approved per year:
2014 – Two (2) vacation rental approvals; five (5) homestay approvals
2015 – Two (2) vacation rental approvals; one (1) homestay approval
2016 – Six (6) vacation rental approvals; two (2) homestay approvals
2017 – Five (5) vacation rental approvals; seven (7) homestay approvals
2018 – Seven (7) vacation rental approvals; six (6) homestay approvals
2019 – Eighteen (18) vacation rental approvals; seven (7) homestay approvals
2020 – Ten (10) vacation rental approvals; four (4) homestay approvals
2021 – Nineteen (19) vacation rental approvals; six (6) homestay approvals
2022 – Fourteen (14) vacation rental approvals; six (6) homestay approvals*
Page 192 of 243
Planning Commission
Discuss and Consider Amendments to Short Term Rental Ordinance
August 2, 2022
Page 5
*Approvals listed for 2022 reflect approvals granted though the end of June and do not
include approvals listed on this meeting’s agenda.
Neighborhood Impacts
Since the adoption of the Ordinance, nine (9) permits that were approved by the
Community Development Director for the establishment of a vacation rental have been
appealed to the Planning Commission, and zero (0) permits that were approved for the
establishment of a homestay have been appealed. All nine (9) of the appeals were denied
by the Commission and the Community Development Director’s decision was upheld. Of
the nine (9) appeals that were denied by the Planning Commission, two (2) approvals
were further appealed to the City Council. Both of those appeals were later denied by the
City Council, which was able to make the required findings for approval.
Appellants of vacation rental permits have cited similar reasons for their appeal, typically
including concerns regarding:
Noise;
Traffic;
Parking;
Transient Occupation; and
Loss of property values
In each consideration of the appeals, the Planning Commission indicated that although
neighbors had concerns regarding nearby rentals, the conc erns they raised were
discussed during development of the Ordinance, were addressed by the performance
standards required for the vacation rentals, or were addressed by conditions of approval
implemented for the project. To date, staff has received community member complaints
regarding two vacation rental properties and four unpermitted STRs. Of the unpermitted
rentals, two are currently working to gain approval, one has stopped operating on a short
term basis and the investigation into the final property r evealed that there were no
violations to enforce. Staff has been working closely with the City’s Community Services
Specialist as well as the Police Department to track and monitor complaints regarding
short term rentals to ensure compliance with the City’s regulations. Staff is currently
evaluating whether the complaints surrounding the approved rentals rises to the level of
revocation.
Housing Needs
The City’s General Plan is the blueprint for how development activities are to occur within
the City limits. Housing Element Policy B.6. states: “The City shall continue to regulate
the use of existing residences on residentially zoned properties for vacat ion rentals.”
Housing Element Program B.6-1 states: “The City shall monitor the loss of permanent
workforce housing from vacation rentals and consider modifying the Development Code
to adjust for this loss.”
Page 193 of 243
Planning Commission
Discuss and Consider Amendments to Short Term Rental Ordinance
August 2, 2022
Page 6
The most recent data available from the United State Census Bureau estimates that there
are 7,847 housing units in the City, and 2,169 of those are rental units. Analysis of the
ownership information of properties where vacation rentals are permitted indicates that a
majority of the vacation rentals are rented on a part time basis when owners are absent.
The current number of vacation rentals (83) comprises approximately 3.8% of the City’s
total rental housing market. While this may not appear to be a significant impact on the
City’s housing stock at this time, analysis was completed utilizing the City’s Geographic
Information System (GIS) that estimate a total of 716 vacation rentals could be permitted
under the current regulations. This would constitute 33% of the City’s rental housing
stock.
Financial Impact
Operators of vacation rentals and homestays are required to obtain a Business License
from the City every year, as well as remit Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). TOT is
assessed to any short term occupancies in the City, whether it be at a hotel, motel, bed
and breakfast, vacation rental, or homestay, at a rate of 13.5% of fees charged for lodging.
Ten percent (10%) of this tax goes into the City’s General Fund, which is used for the
maintenance of City streets and services being used by the short term occupants of these
facilities. Two percent (2%) assessment is allocated to the AGTBID for the purpose of
marketing and promotional efforts for the local lodging industry and the final one and one-
half percent (1.5%) assessment is remitted to the SLOTMD (Visit SLO Cal) for the
purpose of marketing and promotional efforts for the County lodging industry. The
Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2021 through 2023 projects that the City will receive
approximately $2,031,480 in TOT. It is estimated that $182,900 will come from STRs. In
Fiscal Year 2020-21, the City received $90,500 in TOT from STRs.
Unpermitted STRs
One of the most difficult items associated with implementation of the Ordinance is
enforcement associated with non-permitted rentals. At any given time, searches can be
done on many of the popular rental sites that show rentals operating outside of City
regulations. However, efforts necessary to find, geo-locate, track, build a case of facts,
and attempt to rectify illegal rentals are time consuming. Staff will monitor and rectify
noncompliant rentals when there is a complaint, or when staff resources are available,
which is infrequent.
There are companies that can utilize technology to do this work for the City. One company
has recently estimated that there are between 150 and 200 unpermitted STRs operating
in the City. An enforcement company, acting as a consultant for the City, could assist with
identifying unpermitted STRs for purposes of collecting unpaid taxes, and shutting down
illegal STRs that are not subject to the same scrutiny as permitted ones. Services
provided by these companies are generally offered as a menu, with each service being
charged per rental within the City, per month. Specific estimates on additional TOT
anticipated from enforcement efforts cannot easily be completed, as a number of
assumptions would need to be made regarding the number of operators that simply cease
Page 194 of 243
Planning Commission
Discuss and Consider Amendments to Short Term Rental Ordinance
August 2, 2022
Page 7
their rental, the fees charged for these rentals, etc. However, it is anticipated that the TOT
collected with the aid of a consultant would exceed the costs of the services provided.
The City is currently advertising a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a firm that will
assist with ensuring short term rental hosts are compliant with the City’s regulations and
will also help the City identify unpermitted rentals that are operating within the City. This
RFP is scheduled to close on August 4th and City staff anticipates being able to select a
firm within the weeks following closure of the solicitation.
Application, Approval Process and Notification Procedures
The application and approval process for STRs have been raised as areas of concern in
recent appeals of STR approvals. Currently, an application to establish a STR is
submitted as a Minor Use Permit – Plot Plan Review and is reviewed by staff, with
approval by the Community Development Director. Notification of the Director’s approval
is mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the STR, and included on the following
Planning Commission’s agenda, which is posted on the City’s website and at City Hall.
The approval is appealable to the Planning Commission with a $497 appeal fee. The fee
to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council is an additional
$1,163.00. Community members and appellants have indicated that an STR application
should be subject to an initial public hearing so that community input can be provided
without having to pay the fee and go through the appeal process.
One of the concerns regarding notification of the Community Development Director’s
approval of vacation rental applications has involved the ability of applicants to provide
the required mailing labels because there is the potential to omit property owners that
legally should be notified of the decision. In response to this concern, staff has been able
to use a combination of City and County resources to verify the correct property owners
are notified of each decision. Community Development staff intends to work with an on -
call Geographic Information Systems (GIS) consultant to update the City’s capabilities to
be able to perform this function fully in -house. If preferable, staff may be directed to
generate the mailing labels for each application rather than allowing mailing labels
generated by a third party/applicant to be submitted. Currently, the City charges
applicants $417.00 to provide the mailing labels for their applications.
An additional concern raised by members of the public in relation to STRs involves how
the Community Development Director’s decision is reported to the Planning Commission.
Per Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.12.155, a notice of administrative decision
for Minor Use Permits, including any approvals, denials or referrals by the Community
Development Director, shall be reported on the Planning Commission agenda. Due to the
infrequency of Planning Commission meetings during the pandemic, approvals began to
be reported along with the cancellation notice for the cancelled Planning Commission
meeting, rather than strictly on scheduled meeting agendas. Staff has made a procedural
change in response to this concern to require all notices of administrative approval to be
placed on agendas for meetings that are held.
Page 195 of 243
Planning Commission
Discuss and Consider Amendments to Short Term Rental Ordinance
August 2, 2022
Page 8
ORDINANCE REVISIONS
Cap on Total Number of VRs
At their study session on March 22, 2022, the City Council recommended capping the
total number of permitted vacation rentals at one-hundred twenty (120), which represents
approximately 1.5% of the housing units within the City. As of June 30, there have been
eighty-three (83) vacation rental approvals granted. As additional applications are
submitted, the applications deemed complete first would be processed first in the event
of the City reaching the cap. After reaching the cap, the City could keep a waiting list of
property owners wishing to entitle a vacation rental until there is another available
opening.
Short Term Rental Buffer
At the study session on March 22, Council recommended changing the methodology for
calculating vacation rental eligibility to preclude the approval of a vacation rental within a
300’ radius of another, regardless of the street address for each application. This change
would prevent a situation with two vacation rentals on separate streets, but still within 300’
of one another. This could, however, create a number of legally non-conforming
properties as they were approved under different criteria . The draft ordinance has been
updated to reflect this direction from the City Council.
Revocation Process
During their study session, the City Council discussed the objective triggers that could be
utilized to revoke permits that are operating out of compliance with their performance
standards. During their study session, the City Council requested that the Planning
Commission suggest specific triggers involving a number of verified complaints that are
received regarding a particular property. Staff recommends that the triggers be based
upon verifiable information. The Planning Commission may consider whether it is more
appropriate to consider revocation after a certain total number of complaints or after
complaints are received from a certain number of adjacent properties.
Application, Approval Process and Notification Procedures
During the March 22, 2022 study session, the City Council suggested that all applications
be required to purchase mailing labels from the City at an additional cost to ensure proper
notification procedures are followed consistently. The current fee for the City to produce
mailing labels is $417.00 and would be charged in addition to the current $756.00
application fee. These fees would be in addition to the $34 annual cost to maintain a City
Business License.
Performance Standards
The City Council has asked that the Planning Commission review the current
performance standards and make any necessary changes. The City Council did not
discuss specific changes to performance standards and simply asked that the Planning
Commission explore possible ordinance amendments during their c onsideration. Staff
Page 196 of 243
Planning Commission
Discuss and Consider Amendments to Short Term Rental Ordinance
August 2, 2022
Page 9
has included a number of changes to the performan ce standards within Attachment 2.
Redlines showing those changes are included in Attachment 3.
Expiration
There is currently only one way that a short term rental approval can expire separately
from the revocation process. Short term rental approvals are conditioned to expire two
years from the date of approval if a Business License has been issued. During the short
term rental study session on March 22, 2022, the City Council suggested adding an
additional expiration threshold where approvals would automatically expire if an operator
does not remit TOT to the City for a consecutive period of twelve (12) months . City staff,
if directed, will contact permit holders informing them of the fact that their approval is
nearing expiration.
Parking
The Council asked that the Planning Commission specifically look at whether parking
requirements should be applied to short term rentals. There are currently no specific
parking requirements for short term rentals. For reference, single family homes, which
are the most common type of structure utilized for short term rentals, are required to
provide two enclosed parking spaces.
Next Steps
Following this hearing, staff will be incorporating the suggested changes from the
Planning Commission for final consideration by the City Council. There will be a total of
two public hearings at the City Council level for approval of the Ordinance and final
adoption.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Discuss and review the recommended Ordinance revisions and make a
recommendation to the City Council for adoption; or
2. Discuss and review the recommended Ordinance revisions and do not make a
recommendation to the City Council for adoption; or
3. Provide other direction to staff.
ADVANTAGES:
Recommendations for changes to the Ordinance will allow staff to make any necessary
revisions and continue to the City Council for final adoption in order to address concerns
from members of the community regarding STRs in the City.
DISADVANTAGES:
None identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community
Development Department has determined that the adoption of an ordinance to implement
Page 197 of 243
Planning Commission
Discuss and Consider Amendments to Short Term Rental Ordinance
August 2, 2022
Page 10
amendments to the short term rental regulations is consistent with the City’s General
Plan, and therefore is statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to
Section 15183.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Ordinance 663
3. Ordinance Amendments with redlines
4. Minutes from the September 3, 2019 Planning Commission meeting
5. Minutes from the October 12, 2021 City Council meeting
6. Minutes from the March 22, 2022 City Council meeting
7. Public Comment
Page 198 of 243
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ARROYO
GRANDE RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16 OF THE
ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING VACATION
RENTALS AND HOMESTAYS
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande (“City”) currently regulates vacation rentals or
homestays as established by Ordinance No. 663; and
WHEREAS, due to the increasing popularity of vacation rentals and homestays, City
Council held a study session on March 22, 2022 to discuss impacts and complaints
associated with short term rentals; and
WHEREAS, Council directed staff to amend existing regulations to ensure that impacts
are addressed and the character of existing neighborhoods is maintained, while providing
an expanded type of lodging facility available within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has duly initiated amendments to AGMC; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande, after giving notices
thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on August 2, 2022 concerning this code
amendment and carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered
in the case as presented; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Arroyo Grande hereby recommends the City Council adopt Ordinances approving
Development Code Amendment 22-002 amending Title 16 of the Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code as attached hereto as Exhibit “A” 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 2nd day of August 2022.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 199 of 243
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
______________________________
GLENN MARTIN
CHAIR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
PATRICK HOLUB
SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION
AS TO CONTENT:
_______________________________
BRIAN PEDROTTI
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Page 200 of 243
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING VACATION RENTALS AND
HOMESTAYS
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande (“City”) currently regulates vacation rentals or
homestays as established by Ordinance No. 663; and
WHEREAS, due to the increasing popularity of vacation rentals and homestays, City
Council held a study session on March 22, 2022 to discuss impacts and complaints
associated with short term rentals; and
WHEREAS, Council directed staff to amend existing regulations to ensure that impacts
are addressed and the character of existing neighborhoods is maintained, while providing
an expanded type of lodging facility available within the City; and
WHEREAS, it is the purpose of this Ordinance to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare within the City by establishing rules and requirements for vacation rentals and
homestays; and
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has duly initiated amendments to AGMC; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande, after giving notices
thereof as required by law, held a public hearing on August 2, 2022 concerning this code
amendment and carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff report offered
in the case as presented; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2022, the Planning Commission of the Arroyo Grande
recommended to the City Council amending Sections 16.52.230 and 16.52.240 of the
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande has, after giving notice thereof
as required by law, held a public hearing on __________, 2022, concerning the
amendments to AGMC Sections 16.52.230 and 16.52.240; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, at its regularly scheduled public
meeting on __________, 2022 introduced this Ordinance to amend Sections 16.52.230
and 16.04.070 of Title 16, Chapter 52 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered all pertinent testimony and the staff
report, its attachments and all supporting materials referenced therein or offered in the matter
as presented at the public hearing.
Page 201 of 243
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 4
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct and incorporated herein
by this reference.
SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.230 is hereby added amended
as follows:
SECTION 16.52.230 – VACATION RENTALS
A. Purpose and intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation
rentals located in the city conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in
which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent
properties.
B. Applicability. Vacation rentals may be permitted only with approval of a minor use
permit. Vacation rentals shall comply with the property development standards of
the underlying district and the performance standards and special conditions listed
in Section 16.52.230.C.
C. Performance standards and conditions for vacation rentals.
1. Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit-plot
plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license.
2. Any proposed vacation rental shall be compatible with the neighborhood in
which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character.
The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the
neighborhood
3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy of
the vacation rental shall be met.
4. All environmental health regulations shall be met.
5. The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is
being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a
fifteen (15) minute drive of the property. The contact person or entity must
be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a
week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental.
The contact person or entity shall respond, either in person or by return
telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the complaint within three (3)
hours between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm, and within thirty (30) minutes between
9:00 pm and 7:00 am. Vacation rental applicants shall be required to pay
Page 202 of 243
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 5
the City’s fee at the time of application to generate mailing labels for all
property owners within 300 feet.
6. The operator of the vacation rental shall annually, at the time of renewal of
the business license, notify the Community Development Department of the
name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in
subsection 16.52.230.C.6.
7. A written notice shall be conspicuously posted inside each vacation rental
unit setting forth the name, address and telephone number of the contact
person required in subsection 16.52.230.C.6. The notice shall also set forth
the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants
permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of vehicles
allowed to be parked on-site, and the day(s) established for garbage
collection. The notice shall also provide the non-emergency number of the
Arroyo Grande Police Department.
8. On-site advertising of the vacation rental is prohibited.
9. The number of overnight occupants shall be limited to two persons per
bedroom and two additional persons. A bedroom shall meet the minimum
size requirements as defined in the Building Code.
10. All refuse shall be stored in appropriate containers and placed at the curb
for collection every week.
11. The operator of the vacation rental shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax as
required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030.
12. Establishment of a vacation rental within 300 feet of an existing vacation
rental shall not be permitted.
13. Violations – violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for
revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220.
14. Vacation rentals shall not be approved within Planned Unit Developments
(PUDs).
15. The total number of approved vacation rentals within the City shall not
exceed 120.
16. Vacation rentals must remit TOT to the City at least once every twelve
months, otherwise the approval will automatically expire.
SECTION 3: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.04.070 is hereby amended as
follows:
Page 203 of 243
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 6
16.04.070.C. Definitions
“Homestay” means a structure on an owner-occupied parcel where a maximum of two (2)
short-term lodging rooms are provided for compensation while the property owner is
present on-site.
“Vacation rental” means a structure or structures on a property being rented for less than
thirty (30) days without concurrently being occupied by the owner/operator where the
short-term lodging is provided for compensation.
SECTION 4: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a Notice of
Exemption pursuant to 14 CCR § 15062.
SECTION 5: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper published
and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the City Council
meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified copy of the full
text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk. Within
fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the names of those
City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be published again, and
the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such adopted Ordinance.
SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of adoption.
On motion of Council Member , seconded by Council Member , and on the
following roll call vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Ordinance was adopted this day of , 2022.
Page 204 of 243
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 7
___________________________________
CAREN RAY RUSSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________
JESSICA MATSON, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
___________________________________
WHITNEY McDONALD, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY
Page 205 of 243
ORDINANCE NO. 663
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING VACATION RENTALS AND
HOMESTAYS
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande ("City") currently does not regulate vacation
rentals or homestays; and
WHEREAS, the City does regulate similar transient uses with similar impacts such as
bed and breakfast inns; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that, unless properly regulated, vacation rentals and
homestays can result in adverse impacts to adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation rentals and
homestays conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in which they are
located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, the increasing popularity of vacation rentals and homestays in the City the
implementation of appropriate regulations to ensure that impacts are addressed and the
character of existing neighborhoods is maintained, while providing an expanded type of
lodging facility available within the City; and
WHEREAS, it is the purpose of this Ordinance to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare within the City by establishing rules and requirements for vacation rentals and
homestays; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of all testimony and all relevant evidence, the City
Council has determined that the following Development Code Amendment findings can
be made in an affirmative manner:
A. The proposed revisions to Title 16 are required to ensure consistency with the
objectives, policies and implementation measures of the General Plan,
particularly the Land Use Element, and is therefore desirable to implement the
provisions of the General Plan.
B. The proposed revisions to Title 16 will not adversely affect the public health,
safety, and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern.
C. The proposed revisions are consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 16 and
satisfy the intent of Chapter 16.08 of the Municipal Code and provide for internal
consistency.
D. The proposed revisions to Title 16 are exempt under per Sections 15061(b)(3) and
15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 206 of 243
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Arroyo
Grande as follows:
SECTION 1: The above recitals and findings are true and correct and incorporated
herein by this reference.
SECTION 2: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.230 is hereby added as
follows:
SECTION 16.52.230 —VACATION RENTALS
A. Purpose and intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation
rentals located in the city conform to the existing character of the neighborhood
in which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent
properties.
B. Applicability. Vacation rentals may be permitted only with approval of a minor use
permit. Vacation rentals shall comply with the property development standards
of the underlying district and the performance standards and special conditions
listed in Section 16.52.230.C.
C. Performance standards and conditions for vacation rentals.
1. Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit-
plot plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license.
2. Any proposed vacation rental shall be compatible with the neighborhood in
which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural
character. The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing
uses with the neighborhood
3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy
of the vacation rental shall be met.
4. All environmental health regulations shall be met.
5. The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is
being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a
fifteen (15) minute drive of the property. The contact person or entity must
be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a
week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental.
The contact person or entity shall respond, -either in person or by return
telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the complaint within three (3)
hours between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm, and within thirty (30) minutes
between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Page 207 of 243
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE 3
6. The operator of the vacation rental shall annually, at the time of renewal of
the business license, notify the Community Development Department of
the name, address and telephone number of the contact person required
in subsection 16.52.230.C.6.
7. A written notice shall be conspicuously posted inside each vacation rental
unit setting forth the name, address and telephone number of the contact
person required in subsection 16.52.230.C.6. The notice shall also set
forth the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of
occupants permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of
vehicles allowed to be parked on-site, and the day(s) established for
garbage collection. The notice shall also provide the non-emergency
number of the Arroyo Grande Police Department.
8. On-site advertising of the vacation rental is prohibited.
9. The number of overnight occupants shall be limited to two persons per
bedroom and two additional persons. A bedroom shall meet the minimum
size requirements as defined in the Building Code.
10. All refuse shall be stored in appropriate containers and placed at the curb
for collection every week.
11. The operator of the vacation rental shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax as
required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030.
12. Establishment of a vacation rental within 300 feet of an existing vacation
rental on the same street shall not be permitted.
13. Violations — violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for
revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220.
SECTION 3: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.52.240 is hereby added as
follows:
SECTION 16.52.240 — HOMESTAYS
A. Purpose and intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that
homestays located in the city conform to the existing character of the
neighborhood in which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on
adjacent properties.
B. Applicability. Homestays may be permitted only with approval of a minor use
permit. Homestays shall comply with the property development standards of the
Page 208 of 243
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE 4
underlying district and the performance standards and special conditions listed in
Section 16.52.240.0.
C. Performance standards and conditions for homestays.
1. Operators of homestays are required to obtain a minor use permit-plot
plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license.
2. Any proposed homestay shall be compatible with the neighborhood in
which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural
character. The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing
uses with the neighborhood
3. All Building Code and Fire Code requirements far the level of occupancy
of the homestay shall be met.
4. All environmental health regulations shall be met.
5. The operator shall reside on the premises.
6. Individual guest stays shall be limited to fourteen (14) days, with a seven-
day period between stays.
7. On-site advertising of the homestay is prohibited.
8. A bedroom shall meet the minimum size requirements as defined in the
L Building Code.
9. The operator of the homestay shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax as
required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030.
10. Establishment of a homestay within 300 feet of an existing homestay on
the same street shall not be permitted.
11. Violations — violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for
revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220.
SECTION 4: The following definitions in Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection
16.04.070.C. are hereby amended or added as follows:
16.04.070.C. Definitions
Bed and breakfast inn" means an owner-occupied dwelling unit where three (3) or more
short-term lodging rooms and meals are provided for compensation or onsite signage is
desired.
r
Page 209 of 243
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE 5
Homestay" means an owner-occupied dwelling unit where a maximum of two (2) short-
term lodging rooms are provided for compensation.
Vacation rental" means a structure being rented for less than thirty (30) days without
concurrently being occupied by the owner/operator where the short-term lodging is
provided for compensation.
SECTION 5: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 16.16.080 is hereby amended to
add Subsection B.10 and Subsection C.6 as follows:
16.16.080.B.10. Establishment of vacation rentals or homestays in applicable zoning
districts identified in Table 16.32.040-A and Table 16.36.030(A).
16.16.080.C.6. For plot plan reviews establishing the use of property for vacation rental
purposes, the decision of the community development director shall also be mailed to all
property owners of parcels within three hundred (300) feet of the property for which the
plot plan review has been requested, in addition to the requirements of Section
16.16.080.C.5. The notice shall indicate the appeal provisions of Section 16.12.150.
SECTION 6: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Table 16.32.040-A, entitled "Uses
Permitted Within Residential Districts", Section A. Residential Uses is hereby amended
to add Subsection A.17. as follows:
USE RE RH RR RS SF VR D-2.4 MF MFA MFVH MHP
A. Residential Uses
17.Vacation Rentals MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP NP NP
and Homestays
SECTION 7: Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Table 16.36.030(A), entitled "Uses
Permitted Within Mixed Use and Commercial Districts", Section B. Services -General is
hereby amended to add the following use:
USE VCD VMU
HCO D-2.11
OMU1
TMU D- HCO D=Specific
IMU D-2.11 2.4 D-2.4 GMU FOMU HMU 2.20
RC2
Use Stds
B.Services -General
Vacation Rentals and NP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP NP 16.52.230
Homestays 16.52.240
SECTION 8: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause of
this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason'held to be unlawful, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or any part thereof.
The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection,
subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one
or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, or clause be declared
unconstitutional.
Page 210 of 243
ORDINANCE NO. 663
PAGE 6
SECTION 9: Upon adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a Notice of
Exemption pursuant to 14 CCR § 15062.
SECTION 10: A summary of this Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper
published and circulated in the City of Arroyo Grande at least five (5) days prior to the
City Council meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted. A certified
copy of the full text of the proposed Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City
Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the Ordinance, the summary with the
names of those City Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance shall be
published again, and the City Clerk shall post a certified copy of the full text of such
adopted Ordinance.
SECTION 11: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of
adoption.
On motion of Council Member Barneich, seconded by Council Member Brown, and on
the following roll call vote to wit:
AYES: Council Members Barneich, Brown, Costello, Guthrie, and Mayor Ferrara
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Ordinance was adopted this 10th day of June, 2014.
Page 211 of 243
ORDINANCE NO. (0493
PAGE 7
TONY F MAYOR
ATTEST:
Wgkitet'L--
KELLY ET j RE, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
S E ADAMS, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
7n/V-
TIMVIO111Y J. CARME"C, CITY ATTORNEY
1
Page 212 of 243
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, KELLY WETMORE, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San
Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that
the attached is a true, full, and correct copy of Ordinance No. 663 which was
introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on May 27, 2014; was passed
and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 10th day of June
2014; and was duly published in accordance with State law (G.C. 40806).
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this
12th
day of June 2014.
i 1 I
KELL WE/ ORE, CITY CLERK
Page 213 of 243
SECTION 16.52.230 – VACATION RENTALS
A.Purpose and intent. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that vacation
rentals located in the city conform to the existing character of the neighborhood in
which they are located and do not create an adverse impact on adjacent
properties.
B.Applicability. Vacation rentals may be permitted only with approval of a minor use
permit. Vacation rentals shall comply with the property development standards of
the underlying district and the performance standards and special conditions listed
in Section 16.52.230.C.
C.Performance standards and conditions for vacation rentals.
1.Operators of vacation rentals are required to obtain a minor use permit-plot
plan review (Section 16.16.080) and a business license.
2.Any proposed vacation rental shall be compatible with the neighborhood in
which it is located in terms of landscaping, scale and architectural character.
The use shall be harmonious and compatible with the existing uses with the
neighborhood
3.All Building Code and Fire Code requirements for the level of occupancy of
the vacation rental shall be met.
4.All environmental health regulations shall be met.
5.The operator of the vacation rental shall, at all times while the property is
being used as a vacation rental, maintain a contact person/entity within a
fifteen (15) minute drive of the property. The contact person or entity must
be available via telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a
week, to respond to complaints regarding the use of the vacation rental.
The contact person or entity shall respond, either in person or by return
telephone call, with a proposed resolution to the complaint within three (3)
hours between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm, and within thirty (30) minutes between
9:00 pm and 7:00 am. Vacation rental applicants shall be required to pay
the City’s fee at the time of application to generate mailing labels for all
property owners within 300 feet.
6.The operator of the vacation rental shall annually, at the time of renewal of
the business license, notify the Community Development Department of the
name, address and telephone number of the contact person required in
subsection 16.52.230.C.6.
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 214 of 243
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 2
7. A written notice shall be conspicuously posted inside each vacation rental
unit setting forth the name, address and telephone number of the contact
person required in subsection 16.52.230.C.6. The notice shall also set forth
the address of the vacation rental, the maximum number of occupants
permitted to stay overnight in the unit, the maximum number of vehicles
allowed to be parked on-site, and the day(s) established for garbage
collection. The notice shall also provide the non-emergency number of the
Arroyo Grande Police Department.
8. On-site advertising of the vacation rental is prohibited.
9. The number of overnight occupants shall be limited to two persons per
bedroom and two additional persons. A bedroom shall meet the minimum
size requirements as defined in the Building Code.
10. All refuse shall be stored in appropriate containers and placed at the curb
for collection every week.
11. The operator of the vacation rental shall pay Transient Occupancy Tax as
required by Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 3.24.030.
12. Establishment of a vacation rental within 300 feet of an existing vacation
rental on the same street shall not be permitted.
13. Violations – violation of these requirements shall constitute grounds for
revocation of the minor use permit pursuant to Section 16.16.220.
14. Vacation rentals shall not be approved within Planned Unit Developments
(PUDs).
15. The total number of approved vacation rentals within the City shall not
exceed 120.
16. Vacation rentals must remit TOT to the City at least once every twelve
months, otherwise the approval will automatically expire.
SECTION 3: The following definitions in Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Subsection
16.04.070.C. are hereby amended as follows:
16.04.070.C. Definitions
“Homestay” means an structure on an owner-occupied parcel where a maximum of two
(2) short-term lodging rooms are provided for compensation while the property owner is
present on-site.
Page 215 of 243
ORDINANCE NO.
PAGE 3
“Vacation rental” means a structure or structures on a property being rented for less than
thirty (30) days without concurrently being occupied by the owner/operator where the
short-term lodging is provided for compensation.
Page 216 of 243
ACTION MINUTES
MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 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 Jamie Maraviglia,Andrea Montes,Ken Sage,Vice
Chair Frank Schiro and Chair Glenn Martin were present.
Staff Present:Community Development Director Teresa McClish,Planning Manager
Matt Downing,Assistant Planner Andrew Perez,and Permit
Technician Patrick Holub were present.
3. FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Maraviglia led the flag salute.
4. AGENDA REVIEW
None.
5. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
None.
6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
The Commission received the following material after preparation of the agenda:
1.One memo dated September 3,2019 from Community Development Director McClish
related to Agenda Item 9.a.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.a.CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Recommended Action:Approve the minutes of the August 20,2019 Regular Planning
Commission Meeting.
7.b.CONSIDERATION OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 19-001;LOCATION –460
COACH ROAD; APPLICANT – MARTIN DELEON, MBS LAND SURVEYS
Recommended Action:It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution
approving Certificate of Compliance 19-001.
Action:Vice Chair Schiro moved to approve the consent agenda as submitted.Commissioner
Maraviglia seconded and the motion passed on the following voice vote:
AYES:Schiro, Maraviglia, Montes, Sage, and Martin
NOES:None
ABSENT:None
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 217 of 243
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 3, 2019
9. NON-PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.a.CONSIDERATION OF A STATUS REPORT ON THE CITY’S SHORT TERM
RENTAL ORDINANCE (Downing)
Recommended Action:It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss the short
term rental ordinance,provide feedback to staff,and make a recommendation to the City
Council, if necessary.
Planning Manager Downing presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
questions regarding enforcement, parking, and the permitting process.
Chair Martin opened the public comment period.
Jimmy Lehey asked whether the number of vacation rentals impacts the price of rental housing
in the City.
Chair Martin closed the public comment period.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the following items be discussed by the City
Council:
1.Implementation of parking requirements;
2.Administrative fines for non-permitted short term rentals;
3.Utilization of compliance technology to address non-permitted short term rentals; and
4.Reconsideration of current buffer distances or methods.
10. ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS SINCE AUGUST 20, 2019
Case No.Applicant Address Description Action Planner
PPR 19-019 Tom & Karen
Franck
626 Cerro
Vista Circle
Establishment of a
vacation rental in an
existing single family
residence.
A A. Perez
PPR 19-023 Figueroa
Mountain
Brewery
1462 E.
Grand Ave.
Establishment of a new
outdoor dining area in
an existing parking lot
for an existing
restaurant.
A A. Perez
TUP 19-007 St. Patrick
School
900 W.
Branch
Street
57th Annual Saint
Patrick BBQ and
Auction
A A. Perez
PPR 18-030 Aaron & Mallory
Scribner
408
Bakeman
Street
Establishment of a
vacation rental in an
existing single family
residence
A A. Perez
ARCH 19-
002
Arroyo Grande
Comercial, LLC
1570 W.
Branch
Street
Commercial façade
approval for entitled
drive-thru
A M. Downing
11. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Vice Chair Schiro reminded the public that the Arroyo Grande Beer Feast event,which will raise
funds for Meals on Wheels, will be held on October 12, 2019.
Page 218 of 243
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 3
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 3, 2019
12. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Community Development Director McClish informed the Commission that the September 17th
meeting would be cancelled due to a lack of a quorum,while staff and some Commissioners attend
the American Planning Associate Conference in Santa Barbara.
13. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m.
ATTEST:
/s/ Patrick Holub, Permit Technician (Approved at PC Mtg 10-01-2019)
Page 219 of 243
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2021
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET
ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA
Given the recent increase in COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County, and in compliance with
Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph
M. Brown Act, this meeting was held by teleconference.
1.CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ray Russom called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Council: Council Members Lan George, Kristen Barneich, Keith Storton, Mayor
Pro Tem Jimmy Paulding, and Mayor Caren Ray Russom were all
present via teleconference.
Staff Present: City Manager Whitney McDonald, Assistant City Manager/Public Works
Director Bill Robeson, City Attorney Timothy Carmel, City Clerk Jessica
Matson, Administrative Services Director Nicole Valentine, Utilities
Manager Shane Taylor.
3. MOMENT OF REFLECTION
4. FLAG SALUTE
Mayor Ray Russom led the flag salute.
5. AGENDA REVIEW
5.a. Closed Session Announcements.
None.
5.b. Ordinances read in title only.
None.
6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
6.a. Update Regarding Countywide COVID-19 Efforts.
Recommended Action: Receive update, accept public comments, discuss, and provide
direction, as necessary.
City Manager McDonald provided a brief update on COVID-19 efforts and responded to questions
from Council.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
No action was taken on this item.
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 220 of 243
Minutes: City Council Page 2
Tuesday, October 12, 2021
6.b. City Manager Communications.
Recommended Action: Receive correspondence/comments as presented by the City
Manager and provide direction, as necessary.
City Manager McDonald provided an update on Halloween events and stated that the Recreation
Services Department will be hosting a Halloween Carnival and Haunted Maze and that the
Halloween in the Village event will not take place this year.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
No action was taken on this item.
6.c. Honorary Proclamation Declaring October 2021 as “Domestic Violence Action
Month”.
Mayor Ray Russom read the Honorary Proclamation Declaring October 2021 as “Domestic
Violence Action Month”.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
No action was taken on this item.
6.d. Mayor’s Commendation Recognizing the Southwest Regional Council of
Carpenters Local Union 805.
Mayor Ray Russom read the Mayor’s Commendation Recognizing the Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters Local Union. Autumn Brown, and Manley McNinch, accepted the
Commendation.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
No action was taken on this item.
6.e. Presentation from San Luis Obispo Council of Governments – Commute with
Confidence.
Catalina Hubbard, Rideshare Outreach Coordinator, provided a presentation on the San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments campaign, Commute with Confidence.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
No action was taken on this item.
7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public were Jeff Edwards, Kris
Roudebush, Jim Guthrie, Stewart Errico, Francine Errico, Manley McNinch, and Linda Busek. No
further public comments were received. Staff responded to questions from Council.
Page 221 of 243
Minutes: City Council Page 3
Tuesday, October 12, 2021
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Ray Russom asked the Council if there were any questions or any items to be pulled from
the consent agenda for further discussion.
Council commented on Item 8.f. and staff responded to questions from Council on Item 8.g.
City Manager McDonald acknowledged the Supplemental Information regarding Item 8.h. and
requested that the Council continue the item to a date uncertain.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
Action: Council Member Storton moved to approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.g., with
the recommended courses of action. Council Member George seconded, and the motion passed
on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Storton, George, Barneich, Paulding, Ray Russom
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
8.a. Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification.
Action: Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period September 16, 2021
through September 30, 2021.
8.b. Consideration of Approval of Minutes.
Action: Approved the minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of
September 28, 2021, as submitted.
8.c. Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency Related to the
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic.
Action: Adopted a Resolution entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING A CONTINUED LOCAL EMERGENCY
RELATED TO THE CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) PANDEMIC”.
8.d. Cancellation of the December 28, 2021 City Council Meeting.
Action: Cancelled the regularly scheduled Council meeting of December 28, 2021 due to
the holidays.
8.e. Consideration to Approve an Agreement for Consultant Services with Salas O’Brien
for the Five Cities Fire Authority Station 1 Emergency Generator Replacement
Project, PW 2021-09.
Action: 1) Approved an Agreement for Consultant Services with Salas O'Brien in the
amount of $46,780 for design and construction support services of the FCFA Station 1
Emergency Generator Replacement Project; and 2) Approved an amendment to the Fiscal
Year 2021-22 Capital Improvement Program budget to transfer $4,280 of General Fund
from fund balance to the subject project.
8.f. Consideration of a Resolution Amending the Public Art Guidelines and Public Art
Donation Program.
Action: Adopted a Resolution entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING THE PUBLIC ART GUIDELINES AND
PUBLIC ART DONATION PROGRAM”.
8.g. Approve and Authorize the Mayor on Behalf of the City Council to Sign a Letter of
Support for the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Application for an Active
Transportation Plan.
Action: Approved and authorized the Mayor to sign the letter of support for the STPG
Page 222 of 243
Minutes: City Council Page 4
Tuesday, October 12, 2021
grant application.
8. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
8.h. Authorize a Resolution to Reduce Penalties for Past Due Water Bills Related to the
COVID-19 Pandemic (ROBESON/VALENTINE)
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution to allow the City’s Administrative Services
Director to reduce penalties to 10% of customers’ original water bill from May 2020 through
November 2021.
Action: Mayor Ray Russom moved to continue the item to a date uncertain. Council Member
George seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Ray Russom, George, Barneich, Storton, Paulding
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.a. Continued Consideration of Approval of a Resolution Declaring a Stage 1 Water
Shortage Emergency.
Utilities Manager Shane Taylor presented the item and recommended that the Council: 1)
Conduct a Public Hearing in accordance with Water Code Section 350, et seq.; 2) Adopt a
Resolution declaring a Stage 1 Water Shortage Emergency and implementing Emergency
Water Shortage Restrictions and Regulations in accordance with California Water Code
Section 350, et seq., and Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 13.07.030(A); and 3)
Appropriate $2,800 from water fund balance and $1,200 from sewer fund balance for the cost
to mail out baseline letters. Staff responded to questions from Council.
Mayor Ray Russom opened the public hearing. Speaking from the public were Jim Guthrie, and
Francine Errico. City Clerk Matson read into the record written correspondence received from
Patty Welsh. Upon hearing no further comments, Mayor Ray Russom closed the public hearing.
Action: Council Member Storton moved to adopt a Resolution entitled: “A Resolution of the
City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande Declaring a Stage 1 Water Shortage
Emergency in Accordance with California Water Code Section 350 and Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code Section 13.07.030”; and Appropriate $2,800 from water fund balance and
$1,200 from sewer fund balance for the cost to mail out baseline letters. Mayor Pro Tem
Paulding seconded, and the motion passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Storton, Paulding, Barneich, George, Ray Russom
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Page 223 of 243
Minutes: City Council Page 5
Tuesday, October 12, 2021
Mayor Ray Russom called for a brief break at 8:05 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:11 p.m.
10. OLD BUSINESS:
10.a. Discuss and Consider Allocations of Anticipated American Rescue Plan Act
Funding Not Previously Allocated by Council.
City Manager McDonald presented the item and recommended that the Council: 1) Appropriate
$1,254,275 of ARPA Funds to additional Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Infrastructure
projects and qualified anticipated City expenditures related to the COVID-19 pandemic as
recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee; and 2) Consider and provide direction regarding
allocation of the remaining $552,016 of anticipated ARPA Funds to other qualified uses
consistent with US Treasury guidance.
Council discussed the recommended allocations and applications for funding received.
Council expressed support for providing an opportunity for non-profit organizations to apply
for funding.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public were Wendy Wendt, Anne
Wyatt, Shana Paulson, Ken Dalebout, Jamie Sanbonmatsu, and Marcia Alter. No further
comments were received.
Action: Mayor Pro Tem Paulding moved to appropriate $1,254,275 of ARPA Funds to
additional Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Infrastructure projects and qualified anticipated City
expenditures related to the COVID-19 pandemic as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee;
allocate $300,000 to the 5Cities Homeless Coalition and direct staff to bring back specific
scope for the project; allocate $114,129 for non-profit assistance/community service grant
program to be split between the next two fiscal years; allocate $100,000 for child care
assistance and direct staff to bring back specific scope for the project; and allocate $37,887
to SmartShare ADU SLO to be used for Arroyo Grande residents and require that the ADU
not be converted to a vacation rental. Council Member Barneich seconded, and the motion
passed on the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Paulding, Barneich, Storton, George, Ray Russom
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
11. NEW BUSINESS
None.
12. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Pro Tem Paulding requested that an item regarding vacation rental policies be placed on
a future agenda for consideration. Council Member George concurred. Council Member Barneich
requested the item include an update on enforcement and for more information to be included on
the City website.
Page 224 of 243
Minutes: City Council Page 6
Tuesday, October 12, 2021
Mayor Ray Russom announced that the Mayor's Challenge: Halloween House Decorating
Contest will be taking place and urged residents to participate; that those wanting to help fund
Arroyo Grande Public Art can join in “Dining with a Purpose” at Rooster Creek on Tuesday,
November 16th; and that she will be meeting with Vanessa Carr from Governor Newsom’s office
and will report back on that meeting.
13. CLOSED SESSION
None.
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Ray Russom adjourned
the meeting at 10:44 p.m.
/s/Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/Jessica Matson, City Clerk
(Approved at CC Mtg 10-26-2021)
Page 225 of 243
1
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
March 22, 2022, 6:00 p.m.
Hybrid City Council Chamber/Virtual Zoom Meeting
215 E Branch Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Webinar ID: 832 5584 8846
By Telephone: 1-669-900-6833; 1-346-248-7799
Council Members Present: Mayor Ray Russom, Council Member
Paulding, Council Member Barneich, Council
Member Storton, Mayor Pro Tem George
Staff Present: City Clerk Jessica Matson, City Attorney
Timothy Carmel, City Manager Whitney
McDonald, Assistant City Manager/Public
Works Director Bill Robeson, Administrative
Services Director Nicole Valentine,
Community Development Director Brian
Pedrotti, Acting Planning Manager Andrew
Perez, Assistant Planner Patrick Holub
Given the recent increase in COVID-19 cases in San Luis Obispo County, and in compliance with
Assembly Bill (AB) 361, which allows for a deviation of teleconference rules required by the Ralph M.
Brown Act, this meeting was held by teleconference.
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Ray Russom called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Matson took roll call.
3. MOMENT OF REFLECTION
4. FLAG SALUTE
Jim Gregory, I.O.O.F. Lodge 258, led the flag salute.
5. AGENDA REVIEW
ATTACHMENT 6
Page 226 of 243
2
Mayor Ray Russom suggested that the Council hear the following items out of order after Item 8: Item
12 Council Reports, Item 13 Council Communications, followed by Items 9.a., 11.b. and then 11.a. The
Council concurred.
5.a Closed Session Announcements
a) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION pursuant to Government Code
Section 54957:
Title: City Manager
City Attorney Carmel announced that there was no reportable action.
5.b Ordinances read in title only
Moved by Mayor Ray Russom
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem George
Move that all ordinances presented at the meeting shall be read by title only and all further
readings be waived.
AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Council Member Paulding, Council Member Barneich, Council
Member Storton, and Mayor Pro Tem George
Passed (5 to 0)
6. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
6.a Update Regarding Countywide COVID-19 Efforts
City Manager McDonald provided a brief update on COVID-19.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
No action was taken on this item.
6.b City Manager Communications
City Manager McDonald announced that the City has hired Christina Alvarez as the Community
Services Specialist; provided information regarding the Strother Park Public Art Project Ribbon
Cutting Ceremony, sports leagues returning to Soto Sports Complex, Recreation Services'
Bunny Gram Program; and discussed upcoming items for Council consideration.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
No action was taken on this item.
6.c Honorary Proclamation Declaring the Month of April 2022 as "Month of the Child" and
“Child Abuse Prevention Month”
Mayor Ray Russom read the Honorary Proclamation Declaring the Month of April 2022 as
"Month of the Child" and "Child Abuse Prevention Month". Jaime Sanbonmatsu, accepted the
proclamation.
Page 227 of 243
3
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public was Lisa Fraser. No
further public comments were received.
No action was taken on this item.
7. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public were Dale Anthem, Krista
Jeffries, and Simone. No further public comments were received.
8. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Ray Russom asked the Council if there were any questions or any items to be pulled from the
consent agenda for further discussion. There were none.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. No public comments were received.
Moved by Council Member Barneich
Seconded by Council Member Storton
Approve Consent Agenda Items 8.a. through 8.f., with the recommended courses of action. City
Attorney Carmel read the full title of the Ordinance in item 8.d.
AYES (5): Mayor Ray Russom, Council Member Paulding, Council Member Barneich, Council Member
Storton, and Mayor Pro Tem George
Passed (5 to 0)
8.a Consideration of Cash Disbursement Ratification
Ratified the listing of cash disbursements for the period of February 16 through February 28,
2022.
8.b Approval of Minutes
Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 8, 2022 and Special City
Council Meeting of March 11, 2022, as submitted.
8.c Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Declaring a Continued Local Emergency
Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Authorizing the Continuance of Remote
Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54953(e)(3)
Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE DECLARING A CONTINUED LOCAL EMERGENCY RELATED TO THE
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) PANDEMIC AND AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUANCE OF
REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY
OF ARROYO GRANDE PURSUANT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e)".
8.d Consideration of Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.08 of Title 8 of the
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Regarding the Sale and Discharge of Class C (“Safe and
Sane”) Fireworks
Page 228 of 243
4
Adopted an Ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.08 OF THE ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO THE DISCHARGE OF “SAFE AND SANE” FIREWORKS".
8.e Consideration of Adoption of a Resolution Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section
22050 Terminating the Emergency Declaration for the Storm Drain System at 251 East
Grand Avenue Project, PW 2021-12
1) Received and filed the final report of the emergency storm drain system repairs project at 251
East Grand Avenue; and 2) Adopted a Resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE TERMINATING THE EMERGENCY
DECLARATION FOR REPAIRS TO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AT 251 EAST GRAND
AVENUE".
8.f Monthly Water Supply and Demand Update
Received and filed the monthly Water Supply and Demand Report.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Council heard Item 12 next followed by Item 13.
9.a Public Hearing on the Establishment of a District-Based Election System and
Introduction of an Ordinance Establishing By-District Elections for Four Council
Members, Defining District Boundaries, and Scheduling the Order of Elections for Each
District
City Clerk Matson introduced the item and Daniel Phillips, Consultant with National
Demographics Corporation, provided a presentation regarding the process for transitioning to
District Elections.
Mayor Ray Russom opened the public hearing. Speaking from the public was Jim Guthrie.
Upon hearing no further public comments, Mayor Ray Russom closed the public hearing.
Moved by Council Member Storton
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem George
Introduce an Ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE, ADDING CHAPTER 2.21 TO TITLE 2 OF THE CITY OF ARROYO
GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING BY-DISTRICT ELECTIONS FOR FOUR
COUNCIL MEMBERS, DEFINING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, AND SCHEDULING THE
ORDER OF ELECTION FOR EACH DISTRICT", and clarified the selection of Plan 202 Mod,
with an election sequence of Districts 1 and 4 in November 2022 and Districts 2 and 3 in 2024.
AYES (4): Council Member Paulding, Council Member Barneich, Council Member Storton, and
Mayor Pro Tem George
NOES (1): Mayor Ray Russom
Passed (4 to 1)
10. OLD BUSINESS
Page 229 of 243
5
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS
The Council heard Item 11.b. next.
Mayor Ray Russom called for a brief break at 8:55 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:03 p.m. and
returned to Item 11.a.
11.a Study Session Regarding Short Term Rentals (Vacation Rentals and Homestays) and
Potential Revisions to the City’s Short Term Rental Ordinance
City Attorney Carmel commented on the Fair Political Practices Commission's (FPPC) advice
regarding the conflicts of interest for Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem George, Council
Member Storton, and Council Member Barneich.
City Clerk Matson explained the process for randomly drawing straws to determine which two of
the conflicted Council members may hear the item. Mayor Ray Russom, Mayor Pro Tem
George, and Council Members Barneich and Storton drew straws. Mayor Ray Russom and
Council Member Storton drew the short straws and remained in the meeting to hear the item.
Mayor Pro Tem George and Council Member Barneich left the meeting.
Community Development Director Pedrotti introduced the item and Assistant Planner Holub
provided a presentation and responded to questions from Council.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public were John Keen, and Jim
Guthrie. City Clerk Matson read into the record written comments received from Krista Jeffries.
No further public comments were received.
Council discussion ensued regarding staff recommendations.
At 10:52 p.m., Mayor Ray Russom stated that pursuant to Council policy, the Council must vote
unanimously to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m.
Mayor Ray Russom moved to continue the meeting to 11:10 p.m. Council Member Paulding
seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously by voice vote.
Council directed staff to include a Short Term Rental buffer for homestays and vacation rentals;
apply a cap of 120 vacation rentals; send the performance standards and parking standards
sections of the Ordinance to Planning Commission for review; do not place approvals on a
cancelled Planning Commission agenda; charge for mailing labels to notice neighbors; revoke
permits if no Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is generated within a 12 month period; research a
full service company to administer host compliance; add a section to the permit application
where applicants can state they will provide contact information to neighbors each year; and
create a process to notify the public regarding the number of current permits. Council also
requested that staff bring back a discussion regarding administrative fines for violation of the
Ordinance.
No action was taken on this item.
11.b Study Session for City Council to Provide Direction on a New Ordinance to Implement
Senate Bill 9
Page 230 of 243
6
Acting Planning Manager Perez presented the staff report. Acting Planning Manager Perez,
Community Development Director Pedrotti and City Manager McDonald responded to questions
from Council.
Mayor Ray Russom invited public comment. Speaking from the public was Rachel Mann, John
Keen, and Jim Guthrie. City Clerk Matson read into the record written comments from Krista
Jeffries. No further public comments were received. City Attorney Carmel and City Manager
McDonald responded to questions from the public.
Council expressed support for the proposed draft Ordinance and staff recommendations
including the prohibition of short term rentals and requiring undergrounding of utilities. Council
directed staff to provide clarification in Section D of the draft Ordinance regarding parking, to
leave the height restriction for further discussion, and requested the addition of a disclaimer
regarding abiding by individual CCRs.
No action was taken on this item.
Mayor Ray Russom called for a brief break at 8:55 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:03 p.m.
and returned to Item 11.a.
12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
The City Council provided brief reports from the following committee, commission, board, or other
subcommittee meetings that they attended as the City’s appointed representative.
12.a MAYOR RAY RUSSOM:
1. California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA)
2. South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD)
3. Tourism Business Improvement District Advisory Board
4. Other
12.b MAYOR PRO TEM GEORGE:
1. County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC)
2. Visit SLO CAL Advisory Board
3. Other
12.c COUNCIL MEMBER BARNEICH:
1. Audit Committee
2. Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC)
3. Zone 3 Water Advisory Board
4. Other
12.d COUNCIL MEMBER STORTON:
1. Brisco/Halcyon Interchange Subcommittee
Page 231 of 243
7
2. Five Cities Fire Authority (FCFA)
3. Integrated Waste Management Authority Board (IWMA)
4. South County Chambers of Commerce Governmental Affairs Committee
5. Other
12.e COUNCIL MEMBER PAULDING:
1. Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
2. Brisco/Halcyon Interchange Subcommittee
3. Council of Governments/Regional Transit Authority/ South County Transit
(SLOCOG/SLORTA/SCT)
4. REACH SLO Advisory Commission
5. Other
13. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Council Member Storton discussed having a rotational schedule for the Arroyo Grande Business
Meetings hosted by the South County Chambers of Commerce. Mayor Pro Tem George and Council
Member Paulding concurred and stated that they would like to be included in the rotation.
14. CLOSED SESSION
None.
15. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Ray Russom adjourned the
meeting at 11:08 p.m.
_________________________
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
_________________________
Jessica Matson, City Clerk
Page 232 of 243
From:public comment
To:pc publiccomment
Cc:Brian Pedrotti; Andrew Perez; Patrick Holub
Subject:FW: The attached letter and recommendations
Date:Tuesday, June 28, 2022 2:31:54 PM
Attachments:Ide airb&b,2June 12-2.docx
Short Term Rental Moratorium.docx
emaillogo 190eb98f-3dbf-4ac8-a0d6-5f778ed0ba4d1111111111111111111111111111111111111.png
For Planning Commission.
public comment
Public Comment
Public Comment
Tel: 805-473-5400 | www.arroyogrande.org
300 E Branch St | Arroyo Grande | CA | 93420
City Hall Business Hours: M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm; Closed Fridays
The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email
correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public
Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law.
From: Peggy Coon <>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 1:36 PM
To: public comment <publiccomment@arroyogrande.org>
Cc: Peggy Coon <>
Subject: The attached letter and recommendations
Dear City Clerk,
Please send the enclosed information the all the members of the City Planning Commission so that they
will hav it in advance of the July 19th meeting. Thank you so much.
Peggy Coon
ATTACHMENT 7
Page 233 of 243
June 12, 2022
Patrick Holub and City Planning Management, Mayor, City Council Members and
Planning Committee Members
Dear Patrick,
You and I have been corresponding for some time regarding the house located at 528 Ide Street
owned by Patrick and Samantha Cusack I believe.
Within the past two weeks, you informed me that this house had become an approved “Home
Stay “residence in March of 2022. You also sent me documentation of this and the
requirements for a house to be a Home Stay property. Many months ago, you also confirmed
to me that this home could never be an Airbnb as it was within 300 ft of the Airbnb at 506 Ide
Street.
You can imagine our surprise last night when we saw on Airbnb, that the house at 528 was
listed as a new Airbnb with an immediate availability for occupancy. In fact, after about 24
hours of being listed, several weekends have been reserved by short time vacationers.
This house at 528 is listed as a sleep 5, 2 bed, 2 bath home and 43 photos dramatically show all
the amenities. Professional photos are used so this is a well thought out marketing approach.
This property is called “Twin Palms” in the Airbnb literature.
The below neighbors on Ide /Cross Streets ask the City of AG to have this Airbnb’s advertising
removed immediately and the owners be required to comply with Arroyo Grande rules and
regulations .
The neighbors on Ide/Cross, listed below, certainly believe in free enterprise but it must be
within the law and requirements of the City of Arroyo Grande. We want to see this apparent
non legal Airbnb stopped immediately. We look forward to your response prior to the arrival of
their first Airbnb vacationers this week.
Most Sincerely,
Peggy and David Coon
Beth and Ron Bartow
Lisa Le Sage
Paul and Linda Wineberg
Nate and Amy Erickson
Socorro and BoB Taylor
Page 234 of 243
Request Immediate
Short Term Rental Moratorium, July 1, 2022
Items to review and consider for implementation
Review existing short -term rentals for compliance. What are the true numbers of
short -term rentals legal and others? The current list of Airbnb owners may be
outdated by three+ years.
Convert short-term rentals without permits to permitted properties where
appropriate, so true numbers of short- term rentals are known. Once a total
number of short-term rentals is known, consider placing a cap. Consider a limit of
short- term rentals per owner. Consider increasing the fee for STR ‘s.
Reconsider 300 ft. spacing between all short -term rentals. What other method
should be used? Percent per block? What comprises a block? Some blocks are
very short in AG. What if the block already has high density of long -term rentals?
Should something besides a plot plan be required for a home stay to ensure rental
rooms are available? How do you confirm owner occupancy?
It appears that short term rental permits are approved from months to a year+
before that status goes live. Consider having proof of habitability and owner
occupancy prior to granting permits.
Contact Airbnb to arrange a contract with them to collect transient occupancy
taxes or TOT and send directly to the City. Apparently, AG allows short -term
rental owners to self-report and relies on good will and trust. Old research
indicated that STR owners use a variety of platforms to rent properties. Perhaps a
survey of owners will determine if Airbnb is the dominant platform used by
owners. Airbnb only charges 3% and we are told the system is easy to use.
Airbnb takes the responsibility of sending the documented TOT to the City.
Review an updated list of permitted Airbnb’s in comparison to listings of rentals
on Airbnb site.
Page 235 of 243
Review and discuss what other small cities are doing during a moratorium.
Change the current violation driven review process to a process controlled by
the City. (Neighbors do not want to police their neighbors nor neighborhoods.)
Review minutes from previous Planning Commission Meetings where neighbors
surfaced problems in their neighborhoods relating to short term rentals. Consider
these requests /results again in light of updated research.
Consider modifying the current STR regs to make available a higher % of long-
term rentals in our community to benefit educators, first responders and even
new employees for the City and others during this period of extreme housing
shortage.
Use this moratorium period to implement expected technology and other tools to
upgrade the handling of short -term rentals.
Consider who are the best stewards when it comes to the water crisis that may
eventually become dire?
Ide Street should be treated as an anomaly in STR’s regs.
Ide Street does not extend from Traffic Way to Garden Streets. Other streets
such as Cherry and Allen run the expanse of the village. Decades ago, apartment
buildings, duplexes and triplexes were built on Ide Street. Currently there is also
an approved ADU and room rentals. There is an active Airbnb and perhaps soon,
three additional Homestay properties. When is enough, enough for such a small
street with numerous rentals of all types? It is fair to say that Ide has more
rentals than any other street in the village. (City Planning can verify this)
The mini block of Ide between Cross and Garden Streets has only 11 properties.
Currently, two properties are triplexes, and two others have /will be approved as
a home stay property and Airbnb. That means that almost 27% of mini-Ide, will
be short- and long-term rentals. Please consider a more reasonable percentage of
overall rentals and short- term rentals so that stakeholders are valued, and
neighborhoods are not further saturated with rentals. Please review the west
end of Ide for a saturation of long- and short-term rentals.
Page 236 of 243
Currently there is no separation requirement between home stay properities and
Airbnb’s. There is no requirement for home stay owners to notify neighbors.
Consider that when a long -standing home status is changed by permit, that
notification to neighbors is crucial. Also, consider greater separation of STR’s and
home stay properties so they are not side by side nor facing each other or
saturating a block.
We agree with 2019 statement that “we want the existing character of the
neighborhood maintained.” Additionally, we request that STR’s have no further
impact on adjacent properties nor add to the excess in rental load.
We look forward to the implementation of an immediate moratorium to research,
review, consider the best path forward to maintain the local charm that is
evidenced in Arroyo Grande and a healthy and fair balance between STR’s, long
term rentals and homeowners.
Ide/Cross Street Neighbors,
June 21, 2022
P.S Some of the small towns that were considered to develop the above
recommendations include:
Carmel By the Sea, no STR’s allowed
Monterey, requires $6,000 fee for STR
Lake Tahoe, in moratorium
Sonora, in moratorium
Pacific Grove, cap numbers of STR’s and limits STR’s to two per owner, lottery
installed.
Ojai
Page 237 of 243
From:public comment
To:pc publiccomment
Cc:Andrew Perez; Patrick Holub; Brian Pedrotti
Subject:FW: The attached letter and recommendations
Date:Tuesday, June 28, 2022 2:32:25 PM
Attachments:emaillogo 190eb98f-3dbf-4ac8-a0d6-5f778ed0ba4d1111111111111111111111111111111111111.png
public comment
Public Comment
Public Comment
Tel: 805-473-5400 | www.arroyogrande.org
300 E Branch St | Arroyo Grande | CA | 93420
City Hall Business Hours: M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm; Closed Fridays
The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, or the employee or
agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in
error, please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message. Please note that email
correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande, along with attachments, may be subject to the California Public
Records Act, and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law.
From: Peggy Coon <>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2022 2:41 PM
To: public comment <publiccomment@arroyogrande.org>
Subject: Re: The attached letter and recommendations
Please let the Planning Commissioners know that the violation that was reported was abated the
following day by the City Planning staff and code enforcement. However many questions and concerns
remain especially how this process can be changed to not include neighbors reporting on neighbors. The
ivy is growing all over the place without a trellis to support it that is why a moratorium is requested. P.
Coon
On Monday, June 27, 2022, 01:35:49 PM PDT, publiccomment@arroyogrande.org
<publiccomment@arroyogrande.org> wrote:
Thank you for providing comment on the City Council Agenda. We have received your comment and it
will be included in the record and provided to City Council.
Sincerely,
Arroyo Grande City Clerk
Page 238 of 243
MEMORANDUM
TO: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
FROM: ANDREW PEREZ, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
AGENDA ITEM 8.a – AUGUST 2, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO SHORT TERM RENTAL
ORDINANCE
DATE: AUGUST 2, 2022
Attached is public comment received for the above referenced item after the publication of
the agenda.
cc: Community Development Director
City Website
Page 239 of 243
From:Peggy Coon
To:Caren Ray Russom; Lan George; Kristen Barneich; Jimmy Paulding; Keith Storton; Brian Pedrotti; Andrew Perez;
pc publiccomment
Subject:Short term rental issues
Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 8:25:25 PM
Attachments:Recommendations to City Planning Committee.docx
Short Term Rental Moratorium.docx
Mayor and City Council Members,
Our neighborhood group of seven families on Ide/Cross Streets recently reported an apparent violation of
the Arroyo Grande short term housing Ordinance. The owner of 528 Ide was approved in March, 2022 to
have a home stay property requiring owner occupancy. This owner was found to be in violation of City
short term rental Ordinance when marketing commenced some time in late May/early June on the Airbnb
website with no owner in residence. Unfortunately, issues surrounding short term rental regulations, and a
complaint driven system, continue to frustrate the Ide/Cross Street neighbors. We have reported up to six
additional apparent violations of this owner who continued to rent this house as an airbnb after being
asked to STOP by the City. To date, we have heard little from the City Planning Office except that this
owner, along with other family members, now plan to change all their permits around. Also, the City may
be investigating if one of the recent rentals was made to a friend or relative.
Because of our experience with the AG City Planning Office, research on what other small towns are
doing with STR's, and careful discussions and considerations, we will present the attached
recommendations along with our reasons to support these recommendations, at the Tuesday, Planning
commission Meeting at 6pm. We hope the Commission, Council and others will be inclusive of the
resident input as we are living with the results of your decisions.
We know that the City of AG is taking some steps to strengthen the Ordinance but more needs to be
accomplished to streamline processes, to collect appropriate TOT fees and see that neighbors are
protected from owners in violation and a system driven by complaints. Several of our neighbors would be
pleased to meet with you if you have further questions about our experiences. Thanks you for your
attentions and consideration.
Peggy Coon and Ide/Cross St. neighbors
PS Please note that I am sending a second set or recommendations, where we asked for an immediate
moratorium on any further STR's, that we made to the City some time ago. We never heard any response
at all except that the Council could not vote on a moratorium due to the ownership of STR's and other
rental properties by 4-5 Council Representatives.
Page 240 of 243
Recommendations to City Planning Committee
By Ide/Cross Street Neighbors, For August 2, 2022
City Planning Commission Meeting
• Place a cap on all STR’s (home, farm and airbnb’s) at 116 total
permits. Reason: City needs to update staff and technology to
handle number of STR’s they have now.
• Install lottery system so all homeowners have an opportunity to
attain the next available STR permit. Reason: Fairness to all
interested parties will be critical when cap is installed.
• Limit all STR permits to just (2) two per owner including LLCs.
Reason: Fairness to all.
• Require a 300ft. buffer between all types of STR’s including those
on the same and adjacent streets. Reason: Currently an owner
can have an STR on either side of them and across the street
with no buffer. (Buffer between Airbnb and home and farm
stays)
• Require all STR permit holders to notify homeowners within 300
ft. of any change in status. Reason: Currently home and farm stay
permit holders are not required to notify neighbors. Some are
functioning as airbnb’s as City has no way to confirm “owner
occupancy” currently. Neighbors have no emergency numbers if
problem occur.
• Planning Commission should notify/invite neighbors to make
comments in advance of STR permit issuance. Reason:
Impossible to retract permit once issued even if neighbors
Page 241 of 243
present legitimate reasons after the permit is issued. Cost of
appeal after the fact is too costly for community participation.
• Establish method to determine if permit applicants meet
requirements such as “owner occupied” in advance of issuance.
Reconfirm owner occupancy before home and farm stay
properties go “live.” Reason: Review all current home and farm
stay properties to confirm occupancy requirement and rental
scheduling requirements are followed. Otherwise, they are
airbnb’s and neighbors have no emergency contacts.
• Survey STR permit holders to determine dominate rental platform
used for marketing properties. Reason: Have dominant platform,
such as airbnb, collect TOT and pay directly to the city. Save time
and possible increase in TOT. Serves as additional verification of
rental usage.
• Replace current code enforcement system based on neighbors
reporting complaints/violations, to a professionally managed
system using compliance technology and highly trained staff to
interface with sophisticated STR permit holders. Reason: Current
system is not functioning at various levels and appears to favor
permit holders. Investigations are not resolved, nor feedback
given to neighbors. Reporting complaints on neighbors is
outated system of operating.
• Hold permit holders accountable when violations are established
and enforce the Ordinance as written. Reason: Permit holders
need to be held accountable for fraud, falsification, and
misrepresentation of permit information.
Page 242 of 243
• Take a break, call a moratorium until the above can be
implemented!
Page 243 of 243