PC R 91-1344RESOLUTION NO. 91- 13 4 4
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMNIISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE CERTIFYING THAT THE
ENVIItONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CENTRAL
COAST BOWL PROJECT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT AND CERTIFYING THAT THE PLANNING
CONINIISSION HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT; PARCEL MAP CASE NO. 90-490;
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 90-479, AND
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CASE NO. 90-457, AND
INSTRUCTING THE SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE
OF DETERMINATION.
WHEREAS, the City of Arroyo Grande has received applications for the Central Coast
Bowl Project for the approval of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (Parcel Map Case No. 90-490),
a Conditional Use Permit (CUP Case No. 90-479), and Architectural Review (ARC Case No.
90-457) on a 218,587.5 square foot lot; and
WFIEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the
draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Central Coast Bowl Project; and
WHEREAS, the draft EIR has been prepared and circulated pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Rules and
Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings were held by the Planning Commission of the
City of Arroyo Grande On May 5, 1991, June 4, 1991, August 6, 1991 and August 20, 1991,
at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR relating to the Central Coast Bowl Project and responses to
the concerns raised during the review period and at the public hearings were prepared pursuant
to CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Rules and Procedures for the
Implementation of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
1. Based on the information set forth in the EIR, and the Statement of Significant
Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures, attached to the Resolution for
approval as Attachment A and incorporated to the Resolution for approval as
Attachment A and incorporated herein by reference, the Agency finds and
determines that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which avoid or substantially lessen the adverse environmental effects
identified in the EIR for (i) Landform Modification; (ii) Drainage; (iii) Noise; (iv)
Glare; (v) Visual Quality; (vi) Traffic; (viii) Land Use Compatibility; (ix)
Cultural Resources; (x) Public Safety; (xi) Water Supply; and (xii) Air Quality.
�
2. No additional adverse impacts will have a significant effect or result in a
substantial or potentially substantially adverse change in the environment as a
result of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit and
Architectural Review.
3. The Planning Commission finds and determines that all significant environmental
effects identified in the EIR have been reduced to an acceptable level in that all
significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated
or substantially lessened as determined through the findings set forth in
paragraphs (1) and (2) above.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information
contained in the draft and Final EIRs for the Central Coast Bowl Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Arroyo Grande, California as follows:
1. The Planning Commission certifies that the Environmental Impact Report for the
Central Coast Bowl Project has been prepared and completed in compliance with
CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Rules and Procedures for the
implementation of CEQA.
2. The Planning Commission instructs the Secretary to file a Notice of
Determination.
On motion by Commissioner Carr, seconded by Chairman Gallagher, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Boggess, Carr and Chairman Gallagher
NOES: Commissioner Moore
ABSENT: Commissioners Souza, Soto and Brandy
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 20th day of August 1991.
AT ST:
�
Pearl L. Phinney, Secretary
�r
ATTACIIlVI�NT "A"
STATFMENT OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIItONMENTAL
EI+'I+'ECTS A1VD 1VIITIGATION M�ASURT..S
BACKGROUND �
The California Environmental Qu�lity Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines
promulgated pursuant thereto provide:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
Environmental Impact Report has been completed and which identifies one
or more signif'icant environmental effects of the project unless the public
agency makes one or more writtem t'indings for each of those significant
effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rational for each finding."
(Section 15091)
The Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande (the "City") propose to approve
the Central Coast Bowl Project (Tentative Parcel Map Case No. 90-490, Conditional Use
Permit CASe No. 90-479, Architectural Review Case No. 90-45'n. Because the proposed
action constitutes an action under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared
a Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIIt) for the Project. . The EIR identified certain
significant effects that may occur as a result of this project. �rther, the City has
determined th�t the �IR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines and the "City of Arroyo Grande Rules And Procedures for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act".
I. LANDFORM MODIFICATION
A. Effec : Earthwork and grading will cause dust und � create slope banks
requiring temporAry and permanent erosion control. Existing trees on the site
could be endangered by grading and construction activities.
B. Mitigation:
1. If grading occurs after November 15 and before April 15, all areas
disturbed by grading shall receive the following treatment: 1) provide
appropriate surface drain�ge facilities to prevent erosion (e.g.,
diversion ditches, catch basins, berms, jute net on 2:1 slopes), 2) a
non-irrigated hydroseed mixture shall be a�plied prior to November
15th of the year to beneCt from early Fall rains, and 3) non-irrigated
hydroseed mixture shall include I.asthenia glabrata, Bromus mollis,
Dimorphotheca aurantiaca, Eschscholtzia californica, and Trifolium
hirtum.
2. If grading occurs in between April 15 and November 15, all areas
disturbed by grading shall receive the following treatment: 1) provide
appropriate surFace drainage facilities to prevent erosion (e.g.,
diversion ditches, catch basins, berms, jute net oa 2:1 slopes), 2)an
irrigated hydroseed mixture shall be applied upon completion of
grading operations, 3) a temporary, above ground supplemental
irrigation shall 6e installed to germinate and establish a vegetative
cover, and 4) an irrigated hydroseed mixture shall include Trifolium
repens, Lotus corniculatus, Trifoliu� O'Conners, Trifolium Salina
Strawberry, and Coastal Wildflower Mix.
3. All permanent slopes shaU be planted pursuant to the approved
landscape plans and aU slopes 2:1 or greater shall be stabilized with
jute mesh or equal, prior to pianting.
1
4. All grading shall comply with the .provisions of the City of Arroyo
Grande Grading Ordinance sections 7-1.09 through 7-1.13.
II.
5. The final grading plan shall reflect grades that do not entail cut or fill
within the dripline of the existing oak trees. No grading will occur
within the dripline of the existing oak trees. Prior to start of any
grading, grubbing, or construction on the site, all existing oak trees
shall be completely surrounded by a�ive (� foot high chain link or
vinyl fence installed at the dripline of the trees. No`parking, storage,
or mechanical trenching should occur within the dripline of the trees.
City Ordinance 431 C.S. has other specific requirements for tree
removal and protection which shall be adhered to. Other
requirements of the ordinance for bonding, arborist review, and
replacements for trees removed would also apply.
6. The final grading plan shall address drainage behind the building at
the base of the slope bank at the property line to ensure the building
is protected from storm water runoff. This may require a concrete
swale, as the least disruptive alternative to convey water around the
building. '
C. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which avoid or substantially lessen tlie environmental effect as
identi�ed in the Final EIR.
D. St�tement of Facts: Mitigations 1-3 and 6 describes procedures to reduce the
potential for erosion. Mitigation 4 ensures that grading will conform to City
Ordinances which reduce impacts due to landform modification. Mitigation
5 provides protection for existing trees on the site during grading and
construction. .
DRAINAGE
A. Effect: l�rainage facilities downstream from the project are inadequate to
handle the additional runoff generated by this project. The applicant has
proposed a retention basin to collect runoff. The proposed retention basin
will store site runoff and collect pavement pollutants, lessening downstream
problems, however the proposed basin could be unsightly and a maintenance
problem as well as a safety problem. The proposed basin is also undersized.
B. Mitigation:
1. The applicant shall mitigate project drainage impacts using one of the
following methods: '
a. The project may correct the downstream drainage deCciencies.
This could solve some.existing problems and at the same time
maximize the Area of the project available for development.
b. The project may store rainwater runoff from the project
on-site. City standards require basins to be sized to
accommodate storage for a 100 year storm. The basin as
proposed will not provide improvement to the downstream
drainage system. It will be necessary to provide additional
storage to this basin to allow for rainwater retention for the
two lots fronting on Grand Avenue and the volume
recommended by �.D.A..
�
�
.: . ...,�,; .,� . ., .. .
2.
c. With City approval, the applicant may do a combination of A
and B, . if the City arid � applicant agree that downstrea�
improvements in combination with on-site detention basin(s)
are viable mitigations. Credit could be given for historic
runoff tlows from the undeveloped site in the form of a
. reduced requirement for storage. The quantity of credit for
such flow and the resulting volume would have to be quantified
by the developer �nd Approved loy the City. The reduced
requirement for storage would depend on the extent of the
downstream improvements. In the extreme case, if
. improvements to ull elements of the downstreAm system were
� completed to an uppropriate standard, storage could be
eliminated completely. On the other hand, improvements to
only one det"icient element of the system may not 6e
justification for a reduction in required storage volume for this
project due to increased allowable discharge since the
remaining deCcient elements might still be adversely unpacted.
Tf retention basins are installed, the applicant shAU construct sAfety
fencing around the basin.
3. If retent►on basins are instaUed, a safe overland spillway shall be
included in the design and construction to Allow for safe disposal of
water should the basin capacity be exceeded.
4. One proposed alternative is to construct the retention basin to store
the runoff in underground structures. Under such a proposal, these
structures would probably be located under parking or landscaped
areas. Because the underground structure would not be accessible for
mainten�nce, � silt and oil trap must be installed and maintained
upstream of inlets to the storage structure. Establ;shment of a
program for operation And maintenance must be included us a
condition to the approval of such an alternative.
5. If a terminal retention basin is included in the project then it must be
maintained. Indicators should be installed in the basin to show the
depth of collected silt. When the silt reaches a predetermined depth
the basin should be cleaned.
6. Because the basin will be A private facility, agreements between the
respective property.owners should stipulate maintenance responsibility
and how that responsibility is shared.
C. Findin : Changes or Alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which avoid or substantially lessen the environmental effect as
identiCed in the Final �IR.
D. �t�tement of F�cts: Mitigations 1 and 4 provide alternatives to the proposed
retention basin. Any of these alternatives could satisfactorily control runoff.
Mitigations 2 and 3 provide measures that will mitigate safety concerns.
Mitigations 5 and 6 provide measures that will mitigate maintenance
concerns.
III. NOLSE
A. Effect: Construction of the proposed project will temporarily impact
neighboring residences and a church and preschool. The proposed project
will also slightly increase noise on Oak Park Boulevard, Brighton Avenue and
Courtland Street. This increase is not signiCcant.
3
B. Mitigation:
1. Prior to the start of grading or construction activities, the applicant
shall construct A 6 foot masonry wall along the west property line
from the northwest property corner sout6 to the end of the Church
property.
2. Measures to limit noise impacts during construction shall include:
A.
b.
limiting construction to weekdays from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM;
confining the loudest construction operation, where feasible, to
the south to central portion of the site; and
c. selection of the quietest nmong alternative equipment.
3. Noise impacts related to parking lot activity shall be reduced by
shifting the trash enclosure south next to the Williams Brothers
Market and by designating the parking bay along the church
boundary as employee parking. These design changes shall be shown
on the construction drawings prior to issuance of building permits and
shall be constructed prior to final occupancy.
C. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which avoid or substantially lessen the environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIIt.
D. St�tement of Facts: Measures 1 And 2 will reduce short term noise icnpacts
due to construction of the project. Mitigation measure 3 requires redesign
of the project to limit long term noise impacts.
IV. GLARE
A. �ffect: Project lighting will require lower than typical pole heights and
cut-off luminaries to control glare into surrounding residence.
B. Miti��tion:
1. Planting shall be increased in density along the west property line to
one tree per 20 feet, and shall be dense, broadleaf evergreen species
suitable for screening.
2. Light poles sl�all not exceed 20 feet in height and shall have cut-off
type luminaries.
3. Signage and builcling/arcade illumination shall be concentrated on the
south building elevation. Wall illumination on other building faces
shall be limited to lighting emergency exits ttnd service areas, without
ref7ective glare off the building.
4. General illumination shall not exceed one foot candle except at
vehicular entry/exits.
C. Findin : Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which avoid or substantially lessen the environmental effect as
identiCed in the Final EIIt.
D. Statement of Fact.s: Due to the project's proximity to residential properties
special measures are required to reduce the effects of project lighting.
Increasing the density of planting, limiting the height of light poles, limiting
sign locations, and limiting the amount of Gghting will adequately mitigate
the impacts to residential properties.
4
�
�
i
I
J
V. VISUAL QUALITY .
A. Effect: As proposed, the project w'►11 block Attractive distant views from
residences looking southward into the project. Residences looking southward
may aLso see mechanical equipment placed on the roof of the structure.
Construction of the proposed retention basin could also pose visual impacts
if typical fencing is provided and adequate maintenance is not provided.
B. Mitig,�tion:.
1. The proposed planting behind the building shall be limited to trees
and shrubs that when mature, do not exceed the height of the top of
the mansard, to maintain views over the top of the building. The pine
trees proposed would be too tall und shall be eliminated. A dense,
solid mass of trees such as CaGfornia pepper and shrubs suc6 as
Acacia would be Appropriate to accomplish this and screen the
building. Vines or shrubs shall be planted against the large expanses
of masonry walls to soften the facade on the east and south.
2. If a retention basin is included in the final project design, the final
landscape plan shaU include a permanent ground cover, established
fi•om containers or cuttings and not seed, on the retention basin
slopes. Medium sized shrubs (6 to 8 feet) should be included as well
as trees. The slopes shall have permanent underground spray
irrigation. On the perimeter of the basin, outside the sAfety fence,
shrubs shall be : planted in a continuous unbroken line around the
basin. The shrubs shall not exceed four feet in mature height so that
visual access is mainta►ned to the basin bottom for safety surveillance.
3. The option of a series of detent►on basu�s (with some storage in
parking areas) combined with downstream improvements would
decre�se the size and depth of the basin, and mitigate aesthetic
impacts.
4. The final landscape design and planting shall be in substantial
conformance with the proposed landscape plan except as amended by
these mitigation measures and conditions of Approval and as amended
to conform with Section 9-12.130 of the Development Code.
5. The maximum roof height shall be lowered from elevation 144.0 to
under 140.0 to maintain a Yr►ajor portion of the views to the south
from surrounding residences. This reduction can be accomplished
using one or both of the following methods:
A. The building should be analyzed by the project architect to
determine tlie minimum feasible building height that still
provides adequate ceiling height, depth for structural trusses
for the spans involved, and a four or five foot parapet.
B. The final project grading design should investigate the
feasibility of lowering the building floor elevation. Although
the floor elevation is controlled to some extent by the grades at
the existing oak, it is possible to lower grades outside the drip
line and actually retain the tree in a low wulled planter.
6. The rooftop and mechanical equipment areas shouid be carefully
designed to have low visual impact including: ,
A. Low glare rooCng material;
5
B. Locate mechanical equipment to north half of roof �,s much as
possible; and
C. , Paint mechanical equipment to match roof color.
.:::... _ .. �..
C. FindinQ: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which avoid or substantially lessen the environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR. '
D.
�tatement of Facts: Project redesigns lowering the building and using trees
that do not grow above the building will allow residents to the north of the
project to maintain their views. Mechanical equipment on the roof of the
structure can be screened or painted to blend with the roof in such a was as
to be inconspicuous. Redesign of landscape areas around the drainnge basin
or redesign of the basin into a series of ponds will reduce visual impacts of
the basin to a level of insignificance.
VI. TRAFFIC
A. Effec : No significant congestion is expected anywhe"re in the study area due
to trafCc impacts nnd no capacity improvements ure warranted. In view of
the collector status of Courtland and Brighton the Quality of Life impacts are
not considered signiCcant. If street closure recommendations are not
` implemented on Courtland Street, cumulative traf�c increases would continue
' to affect Quality of Life LOS on Courtland and Brighton. The project is
expected to contribute to Backbone TrafCc Circulation improvements. The
original project design does not provide enough parking. The sidewalk on
Courtland between the project and Brighton should be constructed as part
` of this project: The project access to Grand Avenue should be modiCed to
retlect standard engineering practice and a median in Grand Avenue is
required due to the additional driveways proposed on Grand Avenue.
,
B. Mitig�tion:
1. The applicant shall construct curb, gutter and sidewalk along the
project frontage along Courtland Street. This improvement should be
� extended to Brighton Avenue to provide for continuous pedestrian
� access between the project and the �eighborhood north of the project.
2. The applicant shall modify the project site plan to include a project
driveway providing for right turns in and out and possibly left turn
in on Grand Avenue. This driveway should be combined with the
Williams Brothers Shopping Center driveway. �
3. The upplicant shall design and construct u landscape median on Grand
Avenue between Oak Park Boulevard and Courtland Street. 77�is
should be designed to prohibit left turns out of the Willia�ns
Brothers/Project driveway. If a separate driveway is installed, left
turns should be prohibited into the driveways as well. A conceptual
plan of the median improvements along Grand Avenue was previously
` approved by the Arroyo Grande City Council.
4. Prior to recordation of the Cnal map, the developer shall enter into an
' agreement with the City, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney,
' whereby, the developer agrees, on behalf of himself and his successors
in interest, to pay the City a fee of Seventy Six Thousand, One
Hundred, Twenty Five Dollars ($76,125.00) plus an inflation
��adjustment based upon the Engineering News Record (ENR) index
rate per year, to be paid prior to issuance of builcling permits or
within five (� years of recordation of the parcel map, whichever
comes first.
6
5. Tlie project sh�ll incorporAte a minimum of 183 on-site p�rking spACes
to meet ITE standards. If the City elects to apply the standards of the
new develo�ment code the total would be 190 spaces.
6. The parking lot design shall be modified to eliminate the dead-end
parking bay south of the oalc trees.
7. The project Applicant shall construct the segment of sidewalk on
Courtland 'Street up to Brighton Avenue.
C. Findi:n�: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporAted into,
� the project which avoid or substantially lessen the environmental effect as
'identified in the Final EIIt�. � �
D. St�tement of Facts: The Final EIR identifies impacts and mitigation
measures in the following areas:
1. Project TrafCc Lnpacts. These are cause by additional driveways on
Grand Avenue and are mitigated by modification of the locations of
the driveways and yinstallation of a median. �
2. On-Site Impacts. ` The project as originally designed, did not have
adequate parking and had some undesirable, trafCc �flow patterns.
. These impacts require mitigation by project redesign to provide
adequate parking and better circulation.
3. Pedestrian Impacts. Development �of this project will result in
udditional pedestrian traffic in the area of the project. Lack of a
� sidewalk between Brighton Avenue� And Grand Avenue on the west
side of Courtland Street could have safety impacts. This is mitigated
by a measure requiring the deveioper to install the sidewalk.
4. Cumulative Lnpacts. The project will have an impact on t6e City's
Backbone Trafiic System. These impacts will be mitigated by paying
a Backbone System traFCc mitigation fee. Other cumulative impacts
cannot be mitigated due to the lack of a means to assess the impact
and collect fees. '
`VII. LAND USE CONiPATIBII.ITY
A. Effect: Land use contlicts could result due to development of this project due
to the height and design of the building.
B.� Miti�ation: '
1. The final design, materiaLs, forms and detailing of the proposed
� building shall be in substantial conformance with the plans und
materials upproved by the Planning Commission at their meeting of
� August 6, 1991 except as amended by these mitigation measures and
the conditions of approval.
�.,
2. As aLso noted in' the mitigation measures for Visual Quality, the
proposed b�uilding should be designed to the lowest practical height
possible. The applicant shall prepare architectural studies that
explore minjmum ceiling heights, structural systems that minimize
truss depth, locating rooFtop mechanical equipment in as few ureas as
� possible and keeping the roof parapet height to a minimum, and
� lowering the heiglit of the mansard roof. �
F
�.
3. The applicant shall nttempt to cor►form the building more to the height
of the Lucky/Payless Center. The applicant should break up the
building facade more to reduce the appearance of mass by adding
more detailing and articulation on the east and west facades.
C. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project whicti avoid or substantially lessen the environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIIt.
D. Statement of Facts: Requiring careful attention to design and materials the
unpacts due to the design of the building can be minimized. By lowering the
height, requiring appropriate materials, and designing the building to appear
less massive, the land use conflicts with adjacent properties can be
minimized.
VIII. CULTURAL RESOURCFS
A.
B.
Effect: No indication of aboriginal use was found on the site.
Mitigation:
1. The demolition of the existing structures on proposed parcel2 shall be
monitored by A qualified archaeologist. The applicant shall be
responsible for payin� this cost.
2. In the event that during grading, construction or development of the
project, any Archaeological resources are uncovered, all work shall be
halted until the city has reviewed the resources for their significance.
' If human buriaLs nre encountered, the County Coroner (549-4513)
shnll be contacted immediately. The applic�nt may be required to
provide arcliaeological studies and/or mitigation measures. All
grading and improvement plans shall be noted to rei7ect this
mitigation.
C. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated i�to,
the project which avoid or substantially lessen the environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
D. StAtement of Facts: While no indication of aboriginal use was found on the
site, there is a possibility that demolition of the existing structure or
construction of the project could unearth artifacts or burials. These two
measures mitigate Any impacts that could be caused by this occurrence.
IR. PUBLIC SAFETY
A.
B.
Effect: Asbestos materials are present in the existing structure which, if not
disposed of correctly, will pose a health hazard.
Fire f7ows are slightly below standard for the proposed use, but are
mitigatable with sprinklers in the building.,
The establishment of drinking facilities and a video arcade could create law
enforcement problems.
Mitigation:
1. The County Air Pollution Control District and the Environmental
Protection Agency in San Francisco shall be notiCed of the demolition
of the existing structui•e and proper forms submitted prior to the
issuance of a demolition permit.
8
2. The applicant shall coordinate with APCD to regulate and monitor
usbestos disposal �.s required under federal law. The law requires thut
a full survey of the existing building to be done prior to demolition to
identify all sources of asbestos. Demolition must be done in a manner
that does not break �r powderize the siding material.
3. The applicant shall lc►op a water main through the site from Courtland
Street to Grand Ave'►.iue to enhance Cire tlows and an on-site hydrant
shall be provided by the applicant.
4. The applicant shail install an automatic fire sprinkler system
throughout the facility prior to final occupancy. All fire sprinkler
installation plans shall be approved by Fire Department prior to final
framing inspection by Building Department.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The conditional use permit shall be limited to prohibit live music and
dancing.
The applicant shaN�l limit hours of operation in accordance with the
City Municipal C�de, Section 5-6.01.
The applicant sha.11 redesign the project to eliminate the actual lounge
area and substitu�e a walk-up service bar.
lllumination for police surveillance of the parking area shall 6e
provided, subjec� to the mitigations described under the topic Glare.
9. Prior to issuancq: of building permits, the applicant shaU su6mit a
security plan fo�� review and approval of the Police and Planning
Departments. Said plan shall incorporAte the use of security
personnel, a nou-loitering policy, and a policy that juveniles must be
accompanied by an adult. Changes in said security plan shaU require
prior approval I��y the Planning and Police Departments.
C. Finding: Changes or ��Yterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which av�id'or substantially lessen the environmental effect us
identiCed in the FinaY EIR.
D. St�tement of F�cts: lDemolition of the existing building on the site shall be
monitored by tlie AF�D to ensure that the asbestos is removed and disposed
of as regulated, by federAl law. This will mitigate 6azurdous materials
concerns.
Looping of a water �qnain and installation of a fire hydrant and an automatic
fie•e sprinkler system will mitigate fire safety concerns.
P�nlice protection caa:icerns will be mitigated by limiting the use of the project,
providing adequatF: security and lighting and implementing a redesign which
eliminates the cock��ail lounge And substitutes a service bar.
R. WATER SUPPLY
A. Effect: The propa>ed project will use from three to six acre feet of water per
year. The City di�es not have enough water for General Plan buildout.
'
9
.:�
� =� ,_
B. Mitigation:
1. All construction shall utilize fixtures and designs which minimize
water usage. Such fixtures nnd designs shall include, but are not
limited to, low flow shower heads, water saving toilets, instant water
heaters or hot water recirculating systems, drip irrigation with
drought tolerant landscaping and etcetera. All water conserving
designs and Cuctures shall be installed prior to final occupancy.
2. The applicant shall provide for review and appro'val by the City
Council, an individual water program which will propose measures to
neutralize projected water demand for the project. The approved
program must be implemented prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a
landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation and the Director
of Planning. All landscaping shall be . consistent with water
conservation practices which may include the following to neutralize
water use to zero:
A. Using only drought tolerant plants in the p� lanting design.
Eliminate proposed carrotwood and flower�ng peAr trees,
hypericum groundcover and pittosporum shrubs;
B. Design irrigation system using drip emitters or 6ubblers, avoid
spray irrigation; -
C.
D.
E.
�
Install soil moisture sensors and automatic controller to ensure
plants nre not receiving more water. than needed;
Separate landscape and domestic water meters. Conduct
monthly water use audits; and
Develop a water budget based on evapotranspiration data and
water audits.
C. FindinQ: Changes or alterations have been required in, or in�orporated into,
the project which avoid or substantially the environmental effect us
identi�ed in the Final EIR.
D. Statement of Facts: Mitigation measures 1 and 3 require p�•oject redesigns
which will decrease the estimated water usage for this proj�ct. Mitigation
measure 2 requires the applicant to neutralize the projected water demand
for the project. This can be Accomplished through retrofitting, drought
tolerant landscaping, rainwater recovery, or other methods to save water.
the decrease in water usage nnd neutralization wilt result in the project not
impacting domestic water supplies.
XI. AIR QUALITY
A. Effec : Air quality in the project area will be temporarily degraded during
construction Activity. The proposed project will have an extremely loc��lized
And minimal im�act on Air Quality due to incre�.sed carbon monoxide
concentrations at curbside locations. The effect on carbon monoxide
concentrations was considered insignificant. ,
10
B. Mitig�ation:
1. The APCD standard mitigations for dust contained in the APCD
In erim uidelines shall be implemented. The following are specific
mitigations:;
a. Use of Caterpillar prechamber diesel engines (or equivalent)
together with proper maintenance. and operation to �educe
emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g•
Electrify equipment where feasible.
Maintain equipment in tune per manufacturer's specifications,
exc�ept as required by condition E.
ynsgall catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment.
Implement engine timing retard (four degrees) for diesel-
powered equipment.
Su�stitute gasoline-powered for diesel-powered equipment,
where feasible.
Mi�iimize the amount of disturbed area.
h. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufCcient quantities to
pre�vent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increase watering
freq;uency whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph.
i. All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed.
j. I'ermanent dust control measures identified in the approved
project -revegetation And landscape plans should be
implemented as soon as possible following completion of any
soil.;disturbing activities.
k. F,�c��osed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates
greater than one month After initiat grading should be sown
wsrh u fast-germinating �ative grass seed and watered until
v�netation is established.
1. A,lll + disturbed soil areas not subject to re�egetation should be
st,abilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or
��ther methods approved in advunce 6y the APCD.
m. ;�11 roadways, drivewuys, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be
-completed us soon as possible. In addition, building pads
should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding
or soil binders are used. �
n. Vehicle speed for all constructioa vehicles shall not exceed 25
mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site.
o. lDevelopment of a comprehensive construction activity
management plan designed to minimize the amount of large
construction equipment operating during any given time
period.
,
p. Scheduling of construction truck trips during non-peak hours
- to reduce peak hour emissions. ,:.
11 ..,.. .
� , ..._, " � � - � . ..
li
q. Limiting the length of the construction work-day period, if
necessary.
r. Phasing of construction activities, if appropriate.
C. Fin in : Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,
the project which avoid or substantially lessen the environmental effect as
identified in the Final EIR.
D. St�tement of - Fact�: Implementation of the' APCD recocninended mensures
will reduce impacts to air quality as a result of construct�on of this project
to insigniCcant leveLs.
. ;
, � � �,
, , .
� ,
�
�
,
12�.