CC 2017-01-10_10a E Cherry_Attachment 4 EIR for Specific Plan
2016
Environmental Impact Report for the
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
SCH # 2015101067
Prepared for:
City of Arroyo Grande, Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, California 93420
Prepared by:
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204A
Santa Barbara, California 93101
P:
REPARED FOR
City of Arroyo Grande
Community Development Department
300 East Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
P:
REPARED BY
Amec Foster Wheeler
Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
104 West Anapamu Street, Suite 204-A
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Contacts: Rita Bright
Julia Pujo
805.962.0992
July 2016
AMEC FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.
2016.
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report. July.
Prepared for the City of Arroyo Grande, Arroyo Grande, CA.
ES
XECUTIVE UMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-1I
NTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Executive Summary and impact summary table is to provide the reader
with a brief overview of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project), the anticipated
environmental effects, and the potential mitigation measures that could reduce the severity
of the impacts associated with the Project. The City of Arroyo Grande (City), acting as the
Lead Agency, has prepared this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to address the potential environmental
impacts of the Project.
This EIR is an informational document that is being used by the general public and
governmental agencies to review and evaluate the Project. The reader should not rely
exclusively on the Executive Summary as the sole basis for judgment of the Project and its
alternatives. The complete EIR should be consulted for specific information about the
environmental effects and the implementation of related mitigation measures.
O
ES-2P
ROJECT VERVIEW
The Project site consists of three adjacent parcels under separate ownerships referred to as
Subarea 1 –a 2.16-acre plot owned by SRK Hotels; Subarea 2 –a 11.62-acre plot owned
by Mangano Homes, Inc.; and Subarea 3 –a 1.51-acre plot owned by the Arroyo Grande
Valley Japanese Welfare Association (JWA). In total, the Project includes 15.29 acres at
the southeast corner of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue. Subarea 1 is currentlyzoned
as Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU) for the use of automobile sale and services. Subarea 2
remains undeveloped and has historically been zoned for agricultural production. Subarea
3, however, has a deep rooted history dating back to its original purchasein the 1920s by
the JWA and until 2011, has been host to a variety of uses.
The Project is a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The intent of the Project is to develop a specific plan
with mixed use and residential uses along the frontage of East Cherry Avenue and Traffic
Way, with the inclusion of a circulation network consisting of collector streets and
residential alleys. Subarea 1 of the Project site would be developed with a 90- to 100-room
hotel and restaurant use under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The Project envisions the
development of Subarea 2 for residential use as a 60-lot subdivision with 58 single-family
ES-1
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
ES
XECUTIVE UMMARY
residential lots along with a 0.35-acre neighborhood park that also actsas a drainage basin.
The proposed development of Subarea 3 would provide for a mix of retail, residential and
visitor serving uses that expresses the ideologies of the JWA and is both compatible with
and supports the local community.
ES-3EIRS
NVIRONMENTAL MPACT EPORT COPE
This EIR discusses the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed Project and
identifies mitigation measures for impacts found to be potentially significant. Consistent
with CEQA Guidelines, the Initial Study as well as agency and public input received during
the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment period was used to determine the scope of the
analysis for this EIR.
For each impact identified in this EIR, a statement of the level of significance of the impact
is provided. Impacts are categorized in one of the following categories:
beneficial
Aimpact would result when the proposed project would have a positive
effect on the natural or human environment and no mitigation would be required.
No impact
would result when no adverse change in the environment is expected;
no mitigation would be required.
less than significant
Aimpact would not cause a substantial change in the
environment, although an adverse change in the environment may occur; only
compliance with standard regulatory conditions would be required.
less than significant with mitigation
Aimpact could have a substantial adverse
impact on the environment but would be reduced to a less-than-significant level
through successful implementation of identified mitigation measures.
significant and unavoidable
Aimpact would cause a substantial adverse effect on
the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce
the impact to a less-than-significant level, even after all feasible mitigation
measures have been implemented to reduce the impact to the extent possible.
Determinations of significance levels in the EIR are made based on impact significance
criteria and CEQA Guidelines for each environmental resource.
The EIR also presents alternatives to the Project, which include the No Project Alternative,
and the Reduced Development Alternative, and a project-level assessment of the impacts
ES-2
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
ES
XECUTIVE UMMARY
that would be associated with the implementation of each. Finally, cumulative impacts
associated with a particular resource are assessed in Sections 3.1 through 3.11 of this EIR.
ES-4NP
OTICE OF REPARATION
The contents of this EIR were established based on the findings in the NOP and attached
materials, as well as public and agency input during the scoping period. A copy of the NOP
and comments received during the NOP review period are included in Appendix B. In
accordance with Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the NOP was prepared and
distributed to responsible and affected agencies and other interested parties for a 30-day
public review. The public review period for the NOP began on October 20, 2015, and ended
on November 18, 2015. The NOP was sent to the State Clearinghouse at the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research to solicit statewide agency participation in determining
the scope of the EIR.
ES-5SPI
UMMARY OF ROJECT MPACTS
The significance ofeach impact resulting from implementation of the Project has been
determined according to CEQA thresholds. Table ES-1 presents a summary of the impacts,
mitigation measures, and residual significance of those impacts from implementation of
the Project. Insummary, the Project would result in significant and unavoidable Project-
level and cumulative impacts to City intersections related to transportation and traffic.
ES-6SCI
UMMARY OF UMULATIVE MPACTS
In order to assess cumulative impacts, this EIR uses a combination of the list method and
General Plan projection method approaches that includes programs included in the City’s
General Plan as well as specific past, present, and probable future projects that are
reasonably foreseeable that could produce related orcumulative impacts, including, if
necessary, those projects outside the control of the Lead Agency (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15130). Cumulative impacts for more complex resource sections such as Air
Quality and Greenhouse Gases, Transportation and Traffic,and Hydrology and Water
Quality, have been assessed in regards to General Plan build-out projections for the City.
Cumulative impacts associated with a particular resource are assessed in Sections 3.1
through 3.11 of this EIR.
ES-3
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
ES
XECUTIVE UMMARY
ES-7SPA
UMMARY OF ROJECT LTERNATIVES
The CEQA Guidelines state that an “EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives
to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which would feasibly attain most of the
basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessenany of the significant
effects of the Project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (Section
15126.6). This EIR discusses alternatives to the proposed Project, including the No Project
Alternative, Reduced Development Alternative, and alternatives that were considered and
discarded. Each of these considers the ability of a particular alternative to substantially
reduce or eliminate the Project’s significant environmental impacts, while still meeting
basic Project objectives. The alternatives analyzed in the EIR include:
CEQA “No Project” Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Project would not be approved. This
alternative could result in two possible outcomes. Under one possible outcome, the
No Project Alternative would be a continuation of the existing setting. The Project
site would remain vacant for the foreseeable future and no development would
occur. A second possible outcome of the No Project Alternative would be
development of the Project site in accordance with the City’s existing zoning and
General Plan/Land Use Map. Overall, neither outcome of the No Project
Alternative would achieve the stated Project objectives. The No Project Alternative
would reduce the magnitude of impacts to traffic and agricultural resources;
however, these impacts could still potentially be significant under the No Project
Alternative.
Reduced Development Alternative
The Reduced Development Alternative is designed to meet the central objectives
of the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan,namely, to provide for
historical, recreational, and residential opportunities that both complement and
augment the existing uses in the City. However, this alternative would reduce the
scale and intensity of proposed development, and associated trip generation and
intersection congestion, air pollutants, and GHG emissions generated by new
source of automobile trips.
Overall, this alternative would reduce impacts to transportation, air quality and GHG
emissions. However, LOS impacts at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street would
continue to be significant and unavoidable, as they are under the proposed Project.
ES-4
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
ES
XECUTIVE UMMARY
ES-8ESA
NVIRONMENTALLY UPERIOR LTERNATIVE
Table 5-1 in Section 5.0, Alternatives, summarizes the environmental impacts associated
with the proposed Project and the analyzed alternatives. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6
states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR
shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other
alternatives.
Table ES-2 summarizes the environmental impactsassociated with the proposed Project
and the analyzed alternatives.Of the alternatives considered, the No Project Alternative
would result in the fewest impacts as no development would occur within Subareas 2 and
3; therefore, it is environmentally superior. Of the development alternatives, the Reduced
Development Alternativeis considered to be the environmentally superior development
alternative since impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, except for
anticipated significant and unavoidable long-term impacts to traffic and transportation at
the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection. With implementation of this
alternative, impacts to the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection would be
reduced, although impacts to this intersection would not be fully reduced to a less than
significant level. As this alternative would reduce all but one impact to a less than
significant level with required mitigation, the Reduced Development Alternative is
considered to be the environmentally superior alternative.
ES-5
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
ES
XECUTIVE UMMARY
TableES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
ImpactsMitigation MeasuresResidual Significance
3.1 Aestheticsand Visual Resources
Impact VIS-1. Implementation of the Project would MM VIS-1a Less than Significant
result in adverse effects to the existing scenic with Mitigation
resources present at the site and surrounding areas.
Impact VIS-2. The proposed Project would result in None requiredLess than Significant
a significant change in the existing visual
characteristics of the site.
Impact VIS-3. Construction of the Project would Nonerequired Less than Significant
create short-term disruption of scenic resources for
the residents and travelers along East Cherry Avenue
and Traffic Way.
Impact VIS-4. The proposed Project would introduce MM VIS-4a Less than Significant
new sources of nighttime light, impacting the quality with Mitigation
of the nighttime sky and increasing ambient light.
3.2 Agricultural Resources
Impact AG-1. The proposed Project would result in
Nonerequired Less than Significant
the direct conversion of a site that includes
agricultural capabilities, including prime soils and
historic agricultural production. However, because of
the limited size of the site, and its context amidst
adjacent non-agricultural land uses, conversion of
the site to non-agricultural uses is considered less
than significant based on the LESA methodology.
Impact AG-2. The proposed Project would result in MM AG-2a Less than Significant
the conversion of agricultural land uses within the with Mitigation
Project site, creating potentiallysignificant impacts
with respect to consistency with City Goal Ag1 and
related policies in the Agriculture, Conservation, and
Open Space Element, which seek protection of prime
farmland.
3.3 Air Quality - GHG
Impact AQ-1. The proposed Project would result in MM AQ-1a Less than Significant
potentially significant short-term construction-MM AQ-1bwith Mitigation
related air quality impacts from dust and air pollutant MM AQ-1c
emissions generated by grading and construction MM AQ-1d
equipment operation.
Impact AQ-2. The proposed Project would result in MM AQ-2a Significant and
potentially significant long-term operation-related air MM AQ-2b Unavoidable
quality impacts generated by area, energy, and
mobile emissions.
Impact AQ-3. Release of toxic diesel emissions MM AQ-3aLess than Significant
during initial construction and long-term operation of MM AQ-3bwith Mitigation
the proposed Project could expose nearby sensitive
receptors to such emissions.
ES-6
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
ES
XECUTIVE UMMARY
Table ES-1.Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
(Continued)
ImpactsMitigation MeasuresResidual Significance
Impact AQ-4. Construction and operation of the MM AQ-2b Less than Significant
proposed Project would result in less than significant
impacts to global climate change from the emissions
of greenhouse gases if the Project is consistent with
the City’s Climate Action Plan.
Impact AQ-5. The proposed Project is potentially
MM AQ-2b Significant and
inconsistent with the County of San Luis Obispo MM AQ-5aUnavoidable
APCD’s2001 Clean Air Plan.
3.4 Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1. Project construction and major MM BIO-1aLess than Significant
alteration of the Project site would result in a loss of with Mitigation
low-value agricultural and disturbed ruderal habitats
and potential indirect impacts to the adjacent oak
woodland habitat.
Impact BIO-2. Project construction and operation has MM BIO-2aLess than Significant
the potential to create significant impacts to the with Mitigation
movement of native resident or migratory wildlife on
the Project site.
Impact BIO-3. The Project has the potential to
None requiredLess than Significant
conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources.
3.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1. Implementation of the proposed None requiredLess than Significant
Project would include the use of small quantities of
hazardous materials during construction and
operation, but would not could create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through
routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials.
Impact HAZ-2. Implementation of the proposed MM HAZ-2aLess than Significant
Project could create a significant hazard to the public MM HAZ-2bwith Mitigation
or the environment through reasonably foreseeable MM HAZ-2c
upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials into the environment.
Impact HAZ-3. The proposed Project would have a NonerequiredLess than Significant
low potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school.
Impact HAZ-4. Implementation of the proposed MM HAZ-4aLess than Significant
Project could expose people or structures to a MM HAZ-4bwith Mitigation
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving MM HAZ-4c
wildland fire, including where wildlands are adjacent MM HAZ-4d
to urbanized areas or where residences are MM HAZ-4e
intermixed with wildlands.
ES-7
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
ES
XECUTIVE UMMARY
Table ES-1.Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
(Continued)
ImpactsMitigation MeasuresResidual Significance
3.6 Hydrologyand Water Quality
Impact HYD-1. Construction of the proposed Project MM HYD-1aLess Than Significant
has the potential to significantly impact surface water MM HYD-1b with Mitigation
quality from increased erosion, sedimentation and MM HYD-1c
polluted runoff.MM HYD-1d
Impact HYD-2. Irrigation of the proposed cultural None RequiredLess Than Significant
gardens on Subarea 3 would draw water from the
Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, resulting in
incremental impacts to groundwater resources
Impact HYD-3. The proposed Project would alter MM HYD-3aLess Than Significant
existing onsite drainage systems, resulting in MM HYD-3bwith Mitigation
potential impacts to erosion, siltation, and flooding MM HYD-3c
on and off the site.
Impact HYD-4. The proposed Project is located None requiredLess Than Significant
outside a 100-year flood hazard area and presents less
than significant issues regarding onsite flood hazards.
Impact HYD-5. The proposed Project site is locatedNone requiredLess than Significant
at the base of an adjacent natural hillside that has the
potential to result in a mudflow which would directly
inundate the Project development.
3.7 Land Use and Planning Policies
Impact LU-1. The proposed Project would not result None requiredLess than Significant
in the physical divide of an established community.
Impact LU-2. The proposed Project would not None requiredNo Impact
conflict with any habitat conservation plans or
natural community conservation plans as none exist
within the Project vicinity.
Impact LU-3. The site design of the proposed Project MM VIS-1a Less than Significant
is potentially inconsistent with adopted City policies MM VIS-4a with Mitigation
designed to protect public views, recreational MM AG-1a
resources, and reduce the threat to new developments MM HAZ-4a-e
from fire.MM REC-1a
3.8 Noise
Impact NOI-1. Short-term construction activities MM TRANS-1aLess than Significant
would temporarily generate adverse noise and MM NOI-1awith Mitigation
vibration levels that would exceed thresholds MM NOI-1b
established in the City’s General Plan Noise
Element.
Impact NOI-2. Long-term noise impacts from
None requiredLess than Significant
vehicle traffic associated with the Project would
result in increased noise levels to sensitive receptors
of up to 1.4 CNEL; however, this increase would be
indiscernible to the human ear and not exceed
federal,state, or City noise criteria.
ES-8
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
ES
XECUTIVE UMMARY
Table ES-1.Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
(Continued)
ImpactsMitigation MeasuresResidual Significance
Impact NOI-3. Long-term operational noise impacts MM NOI-3aLess than Significant
associated with the Project from the operation of MM NOI-3bwith Mitigation
stationary equipment and site maintenance activities
could result in the exceedance of thresholds in the
City’s General Plan Noise Element.
3.9 Recreation
Impact REC-1. The proposed Project would increase
MM REC-1aLess Than Significant
the use of and need for recreational facilities, with Mitigation
resulting in potential increase physical deterioration
of existing recreational facilities.
Impact REC-2. The proposed Project includes the None requiredLess than Significant
construction of recreational facilities which may
have an adverse effect on the physical environment.
3.10 Transportation and Traffic
Impact TRANS-1. Project construction activities MM TRANS-1aLess thanSignificant
wouldpotentially create short-term traffic impacts with Mitigation
due to congestion from construction vehicles (e.g.,
construction trucks, construction worker vehicles,
equipment, etc.), traffic lane and sidewalk closures,
and loss of on-street parking.
Impact TRANS-2. Project generated traffic would MM TRANS-2aLess than Significant
potentially cause the LOS at the Fair Oaks with Mitigation
Avenue/Traffic Way intersection to deteriorate from
acceptable to unacceptable LOS in both the AM and
PM peak hours, causing a significant impact. With
installation of a traffic signal, intersection LOS
would be maintained at acceptable LOS.
Impact TRANS-3. Project generated traffic would MM TRANS-3aSignificant and
potentially cause delays at the East GrandMM TRANS-3bUnavoidable
Avenue/West Branch Street intersection which
operates at unacceptable LOS F to increase by more
than 5 seconds in excess of City standards in both the
AM and PM peak hours, causing a significant
impact. There are no feasible funded or scheduled
mitigationmeasures available to reduce this impact
to a less than significant level consistent with the
requirements of City General Plan Policy CT2-1
which requires improvement to LOS D.
Impact TRANS-4. Project generated traffic would NonerequiredLess than Significant
potentially cause incremental increases in delays at
the Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 southbound
off-ramp/Orchard Avenue intersection which
operates at unacceptable LOS E during AM peak
hour. However, increased delays would notexceed
City standards.
ES-9
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
ES
XECUTIVE UMMARY
Table ES-1.Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts
(Continued)
ImpactsMitigation MeasuresResidual Significance
Impact TRANS-5. The proposed Project would MM TRANS-5aLess than Significant
potentially create conflicts with turning movements (Recommended)
at driveways and intersections on the Project site.
Impact TRANS-6. The proposed Project would None requiredLess than Significant
potentially generate and attract trips to and from U.S.
Highway 101, incrementally increasing congestion
of the region’s main highway.
Impact TRANS-7. The proposed Project would MMAQ-5aLess than Significant
potentially increase demand for transit services in an
underserved area, presenting a barrier to both transit
dependent and non-transit dependent households for
using transit.
3.11 Utilities and Services
Impact UT-1. Implementation of the proposed None requiredLess Than Significant
Project would not exceed the wastewater capacity of
the SSLOCSD Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Impact UT-2. The proposed Project would require MM AQ-1aLess Than Significant
the expansion of existing utility infrastructureMM AQ-1bwith Mitigation
including water, sewer, gas and electricity into the MM AQ-1c
site; the construction of which would cause less than MM AQ-1d
significant environmental effects.MM BIO-1a
MM NOI-1a
MM NOI-1b
Impact UT-3. Implementation of the Project would None requiredLess Than Significant
result in as overall decrease in water demand
compared to historic water demand and would not
significantly impact the City’s water supply or water
infrastructure.
Impact UT-4. The proposed Project would generate None requiredLess Than Significant
additional solid waste needing disposal at the Cold
Canyon Landfill; however, impacts would be less
than significant.
Impact UT-5. The proposed Project would increase
None requiredLess Than Significant
demand for fire protection, police protection, and
public school services.
ES-10
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
ES
XECUTIVE UMMARY
Table ES-2. Impact Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Proposed Project
ResourceNo ProjectReduced Development
Residual Impact
Aesthetics & Visual Less than SignificantLess (Less than Similar (Less than
Resourceswith MitigationSignificant)Significantwith
Mitigation)
Agricultural Resources
Less than Significant Less (Less than Similar (Less than
with MitigationSignificant with Significant with
Mitigation)Mitigation)
Air Quality & GHG
Less than Significant Less (Less than Less (Less than
Emissions
with MitigationSignificant)Significantwith
Mitigation)
Biological Resources
Less than Significant Less (Less than Similar (Less than
with MitigationSignificant)Significant with
Mitigation)
Hazards & Hazardous Less than Significant Similar (Less than Similar (Less than
Materialswith MitigationSignificant)Significant with
Mitigation)
Hydrology & Water Less thanSignificant Less (Less than Similar (Less than
Qualitywith MitigationSignificant)Significant with
Mitigation)
Land UseLess than Significant Less (Less than Similar (Less than
with MitigationSignificant)Significant with
Mitigation)
Noise
Less than Significant Less (Less than Slightly Less (Less than
with MitigationSignificant)Significant with
Mitigation)
Recreation
Less than Significant Less (No Impact)Less (Less than
with MitigationSignificant with
Mitigation)
Transportation &
Significant andLess (Significant and Less (Significant and
Traffic
UnavoidableUnavoidable)Unavoidable)
Utilities & Public Less than SignificantLess (Less than Slightly Less (Less than
Serviceswith MitigationSignificant)Significantwith
Mitigation)
Project Objectives YesNoYes
Met?
ES-11
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
TC
ABLE OF ONTENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT
FOR THE
EAST CHERRY AVE SPECIFIC PLAN
FOR THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE, CA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STP
ECTIONITLEAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ ES-1
LIST OF ACRONYMSAND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................... xii
1.0INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority ................................................................... 1-2
1.3Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ............................................... 1-4
1.4 Scope of the EIR ...................................................................................... 1-4
1.5 Areas of Known Public Controversy ....................................................... 1-5
1.6Organization of the EIR ........................................................................... 1-6
2.0PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.2Project Applicants and Representatives ................................................... 2-2
2.3Existing Physical Setting ......................................................................... 2-2
2.3.1Project Location ........................................................................... 2-2
2.3.2Project Vicinity ............................................................................ 2-3
2.3.3Project Site ................................................................................... 2-6
2.4Existing Regulatory Setting ..................................................................... 2-7
2.4.1 City of Arroyo Grande General Plan - Land Use
Element/Land Use Map ............................................................... 2-7
2.4.2 City of Arroyo Grande General Plan - Agriculture,
Conservation and Open Space Element ....................................... 2-8
2.4.3 City of Arroyo Municipal Code ................................................... 2-9
2.5Project Objectives .................................................................................. 2-10
2.6Project Overview ................................................................................... 2-10
2.6.1 Required Approvals ................................................................... 2-11
2.6.2 Specific Plan Development Standards ....................................... 2-12
2.6.3Land Use Plan ............................................................................ 2-12
2.6.3.1Subarea 1: Traffic Way Mixed-Use ............................ 2-14
2.6.3.2Subarea 2: Proposed Village Residential .................... 2-17
2.6.3.3 Subarea 3: Proposed Village Mixed-Use .................... 2-19
2.6.3.4 Proposed Park ............................................................. 2-21
2.6.4Project Design ............................................................................ 2-22
2.6.4.1 Landscape Design ....................................................... 2-23
i
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
TC
ABLE OF ONTENTS
STP
ECTIONITLEAGE
2.6.4.2 Energy Conservation and Site and Building
Design ......................................................................... 2-24
2.6.4.3 Signage and Lighting .................................................. 2-25
2.6.5Circulation and Parking ............................................................. 2-25
2.6.5.1 Proposed Vehicular Circulation .................................. 2-25
2.6.5.2 Parking ........................................................................ 2-30
2.6.6Stormwater Drainage System .................................................... 2-30
2.6.7Utilities and Services ................................................................. 2-32
2.6.7.1Water ........................................................................... 2-33
2.6.7.2Sanitary Sewer ............................................................ 2-33
2.6.7.3Dry Utilities ................................................................ 2-33
2.6.8Offsite Agricultural Protection Measures .................................. 2-34
2.7Project Construction............................................................................... 2-34
2.7.1 Phasing ....................................................................................... 2-34
2.7.2Construction Activities .............................................................. 2-34
2.7.2.1Site Preparation and Grading ...................................... 2-35
2.7.2.2Onsite Infrastructure Improvements ........................... 2-36
2.7.2.3Offsite Infrastructure Improvements .......................... 2-36
2.7.3Traffic Control Plan ................................................................... 2-37
3.0ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTANALYSIS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES .................................................................................................... 3.0-1
3.0.1Impact Classification ................................................................ 3.0-1
3.0.2Mitigation Measures ................................................................ .3.0-2
3.0.3CumulativeImpact Analysis .................................................... .3.0-2
3.1Aesthetics and Visual Resources .......................................................... 3.1-1
3.1.1Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.1-1
3.1.1.1Regional Visual Character ......................................... 3.1-1
3.1.1.2Visual Character of the Project Site and
Surroundings .............................................................. 3.1-2
3.1.1.3Vistas and Scenic Highways ...................................... 3.1-4
3.1.1.4 Light and Glare, and Nighttime Lighting .................. 3.1-5
3.1.2Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.1-5
3.1.2.1Federal ....................................................................... 3.1-5
3.1.2.2State ........................................................................... 3.1-5
3.1.2.3Local .......................................................................... 3.1-6
3.1.3Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................ 3.1-8
3.1.3.1Thresholds of Significance ........................................ 3.1-8
3.1.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology .............................. 3.1-8
3.1.4Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................... 3.1-18
3.1.5Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 3.1-26
3.2 Agricultural Resources .......................................................................... 3.2-1
3.2.1Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.2-1
ii
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
TC
ABLE OF ONTENTS
STP
ECTIONITLEAGE
3.2.1.1 Regional Context ....................................................... 3.2-1
3.2.1.2 Local Context ............................................................. 3.2-2
3.2.1.3Project Site ................................................................. 3.2-2
3.2.2Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.2-6
3.2.2.1Federal ....................................................................... 3.2-6
3.2.2.2State ........................................................................... 3.2-6
3.2.2.3Local .......................................................................... 3.2-8
3.2.3Environmental Impact Analysis .............................................. 3.2-12
3.2.3.1Thresholds of Significance ...................................... 3.2-12
3.2.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology ............................ 3.2-13
3.2.4Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................... 3.2-14
3.2.5Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 3.2-19
3.3Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................... 3.3-1
3.3.1Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.3-1
3.3.1.1 Regional Climate and Meteorology ........................... 3.3-1
3.3.1.2Greenhouse Gases and Global Climate Change ........ 3.3-2
3.3.1.3Regional Air Quality .................................................. 3.3-3
3.3.1.4 Regional Emissions.................................................... 3.3-3
3.3.1.5Emissions in the Vicinity of the Project Site ............. 3.3-5
3.3.2Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.3-6
3.3.2.1Federal ....................................................................... 3.3-6
3.3.2.2State ........................................................................... 3.3-7
3.3.2.3Local ........................................................................ 3.3-12
3.3.3Environmental Impact Analysis .............................................. 3.3-13
3.3.3.1Thresholds of Significance ...................................... 3.3-13
3.3.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology ............................ 3.3-17
3.3.4Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................... 3.3-17
3.3.5Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 3.3-36
3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................ 3.4-1
3.4.1Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.4-1
3.4.1.1Biological Communities ............................................ 3.4-2
3.4.1.2Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States ...... 3.4-4
3.4.1.3Special Status Species ................................................ 3.4-5
3.4.2Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.4-9
3.4.2.1Federal ....................................................................... 3.4-9
3.4.2.2State ......................................................................... 3.4-10
3.4.2.3Local ........................................................................ 3.4-11
3.4.3Environmental Impact Analysis .............................................. 3.4-13
3.4.3.1Thresholds of Significance ...................................... 3.4-13
3.4.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology ............................ 3.4-13
3.4.4Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................... 3.4-14
3.4.5Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 3.4-19
3.5Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................ 3.5-1
iii
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
TC
ABLE OF ONTENTS
STP
ECTIONITLEAGE
3.5.1Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.5-2
3.5.1.1Potential for Hazardous Materials within the
Project Vicinity .......................................................... 3.5-2
3.5.1.2Risk of Wildfire within the Project Vicinity .............. 3.5-4
3.5.2Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.5-5
3.5.2.1Federal ....................................................................... 3.5-5
3.5.2.2State ........................................................................... 3.5-8
3.5.2.3Local ........................................................................ 3.5-10
3.5.3Environmental Impact Analysis .............................................. 3.5-10
3.5.3.1Thresholds of Significance ...................................... 3.5-10
3.5.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology ............................ 3.5-11
3.5.4Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................... 3.5-12
3.5.5Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 3.5-20
3.6 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................... 3.6-1
3.6.1Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.6-1
3.6.1.1Regional Setting ......................................................... 3.6-1
3.6.1.2Project Site Setting .................................................... 3.6-4
3.6.2Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.6-5
3.6.2.1Federal ....................................................................... 3.6-5
3.6.2.2State ........................................................................... 3.6-6
3.6.2.3Local .......................................................................... 3.6-8
3.6.3Environmental Impact Analysis .............................................. 3.6-11
3.6.3.1Thresholds of Significance ...................................... 3.6-11
3.6.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology ............................ 3.6-12
3.6.4Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................... 3.6-12
3.6.5Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 3.6-21
3.7 Land Use ............................................................................................... 3.7-1
3.7.1Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.7-1
3.7.1.1Project Vicinity .......................................................... 3.7-1
3.7.1.2Project Site ................................................................. 3.7-1
3.7.2Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.7-2
3.7.2.1Federal ....................................................................... 3.7-2
3.7.2.2State ........................................................................... 3.7-2
3.7.2.3Local .......................................................................... 3.7-2
3.7.3Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................ 3.7-3
3.7.3.1Thresholds of Significance ........................................ 3.7-3
3.7.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology .............................. 3.7-4
3.7.4Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................. 3.7-4
3.7.5Cumulative Impacts .................................................................. 3.7-8
3.8Noise ..................................................................................................... 3.8-1
3.8.1Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.8-1
3.8.1.1 Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise.... 3.8-1
3.8.1.2 Existing Noise Environment ...................................... 3.8-5
iv
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
TC
ABLE OF ONTENTS
STP
ECTIONITLEAGE
3.8.1.3Sensitive Receptors .................................................... 3.8-5
3.8.2Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.8-6
3.8.2.1Federal ....................................................................... 3.8-6
3.8.2.2State ........................................................................... 3.8-7
3.8.2.3Local .......................................................................... 3.8-7
3.8.3Environmental Impact Analysis .............................................. 3.8-11
3.8.3.1Thresholds of Significance ...................................... 3.8-11
3.8.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology ............................ 3.8-12
3.8.4Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................... 3.8-13
3.8.5Cumulative Impacts ................................................................ 3.8-22
3.9Recreation ............................................................................................. 3.9-1
3.9.1Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.9-1
3.9.1.1Recreational Resources .............................................. 3.9-1
3.9.1.2Project Site ................................................................. 3.9-1
3.9.2Regulatory Setting .................................................................... 3.9-3
3.9.2.1Federal ....................................................................... 3.9-3
3.9.2.2State ........................................................................... 3.9-3
3.9.2.3Local .......................................................................... 3.9-3
3.9.3Environmental Impact Analysis ................................................ 3.9-4
3.9.3.1Thresholds of Significance ........................................ 3.9-4
3.9.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology .............................. 3.9-4
3.9.4Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................. 3.9-4
3.9.5Cumulative Impacts .................................................................. 3.9-8
3.10 Transportation and Traffic .................................................................. 3.10-1
3.10.1Environmental Setting ............................................................ 3.10-1
3.10.1.1Area Roadway Network........................................... 3.10-1
3.10.1.2Traffic Operations at Intersections .......................... 3.10-4
3.10.1.3Alternative Transportation ....................................... 3.10-6
3.10.2Regulatory Setting ................................................................ 3.10-10
3.10.2.1Federal ................................................................... 3.10-10
3.10.2.2State ....................................................................... 3.10-10
3.10.2.3Local ...................................................................... 3.10-11
3.10.3Environmental Impact Analysis ............................................ 3.10-12
3.10.3.1Thresholds of Significance .................................... 3.10-12
3.10.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology .......................... 3.10-13
3.10.4Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................. 3.10-17
3.10.5Cumulative Impacts .............................................................. 3.10-30
3.11Utilities and Public Services ............................................................... 3.11-1
3.11.1Environmental Setting ............................................................ 3.11-1
3.11.1.1Public Services ......................................................... 3.11-1
3.11.1.2Utility Services ........................................................ 3.11-3
3.11.2Regulatory Setting .................................................................. 3.11-6
3.11.2.1Federal ..................................................................... 3.11-6
v
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
TC
ABLE OF ONTENTS
STP
ECTIONITLEAGE
3.11.2.2State ......................................................................... 3.11-6
3.11.2.3Local ........................................................................ 3.11-8
3.11.3Environmental Impact Analysis .............................................. 3.11-9
3.11.3.1 Thresholds for Determining Significance ................ 3.11-9
3.11.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology .......................... 3.11-10
3.11.4Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................. 3.11-10
3.11.5Cumulative Impacts .............................................................. 3.11-18
4.0OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................. 4-1
4.1Irreversible Environmental Impacts ......................................................... 4-1
4.2Growth-Inducing Impacts ........................................................................ 4-2
4.2.1Employment Generation .............................................................. 4-2
4.2.2 Population and Housing Generation ............................................ 4-2
4.2.3 Tourist Accommodation Generation ............................................ 4-3
4.2.4Extension of Infrastructure .......................................................... 4-3
4.3 Effects Found Not To Be Significant....................................................... 4-3
4.3.1CulturalResources ....................................................................... 4-4
4.3.2Geological Resources ................................................................... 4-5
4.3.3Mineral Resources ....................................................................... 4-5
4.3.4Population and Housing ............................................................... 4-5
4.4 Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects ..................................... 4-6
5.0ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 5-1
5.2Project Objectives .................................................................................... 5-2
5.3 Summary of Potentially Significant Unavoidable Project Impacts ......... 5-2
5.3.1 Long-Term Impacts ..................................................................... 5-2
5.3.1.1Air Quality Emissions ................................................... 5-2
5.3.1.2 Transportation and Traffic ............................................ 5-2
5.4Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................... 5-3
5.4.1Alternatives Considered but Discarded ....................................... 5-3
5.4.1.1Other Comparable Sites Alternative ............................. 5-3
5.4.1.2Circulation Planning Alternative .................................. 5-4
5.4.1.3Agricultural Preserve Alternative ................................. 5-4
5.4.1.4Additional Park and Recreational Facilities ................. 5-5
5.4.2Alternatives Considered for Analysis .......................................... 5-5
5.4.2.1No Project Alternative .................................................. 5-5
5.4.2.2 Reduced Development Alternative ............................... 5-6
5.5 Identification of Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................... 5-9
6.0LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................... 6-1
7.0REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 7-1
vi
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
TC
ABLE OF ONTENTS
STP
ECTIONITLEAGE
8.0RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ......................................................................... 8-1
8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Format of the Response to Comments ..................................................... 8-1
8.3 Index of Comments Received .................................................................. 8-2
8.4Response to Comments ............................................................................ 8-3
8.4.1Organizations ............................................................................... 8-4
8.4.2 Individuals.................................................................................... 8-6
8.4.3 Applicant .................................................................................... 8-27
8.4.4Oral Testimonies ........................................................................ 8-34
8.4.5Public Comments Received After the Close of the
Comment Period ........................................................................ 8-43
vii
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
TC
ABLE OF ONTENTS
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Initial Study
B NOP and Public Response
C Draft East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
D LESA Model Worksheets & Summary Tables
E Air Quality Technical Data (including CalEEMod)
F Biological Resources Assessment
G Cultural Resources Survey of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
H Geology and Soils Reports
I Phase I & Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Reports
J Preliminary Hydrology Reports
K Transportation Impact Analysis Report
L Numerical Slope Stability Evaluation
M East Cherry Avenue Design Guidelines
N Water Usage Calculations
viii
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
TC
ABLE OF ONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
NTP
UMBERITLEAGE
Figure 2-1. Project Vicinity ....................................................................................... 2-4
Figure 2-2. Project Site ............................................................................................. 2-5
Figure 2-3. Proposed Project Site Land Use ........................................................... 2-13
Figure 2-4. Subarea 1 Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................ 2-16
Figure 2-5. Circulation Plan .................................................................................... 2-26
Figure 2-6. Collector Road Sections ....................................................................... 2-27
Figure 2-7. Residential Interior Road Sections ....................................................... 2-28
Figure 2-8. Proposed Stormwater Drainage Improvements .................................... 2-31
Figure 3.1-1.KVA Location Map ........................................................................... 3.1-11
Figure 3.1-2.KVA 1 - Looking East from the Intersection of Traffic Way and
East Cherry Avenue ........................................................................... 3.1-12
Figure 3.1-3.KVA 2 - Looking East Along East Cherry Avenue .......................... 3.1-13
Figure 3.1-4.KVA 3 - Looking West Along East Cherry Avenue ......................... 3.1-15
Figure 3.2-1.Agricultural Resources within the Project Site ................................... 3.2-3
Figure 3.2-2.Agricultural Soils within the Project Site ............................................ 3.2-4
Figure 3.4-1 Biological Resources with the Project Vicinity .................................. 3.4-3
Figure 3.5-1.Fire Threat in the Project Vicinity ....................................................... 3.5-5
Figure 3.6-1. 100-Year Floodplain in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project ............. 3.6-3
Figure 3.8-1.Noise Sensitive Receptors ................................................................... 3.8-6
Figure 3.10-1. Existing Transportation Conditions ................................................... 3.10-2
Figure 3.10-2. Existing + Approved/Pending Projects + Project Transportation
Conditions ....................................................................................... 3.10-16
Figure 3.10-3. Roundabout Alternative .................................................................. 3.10-25
ix
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
TC
ABLE OF ONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
NTP
UMBERITLEAGE
Table ES-1. Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts ..............ES-6
Table ES-2. Impact Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project .............ES-11
Table 2-1. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Properties ........................................ 2-3
Table 2-2. Summary of Proposed Land Uses ........................................................ 2-12
Table 2-3. Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU) District Development Standards ...... 2-15
Table 2-4. Specific Plan Village Residential (VR) District Development
Standards .............................................................................................. 2-18
Table 2-5. Village Mixed-Use (VMU) District Development Standards .............. 2-20
Table 2-6. List of Construction Equipment ........................................................... 2-35
Table 3.0-1. Cumulative Projects List ............................................................................3
Table 3.1 1. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................. 3.1-18
Table 3.2-1. Project Site Soil Capabilities ............................................................... 3.2-5
Table 3.2-2. LESA Analysis Summary for the Project Site .................................. 3.2-14
Table 3.2-3. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................. 3.2-15
Table 3.3-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status ...................... 3.3-4
Table 3.3-2. Ambient Air Quality Data at Nipomo Air Monitoring Stations .......... 3.3-5
Table 3.3-3. Thresholds of Significance for Construction Operations .................. 3.3-15
Table 3.3-4. Thresholds of Significance for Operational Operations .................... 3.3-16
Table 3.3-5. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................. 3.3-18
Table 3.3-6. Maximum Short-term Construction Emissions (Unmitigated) ......... 3.3-19
Table 3.3-7. Maximum Short-term Construction Emissions (Mitigated) .............. 3.3-23
Table 3.3-8. Maximum Long-term Operational Emissions (Unmitigated) ........... 3.3-24
Table 3.3-9. Maximum Long-term Operational Emissions (Mitigated) ................ 3.3-29
Table 3.3-10.Estimated Construction GHG Emissions (Mitigated) ....................... 3.3-32
Table 3.3-11.Estimated Operational GHG Emissions (Mitigated) ......................... 3.3-32
Table 3.4-1. Special Status Plants that are known to or Have the Potential to
Occur in the Project Site ...................................................................... 3.4-6
Table 3.4-2. Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Project
Site ....................................................................................................... 3.4-7
Table 3.4-3. Summary of Project Impacts for all Subareas ................................... 3.4-14
Table 3.5-1. Summary of Hazardous Materials Database Searches ........................ 3.5-3
Table 3.5-2. Summary of Hazardous Materials Cleanup Sites and USTs
within the Project Vicinity .................................................................. 3.5-3
Table 3.5-3. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................. 3.5-12
Table 3.6-1. Summary of Project Impacts............................................................. 3.6-13
Table 3.6-2. Historic and Predicted Groundwater Pumping (AFY) ...................... 3.6-16
Table 3.7-1. Project Site Land Use Designations and Zoning ................................. 3.7-1
Table 3.7-2. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................... 3.7-4
Table 3.7-3. Consistency with General Plan Policies .............................................. 3.7-9
Table 3.8-1. Representative Noise Levels ............................................................... 3.8-2
Table 3.8-2. Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration ...... 3.8-5
x
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
TC
ABLE OF ONTENTS
LISTOF TABLES
(continued)
TTP
ABLEITLEAGE
Table 3.8-3. Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure Transportation Noise
Sources ................................................................................................ 3.8-8
Table 3.8-4. Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Land Use Areas
Due to Stationary Noise Sources ......................................................... 3.8-9
Table 3.8-5. Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment ............................. 3.8-9
Table 3.8-6. Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria .............................. 3.8-13
Table 3.8-7. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ...................... 3.8-13
Table 3.8-8. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................. 3.8-14
Table 3.8-9. Estimated Outdoor Construction Peak Noise Levels at Sensitive
Receptors (Unmitigated) ................................................................... 3.8-16
Table 3.8-10.Estimated Noise Increases Attributed to Project Traffic ................... 3.8-19
Table 3.8-11.Existing Noise, Estimated Noise, and Noise Increase Attributed
to Project Traffic ............................................................................... 3.8-20
Table 3.8-12.Existing Noise, Estimated Cumulative Noise, and Noise Increase
Attributed to Project Traffic .............................................................. 3.8-23
Table 3.9-1. Public Open Spaces and Recreational Resources ................................ 3.9-2
Table 3.9-2. Summary of Project Impacts ............................................................... 3.9-5
Table 3.10-1.LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections ............ 3.10-5
Table 3.10-2. Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS ............................................... 3.10-6
Table 3.10-3.Existing Transit Services ................................................................... 3.10-8
Table 3.10-4. AM Peak Hour + Short-term + Project Delay Impact Summary .... 3.10-16
Table 3.10-5. PM Peak Hour Short-term + Project Delay Impact Summary ........ 3.10-17
Table 3.10 6. Summary of Project Impacts ........................................................... 3.10-18
Table 3.10-7.Cumulative + Project (Mitigated) Conditions: Intersection LOS ... 3.10-31
Table 3.11 1. Public Schools within the Project Vicinity ........................................ 3.11-1
Table 3.11-2. Arroyo Grande Water Supply ............................................................ 3.11-3
Table 3.11-3.Summary of Project Impacts ........................................................... 3.11-12
Table 3.11-4.Projected Wastewater Production ................................................... 3.11-13
Table 3.11-5.Projected Water Demands ............................................................... 3.11-15
Table 3.11-6.Estimated Solid Waste Production .................................................. 3.11-17
Table 8-1. Index of Comments Received on the Draft EIR ..................................... 8-2
xi
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
LAA
IST OF CRONYMS AND BBREVIATIONS
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABAssembly Bill
ADAAmericans with Disabilities Act
ADTaverage daily trips
afacre-feet
afyacre-feet per year
AGCFCPArroyo Grande Creek Flood Control Project
AGPDArroyo Grande Police Department
AHERAAsbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
Amec Foster WheelerAmec Foster Wheeler, Environment and Infrastructure, Inc.
APCDAir Pollution Control District
ARCArchitectural Review Committee
AWSCall-way stop-control
BMPbest management practice
C/OSConservation/Open Space
Cal/OSHACalifornia Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
CalFire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CaltransCalifornia Department of Transportation
CAPClean Air Plan
CCRCalifornia Code of Regulations
CDFWCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife
CECCalifornia Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESACalifornia Endangered Species Act
CERCLAComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act
cfcubic feet
CFCommunity Facilities
CFRCode of Federal Regulations
CityCity of Arroyo Grande
CMPcongestion management program
CNDDBCalifornia Natural Diversity Database
CNELCommunity Noise Equivalent Level
CNPSCalifornia Native Plant Society
CUPconditional use permit
CWAClean Water Act
cycubic yard
D-2.11Design Overlay District
dBdecibel
dBAA-weighted decibel scale
DDTdichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
DTSCCalifornia Department of Toxic Substances Control
ECEducation Code
xii
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
LAA
IST OF CRONYMS AND BBREVIATIONS
EIREnvironmental Impact Report
EPAU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESAEndangered Species Act
ESAEnvironmental Site Assessment
FARFloor Area Ratio
FCFAFive Cities Fire Authority
FCWCDFive Cities Water Control District
FEMAFederal Emergency Management Agency
FHWAFederal Highway Administration
FIFRAFederal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Fire DistrictFive Cities Fire Authority
FMMPFarmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FRAPFire and Resource Assessment Program
FTAFederal Transit Administration
GHGgreenhouse gases
gpdgallons per day
HCMHighway Capacity Manual
HOAHome Owners Association
HSCHealth and Safety Code
HVACheating, ventilation, and air conditioning
in/secinches per second
IRWMIntegrated Regional Water Management Plan
ISInitial Study
ITEInstitute of Transportation Engineers
JWAJapanese Welfare Association
KVAKey Viewing Area
kWhkilowatt-hours
lbspounds
Lday-night average noise level
dn
LELand Evaluation
LEDlight-emitting diode
Lequivalent energy noiselevel
eq
LESALand Evaluation and Site Assessment
LIDLow Impact Development
LIMLand Inventory and Monitoring
Lminimum instantaneous noise level
min
Lmaximum instantaneous noise level
max
LOSLevel of Service
LRALocal Responsibility Area
LUSTleaking underground storage tank
MBTAMigratory Bird Treaty Act
mgdmillion gallons per day
MNDmitigated negative declaration
mphmiles per hour
mslmean sea-level
xiii
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
LAA
IST OF CRONYMS AND BBREVIATIONS
MSsmunicipal separate storm sewer systems
4
MUTCDManual on Uniform Traffic ControlDevices
NAHCNative American Heritage Commission
National Contingency PlanNational Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan
NCESNational Center for Educational Statistics
NESHAPNational Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NKTNKT Development, LLC
NMFSNational Marine Fisheries Service
NOAANational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOINotice of Intent
NOPNotice of Preparation
NPDESNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCSNatural Resource Conservation Service
OPROffice of Planning Research
OSHAOccupational Safety and Health Administration
PEAPreliminary Endangerment Assessment
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
PMparticulate matter
ProjectEast Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
RCPreinforced concrete pipe
RNDBTroundabout
RTPRegional Transportation Plan
RVrecreational vehicle
RWQCBRegional Water Quality Control Board
SASite Assessment
SBSenate Bill
SCGSouthern California Gas Company
SCTSouth County Transit
School DistrictLucia Mar Unified School District
sfsquare foot
SGMASustainable Groundwater Management Act
SIISage Institute, Inc.
SLOCOGSan Luis Obispo Council of Governments
SLOCTMSan Luis Obispo Citywide Traffic Model
SLOFCWCDSan Luis Obispo Flood Control and Water Conservation
District
SLORTASan Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
SoCal GasSouthern California Gas Company
SSLOCSDSouth San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District
SWMPStorm Water Management Plan
SWPPPStormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCBState Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCEtrichloroethylene
xiv
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
LAA
IST OF CRONYMS AND BBREVIATIONS
thmtherms
TIATransportation Impact Analysis
TMDLTotal Maximum Daily Load
TMUTraffic Way Mixed-Use
tpdtons per day
TRBTransportation Research Board
TRIToxic Release Inventory
TWSCtwo-way stop-control
U.S.United States
USACEU.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USCUnited States Code
USDAU.S. Department of Agriculture
USEPAU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWSU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USTunderground storage tank
VdBvibration decibels
VMTvehicle miles traveled
VMUVillage Mixed-Use
VRVillage Residential
WWTPwastewater treatment plant
xv
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
1.0I
NTRODUCTION
1.0INTRODUCTION
1.1O
VERVIEW
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
evaluates the proposedEast Cherry
Avenue Specific Plan(Project)in the City
of Arroyo Grande(City), California. The
EIR was prepared by Amec Foster
Wheeler, Environment and Infrastructure,
Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler)in cooperation
with City of Arroyo Grandestaff. This EIR
disclosesthe findings of the City regarding
potential impacts of adoption and
The 15.29-acre Project site, currently undeveloped
andmostly used foragriculture, is proposed for
implementation of the proposed Project.
hotel and restaurant uses along Traffic Way, 58
housing units, and a 1.51-acre area proposed for
The Project siteconsists ofthree adjacent
Japanese cultural garden, historic orchard,
commercial uses, and senior housing.
parcelsunder separate ownerships referred
to as Subarea 1 a 2.16-acre plot owned
bySRK Hotels; Subarea 2 a 11.62-acre plot owned by Mangano Homes, Inc.; and
Subarea 3 a 1.51-acre plot owned by the Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare
Association (JWA). In total, the Project includes 15.29 acres at the southeast corner of
Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue. Subarea 1 is currently zoned as Traffic Way Mixed-
Use (TMU) forthe use of automobile sale and services. Subarea 2 remains undeveloped
and has historically been zoned for agricultural production.Subarea 3, however, has a deep
rooted history dating back to its original purchase in the 1920s by the JWAand until 2011,
has been host to a variety of uses.
The Project is a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment
and Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The intent of the Project is to develop aspecific plan
with mixed-use and residential uses along the frontage of East Cherry Avenue and Traffic
Way,with the inclusion of a circulation network consisting of collector streets and
residential alleys. Subarea 1 of the Project site would be developed with a 90- to 100-room
hotel and restaurant useunder a Conditional Use Permit(CUP).The Project envisions the
development of Subarea 2 for residential use as a 60-lot subdivision with 58 single-family
residential lots along with a 0.35-acre neighborhood parkthat also acts as a drainage basin.
The proposed development of Subarea 3 would provide for a mix of retail, residential and
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 1-1
FinalEIR
1.0I
NTRODUCTION
visitor serving uses that expresses the ideologies of the JWA and is both compatible with
and supports the local community.
1.2PLA
URPOSE AND EGAL UTHORITY
This EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, published by the Resources Agency of the State of California (Title
14, California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.), and the Citys procedures for
implementing CEQA. It is intended to provide information to public agencies, decision-
makers, and the general public regarding the environmental impacts that would result from
implementation of the Project. Under the provisions of CEQA, the purpose of the
environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects of a project on the
environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which
significant effects can be mitigated or avoided (Public Resources Code 21002.1\[a\]). In a
practical sense, this EIR functions as a tool for fact-finding, allowing the public and the
City an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline existing conditions and
the Projects potential to result in environmental impacts through a full disclosure process.
Additionally, this EIR provides the primary source of environmental information for the
City to consider when exercising any permitting or approval authority directly related to
the Project.
The CEQA process was established to enable public agencies to evaluate a project in terms
of its environmental consequences, to examine and implement methods of eliminating or
reducing any potentially adverse impacts, and to consider alternatives to the project. While
CEQA Section 15021(a) requires that major consideration be given to avoiding
environmental damage, the Lead Agency and other responsible public agencies must
balance adverse environmental effects against other public objectives, taking into account
economic, legal, social, and technological factors.
Although the Project takes the form of a specific plan, this EIRcontains a Project-level
environmental review thatfulfills the requirement of a Project-level EIR. As defined in
CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, a Project EIR examines the environmental impacts of a
specific development project and focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that
would result from the Project. The EIR examines all phases of the Project including
planning, construction, and operation.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, where a public agency prepares an EIR on a
specific plan, future residential projects that conform to the specific plan would not require
1-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
1.0I
NTRODUCTION
further environmental review, as long as the residential development is within the scope of
the EIR, no new environmental effects are anticipated to occur, and no new mitigation
measures are required for the residential development.
The City prepared an Initial Study (IS) for the Project in August 2015, made publicly
available through the Notice of Preparation (NOP) distribution process in October 2015,
which found that the Project may have potentially significant impacts to the following
resources: aesthetics, agriculture, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,
hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning,
noise, public services, transportation, and utilities (see Appendix A). Pursuant to Section
21080(d) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15064(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines,
if there is a fair argument supported by substantial evidence that a project may have a
significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR, even when
other substantial evidence has been presented that a project will not have a significant
effect. Consequently, the City has determined that the preparation of an EIR would be
required to analyze potential environmental impacts of the Project.
In compliance with the procedural requirements of CEQA, the City performed a public
scoping process consistent with Section 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines. The public was
provided an opportunity to comment on the scope of the EIR through a NOP released on
August 14, 2015, which was distributed to federal, state, regional, and City agencies,
neighborhood groups. The NOP comment period ran from August 14, 2015 through
September 14, 2015, and a public hearing was held on August 26, 2015. During the NOP
comment period, City received 30 written comment letters. Comments received during the
NOP comment period were considered during EIR preparation and are included in
Appendix B.
The DraftEIR has been distributed to federal, state, regional, and City agencies,
neighborhood groups, and NOP commenters. The FinalEIR is available for review online
at the Citys Community Development Department website at:
http://www.arroyogrande.org. Comments received on the Draft EIR during the public
reviewperiodthat ran from April 11, 2016 to May 26, 2016 areaddressed in the Final EIR
within Section 8.0, . Changes to the Final EIR are made in
Response to Comments
strikethrough and underline format.
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 1-3
FinalEIR
1.0I
NTRODUCTION
1.3L,R,TA
EADESPONSIBLEAND RUSTEE GENCIES
Per Section 21067 of CEQA and Sections 15367 and 15050 through 15053 of the State
CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arroyo Grandeis the Lead Agency under whose authority
this document has been prepared. The City has primary discretionary authority to determine
whether to approve the Project.
Responsible and other agencies are public agencies responsible for certain discretionary
Project approvals or implementing specific components of the Project. These include:
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
In addition, trustee agencies have jurisdiction over certain resources held in trust for the
people of California but do not have legal authority for approval of the Project. The CDFW
is considered the only trustee agency for this Project, pursuant to CEQA Section 15386,
with regard to fish and wildlife, and native plants designated rare and endangered.
1.4SEIR
COPE OF THE
This EIR assesses the potential environmental impacts that could occur with
implementation of the Project. The scope of the EIR includes evaluation of potentially
significant environmental issues identified in the IS and raised in response to the NOP and
during scoping discussions. The IS and NOP scoping process determined that the Project
may result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the following issue areas,
which are addressed in detail in this EIR:
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Biological Resources
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use
Noise
Recreational Resources
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities and Public Service
Other Required CEQADisclosures
1-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
1.0I
NTRODUCTION
This EIR addresses the issues referenced above and identifies potential environmental
impacts, including Project-specific and cumulative effects of the Project, in accordance
with the provisions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the EIR recommends
feasible mitigation measures, where necessary, that would reduce or eliminate adverse
environmental effects. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 (Effects Not
Found to Be Significant), environmental impacts related to Geology and Soils, andMineral
Resources were not considered significant, and are discussed in Section 4.0,
Other CEQA
.
Considerations
A summary of cumulative impacts, which gives consideration to other projects in the
vicinity, are described in each resource sectionwithin Section 3.0,
Environmental Impact
.Cumulative project analyses represent a comprehensive
Analysis and Mitigation Measures
assessment of potential impacts on City resources using a list of past, present, and probable
future projects capable of producing related or cumulative impacts.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6\[d\]), this EIR includes the assessment
of a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that could feasibly attain the project
objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significant effects of the
Project. Please refer to Section 5.0,.
Alternatives
1.5AKPC
REAS OF NOWN UBLIC ONTROVERSY
Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR shall identify areas of
controversy known to the Lead Agency, includingissues raised by the agency and the
public. Based on comments received fromthe public hearingand responses received during
the NOP comment period, the following issues are known to be of concern and may be
controversial. Each issue is further evaluatedin the EIR:
Permanent loss of prime agricultural land;
Adequacy of utility infrastructureand dependent resources, including the existing
water system and available water supply;
Construction-related impacts such as interference with pedestrian and vehicle
traffic circulation, dust, and other emissions;
Potential impacts associated with stormwater runoff into the drainage channel along
the southern Project site boundary;
Potential impacts to sensitive biological resourceswithin, and adjacent to the south
of the Project site; and,
Potential to obstruct views of the Santa Lucia Range and adjacent natural hillsides,
as well as disrupt the visual character of the area.
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 1-5
FinalEIR
1.0I
NTRODUCTION
1.6OEIR
RGANIZATION OF THE
This EIR is organized into the following sections:
Section 1.0, , summarizes the background of the Project and explains
Introduction
the environmental review process.
Section 2.0, provides a detailed description of Project
Project Description,
specifications, Project and areasettings, applicable federal, state, and local
regulations.
Section 3.0, , provides
Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
analysis of existing environmental conditions, specific project impacts, mitigation
measures, residual impacts, and cumulative impacts.
Section 4.0, , identifies significant and irreversible,
Other CEQA Considerations
growth-inducing, and unavoidable effects, as well as resources areas that would not
be significantly affected by the Project.
Section 5.0, , describes alternatives to the Project, and identifies the
Alternatives
Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Section 6.0, , identifies the EIR Project team.
List of Preparers
Section 7.0, , provides information about resources used in the
References
preparation of the EIR.
Section 8.0, ,includes responses to all written and oral
Response to Comments
comments received from the public, organizations, and agencies on the Draft EIR.
Appendicesto the EIR include the IS, NOP and NOP comment letters, and
supporting technical studies used as a basis of information and analyses in
preparation of the EIR.
1-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
2.0PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1I
NTRODUCTION
SRK Hotels, Mangano Homes, Inc.,
and Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese
Welfare Association (JWA)
(Applicants) propose a SpecificPlan,
General Plan Amendment,
Development Code Amendment,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and
related Conditional UsePermits
(CUPs) to permitintegration and
development of three subareas
View north east of the 15.29-acre Project site proposed
encompassing 15.29acres, which
for hotel and restaurant uses along Traffic Way, 58
collectively comprise the East Cherry
single-family housing units, and a 1.51-acre area
proposed for aJapanese cultural garden, historic
Avenue Specific Plan(Project).The
orchard, commercial uses, and senior housing.
Projectis intended to serve as the City
of Arroyo Grande’s (City) long-range plan for the development and ongoing use of the
various properties within the boundaries of the Specific Plan area (Project site).The Project
site is divided into three subareas. The City’s Land Use Map specifically identifiesa 2.16-
acreportion ofthe Project site (referred to as Subarea 1) as a mixed-use development area
generally limited to the use of automobile sales and services, while the remainder of the
Project site(Subareas 2 and 3) are currently designated for agricultural land uses.However,
the entire Project siteis contained withina Specific Plan Overlay District, requiring
preparation of a specific plan to address key planning and environmental issues,such as
housing, economic development, availability of water resources, open space and
agricultural land preservation, traffic and circulation, and neighborhood compatibility and
character (City of Arroyo Grande 2009).
The Applicants propose the adoption and implementation of the East Cherry Avenue
Specific Plan, General Plan and Land Use Map amendment, Development Code and
Zoning Map amendment, Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element’s Creek
Locations Map amendment, Vesting Tentative Tract Map (for Subarea 2) and Conditional
Use Permit (for proposed uses within Subareas 1 and 3, at this time), which provide a
detailed set of standards andrequirements to guide development of the property. The
Specific Plan details the designation of land uses, designation of required access and
2-1
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
circulation elements, location and sizing of infrastructure, phasing of development,
financing methods for public improvements, and the establishment of standards of
development. Beneficial features called for in Specific Plan developments include
residential clustering, maintaining open spaces, mixed uses, and designs that aresensitive
to the site as a whole and its setting.
The proposed Project would coordinate the three subareasand provide for a range of uses
including both commercial and residential.The Project includes an approximate 90- to
100-room hotel and standalone restaurant (Subarea 1 – 2.16 acres); single-family
residences (Subarea 2 – 11.62 acres); and an area of assembly, limited commercial uses,
attached residential housing, and gardens and orchards (Subarea 3 – 1.51 acres).
2.2PAR
ROJECT PPLICANTS AND EPRESENTATIVES
Subarea ApplicantRepresentativeArchitect
RRM Design Group
Randy Russon
C.M. Florence, AICP
SRK Hotels
3765 South Higuera St,
Oasis Associates, Inc.
1
611 El Camino Real,
Suite 102
3427 San Miguelito Court
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
San Luis Obispo, CA
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
93401
RRM Design Group
Randy Russon
C.M. Florence, AICP
Mangano Homes, Inc.
3765 South Higuera Street,
Oasis Associates, Inc.
2
735 Tank Farm Road
Suite 102
3427 San Miguelito Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
San Luis Obispo, CA
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
93401
Arroyo Grande Valley
Assembly Design
Japanese Welfare Association Margaret IkealIkeda
Even Jones
3
(JWA) 1701 MLK, Jr. Way
1701 MLK, Jr. Way
715 Grand Avenue, Suite A Berkeley, CA 94709
Berkeley, CA 94709
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
2.3EPS
XISTING HYSICAL ETTING
2.3.1Project Location
The Project site encompasses 15.29acres of mostly undeveloped and agricultural land at
the southern commercial gateway of the City of Arroyo Grande (Figure 2-1). The Project
site consists of fiveparcels with street addresses of 490and 112 EastCherry Avenue, and
501 Traffic Way,all properties owned under three separate entities, and related subareas,
as shown in Table 2-1.
2-2
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Table 2-1. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Properties
Land Use/Existing Existing
SubareaCurrent OwnershipAPN
ZoningAcreages
Mixed-Use/Traffic Way
1 SRK Hotels076-621-076, -077, -0782.16
Mixed-Use (TMU D-2.11)
2 Mangano Homes, Inc.076-621-079Agriculture/Agriculture11.62
Arroyo Grande Valley
3
Japanese Welfare 076-210-001Agriculture/Agriculture1.51
Association(JWA)
Total Acres15.29
Notes: TMU D-2.11 - Traffic Way Mixed-Use with D-2.11 Design Overlay.
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2015a.
The site is situated north of the Vagabond Mobile Home Park, single-family residences,
and the Saint Barnabas’ Episcopal Church;east of Traffic Way and its interchange with
U.S. Highway 101; south of East Cherry Avenue; and west of Launa Lane and Los Olivos
Lane (Figure 2-2).
2.3.2Project Vicinity
The Project site is located inthe City of Arroyo Grande, which is within San Luis Obispo
County. Topography in the Project vicinity is relatively level onthe Project site and to the
north and west; however, thesouthern boundary of the site forms the base of steeper oak
woodland hillsides that slope up towards the southeast. Vegetation in the Project vicinity
consists primarily of grasslands, low lying drainages,and agricultural fields. Mature trees
within the region are generally located within established windrows, along riparian
corridors of three tributaries to Arroyo GrandeCreek (Tally Ho, Tar Springs, and Los
Berros Creeks) that flow through the watershed, or as landscaping in developed areas.
The Project site is located at the southern commercial gateway to Arroyo Grande. Landuse
is characterized by a mix of undeveloped open areas and urban development. Existing
nearby development consists primarily of single-family residential neighborhoods beyond
to the north, single-family residential neighborhoods and agricultural fields beyond to the
east,commercial establishments located along the Traffic Way corridorand U.S. Highway
101 beyond to the west, and a mix of residential, commercial, religious, and undeveloped
open areasto the south, including Mobil Gas Station, Vagabond Mobile Home Park, and
St. Barnabas’ Episcopal Church bordering the southern boundary of the Project site.
2-3
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
33
58
4,000
300
CALIFORNIA
FIGURE
SCALE IN FEET
MILES
46
166
2-1
33
0
LEGEND
41
58
0
101
46
1
101
41
1
46
8
01
MILES
101
1
227
227
Project Vicinity
1
101
1
101
1
2-4
2-5
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
U.S. Highway 101 is located approximately 200 feet southwest of Project site and provides
regional access to the Project vicinity via the Traffic Way interchange approximately 400
feet to the south. Traffic Way is an arterial street that links the Project site with the central
portions of the City to the northwest via connections to Fair Oaks Avenue and East Grand
Avenue, which allows access west across U.S. Highway 101. East Cherry Avenue, a two-
lane collector roadway, serves as the northern boundary of the Project site and traverses
the southeastern portion of the City, connecting to Branch Mill Road, Lopez Drive, and
Lopez Lake.
2.3.3Project Site
The Project site consists of mostly undeveloped and agricultural land and is generally level
at an elevation of approximately 88 feet(NKT Development 2015). Existing features include
agricultural fields, row crops, ruderal (weedy) vegetation in disturbed areas along the edges
of agricultural fields, oaks and non-native trees in the eastern portion of the site (Subarea 3),
and adrainage feature with associated riparian habitat located at the toe of the slope
approximately 20 feet from the southern border of the Project site.This drainage feature,
created in this location due to the historical agricultural activities, conveyssheet flows from
the hillside fromthe adjacent St. Barnabas’ Church property.
The Project site is bordered to the southeast by a View north across East Cherry Avenue; the
Mobil Gas Station and the Vagabond Mobile Home site is bordered by residential development
Park located on Traffic Way.
and the Five Cities Swim School.
2-6
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Subareas 1 and 2 are generally level and under Subarea 3, owned by the Arroyo Grande Valley
agricultural production (e.g., broccoli, lettuce, JWA, currently contains a small storage
structure, a mobile home, and storage for a few
cabbage and celery).
boats.
Subareas 1 and 2 are currently undeveloped and have historicallybeen under agricultural
production. Subarea 3 wasoriginally purchased in the 1920s by the Arroyo Grande Valley
JWA, and included two houses, two garages,and accessory buildings. In the 1930s, a
community halland kitchen structure were constructedwhich served as a meeting place
for Japanese-American cultural activities in Arroyo Grande through the 1960s. Following,
the structure was used as a Boy Scout Hall and Judo Club.In 2011,the last remaining
structure –the community hall –was burned down by arson(City of Arroyo Grande
2015a). Local road access to the Project site is via East Cherry Avenue, a two-lane collector
roadway with an unpaved shoulder fronting the site on the north.
The Project site is adjacent to the City’s southern commercial gateway, with visibility from
both public viewsheds and private residences. The Project site provides transitional views
with a more urban setting in the close range transitioning to hillsides and mountain views
in the more distant range.
2.4ERS
XISTING EGULATORY ETTING
Land use and development potential within the Project site and vicinity are governed by
the City’s GeneralPlan and development code, as discussed belowand within the
Regulatory Setting of each resource area analyzed within this Environmental Impact
Report (EIR).
2.4.1City of Arroyo Grande General Plan – Land Use Element/Land Use Map
The General Plan/Land Use Map identify the community’s land use, circulation,
environmental, economic, and social goals and policies as they relate to land use and
2-7
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
development. The General Plan/Land Use Mapis the primary plan that guides potential
development of the Project site. The City’s General Plan/Land Use Mapspecifically
identifies the Project site land use as Mixed-Use (Subarea 1) and Agriculture (Subareas 2
and 3) and defines residential densities, subdivision designs, envisioned mixed uses, and
design standards to address land use compatibility between varied uses onsite and with the
surrounding neighborhood (City of Arroyo Grande 2003).
2.4.2City of Arroyo Grande General Plan – Agriculture, Conservation and Open
Space Element
The City’s Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Elementidentifies the importance
of agricultural lands and protection of resources in the City of Arroyo Grande. Policy Ag1-
4.2requires mitigation for loss of prime farmland soils and states:
Possible mitigation for loss of areas having prime farmland soils may include
permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of at least 1:1 and up to
2:1 with regard to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural
use. Permanent protection may involve, but is not limited to, dedication of a
perpetual agriculture or conservation easement or other effective mechanism to
ensure that the area chosen as mitigation shall not be subject to loss of its prime
farmland soils. Suitability of location shall be determined by the City Council. The
aim shall be to protect and preserve prime farmland soils primarily within and
contiguous to City boundaries, secondly within the Urban Land Use Element area,
and thirdly within the larger Arroyo Grande Valley and La Cienega Valley within
the Area of EnvironmentalConcern. Other potential mitigation measures for loss
of areas having prime farmland soils include payment of in-lieu fees or such other
mitigation acceptable to the City Council.
In order to address this policy, this Project proposes offsite agriculturalmitigation with
conservation of agricultural land located at 1189 Flora Road in combination with the stated
water rights and access considerations protection measures. On July 28, 2015 the City
Council considered that the offer to conserve offsite agricultural land constitutes
appropriate mitigation for the conversion of 9.79 acres of prime agricultural landwithin
Subarea 2.This dedication did not consider potential impacts in either Subarea 1 or 3. This
EIR evaluatespotential agricultural impacts for all three subareas.See Section 3.2,
Agricultural Resources, for a detailed analysis.
2-8
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
2.4.3City of Arroyo Municipal Code
The intent of the zoning districts,as outlined in the City’s Municipal Code (Section 16,
Development Code) and applicable to the Project site,are described below.
Traffic Way Mixed-Use - Design Overlay District (TMU D-2.11)
– The primary
purpose of the TMU district is to provide for vehicle sales and services, related retail
and office uses, and visitor serving facilities convenient to both freeway traffic and
vehicles or pedestrians from the nearby village area. Developmentstandards and
design guidelines are intended to enhance this specialized mix of uses at the southern
gateway to Arroyo Grande,which include automobile and small truck sales and
service, equipment rental, repair and related services, offices, wholesale and retail
sales including outdoor display, motels, restaurants, and limited residential uses
functioning as live-work units. The TMU district implements and is consistent with
the Mixed-Use land use category of the General Plan.
Village Residential (VR)
– The primary purpose of the VR district is to provide
for residential uses while preserving the character of those areas which are historic
or close to historic structures. More particularly, the village residential district is
intended to protect historical resources thatadd interest, identity,and variety to
older neighborhoods, contributing to the area's quality of life by providing a visual
focus on the city's rural heritage. The district is intended as an area for the
preservation and development of single-family detached homes at a maximum
allowable density of 4.5 dwelling units per gross acre. Per General Plan Land Use
Element Policy LU2-4.2, the Development Code may provide for alternative
development standards and increased density (maximum of 10 percent) in all
single-family residentialdistricts where superior neo-traditional subdivision design
is proposed.
Village Mixed-Use (VMU) D-2.11 HCO D-2.4
– The primary purpose of the
VMU district is to provide for a mixture of commercial, office,and residential uses
compatible with surrounding residential districts, in small-scale pedestrian-oriented
developments. Regulations for the VMU district combined with the historic
character overlay district promote and preserve older architectural styles, and
encourage a harmonious intermingling of other structures. This district encourages
use of existing residential buildings for non-residential uses. Typical uses may
include single- and multiple-family residential, specialty retail sales, professional
offices, personal services and neighborhood markets. The VMU district
implements and is consistent with the village core land use designation of the
General Plan.
The City’s Municipal Code includes two tree ordinances that areapplicable to the Project
site, and are described below.
Municipal Code Section 10.12 – Obstruction of Visibility of Driveways or
Intersections –
The City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 10.12 is
specifically designed to help protect motorists and pedestrians from a line of sight
2-9
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
obstruction due to a hedge, tree, fence or other visibility barrier. The ordinance
states, “…any obstruction more than two feet in height above the level of the
sidewalk or ground elevation is defined as a public nuisance.” Whenever the Traffic
Commission finds a public nuisance (Vision Triangle Violation) on residential,
commercial or mixed-use property, a notice of abatement is issued to the property
owner.
Municipal Code Section 12.16 – Community Tree Program –
The City of Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code Section 12.16 is designed to preserve, enhance and revitalize
the City’s urban forest. The Community Tree Program sets forth guidelines and
policies with regards to: Street tree requirements for new development; Landmark
Trees; Responsibility for tree-damaged sidewalks and public improvements;
Privately owned trees affecting the public right-of-way; Tree removal in residential,
mixed-use and commercial zones; Public utility company requirements; Installation,
maintenance and removal of trees relating to property development. Regulated trees
include: street trees within the public right-of-way fronting the property, Landmark
trees and any Oak trees with a trunk width over twelve (12) inches in diameter when
measured four and one half (4 ½) feet from the base.
2.5PO
ROJECTBJECTIVES
Section 15124(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires
a statement of a project’s objectives and Section 15124(b) requires that the statement of
objectives includes the underlying purpose of the Project. Major objectives of the Project
include:
1)To designate appropriate land uses and design guidelines within the Specific Plan
that will guide future development within the Project site;
2)To provide for historical, recreational, and residential opportunities that both
complement and augment the existing uses in the City;
3)To comply with the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element
Implementation Policy AG 14.2 with the protection and preservation of offsite
agricultural lands;
4)To set forth a development plan(s) capable of underwriting the cost of public and
private infrastructure and capital improvements proposed as part of the Specific
Plan; and,
5)To promote orderly and attractive community development in the context of
existing neighborhoods and in recognition of future development in the vicinity.
2.6PO
ROJECT VERVIEW
Adoption of the East Cherry Avenue SpecificPlan would involverequired approvals from
the City and other public agencies as described below in Section 2.6.1,Required Approvals,
including a General Plan and Land Use Map amendment; Development Code and Zoning
2-10
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Map amendment; Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element Creek Locations
Map amendment; Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Subarea 2); and Conditional Use Permit
(Subareas 1 and 3). The following sections provide detailed descriptions of major Project
components outlined in the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan, which include:
1)Establishment of a land use plan and design concepts for the properties within the
Specific Plan, consistent with the City of Arroyo Grande’s General Plan;
2)Sustainable design and development practices;
3)A circulation system with anew Project collector and residential streets, a
residential alley, and offsite improvements to the existing East Cherry Avenue;
4)A drainage system designedto direct stormwater to historical points of discharge,
as well as incorporateLow Impact Development (LID) methodologies and other
methods of on-site infiltration and stormwater reuse; and
5)Extension of utility lines and infrastructure.
2.6.1Required Approvals
ThisEIR addresses the impacts associated with the following entitlements and reviews that
would be required to implement the Project:
Amendment to the City’s General Plan and Land Use Map;
Amendment to the City’s Development Code and Zoning Map;
Amendment to the Agriculture, ConservationandOpen SpaceElement Creek
Locations Map;
Approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (Subarea 2)and Conditional Use
Permits (Subareas 1 and 3)
Lot line adjustment between Subareas 2 and 3;
Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and Historical Resources Committee
review;
Development Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding for process, fees, and
fair share costs and timing for improvements.
Other advisory bodies that could be involvedin the Project’s development review include
the Parks and Recreation Commission for the review of proposed parksand the Traffic
Commission for review of proposed circulation and parking improvements.
Other permits, required approvals, or participation agreements from public agencies include:
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Water Quality
Certification, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit;
2-11
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), and air
quality/greenhouse gas emissions regulation compliance; and,
Encroachment permitsfor possible short-term or permanent encroachments into the
public rights-of way.
2.6.2Specific Plan Development Standards
The proposed Specific Plan outlines various land use and development standards as
identified in the City’s General Plan and Development Code as a framework for residential,
commercial, and mixed-use land uses within the Project site subareas.
The proposed development standards are generally similar to the City’s established
standards, but in some situations, height limits, setbacks, minimum parcel sizes,and other
noted standards have been modified or added to meet the vision of the Specific Plan
properties. The Specific Plan development standards arediscussed further below.
2.6.3Land Use Plan
The proposed Project land use plan integrates the three subareas totaling 15.29 acres,
including 2.16acres of commercialmixed-use, 11.62 acres of residential(including 0.50-
acre remainder), and 1.51acres of neighborhood mixed-use (not including 0.50-acre lot
dedication) as describedin the sections below (Figure 2-3 and Table 2-2). In addition, the
proposed Project includestransportation improvements along East Cherry Avenue and
right-of-way to accommodate a new collector road, located between Subareas 1 and 2.
Table 2-2. Summary of Proposed Land Uses
Land Use/ExistingProposed Land Proposed Proposed
SubareaCurrent Ownership
ZoningUseZoningAcreage
Mixed-Use/Traffic
1 SRK HotelsWay Mixed-Use No changeNo change2.16
(TMU D-2.11)
Single-family
Residential - Village
Agriculture/
11.62
2
Mangano Homes, Inc.Medium Density Residential
1
Agriculture(-.50)
Specific Plan (VR)
Overlay
Arroyo Grande Valley Mixed-Use Specific
Agriculture/Village Mixed-1.51
3
Japanese Welfare Plan (MU-SP)
1
AgricultureUse (VMU)(+.50)
Association (JWA)Overlay
Total Acreage15.29
1
Subarea 2 land use plan results in a +1-lot remainder (.50 acres). The remainder lot would be merged with Subarea 3.
Therefore, MU-SP applies to a 2.0-acre future parcel configuration.
2-12
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2-13
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
2.6.3.1Subarea 1: Traffic Way Mixed-Use
Subarea 1, the western 2.16-acre portion of the
Subarea 1
proposed Specific Plan,is bound by Traffic
Size:
2.16 acres
Way and is part of the southern commercial
Location:
Southeast corner of Traffic Way
gateway to the City. Theproperty is currently
and East Cherry Avenue
zoned TMU D-2.11. Uses allowed within the
Existing Use:
Undeveloped, limited
TMU zone are limited to automobile and light
agricultural production.
Adjacent Uses:
Vagabond Mobile Home
truck sales and services and related automotive
Park (to the south)
parts stores, repair shops, and similar vehicle
Proposed:
90- to 100-room hotel and 4,000
sales, services and accessory uses. The
sf standalone restaurant
Applicant proposes hotel and restaurant uses
for this subarea and would be subject to a CUP.
A finding that vehicle sales and services and/or
similar related uses prescribed are not feasible
due to site specific building and/or property
configuration must be made to allow for the
noted uses.
SRK Hotels proposes a three-story, 46,800
Subarea 1, looking south towards Vagabond
square foot (sf) hotel with 90 to 100 units and
Mobile Home Park.
aone-story 4,000 sf stand-alone restaurant (see
Figure 2-4). The hotel would be up to 36 feet in height and No changes to the current TMU
zone or D-2.11 Design Overlay are proposed; however, inclusion of this subarea would
ensure coordinated development of required utilities and other infrastructure (e.g., water
resources, waste water disposal, right-of-way improvements, drainage controls, and
landscaping and lighting) within Subareas 2 and 3.A summary of development standards
within the Specific Plan TMU district is provided in Table 2-3.
2-14
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Table 2-3. Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU) District Development Standards
Development Standard Traffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU) Requirement
Maximum Density Mixed-Use ProjectsNew residential limited to live-work units in conjunction
with allowed uses. Density determined by discretionary
action.
Minimum Lot Size 10,000 square feet (gross)
Minimum Lot Width80 feet
Front Yard Setback0- 15 feet. Exceptions may include areas for outdoor sales
determined through discretionary action.
Rear Yard Setback
0- 15 feet. Wherever a lot in any commercial or mixed-use
district abuts a residential use or a lot in any residential use
district, a minimum building setback of 20 feet measured
from the property line shall be required for proposed
commercial use.).
Side Yard Setback
0 feet. Wherever a lot in any commercial ormixed-use
district abuts a residential use or a lot in any residential use
district, a minimum building setback of 20 feet measured
from the property line shall be required for proposed
commercial use.
Street Side Yard Setback 0- 15 feet. Exceptions may include areas for outdoor sales
determined through discretionary action.
Building Size LimitsMaximum height is 30 feet or three stories, whichever is
less; a maximum of 36 feet is allowable through the CUP
process for visitor serving uses. Maximum building size is
50,000 square feet; a greater size may be allowed through
the CUP process.
Site Coverage and Floor Area Ratio
Maximum coverage of site is 75 percent. Maximum floor
(FAR)
area ratio is 0.75.
Site Design and Signs
See Design Guidelines and Standards D-2.11. Additional
sign standards also in Chapter 16.60
Off-Street Parking and Loading
See Design Guidelines and Standards D-2.11 Exhibit A for
shared parking locations. See Also Section 16.56.020.
Exceptions allowed by Section 16.16.120
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2015a.
2-15
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
FIGURE
2-4
ROAD AROAD A
Subarea 1 Conceptual Site Plan
TRAFFIC WAYTRAFFIC WAY
0
06
SCALE IN FEET
2-16
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
2.6.3.2Subarea 2: Proposed Village Residential
This 11.62-acre subarea is proposed fora
Subarea2
Vesting Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the
Size:11.62acres(with 0.50 acre remainder)
site into 60 lots, including 58 single-family
Location:
Southof East Cherry Avenue
residential lots and a 0.35-acre neighborhood
Existing Use:
Undeveloped, irrigated
park located on a Home Owners Association
agricultural row crops including celery,
lettuce, cabbage and broccoli.
(HOA) common lot. In addition, an
Adjacent Uses:
Oak woodlands(to the
approximately 0.5-acre lot remainder of
south), Vagabond Mobile Home Park (to the
Subarea 2 would be dedicated to Subarea 3, west), single family residences along East
Cherry Avenue (to the north)
reducing the area of Subarea 2 to 11.12 acres.
Proposed:
58 Single-family residences and a
A 2- to 5-foot tall concrete retaining
0.35-acre neighborhood park
wall/drainage facilitywould be located along
the southern boundary of the residential lots at
the base of the hillside. Based on the number of
dwelling units (58)multiplied by the average
number of persons per household in the City of
Arroyo Grande(2.4), the estimated population
for Subarea 2would be 140 persons.Access to
the proposed residential development would be
Subarea 2, looking north towards East
via East Cherry Avenue, which would be
Cherry Avenue.
improved to correct existing deficiencies and
accommodate Project-related traffic. A new primary collector road serving the residential
lotsand future buildout of the Citywould be located between Subareas 1 and 2. A
secondary access would be located between Subareas 2 and 3. No direct access from
individual lots to Cherry Avenue is proposed.Subarea 2 contains residential lots that range
from 4,400 to 9,400 square feet. Residences on lots 1-24 (shown in yellow on Figure 2-3)
would be limited to one story, while lots 25 through 58 (shown in orange on Figure 2-3)
could be up to two stories or 30 feet in height.A summary of development standards within
the Specific Plan Village Residential (VR) District is provided in Table 2-4.
2-17
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Table 2-4. Specific Plan Village Residential (VR) District Development
Standards
Development StandardVillage Residential (VR) Requirement
Maximum Density (units/gross acre)
5.0 dwelling units per gross acre
Minimum Lot Size
4,475 net square feet
Minimum Lot Width
50 feet at building setback
Minimum Average Lot Depth
88 feet
Minimum Front Yard New
15 feet to residential structure, 10 feet to porch, 20 feet to
Subdivisions of 5+ Lots 1
front loaded garage
Infill and Additions
Setbacks listed above or the average setback of structures
to the street on either side and directly across block front
for properties in the same district.
Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback5 feet
1
Minimum Front/Street Yard Setback10 feet building, 5 feet to porch, 18 feet to garage
2
Minimum Rear Yard Setback10 feet (1-story),15 feet (2-story)
Maximum Lot Coverage55percentatalley loaded residential structures, 50percent
atstreet loaded residential structures
Maximum Height30 feet or 2 stories, whichever is less; 14 feet for accessory
buildings
Minimum Distance between Buildings10 feet, including between main dwellings and accessory
structures
Fencing Setback5 feet from property line, 0 feetfrom access easement
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)Lot Size FAR
0—4,000 square feet net0.35
4,001—7,199 square feet net0.55
7,200—11,999 square feet 0.50
net
3
Parking for Single-family Homes2 spaces/unit within an enclosed garage
1
The East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Design Guidelines encourages varying setbacks by as much as 5 feet.
2
Infill development on a parcel within a previously approved project. Where the City has established specific setback
requirements for single-familyor multi-family residential parcels through the approval of a specific plan, subdivision
map, planned unit development, or other entitlement, those setbacks shall apply to infill development and additions
within the approved Project.
3
Chapter 16.32 Residential Districts Section 16.32.030 F. Special Use Regulations for the Village Residential District
shall apply.
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2015a.
2-18
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
2.6.3.3Subarea 3: Proposed Village Mixed-Use
The proposed Arroyo Grande Valley JWA land
Subarea 3
use plan for Subarea 3, the eastern 1.51 acres of
Size:1.51acres(without +0.50 acre
the Specific Plan area identifies a private
remainder)
Location:
Southof East Cherry Avenue
historically-oriented park that would highlight
Existing Use:
Undeveloped agricultural row
the Issei pioneers (first generation settlers) of
crops including celery, lettuce and broccoli.
Arroyo Grande. Proposed land uses would
Adjacent Uses:
Oak woodlands(to the
include historical residential and public
south), residential neighborhood (to the east),
single family residences along East Cherry
assembly uses, and would provide expanded
Avenue (tothe north)
commercial use and residential density
Proposed:
Village mixed use with
necessary for present and future economic
community center building, 10-unit senior
housing building, retail space, historic
sustainability of the property. Specifically,
orchard and Japanese cultural gardens.
Subarea 3 would include limited commercial
retail (farm stand), passive recreation (historic
walking paths and gardens), limited residential
(independent senior housingconsisting of
approximately 10 units), public and quasi-
public community facilities (cultural archive
b lk h h
and community center), visitor-serving (B&B
guest house), and public assembly (heritage and demonstration gardens) uses, as well as
related support amenities (e.g., onsite parking). While the current Subarea 3 includes
approximately 1.51 acres, an additional approximately 0.5-acre remainder lotwould be
added via the Subarea 2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map and a future lot merger.A summary
of development standards within the Specific Plan Village Mixed-Use(VMU) District is
provided in Table 2-5.
2-19
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Table 2-5. Village Mixed-Use (VMU) District Development Standards
Development Standard Village Mixed-Use (VMU) Requirement
Maximum Density 15 dwelling units per gross acre
Minimum Lot Size5,000 square feet
Minimum Lot Width40 feet
Front Yard Setback0- 15 feet
Rear Yard Setback0- 15 feet. 10 feet required when the project abuts a
residential district.
Side Yard Setback5 feet when the project abuts a residential district for
single-story structures and 10 feet is required, on one side,
1
for a multiple stories.
Street Side Yard Setback
0- 15 feet.
Building Size Limits
Maximum height is 30 feet or three stories, whichever is
less; a maximum of 36 feet is allowable through the MUP
process. Maximumbuilding size is 10,000 square feet.
Site Coverage and Floor Area Ratio
Maximum coverage of site is 100percent. Maximum floor
(FAR)
area ratio is 1.0.
Site Design
See Specific Plan Design Guidelines (see Design
2
Guidelines and Standards for Historic Districts)
Off-Street Parking and Loading
See parking below.\[See Section 16.56.020(C)\].
Signs
See Chapter 16.60 Signage
3, 4
PARKING
Senior housing – independent living
Studio - 1 space /unit
1+ Bedrooms – 1 space/unit
Public and semi-public buildings1 space/5 fixed seats or 1 space/50 square feet of floor area
designed for public assembly
General retail1 space/300 square feet of gross floor area accessible to the
public, excluding restrooms
Hotels & motels, includes B&B1 parking space/unit, and 2 parking spaces for the
manager’s office, as applicable
Outdoor sales1 space/2,000 sf open area for the first 10,000 sf, then 1
space/5,000 sf greater than 10,000 sf
1
The proposed archive building is exempt from these requirements, as it will be reconstructed in the original location
of the former hall building.
2
DesignGuidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District (D-2.4) are noted for reference only, as
the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Design Guidelines shall prevail.
3
Parking required for residential use in mixed-use projects does not need to be covered. See MunicipalCode Section
16.56.060 Item 1.
4
Required parking may be reduced pursuant to MunicipalCode Section 16.56.050.
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2015a.
2-20
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
2.6.3.4Proposed Park
Proposed areas for parks are derived from policies and standards in the Parks and
Recreation Elementof the City’s General Plan. The Parks and Recreation Elementrequires
developers to provide land and/or pay in lieu fees for the acquisition and development of
park and recreation facilities based on the local standard of fouracres of parkland per 1,000
residents (City of Arroyo Grande, 2001).
The proposed residential development for Subarea 2 includes a 0.35-acre recreational
amenity located midpoint within the proposed subdivision on the HOA common lot in the
western portion of Subarea 2. The design for this neighborhood park would be developed
to serve the day-to-day needs of the new neighborhood by including such amenities as
playgrounds suited for primary school age children and areas for passive recreation (e.g.,
pathways, seating, and BBQ areas). The Applicant for Subarea 2 has also included in the
development plans the dedication of a 15-foot wide area extending along the northern edge
of the north-most interior residential street for public use. This area would consist of narrow
landscaped space with a meandering pathway directly adjacent to the private property lines
of residences along the interior residential street. Refer to Section 3.9, Recreationfor
further discussion of recreation resources within the Project site.
The proposed improvements to Subarea 3 include passive recreational amenities such as a
cultural gardens, as well as related educational activity areas to preserve and archive the
historic agricultural contributions of the Japanese Americans to theCity of Arroyo Grande,
Within Subarea 2, public space adjacent to interior residential homes consists of landscaped areas and
a meandering sidewalk.
2-21
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
which may address park-related demand based on Subarea 3 population needs.The
development plan for Subarea 3 contains a mixture of visitor-serving opportunities,
including publicly accessible structures within three main garden zones–a Japanese
cultural garden, a farm garden, and a California native garden. The Japanese cultural
garden would include a structure for the depository of cultural artifacts and history,
including an outdoor educational classroom set among a traditional Japanese garden. The
farm garden, a mixture of fruit trees, raised vegetable beds, and edible native herbs and
flowers, would also house a senior housing component and a commercial kitchen to
facilitate the preparation of the locally grown produce. A community hall and guest house
(similar to a B&B) would be situated within the California garden that will include a native
grass area for play and group gatherings.
2.6.4Project Design
The proposed Project is intended to be consistent with the City’s existing guidance
documents: Design Guidelines and Standards for the Historic Character Overlay District
(D-2.4), inclusive of the Village Residential District and the Village Mixed-Use District
(albeit, the properties are not currently in or adjacent to the existing overlay area), and the
Design Overlay District (D-2.11) pertaining to Subarea 1. In addition, these standards
address the unique nature of the Subarea 3 property and a contemporary interpretation of
the historic character of the property. The proposed standards take their cue from the
Japanese art, called wabi-sabi, of finding beauty and tranquility in simple things and in
nature (City of Arroyo Grande 2015a).
Future development pursuant to the Specific Plan would be consistent with the following
design principles:
Preservation of habitat areas and trees
– Existing trees shall be evaluated for
their health and vigor and incorporated into project design(s). Habitat areas (e.g.,
man-made drainage features that have established riparian vegetation) shall be
preserved and/or enhanced.
Public space
– Public space should be integrated into the individual project designs
to promote pedestrian scale and character, and a sense of place. Residential
neighborhoods shall be designed with common areas with consideration for both
passive and active recreational components, as applicable.
Pedestrian enhancement
– Residential development should foster neighborhood
connectivity through the design of streets, sidewalks/pathways, and alternative
modes of transportation.
2-22
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Building design and social interaction
– Design features such as porches, front
yards along streets, entries facing public walkways should be incorporated into the
residential design to strengthen neighborhood atmosphere.
Water conservation
– Designs shall incorporate low water use fixtures and
appliances, appropriate landscape design, low volume irrigation systems, drought
tolerant native or nonnative, non-invasive plant material.
Low impact development (LID)
– Various design strategies shall be employed to
reduce impacts to water quality and drainage.
Minimize air quality impacts
– All development shall include various measures
to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to an overall cumulative air
quality.
The Specific Plan’s architectural design guidelines reflect the distinct differences between
the future single-family residential development in Subarea 2 and the future mixed-use
development in Subarea 3. Development in Subarea 1 would be subject to the Design
Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District (D-2.11) that pertain to the Traffic
WayMixed-UseArea.
2.6.4.1Landscape Design
The proposed landscape design isintended to provide a sense of continuity between the
varied future uses, yet recognize the uniqueness of the individual subareas. Exterior
landscape architectural treatments, including both hardscape and softscape elements,
would provide a unifying theme to the physical design of the varying uses, while
maintaining individual design expression.
Streetscape design and materials in the public right-of-way and proposed interior streets
would include a unifying palette of vegetation and tree selection. Street trees would be
chosen from the City’s list of acceptable street trees to provide a senseof consistency in
the neighborhood. Landscape plant selections would conform to macro- and micro-climatic
requirements. In general, plant material would be native and/or drought tolerant to the
greatest extent possible. Invasive non-native species would be prohibited.
Street trees and related parkway plantings would include a palette of species and
landscaping appropriate in scale and species for each street type. Street trees would be
locatedon both sides of the streets and be spaced 35 feet on center. Each street would have
one dominant species of street tree for in-sidewalk planters or parkways, with alternate tree
types for any in-street parking space trees andplanted medians. Large canopy, deep-rooted
2-23
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
street trees would be used on all streets, per the City of Arroyo Grande Parks Division Tree
List (City of Arroyo Grande 2015a).
2.6.4.2Energy Conservation and Site and Building Design
TheSpecific Plan considers and employs the following conservation design techniques to
further energy conservation.
1.Site Design Considerations
Situate lots and roads to minimize building exposure to the east and west.
Orient a building so that the longest building side faces north/south.
Design roof awnings to maximize sunlight exposure in the winter and shading
in the summer.
Build structures close together to create a wake in the wind (weakening wind
velocity) to help save heating costs.
Design streets and stagger lots to create wind disturbances that will save heating
costs.
2.Landscaping and Other Site Design Considerations
Preserve or install shade trees to reduce heating and/or cooling costs.
Specify trees and shrubs, typically evergreens, as a windbreak to reduce annual
fuel costs.
Consider opportunities for alternative energy production, such as solar, when
planning the landscape.
Eliminate turf areas in single-family residential designs with an allowance for
turf grass in recreational areas only.
Encourage the use of gray water systems for individual residential lots pursuant
to the 2013 California Plumbing Code Chapter 16 Section 1602.2 et seq.
3.Building Dynamics
Create a well-insulated and airtight seal around the building, including operable
windows.
Consider available technologies to reduce energy consumption including, but
not limited to, heating, ventilation, andair conditioning (HVAC) systems,
thermostats, lighting fixtures, water fixtures and appliances, and alternative
energy sources.
2-24
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
The Subarea 2 proposed site design includes a minimum “Tier 1” energy efficiency rating
(i.e., 15 percent greater energy performance than state and local standards(City of Arroyo
Grande 2015a).
2.6.4.3Signage and Lighting
The proposed Project entry signage design would be easily visible by motorists, pedestrian
scale, and reflect the architectural theme and character of the specific development. Unless
noted, specific standards for signage, including number of signs, sign dimensions,
illumination, accessory, and incidental and supplemental signs would comply with the
City’s Development Code, Chapter 16.60 – Signs.
The proposed Project lighting design would provide for safety, utility and decoration.
Lighting fixtures and their operations would comply with the City’s Development Code
Chapter 16.48.090 and standards promulgated by the International Dark-Sky
Association/Illuminating Engineers Society Model Lighting Ordinance. Street lighting
designs would be approved by the City Engineer, as appropriate to local codes and utility
company requirements.
In general, lighting fixtures would be downward-facing, fully shielded, and recessed to
reduce spill and glareand preserve the starry night sky. Fixtures for the illumination of
streets and public spaces would be energy efficient light-emitting diode (LED)(City of
Arroyo Grande 2015a).
2.6.5Circulationand Parking
2.6.5.1Proposed Vehicular Circulation
Circulation throughout the Project site would consist of anew collector and residential
streets,aresidential alley, and offsite improvements to the existing East Cherry Avenue,
including Class II bicycle lanes (Figure 2-5).The Project would include four principle
vehicularcirculation featuresas described below (Figures 2-6 through 2-7):
East Cherry Avenue –Offsite improvements to the existing two-lane East Cherry
Avenue include upgrades to the right-of-way in the form of pedestrian sidewalks,
parkways, parking, and Class II bicycle lanes.The approximately 0.25-mile
segment of East Cherry Avenue between Traffic Way and Pacific Coast Railroad
Place would be widened to approximately 48 feet and then would taper back to the
existing width east of the intersection with Pacific Coast Railroad Place. This
segment would be developed to collector street standards to include 5-foot Class II
bicycle lanes in each direction, and street parking on both sides of the street. The
2-25
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2-26
East Cherry Avenue Collector
6-08-05-011-011-05-08-05-05-0
Existing SidewalkParkingBike LaneTravel LaneTravel LaneBike LaneRaised ParkingParkwaySidewalk*
on North SideWest BoundEast Bound(Tree Well Beyond)
64-0 Project R.O.W.
*8-0 sidewalk on commercial frontage.
Project Collector
2-0 Paved Shoulder
5-05-05-05-0
12-012-08-05-05-0
FutureFutureFutureFuture
Travel LaneTravel LaneBike LaneParkwaySidewalk
SidewalkParkwayBike LaneTravel Lane
22-0 Proposed R.O.W. Subarea 144-0 Proposed R.O.W. Subarea 2
64-0 Project R.O.W.
FIGURE
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
2-6
Collector Road Sections
2-27
Residential Interior Street with Parkway
5-0
Meandering Sidewalk
5-02-012-012-08-015-0
DetachedLandscapingTravel LaneTravel LaneParkingParkway
Sidewalk
Residential Interior Street without Parkway
5-05-012-012-08-05-05-0
DetachedLandscapingTravel LaneTravel LaneParkingLandscapingDetached
SidewalkSidewalk
Residential Alley
3-010-010-03-0
DrivewayAccess EasementAccess EasementDriveway
FIGURE
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
2-7
Residential Interior Road Sections
2-28
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
proposed sidewalk along East Cherry Avenue adjacent to the Project site would be
5 to 8 feet in width and would include a 5-foot planter median to buffer the sidewalk
from the roadway.
Subarea 2Collector – A new two-lane collectorlocated between Subarea 1 and
Subarea 2 would include a Class II bicycle lane. This new collector would stub out
to the Project site’s southern boundary for a future connection, and exit onto East
Cherry Avenue.
Residential Interior Street –Two connecting residential interior streets are designed
to provide access within the Subarea 2 single-family residential neighborhood.
These streets are intended to serve residential and visitor uses and are scaled to
appropriately fit the residential nature of the property. The residential interior street
includes two sections:
Southern Street – Two 12-foot travel lanes, an 8-foot parking area, twowith 5-
foot wide landscaping parkways, and two 5-foot wide detachedsidewalks on
both sides of the roadway; and
Northern Street –Two 12-foot travel lanes, an 8-foot parking area, a 52-foot
wide landscaped areaparkway,and a 5-foot wide detachedsidewalk on one
side, with a 15-foot wide parkway linear landscaping areawith meandering 5-
foot wide sidewalk on the other side.
Residential Alley – Two private residential alleys are designed to provide rear
access to abutting lots and allows for a more pedestrian-oriented development with
front doors/front porches facing the adjacent streets. The alleys measure 20-feet
wide, with an access easement to each garage, and also connect to the proposed
secondary access to East Cherry Avenue between Subareas 2 and 3.
Project site access would include three full access intersections along East Cherry Avenue:
1)from the proposed Project collector street in between Subareas 1 and 2; 2) from the
residential alley connecting with East Cherry Avenue; and 3) from a proposed driveway
with Subarea 3. Limited vehicular access to Subarea 1 is expected to occur from Traffic
Way with right and left turn ingress and right turn only egress (refer to Figure 2-7).
Theinternal circulation systemwithin Subarea 3 wouldinclude private driveways. Designs
for Subarea 2 and Subarea 3 would include onsite fire and emergency vehicle access and
circulation. All street standards would be reviewed and revised by the City Engineer,
including optional features such as landscaped medians, curb bulb-outs and parkways,
and/or street trees and similar design amenities when approved by the City of Arroyo
Grande. Alternative street standards would also be considered.
2-29
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
2.6.5.2Parking
Proposed parking for Subarea 1, to be depicted on conceptual site plan, will be required to
comply with the existing standards for hotel and restaurant useswithin the City of Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code, Chapter 16.56.This would equate to approximately 122spaces
that would need to be accommodated within Subarea 1.
Proposed parking for the residential uses in Subarea 2 would include two spaces per unit
within an enclosed garage. In addition, 46 curbside parking spaces would be provided on
internal streets and 18 curbside spaces would be provided on the south side of East Cherry
Avenue, fronting the Project site (NKT Development 2015).
Parking standards proposed within the Subarea 3 mixed-use district are summarized in
Table 2-5, Village Mixed-Use (VMU) District Development Standards.
2.6.6Stormwater Drainage System
Proposed public and private storm drainage improvements would include collection and
conveyance facilities to direct water to historical points of discharge within the Project site
(Figure 2-8). The Project would include an onsite storm drain network that collects, detains,
and releases storm water. The storm drain headwall inlet is proposed at the southeast corner
of Subarea 2 from the existing drainage feature on Subarea 3. New 48-, 36-, and 18-inch
storm drains would run along portions of the proposed residential interior streets, Subarea
2 collector, and East Cherry Avenue and wouldconnect to the existing stub at the
intersection of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue. An existing potential storm drain
connection also exists at the adjacent Vagabond Mobile Home Park along the western
Project boundary. Subarea 1 includes a proposed stormwater detention facility located
under proposed parking stalls. This stormwater detention facility would have a capacity to
retain approximately 11,700 cubic feet of water onsite an infiltrated through underground
infiltrators. Runoff from Subarea 1 would discharge into a 48-inch storm drain proposed
along East Cherry Avenue.
A new underground detention basin with a 21,400-cubic foot underground and a 5,200-
cubic foot surface storage capacity would be located on the neighborhood park/HOA
common lot in the western portion of Subarea 2 (NKT Development 2015).
2-30
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2-31
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Based on an evaluation of current and historic conditions, and the determination by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the onsite agricultural drainage located at the southern
boundary of the Project site is not a waters of the U.S. or a natural stream or river under
jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife(City of Arroyo Grande
2015d), the Project proposes to remove its status as a drainage way subject to City policies
from the General Plan Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element’s Creek
Locations Map COS-1.
Stormwater drainage designs would comply with City’sDesign Requirements for Post
Construction Stormwater Management, as well asimplement Low Impact Development
(LID) methodologies (e.g., vegetated bio-swales, underground detention) and other
methods of on-site infiltration and stormwater reuse (e.g., use of porous materials in paved
areas, directing stormwater toward pervious areas, and roof-top rain barrel collection).
A Storm Water Control Plan would be required to detail design and performance
components, including calculations for pre- and post-construction runoff conditions, new
impervious surfaces, water quality treatment performance requirements, description of all
post-construction stormwater controls and management measures, and opportunities and
constraints associated with implementation of LID strategies. Per the City’s Development
Code, stormwater drainage design would be based upon the frequency of a 100-year storm.
Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations would be submitted for approval by the City
Engineer (City of Arroyo Grande 2015d).
2.6.7Utilities and Services
Water, sewer, police,and fire services would be provided by the City. Natural gas service
would be provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas).Pacific Gas &
Electric(PG&E) would provide electric service. Cable televisionwould be provided by
Charter Communications, and telephone serviceswould be provided by Verizon(NKT
Development 2015).
While the timing of development in the Project siteis unspecified, it is anticipated that the
backbone infrastructure improvements (e.g., water, wastewater, and stormwater
conveyance systems) would be required prior to or concurrent with the initial phase of
development of the subareas. This is to ensure coordinated infrastructure, whether public
or private, be installed to serve all areaswithin the Specific Planin a consistent and timely
manner.
2-32
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
2.6.7.1Water
The proposed Project would be served by existing municipal water supplies. Water main
facilities that would serve the Project site include existing lines from East Cherry Avenue,
which would lead to new 8-inch lines beneath the proposed Subarea 2 collector and
residential interior streets.An 8-inch water line alternative is also proposed from Subarea
2 residential interior streets,east through Subarea 3,to connect to an existing water main
in Launa Lane (NKT Development 2015).
Two existing private agricultural water wellsare located in Subarea 2. One of the wells
would be made accessible to Subarea 3 for use as supplemental irrigation on the common
area landscaping (City of Arroyo Grande 2015a).
New water mains and related infrastructure would be installed by the individual developers
in the Project siteunder the guidance of the City Engineer. Individual tract maps and
development plans would provide detailed utilities analyses to support specific land uses,
and would be approved by the City Engineer.
2.6.7.2Sanitary Sewer
The Project would be served by the City of Arroyo Grande wastewater collection system
for residential, commercial, and institutional buildings within the City. The City's
collection system, includingfivewastewater lift stations,conveys raw wastewater to trunk
mains owned and operated by the South San Luis Obispo Sanitation District (SSLOCSD).
Wastewater treatment and ocean disposal is also provided bySSLOCSD(City of Arroyo
Grande 2015a).
Wastewater systems for the proposed Project would be designed and approved by the City
Engineer, with new 8-inch collection lines to be installed beneath the proposed Subarea 2
collector, residential interior streets, and residential alley to connect to the City’s mainlines,
located in East Cherry Avenue (NKT Development 2015).
2.6.7.3Dry Utilities
Electrical service to be provided by PG&E, natural gas service to be provided by Southern
CaliforniaGasCompany, cable televisionto be provided by Charter Communications, and
telephone service to be provided by Verizon would be installed and extended to meet existing
connectionsas required by the City Engineer. Solid waste collection and disposal, including
recycling services, would be provided by South County Sanitation.
2-33
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
2.6.8Offsite Agricultural Protection Measures
Agricultural lands within the Project
site are not under Williamson Act
contract; however,this land is
proposed for non-agricultural land
uses and would be rezoned to allow
for urban development. Inorder to
offset agricultural resources impacts
forSubarea 2and incompliance with
General Plan Policy AG1-4.2, the
Project includes the purchase and
The 9.79-acre parcel at 1189 Flora Road is proposed
preservation of 9.79 acres of
for an offsite agricultural conservation easement.
(Source Google Earth Pro)
agricultural zoned lands located
within City limits. These lands are
locatedat 1189 Flora Road, approximately one mile northeast from the Project site.This
property would be subject to anagricultural conservation easement and additional
agreements for water rights, and bicycle and pedestrian easements, offered by NKT
Development to the City.These offsite agricultural protection measures, and the ability of
this agricultural conservation easement to offset Project impacts to agricultural resources
within Subarea 2, is further analyzed in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources.
2.7PC
ROJECT ONSTRUCTION
2.7.1Phasing
No formal construction phasing of the Project hasbeen determined at this time. At the time
of construction, each phase would be subject to permit review to ensure conformity with
the approved East Cherry Avenue SpecificPlan and consistency with applicable
regulations. Each phase would include specifications to address the development activities
to be performed during the phase and define specific mitigation measures and conditions
of approval that would apply (City of Arroyo Grande 2015a).
2.7.2Construction Activities
Each phase of the Project would generally entail the following stages: pre-construction
design and permitting, site preparation and grading, construction, and final landscaping. A
list of equipment anticipated to be used during these activities are providedinTable 2-6.
2-34
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Table 2-6. List of Construction Equipment
Typical Construction Equipment
BackhoeGrader
Boom LiftLoader
Compactor (Roller)Miscellaneous Small Tools
Concrete Pump (Tow)Office Trailers
Concrete TruckPaving Machine
Crane Scaffolding
DozerScissor Lift
Dump TruckScraper
Electric Man LiftSheepsfoot
ExcavatorSkip Loader
Flatbed TruckTractor
ForkliftWater truck
2.7.2.1Site Preparation and Grading
Site preparation for each phase would be performed through grading along proposed
roadways, building pads, and installation of onsite utilities. Mobilization and staging of
earth moving equipment would be required in order to bring the site and building pads to
engineered elevations. During grading operations, standard dust control and construction
runoff Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented. Additional
requirements would be specified in detail during the design of final engineered drawings
prior to issuance of grading permits. Subarea 1 includes approximately 12,900 cubic yards
(cy) of cut for clearing, building excavation, and storm drain and utility infrastructure, and
would use 6,000 cy of fill for finished surface elevations; approximately 6,900 cy of soils
would be exported offsite. Subarea 2 is estimated to be 17,000 cy of cut and 11,000 cy of
fill, over a total disturbance area of approximately 191,000 sf. Finished grade elevations
would range between approximately 113 and 117 feet (NKT Development 2015).
Activities would include but not be limited to:
Full mobilization and set up of onsite construction temporary facilities;
Movement, placement, and compaction of stockpiled soils;
Over-excavation and recompaction of soils at building pads;
Coordination of loading and trucking activities, truck routes and export sites;
Delivery, staging and storing of materials;
2-35
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Trenching and installation of utilities (water, sewer, storm drain, natural gas,
electric, telephone, cable television, and irrigation lines);
Environmental monitoring, including fugitive dust control and implementation and
monitoring of construction stormwater runoff; and
Monitoring and recording of best management practices (BMPs).
2.7.2.2Onsite Infrastructure Improvements
The construction of onsite infrastructure would include installation of underground site
utilities, precise site grading, and paving of roads. Activities would includebut not be
limited to:
Trenching for underground wet and dry utilities;
Precise grading and compaction of soils for roadways;
Precise grading for curb and gutter installation;
Installation of concrete curb, gutter and site concrete;
Installation of base and asphalt paving of interior streets and parking areas; and
Lighting and landscaping.
2.7.2.3Offsite Infrastructure Improvements
Construction of offsite roadway improvements would occur along East Cherry Avenue
fronting the Project site.Thisroadway segment would experience closures during
construction phases. All work would be subject to traffic control, pedestrian protection,
and notification plans (see Section 2.7.3,Traffic Control Plan). Project traffic control and
pedestrian re-routing plans would be revised to reflect the changing conditions throughout
construction.
Underground site utilities would be connected to existing utility infrastructure and precise
grading, concrete, underground utility work, and paving would be performed offsite.
Activities would include, but not be limited to:
Traffic control and lane closures on an intermittent basis;
Trenching, installation, and roadway repair for underground wet and dry utilities;
Saw cut and demolition of the existing asphalt;
Precise grading and compaction of soils
Installation of base and asphalt paving;
Curb and gutter installation; and
2-36
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
2.0PD
ROJECT ESCRIPTION
Road striping, landscaping, and signage work.
2.7.3Traffic Control Plan
A Traffic Control Plan would be prepared as part of the Public Improvement Plans for each
phase of development to include site preparation and ongoing construction activities. The
Traffic Control Plan would be modified to reflect changing conditionsof construction
activities throughout the Project. The plan would include the following:
Road Closures –East Cherry Avenuealong the length of the Project site could
experience periodic closures for the construction of offsite improvements.The
Traffic Control Plan would be revised to reflect changing conditions throughout
Project construction.
Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety –Vehicular and pedestrian protection (pursuant to
the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 33, §3303), lane establishment, parking
area(s), access routes, truck circulation and semi-permanent signage would be
established. All construction activities would be staged within a secured
construction area.
Business Notification –A Business Notification Plan would be prepared and would
include individual business notification, meetings to communicate specific
activities and schedules.
Construction Scheduling –Timing of construction activities, such as truck hauling,
road closures, etc., would be addressed to minimize disruption of traffic flow.
Construction activities would be limited to City-approved working hours.
Construction Traffic –A construction traffic routing plan would address heavy
equipment and vehicles such as haul trucks during construction. Truck traffic would
be kept to a minimum during heavy commute times whenever possible.
Construction Parking –A Construction Parking Plan would be prepared for
construction personnel, delivery, etc.,defining onsite and offsite parking, hours of
operation and contacts, and miscellaneous protocol.All required parking and
material staging are anticipated to be accomplished on site and within the traffic
controlled or delineated areas.
2-37
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.0EIAMM
NVIRONMENTAL MPACT NALYSIS AND ITIGATION EASURES
3.0ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This section discusses the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed East
Cherry Avenue Specific Plan(Project) and identifies mitigation measures for impacts
found to be potentially significant.
Consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the Initial
Study as well as agency and public input received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP)
comment period was used to determine the scope of the analysis for this Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). Through this process, the City of Arroyo Grande(City) determined
that the EIR analysis would focus on the following resource areas:
Aesthetics and Visual Resources Land Use
Agricultural ResourcesNoise
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas EmissionsRecreation
Biological ResourcesTransportation and Traffic
Hazards and Hazardous MaterialsUtilitiesand Public Services
Hydrology and Water QualityOther CEQAConsiderations
This sectionof the EIR addresses the potentially significant environmental impacts of the
proposed Project for the resources listed above.
3.0.1Impact Classification
For each impact identified in this EIR, a statement of the level of significance of the impact
is provided. Impacts are categorized in one of the following categories:
Aimpactwould result when the proposed project would have a positive
beneficial
effect on the natural or human environment and no mitigation would be required.
would result when no adverse change inthe environment is expected;
No impact
no mitigation would be required.
Aimpact would not cause a substantial change in the
less thansignificant
environment, although an adverse change in the environment may occur; only
compliance with standard regulatory conditions would be required.
Aimpact could have a substantial adverse
less than significant with mitigation
impact on the environment but would be reduced to a less-than-significant level
through successful implementation of identified mitigation measures.
Aimpact would causea substantial adverse effect on
significant and unavoidable
the environment, and no feasible mitigation measures would be available to reduce
the impact to a less-than-significant level, even after all feasible mitigation
measures have been implemented to reduce the impact to the extent possible.
3.0-1
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.0EIAMM
NVIRONMENTAL MPACT NALYSIS AND ITIGATION EASURES
Determinations of significance levels in the EIR are made based on impact significance
criteria and CEQA Guidelines for each environmental resource.
3.0.2Mitigation Measures
Per CEQA GuidelinesSection15126.4, where potentially significant environmental
impacts have been identified in the EIR, feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or
minimize the severity of those impacts are identified. The mitigation measures are
identified as part of the analysis of each impact topic in Sections 3.1 through 3.11of this
EIR.
3.0.3Cumulative Impact Analysis
The CEQA Guidelines 15355 defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual
effects that, when considered together, are considerable, or which compound or increase
other environmental impacts.Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines further state that the
individual effects can be various changes related to a single project or the change involved
in a number of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects. The Guidelines allow for the use of two different methods to determine the scope
of projects for the cumulative impact analysis:
List method A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related
or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of
the agency (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130).
General Plan projection method A summary of projections contained in an
adopted General Plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental
document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated
regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15130). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130,
the scope of projects for cumulative impact analysis can include a summary of
projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document, or
in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which
described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the
cumulative impact.
In order to assess cumulative impacts, this EIR uses a combination of the list method and
General Plan projection method approachesthat includes programs included in the Citys
General Plan as well as specific past, present, and probable future projects that are
3.0-2
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.0EIAMM
NVIRONMENTAL MPACT NALYSIS AND ITIGATION EASURES
reasonably foreseeable that could producerelated or cumulative impacts, including, if
necessary, those projects outside the control of the Lead Agency (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15130). Cumulative impacts for more complex resource sections such as Air
Quality and Greenhouse Gases, Transportation and Traffic, and Hydrology and Water
Quality, have been assessed in regards to General Plan build-out projections for the City.
A list of planned and pending projects is used to assess cumulative project impacts (Table
3.0-1).Cumulative impacts associated with a particular resource are assessed in Sections
3.1 through 3.11 of this EIR.
Table 3.0-1. Cumulative Projects List
City of Arroyo Grande - Approved/Pending Projects
# LocationDescriptionStatus
Grace Lane15 single-family homes and 4 Under
1
apartmentsConstruction
Old Ranch Road4 residential lots and 1 public facility Approved
2
lot
250 Ridgeview Way3 residential lotsApproved
3
415 East Branch Street24 townhouses and 13,000 sfretail/Approved
4
office building on 2.78 acres
May Street 7 residential lotsApproved
5
Corbett Canyon11 residential lotsPending
6
Pearwood Avenue8 residential lotsApproved
7
Huasna Road12 residential lotsApproved
8
East Cherry Avenue Residential 28 single-family homesUnder
9
DevelopmentConstruction
NWC Fair Oaks Avenue/Woodland 44,926 sfmedical office buildingPending
10
Drive
NEC EastBranch Avenue/ North51-room hotelPending
11
Mason Street
3.0-3
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
This section examines the potential for the
proposed Project to create aesthetic and
visual impacts as defined by the
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) as well as by the Citys
regulations, policies, and design
guidelines that are used to strengthen and
protect its visual quality.
Adopted City General Plan policies
East Cherry Avenue Project site as seen from its
require that the potential development and
southwest boundary looking towards the Santa
Lucia Mountain Range.
design of the proposed East Cherry
Avenue Specific Plan(Project)must consider potential loss of open space, aesthetic
impacts, and remain compatible with nearby visual resources.Much of the Project site is
in an area of agriculture, and all of it is adjacent toresidential and mixed-use development.
The site contains scenic resources, including open undeveloped agricultural land and
1
scenic views ofthe Santa Lucia Mountains to the east and southeast. Illustrations of the
site and the surrounding visual context are provided later in this section.
3.1.1Environmental Setting
3.1.1.1Regional Visual Character
The Project site is located in the
southwestern portion of the City adjacent
to an urban residential area.The
westernmost portion of the site is as close
as570 feetfrom U.S. Highway 101. The
City is the southernmost portion of a
continuous urban area within the County
Brief glimpses of the Project site are visible from
of San Luis Obispo made up of the nearby
thenorthbound segment of U.S. Highway 101
communities of Grover Beach, Oceano,
Pismo Beach, and Shell Beach, known collectively as the Five Cities. Being adjacent to an
arterial roadway and located on generally level ground, the Project site can easily be seen
1
As identified by Policy C/OS1-1.1 of the General Plan, a scenic resources may refer to agricultural land, open space,
hillsides, ridgelines, woodlands, wetlands, and other important resources identified by this policy.
3.1-1
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
from both public viewsheds(roadways), such as East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way, and
private residencessuch as those looking over the Project site from the hillside mesa to the
south along Trinity Avenue.Vehicles, pedestrians, andcyclists traveling along Traffic Way
and East Cherry Avenue experience the highest exposure to public views of the site.
Passing views from the U.S. Highway 101 northbound corridor exist but the site is not
visible from southbound lanes due to topography,mature highway landscaping, and
highway/bridge infrastructure.
The southeast portion of the City is characterized by rural residential development and
cultivatedagricultureuses,while more urban development envelops the northern, western,
and centralportions of the City. The Project site is a part of a fragmented chain of
agriculturally-orientedlands in the southeastern portion of the City. The hillside adjacent
to the southeastern boundary of the site provides an overlook of the City to the north,
transitioning to mid- and long-range hillsides and mountain views to the east and south.
Areas to the east and south of the site just beyond the Citys limits consists of minimally
developed land, while areasto the north and west have been largely developed, particularly
along the coastal region.
3.1.1.2Visual Character of the Project Site and Surroundings
The Project site is situated within the
southern portion of the Cityeast of, and
adjacent to,the southeast corner of Traffic
Way and East Cherry Avenue. The site is
located on level ground bordered to the
south by the foot of a north-facing hillside
vegetated by oak trees and native shrubs.
This landscape is framed to the west by
mid-range views of the Santa Lucia
The St. Barnabas Episcopal Churchsits at the top
Mountain Range. Adjacent lands are
of an oak woodland hillside at the southeastern
mainly developed with residentialand
edge of the Project site.
mixeduses; the Project site contrasts with
adjacentresidential usesas undeveloped land that includesagricultural production. Along
Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue, the flat undeveloped Subarea 1 and agricultural field
Subarea 2 are fully visible. Along East Cherry Avenue, the full north facing oak woodland
hillside withviews of the St. Barnabas Episcopal Churchand Trinity Avenue homesare
visible. The under-developed Subarea 3,with remnant structures (e.g., a small storage
3.1-2
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
structure, a mobile home, and storage for a few boats) is partially hidden behind a thick
tree line along its northern, southern, and partially along its western boundaries, as well as
the wooden fences of adjacent residences along its eastern boundary.
Traffic Way
The Projectsite is bordered to the west by
Traffic Way.Traffic Way is a north-south
orientedthree-lane road (one lane in each
direction with a shared center turn lane)
with marked bicycle lanes and street
parking on both sides of the road.In total,
the width of Traffic Way is approximately
60 feet.This roadway serves as the entry
to the City and as aprimary southern
(Looking south towards the U.S. Highway 101 off-
collection street and is designated as
ramp) Motorists exiting the highway are placed
directly on Traffic Way, the arterial roadway for
Highway-Arterialin the Citys
the south-eastern region of the City, with the
Circulation Element. At its southernmost
Vagabond Mobile Home Park which sits adjacent
to the southern boundary of the Project site.
terminus, the roadway conveys traffic
exiting northbound fromU.S. Highway
101, and serves as a gateway tothe City of Arroyo Grande, which leads directly to the
business and residential neighborhoodcollector roads transected by Traffic Way. The
Project site is highly visible from this location and can be viewed by motorists exiting the
U.S. Highway 101 as well as those traveling northbound along the highway.
Adjacent to the southwest border of the Project sitealong Traffic Wayis the Vagabond
Mobile Home Park. The 3.75-acre mobile home park consists of 35 unit spacesfor small
mobile homes and recreational vehicle (RV) parking. The mobile home park is located
elevated abovethe Project siteto the southwest, affording views to the Project area as well
as scenic views of the Santa Lucia Rangeacross the Project site.
East Cherry Avenue
East Cherry Avenue is anapproximately 20-foot wide,east-west running two-lane street
that provides access to and from residential suburbs, as well as the Project site. On the
north side of the street are small town businesses, the FiveCities Swim School,and single-
family residences.The single-family residential lotslocated on the north side of East
Cherry Avenuerange between 6,000 square feet (sf) to 11,000 sf in lot size.The homes
3.1-3
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
located on these parcels tend to range from 900 sf to 2,400 sfin size,are one to two stories
in height, and are somewhat eclecticin architectural character;many contain bungalow,
contemporary, and ranchstyles.These homeswere primarily built between the 1940s and
1990s and are in varying conditions of maintenance.
The Project siteis adjacent to, and south
of, the southern boundaryof EastCherry
Avenue, which spans an approximate
1,378-foot distance from Traffic Way to
the adjacent residential neighborhood
along the eastern border of the site.
Looking east, onecan see mid-range
defined views of thepeaks of the Santa
Lucia Range. East Cherry Avenue
Looking northeast down East Cherry Avenue from
continues past the Project site to provide
the intersection of Traffic Way, the Project site,
located on the right side of the road, is across from
access to more residential areas before
commercial and residential uses. The Santa Lucia
turning into a level unpaved road used to
Mountains are visible in the background.
access agricultural landsfarther to the
east.
Trinity Avenue
Trinity Avenue is located to the south of the Project site, along the ridge of the adjacent
hillside, and serves as a two-lane street which provides access to the residential Village
Court cul-de-sac and St. Barnabas Episcopal Church. The church and several residences
located on the north side of Trinity Avenue and Village Court have generally medium-to-
high quality, elevated views, overlooking the City and downtown areas, including the
Project site. These residential lotsizes range between approximately 10,500 sf to35,300 sf
and are developed with single-family residences, with customized interpretations of
craftsmanand Victorian architectural styles, consisting ofprimarily of two-story
residences between approximately 2,000 to 3,000 sf in size.
3.1.1.3Vistas and Scenic Highways
A scenic vista is a view of natural environmental, historic, and/or architectural features
possessing visual and aesthetic qualities of value to the community. The term vista
generally implies an expansive view, usually from an elevated point or open area. No
designated scenic vistas occur in the Project area or its vicinity.
3.1-4
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
The California Scenic Highway Program, maintained by the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) protects state scenic highway corridors from changes that would
diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. According to the California
State Scenic Highway Program, no state-designated scenic highways occur within or
adjacent to the City (California Department of Transportation 2015).The 2001 Integrated
Program EIR identified the segment of the U.S. Highway 101 near the site as scenic (City
of Arroyo Grande 2001); however, this segment has not been designated as such by the
City, County, nor State.
3.1.1.4Light and Glare, and Nighttime Lighting
Nighttime lighting conditions vary throughout the City, from heavily lit areas of
commercial development to more rural areas with little night lighting. Lighting and glare
levels in the Project vicinityare typical for that of urbanand residential areas.The majority
of light and glare in the Project site vicinity is generated by nearby residential and
commercial uses. Vehicle headlights, street lighting at intersections and along East Cherry
Avenue and Traffic Way, and building lighting contribute to the existing light setting.
Given phased development of along East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way over time, street
lighting along both corridors do not follow any set standards regulating space between light
fixtures; street lighting ranges anywhere from approximately 200-500 feet apart andare
between 25-35 feet in height.Sources of nighttime lighting or glare on the Project site
include lighting from vehicle headlights, twostreetlights adjacent tothe site on the north
side of East Cherry Avenue, and street lighting along Traffic Way.
3.1.2Regulatory Setting
3.1.2.1Federal
No federal policies or regulations related to aesthetics and visual resources would apply to
the Project.
3.1.2.2State
Caltrans Scenic Highway Program
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines a scenic highway as any
freeway, highway, road, or other public rights-of-way that traverses an area of exceptional
scenic quality. Suitability for designation as a State Scenic Highway is based on vividness,
intactness, and unity. U.S. Highway 101, located less than a quarter of a mile to the west
of the Project site,is eligible for State Scenic Highway designation; however, it is not
3.1-5
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
currently designated as scenic by the State, the County of San Luis Obispo, or the City of
Arroyo Grande.
Senate Bill (SB) 743
Governor Brown signed SB 743 in September 2013(Steinberg, 2013), which made several
changes to CEQA for projects located in areas served by transit (Public Resources Code
Section 21099). Under SB 743, a projects aesthetic impacts are not considered significant
impacts on the environment if: 1) the project is a residential, mixed use residential, or
employment center project, and 2) the project is located on an infill site within a transit
priority area. This provision for aesthetic impacts does not include impacts to historic or
cultural resources. The proposed Project is a residential and mixed use development
project, part of which is located on currently zonedagricultural land in the City, but is not
considered to be a transit priority area and therefore is not exempt from consideration for
aesthetic impacts under the CEQA process.
3.1.2.3Local
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
As the overarching policy document guiding development in the City, the Arroyo Grande
General Plan contains policies to regulate all aspects of physical growth and conservation
in the community.Relative to this analysis, the Fringe and Urban Area Land Use Element
of the General Plan contains policies to ensure that new development is compatible with
existing visual context.Additionally, the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space
Element includes policies to protect open space and minimize visual impacts on
surrounding natural landscape and to protect scenic views. Pertinent policies from both
Elements are listed below.
General Plan, Fringe and Urban Area Land Use Element
Goal LU 11 To promote a pattern of land use that protects the integrity of existing land
uses, area resources and infrastructure and involves logical jurisdictional boundaries with
adjacent communities and the County.
Policy LU11-2 Require that new development should be designed to create
pleasing transitions to surrounding development.
Policy LU11-2.4 Require that new developments be designated so as to respect
the views from existing developments; provide view corridors which are oriented
toward existing or proposed community amenities, such as a park, open space, or
natural features.
3.1-6
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
Goal LU12 Toprotect components of rural settings and small town character.
Policy LU12-3 Preserve the scenic vistas and retain a feeling of openness in
new developments.
Policy LU12-3.5 Require the provision of open space and recreation areas
within the urban residential portions of the City. Within the rural residential
portions of the planning area, emphasize the preservation of natural landforms and
vegetation.
Policy LU12-6 Require that residential street design be sensitive to existing
landforms, and minimize traffic volumes on local residential streets.
Policy LU12-8 - Emphasize the incorporation of landscape themes and extensive
landscaped areas into new development; provide landscaping and open spaces as
an integral part of project design to enhance building design, public views, and
interior spaces; provide buffers and transitions as needed; and facilitate energy
conservation.
Policy LU12-9 Encourage the provision of custom homes or homes that
simulate a rural, small town, custom home atmosphere.
Policy LU12-14 Development Code property development standards Design
Guidelines revisions shall consider refinement to outdoor lighting design, height,
placement and intensity levels to minimize unnecessary glare, energy use,
intrusion onto adjacent properties or public spaces. Facilities such as night sky
visibility, safety, security/motion and light sensor, controls, timers and aesthetic
compatibility should be part of outdoor lighting design considerations.
General Plan, Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element
Goal C/OS1 to protect visually accessible scenic resources.
Policy C/OS1-1 Identify and protect scenic resources and view sheds associated
with them.
C/OS1-1.1 For purposes of this policy, a scenic resource may refer to
agricultural land, open spaces, hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, valleys,
landmark trees, woodlands, wetlands, streambeds, and banks, as well as
aspects of the built environment that are of a historic nature, unique to the
City, or contribute to the rural, small town character of the City.
Goal C/OS2 To safeguard important environmental and sensitive biological resources
contributing to healthy, functioning ecosystems.
Policy C/OS2-3 Identify and designate Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) other
public or private properties containing scenic resources or public vistas of scenic
importance.
3.1-7
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Chapter 16.48.090
Chapter 16.48.090 of the City Municipal Code addresses general development standards
for the installation of new light sources. It is the primary goal of this ordinance to reduce
the disruption of light cause by outdoor lighting, and to reduce glare and nighttime lighting
to better preserve the visual properties of the night sky.
Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District (D-2.11) Traffic Way and
Station Way
The City contains specific design guidelines and development standards that apply to new
development within the D-2.11 Design Overlay District. Subarea 1 is currently within this
district. Development within this district would be subject to all site development standards
within the Development Code. Building design is limited to three stories in height and must
have a horizontal massing, including both pedestrian and vehicle-oriented features evident
from public streets. Construction materials should be compatible with those used on
adjacent developments.
3.1.3Environmental Impact Analysis
3.1.3.1Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with Appendix G of the 2016State CEQA Guidelines, the Project would
result in a significant impact to aesthetics and visual resources if it would:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, open space and historic buildings within a local or state scenic
highway;
c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings; or
d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area.
3.1.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology
Impacts to visual resources and overall Project aesthetics were assessed through field
observation, notes, and site photography of existing resources; analysis of the sites
relationship to the surrounding community; review of the Citys existing policy framework
3.1-8
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
for protection visual resources; and review of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Design
Guidelines (Appendix M).Key Viewing Areas (KVAs) were chosen for the site based on
their location within high viewer exposure locations near sensitive receptors along East
Cherry Avenue. A simulation of KVAs 2 and 3 were conducted by the applicants technical
consultantto give a visual representation of what implementation of the development of
Subarea 2would look like from these locations.Simulations for KVAs 1 and 4 are
unavailable, but impacts to views are discussed.
To evaluate potential visual impacts, two primary factors were considered, visual impact
susceptibility and visual impact severity, both of which are described below.
Visual Impact Susceptibility
Visual impact susceptibility is the degree to which existing visual resources could be
impacted by development of a project.Three factors are considered in the evaluation of
visual impact susceptibility: visual quality, viewer exposure,and viewer sensitivity.
Together, these factors combine to create a statement of the likelihood that the existing
landscape/site will be impacted by the project.Each of these factors is used to rate visual
impact susceptibility.As a general guideline, a visual impact susceptibility rating of low is
achieved if two or more of the three contributing factors are rated low.A visual impact
susceptibility rating of high is achieved if two or more of the three contributing factors are
rated high.A visual impact susceptibility rating of moderate is achieved for all other
combinations of the three contributing factors.
is a measure of the overall impression or appeal of an area, as
Visual Quality
determined by the particular landscape characteristics.In this case, the quality is
judged by the views of the Santa Lucia Range and natural hillsides to the east and
south of the Projectsite. Variety, vividness, coherence, uniqueness, harmony, and
pattern contribute to three visual quality classifications, indistinctive (low),
common (moderate), and distinctive (high). Visual quality is studied as a point of
reference to assess how compatible a given project would appear in relation to the
established features of the setting.
describes the degree to which viewers are exposed to views of
Viewer Exposure
the landscape. Viewer exposure considers the number of viewers, the duration of
the view, and the proximity of viewers to the subject landscape.
is a measure of the level of interest or concern of viewers
Viewer Sensitivity
regarding an areas visual resources.It is closely associated with viewers
3.1-9
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
expectations for the area. Viewer sensitivity reflects the importance placed on a
given landscape or urban area based on the human perceptions of the intrinsic
beauty or aesthetic quality of the existing landforms and adjacent structures.
Visual Impact Severity
Visual impact severity refers tothe degree of the negative effect of pertinent project
characteristics on the existing landscape.In some cases this may include loss of onsite
visual features and landmark structures.A determination of visual impact severity is made
through evaluation of the visual contrast,project dominance, and view impairment
resulting from a proposed project.
refers to a potential projects consistency with the visual
Visual Contrast
elements of form, line, color, and texture already established in the landscape.
Other elements that are considered in evaluating visual contrast include the degree
of natural screening by vegetation and landforms, placement of structures relative
to existing vegetation and landforms, distance from the point of observation, and
relativesize or scale.
refers to the project's relationship to other visible landscape
Project Dominance
components in terms of vertical and horizontal extent. A project's scale and spatial
relationship to the existing landscape can be categorized as subordinate, co-
dominant, or dominant.
refers to the extent to which a project's scale and position result
View Impairment
in the blockage of higher quality visual elements by lower quality elements.
Key Viewing Areas
The potential impacts of the proposed Project on the visual quality of the Project site and
surrounding area, including those arising from the loss of open space and disruption of
view corridors. Four KVAs are selected for analysis in the Project vicinity (see Figure
3.1-1). Oasis Associatesprepared simulations of KVAs 2 and 3 forthe proposed Project
(refer to Figures 3.1-2 and 3.1-3) which areused to illustrate how the development of
Subarea 2 may affect views and/or visual resources.The KVAs described below.
3.1-10
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
Figure 3.1-1. KVA Location Map
Key Viewing Area 1: Subarea 1 from Intersection of Traffic Wayand East Cherry Avenue
This KVA represents views of Subarea 1 of the Project site from the sidewalk at the
intersection of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue. Uninterrupted views of the Santa
Lucia Range, natural hillsides, and the St. Barnabas Episcopal Church are especially
prominent. Motorists, pedestrians, visitors, and shoppers along Traffic Way have full view
of these visual resources, as well as of the entire Project site(see Figure 3.1-2).
Key Viewing Area 2: Subarea 2 Looking East along East Cherry Avenue
This KVA represents views of the Project site from the adjacent sidewalk on East Cherry
Avenue near its intersection with Traffic Way. This location shows the quality of the views
of the Santa Lucia Range and natural hillsides for the adjacent residences and travelers of
Traffic Way. With development of the Project, it is anticipated that this location would
experience substantial increases in pedestrian traffic and loss of the views of the natural
hillside with the development of two-story residential units (see Figure 3.1-3).
3.1-11
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
Existing View
Source:
RRM Design.
Rendered View
FIGURE
KVA 1 Looking East from the Intersection of
3.1-2
Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue
3.1-12
Existing View
Source:Source: Oasis Associates 2015. Oasis Associates 2015.
Simulation*
*While simulation depicts residences up to two stories, the Project will contain only one-story residences along East Cherry Avenue.
FIGURE
KVA 2 Looking East Along East Cherry Avenue
3.1-3
3.1-13
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
Key Viewing Area 3: Subarea 2 Looking West along East Cherry Avenue
This KVA represents views of the Subarea 2 site from the sidewalk along East Cherry
Avenue across from Subarea 3. Residencies located across from the site have full view of
the adjacent natural hillside and the St. Barnabas Episcopal Church. Much like Key
Viewing Area 2, this location would experience increased pedestrian traffic with
implementation of the Project and loss the natural hillside views (refer to Figure 3.1-4).
Key Viewing Area 4: Subarea 3 from East Cherry Avenue
This KVA represents the view of Subarea 3 from the sidewalk along East Cherry Avenue
adjacent from the propertytowards the eastern-most extent of the Project site. Currently,
the vacant Subarea 3 lot is partially screenedby trees which interrupt views of the southern
hillsides. Proposed development of Subarea 3 would replace some of the existing trees and
other vegetation located along the northern, eastern, and western sides of the subarea.
However, new landscaping including gardens would be installed as well as a senior housing
and community center and a parking area on the north most side of the subarea.
Development of the proposed Projectare expected to similarly limit offsite views from this
KVA.
KVA 4: Subarea 3 of the site remains mostly hidden behind trees and scenic views to the south are
blocked by trees.
Source: Google Earth 2016.
3.1-14
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
Existing View
Source:Source: Oasis Associates 2015. Oasis Associates 2015.
Simulation*
*While simulation depicts residences up to two stories, the Project will contain only one-story residences along East Cherry Avenue.
FIGURE
KVA 3 Looking West Along East Cherry Avenue
3.1-4
3.1-15
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
Short-Term Construction Impacts
Evaluation of construction impacts focuses on the short-term visual impacts resulting from
Project construction, the presence of equipment and material storage, as well as alteration
of the existing landscape by excavation and earthmoving. In a visual sense, short-duration
construction impacts from the proposed Project would be obtrusive and out of character
with the surrounding natural landscape.
Long-Term Visual Impacts
Long-term Project impacts focus on thevisual impacts resulting from Project operation
and the permanent presence of new structures and development. It should be noted that
existing views can change over time. For example, trees that currently screen a project site
could be burned duringwildfire events or die from old age or disease. However, new
landscaping would be installed and maintained to be part of the long-term landscape
character of the area.
Analysis of Visual Impact Susceptibility
The proposed Project would alter the existing scenic views of the Santa
Visual Quality
Lucia range and the natural hillsides eastward from East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way.
While no designated scenic corridors exist near the Project site, existing views of the Santa
Lucia Range and natural hillsidesmixed with views of a variety of developed residential
and mix uses result in a moderate to high visual quality rating.
The Project site is highly visible to residents along East Cherry
Viewer Exposure
Avenue, the St. Barnabas Episcopal Church, residents of the adjacent Vagabond Mobile
Home Park, and travelers along East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way. Traffic Way serves
as one of the primary arterial roadways of the City and experiences high volumes of
motorized and pedestrian traffic. Based on the number of viewers and the close proximity
of viewing points to the project site, viewer exposure is given a high rating. Viewer
exposure would remain high after project implementation, with multiple elements of the
project, including trees, landscaping, and buildings directly visible to travelers moving in
both directions on both East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way.
The Project site is located directly adjacent to residential homes along
Viewer Sensitivity
East Cherry Avenue that have an uninterrupted view of the natural hillsides located to the
south. Additionally, current views of the site from Traffic Way are of moderate to high
quality; development of the site has the potential to disrupt these views. However, higher
3.1-16
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
travel speeds on the busy arterial, obstructions from existing urban developments and
commercial buildings and signs viewed from Traffic Way limittravelers along these scenic
resources. These factors result in a viewer sensitivity rating of moderate.
Based on consideration of visual quality, viewer exposure, and viewer sensitivity, a visual
impact susceptibility rating of moderate to high has been concluded.
Analysis of Visual Impact Severity
Currently, most of the Project site consists of open agricultural land
Visual Contrast
bounded to the north by residential and urban development. With the development of the
Project, the visual character associated with the Project sitewould changefrom rural to
urban-suburban. However, a transition to a residential and urban development would be
consistent withadjacent land designations and developmentwithin the City. The Project
Design Guidelines indicate that the development of theProject would be of superior design,
seeking to be consistent with surrounding visual character. Nevertheless, the Project would
introduce new residences on land that is currently free of visual obstructions from travelers
on East Cherry Avenue, as well as from private locations associated with existing homes
on the north side of that street.In addition, the Project would locate ahotel and restaurant
along the urban commercial section of Traffic Way, which would result in the obstruction
or loss of views of the San Lucia Range from Traffic Way.
Considering its relationship to both built andnatural visual resources, the Project would
result in a moderate level of overall visual contrast.
Due to the existing adjacent land uses, the Project would result in
Project Dominance
the co-dominance of the surrounding land uses. The proposed Project would result in the
development and loss of open agricultural land, a land use not characteristic of the
immediate vicinity. However, Project development would create atransitional zone of
residential and mixed-use land usescompatible with existing residential and commercial
uses.
Considering the proposed designations and the development of the sites, the Project would
result in a low level of Project dominance.
Although the Project would be compatible with the types of urban
ViewImpairment
development in the vicinity, Project development would nonetheless displace open scenic
agricultural land and impair high quality scenic resources available across the site.
Existing, agricultural views of the natural hillsides to the south for East Cherry Avenue
3.1-17
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
residents would be replaced by new residential structures and landscaping. Project Design
Guidelines establish a maximum height standard for all residential units to 30 feet, a height
that would obstruct views of the southern hillside. Existing views of the Santa Lucia Range
to motorists and pedestrians along East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way would be partially
interrupted by new structures and landscaping.
With regards to proposed building and landscape design, the Project would result in a high
level of view impairment.
3.1.4Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The proposed Project would result in the following impacts to aesthetics and visual
resources.Measures to mitigate impact, are provided.
Table 3.1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Aesthetic ImpactsMitigation MeasuresResidual Significance
Impact VIS-1. Implementation of the Project MM VIS-1a Less than Significantwith
would result in adverse effects to the existing Mitigation
scenic resources present at the site and
surrounding areas.
Impact VIS-2. The proposed Project would NonerequiredLess than Significant
result in a significant change in the existing
visual characteristics of the site.
Impact VIS-3. Construction of the Project NonerequiredLess than Significant
would create short-term disruption of scenic (Short-term)
resources for the residents and travelers
along East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way.
Impact VIS-4. The proposed Project would MM VIS-4a Less than Significant with
introduce new sources of nighttime light, Mitigation
impacting the quality of the nighttime sky
and increasing ambient light.
Impact
VIS-1 Implementation of the Project would resultin impactsto the existing
scenic resources present at the site and surrounding areas, particularly
the adjacent hillside and distant views of the San Lucia Range(Less
than Significantwith Mitigation).
The proposed Project landscaping and development would modify existing views of the
onsite agricultural lands, adjacent hillsides and views of the Santa Lucia Range that are
currently available to the east. Consistent with the City General Plan, the generally
moderate to high quality of these agricultural lands, mountains, and hillsides can be defined
3.1-18
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
as scenic resources under Policy C/OS1-1.1. The Project site does not lie within close
proximity to a designated scenic highway and development of the site would not result in
any impacts to scenic resources within such roadways.Implementation of the proposed
Project, could disrupt views of these scenic resources, most noticeably along East Cherry
Avenue, for passersby and residents of the area.Despite the Project being divided into
separate aspects associated with eachsubarea, the Project as a whole is subject to review
by the City staff, as well as the Architectural Review Committee(ARC)to ensure
compliance with the Citys applicable design guidelines (City of Arroyo Grande 2001),
and conclude that the Project would result in minimal impacts to scenic resources.
The impact assessment is organized by subarea, and is further discussed below.
Subarea 1Impacts:
Subarea 1 of the Project site proposes the development of athree-story, 90- to 100-room
key branded hoteltotaling approximately 46,800 sf and a detached single-story 4,000 sf
restaurant. Based on development plans for the site, implementation of the hotel and
restaurant on Subarea 1 would disrupt distant mountain views present from Traffic Way
and East Cherry Avenue,as seen in KVA 1. Development withinSubarea 1 would require
compliance with theDesign Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District (D-2.11)
Traffic Way and Station Wayand would therefore be limited to threestories in height.
Further, due to the requirement of review by the City staff and Architectural Review
Committee, and implementation of MM VIS-1a, impacts to scenic resources from the
development of Subarea 1 would be .
less than significantwith mitigation
Subarea 2 Impacts:
Development of the single-family residential units on Subarea 2 would block views of the
natural coast live oak woodland hillside and southern hills for residents and travelers along
East Cherry Avenue.In addition, of the Project would result in the loss of the agricultural
lands presenton Subarea 2 of the Project site. These agricultural lands are considered a
scenic resource under City General Plan Policy C/OS1-1.1, and the loss of this scenic
resource would result in potentially adverse impacts to the visual character and quality of
the area.
Design guidelines for the Subarea 2 development state that residential units would consist
of both one- and two-story homes with maximum heights of 20 and 30 feet respectively
(Appendix M).Project simulations for KVA 2 and 3 (present in Figures 3.1-3 and 3.1-4)
illustrate how development of homes within Subarea 2 site would fully block views of the
3.1-19
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
natural hillsides located to the southfor sensitive receptors along East Cherry Avenue, and
existing partial views of the Santa Lucia Range would likely be further interruptedby the
2
proposed Project from East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way.While the Santa Lucia Range
would be considered a scenic resource as defined by Policy C/OS1-1.1, viewer exposure
of this resource from KVAs 2 and 3 is lower moderateto moderateas views of Santa Lucia
Range are distant,currentviews area alreadypartially obscured by existing vegetation and
development, and proposed development would not fully obscure offsite views by
providing some visual breaks between structures and uses.
As the Project and its design guidelines for the Subarea 2 property would require review
by City staff and the Architectural Review Committeeunder the General Plan Integrated
Program EIR (City of Arroyo Grande 2001),MM VIS-1a would ensure adequate review
by the Architectural Review Committee to ensurethat the Project adheres to goals and
standards established by the City to adequately mitigate impacts to scenic resources.
Therefore, impacts to scenic resources from the development of Subarea 2 would be
less
.
than significant with mitigation
Subarea 3 Impacts:
The Subarea 3 site offers little in terms of scenic views from East Cherry Avenue, as much
of the site is covered by large trees which disrupt views of the adjacent natural hillside,
southerly natural slopes, and distant Santa Lucia Vistas. Development of the site would
result in the removal of severalsome larger trees fromthe property and the addition of
several structures whose designs have not been specified. With the development of this
subarea, views of scenic resources from East Cherry Avenue are anticipated to remain the
same and visual impacts to these resources would be minimal.By following Project design
guidelines, review of the development by City staff and the Architectural Review
Committeeunder the General Plan Integrated Program EIR (City of Arroyo Grande 2001),
and implementation of MM VIS-1a, impacts to scenic resources caused by the development
of Subarea 3 would be .
less than significantwith mitigation
Mitigation Measurefor All Subareas
MM VIS-1a The Architectural Review Committee shall review Project design and
consider impacts to the scenic resources available on or adjacent to the
Project site, with particular consideration to the Santa Lucia Mountains. This
2
While visual simulations depict two-story residences along East Cherry Avenue, residences along
East Cherry Avenue are proposed to only be one story in height. See Section 2.6.3.2.
3.1-20
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
includes the review of building siting, height, massing, design, and setbacks.
The Architectural Review Committee shalldetermine whether structures
obstruct important views of scenic resources, and/or propose design
alterationsto reduce impacts to important views of scenic resources.
Plan Requirements and Timing.The City shall ensure design of the Project
does not obstruct important views of scenic resources. The Applicants shall
incorporate recommendations to protect scenic resources and/or views into
the Project designprior to permit approval.
Monitoring.The City shall ensure adequate protection of scenicresources
present onsite, from the Project site, or from adjacent viewing areas/corridors
during planning and design review.
Residual Impact
Implementation of the above mitigation measure and review by City staff and the
Architectural Review Committee would result in a less than significant impact to scenic
resources.
Impact
VIS-2 The proposed Project would result in a change in the existing visual
character of the sitewith the change of the rural or semi-rural
character to a mixed use andresidential neighborhood (Less than
Significant).
Current land uses and agricultural operations characterize the visual nature of the site and
contribute to scenic values of the urban-ruralboundary of this region in the City.The
current undeveloped agricultural nature of the site may provide desired visual character
and agricultural views for adjacent residential developments, particularly those located
along East Cherry Avenue, Village Court, and Trinity Avenue. Development of a hotel,
restaurant, and residential housing units on the site would substantially alter the visual
character of the site, moving from arural-agricultural character to one associated with
urban development. Although this would be considered a major transformation to the site,
visual character of the Project would be consistent with the visual character of the
surrounding area.
The impact assessment is organized by subarea, and is further discussed below.
3.1-21
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
Subarea 1 Impacts:
Subarea 1 of the Project site currently consists of fallow land that would be developed for
commercial use by a three-story 90- to 100-unit hotel and separate single-story 4,000 sf
restaurant. Land use along Traffic Way is characterized by Traffic Way Mixed-Use
designation which primarily allows for the sale and servicing of vehicles, as well as other
accessory use. Additional developments along Traffic Way include the Cherry Lane
Nursery, Log Cabin Market, and several hotel/motels. Currently, the fallow area of Subarea
1 does not fit within the current and planned character of Traffic Way, and does little to
contribute to the overall visual character of the region. Development of the site for hotel
and restaurant use however, would comply with City design guidelines for Traffic Way,
and result in a more visually consistent urban landscape. Therefore, impacts to the visual
character of the Project site caused by the development of Subarea 1 would be
less than
.
significant
Subarea 2 Impacts:
The current visual character of Subarea 2 isconsidered agricultural in character due to the
small agricultural operations conducted within the urban-fringe region of the city, near
urban neighborhoods. The Project site consists of agricultural lands that have been
disconnected from the dominant agricultural areas of the City, and lie within a portion of
the City now characterized by more urban neighborhoods. While the development of the
site would result in the change of character from rural-agriculture to urban development,
this change in character would be more consistent with the overlying visual character of
adjacent areas within the City.Additionally, development of the site would adhere to City
General Plan Policy LU11-2 as the proposed development would result in a transition of
uses consistent with existingcharacter of surrounding development. Subarea 1 proposes
commercial uses consistent with uses along Traffic Way. The Project transitions to the east
with residential and mixed uses consistent with surrounding residential densities and scales
of use.Further, adherence to the Citys Design Guidelines and Standards and review by
the Architectural Review Committee would ensure that the Project would not degrade the
visual character of the vicinity. Therefore, the change in visual character of Subarea 2 to
be more uniform consistent with surrounding land uses would result in impacts which
would be .
less than significant
3.1-22
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
Subarea 3 Impacts:
Subarea 3 of the site consists of vacant land shrouded by large treeswhich present a more
rural visual character than the surrounding properties. Development of this subarea would
result in a change in visual character to one more dominantly characterized by urban
development. Design of the site would consists of construction of buildings which follow
traditional Japanese styles, multiple gardens of both cultural and native significance, and
installation of grassy areas and a parking lot. The development of the site would result in
the overall visual character being more consistent with the urban developed neighborhoods
adjacent to the site and in the creation of the more uniform visual character of the southern
Arroyo Grande region. Despite the change from a rural character, development of Subarea
3 would be much more consistent with the existing visual character of the region, and
impacts associated with this would be .
less than significant
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures required.
Impact
VIS-3 Construction of the Project would create short-term disruption of the
visual appearance of the site for the residents and travelers along East
Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way (Less than Significant).
Construction operations of the proposed Project would result in unpleasant aesthetics of
the site. Operation and parking of large machinery, grading and filling of the site, soil
excavations, construction lighting, and other operational activities create disruptive scenes
and may affect existing visual resources. Throughout construction of the Project, these
activities may result in the deterrence of individuals looking upon the existing scenic
resources. Despite these potential impacts, construction operations of the site are
temporary, and visual resources would be impacted for the duration of construction.
The visual changes created by the presence of construction equipment, disruption of site
landscape,and unfinished structures would alter the visual character of the site during the
construction period.While this impact would be adverse, it would be short-term, and is
thus determined to be less than significant.Further, existing vegetation in some portions of
Subarea 3 would partially screen construction activities and project landscaping would
begin to screen some development from public viewing areas. Should site landscaping and
3.1-23
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
existing vegetation be subject to fire-related disturbance from future wildfires, impacts
would be short-term and similar to those for construction.
Due to the short-term duration of construction activitiesfor all subareas,impacts to
aesthetic resourcesassociated with construction operations during Project development are
considered temporarily adverse but.
less then significant
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measurements required.
Impact
VIS-4 The proposed Project would introduce new sources of nighttime light,
impacting the quality of the nighttime sky and increasing ambient light
(Less than Significantwith Mitigation).
The Project would result in the development of agricultural and vacant lands which do not
possessany sources of artificial light, currently creating no additional impact to nighttime
light. Development of the site would alter current lighting conditions, significantly
increasing the amount of exterior lighting fixtures and light produced on the Project site.
However, the site is located in an already urbanized portionof the City, adjacent to
residential neighborhoods and the Traffic Way arterial, which consists of large amount of
exterior light fixtures (e.g. street lighting, MobilGas Station, vehicular lighting, etc.).
Significant sources of nighttime light would be generated by the Project, and despite the
already impacted visual quality of the nighttime sky by surrounding developments, the
Project area consists of open space land with no existing sources of light, and development
of the Project would introduce new light sources which would contribute to decreased
visual quality of the nighttime sky in the area.
Several homes located along the northern sides Trinity Avenue and Village Court have
prominent views of the Project site, and experience reduced levels of ambient light and
glare due to the undeveloped agricultural character of the Project site. Development of the
site would introduce new sources of nighttime light, ambient light, and potentialglare that
would potentially affect these homes more than adjacent land uses.
In order to prevent additional adverse effects to residential properties, Project Design
Guidelines state that exterior light fixtures would be shielded and directed downward to
avoid light spill and glare, adhering with General Plan Policy Ag/C/OS.23Additionally,
all developments under the Project will be required to adhere to lighting ordinances
3.1-24
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
established in Chapter 16.48.090 of the City Municipal Code, which establishes standards
for outdoor lighting.
Despite these standards, the Project would introduce a potentially adverse amount of new
light sources which would disrupt nighttime views from surrounding land uses. To ensure
compatibility with City regulations and standardsregarding Project design, the Project
would be subject to review by the Architectural Review Committee. During this review,
Project Design Guidelines for Project lighting and other architectural features would be
reviewed for consistency with City policies and regulations, and the Architectural Review
Committee may make adjustments to Project designs to ensure consistency with these
policies. During this period, implementation of MM VIS-4a would require the
Architectural Review Committee to consider aesthetic and visual impacts associated with
lighting, which would reduce potential impacts to nighttime views presented by the Project.
Due to required review of the Project by the Architectural Review Committee and
implementation of the proposed mitigation measure, impacts associated with the creation
of new sources of exterior lighting would be .
less than significantwith mitigation
Mitigation Measures
MM VIS-4a Upon review of the Project, the Architectural Review Committee shall
consider the minimization of the number streetlights along East Cherry
Avenue to reducelighting effects upon the visual quality nighttime sky.
However, the Architectural Review Committeeshall allow adequate
streetlights and security lighting for public safety.
Plan Requirements and Timing.The Architectural Review Committee
shall ensure the Project does not introduce sources of lighting that would
unnecessarilyor excessively disrupt the quality of nighttime sky, while
continuing to allowlighting for public safety and security. The Applicants
shall incorporate recommendations to reduce nighttime lighting impacts into
the Project designprior to development plan or permit approval.
Monitoring.The City shall ensure street lighting proposed by the Project
does not unnecessarily obstruct the quality of the nighttime sky while
continuing to provide a sufficient amount of lighting to ensure public safety.
3.1-25
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.1AVR
ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
Residual Impact
When combined with the proposed mitigation measure, review by the Architectural Review
Committee would reduce residual impacts to nighttime views to less than significant levels.
3.1.5Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project, in combination withapproved, pending, and proposed development
in Arroyo Grande, especially those within the Historic Overlay District, would contribute
toward creating a more defined urban environment in the City. Consistent withthe General
Plan Integrated Program EIR and withlong-term buildout under the General Plan, the Project
would be required to adhere to the design standards of the City General Planand City
Building Standards and would be subject to discretionary review by the Planning
Commission and/orCity Council, aswell as final design review by the Architectural Review
Committee.Therefore, although the visual character couldincrementallychange as
development intensity increases, such change is consistent with the General Plan vision for
urban environment and impacts to visual quality would not be considered cumulatively
considerable. The overall aesthetic impact of cumulative development in the Project vicinity
would be .
less than significant
3.1-26
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
The following section evaluates the potential impacts of the East Cherry Avenue Specific
Plan(Project) on site-specific and regional agricultural resources, including prime
farmland locatedwithin the City of Arroyo Grandes(Citys)limits.It also evaluates the
Projects consistency with the agricultural and open space land use goals, programs, and
policies in the CitysGeneral Plan and related planning policy documents, as well as
relevant state policies and regulations.The analysis for agricultural resources uses Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) methodology to determine the significance of
impacts, which are described below.LESA Model estimates for the Project are contained
within Appendix D of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Agricultural resources consist of any farmland with potential for agricultural productivity.
Important agricultural resources are identified by the State of California as sites containing
superior or unique soilas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), or Important Farmland as defined by the
1
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP),or other important agricultural
production properties.Such resources may be protected by agricultural zoning or
2
Williamson Actcontractsto prevent conversion to non-agricultural use.
3.2.1EnvironmentalSetting
3.2.1.1Regional Context
Agriculture is a major production industry inthe County of San Luis Obispo (County) with
a gross production value of $903 million in 2014.Top crops by value include:strawberries
($205 million), wine grapes ($203 million), cattle and calves ($126 million), broccoli ($57
million), and vegetable transplants ($33million) (County of San Luis Obispo, Department
of Agriculture/Weights and Measures 2015).Agriculture production creates amultiplier
effect, creating jobs and economic output in many other sectors of the local economy,
including tourism, industrial, retail and commercial services.Agricultural resources in the
vicinity of the City of Arroyo Grande are mainly limited to areas outside the City limits.
1
The FMMP assesses the location, quality and quantity of agricultural lands and monitors the conversion
of these lands to nonagricultural uses. The FMMP classifies Important Farmland based on agricultural soil
quality and current land useinto four categories of important farmlands: prime farmland, farmland of
statewide importance, unique farmland, and farmland of local importance. Important farmlands contain
soils best suited for producing food and forage, particularly for producing high-yield crops.
2
A Williamson Act contract is an agreement between private landowners and the government to restrict
specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space usesin return for reduced property tax
assessments (refer to Section 3.2.3, Regulatory Setting, for additional detail).
3.2-1
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
Agricultural activity in the vicinity includes irrigated row crops in level or gently sloping
areas and livestock grazing in foothill areas. Nearby farmland in the County lies southwest
of the City in Oceano, and northeast of the City along Arroyo Grande Creek.
The City is located inthe southwestern end of San Luis Obispo County, encompassing a
total of 5.835 square miles(approximately 3,374.4 acres) of lands that are largely
developed. The City contains approximately 369 acres of land zoned for agricultural use,
equating to nearly 10 percent of land within the City limits, and contains approximately
500 acres of Class I and II soils (Laura A. Pennebaker 2009).
3.2.1.2Local Context
There are agriculturally zoned lands in the City approximately 0.25 miles to the northeast,
and 0.20 milesto thewestof the Project site.The Project site is bordered by nonagricultural
lands, single-family neighborhoods tothe north and northeast, lands developed with
commercial uses along TrafficWay to the west, and the Vagabond Mobile Home Park and
St. Barnabas Episcopal Church along its southern boundary. The areas located to the north,
west, and east are zoned for urban uses by the City and listed as Urban and Built-Up Lands
by the California Department of Conservation and are therefore ineligible for a Williamson
Act contract (Department of Conservation 2010). Neither the Project site nor immediately
adjacent lands are under a Williamson Act contract; although, there are Williamson Act
lands approximately 0.5 miles to the southof the Project site.
3.2.1.3Project Site
The 15.29-acre Projectsite is located entirely
within the City limits.The 2.16-acre Subarea
1 is zoned for Traffic Way Mixed-Use(a
nonagricultural zoning district) and is
currently fallow.The 11.62-acre Subarea 2is
zoned for agriculture, andcurrently contains
commercialrow crop productioncultivated
with broccoli, lettuce, celery, and parsley.
Subarea 2is currently used as agricultural
Subarea 3 iszoned for agriculture, but is
land for the cultivation of row crops.
currently not utilized for agricultural
activities.A portion of Subarea 1 and the entire Subarea 2 have historically been farmed
with a variety of vegetable row crops. Irrigation for these crops is obtained from two
existing onsite water wells located on the northeast portion of Subarea 2. Subarea 3 was
3.2-2
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
originally purchased in 1920 by the Arroyo Grande Japanese Welfare Association(JWA),
and included two houses, two garages, and accessory buildings. The site has been host to
a variety of uses over time, but was not known to be under commercial agricultural
production. As designated under the FMMP, theProject site contains a total of 12.85acres
of prime farmland and 2.44 acres of land classified as urban and built-up land
(Department of Conservation 2012; see Figure 3.2-1).
Figure 3.2-1. Agricultural Resources within the Project Site
Agricultural Soils within the Site
The Project site contains a total of 14.0 acres of prime agricultural soils soils as defined
by the NCRS; these soilsoverlap the 12.85 acres of FMMP designated prime farmland.
The NRCS Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County, Coastal Part, identifies soil types in
southern San Luis Obispo County, including those which contain superior properties for
agricultural production, known as prime agricultural soils.The NRCS designates such
prime soils with a Soil Capability Class of I or II. Many soils are given a Capability Class
of I or II only when irrigated, but otherwise receive a lower rating without irrigation. Soils
in the Project siteare comprised of Mocho Silty Clay Loam and two types of Zaca Clay
3.2-3
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
(seeFigure 3.2-2). Mocho Silty ClayLoamcontains a Soil Capability Class of I when
irrigated and is considered Class IIIc without irrigation(Table 3.2-1). The first type of Zaca
Clay contains a Soil Capability Class of IVe with and without irrigation. The second type
of Zaca Clay present at the site contains a Soil Capability Class of VIIe with and without
irrigation.Mocho Silty Clay Loam is considered a prime agricultural soil by the California
Department of Conservation when irrigated, while both types of Zaca Clay are considered
non-prime in irrigated and non-irrigated conditions(NRCS 2015).
Figure 3.2-2. Agricultural Soils within the Project Site
The Mocho Silty Clay Loam occurs on all 2.16 acres of Subarea 1, approximately 10.1
acres of Subarea 2, and approximately 1.74 acres ofSubarea 3 (using proposed subarea
acreages). The Zaca Clay (15 to 30 percent slopes) occurs on approximately 0.89 acres of
Subarea 2 and approximately 0.02 acres of Subarea 3. The Zaca Clay (50 to 75 percent
slopes) occurs on approximately 0.09 acres of Subarea 3 (see Figure 3.2-2). In summary,
3
approximately 93 percent of the soils are considered prime soils when irrigated.
3
Approximately 11 acres (73%) of the site is currently irrigated, with currently fallow areas in Subarea 1.
3.2-4
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
Table 3.2-1.Project Site Soil Capabilities
Acreage in ClassImportant
Map Project Farmland Map Slope Surface Irrigation
SymbolSoil NameSiteIRNIDesignation%Runofflimitations
175Mocho Silty 14.0 I IIIcPrime (if 0 to 2MediumFew limitations
Clay Loamirrigated)
225Zaca Clay0.9IVeIVeNot Prime15 to Very HighVery limited (slope
30and erosion)
227Zaca Clay0.1VIIeVIIeNot Prime50 to Very HighVery limited (slope
75and erosion)
Notes:IR = irrigated; NI = non-irrigated.
Source: NRCS 2015.
Proposed Offsite Agricultural Resources
The Project includes a proposal for offsite agricultural protection of a 9.79-acre parcel
under an agricultural conservation easement. This proposed agricultural conservation
parcel is located at 1189 Flora Road, approximately 1.25 miles northeast of the Project site.
This parcel is located within the City limits, is currently zoned Agriculture and under
cultivation, and contains comparable Class I prime farmland soils to the Project site. This
proposal is made in an effort to mitigate the loss of prime farmland soils in Subarea 2 in
compliance withGoal Ag1 of the Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element of
the Citys General Plan.On July 28, 2015, the City Council adopted the resolution
determining that the Flora Road site constitutes as appropriate mitigation for the conversion
4
of prime farmland in Subarea 2(City of Arroyo Grande 2015).
The Flora Road parcel includes a single residence and a well that, while in working
condition, is considered unreliable. The City Council has recently approved a replacement
well that is anticipated to produce a higher volume of water. It is estimated that the well
would produce ample water for the residence and agricultural operations on the property,
as well as a substantial amount of water that may be used by the City for irrigation purposes.
In addition to the agricultural conservation easement, an agreement would include the
Citys rights to water below the surface of the property, rights of access to such water, and
the right to install and maintain wells on the property.
4
It should be noted that the City Council Resolution on July 28, 2015 is considered as mitigation only in
reference to Goal Ag1 of the Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element and does not reflect the
adequacy of mitigation for agricultural resource impacts identified under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
3.2-5
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
The Citys Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan includes plans for a 15-foot wide bicycle and
pedestrian path across the property and along Flora Road (not included within the 9.79
acres proposed for agricultural conservation easement). The proposed pathway includes a
future path over Arroyo Grande Creek at Strother Park that would ultimately connect
Huasna Road and Branch Mill Road.
3.2.2Regulatory Setting
3.2.2.1Federal
There areno federal regulations or policiesrelated to agricultural resources which apply to
this Project.
3.2.2.2State
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program(FMMP)
The California Department of Conservation established the FMMP in 1982to assess the
location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and analyze the conversion of these
lands throughout California. The list below provides a comprehensive description of all
categories mapped by the California Department of Conservation (Department of
Conservation 2010).
Prime Farmland Farmland that has the best combination of physical and
chemical features and is able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land
has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to sustain high
yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time
during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Statewide Importance Farmland similar to prime farmland but
with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture.
Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during
the 4 years prior to the mapping date.
Unique Farmland Farmland with lesser quality soil that is used for production
of the States leading agricultural crops. This landis usually irrigated but may
include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards, which are found in some climatic
zones in California. Land must have been used for crops at some time during the 4
years prior to the mapping date.
Farmland of Local Importance Land of importance to the local agricultural
economy as determined by each countys board of supervisors and a local advisory
committee.
Grazing LandLand on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of
livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California
3.2-6
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
Cattlemens Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and
other groups interested in grazing activities. The minimum mapping unit for
Grazing Land is 40 acres.
Urban and Built-up LandLand occupied by structures with a building density
of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or about six structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land
is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, and public
administrative purposes; railroad and other transportationyards; cemeteries;
airports; golf courses; sanitary landfills; sewage treatment facilities; water control
structures; and other developed purposes.
Other LandLand not included in any other mapping category. Common
examples include low-density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and
riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or
aquaculture facilities; strip mines and borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than
40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban
development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.
Public Resources Code(PRC) Section 21060.1
PRC Section 21060.1 defines agricultural land for the purposes of assessing environmental
impacts under the FMMP. As stated earlier, the FMMP was established in 1982 to assess
the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural lands and analyze the conversion of these
lands. The FMMP looks at agricultural land use and land use changes throughout
California.
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson
Act, is promulgated in California Government Code Section 51200-51297.4. The
Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners
for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space
uses in return for reduced property tax assessments. Specifically, this legislation enables
landowners who voluntarily agree to participate in the Williamson Act program, to receive
assessed property taxes according to the income-producing value of their property in
agricultural use, rather than on the propertys assessed market value.
The Williamson Act program is administered by the California Department of
Conservation inconjunction with local governments, which administer the individual
contract arrangements with landowners. The landowner commits the parcel to a 10-year
rolling period wherein no conversion out of agricultural use is permitted. Each year the
contract automatically renews unless a notice of non-renewal or cancellation is filed. In
return, the land is taxed at a rate based on the actual use of the land for agricultural
3.2-7
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
purposes, as opposed to its unrestricted market value. An application for immediate
cancellation can also be requested by the landowner, provided that the proposed immediate
cancellation application is consistent with the cancellation criteria stated in the California
Land Conservation Act and those adopted by the affected county or city. Non-renewal or
immediate cancellation does not change the zoning of the property. Participation in the
Williamson Act program is dependent on county adoption and implementation of the
program and is voluntary for landowners.
The Williamson Act states that a board or council shall, by resolution, adopt rules
governing the administration of agricultural preserves. The rules of each agricultural
preserve specify the uses allowed. Generally, commercial agricultural uses are permitted
within an agricultural preserve; however, local governments may identify compatible uses
permitted with a use permit.
California Government Code Section 51238.1 allows a board or council to deem
compatible any use, without conditions or mitigation that would otherwise be considered
incompatible. However, this may occur only if that use meets the following conditions:
The use will not significantly compromise the long-term productive agricultural
capability of the subject contracted parcel or parcels on other contracted lands in
agricultural preserves.
The use will not significantly displace or impair current or reasonably foreseeable
agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels on other
contracted lands in agricultural preserves. Uses that significantly displace
agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels may be deemed
compatible if they relate directly to the production of commercial agricultural
products on the subject contracted parcel or parcels or neighboring lands, including
activities such as harvesting, processing, or shipping.
The use will not result in the significant removal of adjacent contracted land from
agricultural or open space use.
3.2.2.3Local
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
The City of Arroyo Grandes adopted General Plan Agriculture, Conservation, and Open
Space Element outlines multiple policies designed to protect agricultural resources and
prime agricultural land.The Citys General Plan sets forth specific requirements for the
Project vicinity and Project site, as wellas overall requirements for protection of
3.2-8
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
agricultural land and required mitigation standards for loss of agricultural land.Policies
relevant to the proposed project are listed below:
General Plan, Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element
Goal Ag1 Avoid and or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve non-prime
Agriculture use and natural resource lands.
Policy Ag1-1 Designate prime farmland soils that are not predominately
committed to non-Agricultural developed as Agriculture (Ag) and/or Agriculture
Preserve (AgP), whether or not in current agricultural productive use.
Policy Ag1-1.1 Prime Farmland Soils shall include all land, whether a
single parcel or contiguous parcels, that if irrigated, qualifies for rating as
Class I or Class II in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
land use capability classification whether or not the land is actually
irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. (This definition is derived from
the Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 as reorganized and
amended in 2000, Section 56064(a)). Prime farmland soils shall also include
Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified in the USDA, Natural
Resources Conservation Services, outlined in the Land Inventory and
Monitoring (LIM) Project Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County,
California, Coastal Part, September 1984.
Policy Ag1-1.2 Public facilities are permitted on agricultural and natural
resource land when required by health, safety, or welfare of the public.
Policy Ag1-1.3 Either Agriculture or Agriculture Preserve zoning are
consistent with the Agriculture classification of the plan.
Policy Ag1-2 Designate as Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) or County Rural
Lands all nonprime Ag lands with important natural resource or open space values
that the community intends to conserve.
Policy Ag1-3 Support existing programs and develop strategies to retain areas of
farmland soils for agricultural use, and other Conservation/Open Space (C/OS)
areas in a natural, undeveloped state.
Policy Ag1-3.1 Encourage Williamson Act participation and acquisition
of Agricultural Conservation Easements by agricultural landowners. An
inventory of parcels under Williamson Act contract and those with
easements within the City shall be maintained by the Community
Development Department and the status of those contracts/easements
reported to the Planning Commission and the City Council.The Citys
objective shall be 100% of either Williamson Act enrollment of qualified
parcels or agricultural conservation easement acquisition. The Citys aim
shall be to maintain continuity of Ag and C/OS parcels and avoid
fragmentation of areas having prime farmlands soils or non-prime
Conservation/Open Space designation.
3.2-9
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
Policy Ag1-4 Establish and apply a significance criterion (threshold of
significance) forCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis, as
provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7, whichconsiders loss of prime
farmland soils as a significant adverse environmental impact.
Policy Ag1-4.1 Loss of prime farmland soils shall refer to their
unavailability for agricultural use. Loss may occur through natural causes
or development such as coverage (e.g., paving, construction of buildings,
etc.), or conversion to urban/suburban use (including residential
yards/gardens and recreation areas). Cessation of agricultural use shall not
constitute loss so long as the parcel remains fallow or is allowed to revert
to a natural undeveloped state.Site improvements that are intended to
support agricultural operations such as grading, irrigation or drainage
facilities, unpaved roads, or farm buildings and structuresshall not
constitute loss so long as the improvements do not substantially diminish
the capability of agricultural operations on the parcel or within the area and
the improvements are directly related to agricultural production on the site.
Policy Ag1-4.2 Possible mitigation for loss of areas having prime
farmland soils may include permanent protection of prime farmland soils at
aratioof at least 1:1 and up to 2:1 with regard to the acreage of land
removed from the capability for agricultural use. Permanent protection may
involve, but is not limited to, dedication of a perpetual agriculture or
conservation easement or other effective mechanism to ensure that the area
chosen as mitigation shall not be subject to loss of its prime farmland soils.
Suitability of location shall be determined by the City Council. The aim
shall be to protect and preserve prime farmland soils primarily within and
contiguous to City boundaries, secondly within the Urban LandUse
Element area, and thirdly within the larger Arroyo Grande Valley and La
Cienega Valley within the Area of Environmental Concern. Other potential
mitigation measures for loss of areas having prime farmland soils include
payment of in-lieu fees or such other mitigation acceptable to the City
Council.
Policy Ag1-4.3 Since prime farmland soils occur naturally and are
geographically specific, the only means for mitigation to less than
significant is preservation. The Citys aim shall be to maintain continuity of
Ag and C/OS parcels and avoid fragmentation of areas having prime
farmland soils. The City shall avoid development of prime farmland soil
areas by direction growth potential to more suitable urban locations. Only
after the imposition of available mitigation and consideration of alternatives
to avoidthe proposed action, may the City Council approve development
on prime farmland soils subject to overriding considerations as permitted
by California Government Code Section 15093.
3.2-10
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
Section 16.12.170(F) Agricultural Land Conversion
1.
The City shall require agricultural mitigation by applicants for discretionary
entitlementsor
which will subdivide or change the use of land zoned agriculture
agriculture preserve to any non-agricultural use.
2.
Agricultural mitigation shallbe satisfied by:
a.
Granting an agricultural conservation easement, a farmland deed restriction
or other agricultural conservation mechanism to or for the benefit of the city
and/or a qualifying entity approved by the city. Mitigation shall be required
for that portion of the land which no longer will be designated or zoned
agricultural land, including any portion of the land used for park and
recreation purposes, that will 1) permanently protect prime agricultural and
prime soils from development; 2) or will benefit preservation of agricultural
land and operations through other means as determined by the city council.
At least as many acres of prime agricultural land shall be protected as was
changed to a non-agricultural use within city limits, or up to twotimes as
many acres of agricultural land shall be protected outside the city but within
the city's area of environmental concern, as was changed to a
nonagricultural use, in order to mitigate the loss of agricultural land; or
b.
In lieu of conserving agricultural land as provided above if the City Council
determines that the payment of in-lieu fees provide a superior opportunity
to satisfy the goals and policies of the general plan, agricultural mitigation
may be satisfied by the payment of a fee, establishedby the City Council
by resolution or through an enforceable agreement with the developer,
based upon a farmland replacement factor of up to two-to-one (2:1) to be
used for acquisition of a farmland conservation easement or farmlanddeed
restriction. The in-lieu fee option must be approved by the City Council.
The fee shall be based upon current appraisal information for theacquisition
of a conservation easement on replacement land plus allrelated city
administrative and legal costs. The in-lieu fee, paidto the city,shall be used
for farmland mitigation purposes, with priority given to landswith prime
agricultural soils located within the city; or
c.
Other mitigation measures may be determined acceptable by the City
Council.
3.2-11
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
3.2.3Environmental Impact Analysis
3.2.3.1Thresholds of Significance
With respect to agricultural resources, applicable sections of Appendix G of the 2016
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines state that a project would
normally have a significant impact on the environment if it would:
a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
to non-agricultural use;
b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract;
and/or,
c)Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could individually or cumulatively result in the conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use.
Further, with respect to agricultural land useand consistency with the Agriculture,
Conservation, and Open Space Element of the Citys General Plan,this section uses the
threshold in Appendix G of the 2015 CEQA Guidelines, whichstates that a project would
normally have a significant impact on the environment if it would:
a)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect(see Section 3.7,Land Use for
additional analysis on General Plan consistency).
In addition, this analysis uses the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment (LESA) Model as a basis for the determination of agricultural resource
impacts. The LESA Model was developed as an amendment to Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines concerning agricultural lands.It is intended to provide lead agencies with an
optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural
land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental
review process (Public Resources Code Section 21095).LESA is a method used to define
an approach for rating the relative quality of land resources based upon specific measurable
features.The California Agricultural LESA Model is composed of six different factors:
two Land Evaluation (LE) factors are based upon measures of soil resource quality, and
four Site Assessment (SA) factors provide measures of a given projects size, water
resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource
3.2-12
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
lands. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a
single project score that becomes the basis for making a determination of a projects
potential significance, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds.
If the total LESA score is from 0 to 39 points, the scoring decision is not
considered significant;
If the score is from 40 to 59 points, it is considered significant onlyif LE and SA
subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points;
if the score is from 60 to 79 points, it is considered significant unless either LE or
SA subscore is less than 20 points; or,
if the score is from 80 to 100 points, it is considered significant (California
Department of Conservation 1997).
3.2.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology
This section provides a discussion of the potential impacts to agricultural resources within
the Project site, associated with the conversion of 14.0acres of prime agricultural soils to
urban development, including a hotel and restaurant on Subarea 1; 58 single-family
residences on Subarea 2; and a community center building, 10-unit senior housing building,
historic orchard, and Japanese cultural gardens on Subarea 3. The methodologies for
analyzing the Projects potential impacts to agricultural resourcesare based on the
guidelines, policies, and procedures identified in the City General Plans, the FMMP, and
the California Agricultural LESA Model. Data from the California Department of
Conservation and the County Department of Planning and Building were accessed to obtain
mapping information related to the Project.The Agricultural Soils Report prepared by
NCRS, City of Arroyo Grande memos, and LESA worksheets are found in Appendix D.
LESA scores for the Project site are summarized below in Table 3.2-2.
The following methods were used to determine the extent and/or significance of the
Projects impact on agricultural resources:
a)Identify onsite soils that would be impacted based on their NRCS designation of
prime farmland. The NRCS defines prime farmland soils at land with the best
combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term production
of agricultural crops.
b)Identify any onsite land classified by the FMMPwith an agricultural designation
that would be directly converted as a result of the proposed development and/or
use.
3.2-13
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
Table 3.2-2. LESA Analysis Summary for the Project Site
Factor Factor Weighted
Rating (0-100 Weighting Factor
points)(Total = 1.00)Rating
Land Evaluation (LE)
1. Land Capability Classification 96.560.2524.14
91.120.2522.78
2. Storie Index Rating
Site Assessment (SA)
2. Project Size 300.154.5
3. Water Resource Availability1000.1515
4. Surrounding Agricultural Lands0 0.150
5. Protected Resource Lands0 0.05 0
Total LESA Score(sum of weighted factor ratings)66.42
Significance DeterminationNot considered significant(because SA subscore
is less than 20 points).
See Appendix D for complete LESA Model Worksheetsfor each Subarea individually and whole Project site.
c)Identify onsite and offsite areas with a County agriculture land use designation that
would be directly converted or would indirectly contribute to the conversion of land
as a result of the proposed development and/or uses.
d)Perform modeling of the Project site with criteria outlined by the LESA Model
developed by the California Department of Conservation.
3.2.4Project Impacts andMitigation Measures
The implementationof the proposed Project has the potential to result in impacts to
agricultural resourceswithinthe Project site. The significance of these impacts are assessed
based on LESA Model scores. The Project would convert prime farmland to non-
agricultural use, and would change existing zoning for agricultural useon Subareas 2 and
3 to non-agricultural zoning. As such the Project is evaluated for consistency with policies
and goals within the Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element of the General
Plan. As the Project site or vicinity is not under a Williamson Act contract, the proposed
Project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. Based on the LESA analysis,
the conversion of existing agricultural lands on the entireProject site to nonagricultural
uses is not considered a significant impact.These issues are further discussed below.
3.2-14
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
Table 3.2-3. Summary of Project Impacts
Agricultural Resources ImpactsMitigation MeasuresResidual Significance
Impact AG-1. The proposed Project would None requiredLess than Significant
result in the direct conversion of a sitethat
includes agricultural capabilities, including
prime soils and historic agricultural
production. However, because of the limited
size of the site, and its context amidst
adjacent non-agricultural land uses,
conversion of the site to non-agricultural
uses is considered less than significant based
on the LESA methodology.
Impact AG-2. The proposed Project would
MM AG-2a Less than Significant
result in the conversion of agricultural land with Mitigation
uses within the Project site, creating
potentially significant impacts with respect to
consistency with City Goal Ag1 and related
policies in the Agriculture, Conservation, and
Open Space Element, which seek protection
of prime farmland.
Impact
AG-1The proposed Project would result in the direct conversion of a site that
includes agricultural capabilities, including prime soils and historic
agricultural production. However, because of the limited size of the site,
and its context amidst adjacent non-agricultural land uses, conversion
of the site to non-agricultural uses is considered less than significant
based on the LESA methodology(Less than Significant).
The proposed Project would convert the site from undeveloped lands containing prime
farmland to developed uses, resulting in a loss of agricultural capabilities. While the
majority of the 15.29-acre Project site was found to contain prime soils and prime farmland
as designated under the FMMP, the estimated LESA score for the entire site was found to
be 66.42 (see Appendix D for complete LESA Model worksheets). This score indicates
that agricultural resources within the Project site are not considered significant, because
the SAsubscore is less than 20 points.The reason for this subscore is that the Project site
is not large enough to constitute a high score under LESA, and there is a low percentage
of surrounding agricultural lands and protected resource lands in the Project vicinity.
The small acreage of the Project site and location within developed land uses limits the
agricultural viability of this site, resulting in a low LESA score. Therefore, while the
Project would result in a loss of agricultural resources, impacts are considered
less than
.
significant
3.2-15
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
Mitigation Measures
Nomitigation measures required.
Impact
AG-2The proposed Project would result in the conversion of agricultural
land uses within the Project site,creating potentially significant
impacts with respect to consistency with City Goal Ag1 and related
policiesin the Agriculture, Conservationand Open Space Element,
which seek protection of prime farmland(Less than Significant with
Mitigation).
Project development of 14.0acres of prime agricultural soils would result in conversion of
approximately 3.8 percentof the estimated 369 acres of remaining agricultural land within
the City. The Citys Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element contains goals
and policies aimed at the conservation and protection of prime farmland soils and
agricultural uses. Although the Project sites LESA score indicates that agricultural
resources within the site are not considered significant, the proposed Project would convert
14.0 acres of prime agricultural soils and the overlapping12.85 acres of prime farmland
under the FMMP to developed uses, resulting in potential General Plan inconsistencies.
Section 16.04.070 of the Municipal Code defines agricultural land or farmland as land
area specifically designated or zoned as Agriculture. Subareas 2 and 3 are zoned
Agriculture and would therefore be subject to mitigation under Policy Ag1-4.2; however,
Subarea 1 is not zoned or designated as Agriculture. Under Policy Ag1-4.2 of the Citys
General Plan, possible mitigation for loss of areas having prime farmland soils may include
permanent protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of at least 1:1,and upto 2:1 with
regard to the acreage of land removed from the capability for agricultural use, or by
payment of in-lieu fees or other such mitigation acceptable to the City Councilto permit
protection of similar agricultural land.Subareas 2 and 3 contain approximately 11.84 acres
of prime farmland soils that would be subject toagricultural mitigation in accordance with
Policy Ag1-4.2. For the proposed Project, under City policy,this would require the
dedication of prime agricultural soils to a perpetual agriculture or conservation easement,
or the payment ofin-lieu fees.The Project Applicant for Subarea 2 proposed dedication of
an agricultural conservation easement of a9.79-acre parcel of prime farmlandin order to
compensate for the loss of approximately 10.1 acres of prime agricultural soils within
Subarea 2; the resolution for this agricultural mitigation was adopted by the City Council
on July 28, 2015. The proposed mitigation site is located 1.25 miles northeast of the Project
3.2-16
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
site on Flora Road and is considered acceptable mitigation for the conversion of 9.79 acres
of prime agricultural land by the City Council(City of Arroyo Grande 2015). Subarea 1
and Subarea 3 have not set forth specific mitigation proposals.
The impact assessment is further broken down by subarea asdiscussedbelow.
Subarea 1Impacts:
The 2.16-acre Subarea 1 is zoned Traffic Way Mixed-Useand designated Mixed-Use in
the Citys General Plan (a nonagricultural use), and the Project would retain this zoning
districtand land use designation.Given this definition, and inaccordance with Section
16.12.170(F), Subarea 1 is not defined as agricultural land or considered an agricultural
land conversion. AsSubarea 1 is designated fornonagricultural uses, and has already been
earmarkedfor development by the City; thus, theGeneral Plan allows for Subarea 1 to be
developed with nonagricultural uses that would inevitably result in the loss of prime soils
within the site.Since this subarea is not designated for agricultural use by the City, Subarea
1 is not subject to Policy Ag1-4.2 and impactsrelated to land use consistencywould be
considered for Subarea 1.
less than significant
Subarea 2Impacts:
The 11.62-acre Subarea 2 is zoned Agriculture, but would be converted to a Village
Residentialzoning district, and be reduced to 11.12 acres after the proposed transfer of 0.5
acres to Subarea 3. The proposed Project would convert approximately 10.1 acres of prime
agricultural soils to developed uses.In this subarea, the conversion would result in a loss
of agricultural lands currently being cultivated. Although the prime soils acreage in
Subarea 2 is approximately 10.1 acres, and the proposed parcel for mitigation is 9.79 acres,
the City Council has determined this is sufficient mitigation at a 1:1 ratio, with the
difference being that some acreage on the site is already lost because it is being used for
public roadways, consistent withPolicy Ag1-1.2 of the Citys General Plan. Therefore, the
proposed dedication of 9.79 acres of agricultural land at Flora Road would reduce impacts
resulting with consistency with the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element,
and impacts would be considered for Subarea 2.
less than significant
Subarea 3 Impacts:
The 1.51-acre Subarea 3 is zoned Agriculture, but would be converted to a Village Mixed-
Use zoning district, and grow to 2.01 acres after the proposed transfer of 0.5 acres from
Subarea 2.This subarea would only contain approximately 0.5 acres of FMMP designated
3.2-17
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
prime farmland, located on the 0.5-acre remainder lot from Subarea2 (refer to Figure 3.2-
1). The rest of Subarea 3 contains FMMP designated urban and built-up lands. In addition,
the proposed Project would convert approximately 1.74acresof prime agricultural soils
from the 2.01-acre Subarea 3to developed uses, which is a potentially significant impact.
Although this subarea is not being utilized for agricultural use and has no history of
agricultural activities, it contains approximately 1.74 acres of prime agricultural soils, and
requires mitigation under Policy Ag1-4.2. The City Council must determine if the proposed
orchard and cultural buildingswarrant consideration to count in part as agricultural
mitigation. If the mitigation measures below are taken, the impact would be reduced to
less
for Subarea 3.
than significantwithmitigation
Mitigation Measure for Subarea 3
MM AG-2a The Applicant (Arroyo Grande Valley JWA) shall mitigate for the loss of
1.74 acres of prime farmland soils within Subarea 3 pursuant to General
Plan Goal Ag1 and related policies. At the discretion of the City Council,
options may include, but not be limited to: 1) Applicant to purchase a parcel
of land (size to be determined by City Council) to be put into an agricultural
conservation easement, 2) Applicant to pay in-lieu fees to a designated fund
dedicated to acquiring and preserving agricultural land; 3) Council may
determine that the 9.79-acre parcel intended to mitigate the loss of prime
soils for Subarea 2 also mitigates impacts within Subarea 3; or 4) any other
approach determinedto be acceptable to the City Council to satisfy the
intent of General Plan Goal Ag1 and related policies.
In making their determination, the City Council may consider the following
circumstances: 1) the loss of prime agricultural land for the entire Specific
Plan area, including for Subarea 3, is considered less than significant based
on the LESA methodology (see Impact AG-1); and 2) Subarea 3 has not
historically been in agricultural production.
Plan Requirements and Timing.Notices, in-lieu feesand/or agricultural
conservation easements shall be submitted for review and approval by the
City prior topermit approval for applicable development areas within the
Specific Plan.
Monitoring.The City shall ensure compliance with the Agriculture,
Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. The City
3.2-18
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.2AR
GRICULTURAL ESOURCES
Council shall make the final decision onthe specific requirements for
agricultural mitigation prior to permit approval for the Project.
Residual Impact
Implementation of mitigation measureMM AG-2a would reduce residual impacts to less
than significant levels.
3.2.5Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the proposed Project would contribute incrementally to the loss of
agricultural land to development within the City and in southern San Luis Obispo County.
Development of 14.0acres of prime agricultural soils would constitute a loss of
approximately 3.8 percent of remaining agricultural land within the City,and a loss of
agricultural resources within the County, contributing to cumulative impacts to regional
agricultural resources. Although agricultural resources in the Project vicinity are mainly in
areas outside City limits, agriculture is a major industry in the County. These impacts,
when combined with other recent and proposed developments in the City listed in Table
3.0-1 as well as other developments within southern San Luis Obispo County,cumulatively
add to the conversion of agricultural lands tononagricultural uses. However, because of
the adopted resolution for Subarea 2to dedicatea 9.79-acre parcel of protected prime
farmlandand proposed mitigation for Subarea 3,the Project contribution to regional
cumulative impacts to agricultural resources is considered .
less than significant
3.2-19
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITYAND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
This section discusses air quality impacts associated with the proposed East Cherry Avenue
Specific Plan(Project)in the context of site-specific and regional air quality within San
Luis Obispo County. Air quality is evaluated according to the concentration of pollutants
in ambient air. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established criteria
to protect public health and welfare for sevencriteria pollutants including carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxides (NO), ozone (O), sulfur dioxide (SO), 10-micron particulate
x32
matter (PM), 2.5-micron particulate matter (PM) and lead (Pb). Other air pollutants of
102.5
concern include toxic air contaminants (TACs) or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), in
particular diesel particulate matter, generated from the operation of diesel engines (e.g.,
trains, equipment, truck, etc.).
3.3.1Environmental Setting
Existing conditionsfor air quality in the City of Arroyo Grandeare described in detail in
the Countys 2001 Clean Air Plan, which is incorporated herein by reference.Based on
information available, it is not expected that baseline conditions have changed significantly
since the 2001 plan was completed.
3.3.1.1Regional Climate and Meteorology
San Luis Obispo Countys climate can generally be characterized as Mediterranean, with
warm dry summers and cooler, relatively damp winters. Inland areas typically experience
a wider range of temperatures than on the coast, mainly due to the separation of regions by
transformation in terrain, such as the coastal mountain ranges. Maximum temperatures in
the summer in coastal areas average about 70 degrees Fahrenheit, while temperatures in
the high 90s are typical in the inland valleys. Average minimum winter temperatures range
from the low 30s along the coast to the low 20s inland.
The Countys meteorology is largely controlled by a persistent high-pressure system over
the eastern Pacific Ocean. The Pacific high-pressure system remains generally fixed
several hundred miles offshore from May through September. Coastal fog and low clouds
often form in the marine layer along the coast, lessening in the warmer interior valleys.
Approximately 90 percent of the total annual rainfall in the County occurs between
November and April; however, rainfall amounts can vary considerably among different
regions in the County.Annual rainfall averages from 16 to 28 inches in the Coastal Plain,
while the Upper Salinas River Valley receives approximately 12 to 20 inches of rain
3.3-1
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
annually. The Carrizo Plain is the driest area of the County, receiving an average of less
than 12 inches of rain per year.
The speed and direction of local winds are influenced by the location and strength of the
Pacific high-pressure system, by topographical features and by circulation patterns
resulting from temperature differences between land and sea. In spring and summer, when
the Pacific high is at its strongest, onshore winds from the northwest generally prevail
during the day. In the fall, onshore surface winds decline and the marine layer grows
shallow, allowing an occasional weak offshore flow.Pollutants may accumulate more
during this time of year, remaining over the ocean for afew days and being carried back
onshore. Strong inversions can form at this time, trapping pollutants near the ground
surface; this effect is intensified when the Pacific high weakens and moves inland to the
east. This may produce a condition known as Santa Ana where air, often pollutant-laden,
is transported into the County from the east and southeast. The break-up of this condition
generally occurs within seven days and may then result in stagnant conditions and a build-
up of pollutants offshore. The seabreeze can also bring these pollutants back onshore,
where they combine with local emissions and cause high pollutant concentrations.
3.3.1.2Greenhouse Gases and Global Climate Change
Global climate change is a change in the average weather of the Earth which can be
measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation and temperature.Scientific consensus has
identified that human-related emission of greenhouse gases above natural levels is a
significant contributor to global climate change. Greenhouse gases(GHGs)that trap heat
in the atmosphere and regulate the Earths temperature include water vapor, carbon dioxide
(CO), methane, NO, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and ozone (O.
2x3)
The primary activities associated with GHG emissions include the electric power industry,
transportation, industrial/manufacturing, agricultural, commercial, and residential (U.S.
EPA 2015).Specifically, the main sources of increased concentrations of GHGs due to
human activity include the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation (CO); livestock
2
and rice paddy farming, land use and wetland depletions, and landfill emissions (methane);
refrigeration systems and fire suppression systems use and manufacturing (CFCs); and
agricultural activities, including the use of fertilizers (NO).
x
The largest anthropogenic source of emissions comes in the form of CO, which makes up
2
approximately 82 percent of U.S. GHG emissions. As such, COhas the highest data
2
availability and least uncertainty(EPA 2015).In 2012, the State of California produced
3.3-2
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
approximately 364.20 million metric tons of COemissions from fossil fuel combustion.
2
Sector sources of these COemissions areas follows: transportation (56.0 percent),
2
industry (19.0 percent), electricity generation (13.2 percent), residential (7.5 percent), and
commercial (4.4 percent) (EPA 2012).
Global climate change could potentially affect other resource areas, including hydrological
resources, economical resources and biological resources. Projected impacts to the region
caused by global climate change include: potential decreases in water supply and surface
water quality; possible long-term decreases in groundwater yields; changes in coastal water
quality; rising sea levels; increased flooding and fire events; declines in aquatic ecosystem
health; lowered profitability for water-intensive crops; changes in species and habitat
distribution; and impacts to fisheries (California Regional Assessment Group 2002).
3.3.1.3Regional Air Quality
San Luis Obispo County is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin, which also includes
Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties to the south. Air quality within San Luis Obispo
County is contingent on several factors including the type, amount and dispersion rates of
pollutants being emitted within the region. Major factors affecting pollutant dispersion, as
discussed in the previous paragraphs, are wind speed and direction, atmospheric stability,
temperature, the presence or absence of inversions, and the topographic and geographic
features of the region.
3.3.1.4Regional Emissions
San Luis Obispo County has historically been designated as non-attainment of state
standards for 1 hour and 8 hour ozone (O) standards, however conditions have improved
3
as of January 2015. Based on the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, the eastern half of San Luis
Obispo County is designated as marginal non-attainment for Owhile the western half,
3
which includes the Project site,is in attainment. Ois a secondary pollutant that is not
3
produced directly by a source, but rather is formed by a reaction between NOand reactive
x
organic gases (ROGs) in the presence of sunlight. Ocan impact public health at higher
3
concentrations by causing respiratory irritation and other affects uponthe lungs. It can also
affect sensitive plant species by interfering with photosynthesis, and is therefore a threat to
California agriculture and native vegetation.Primary emission sources of ROGs in the
County are motor vehicles (over 50 percent), organic solvents, the petroleum industry and
pesticides. Primary sources of NOare motor vehicles(over 50percent), public utility
x
power generation and fuel combustion by various industrial sources (EPA 2015).
3.3-3
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
Table 3.3-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status
California StandardsNational Standards
PollutantAverage TimeAttainment
ConcentrationConcentrationAttainment Status
Status
1 Hour0.09 ppm (180 --Non-Attainment Eastern
Ozone (O) Non-Attainment
3
SLO County
Attainment Western
8 Hour0.070 ppm (137 0.070 ppm (137
SLO County(Project
site)
Respirable 24 Hour50 Non-Attainment 150 Unclassified*/
Particulate Attainment
Annual 20 --
Matter (PM)
10
Arithmetic Mean
Fine 24 Hour--Attainment35 Unclassified */
Particulate Attainment
Annual 12 12.0
Matter (PM)
2.5
Arithmetic Mean
Attainment35 ppm (40 Unclassified*
Carbon 1 Hour20 ppm (23
33
) mg/m)
Monoxide mg/m
(CO)
8 Hour9 ppm (10 9 ppm (10
33
) mg/m)
mg/m
1 Hour0.18 ppm (339 Attainment100 ppb (188 Unclassified*
Nitrogen
) )
Dioxide (NO)
2
Annual 0.030 ppm (57 0.053 ppm (100
Arithmetic Mean) )
1 Hour0.25 ppm (655 Attainment75 ppb (196 Unclassified*
Sulfur Dioxide
) )
(SO)
2
3 Hour----
24 Hour0.04 ppm (105 0.14 ppm (for
) certain areas)
Annual --0.030 ppm (for
Arithmetic Meancertain areas)
Lead 30 Day Average1.5 Attainment--No Attainment
Information
Calendar Quarter--1.5 (for
certain areas)
Rolling 3-Month --0.15
Average
Notes:
3
ppm = parts per millionmg/m= milligram per cubic meter
3
= micrograms per cubic meter-- = Not applicable
*Unclassified (EPA/Federal definitions): Any area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as
meeting or not meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for that pollutant.
Attainment (EPA/Federal definitions): Any area that meets the national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard for that pollutant. (CA definition): State standard was no exceeded during a three year period.
Non-Attainment(EPA/Federal definitions): Any area that does not meet, or contributes to an area that does not meet
the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for that pollutant. (CA definitions): State standard was
exceeded at least once during a three year period.
Source:(San Luis ObispoAPCD 2013).
3.3-4
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
San Luis Obispo County has historically been a non-attainment area for the state standards
for PM; however, western San Luis Obispo, where the Project site is located, is within
10
attainment of national standards for PM.Atmospheric particulate matter, or PM, is
1010
comprised of finely divided solids and liquids such as dust, soot, aerosols, fumes and mists.
Human activities that generate PMinclude agricultural operations, industrial processes,
10
fossil fuel combustion, construction and demolition operations and entrapment of road dust
into the atmosphere. Natural sources include wind-blown dust, wildfire smoke and sea
spray salt (EPA 2015).
3.3.1.5Emissions in the Vicinity of the Project Site
Activities within the Project site vicinity that contribute to existing emissions in the Air
Basinare primarily associated with motor vehicles.The air monitoring station located
nearest tothe Project site is the Nipomo-Guadalupe Road Station, located at 1300
Guadalupe Road, Nipomo,CA, about 6.3milesfrom the Project site. This station measures
SO, PM,and PM. Hourly data for Ois not recorded at this station, soozone datawas
22.5103
retrieved from the Nipomo-Regional Park Station,which is located 7.2 miles from the
Project site.Table 3.3-2 summarizes the annual air quality emissions data for the local
airshed between the years 2012 to 2014,with values exceeding state emissions underlined.
This table shows the general air quality trends of the area for pollutants measured near the
Project site.
Table 3.3-2. Ambient Air Quality Data at Nipomo Air Monitoring Stations
PM, PM, ODays Above PMDays Above PMDays Above
102.53102.5
O, ppb
3
33
StandardStandardStandard
Year
1-Hour 8-Hour24-Hour24-Hour
StateNationalStateNationalStateNational
MaxMaxMaxMax
65 60 150.4 36.9 0 0 41.4 0 0 1
2012
7672136.5 32.0 1060.4 000
2013
81 76 153.0 37.5 1 1 43.6 0 0 1
2014
3
Notes: ppb = parts per billion,= micrograms per cubic meter,underlined values have exceeded state emissions
standards,italicized values have exceeded national emissions standards
Source: CARB 2015.
3.3-5
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
3.3.2Regulatory Setting
3.3.2.1Federal
Clean Air Act
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was passedin 1963 and amended in 1990, and was the
first comprehensive federal law to regulate air emissions from stationary and mobile
sources. Among other things, the law authorizes the U.S. EPA to establish national ambient
air quality standards. The national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) help to ensure
basic health and environmental protection from air pollution. The Clean Air Act also gives
the U.S.EPAauthority to limit emissions of air pollutants coming from sources like
chemical plants, utilities, and steel mills.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA)
of 1970 and its amendments of 1977 and 1990.The EPA has established primary and
secondary NAAQS for O, CO, NO,SO, PM, and lead (Pb), as shown in Table 3.3-1.
3xx10
The EPA also maintains jurisdiction over emissions sources outside state waters (outer
continental shelf), and establishes various emissions standards for vehicles sold in states
other than California.
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the EPA requires each state with federal
nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal,
state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce
pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs
within the timeframe identified in the SIP.
The CAA allows states to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations,
provided they are at least as stringent as federal standards.The California Ambient Air
Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established within the California Clean Air Act (CCAA)
of 1988 for criteria pollutants and additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl
chloride, and visibility-reducing particles (see Table 3.3-1). The CCAA requires each Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) in California to adopt strategies for achieving the
NAAQS and CAAQS by the earliest practicable date.The California Air Resources Board
(CARB) is responsible for the control of vehicle emission sources, while the local APCD
is responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources.
3.3-6
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
3.3.2.2State
Clean Air Act
The CCAA requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest
practicable date. The CAAQS includes more stringent standards than the national ambient
air quality standards.
California Air Resources Board
CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the
coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs
within California. In this capacity, CARB conducts research, sets CAAQS, compiles
emission inventories, developssuggested control measures, provides oversight of local
programs, and prepares the SIP. California ARB establishes emissions standards for motor
vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hair spray, aerosol paints, and
barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel
specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions.
In April 2005, CARB issued a guidance document on air quality and land use, Air Quality
and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, which recommends that
sensitive land uses not be located within 500 feet of a freeway or other high traffic roadway
and that a site-specific health risk assessment be performed as a way to more accurately
evaluate the risk. In traffic-related studies, the additional non-cancer health risk attributable
to proximity to high-volume roadways was seen within 1,000 feet and was strongest within
300 feet. California freeway studies show about a 70 percent drop-off in particulate
pollution levels at 500 feet.
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493
AB 1493 requires the CARB to define standards for cars and light trucks manufactured
after 2009 and is projected to result in an 18 percent reduction in emissions.
Executive Order S-3-05
On June 1, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger announced the following GHG emission
reduction targets:
By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
3.3-7
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
Assembly Bill (AB) 32
The California State Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006.AB 32 requires that greenhouse gases emitted in California be reduced to
1990 levels by the year 2020. Greenhouse gases as defined under AB 32 include carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride. CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of
greenhouse gases. AB 32 states the following:
Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health,
natural resources, and the environment of California.The potential adverse impacts of
global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the
quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels
resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences,
damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the
incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.
CARB approved the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions level of 427 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCOe) on December 6, 2007 (ARB 2007). Therefore,
2
emissions generated in California in 2020 are required to be equal to or lessthan 427
MMTCOe.
2
The CARBs Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) contains measures designed to
reduce the States emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 (ARB 2008).The Scoping Plan
identifies recommended measures for multiple greenhouse gas emission sectors and the
associated emission reductions needed to achieve the year 2020 emissions targeteach sector
has a different emission reduction target. Most of the measures target the transportation and
electricity sectors. As stated in the Scoping Plan, the key elements of the strategy for achieving
the 2020 greenhouse gas target include:
Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as
building and appliance standards;
Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent;
Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western
Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system;
Establishing targets for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions for regions
throughout California and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets;
3.3-8
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies,
including Californias clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low
Carbon Fuel Standard; and
Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high
global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the
States long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
In addition, the Scoping Plan differentiates between capped and uncapped strategies.
Capped strategies are subject to the proposed cap-and-trade program.The Scoping Plan
states that the inclusion of these emissions within the cap-and trade program will help
ensure that the year 2020 emission targets are met despite some degree of uncertainty in
the emission reduction estimates for any individual measure.Implementation of the capped
strategies is calculated to achieve a sufficient amount of reductions by 2020 to achieve the
emission target contained in AB 32. Uncapped strategies that will not be subject to the
cap-and-trade emissions caps and requirements are provided as a margin of safety by
1
accounting for additional greenhouse gas emission reductions.
The Scoping Plan was first approved by the Board in 2008 and was recently updated and
approved by the Board in May 2014. The ARB has approved new emission inventories for
greenhouse gases that result in fewer reductions being required to show consistency with
AB 32 targets.Areduction of 21.7 percent would now allow California to achieve 1990
emission levels by 2020.
Executive Order S-01-07
Enacted on January 18, 2007, this Order requires that a statewide goal be established to
reduce the carbon intensity of Californias transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by
2020, and that a low carbon fuel standard for transportation fuels be established for
California.
SB 97 and the CEQA Guidelines Update
Passed in August 2007, SB 97 added Section 21083.05 to the Public Resources Code. The
code states (a) On or before July 1, 2009, the Office of Planning and Research shall
prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the mitigation of
1
On March 17, 2011, the San Francisco Superior Court issued a final decision in Association of Irritated Residents v. California Air
Resources Board(Case No. CPF-09-509562). While the Court upheld the validity of the ARB Scoping Plan for the implementation of
AB 32, the Court enjoined ARB from further rulemaking under AB 32 until ARB amends its CEQA environmental review of the
Scoping Plan to addressthe flaws identified by the Court. On May 23, 2011, ARB filed an appeal. On June 24, 2011, the Court of
Appeal granted ARBs petition staying the trail courts order pending consideration of the appeal. In the interest of informed decision-
making, on June13, 2011, ARB released the expanded alternatives analysis in a draft Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan
Functional Equivalent Document. The ARB Board approved the Scoping Plan and the CEQA document on August 24, 2011.
3.3-9
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions as required by this
division, including, but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy
consumption. (b) On or before January 1, 2010, the Resources Agency shall certify and
adopt guidelines prepared and developed by the Office of Planningand Research pursuant
to subdivision (a). Section 21097 was also added to the Public Resources Code. It
provided CEQA protection until January 1, 2010 for transportation projects funded by the
Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of2006 or
projects funded by the Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006, in
stating that the failure to analyze adequately the effects of greenhouse gases would not
violate CEQA.
On April 13, 2009, the Office of Planningand Research submitted to the Secretary for Natural
Resources its recommended amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for addressing greenhouse
gas emissions. On July 3, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency commenced the
Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process for certifying and adopting these
amendments pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.05.Following a 55-day public
comment period and two public hearings, the Natural Resources Agency proposed revisions
to the text of the proposed Guidelines amendments. The Natural Resources Agency
transmitted the adopted amendments and the entire rulemaking file to the Office of
Administrative Law on December 31, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of
Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for
inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effective on March
18, 2010.
The CEQA Amendments provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis and
mitigation of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in CEQA documents.The CEQA
Amendments fit within the existing CEQA framework by amending existing CEQA
Guidelines to reference climate change.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, was added to assist agencies in determining the
significance of greenhouse gas emissions.The new section allows agencies the discretion to
determine whether a quantitative or qualitative analysis is best for a particular project.
However, little guidance is offered on the crucial next step in this assessment processhow
to determine whether the projects estimated greenhouse gas emissions are significant or
cumulatively considerable.
Also amended were CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4 and 15130, which address
mitigation measures and cumulative impacts respectively. Greenhouse gas mitigation
3.3-10
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
measures are referenced in general terms, but no specific measures are championed.The
revision to the cumulative impact discussion requirement (Section 15130) simply directs
agencies to analyze greenhouse gas emissions in an EIR when a projects incremental
contribution of emissions may be cumulatively considerable, however it does not answer
the question of when emissions are cumulatively considerable.
Section 15183.5 permits programmatic greenhouse gas analysis and later project-specific
tiering, as well as the preparation of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans.Compliance with
such plans can support a determination that a projects cumulative effect is not
cumulatively considerable, according to proposed Section 15183.5(b). In addition, the
amendments revised Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, which focuses on Energy
Conservation. The sample environmental checklist in Appendix G was amended to include
greenhouse gas questions.
Senate Bill (SB) 375
Passing the Senate on August 30, 2008, SB 375 was signed by the Governor on September
30, 2008. According to SB 375, the transportation sector is the largest contributor of
greenhouse gas emissions, which emits over 40 percent of the total greenhouse gas
emissions in California.SB 375states, Without improved land use and transportation
policy, California will not be able to achieve the goals of AB 32. SB 375 does the
following: (1) requires metropolitan planning organizations to include sustainable
community strategies in their regional transportation plans for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, (2) aligns planning for transportation and housing, and (3) creates specified
incentives for the implementation of the strategies.The ARB has adopted emissions
reductions targets for per capita light duty vehicles from 2005 levels of 8 percent by 2020
and 8 percent by 2035.
SB 375, Section 21159.28 states that CEQA findings determinations for certain projects
are not required to reference, describe, or discuss: (1) growth inducing impacts or (2) any
project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips generated by the
project on global warming or the regional transportation network if the project:
1.Is in an area with an approved sustainable communities strategy or an alternative
planning strategy that the ARB accepts as achieving the greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets.
2.Is consistent with that strategy (in designation, density, building intensity, and
applicable policies).
3.3-11
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
3.Incorporates the mitigation measures required by an applicable prior
environmental document.
Executive Order S-13-08
Executive Order S-13-08 indicates that climate change in California during the next
century is expected to shift precipitation patterns, accelerate sea level rise and increase
temperatures, thereby posing a serious threat to Californias economy, to the health and
welfare of its population and to its natural resources.Pursuant to the requirements in the
order, the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (California Natural Resources
Agency 2009) was adopted, which is the . . . first statewide, multi-sector, region-specific,
and information-based climate change adaptation strategy in the United States.Objectives
include analyzing risks of climate change in California, identifying and exploring strategies
to adapt to climate change, and specifying a direction for future research.
Other Plans and Guidance Documents
In October 2008, the CARB, as the lead agency for implementing AB 32, released the
Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan. This plan proposes a comprehensive set of
actions designed to reduce overall carbon emissions in California, improve the
environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify energy sources, save energy and enhance
public health while creating new jobs and enhancing the growth in Californias economy
(CARB 2008b).In addition to the Scoping Plan, CARB adopted a statewide GHG
emissions limit and an emissions inventory, along with requirements to measure, track, and
report GHG emissions by the industries determined to be significant sources of GHG
emissions (Office of Planning and Research \[OPR\] 2008).
3.3.2.3Local
County of San Luis Obispo Clean Air Plan
The County of San Luis Obispo APCD adopted the Clean AirPlanin January 1992; the
Plan was updated in 1998, and again in 2001. The Clean Air Planis a comprehensive
planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and
commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use.The purpose of the Countys Clean
Air Planis to address the attainment and maintenance of state and federal ambient air
quality standards by following a comprehensive set of emission control measures within
the Plan.
3.3-12
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan
The City of Arroyo Grande Climate Action Plan is a long-range plan aimed to reduce GHG
emissions from city operations, developments, and community activities throughout the
City in anticipation of the effects of climate change. The primary purposes of the Climate
Action Plan are the following:
Summarize the results of the City of Arroyo Grande 2005 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventory Update, which identifies the major sources and quantities of
GHG emissions produced within Arroyo Grande and forecasts how these emissions
may change over time;
Identify the quantitiesof GHG emissions that Arroyo Grande will need to reduce
to meet its target of 15 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020, consistent with
AB 32;
Set forth City government and community-wide GHG reduction measures,
including performance standards which,if implemented, would collectively
achieve the specified emission reduction target;
Identify proactive strategies that can be implemented to help Arroyo Grande
prepare for anticipated climate change impacts, and;
Set forth procedures to implement, monitor, and verify the effectiveness of the
Climate Action Plan measures and adapt efforts moving forward as necessary.
The Climate Action Plan is designedas a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan, consistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). This allows for thestreamlining of the analysis of
GHGs on a project level by using a programmatic GHG reduction plan meeting certain
criteria. Project-specific analysis of GHG emissions is required if GHG emissions from a
project would be cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the Climate
Action Plan.
3.3.3Environmental Impact Analysis
3.3.3.1Thresholds of Significance
Air Quality Thresholds
Significance criteria for evaluating impacts on air quality emissions associated with the
Project site are based on Appendix G of the 2016CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of
the proposed Project would have a significant impact on air quality and GHG emissions if
the proposed Project would result in any of the following:
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the San Luis Obispo County APCDs
adopted Clean Air Plan;
3.3-13
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing air quality
violation;
c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative
thresholds for Oprecursors);
3
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or
e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
The following Appendix G criterion is not considered relevant to the Project based upon
the Project plans; therefore, it will not be evaluated further in this EIR:
e)Creation of objectionable odors.
The Project would not involve the development of the types of land uses typically
associated with odor issues, such as wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting
facilities, refineries, or chemical plants. Nor would the Project locate sensitive receptors
within proximity of these types of odor-producing sources. Therefore, the following
analysis relates to the Projects potential to result in a significant air quality impact based
on the other four significance criteria.
Significance Criteria for Construction-Related Emissions
Short-term construction emission thresholds for San Luis Obispo County, (Table 3.3-3) as
stated in the APCDs CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2012), have been set by the APCD as
follows:
ROG and NO Emissions
x
Over137 pounds per day (lbs/day) of ROG and NOrequires Standard Mitigation
x
Measures.
Over 2.5 tons per quarter(ton/qtr)of ROG and NOrequires Standard Mitigation
x
Measures and Best Available Control Technology for construction equipment
(BACT).
Over 6.3 ton/qtr of ROG and NOrequires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT,
x
implementation of a Construction Activity Management Plan (CAMP), and offsite
mitigation.
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions
Over 7 lbs/day of DPM requires Standard Mitigation Measures.
Over 0.13 ton/qtr of DPM requires Standard Mitigation Measures, and BACT for
construction equipment.
3.3-14
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
Over 0.32 ton/qtr of DPM requires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT,
implementation of a CAMP, and offsite mitigation.
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM), Dust Emissions
10
2.5 ton/qtr of PMrequires Fugitive PMMitigation Measures and may require
1010
the implementation of a CAMP.
Table 3.3-3. Thresholds of Significance for Construction Operations
Threshold
Pollutant of Concern
ROG + NO(combined)2.56.3137
x
DieselParticulate Matter (DPM)0.130.327
PM- 2.5-
10
Source: (San Luis ObispoAPCD 2012).
If construction-related emissions of the proposed Project equal or exceed any of the
thresholds stated above, mitigation of construction activities and implementation of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) would be required.
Significance Criteria for Operational Emissions
Long-term operational emission thresholds for San Luis Obispo County, as stated in the
APCDs CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2012), have been set by the APCD as follows(see
Table 3.3-4):
Ozone Precursor (ROG + NO) Emissions
x
Projects which emit 25 lbs/day or more of ROG and NOshould be submitted to
x
the APCD for review. Onsite mitigation is recommended. If feasible mitigation is
incorporated and emissions are still greater than 25 lbs/day, then an EIR should be
prepared.
Projects which emit 25 tons/year or more of ROG and NOrequired the preparation
x
of an EIR.
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions
Projects that emit over 1.25 lbs/day of DPM require implementation of onsite
BACT measures. If sensitive receptors are within 1,000 feet of the Project site, a
Health Risk Assessment (HRA) may also be required.
3.3-15
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM) Dust Emissions
10
Projects that emit over 25 lbs/day or 25 tons/year of PMrequire implementation
10
of permanent dust control measures to mitigate emissions or provide suitable offsite
mitigation approved by the APCD.
Table 3.3-4. Thresholds of Significance for Operational Operations
Threshold
Pollutant of Concern
DailyAnnual
ROG + NO(combined)25 lbs/day25 tons/year
x
DieselParticulate Matter (DPM)1.25 lbs/day-
PM 25 lbs/day25 tons/year
10
Source:San Luis ObispoAPCD 2012.
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted
amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the
effects of GHG emissions in March 2010. These guidelines are used in evaluating the
cumulative significance of GHG emissions from the proposed Project. According to the
adopted CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to GHG emissions from the proposed Project
would be significant if the Project would:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment; and/or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The APCD has adopted recommended GHG significance thresholds. These thresholds are
based on AB 32 GHG emission reduction goals, which take into consideration the emission
reduction strategies outlined in ARBs Scoping Plan. The GHG significance thresholds
include one qualitative threshold and two quantitative thresholds options for evaluation of
operational GHG emissions. The qualitative threshold option is based on a consistency
analysis in comparison to a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, or equitably
similar adopted policies, ordinances and programs. If a project complies with a Qualified
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy that is specifically applicable to the project, then the
project would be considered less than significant.In accordance with APCD significance
thresholds, the project would be considered to result in a significant impact if it does not
comply with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, in this case the one included
3.3-16
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
in the Citys adopted Climate Action Plan.The Citys Climate Action Planwas developed
to be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) to mitigate emissions and
climate change impacts and will therefore serve as a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
for the City.
3.3.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology
Criteria Pollutants
The air quality analysis follows the guidelines and methodologies recommended in the
APCDs CEQA Air Quality Handbook for the County of San Luis Obispo (2012).
Construction emissions from heavy-duty diesel exhaust were calculated using the APCDs
CEQA handbook and Project-specific equipment details, whenever possible. Emissions
factors for calculating emissions from construction equipment were provided by the APCD
(San Luis Obispo APCD 2012). Fugitive dust emissions from ground disturbance and
import and stockpileactivities were calculated using APCD emission factors(San Luis
Obispo APCD 2012).Potential impacts were assessed by modeling the estimated daily
emissions generated by Project construction and Project operations using the CalEEMod
land use emissions model version 2013.2 (see Appendix E for CalEEMod Estimates).
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
Consistent with CEQA and the APCDs recommendation, the significance of the Projects
GHG emissions and resulting global climate change impacts are assessed against the
threshold of the Citys adopted Qualified GHG Reduction Strategyin the City Climate
Action Plan.
3.3.4Project Impactsand Mitigation Measures
This section discusses the potential air quality and GHG emissions impacts associated with
the construction and operation of the proposed Project. Air quality and GHG emissions
impacts associated with the proposed Project are summarized in Table 3.3-5 below.
3.3-17
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
Table 3.3-5. Summary of Project Impacts
Air QualityImpactsMitigation MeasuresResidual Significance
Impact AQ-1. The proposed Project would result MMAQ-1a Less than Significant
in significant short-term construction-related air with Mitigation
MM AQ-1b
quality impacts from dust and air pollutant
MM AQ-1c
emissions generated by grading and construction
MM AQ-1d
equipment operation.
Impact AQ-2. The proposed Project would result MM AQ-2a Significant and
in significant long-term operation-related air Unavoidable
MM AQ-2b
quality impacts generated by area, energy, and
mobile emissions.
Impact AQ-3. Release of toxic diesel emissions MMAQ-3a Less than Significant
during initial construction and long-term operation with Mitigation
MM AQ-3b
of the proposed Project could expose nearby
sensitive receptors to such emissions.
Impact AQ-4. Construction and operation of the
MM AQ-2b Less than Significant
proposed Project would result in less than
significant impacts to global climate change from
the emissions of greenhouse gases if the Project is
consistent withthe Citys Climate Action Plan.
Impact AQ-5. The proposed Project is potentially MM AQ-2bSignificant and
inconsistent with the County of San Luis Obispo Unavoidable
MM AQ-5a
APCDs 2001 Clean Air Plan.
Impact
AQ-1The proposed Project would result in significant short-term
construction-related air quality impacts from dust and air pollutant
emissions generated by grading and construction equipment operation
(Less than Significant with Mitigation).
Project construction would generate short-term air pollutant emissions, particularly
construction emissions of ROG and NOduring the architectural coating phase, and
x
fugitive dust (PMand PM) associated with grading and exhaust from heavy
102.5
construction vehicles. Construction would generally consist of site preparation, grading,
building construction, and paving. In addition, during building construction, ROGs and
other emissions would be released during the application and drying phase of paints and
architectural coatings.
The site preparation phase would involve the greatest amount of heavy equipment and the
greatest generation of fugitive dust.Emissions were calculated based on an equipment list
and composite emission factors.The exact construction timeline for all three subareas is
currently unknown; therefore, construction for each subarea was conservatively assumed
3.3-18
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
to occur simultaneously over an 18-month period.Emission estimates from construction of
all three subareas are provided in Table 3.3-6.
Table 3.3-6. Maximum Short-term Construction Emissions (Unmitigated)
ROG
ROG NOCOSOPMPMCOe
x2102.52
+ NO
x
Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
(lbs/day)84.8490.19175.0367.530.125.00 3.67 11,807.5
(tons/qtr) includes Fugitive Dust 1 1.152.151.01<0.010.10.07138.7
APCD Thresholds (lbs/day)----137------ 7 --
APCD Thresholds (tons/qtr)----2.5----2.50.13--
NONONONONO
Significant?----YES
See Appendix E for CalEEMod worksheets.
PMgeneration associated with fugitive dust from construction activities were calculated
10
in CalEEModusing the methodology described in the San Luis Obispo APCD 2012CEQA
Air Quality Handbook.Detailed construction emissions and calculation assumptions are
provided in Appendix E.
Projected emissions for the proposed Project were found to be above the established CEQA
thresholds for construction emissions of ROG and NO during the architectural coating
x
phase. Further, APCD requires any project with a grading area greater than 4.0 acres to
apply mitigation measures for PM(primarily from fugitive dust); since the proposed
10
Project would disturba total of 15.29 acres, PMmitigation measures would need to be
10
implemented. Standard APCD-recommended conditions at the Project site would minimize
construction-related air qualityimpacts, making impacts
less than significant with
(seeTable 3.3-7).
mitigation
Mitigation Measuresfor All Subareas
MM AQ-1a The following standard air quality mitigation measures shall be
implemented during construction activities at the Project site:
Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible;
Water trucks or sprinkler trucks shall be used during construction to
keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from
leaving the site. At a minimum, this would require twice-daily
applications. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed.
Increased watering frequency would be required when wind speeds
3.3-19
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
exceed 15 miles per hour (mph). Reclaimed water (non-potable) shall be
used when possible;
All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed;
Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project
revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as
possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities;
Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater
than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast
germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is
established;
All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized
using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods
approved in advance by the APCD;
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be
completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid
as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on
any unpaved surface at the construction site;
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be
covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance
with California Vehicle Code Section 23114;
Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto
streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site;
Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried
onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should
be used where feasible;
All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading
and building plans; and
Thecontractor or builder should designate a person or persons to
monitor the fugitive dust control emissions and enhance the
implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20percent opacity, and to
prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holiday and
weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and
telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD
Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or
demolition.
3.3-20
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
MM AQ-1b The following standard air quality mitigation measures for construction
equipment shall be implemented during construction activities at the
Project site:
Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to
manufacturers specifications;
Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with CARB-
certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-
road).
Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARBs Tier 2 certified
engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with
the State off-Road Regulation;
Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARBs 2007 or cleaner
certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines and comply
with theState On-Road Regulation;
Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines
in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two
measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by
proving alternative compliance;
On- and off-road diesel equipment shall not be allowed to idle for more
than five minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas
to remind drivers and operators of the five-minute idling limit;
Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors in not permitted;
Staging and queing areas shall not be loated within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors;
Electrify equipment when feasible;
Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment,
where feasible; and,
Use alternatively fueled construction equipment onsite where feasible,
such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG),
propane or biodiesel.
MM AQ-1c A Construction Activity Management Plan shall be included as part of
Project grading and building plans and shall be submitted to the APCD for
review and to the City for approval prior to the start of construction. In
addition, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to
monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as
necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include
holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name
3.3-21
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
and telephone of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to land
use clearance for map recordation and grading. The plan shall include but
not be limited to the following elements:
Schedule construction truck trips during non-peak hours (as determined
by the Public Works Director) to reduce peak hour emissions;
Tabulation of on and off-road construction equipment (age, horse-power
and miles and/or hours of operation;
Limit the length of the construction work-day period, if necessary; and,
Phase construction activities, if appropriate.
MM AQ-1d To reduce ROG and NOx levels duringthe architectural coating phase, low
or no VOC-emission paint shall be usedwith levels of 50 g/L or less, such
as Benjamin Moore Natura Paint (Odorless, Zero VOC Paint).
Plan Requirementsand Timing.The Applicants arerequired to show
measures on grading and building plans and adhere to measures throughout
all grading, hauling, and construction activities.Dust control requirements
shall be noted on all grading and building plans. The contractor or builder
shall provideCitymonitoring staff and the APCD with the name and contact
information for an assigned onsite dust control monitor(s) who has the
responsibility to: a) assure all dust control requirements are complied with
including those covering weekends and holidays, b) order increased
watering as necessary to prevent transport of dust offsite, c) attend the pre-
construction meeting. The dust monitor shall be designated prior to permit
issuance. The dust control components apply from the beginning of any
grading or construction throughout all development activities until Final
Building Inspection Clearance is issued and landscaping is successfully
installed.
Monitoring.City staffshall ensure measures are on plans. Grading and
building inspectors shall spot check; Grading and building inspectors shall
ensure compliance onsite. APCD inspectors shall conduct periodic site
visits to ensure compliance and respond to nuisance complaints.
Residual Impact
Theprojected emissions for construction emissions ROG and NOafter implementation of
x
mitigation (seeTable 3.3-7) were found to be below the established APCD thresholds,
therefore residual impacts are less than significant.
3.3-22
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
Table 3.3-7. Maximum Short-term Construction Emissions (Mitigated)
1
ROG NOROG COSOPMPMCOe
x2102.52
+ NO
x
Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
(lbs/day)17.2671.5488.52 58.670.123.06 2.0011,807.5
(tons/qtr) includes Fugitive Dust 1 0.981.980.95 <0.010.070.04138.7
APCD Thresholds (lbs/day)----137------ 7 --
APCD Thresholds (tons/qtr)----2.5----2.50.13--
NONONONONONO
Significant?----
1
CalEEMod is unable to estimate reductions in ROG emissions from the use of low VOC emissions paint during
construction phases. As such, ROG emissions were estimated with pro-rated values using low VOC
emissions paint equivalent to 50 g/l.
See Appendix E forCalEEMod worksheets.
Impact
AQ-2 The proposed Project would result in significant long-term operation-
related air quality impacts generated by area, energy, and mobile
emissions (Significant and Unavoidable).
Operational emissions from the proposed Project include those generated by vehicle trips
(mobile emissions), the use of natural gas (energy emissions), use of consumer products
and appliances, and the use of landscaping maintenance equipment (area source emissions).
Maximum daily operational emissions of the proposed Project were estimated using
CalEEMod.
3.3-23
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
Table 3.3-8. Maximum Long-term Operational Emissions (Unmitigated)
ROG
ROGNOx +COSO2 PM10PM2.5CO2e
NO
x
Overall Operational (Maximum Daily Emission)
8.420.07 8.485.64 0.00030.030.0310.33
Area
(lbs/day)
Energy 0.292.602.890.95 0.01580.200.203,184.4
(lbs/day)
Mobile 6.7812.6919.4757.580.117.762.188,639.5
(lbs/day)
Total 15.4915.3630.8465.170.127.99 2.4111,834.2
Threshold 25 251.25
(lbs/day)
Threshold 2525
(tons/year)
NO
Significant?YESYES
See Appendix E for CalEEMod worksheets.
Projected emissions for the proposed Project were found to be above the established APCD
thresholds for operational emissions of ROG and NO,and PM.For unmitigated projects
x2.5
that result in emissions between 30 and 34 lbs/day of combined ROG and NO or PM,
x10
the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook recommends that at least 14standard mitigation
measures be implemented as part of the Project to ensure that impacts would be less than
significant, based on a list included as Table 3-5 in that document. The list covers a large
range of activities and would reduce impacts either through site design, transportation
strategies, or increasing the energy efficiency of the Project.In many cases, adherence to
the proposed Project design guidelines would implement many of these measures.Even
after the inclusion of these recommended measures as appropriate(see Table 3.3-8),
impacts are still marginally.
significant and unavoidable
Mitigation Measures for All Subareas
MM AQ-2a The Applicants shall include the following:
Water Conservation Strategy: The Applicants shall install fixtures
with the EPA WaterSense Label, achieving 20 percent reduction
indoor. The Project shall install drip, micro, or fixed spray
irrigation on all plants other than turf, also including the EPA
3.3-24
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
WaterSense Label, achieving 15 percent reduction in outdoor
landscaping.
Solid Waste: The Applicants shall institute recycling and
composting services to achieve a 15 percent reduction in waste
disposal, and use waste efficient landscaping.
Fugitive Dust: The Applicants shall replace ground cover of at least
70 percent of area disturbed in accordance with CARB Rule 403.
MM AQ-2b Consistent with standard mitigation measures in Table 3-5 of the APCD
CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the following mitigation measures would
apply to the Project.
Mitigation Measures Included from APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook
Applicant(s) Will
Measure PollutantInclude This
1
#Measure TypeMitigation MeasureReducedMitigation
Applicable to All Subareas
1.Site design,Improve job / housing balance O, P, GHG All
Subarea 2 will pay
Transportationopportunities within communities.
affordable housing
in lieu fee.
Subarea 3 would be
below market rate.
2.Site designOrient buildings toward streets O, P, GHG
All
with automobile parking in the rear
to promote a pedestrian-friendly
environment.
3.Site designProvide good access to/from the O, P, GHG All
Improvements to
development for pedestrians,
East Cherry Avenue
bicyclists, and transit users.
include new bicycle
lanes and sidewalks,
where none exist
now. The collector
road will have
bicycle lanes and
sidewalks.
4.Site designPave and maintain the roads and P
All
parking areas
5.Site designIncrease density within the urban O, P, GHG All
Assumed 5 dwelling
core and urban reserve lines.
units per acre for
Subarea 2 and 15
dwelling units/acre
for Subarea 3.
Subarea 1 = 36 full
time equivalent jobs.
6.Site design; Provide easements or land O, P, GHG All
transportationdedications and construct bikeways
and pedestrian walkways.
7.Energy efficiencyUtilize built-in energy efficient O, P, GHG All
Assume 100% of
appliances (i.e. Energy Star®).
3.3-25
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
appliances would be
energy efficient for
all subareas.
8.Energy efficiencyUtilize energy efficient interior O, P, GHG All
lighting.100% lighting
energy reduction
for all subareas.
Applicable to Subarea 1
9.Site designDriveway design standards (e.g., P
Subarea 1
Assumed 15 MPH
speed bumps, curved driveway) for
for unpaved roads.
self-enforcing of reduced speed
limits for unpaved driveways.
10.Site designDevelopment is within 1/4 mile of O, P, GHG
Subarea 1
Closest transit stop
transit centers and transit corridors.
is at Traffic Way &
Fair Oaks.
11.Site designNo residential wood burning O, P, GHG
Subarea 1
appliances.
12.Site designTrusses for south-facing portions O, GHG
Subarea 1
of roofs shall be designed to handle
dead weight loads of standard
solar-heated water and
photovoltaic panels. Roof design
shall include sufficient south
facing roof surface, based on
structures size and use, to
accommodate adequate solar
panels. For south facing roof
pitches, the closest standard roof
pitch to the ideal average solar
exposure shall be used.
13.Energy efficiency Increase the building energy rating O, GHG
Subarea 1
by 20% above Title 24
requirements. Measures used to
reach the 20% rating cannot be
double counted.
14.Energy efficiencyPlant drought tolerant, native shade O, GHG Subarea 1
Minimum of 120
trees along southern exposures of
trees planted.
buildings to reduce energy used to
cool buildings in summer.
15.Energy efficiencyUtilize green building materials O, DPM, Subarea 1
(materials which are resource GHG
efficient, recycled, and sustainable)
available locally if possible.
16.Energy efficiencyInstall high efficiency heating and O, GHG
Subarea 1
cooling systems.
17.Energy efficiencyUtilize high efficiency gas or solar O, P, GHG
Subarea 1
water heaters.
18.Energy efficiencyUtilize double-paned windows.O, P, GHG
Subarea 1
19.Energy efficiencyUtilize low energy street lights (i.e. O, P, GHG
Subarea 1
sodium).
20.Energy efficiencyInstall door sweeps and weather O, P, GHG
Subarea 1
stripping (if more efficient doors
and windows are not available).
21.Energy efficiencyInstall energy-reducing O, P, GHG Subarea 1
programmable thermostats.
3.3-26
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
22.Energy efficiencyParticipate in and implement O, P, GHG
Subarea 1
available energy-efficient rebate
programs including air
conditioning, gas heating,
refrigeration, and lighting
programs.
23.Energy efficiencyUse roofing material with a solar O, P, GHG Subarea 1
reflectance values meeting the
EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating to
reduce summer cooling needs.
24.Energy efficiencyUtilize onsite renewable energy O, P, GHG Subarea 1
systems (e.g., solar, wind,
geothermal, low-impact hydro,
biomass and bio-gas).
25.Energy efficiencyEliminate high water consumption O, GHG
Subarea 1
landscape (e.g., plants and lawns)
in residential design. Use native
plants that do not require watering
and are low ROG emitting.
26.TransportationProject provides a display case or O, P, GHG Subarea 1
kioskdisplaying transportation
information in a prominent area
accessible to employees or
residents.
27.TransportationProvide electrical charging station O, P, GHG Subarea 1
for electric vehicles.
28.TransportationProvide free-access telework O, P, GHG
Subarea 1
terminals and/or wi-fi access in
multi-family projects.
Applicable to Subarea 2
29.Site designIncorporate outdoor electrical O, P, GHG
Subarea 2
Includes 20%
outlets to encourage the use of
electric leafblower
electric appliances and tools.
and chainsaw.
30.Site design; Incorporate traffic calming O, P, GHG Subarea 2
East Cherry Avenue
transportationmodifications to Project roads,
= 100%
such as narrower streets, speed
improvement.
platforms, bulb-outs and
Collector road =
intersection designs that reduce
25%.
vehicles speeds and encourage
pedestrian and bicycle travel.
31.Energy efficiencyOrient 75 percent or more of O, GHG
Subarea 2
homes and/or buildings to be
aligned north / south to reduce
energy used to cool buildings in
summer.
32.Energy efficiencyDesign building to include roof O, GHG Subarea 2
overhangs that are sufficient to
block the high summer sun, but not
the lower winter sun, from
penetrating south facing windows
(passive solar design).
33.Energy efficiencyUtilize low energy traffic signals O, P, GHG
Subarea 2
(i.e. light emitting diode).
34.Energy efficiencyUtilize onsite renewable energy O, P, GHG
Subarea 2
PVs will be an
systems (e.g., solar, wind,
3.3-27
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
option forhome
geothermal, low-impact hydro,
buyers.
biomass and bio-gas).
35.TransportationProvide storage space in garage for O, P, GHG
Subarea 2
bicycle and bicycle trailers, or
covered racks / lockers to service
the residential units.
Applicable to Subarea 3
36.Site designProvide a pedestrian-friendly and O, P, GHG Subarea 3
interconnected streetscape to make
walking more convenient,
comfortable and safe (including
appropriate signalization and
signage).
37.Site designIncorporate outdoor electrical O, P, GHG
Subarea 3
Includes 20%
outlets to encourage the use of
electric leafblower
electric appliances and tools.
and chainsaw.
38.Energy efficiencyUtilize green building materials O, DPM, Subarea 3
(materials which are resource GHG
efficient, recycled, and sustainable)
available locally if possible.
39.EnergyefficiencyInstall high efficiency heating and O, GHG
Subarea 3
cooling systems.
40.Energy efficiencyUtilize double-paned windows.O, P, GHG
Subarea 3
41.Energy efficiencyInstall door sweeps and weather O, P, GHG
Subarea 3
stripping (if more efficient doors
and windows are not available).
42.Energy efficiencyInstall energy-reducing O, P, GHG
Subarea 3
programmable thermostats.
1
O = Ozone; P = Particulate; DPM = Diesel Particulate Matter; GHG = Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Plan Requirementsand Timing.The Applicants arerequired to
implement the abovestandard mitigationmeasures from the APCD CEQA
Air Quality Handbook including those specified above prior to development
plan or permit approval. City staff shall ensure the above measures are
incorporated into the development plan and building plans prior to permit
issuance.
Monitoring.City staff shall ensure measures are on plans. City staff can
work with the Applicants to ensure that these strategies are implemented.
APCD inspectors or other City-approved compliance monitors shall
conduct periodic site visits to ensure compliance and respond to nuisance
complaints.
Residual Impact
Mitigation Measure AQ-2b summarizesthe list of appropriate mitigation measures, and
indicateswhich of these are to be incorporated by the Applicants in accordance with the
3.3-28
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
APCDs CEQA Air Quality Handbook.However, it is noted that many measures listed in
MM AQ-2b do not contain quantifiable air quality emissions reductions. After
incorporation of the above mitigation measures, CalEEMod estimates indicate that Project
operation would be marginally over the APCD thresholds for ROG + NO by
x
approximately 0.54 lbs/day, and would be over the PM2.5 threshold by 1.05 lbs/day.
However, with incorporation of the abovemitigation, long-term operational impacts would
be just above the operational emissions for ROG and NO, and PM, and would therefore
x2.5
be significant and unavoidable (see Table 3.3-9).
Table 3.3-9. Maximum Long-term Operational Emissions (Mitigated)
ROG +
ROGNOxCOSO2PMPMCO2e
102.5
NOx
Overall Operational (Maximum Daily Emission)
Area5.870.07 5.945.650.000330.030.0310.36
(lbs/day)
Energy0.242.172.410.780.007160.10.11,440.2
(lbs/day)
Mobile6.4710.7217.1957.580.117.762.188,353.6
(lbs/day)
Total 12.5812.9525.5464.020.117.882.39,804.1
Threshold ----25----251.25--
(lbs/day)
Significant?----YES----NO YES--
Impact
AQ-3 Release of toxic diesel emissions during initial construction and long-
term operation of the proposed Project could expose nearby sensitive
receptors to such emissions (Less than Significant with Mitigation).
The proposed Project would generate diesel particulate matter from construction and
operational activities within 1,000 feet of single family residences adjacent to the northeast
and to the south, Vagabond Mobile Home Park adjacent to the southwest containing
approximately 25 units, and the St. Barnabas Episcopal Church located on the adjacent
hillside property to the southeast.Diesel particulate matter is listed as a TAC by the CARB
with no identified threshold.
As required by the EPA,beginning in 2000,and the CARB beginning in 2006, and as
specified in the CCR Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 9, Article 4, Sec. 2423(b)(1), all off-
3.3-29
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
road diesel engines are required to meet at a minimum the Tier 3 Emission Standards for
Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines (with proper diesel particulate controls). Tier 3
vehicles operate with significantly less emissions than Tier 1 or Tier 2, as regulated by the
EPA. Heavy-haul vehicle fleets used for the Project would comply with state and federal
operational standards to reduce the potential generation of NOor PMemissions for off-
x10
road diesel vehicles in compliance with CCR.
The potential for TACs to have an effect on sensitive receptors would occur if the project
is located near an existing significant source of TACs or if it would generate TACs in
quantities that may have an adverse effect on sensitive receptors. CARB identifies high-
volume freeways and roads, dry cleaners, and large gas stations as potential sources of
TACs. The proposed Project would comprise residential, hotel, and restaurant uses, which
are considered uses that would not generate substantial amounts of TACs and would not
pose a risk to sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity. Accordingly, TAC pollution
controls would not be required for the proposed Project.
Additionally, according to the 2005 CARBs Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, it is
recommended to maintain 500 feet between residences and a major freeway, and more than
50 feet from a typical gas station. U.S. Highway 101is located approximately 550feet to
the southwest of Subarea 2, and a Mobil gas station is located approximately 250 feetto
the southwest of Subarea 2. As the proposed Project is outside the recommended buffer
zone of potential TAC emitters, the project is not expected to expose sensitive receptors to
substantial levels of TACs.
Given that the project location is outside all relevant buffer zones to potential substantial
TAC emissions in the vicinity, and with implementation of the mitigation measures listed
below, the proposed Projects potential impacts to sensitive receptors would be
less than
.
significantwith mitigation
Mitigation Measures for All Subareas
MM AQ-3a The Applicants shall implement the following Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) for diesel-fueled construction equipment, where
feasible, to minimize the exposure of diesel exhaust to sensitive receptors:
Further reduce emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road
and 2010 on-road compliant engines;
Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available; and,
Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies.
3.3-30
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
MM AQ-3b The Applicants shall ensure that all equipment usedin operational activities
has the necessary APCD permits when appropriate. To minimize potential
delays, prior to the start of development within each subarea, the APCDs
Engineering Division shall be contacted for specific information regarding
permitting requirements.
Timing.The Applicants arerequired to adhere to measures throughout all
grading, hauling, and construction activities.The Applicants shall
coordinate with the APCD prior to permit issuance.
Monitoring.City staff shall ensure measures are on plans. APCD
inspectors shall conduct periodic site visits to ensure compliance and
respond to nuisance complaints.
Residual Impact
Impacts due to the close proximity of sensitive receptors to diesel emissions during
construction and operations are potentially significant, but mitigable. As recommended by
the APCD, the Applicants would work with the APCD to develop the appropriate level of
diesel particulate control technology to apply to construction equipment.Implementation
of the above-mentioned mitigation measure would reduce residual impacts related to
exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations to less than significant.
Impact
AQ-4 Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in less
than significant impacts to global climate change from the emissions of
greenhouse gasesif the Project is consistent with the Citys Climate
Action Plan (Less than Significant).
Construction Emissions
Construction activities for Subareas 1, 2, and 3 areassumed to occur over a period of
approximately 18 months for the purposes of this analysis. Based on CalEEMod estimates,
construction activitiesfor the Project would generate an estimated 778.80MT of COe (as
2
shown in Table 3.3-10). Amortized over a 25-year period (the assumed life of the Project),
construction of the proposed Project would generate approximately 31.15MT of COe per
2
year.
3.3-31
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
Table 3.3-10. Estimated Construction GHG Emissions(Mitigated)
Annual Emissions MT CO e
Year
2
2017 554.69
2018 224.11
Total 778.80
Amortized over 25years31.15
See Appendix E for CalEEMod computer program output and for GHG emission factor assumptions.
Operational Indirect and Stationary Direct Emissions
Operational emissions would be generated from area, energy use, solid waste, water use,
and transportation. Energy use emissions assume installation of energy efficient
appliances. Emissions from electricity are estimated at 793.52MT COe from Natural Gas.
2
Annual emissions from all generated solid waste would be approximately 67.69MT COe.
2
Water use emissions assume the installation of low flow plumbing fixtures and use of
reclaimed waterfor landscaping. Emissions from water use would be approximately 20.72
MT COe. GHG emissions associated with mobile sources were estimated at 966.02 MT
2
COeusing CalEEMod. Table 3.3-11 shows a summary of these emissions.
2
Table 3.3-11. Estimated Operational GHG Emissions(Mitigated)
Annual Emissions MT CO e
Emission Source
2
1.54
Area
793.52
Energy Use
67.69
Solid Waste
20.72
Water Use
966.02
Mobile Sources
Total1,849.48
See Appendix E for CalEEMod computer program output and for GHG emission factor assumptions.
Total operational emissions would be approximately 1,849.48MT COe. Combined with
2
construction emissions amortized over a 25-year period (31.15 MT COe), total GHG
2
emissions for the proposed Project would be 1,880.63 MT COe.
2
The Citys Climate Action Plan isdesigned as a Qualified GHG Reduction Plan, consistent
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).The Climate Action Plan forecastsArroyo
Grandes GHG emissions to be 93,513 MT COe by 2020.The City will need to reduce its
2
GHG emissions by 3,914 MT COe from the adjusted forecast by 2020 to meet its 15
2
percent reduction target. The GHG reduction measures in the Climate Action Planare
3.3-32
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
estimated to reduce the Citys GHG emissions by 5,371 MTCOe by 2020. The proposed
2
Project already implements measures such as improving and expanding the Citys bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit network and infrastructure, and includes Transportation Demand
Management(TDM) incentives. Combined with other measures from the Climate Action
Planfeasible for the Project to implement,impactsfrom greenhouse gas emissions would
be .
less than significant
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-2b above would apply.
Residual Impact
Whilethis impact isfound to beless than significant, implementation of MM AQ-2b above
would further ensure that this impact is less than significant.
Impact
AQ-5 The proposed Project is potentially inconsistent with the County of San
Luis Obispo APCDs 2001 Clean Air Plan (Significant and
Unavoidable).
Consistency analysis with local and regional plans, such as the Clean Air Plan, is required
under CEQA. Consistency with the Clean Air Planmeans that stationary and vehicle
emissions associated with the proposed Project are accounted for in the Clean Air Plans
emissions growth assumptions.
According to the County of San Luis Obispo APCDs guidelines, a project may result in
significant air quality impacts if it is inconsistent with the assumptions in the CAP.
Consistency with the Clean AirPlanis evaluated based on three criteria:
1)Are the population projections used in the plan or project equal to or less than
those used in the most recent Clean Air Plan for the same area?
The Clean AirPlanspopulation estimate for the City is 18,988 by 2015, and
305,854 for the County of San Luis Obispo by 2015. According to 2013 estimates
by the United States Census Bureau, both the City and County populations are well
under the CAPs projected population estimates. However, the population growth
from the Project would exceed the Clean Air Planprojections for the Project site,
as Subareas 2 and 3 are currently zoned for agriculture.The proposed Project would
include 58 single-family residential lots that would add a population of
3.3-33
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
approximately 140 persons. This is based on the number of dwelling units (58)
multiplied by the average number of persons per household in the City of Arroyo
Grande. Additionally, the Project proposed to include 10 senior citizen studio
apartments which would add an additional 10 persons to the population resulting in
a net total of 150 persons in the Project vicinity.As described in the preceding
Impact AQ-2 analysis, the proposed Project would result in significant and
unavoidablelong-term operation-related air quality impacts generated by area,
energy, and mobile emissions; therefore, the proposed Project is potentially
inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan.
2)Is the rate of increase in vehicle trips and miles traveled less than or equal to the
rate of population growth for the same area?
The population growth from the Project would exceed the Clean AirPlan
projections for the Project site, as Subareas 2 and 3 are currently zoned for
agriculture.As described in Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic, the proposed
Project would create 157 new PM peak-hour vehicle trips. The trip generation rate
per day at the Project site is 1,646. The rate of increase in vehicle trips and miles
traveled would exceed the Clean Air Planprojections for the Project site; therefore,
the proposed Project is potentially inconsistent with the Clean AirPlan.
3)Have all applicable land use and Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) and
strategies from the Clean Air Plan been included in theplan or project to the
maximum extent feasible?
The transportation goal of the Clean AirPlanis to reduce the growth of vehicle
trips and vehicle miles traveled to the rate of population growth within San Luis
Obispo County. TCMs are controls that help reduce emissions resulting from motor
vehicles, by reducing vehicle use and facilitating the use of alternative
transportation options.There are a total of nine TCMs located in the CAP which
include the following; T-1B Campus Trip Reduction Program; T-1C Voluntary
Commute Options Program; T-2A Local Transit Systems Improvements; T-2B
Regional Public Transit Improvements; T-3 Bicycling and Bikeway Enhancements;
T-4 Park and Ride Lots; T-5 Motor Vehicle Inspection and Control Programs; T-6
Traffic Flow Improvements and T-8 Teleworking, Teleconferencing and
Telelearning. Out of APCDs nine TCMs included in the CAP, only one of these
TCMs, T-3 Bicycling and Bikeway Enhancements, would be included as part of
3.3-34
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
the proposed Project. Implementation of mitigation measures MM AQ-2a and b,
and MM AQ-5a would reduce inconsistencies with TCMs in the Clean AirPlan.
Land use strategies in the Clean Air Planinclude planning compact communities, providing
for mixed land use, balancing jobs and housing, circulation management, and
communication, coordination and monitoring.Each of thefive land use strategies are
applicable to the proposed Projectand would be implemented by the proposed Project.
The proposed Project could hinder the Countys ability to maintain attainment of the State
ozone standard, because the emissions reductions projected in the Clean AirPlanmay not
be met. The anticipated population growth and increase in vehicle trips is potentially
inconsistent with the Clean AirPlan. With the inclusion of mitigation measures below,
impacts would continue to be .
significant and unavoidable
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-2b above would apply.
MM AQ-5a Consistent with the Citys Goal CT4 to promote transit use, the Applicants
shall coordinate with the City Public Works and Community Development
Department and work with SLORTA and SCT to establish a sheltered transit
stop on East Cherry Avenue near the Project site.
Requirements and Timing. The City shalldetermine the need and exact
location for an additional transit stop, and shallcoordinate with the
Applicants to determine the appropriate actions required, and/or fair share
of payment for funding the additional transit stop. Based on the findings,
the Applicants shallsubmit payment of their fair share of funding prior to
issuance of use or CUP permits.
Monitoring. The City would be responsible for determining appropriate
actions and/or the amount of payment of fair shares for the Applicants
commensurate with metrics that demonstrate the relative level and intensity
of proposed development (e.g., square footage, land use type, trip
generation, etc.).
3.3-35
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.3AQGGE
IR UALITY AND REENHOUSE AS MISSIONS
Residual Impact
In accordance with the San Luis Obispo APCDs CEQA Air Quality Handbook, all
standard mitigation measures and feasible discretionary mitigation measures must be
incorporated into the Project.
The design of the proposed Project would require relatively substantial changes (e.g.,
inclusion of mixed-use, housing, etc.) to reduce inconsistency with overall land use
planning principles contained in the Clean Air Plan.However,residual impacts would be
significant and unavoidable.
3.3.5Cumulative Impacts
By their nature, air quality thresholds are based on regulatory thresholds that already
address long-term cumulative growth.The proposed Project would therefore contribute to
both local and regional cumulative impacts associated with growth and development.
Impacts due to the close proximity of sensitive receptors to diesel emissions during
construction and operations are not significant for the Project, but would contribute
incrementally to cumulative impacts on sensitive receptors in the vicinity. Mitigation
measures would be implemented to reduce the diesel emissions and maintain emissions at
a less than significant level.
Long-term operation of theproposed Project would result insignificant and unavoidable
localized air quality emissions; therefore, the proposed Projectwould contribute
cumulatively and considerably to localized air quality emissions throughout the City and
region.
The proposed Project includes a hotel and a restaurant, patrons would consist of both pass-
through travelers as well as destination visitors to usethe visitor-serving uses proposed.
While this would result in additional GHG emissions relative to existing condition,
providing the proposed Project remains consistent with the Citys Climate Action Plan
GHGreduction strategies, the cumulative impact would remain less than significant.
3.3-36
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
3.4BR
IOLOGICALESOURCES
This section describes biological resources onsite and in the vicinity of the proposed East
Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project) including local habitats, communities, and
sensitive species, and evaluates the potential impacts Project implementation may have
on these resources.
Grading, vegetation removal, construction activities and development of the Project
would have the potential to impact biological resources onsite.In addition to Project
construction, the consequences of long-term development including lighting, noise,and
site runoff have the potential to impact biological resources.
This analysis is based on a review of information contained in the California Natural
Diversity Database(CNDDB), information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS),and a Biological Resources Assessment completed for the site by Sage
th
Institute, Inc. (SII)on October 30, 2015 and contained within Appendix F of this
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).This baseline information has been supplemented
by field work completed by Amec Foster Wheeler team members in October 2015.
3.4.1Environmental Setting
The Project site consists of 15.29acres of
undeveloped and largely disturbed lands.
The majority of the site(13.78 acres)
consists of leveled, lower-value biological
habitat due to agricultural useswithin
Subareas 1 and 2; these parcels contain
agriculturalland historically farmed for crop
production. Subarea 3 isa 1.51-acre vacant
parcelon the eastern edge of the site that
The Project site is dominated by historically
cultivated agricultural land that offers lower-
has been used for storage, and other human
quality biological habitat, adjacent to a
uses dating back to 1949, and contains
drainage ditch that supports some riparian
plant species such as willows.
disturbed ruderal vegetated habitat. A
drainage ditch, which directs overland flows to prevent flooding of thefields, runs
adjacent to the southern edge of the Project site and includes some riparian plant species.
A hillside slope with oaks, shrubs, and grasslandsoccurs just beyond the drainage ditch
to the south.None of this existing habitatprovides important habitat for wildlife nursery
3.4-1
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
1
sites.Residential and urban development borders the site to the north, east,and west,
while a mobile home park is situatedalong the southwestern border of the site.Since the
Project site is surrounded on three sides by residential and urban development, the
vicinity is mostly developed,and a majority of the Project site has been historically and
actively used for agricultural production, wildlife passage through the site would be very
restricted and most likely limited toinfrequent passage along the southern boundary of
the site at the base of the foothill.
3.4.1.1Biological Communities
Three biological communities have been observed within the Project vicinity and are
described below. No critical habitats were identified within the Project site (USFWS
2015a).
Agricultural Habitat
Agriculturalhabitat is characterized by weedy vegetation that thrives within areas that
have been disturbed by cultivation. Vegetation such as wild radish ()
Raphanus sativus
and Italian ryegrass () are common on fallow lands, such as those
Lolium multiflorum
within Subarea 1. Although of relatively low habitat value, these open disturbed areas do
provide foraging habitat for native species, particularly raptors.
Subarea 2, the 11.62-acre central portion of the Project site, has been under active annual
row crop production dating back to at least 1949. Subarea 2is currently cultivated with a
variety of row crops throughout the yearand provides only minimal value habitat for native
wildlife species, including foraging and migratory birds, small rodents, and insects.
Subarea 3 of the Project site is dominated by
Subareas 1 and 2of the Project site are
disturbed annual grasses and provides little
historically cultivated agricultural land with
habitat for native vegetation.
limited habitat value.
1
A place where young animals grow or are cared for.
3.4-2
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
FIGURE
3.4-1
Google 2015.
LEGEND
Habitats
Aerial Source:
Biological Resources within the Project Vicinity
200
SCALE IN FEET
0
101
3.4-3
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
Disturbed and Ruderal Habitat
This habitat is characterized by weedy vegetation that thrives within disturbed areas.
These areas are typically dominated by non-native plant species and do not contain
significant sources of native or naturalized vegetation. The eastern 1.51-acre Subarea 3
currently supports ruderal habitat along with disturbed annual grassland habitat. This
subareais dominated by non-native annual grasses and herbaceous broadleaf species such
asbrome grasses () andshortpod mustard (). The
Bromus spp.Helminthotheca iincana
drainage ditchalong the southeastern edge of the site is dominated bypoison oak
(), nasturtium (), periwinkle (
Toxicodendron diversilobumTropoaeolum majusVinca
), and California blackberry (). Although of relatively low habitat
majorRubus ursinus
value, these open disturbed areas do provide foraging habitat for native species,
particularly foraging birds and raptors.
Oak Woodland/Coyote Brush Shrub Alliance
Adjacent to the southern edge of the Project
site and just beyond the drainage ditch lies a
hillside that supports a coast-like oak
() woodland habitat
Quercus agrifolia
intermixed with coyote brush shrubs
(). The adjacent oak
Baccharis pilularis
woodland can provide habitat for a variety of
native species as well as wildlife species that
have become adapted to the developed
Thehillside along the southern border of the
Project site provideslargely undisturbed
environment such as raccoons, opossums,
habitat of oak woodland intermixed with
ground squirrels, gophers, other common
native shrubs.
rodents, and reptiles.
3.4.1.2Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States
The drainage ditch along the southern edge of the Project site directs overflows from the
adjacent sloping hillside and fields within the site so that the Project site does not flood.
Thisdrainage was excavated on dry land and is regularly maintained under agricultural
practices, and historic topographicmaps show that there was no historic tributary within
or adjacent to the site(see Appendix F)(Erin M. Hanlon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
2015). The drainage ditch is listed as a riverine wetland type by the National Wetlands
Inventory (USFWS 2015b), and a drainage way in the City General Plan (City of Arroyo
3.4-4
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
Grande 2007).Based on the evaluation of current and historic conditions, the onsite
drainage ditch does not fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (Hanlon 2015).
3.4.1.3Special Status Species
There are27special status plant species and 16 special status animal species with
recorded occurrences within a five-mile radius of the Project site(Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-
2). These special status species were identified based on a review of a variety of sources,
including the Biological Resource Assessment conducted by Sage Institute, Inc., the
CNDDB (CDFW 2015a),and the California Native Plant Societys (CNPSs) Inventory
of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2015a).
Of the plant species, no special status species have been observedon or adjacentto the
Project site. All ofthese plant species are associated with undisturbed lands and specific
soil types which are not foundon the Project site. As such, the listed special status plant
species are determined to have a very low potential to occur within the Project site. Of
the special status animal species identified in the five-mile search radius, no species were
detected on or adjacentto the Project site. Most special status animal species identified
are associated with undisturbed lands, specific soil types, or specific habitat
characteristics that are not present within the Project vicinity. With the exception of the
Prairie falcon (), special status animal species have a low potential to
Falco mexicanus
occur at the Project site due to unsuitable habitat and unsupportive soil types. The Prairie
falcon has not been observed on the Project site, but the species is known to inhabit the
area and there is a low potential for the species to be present within the surrounding
vicinity. The special status species that are known or have the potential to occur in the
Project site are summarized in the Tables 3.4-1 and 3.4-2.
3.4-5
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
Table 3.4-1. Special Status Plants that are known to or Have the Potential to
Occur in the Project Site
SpeciesStatusNotes/Occurrence
Beach spectaclepod ST, CRPR 1B.1Little to no potential to occur on-site
Dithyrea maritima
Black-flowered figwort CRPR 1B.2Little to no potential to occur on-site
Scrophularia atrata
Blochmans leafy daisy CRPR 1B.1Little to no potential to occur on-site
Erigeron blochmaniae
CRPR 2B.2Little to no potential to occur on-site
California saw-grass
Cladium californicum
Coast woolly-heads CRPR 1B.2Little to no potential to occur on-site
var
Nemacaulis denudate . denudata
CRPR 1B.2Little to no potential to occur on-site
Coastal goosefoot
Chenopodium littoreum
CRPR 1B.2Little to no potential to occur on-site
Crisp monardella
Mondardella undulata ssp. crispa
CRPR 1B.2Little to no potential to occur on-site
Dune larkspur
ssp
Delphinium parryi . blochmaniae
Gambels water cress ST, FE, CRPR 1B.1Little to no potential to occur on-site
Nasturtium gambelii
Hoovers Bent Grass CRPR1B.2Little to no potential to occur on-site
Agrostis hooveri
Kelloggs horkelia CRPR 1B.1Little to no potential to occur on-site
var
Horkelia cuneata . sericea
La Graciosa thistle CRPR 1B.1Little to no potential to occur on-site
var
Cirisium scariosum . loncholepis
Marsh sandwort SE, FE, CRPR 1B.1Little to no potential to occur on-site
Arenaria paludicola
Mesa horkelia CRPR 1B.1Little to no potential to occur on-site
var
Horkelia cuneata . puberula
SE, FE, CRPR 1B.1Little to no potential to occur on-site
Nipomo mesa lupine
Lupinus nipomensis
SR, FE, CRPR 1B.1Little to no potential to occur on-site
Pismo clarkia
ssp
Clarkia speciosa . immaculata
CRPR 1B.2Little to no potential to occur on-site
San Luis mariposa-lily
Calochortus obispoensis
CRPR 1B.2Little to no potential to occur on-site
San Luis Obispo County lupine
Lupinus ludovicianus
CRPR 1B.2Little to no potential to occur on-site
San Luis Obispo owls-clover
var
Castilleja densiflora . obispoensis
San Luis Obispo monardella CRPR 1B.2 Little to no potential to occur on-site
ssp
undulata . undulata
3.4-6
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
Table 3.4-1. Special Status Plants that are known to or Have the Potential to
Occur in the Project Site (Continued)
SpeciesStatusNotes/Occurrence
San Bernardino aster CRPR 1B.2Little to no potential to occur on-site
Symphyotrichum defoliatum
Sand mesa manzanita CRPR 1B.2Little to no potential to occur on-site
Arctostaphylos rudis
Santa Margarita manzanita CRPR 1B.2Little to no potential to occur on-site
Arctostaphylos pilosula
CRPR 1B.1Little to no potential to occur on-site
Slender bush-mallow
Malacothamnus gracilis
Southern curly-leaved monardella CRPR 1B.2Little to no potential to occur on-site
ssp
Monardella sinuata . sinuata
CRPR 1B.3Little to no potential to occur on-site
Straight-awned spineflower
Chorizanthe rectispina
ST, CRPR 1B.2Little to no potential to occur on-site
Surf thistle
Cirsium rhothophilum
Notes:
CRPR 1B = Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere by the California Native Plant
Society(CNPS 2015b).
CRPR 2B = Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere by the California
Native Plant Society (CNPS 2015b).
CRPR 0.1 = Seriously threated in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of
threat) (CNPS 2015b).
CRPR 0.2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of
threat) (CNPS 2015b).
FE = Federally Endangered
FSC = Federal Species of Concern
SE = California Endangered
ST = State Listed Threatened
Source: (CDFW 2015c; CDFW 2015d).
Table 3.4-2. Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Project Site
SpeciesStatusNotes/Occurrence
American badger CDFW:SSCNo suitable burrows observed in
Project site; unlikely to occur due to
Taxidea taxus
unsupportive habitat
California red-legged frog FT, CDFW:SSCUnlikely to occur due to unsuitable
habitat
Rana draytonii
Coast horned lizard CDFW:SSC, BLM:SUnlikely to occur: no suitable soil or
habitat located on site
Phrynosoma blainvillii
IUCN:VUUnlikely to occur on-site due to
Globose dune beetle
unsuitable habitat
Coelus globosus
IUCN:DDUnlikely to occur due to unsuitable
Mimic tryonia
habitat
Tryonia imitator
USFWS:SNo recorded roosting on site: unlikely
Monarch Butterfly
to occur due to unsuitable habitat
Danaus plexippus
3.4-7
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
Table 3.4-2. Sensitive Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Project Site
(Continued)
SpeciesStatusNotes/Occurrence
Obscure bumble bee IUCN:VUUnlikely to occur due to lack of native
flowering plant species
Mombus caliginosus
Oso Flaco flightless moth CNDDB G1 S1Unlikely to occur due to unsupportive
soil types
Areniscythris brachypteris
Oso Flaco robber fly CNDDB G1 S1Unlikely to occur due to unsupportive
soil types
Albautus schlingeri
Prairie falcon
WL, IUCN:LC, Likely to pass over site, but unlikely
Falco mexicanus
USFWS:BCCto occur due to inadequate
nesting/forage habitat
NoneUnlikely to occur due to unsupportive
Sandy beach tiger beetle
soil types
Cicindela hirticollis gravida
FT, AFS:TH, Not likely to occur on-site due to
Steelhead south central
CDFW:SSCunsuitable habitat
California coast DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Tidewater Goby FE, AFS:EN, Unlikely to occur due to unsuitable
CDFW:SSC, IUCN:VUhabitat
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Western pond turtle
BLM:S, CDFW:SSC, Unlikely to occur due to unsuitable
Emys marmorata
IUCN:VU, USFS:Shabitat
Western snowy plover FT, CDFW:SSC, Unlikely to occur: restricted to coastal
NABCI:RWL, strand and dune systems
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
USFWS:BCC
White sand bear scarab beetle CNDDB G1 S1Unlikely to occur due to unsupportive
soil types
Lichnanthe ursina
Notes:
CNDDB G1 S1 = California Natural Diversity Database,Global rank: critically imperiled, extremely rare; State rank:
critically imperiled: extremely rare.
AFS:EN = American Fisheries Society: Endangered
BLM:S = Bureau of Land Management: Sensitive
CDF:S = California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection: Sensitive
CDFW:SSC = California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Species of Special Concern
USFWS:BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Bird of Conservation Concern
IUCN:VU = International Union for Conservation of Nature: Vulnerable
NABCI:RWL = North American Bird Conservation Initiative: Red Watch List
FE = Federally Endangered
FT = Federally Threatened
FSC = Federal Species of Concern
MBTA = Migratory Bird Treaty Act
SE = California Endangered
WL = CDFW Watch list
Source: (CDFW 2015b; CDFW 2015e; CDFW 2015a;CNDDB 2016)
3.4-8
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
3.4.2Regulatory Setting
3.4.2.1Federal
Endangered Species Act
Under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), it is unlawful to take any species
listed as threatened or endangered. Take is defined as actions intended to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such
conduct. An activity is defined as a take even if it is unintentional or accidental. Take
provisions under the federal ESA apply only to listed fish and wildlife species under the
jurisdiction of USFWS and/or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Consultation with USFWS or
NMFS is required if a project may affect or result in take of a listed species.
When a speciesis listed, USFWS and/or NMFS, in most cases, must officially designate
specific areas as critical habitat for the species. Consultation with USFWS and/or NMFS
is required for projects that include a federal action or federal funding if the project
would modify designated critical habitat.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 is the
cornerstone legislation addressing fisheries management in U.S. jurisdictional waters.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) governs the taking, killing, possession,
transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nest, and
requires harvests to be limited to levels that prevent overuse.Further, the MBTA
prohibits the take, possession, import, export, transport, selling, purchase, barter, or
offering for sale, purchase, or barter, of any migratory bird, their eggs, parts,and nests,
except as authorized under a valid permit (50 CFR 21.11).
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1977
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and its provisions ensure that federally permitted
activities comply with the federal Clean Water Act and state water quality laws.Section
401 is implemented through a review process that is conducted by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and is triggered by the Section 404 permitting process.
The RWQCB certifies via the 401 process that a proposed project complies with
3.4-9
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
applicable effluent limitations, water quality standards, and other conditions of California
law.Evaluating the effects of the proposed project forboth water quality and quantity
(runoff) falls under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB.
3.4.2.2State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act provides a comprehensive water-quality
management system for the protection of California waters and regulates the discharge of
oil into navigable waters.
Water Quality Control Plan
The proposed Project falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB, which
has established a Water Quality Control Plan for the coastal watersheds of San Luis
Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Monterey counties.
California Endangered Species Act
Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), it is unlawful to take any
species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered. Take under CESA means to hunt,
pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill. CESA
take provisions apply to fish, wildlife, and plantspecies. Take may result whenever
activities occur in areas that support a listed species. Consultation with CDFW is required
if a project would result in take of a listed species.
Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code
The CDFW is responsible for conserving, protecting, and managing California's fish,
wildlife,and native plant resources.To meet this responsibility, the law requires any
person, state or local government agency, or public utility proposing a project that may
impact a river, stream,or lake to notify the CDFW before beginning the project.If the
CDFW determines that the project may adversely affect existing fish and wildlife
resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement is required.A Streambed
Alteration Agreement lists the CDFW conditions of approval relative to the proposed
project, and serves as an agreement between an applicant and the CDFW for a term of not
more than five years for the performance of activities subject to this section.
3.4-10
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
Other Sections of the Fish and Game Code
Fully Protected and Protected species may not be taken or possessed without a permit
from the Fish and Game Commission and/or the CDFW. Information on these species
can be found within section 3511 (birds), section 4700 (mammals), section 5050 (reptiles
and amphibians), and section 5515 (fish) of the Fish and Game Code.Relative to the
proposed project, provisions of this code affect nesting and migratory birds.
3.4.2.3Local
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
The City of Arroyo GrandeGeneral Plan contains policies requiring protection of special
status plant and animal species.
General Plan, Fringe and Urban Land Use Element
Goal LU12 Components of rural setting and small town character shall be
preserved.
Policy LU12-1 Recognize agriculture, natural hillsides, clean air quality and
linear open spaces along Arroyo Grande and Tally Ho creeks as valuable
components of the Citys rural setting and essential elements worthy of
conservation and preservation.
General Plan, Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element
Goal C/OS2 Safeguardimportant environmental and sensitive biological resources
contributing to healthy, functioning ecosystems.
Policy C/OS2-1.6 Plan, design, and develop sites to: Protect scenic, resources,
water quality, and natural Creekside habitat, including opportunities for wildlife
habitation, rest, and movement. Further the restoration of damaged or degraded
habitat, especially where a continuous riparian habitat corridor can be established.
Allow for natural changes that may occur within the creek corridor;
Maintain predevelopment site hydrology by using site design techniques that
store, infiltrate, evaporate, or detain runoff according to the City Drainage
Master Plan or any applicable Site Design Guidelines for Storm Water Quality
and Water Conservation as amended;
Protect areas that provide important water quality benefits or are particularly
susceptible to erosion and sediment loss;
Limit impervious area by design and the use of best management practices;
3.4-11
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
Limit land disturbance activities, such as clearing and grading and cut and fill,
to reduce erosion, sediment loss, and soil compaction; and
Preserve natural drainage features and vegetation to the extent possible.
Policy C/OS2-4.2 Public or private developments that require discretionary
permit or propose a land division, shall avoid disturbance of significant wildlife
corridors, and/or wetlands identified by the City or County environmental studies.
City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
Section 10.12 Obstruction of Visibility of Driveways or Intersections The City of
Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Section 10.12 is specifically designed to help protect
motorists and pedestrians from a line of sight obstruction due to a hedge, tree, fence or
other visibility barrier. Theordinance states, Any obstruction more thantwo feet in
height above the level of the sidewalk or ground elevation is defined as a public
nuisance. This public nuisance violates the Citys Vision Triangle code. Trees are the
exception; as long as a tree has no foliage below seven and one half (7 ½) feet, the tree is
not considered to be an impediment to the vision triangle. Any foliage below the seven
and one-half (7 ½) foot level must be approved by the City.
Section 12.16 Community Tree Program The City of Arroyo Grande Municipal
Code Section 12.16 is designed to preserve, enhance and revitalize the Citys urban
forest. The Community Tree Program sets forth guidelines and policies with regards to
Street tree requirements for new development;
Landmark Trees;
Responsibility for tree-damaged sidewalks and public improvements;
Privately owned trees affecting the public right-of-way;
Tree removal in residential, mixed-use and commercial zones;
Public utility company requirements;
Installation, maintenance and removal of trees relating to property development.
Regulated trees include: street trees within the public right-of-way fronting the property,
landmark trees and any Oak trees with atrunk width over twelve (12) inches in diameter
when measured four and one half (4.5) feet from the base. Removing them is prohibited
without first obtaining a permit. The permit is available when the removal is deemed
appropriate. Any removal of a regulated tree without a permit is considered to be a
misdemeanor violation with a minimum $150.00 tree replacement fee.
3.4-12
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
3.4.3Environmental Impact Analysis
3.4.3.1Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with Appendix G of the 2016California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, impacts to terrestrial biological resources would be considered
significant if the proposed Project results in:
a)A substantial adverse effect either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
b)A substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
c)A substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means;
d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or,
f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
3.4.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology
This section provides a discussion of the potential impacts of the proposed Project on the
biological resources of the Project site and surrounding area, including both direct loss of
habitat and indirect impacts to remaining habitats.This would include the Projects
conversion of 15.29acres of active annually cultivated land and disturbed/ruderal habitats
into a range of urban uses including a hotel and restaurant (Subarea 1 2.16 acres);
single-family residences (Subarea 2 11.62 acres); and an area of assembly, limited
3.4-13
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
commercial uses, attached residential housing, and gardens and orchards (Subarea 3
1.51 acres), as well as the Projects potential to affect the oak woodland/coyote brush
shrub alliance habitat adjacent to the southern edge of the Project site.This analysis also
accounts for the fact that the drainage ditch that runs along the southern edge of the
Project siteis listed as a riverine wetland type by the National Wetlands Inventory
(USFWS 2015b), and a drainage way in the City General Plan (City of Arroyo Grande
2007), but does not fall under the jurisdiction of USACEor CDFW.The data and field
surveys compiled from the CNDDB, USFWS, and a Biological Resources Assessment by
SII (contained within Appendix F) provided the information necessary to evaluate and
assess potentially significant impacts on biological resources from implementation of the
Project.The Biological Resources Assessment conducted by SII was peer reviewed by
Amec Foster Wheeler and found to be adequate for the purposes of EIR analysis. Policies
and regulations citedin this impacts analysis include the Fish and Game Code of
California Sections 3503 and 3503.1, the MBTA, Arroyo Grande General Plan,Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Sections
10.12 and 12.16.
3.4.4Project Impacts andMitigation Measures
The implementation of the proposed Project would result in minimal impacts to
biological resources of the Project site, due to the fact that most of the Project site has
been cultivated for over 60 years, and the eastern 1.5 acres of disturbed/ruderal habitat
does not represent a high habitat value forwildlife. The potential impacts of the Project
and recommended mitigations are further discussed below.
Table 3.4-3. Summary of Project Impactsfor all Subareas
Biological ResourcesImpactsMitigation MeasuresResidual Significance
Impact BIO-1. Project construction and major MM BIO-1aLess than Significant
alteration of the Project site would result in a with Mitigation
loss of low-value agricultural and disturbed
ruderal habitats and potential indirect impacts to
the adjacent oak woodland habitat.
Impact BIO-2. Project construction and
MM BIO-2a Less than Significant
operation has the potential to create significant with Mitigation
impacts to the movement of native resident or
migratory wildlife on the Project site.
Impact BIO-3. The Project has the potential to NonerequiredLess than Significant
conflictwith local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources.
3.4-14
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
Impact
BIO-1 Project construction and major alteration of the Project site would
result in a loss of low-value agricultural and disturbed ruderal
habitats and potential indirect impacts to the adjacent oak woodland
habitat (Less than Significant with Mitigation).
Project construction activities would alter15.29 acres of agricultural landand disturbed
ruderal habitat. There are no critical habitats identified within the Project site. The site is
dominated by 13.78 acres of historically cultivated land that offers low-quality
agricultural habitat within Subareas 1 and 2. Although the open disturbed areas within
Subarea 1 are of low habitat value, they do provide foraging habitat for some native
species, particularly raptors. Subarea 2 is currently cultivated with a variety of row crops
and provides minimal habitat value for some native wildlife species, including foraging
and migratory birds, small rodents, and insects.Subarea 3 is dominated by disturbed and
ruderal habitat that provides low habitat value, but does provide foraging habitat for some
native species, such as foraging birds and raptors.
The Project site is adjacent to a drainage ditch vegetated by various riparian plant species.
An approximately 2- to 5-foot high concrete retaining wall/drainage facility would be
constructed along the southern boundary of Subarea 2 as part of the Project, which has
the potential to have an impact on the riparian vegetation. However,the ditch is regularly
maintained by the farming operation on Subarea 2to keep it clear of vegetation.
Additionally, the drainage ditch is not considered a federally protected wetland under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as verified by the USACE regulatory staff following
a field meeting on September 17, 2015 (Erin M. Hanlon 2015).Based on the Biological
Resources Assessment, the email from USACE staff, and site visits, Amec Foster
Wheeler has determined thatthese riparian plant species are not consideredimportant
riparian habitat.Just beyond the drainage ditchthe hillside slopeisvegetated by oaks,
shrubs, and grasslandsto the south.This adjacent oak woodland can provide some habitat
for a variety of native species as well as wildlife species that have become adapted to the
developed environment. The Project would not have any impacts on this habitat directly,
but has the potential to have a significant impact indirectlyfrom construction activities
and associated noise, equipment,and humanpresence.Mitigation measure MM BIO-1a,
which requires a construction management plan to limit construction-related staging and
maintenance areas from biological sensitive resources, shall be implemented to reduce
impacts to a less than a significant level.
3.4-15
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
Although the Project would result in the loss of agricultural and disturbed ruderal habitat,
nocandidate, sensitive, or special status plant specieshave been observed within the
Project site.The potential for these plant species to occur is very low, as they are
associated with undisturbed lands and specific soil types which do not exist on the Project
site. No candidate, sensitive, or special status wildlife species have been observed within
the Project site. The potential for these wildlife speciesto occur is very low, due to
unsuitable habitat and unsupportive soil types, with the possible exception of the Prairie
falcon passing over the site. This is unlikely to occur, however, due to the inadequate
nesting/foraging habitat for this species.
Since there are no critical habitat areas, special status species identified have a very low
potential of occurring on the Project site, and the existing habitats are of minimal or
relatively low value, impacts associated with the loss of this agricultural and ruderal
habitat are considered .
less than significant with mitigation
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-1a Construction equipment and vehicles shall be stored at least 100 feet away
from areasassociated with the existing drainage and adjacent oak
woodland habitat,and all construction vehicle maintenance shall be
performed in a designated vehicle storage and maintenance area.
Plan Requirements and Timing.A construction management plan that
identifies construction-related staging and maintenance areas shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City prior to the initiation of
construction. The Plan shall be designed to address erosion and sediment
control during all phases of development of the site until all disturbed
areas are permanently stabilized.
Monitoring.The City shall ensure compliance with Policy C/OS2-1.6 of
the General Plan. An Environmental Monitor shall be made available to
monitor environmental compliance of the construction activities. The City
shall also inspect the Project site during construction to monitor runoff.
Residual Impact
When combined with standard regulatory measures, the inclusion of the above measure
would reduce Projectconstruction and alterationimpacts to less than significant.
3.4-16
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
Impact
BIO-2 Project construction and operation has the potential to create
significant impacts to the movement of native resident or migratory
wildlife on the Project site (Less than Significant with Mitigation).
The agricultural lands of Subareas 1 and 2 provide minimal habitat for migratory wildlife
species, as the Project site is located in a mostly developed area and is not known to be
used as a migratory wildlife corridor. Locally common birds may pass through the crops
and vegetation to forage on insects and cropland vegetation. The disturbed/ruderal habitat
of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants of Subarea 3 are suitableforaging and nesting
habitat for migratory birds, and food and cover for other migratory wildlife. The Project
site and the oak woodland and grasslandsadjacent to the Project site to the south are
suitable habitat for a variety of wildlife species that have become adapted to a developed
environment such as birds, raccoons, opossums, ground squirrels, gophers, other common
rodents, and reptiles. The MBTA prohibits the taking of migratory birds, their eggs, parts,
and nests.
The oak trees, other non-native trees, and ruderal vegetation on the Project site provide
suitable nesting habitat for birds. Sections 3505 and 3503.1 of the Fish and Game Code
of California prohibit the destruction of active bird nests. Project construction and
potential tree removal in the disturbed/ruderal habitat could impact ground and/or tree
nesting bird species if construction activities are conducted during the typical nesting
season from February 1to August 31. Project construction and alteration impacts are
considered less than significant with mitigation to nesting birds.
The manmade drainage ditch is not considered suitable habitat for fish or native wildlife
nursery habitatas it generally does not contain flows other than occasional flood events
and runoff from the adjacent agricultural fields, and does not currently support fish or
wildlife (SII 2015). Since the Project site provides low-quality habitat for native resident
or migratory wildlife, and no habitat for native wildlife nursery sites, Project construction
and operation impacts are considered .
less than significantwith mitigation
Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-2a Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance forProject construction
shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31, outside of the
primary nesting season for birds, unless City-approved preconstruction
nesting bird surveys are conducted that determine if any active nests
3.4-17
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found,
then no further mitigation shall be required. If any active nests are found,
then these nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-
disturbance buffer zone around active nest, which shall be in placeuntil
the adults and young of the year no longer relyon the nest site for
survival. The study, surveys, findings, and recommendations shall be
prepared by a City approved qualified biologist. Compliance shall be
verified by the Project Environmental Monitor through submission of
compliance reports.
Plan Requirements and Timing.A migratory and nesting bird
management plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
prior to the initiation of construction. Construction shall be conducted
between September 1 and January 31 unless no active nests are found.
Monitoring.The City shall ensure compliance with Sections 3505 and
3503.1 of the Fish and Game Code of California. An Environmental
Monitor and qualified biologistshall be made available to monitor
environmental compliance of the construction activities, as needed. The
City shall also inspect the Project site during construction to verify
protection of any active bird nestsidentified from the nesting bird surveys.
Residual Impact
With implementation of the above mitigation measure, impacts to migratory and nesting
birds, and foraging raptors would be less than significant.
Impact
BIO-3 The Project has the potential to conflictwith local policies or
ordinancesprotecting biological resources(Less than Significant).
Implementation of the Project may result in the removal of live oak trees within Subarea
3.The Project is required to comply with the Citystwo primary tree ordinances, the City
of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Sections 10.12 and 12.16 in regards to tree removal
and constructionaround regulated trees.Live Oak trees are located on the eastern 1.51
acres of the Project site, in Subarea 3. Removing any Oak trees with a trunk width over
12 inches in diameter when measured 4.5 feet from the base is prohibited without first
obtaining a permit.The City would need to approve any removal of and construction
around any regulated trees on Subarea 3.Because of these required City ordinances,City
3.4-18
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.4BR
IOLOGICAL ESOURCES
staff would ensure that the Project is consistent with these ordinances during planning
review; therefore impacts are considered .
less than significant
The Project site is not part of aNatural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or statehabitat conservation plan.No impacts would occurwith respect to
such plans.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures required.
3.4.5Cumulative Impacts
Construction of the proposed Project would continue the pattern of development in the
southern portion of the Cityas envisioned in the Citys General Plan. The proposed
development would result inloss ofundeveloped landand habitats, and increase the
amount ofimpervious surfaces, night light, noise, and traffic that come with such
development. These changes, both on the site and within cumulative development
throughout the City,would both directly and indirectly affect habitats and wildlife
species in general.
The Project itself would result in the development of 15.29 acres of low-quality
agricultural, ruderal, and oak woodland habitat.On a regional scale, removal of this
habitat would slightly reduce the amount of foraging and nesting habitat in the vicinity
for non-sensitive birds and wildlife. These impacts, when combined with other recent and
proposed developments in the City listed in Table 3.0-1, all add to the loss of open space
and habitats inthe City. However, because of the relatively low value of habitats
currently occurring on the Project site, the Project contribution to regional cumulative
impacts to biological resources is considered .
less than significant
3.4-19
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
Hazards may include exposure to both natural and man-made hazards. These could include
hazards associated with aircraft operations at nearby airports or natural hazards such as
wildfires. A range of other types of hazards are addressed in other sections ofthis
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)as follows: air pollution hazards, such as toxic air
contaminants (TACs) and particulate matter (PM), are addressed in Section 3.3,Air
Quality; water pollution hazards, such as groundwater contamination and surface runoff,
are addressed in Section 3.6,Hydrology and Water Quality;transportation hazards
including both construction (short-term and operational) are addressed in Section 3.10,
Transportation and Traffic;and hazardous solid waste disposal is addressed inSection
3.11,Utilities and Public Services.
Hazardous materials are defined as substances with physical and chemical properties of
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity which may pose a threat to human health or
the environment. The term hazardous materials is used in this section to describe
chemical materials, such as petroleum products, solvents, pesticides, herbicides, paints,
metals, asbestos, and other regulated chemical materials.Additionally, the term release
as used in this section includes known historical spills, leaks, illegal dumping, or other
methods of release of hazardous materials to soil, sediment, groundwater, or surface water.
If a historical release exists, then there is a risk associated with disturbing the historical
release area.The potential for future releases of hazardous materials tooccur during
construction or operation of the proposed Project facilities is also describedin the analysis.
The information presented below outlines the existing conditions, regulatory setting,
significance criteria, potential for upset, levels of public risk associated with those potential
upsets, and their significance.The existing conditions presented in this section represent
the baseline conditions prior to implementation ofthe proposed Project and include the
existing configuration of the Project site, existing operations, and present environment.
Risks associated with a potential release of hazardous materials are then evaluated in
relation to the baseline conditions.Oncethe baseline risks are assessed, significance
criteria are used to evaluate if there is an increased level of risk associated with the
proposed Project, and to evaluate if the proposed change could introduce a significant
increase in potential impacts.
3.5-1
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
3.5.1Environmental Setting
The baseline conditions for the Project site are based on information gathered from several
sources, includingPhase I and IIEnvironmental Site Assessments (ESAs)prepared for the
Project site and contained within Appendix I of this EIR, information provided by the San
Luis Obispo CountyAir Pollution Control District (APCD), and Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), the City of Arroyo GrandeGeneral Plan Safety Element, and
Project site information on file with the City of Arroyo Grande.
3.5.1.1Potential for Hazardous Materials within the Project Vicinity
The Project site is divided into three separate subareas, each under separate ownership.
Active agricultural operations in Subarea 2 may include the intermittent application of
chemicals that can be toxic or hazardous such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers.
Subarea 1 of the Project site has historically experienced agricultural operations and
cultivation of the site has likely included the application of similar chemicals. Farmers use
these compounds to control weeds, fungi, rodents, and insects that are harmful to their
crops. Production and storage of these chemicals can pose potential hazards where leaks
can contaminate air, water, or generate fire. The use of pesticides and their storage within
the region is monitored by the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioners
Office. Due to the small size of the agricultural operations at the site, the application of
such chemicals are limited and are anticipated to be negligible.
Adjacent to the southwest edge of the site bordering Subarea 1 and Subarea 2, located at
525 Traffic Way, is a Mobil Gas Station. Many gasoline and diesel pumping stations store
gasoline supplies inspecialized Underground Storage Tanks (USTs).TheU.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines these USTs as a tank and any
underground piping connected to the tank that has at least 10 percent of its total volume
underground and is used for the storage of petroleum or other hazardous substances (EPA
2015). These USTs are designed to minimize land and water contamination and is required
that all facilities that have a UST mustoperate under an USTFacility Permit. USTspresent
a potential source for soil and groundwater contamination.
A search of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and EPA
records indicate that there is one active permitted UST facilityassociated with the Mobil
Gas Station, and one open cleanup program site within a 2.0-mileradius of the Project site,
as summarized inTable 3.5-1 and Table 3.5-2 (DSTC 2015; EPA 2015). The one active
3.5-2
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
Table 3.5-1. Summary of Hazardous Materials Database Searches
DatabaseSearch ParametersResults
2.0 mile radius 1 Open Cleanup Program Site
GeoTracker
2.0 mile radiusNone recorded
Superfund sites
2.0 radiusNone recorded
Hazardous Waste Report sites
Arroyo GrandeNone recorded
TRI facilities
2.0 mile radiusNone recorded
Toxic Substances Control Act sites
2.0 mile radius14 completed-case closed status sites
LUST
2.0 mile radius13 Permitted Active Underground
UST
Storage Tanks
Source: (DSTC 2015; EPA 2015).
Table 3.5-2. Summary of Hazardous Materials Cleanup Sites and USTs within the
Project Vicinity
DescriptionDistance from the Project SiteStatus
200 FeetPermitted UST
Petro Grande UST
0.4 MilesPermitted UST
Bewleys Chevron
0.5 MilesOpen Verification Monitoring
Village Creek Plaza Cleanup Site
0.55 MilesPermitted UST
Arroyo Grande Shell Station UST
0.65MilesPermitted UST
Lucia Mar Unified School District
UST
0.67 MilesPermitted UST
Arco AM/PM UST
0.81 MilesPermitted UST
Beacon Station UST
0.94MilesPermitted UST
Tosco Corp Site UST
0.98MilesPermitted UST
Arroyo Grande Community
Hospital UST
1.12 MilesPermitted UST
Sloco Fuel Site #1 UST
1.40 MilesPermitted UST
Sebastian Oil Distributer UST
1.68 MilesPermitted UST
Katch Go Petroleum UST
1.84 MilesPermitted UST
Gills Food Market UST
1.92 MilesPermitted UST
City of Arroyo Grande UST
Notes: Representative of sites within a 2.0-mile radius from the Project site.
Source: (DSTC 2015).
UST facility is less than 200 feet from the site; however, a search for known hazardous
waste contamination sites in the area does not indicate any contamination of the Project
site by this facility (DSTC 2015).Fourteen (14) inactive Leaking Underground Storage
Tank (LUST)Clean-Up sites were identified within 2.0 miles of the Project site where
3.5-3
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
releases of diesel, gasoline, or motor oil previously occurred. Cleanup actions for these
sites took place between 1986 and 2013; the closest LUST site to the Project is located at
the Mobil Gas Station site where remedial actions were completed for a gasoline release in
2009. Due to the distance and completed status of the LUST sites, potential for
contaminants to migrate to the Project site is low. As there are no superfund sites, Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI) facilities or active LUST sites recorded in the immediate Project
vicinity, the potential for hazardous materials to occur in the immediate vicinity is limited.
The search identified one cleanup site that is currently under active monitoring and is
located approximately 0.5 miles northwest and of the Project site.This cleanup site is the
result of the release of gasoline, trichloroethylene (TCE), and vinyl chloride from a UST.
The leak occurred and was stopped in 1965 but the site was opened for cleanup and
monitoring after the discovery of soil contamination during the removal of the UST in
1994. The site has undergone regular monitoring procedures to ensure the prevention of
contamination of the groundwater aquifer. The cleanup site is located downgradient of the
Project site and there is little to no chance for contamination of onsite soils from this
contamination event.
3.5.1.2Risk of Wildfire within the Project Vicinity
Much of the Arroyo Grande Valleyis covered in combustible vegetation where wildfires
are a part of the regional ecosystem and naturally maintain viable environments (City of
Arroyo Grande 2001).The Project site lies within the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) of
the City of Arroyo Grande(CalFire 2007).The California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CalFire) Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) classifies the Project
as within a High Fire Hazard Zone in the southern and eastern portions of the site, a
Medium Fire Hazard Zone in the west-central portion of the site, and Urban Zoned/Non-
Wildland/Non-Urban Hazard Zone in the western portion of the site (Figure 3.5-1) (CalFire
2009). The adjacent hillside along the southern border of the site is a natural coast live oak
woodland which could provide natural fuels forany structural or wildland fires in the area.
The eastern region of Arroyo Grande is a rural area used primarily for agricultural
production and contains larger areas of native landscapes,and is listed as an area at risk for
fire (CalFire 2005).
The proposed Project would be within a 3-minute response time from the Five Cities Fire
Authority (FCFA) Station 1. Existing FCFAfacilities and response are described in greater
detail in Section 3.11,Utilities and Public Services.
3.5-4
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
Figure 3.5-1. Fire Threat in the Project Vicinity
3.5.2Regulatory Setting
3.5.2.1Federal
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA;
1980)
CERCLA addresses procedures to identify and clean-up sites contaminated by
unauthorized releases of hazardous materials.Commonly known as Superfund, CERCLA
was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980.This law created a tax on the chemical
and petroleum industries and provided broad federal authority to respond directly to
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or
the environment.Superfund sets priorities for cleanup in the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (National Contingency Plan).The National
Contingency Plan includes lists of abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous waste sites,
which the EPA updates annually.
3.5-5
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
Under CERCLA, owners and operators of real estate where there is hazardous substance
contamination may be held strictly liable for the costs of cleaning up contamination found
on their property.No evidence linking the owner/operator with the placement of the
hazardous substances on the property is required.
Clean Water Act (1977)
The Clean Water Act governs the control of water pollution in the United States. This Act
implements the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program,
which requires that permits be obtained for point discharges of wastewater.This Act also
requires that stormwater discharges be permitted, monitored, and controlled for various
entities.
The Central Coast RWQCB oversees on-site treatment of California Designated, Non-
Hazardous Waste.The Central Coast RWQCB enforces water quality thresholds and
standards set forth in the Basin Plan through the project permitting process.The RWQCB
requires project applicants to obtain a General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit
under the NPDES program.This program is enforced in California by the RWQCBs.The
permit requires that the applicant develop and adhere to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) including implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to control
erosion, siltation, turbidity, and pollution of study area media by other potential
contaminants typically associated with construction activities.The SWPPP also includes
BMPs necessary to control or prevent the release of non-stormwater discharges in
stormwater runoff.Additional information on stormwater management is described in
Section 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) (1986)
This Act is the federal legislation that governs the control and abatement of asbestos
hazards present in school buildings.The purpose of this Act is to also require EPA to
conduct a study to determine the extent of danger to human health posed by asbestos in
public and commercial buildings and the means to respond to any such danger.
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 61 Subpart M
If utility pipelines would be removed or relocated, or buildings would be removed or
renovated, the project may be subject to the requirements stipulated in NESHAP.These
requirements include but are not limited to:1) Notification requirements to the San Luis
3.5-6
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
Obispo County APCD; 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector;
and 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of ACMs.
Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) - Process Safety
Management Standard (29 CFR 1910.119)
This standard includes requirements for preventing or minimizing the consequences of
catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals.Some of the
requirements of this standard include: all information pertaining to the hazardous chemicals
shall be available to the employees; employees shall be given training on the operation of
equipment with hazardous materials; and, the employer is required to perform a process
hazard analysis.
U.S. Department of Transportation
The U.S. Department of Transportation regulates hazardous materials transportation
between states.Within California, the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)
and California Highway Patrol enforce federal law. Together, these agencies determine
driver training requirements, load labeling procedures, and specifications for container
types to be used.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
FIFRA provides federal regulationof pesticide distribution, sale, and use. All pesticides
distributed and used in the U.S. must be registered (licensed) by the EPA. Registration
requires that pesticides areproperly labeled and used inaccordance with specifications.
The registrant must also prove that the substance will not cause unreasonable adverse
effects onthe environment, including human health risks inconsistent with the standard
under Section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Use of each registered
pesticide must be consistent with use directions contained on the label or labeling.
Individuals applying pesticides must do so in a manner not only consistent with federal
laws, but also consistent with state laws and regulations which may differ from state to
state. In general, states have primary authority for compliance monitoring and enforcement
against the use of pesticides in violation of the labeling requirements.
3.5-7
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
3.5.2.2State
Site-Specific Health and Safety (California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Administration \[Cal/OSHA\] Title 8 and OSHA 29 CFR 1910)
The proposed Project is subject to the requirements of state and federal occupational safety
and health requirements during project operations.Under these requirements, a Site-
specific Health and Safety Plan must be developed prior to initiation of a proposed Project.
Workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials, including lead based paint and
asbestos-containing materials, in their workplace must be trained so that they are aware of
the hazards and provided necessary protection from the hazardous materials.
Hazardous Material Release Response Plans and Inventory Law (CaliforniaHealth and
Safety Code \[HSC\], Chapter 6.95)
This law is designed to reduce the occurrence and severity of hazardous materials releases.
This state law requires businesses to develop a Release Response Plan for hazardous
materials emergencies if they handle more than 500 pounds, 55 gallons, or 200 cubic feet
of hazardous materials.In addition, the business must prepare a Hazardous Materials
Inventory of all hazardous materials stored or handled at the facility over the above
thresholds. Also, all hazardous materials must be stored in a safe manner.Both the Release
Response Plan and the Hazardous Materials Inventory must be supplied to the Certified
Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the program. In this case, the CUPA is the San Luis
Obispo County Health Agency.
California HSC, Division 20, Chapter 6.8, Section 25319.5 - Preliminary Endangerment
Assessment(PEA)
The California HSC requires that a PEA provide sufficient information to determine
whether or not current or past waste management practices have resulted in the release or
a threatened release of hazardous substances that pose a threat to public health or the
environment. The PEA should also provide sufficient information to conclude whether or
not significant response actions are necessary at the site as well as include an analysis of
the scope and identity of the affected community.Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act (Proposition 65) (1986)
In California, pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986:
(1) no person in the course of doing business shall knowingly discharge or release a
chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity into water or onto land
3.5-8
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any source of drinking water, and
(2) no person in the course of doing business shall knowingly and intentionally expose any
individual to a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without
first giving clear and reasonable warning to such individual.The "no significant risk" level
-5
for carcinogens that is enforced by this Act is one in one hundred thousand (1 x 10).
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code)
The Porter-Cologne Act establishes a regulatory program to protect water quality and to
protect beneficial uses of state waters.The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes the state
board and regional boards as the principal state agencies responsible for control of water
quality. Each of the nine RWQCBs in California is required to develop guidance to assist
in ensuring that the intent of the Porter-Cologne Act is met.Cleanup criteria are based on
the type of contaminant(e.g., gasoline, diesel, or oil) released and the depth to
groundwater.
California Government Code Section 4216
The state law requires proper notification to the states DigAlert office of any construction-
related excavation activities prior to commencement of such development and adherence
to standards and practices (e.g., flagging of undergrounding areas) to ensure that excavation
does not result in conflicts with underground pipelines and other infrastructure.
HSC, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22
Hazardous Waste Management
Waste that is toxic, corrosive, flammable, or reactive when tested in accordance with the
CCR, Title 22, Article 11, Section 66693, must be handled, stored, transported, and
disposed of in accordance with these regulations, which are more stringent than federal
regulations.
HSC, Division 20, Chapter 6.7, and CCR, Title 23 UST Management
USTs used for storing petroleum products must be managed in accordance with California
law, which provides requirements for installation, materials used, secondary containment,
overspill protection, and monitoring.
California Fire Code
To minimize risks to public health and the environment, a Fire Prevention Inspector shall
review a list of hazardous materials stored aboveground on a property to assess potential
3.5-9
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
individual and/or cumulative impacts to the property and surrounding areas.The inspector
would ensure that hazardous materials stored on-site are in compliance with Chapter 6.95
of the California HSC.The fire code provides uniform fire prevention, hazardous material,
and building construction regulations.
3.5.2.3Local
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
The Citys General Plan guides the use and protection of various resources to meet
community purposes.The safety element focuses on achieving acceptable levels of risk
through decisions on land use and the form of development, with consideration for the
closely related factor of transportation.The safety plan includes policies that describe an
approach to achieving the goals of the General Plan.
General Plan, Safety Element
Goal S3 Reduce the threat to life, structures and the environment caused by fire.
Policy S3-1 New development should be designed and constructed to minimize fire
hazards, with special attention given to fuel management, adequate water supply for
suppression and improved access to higher fire risk areas.
Policy S3-2 Ensure that adequate facilities, equipment and personnel are available
to meet the demands of fire fighting in the City of Arroyo Grande.
Goal S5 Reduce the potential for harm to individuals and damage to the environment
from radiation hazards, hazardous materials, electromagnetic fields, radon, and hazardous
trees.
Policy S5-2 Reduce the potential for exposure to humans and the environment by
hazardous substances, and develop information programs consistent with Community
Right to Know laws.
3.5.3Environmental Impact Analysis
3.5.3.1Thresholds of Significance
According to standards based on Appendix G of the 2016 CEQA Guidelines, a project is
considered to have a potentially significant adverse impact with regard to hazards and
hazardous materials if it:
3.5-10
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
a)Creates a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
b)Creates a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment;
c)Emits hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;
d)Were to be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
create a significant hazard to the public or environment;
e)Is located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;
f)Is located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area;
g)Would impair implementation of emergency response or an emergency plan; or,
h)Would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences areintermixed with wildlands.
3.5.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology
The proposed Project was evaluated for the presence of hazardous substances that, if
present in existing building materials planned for construction/renovation or known to exist
in study area media (soil, bedrock, groundwater, or surface water), could result in
environmental impacts to human health or the environment if the proposed Project is
implemented. Risk of wildfire wasevaluated by reviewing Project characteristics and
development specifications. The existing Project site conditions were compared with
possible future onsite conditions under the proposed Project and fire risks and related
hazards associated with proposed future on-site operations were evaluated.Based on data
for CalFire Fire Hazard Zone, the proposed Project was assessed for adequate fire
protection measures, including defensible space, and emergency access. A qualitative
evaluation of potential impacts of the proposed Project was conducted based on the site-
specific information obtained and described in Section 3.5.1, Environmental Setting and
the Phase I and II ESAs.
3.5-11
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
3.5.4Project Impactsand Mitigation Measures
This section discusses the potential hazardous materials/risk ofupset impacts associated with
the proposed Project. The construction and operation of the proposed Project would have
impacts to hazardous material, risk of upset, and wildfires as summarized in Table 3.5-3 below.
Table 3.5-3. Summary ofProject Impacts
Hazards ImpactsMitigation MeasuresResidual Significance
Impact HAZ-1. Implementation of the NonerequiredLess than Significant
proposed Project would include the use of
small quantities of hazardous materials
during construction and operation, but would
not could create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials.
Impact HAZ-2. Implementation of the MMHAZ-2aLess than Significant
proposed Project could create a significant MM HAZ-2bwith Mitigation
hazard to the public or the environment MM HAZ-2c
through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment.
Impact HAZ-3. The proposed Project would NonerequiredLess than Significant
have a low potentialtoemit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.
Impact HAZ-4. Implementation of the MM HAZ-4a Less than Significant
proposed Project could expose people or MM HAZ-4b with Mitigation
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, MM HAZ-4c
or death involving wildland fire, including MM HAZ-4d
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized MM HAZ-4e
areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands.
Impact
HAZ-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would include the use of small
quantities of hazardous materials during construction and operation,
but would not could create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials (Less than Significant).
Construction of the Project would require the limited use of hazardous materials that could
result in potential adverse health and environmental impacts if these materials were used,
stored, or disposed of improperly, causing accidents, spills, or leaks. Additionally, during
3.5-12
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
construction, there is a low potential for undocumented subsurface utilities or structures to
be encountered and damaged, resulting in a release of a hazardous material. The potential
for such incidents would be further reduced by thoroughly screening for subsurface
structures in areas prior to commencement of any subsurface work, as required under
California Government Code Section 4216.
Due to the historic use of the property for agricultural production, it can be anticipated that
fertilizers, herbicidesand pesticides have beenapplied to these areas on an as-needed basis,
at a minimum. The use and storage of these chemicals on the proposed Project site could
have result in undocumented releases of contaminants. However, given the Project site
area, such applications of chemicals are not reasonably expectedto be reportable quantities
to the County of San Luis Obispo Agricultural Commissioner.
Following construction, the Project site would include mixed residential and non-
residential land uses as described in Section 2.0 Project Description. The uses would be a
mix of commercial uses including an approximate 90- to 100 room hotel and separate
restaurant uses (Subarea 1 2.16 acres); single-family residences (Subarea 2 11.62
acres); and an area of assembly, limited commercial uses, attached residential housing, and
gardens and orchards (Subarea 3 1.51 acres).These uses may require the storage of small
quantities of commercial cleaning products, paints, and herbicides for onsite landscaping
and maintenance.
The proposed Project site is located within 0.25 miles of U.S. Highway101, with the
westernmost portion of the site within 250 feet of the highway. As described in the Citys
General Plan Safety Element, the transport of hazardous materials on U.S. Highway 101
through the City could impact existing and future development. Such transport related to
Project implementation could result in trips from U.S. Highway 101 and Traffic Way.
Whilein rare casesit is possible that hazardous materials associated with the proposed
Project could result inadverse effects on the public and environment, such materials would
only occur in commercially limited quantities within the Project site, and implementation
of BMPs, and site maintenance and security precautions would reduce potential impacts
related to future use, handling, storage, or routine transportation of hazardous materials or
other chemicals to .
less than significant
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures required.
3.5-13
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
Impact
HAZ-2 Implementation of the proposed Project could create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment(Less than Significant with
Mitigation).
As discussed in Section 3.5.1.1 Potential for Hazardous Materials within theProject
Vicinity,there is one active permitted UST facility and one open cleanup program site
within a 2.0-mile radius of the Project site, as summarized in Table 3.5-1 and Table 3.5-2.
The one active UST facility is less than 200 feet from the site and is associated with the
Mobil Gas Station,adjacent to the Project site. Additionally, there are 14inactive LUST
Clean-Up sites were identified within 2.0 miles of the Project site where releases of diesel,
gasoline, or motor oil previously occurred. Cleanup actions for these sites took place
between 1986 and 2013; the closest LUST site to the Project is located at the Mobil Gas
Station site where remedial actions were completed for a gasoline release in 2009.
Phase I and Phase II ESA were conducted for the proposed Project (Buena Resources 2014;
Appendix I). The Phase I ESA recommended that the proposed Project site be sampled and
checked for pesticide residue, including methyl bromide, arsenic, Dieldrin and dichloro-
diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT). The Phase II ESA report provided the results of the
recommended sampling and determined that there were trace amounts of chlorinated
pesticides, including DDD, DDE and DDT. The reported concentration levels were
determined to be below action levels prescribed by the RWQCB for shallow soils in
residential areas. Additionally, arsenic was also reported in each of the samples taken;
however, the Phase II ESA concluded that no further action is required.
Due to the proximity of the adjacentfueling station, a lowpotential exists for subsurface
contamination associatedwith the UST.Based on these conditions, there is potential for
construction workers and/or nearby occupants to be exposed to potentially toxic,
hazardous, or otherwise harmful chemicals during excavation, grading, and site preparation
activities.Therefore, impacts related to the release of hazardous materialsinto the
environment are considered to be less than significant with mitigation. In order to reduce
impacts to less than significant, the followingmitigation measures are required.This
impact is therefore classified as .
less than significant with mitigation
3.5-14
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
Mitigation Measuresfor All Subareas
MM HAZ-2a Prior to earthwork activities, a Site-specific Health and Safety Plan shall
be developed per California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Cal/OSHA) requirements. All construction employees that
have the potential to come into contact with contaminated soil/bedrock and
safety plan, which includes proper training and personal protective
equipment.
MM HAZ-2b During earthwork activities, procedures shall be followed to eliminate or
minimize construction worker or general public exposure to lead and other
potential contaminants in soil. Procedures shall include efforts to control
fugitive dust, contain and cover excavation debris piles, appropriate
laboratory analysis of soil for waste characterization, and segregation of
contaminated soil from uncontaminated soil. The applicable regulations
associated with excavation, removal, transportation, and disposal of
contaminated soil shallbe followed (e.g., tarping of trucks and waste
manifesting).
MM HAZ-2c Prior to beginning construction, additional subsurface sampling of
soil/bedrock and groundwater shall be conducted to assess potential
releases associated with the listed former adjacent land uses and the
potential migration ofcontaminants onto the Project site. The analytical
suite selected shall be consistent with those uses, and shall include
applicable analytical methods for appropriate waste characterization and
disposal. The sampling strategy shall take into account the locations of
potential source areas, and the anticipated lateral and vertical distribution
of contaminants in soil and/or groundwater. The results of the investigation
shall be documented in a report that is signed by a California Professional
Geologist. The report shall include recommendations based upon the
findings for additional investigation/remediation if contaminants are
detected above applicable screening levels (e.g., excavate and dispose,
groundwater and/or soil vapor extraction, or in situ bioremediation).
Plan Requirements and Timing.The Applicants shall submit the site-
specific Health and Safety Plan and Subsurface Soil/Bedrock and
Groundwater Investigation Reportto the City for review and approvalprior
3.5-15
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
to issuance of development permits. The Applicant shall conduct necessary
construction employee training prior to the initiation of construction.
Monitoring.The City shall ensure compliance with MM HAZ-2a, -2b, and
-2c. An Environmental Monitor shall be made available to monitor
environmental compliance of the construction activities. The City shall also
inspect the Project site during construction to ensure compliance with
required plans.
Residual Impact
Implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures would reduce residual
impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant.
Impact
HAZ-3 The proposed Project would have a low potentialtoemit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school (Less than Significant).
The easternmost portion of the Lucia Mar Unified School District offices are located 0.25
miles from the westernmost portion of the proposed Project site. Although no students are
located at this facility, it is adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School located at 495 Valley
Road. No classrooms at the high school are located within the 0.25-mile range; however,
several high school sports fields are located within 0.25 miles ofthe proposed Project site.
Emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing schoolis considered to be potentially
significantunder CEQA.
The proposed Project would include landscaped areas, which may involve application of
fertilizers and pesticides on an as-needed basis.However,while the proposed Project site
is located within 0.25 mile range of the Lucia Mar Unified School District offices as well
as several Arroyo Grande High School sports fields, potential hazardous materials would
only include applications of chemicalsthat are not expectedto be reportable quantitiesto
the County of San Luis Obispo Agricultural Commissioner, and consistent with the
practices of other existing residential uses throughout the City. Therefore,this impact
would be .
less than significant
3.5-16
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
Mitigation Measures
Nomitigation measures required.
Impact
HAZ-4 Implementation of the proposed Project could expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fire, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands(Less than
Significant with Mitigation).
As described in Section 3.5.1.2,Risk of Wildfire within the Project Vicinity, the proposed
Subareas 1 and 2 of the Project sitewould belocated ina part of the City that was
determined to include moderate and high fire hazard potential, while the majority of
Subarea 1 is located in an area designated as Urban Zoned/Non-Wildland/Non-Urban
(Figure 3.5-1). The adjacent hillside along the southern border of the site is a natural coast
live oak woodland that could be prone to ignition and could provide natural fuels for any
structural or wildland fires in the area.
The proposed Project would include the construction of a 100-room hotel, a stand-alone
restaurant, gardens and orchards as well as single-family residences. Construction of the
proposed Project would increase the potential to expose both structures and people to
wildland fires. Operation of construction equipment such as saws, welders, generators, and
heavy machinery would temporarily introduce new ignition sources into the area. While
the chance of accidental ignition by such heavy equipment may seem improbable, several
1
wildland fires in Southern California have been ignited by such equipment.Under Project
conditions, wildfires burning into the open space surrounding the proposed Project would
present the potential for serious damage to the Project and would potentially threaten the
health and safety of hotel patrons and employees, and residents of Subarea 2.
Due to the close proximity of the natural coast live oak woodland, the steep slope located
on the southern portion of the proposed Project site and the increase in residential
population and tourism, the potential exists for impacts related to exposing people or
structures towildland fires. Therefore, impacts related to exposing people or structures to
a wildland fires are considered to be potentially significant. In order to reduce impacts to
1
For example, the 2009 Jesusita Fire in Santa Barbara, which burned almost 9,000 acres and destroyed 80 homes, was
ignited by landscape equipment during a trail maintenance operation.
3.5-17
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
less than significant, mitigation measures are required.Therefore, this impact is considered
.
less than significant with mitigation
Mitigation Measuresfor All Subareas
MMHAZ-4a All Applicantsshall prepare and submit a comprehensive Wildfire
Emergency Management Plan for review by the FCFAand the City. The
Plan shall consist of measures to reduce the potential for structural damage
to the proposed development including:
A detailed description and map of fire protection apparatus and staging
locations, the locations of the electric and gas shut off controls,
emergency meeting locations, and emergency supply locations; and
Relevant building design specifications that would qualify the building
for identification as a safe refuge during a wildfire.
MM HAZ-4b Require fire resistant material to be used for building construction in fire
hazard areas. Require the installation of smoke detectors in all new
residences.
MM HAZ-4c TheProject siteshall be inspected annually by the FCFA. This shall include
an inspection of the deadwood and leaf litter, which shall be removed
annually prior to the beginning of fire season.
Plan Requirements and Timing.The Applicants shall restate the
provisions for fire protection on all grading and building plans. The name
and telephone number of the onsite supervisor shall be provided to the
FCFAprior to commencement of construction or grading activities. Fire
protection measures shall be implemented throughout construction.Plan
components and conditions, agreements, and restrictions, including
landscaping, shall also be reviewed prior to permit approval for each
Subarea.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure measures are on plans prior topermit
approval.FCFA staff shall spot check for compliance during construction.
Permit compliance staff shall verify the installation of the required
landscaping in the field.The Project siteshall be inspected annually in the
spring prior to the onset of the fire season by the FCFA in order to ensure
compliance with the above mitigation. This shall include an inspection of
3.5-18
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
the deadwood and leaf litter, which shall be removed annually prior to the
beginning of fire season.
Mitigation Measures for Subarea 1
MM HAZ-4d Each hotel room shall be required to have an emergency evacuation plan
posted in a visible location. Additionally each room shall have a Wildfire
Emergency Procedures binder, which shall include relevant information
from the Wildfire Emergency Management Plan, such as the locations of
safe refuges, locations of First Aid and emergency supplies, and emergency
contacts within the hotel.Training requirements for front-desk hotel staff
and any other staff routinely interacting with the publicshall include First
Aid and First Responder certification as well as annual requirements for
wildfire emergency management training scenario exercises prior to the
onset of fire season.
Plan Requirements and Timing.The Applicant shall restate the provisions
for fire protection and emergency evacuationon the Wildfire Emergency
Management Plan.Plan components and conditions, agreements, and
restrictions, including landscaping, shall be reviewed by the FCFA prior to
permit approval for each Subarea.Fire safety training for hotel staff shall
be conducted annually prior to the onset of fire season.
Monitoring. The City shall ensure measures are on plans prior topermit
approval. FCFA staff shall review the emergency evacuation plan.
Mitigation Measures for Subareas 1 and 2
MM HAZ-4e The final plant selections for Subareas 1 and 2shall be limited to fire-
resistant native species. Non-native species shall not be included in the final
landscaping plan. The final landscape planfor Subareas 1, 2, and 3shall
define precisely the final location and character of trees, as well as
locations and types of new plantings.
Plan Requirements and Timing.The Applicants shall indicate the types
and species of plants on landscape plans. Plan components and conditions,
agreements, and restrictions, including landscaping,shall be reviewed by
the City and FCFA prior to permit approval for each Subarea.
3.5-19
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.5HHM
AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
Monitoring. The City shall ensure measures are on plans prior topermit
approval.Landscape plans shall be reviewed by the FCFA. The Project site
shall be inspected annually in the spring prior to the onset of the fire season
by the FCFA in order to ensure compliance with the above mitigation. This
shall include an inspection of the deadwood and leaf litter, which shall be
removed annually prior to the beginning of fire season.
Residual Impact
Implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures would reduce residual
impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant.
3.5.5Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the proposed listed mitigation measures would reduce the level of
impacts related to hazardous materials to levels that are less than significant.From a
cumulative standpoint, individual projects throughout the City will be required to mitigate
their impacts on an individual basis, which will reduce the potential for cumulative impacts.
Therefore,the cumulative impact of this Project and other known developments within the
vicinity would be .
less than significant
3.5-20
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
This section describes potential hydrology and water quality impacts to surface water and
groundwater from implementation of the proposed Projectin the context of flooding,
runoff, and other drainage conditions on the Project site and in the surrounding watersheds.
The hydrologic analysis for this section is based on information from the Final San Luis
Obispo County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWM)prepared bythe San
Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District in July 2014, the East
Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Subarea 1 Hydrology Report Preliminary prepared by RRM
Design Group in February 2016, the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Subarea 2 and 3
Hydrology Report Preliminary prepared by RRM Design Group in May 2015, and the
Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) prepared in 2010 by the City of Arroyo Grande
Public Works Department in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase II Program. Hydrology reports for the Project site are contained
within Appendix J of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
3.6.1Environmental Setting
3.6.1.1Regional Setting
Hydrology and Drainage
The Project site is located within the Arroyo Grande Creek Hydrological Subarea of the
Estero Bay Hydrological Unit, just one of the watersheds within the South County Sub-
Region, which includes the urban areas of San Luis Obispo, Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach,
Oceano, and Nipomo (San Luis Obispo FCWCD 2014).Within the Estero Bay
Hydrological Unit 10, theArroyo Grande Creek Watershed drains approximately 150
square miles (95,998 acres) of land predominantly used for agriculture (US-LT Resource
Conservation District 2015). Average seasonal precipitation throughout the Arroyo Grande
Creek Watershed varies from 12 inches to 35 inches (Department of Water Resources
2002).
The Project site is located entirely within the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed
approximately 1,860 feet from the Village Core, which is located along the banks of Arroyo
Grande Creek approximately 4.3 miles upstream from the mouth of the creek. The site is
located downstream of the Lopez Reservoir. The Lopez Reservoir,which serves as the
source of Arroyo Grande Creek, was completed by the San Luis Obispo County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District in 1968 to provide the Arroyo Grande basin with
3.6-1
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
reliable municipal water supply, agricultural water supply, groundwater recharge,
recreation, wildlife habitat,and flood control. The lake has a storage capacity of 49,388
acre-feet (AF) of water (San Luis Obispo County 2016).
The Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed and its tributaries encompass 190 square miles,
reaching a maximum elevation of 3,200 feet above meansea-level (msl) (Department of
Water Resources 2002).The watershed generally drains to the southeast via the 13 mile
long Arroyo Grande Creek where it meets the Pacific Ocean through an estuaryadjacent
to Oceano lagoon. Arroyo Grande Creek originates to the northwest from Lopez Lake
which is locatedat an elevation of 558 feet in the western slopes of the Santa Lucia Range.
The Creek flows southwest adjacent to Lopez Drive before flowing underneath the U.S.
Highway 101 and traveling along the southern City limits of Oceano where it drains
westward to Oceano Lagoon.
Flooding
In past years, the Arroyo Grande Creek system has experienced extensive flooding,
resulting in the inundation of prime farmlands. A small, rural community at the time,
Arroyo Grande and surrounding communities organized the Arroyo Grande Creek Flood
Control Project(AGCFCP) in 1961 to reduce the impacts to the agricultural economy and
growing urban infrastructure caused by flooding (Waterways Consulting, Inc. 2010).The
AGCFCP constructed levees along Arroyo Grande Creek in attempts to channelize and
control flows in the event of a 50-year flood, but the levees have only resulted in increased
flows and sediment deposition in the creek due to stormwater runoff. As of 2005, as little
as 15percentof the original flood channel capacity remains and since then, flood channel
management plans and maintenanceprograms have been established to reduce the threat
of flood disasters within the Arroyo Grande region(Central Coast Salmon Enhancement
2005).
Storm Probability
Flood zone mapping and drainage improvements are based on the probability of a certain
amount of rain to fall within a particular time frame, usually 24 hours.From rainfall gage
records, the size of a storm that has a one percent probability of occurring in any one year
within a particular watershed can be calculated. A storm with this probability is often
referred to as the 100-year storm since on average one such storm would be expected to
occur in a 100-year period(or a one percent chance in any given year), and the associated
3.6-2
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
227
227
101
Existing Man-made
Drainage Ditch
101
1
LEGEND
Project Site
100-Year Floodplain
Creek/ Stream
City of Arroyo Grande
1
SCALE IN FEET
02,500
FIGURE
100-Year Floodplain in the Vicinity
3.6-1
of the Proposed Project
3.6-3
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
1
water runoff termed the 100-year flood.Similarly, a storm that has a four percent
probability of occurring in any one year is referred to as the 25-year storm, and flows
from this storm are called Q25 flows or 25-year floods.
3.6.1.2Project SiteSetting
Existing Onsite Drainage
The 15.29-acre Project site is located on a relatively level ground that includesagricultural
farmland in the southeast region of the City of Arroyo Grande. The site is located
approximately 1,890 feet south of Arroyo Grande Creek. Along the southern boundary of
Subarea 2 and 3 withinthe Project site, at the toe of the offsite north-facinghillside, lies an
approximately 5 foot widemanmade drainage ditch made of permeable materials and used
for the purpose of collecting agricultural runoff and the runoff from the hillside. The
drainage feature transports the runoff along the southern edge of the property to an existing
24-inch storm drain near the southwest corner of the Project site.The overall drainage
pattern for the site is predominantly toward the northwest, with a majority of runoff flowing
overland toward the intersection of East Cherry and Traffic Way (RRM Design Group
2015).
Flood Hazards
As described by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Project site
does not lie within any designated flood plains(FEMA 2015). Designated flood plains
within the Arroyo Grande Valley Sub-basin lie along the creek banks of the Arroyo Grande
Creek approximately 4,100 feet to the west of the Project site. Additional flood prone areas
are located in the southwest regions of the City, in the flat, low-elevation agricultural fields
just south of Arroyo Grande Creek.
Adjacent Slope Stabilityand Mudslide Hazards
Properties located on or adjacent to natural slopes face many threats and hazards in regards
to the stability of the slopes within their vicinity. An unstable slope may give away,
resulting in landslides, mudflows, or even debris flows. An analysis of the slope adjacent
1
The 100-year storm is aprobability estimate basedon incomplete rainfall gage data that in most
watersheds has been collected for only approximately 50 years. Therefore, it is possible for several 100-
year storms to occur in the course of a few years, which would result in a revision to the estimated storm
probabilities. In addition, storms do not exhibit the same rainfall intensity uniformly, and the same storm
system that exhibits a 100-year intensity in a particular watershed can have a much lower intensity in an
adjacent watershed.
3.6-4
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
to the site for slope stability was conducted by GeoSolutions, Inc. in August 2015 and is
located in Appendix H of this EIR. Their analysis determined that the slope is stable under
natural circumstances, but poor surface drainage may result in prolonged periods of
saturation and severe erosion(GeoSolutions, Inc. 2015).
3.6.2Regulatory Setting
3.6.2.1Federal
Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for federal flood
disaster management through the Floodplain Program.FEMA divides flood areas into three
zones: Zone A for areas of 100-year flood, base flood elevations not determined; Zone B
for areas of 500-year flood; and Zone C or Zone X for areas of minimal flooding. The
National Flood Insurance Program 100-year floodplain is considered to be the base flood
condition. This is defined as a flood event of a magnitude that would be equaled or
exceeded an average of once during a 100-year period. Floodways are defined as stream
channels plus adjacent floodplains that must be kept free of encroachment as much as
possible so that 100-year floods can be carried without substantial increases (no more than
one foot) in flood elevations. Development in these floodplain areas are subject to the
standard conditions of approval of the San Luis ObispoFlood Control and Water
Conservation District.
Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (1977)
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (later referred to as the Federal Clean Water Act),
33 United States Code (USC) § 1251 et seq. (1972) (CWA), is the primary federal statute
governing water quality. The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges
of pollutants into the waters of the United States and gives the Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) the authority to implement pollution control programs. The statutes
goal is to regulate all discharges into the nations waters and to restore, maintain, and
preserve the integrity of those waters. The CWA sets water quality standards for all
contaminants in surface waters and makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any
pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless apermit is obtained under its
provisions. The CWA mandates permits for wastewater and storm water discharges,
requires states to establish site-specific water quality standards for navigable bodies of
water, and regulates other activities that affect waterquality, such as dredging and the
3.6-5
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
filling of wetlands. The following CWA sections assist in ensuring water quality in
surrounding water bodies:
Section 208. Requiring that states develop programs to identify and control non-
point sources of pollution, including runoff.
Section 303. Requiring states to establish and enforce water quality standards to
protect and enhance beneficial uses of water for such purposes as recreation and
fisheries.
Section 304(a)(1). Requiring the administrator of the USEPA to develop and
publish water quality criteria that reflect the latest scientific knowledge regarding
the effects of pollutants in any body of water.
Section 313(a). Requiring that federal agencies observe state and local water
quality regulations.
Section 405 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 added to Section 402(p) to the CWA.
Pursuant to Section 402(p)(4) of the CWA, the USEPA is required to promulgate
regulations for NPDES permit applications for stormwater discharges.
Clean Water Act Section 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System \[NPDES\]
Program) (1972)
The NPDES Stormwater Program regulates stormwater discharges from three potential
sources: municipal separate storm sewer systems (MSs), construction activities, and
4
industrial activities. As authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA), the NPDES permit
program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into
waters of the United States and MSfacilities. To prevent harmful pollutants from being
4
washed or dumped into an MS, operators must obtain a NPDES permit and develop a
4
stormwater management program. The program regulates for Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL), which is the maximum amount of an impairing substance or stressor (e.g.,
pollutant) that a water body can receive and assimilate, and still safely meet Water Quality
Standards, defined by the Federal Clean Water Act.
3.6.2.2State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (1969)
This policy mandates that waters of the state shall be protected such that activities that may
affect waters of the state shall be regulated to attain the highest quality. The State of
California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is given authority to enforcePorter-
Cologne Water Control Act as well as Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and has adopted
a statewide general permit that applies to almost all stormwater discharges. This general
3.6-6
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
permit, which is implemented and enforced throughout San Luis Obispo County, is
implemented by the local Central Coast RWQCB and requires all owners of land where
construction activity occurs to:
Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to stormwater systems and other
waters of the U.S.,
Develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan emphasizing
stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs), and
Perform inspections of stormwater pollution prevention measures to assess their
effectiveness.
The State of California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
The SWRCB has adopted a statewide construction general permit that applies to storm
water and non-storm water discharges from construction activities. This general permit,
which is implemented and enforced in the Arroyo Grandearea by the Central Coast
RWQCB, requires all owners of land where construction activity occurs to:
Eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to storm water systems and other
waters of the U.S.;
Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
emphasizing storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs); and
Perform inspections of storm water pollution prevention measures to assess their
effectiveness.
In addition, SWRCB regulations mandate a non-degradation policy for state waters,
especially those of high quality.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
The SGMA is a statewide policy that empowers local agencies to adopt groundwater
management plans that relate to the needs and resources of their communities. It is the
intent of the SGMA to:
Provide for the sustainable management of groundwater basins;
Enhance local management of groundwater consistent with rights to use or store
groundwater and Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution. It is the
intent of the Legislatureto preserve the security of water rights in the state to the
greatest extent possible consistent with the sustainable management of
groundwater;
Establish minimum standards for sustainable groundwater management;
3.6-7
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
Provide local groundwater agencieswith the authority and the technical and
financial assistancenecessary to sustainably manage groundwater;
Avoid or minimize subsidence;
Improve data collection and understanding about groundwater;
Increase groundwater storage and remove impediments to recharge;
Manage groundwater basins through the actions of local governmental agencies to
the greatest extent feasible, while minimizing state intervention to only when
necessary to ensure that local agencies manage groundwater in a sustainable
manner; and
Provide a more efficient and cost-effective groundwater adjudication process that
protects water rights, ensures due process, prevents unnecessary delay, and furthers
the objectives of this part.
3.6.2.3Local
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
As the overarching policy document guiding development in the City, the Arroyo Grande
General Plan contains policies to regulate all aspects of physical growth and conservation
in the community.Flood hazard policy in the City of Arroyo Grande is directed by the
Safety Element of the General Plan and is designed to reduce the damage to structures and
the danger to lives in the event of flooding, dam failure inundation, and any other
foreseeable water hazards.The Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element
addresses policies relevant to flood control and conservation of necessary flood plains.
General Plan, Safety Element
Goal S2 Reduce damage to structures and the danger to life caused by flooding, dam
failure, inundation, and other water hazards.
Policy S2-1 Strictly enforce flood hazard regulations both current and revised.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations and other
requirements for the placement of structures in flood plains shall be followed.
Maintain standards for development in flood-prone and poorly drained areas.
Standard S2-1.1 Discourage development, particularly critical facilities,
in areas of high flood potential. Do not allow development within areas
designated as the 100-year flood plain that would obstruct flood flow or be
subject to flood damage. Do not allow development which will create or
worsen known flood or drainage problems.
Standard S2-1.3 Review development plans for construction of structures
in low-lying areas, or any area which may pose a serious drainage or
3.6-8
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
flooding condition. Susceptibility to damage from flooding should be
determine based on the 100-year flood.
Goal S4 Minimize the potential for loss of life and property resulting from geologic and
seismic hazards.
Program S4-6.1 For developments in areas of known slope instability, landslides,
or slopes steeper than 20 percent, the stability of slopes shall be addressed by
registered professionals practicing in their respective fields of expertise. For
subdivisions, such studies should be performed prior to delineating lot lines and
building envelopes.
General Plan, Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element
Goal Ag1 Avoid and or mitigate loss of prime farmland soils and conserve non-prime
Agriculture use and natural resource lands.
Policy Ag 1-5.3 Minimize flood damage potential to farmland.
Practice Ag1-5.3.1 Assure that urban developments incorporate adequate
runoff and drainage detention and flood control.
Goal Ag2 Allocate and conserve ground and surface water resources for agricultural use
and minimize potential Fringe Area and urban development that would divert such
resources for agriculture.
Policy Ag2-4 Detention, retention and recharge basins shall be designated as open
space and habitat resources in addition to flood control and other functions
associated with a development. Their extent and engineering shall permit
establishment of vegetative growth and utilization for passive recreation or
compatible agricultural uses. The design of such Facilities shall include specific
operation and maintenance programs that ensure that the capacity is not reduced.
Goal C/OS2 Safeguard important environmental and sensitive biological resources
contributing to healthy, functioning ecosystems.
Policy C/OS2-1 Designate all streams and riparian corridors as
Conservation/Open Space (C/OS).
Practice C/OS2-1.2 Preserve stream and riparian corridors in their natural
state, except where necessary for flood control, periodic maintenance, creek
bank protection, and creek restoration consistent with State and Federal
permits. Concrete channel and underground piping of creeks and drainages
shall be minimized and allowed if it is determined by the City Council to be
necessary for public health, safety and welfare. Bridges are preferred over
arched or piped culverts.
3.6-9
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
Practice C/OS2-1.3 Where feasible, maintain a development setback of
25-50 feet from the top of stream bank or edge of riparian habitat depending
on slope, habitat and floodplain characteristics. Locate development outside
the setback.
City Municipal Code
City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Title 13, Chapter13.24 Excavation, Grading,
Erosion and Sediment Control
The Citys municipal code (§13.24) established policies and regulations designed to
safeguard the public health, safety, general welfare, and natural environment from the
harmful effects associated with erosion and sedimentation, dust emissions, and stormwater
runoff. This chapter addresses the compliance with the NPDES Phase II stormwater
regulations. This chapter also sets forth local stormwater requirements, to avoid pollution
of watercourses with sediments or other pollutants generated on or caused by surface runoff
on or across construction sites.
Storm Water Management Plan NPDES PhaseII Program (SWMP)
The City SWMP was prepared by the City pursuant to the identification of the City as a
small municipal separate storm sewer system requiring coverage under the NPDES
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems, Water Quality Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ (General Permit). The SWMP is
designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable and to
protect water quality. Additionally, the SWMP will:
Serve as a planning and guidance document to be used by the Citys regulatory
body, all City departments, contractors, and the general public;
Be dynamic and adaptively managed to address changes in General Permit
requirements, organizational structure, responsibilities, and goals;
Define techniques and measurable goals for measuringBest Management Practice
(BMP) effectiveness; and
Define a five-year schedule for Storm Water Management Program implementation
to comply with the requirements of the General Permit.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region
The proposed Project site is located within the coverage area for the Central Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Post-Construction Requirements. The primary
goal of the Post-Construction Requirements are to ensure that the Permittee is reducing
3.6-10
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
post-construction related pollutant discharges to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP),
and is preventing stormwater discharges from causing or contributing to a violation of
receiving water quality standards. These requirements and regulations apply to all
development projects that require approvals and/or permits issued under the Permittees
planning, buildings, or other comparable authority. Post-Construction Requirements
include site designand runoff reduction, water quality treatment, stormwater control plans,
runoff reduction, and peak stormwater runoff management. Under this regulatory
document, Project applicants are required to prepare a separate Stormwater Control Plan
which summarizes site design and Stormwater Control Measures, as well as other
requirements.
3.6.3Environmental Impact Analysis
3.6.3.1Thresholds of Significance
Thresholds of significance for impacts to hydrology and surface and groundwater quality
were modified from Appendix G of the 2016 Guidelines for the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).Impacts from the proposed Project would be considered significant
if they were to:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted);
c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site;
d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site;
e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff;
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality;
3.6-11
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map;
h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows;
i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding; including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or
j)Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
3.6.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology
This analysis considers impacts from both the construction and the operation of the
proposed Project, including potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality, flooding,
or groundwater basin capacity. This analysis is based upon available datafromthe East
Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Subarea 2 & Subarea 3Hydrology Report Preliminary
2
(Appendix J), aNumerical Slope Stability Analysis(Appendix L), the Citys Urban Water
Management Plan, San Luis Obispo Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, and
Arroyo Grande Creek management plans.
3.6.4Project Impacts andMitigation Measures
As discussed under environmental setting, the elevation of the Project site is 120 feet above
sea level and the site islocated 2.6 miles east of the tsunami or seiche inundation area.
Therefore, impacts related to tsunami and seichehazards would be insignificant. Project
impacts related to hydrology and water quality are described below.
2
The Preliminary Hydrology Reports and Numerical Slope Stability Analysis are Applicant-prepared reports for the
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan, which assess existing site hydrology and slope stability. These reports have been
reviewed by Amec Foster Wheeler.
3.6-12
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
Table 3.6-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Hydrology ImpactsMitigation MeasuresResidual Significance
Impact HYD-1. Construction of the proposed MM HYD-1aLess than Significant
Project has the potential to significantly with Mitigation
MM HYD-1b
impact surface water quality from increased
MM HYD-1c
erosion, sedimentation and polluted runoff.
MM HYD-1d
Impact HYD-2.Irrigation of the proposed NonerequiredLess thanSignificant
cultural gardens on Subarea 3 would draw
water from the Santa Maria Groundwater
Basin, resulting in incremental impacts to
groundwater resources.
Impact HYD-3.The proposed Project would MM HYD-3aLess than Significant
alter existing onsite drainage systems, MM HYD-3bwith Mitigation
resulting in potential impacts to the erosion, MM HYD-3c
siltation, and flooding on or off the site.
Impact HYD-4.The proposed Project is NonerequiredLess than Significant
located outside a 100-year flood hazard area
and presents less than significant issues
regarding onsite flood hazards.
Impact HYD-5.The proposed Project site is NonerequiredLess than Significant
located at the base of an adjacent natural
hillside that has the potential to result in a
mudflowwhich woulddirectly inundate the
Project development.
Impact
HYD-1 Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to significantly
impact surface water quality from increased erosion, sedimentation
and polluted runoff(Less than Significant with Mitigation).
During construction,particularly during phases that include excavation, grading, and other
earthwork, the potential exists for substantial increases in soil erosion and sediment
transportthat have the potential to affect water quality from runoff.Additionally, the
presence and use of large construction machinery on the site has the potential to result in a
spill of fluids, such as oil and gas, which could be mobilized by stormwater runoff. The
Project site is relatively flat and nearly all surfaces are permeable. Early stages of
development would allow for low risks to soil and contamination due to the relatively high
permeable area, but as construction advances, more impermeable surfaces will be created
and soil and contaminant mobilization would increase.
Construction of the Project site would include activities such as cut and fill, grading, site
excavation, soil compaction, trenching, etc. These construction activities could impact
3.6-13
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
hydrology by exposing disturbed ground to potential erosion or by introducing pollutants
into the runoff through chemical spills or presence of machinery or debris. The exact list
of construction activitieshave not yet been determined; however, all activities would be
required toconform to the rules and regulations established in the City General Plan
policies, City Municipal Plan, SWRCB, the City SWMP, Federal Clean Water Act, and the
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.Under the Central Coast RWQCB Project
Applicants are required to adhere to post-construction requirements. As such, stormwater
related impacts resulting from operation of the Subareas following construction will be
reduced through implementation of post-construction requirements, and impacts to
stormwater runoff would be regulated and reduced.
With implementation of standard regulatory conditions and the mitigation measures
proposed below, potential impacts to water quality during the construction period of this
Project would be
less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measuresfor All Subareas
MM HYD-1aNotice of Intent.Prior to beginning construction, the Applicants shall file a
Notice of Intent (NOI) for discharge from the proposed development site.
MM HYD-1b Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.The Applicants shall require the
building contractor to prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City Public Works Department prior to the
issuance of grading permits. The contractor is responsible for
understanding the State General Permit and implementing the SWPPP
during construction. A SWPPP for site construction shall be developed
prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all construction
activities on the Project site in excess of one acre, or where the area of
disturbance is less than one acre but is part of the Projects plan of
development that in total disturbs one or more acres. The SWPPP shall
include specific BMPs to control the discharge of material from the site.
BMP methods may include, but would not be limited to, the use of temporary
detention basins, straw bales, sand bagging, mulching, erosion control
blankets, silt fencing, and soil stabilizers. Additional BMPs should be
implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occur onsite
during construction. The SWPPP must be prepared in accordance with the
guidelines adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
3.6-14
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City along with grading/development
plans for review and approval.
MM HYD-1cNotice of Termination of Construction.The Applicants shall file a notice of
termination of construction of the development with the RWQCB,
identifying how pollution sources were controlled during the construction
of the Project and implementing a closure SWPPP for the site.
MM HYD-1d All required actions shall be implemented pursuant to Municipal Code
13.24.110including Storm Water Control Plan submitted to the City of
Arroyo Grande and the RWQCB regulations under the NPDES Phase II
program.
Plan Requirements and Timing.SWPPP and notices shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City prior to the initiation of construction.
The Plan(s) shall be designed to address erosion and sediment control
during all phases of development of the site until all disturbed areas are
permanently stabilized.
Monitoring.The City shall ensure compliance with the SWPPP. A
Geotechnical Engineer or an Engineering Geologist shall be made available
to monitor technical aspects of the grading activities. The City shall also
inspect the site during grading to monitor runoff and to verify reseeding and
revegetation after conclusion of grading activities.
Residual Impact
With implementation of the above mitigation measures, impacts associated with
construction runoff would be less than significant.
Impact
HYD-2 Irrigation of the proposed cultural gardens on Subarea 3 woulddraw
water from the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, resulting in
incremental impacts to hydrologic conditions of groundwater resources
(Less than Significant).
The Village Mixed-Use designated Subarea 3 would draw water from the Tri-Cities Mesa
sub-basin of theSanta Maria Groundwater Basin via one of the two onsite wells,for the
use of supplemental irrigation of common area landscaping and the proposed cultural
3.6-15
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
gardens. The other existing groundwater well would be removed. Historically,
supplemental irrigation for agricultural use on the sitewas previously obtained from the
two onsite wells, and Subarea 3 would only use well water to supplement landscaping. As
presented inTable 3.6-2, the City has an adjudicated right to 1,323 afy of water from the
Santa Maria Groundwater Basin as well as 200 afy of water from the Pismo Formation.
Additionally, groundwater pumping of local groundwater basins for use by the City is
predicted to be much less than historic pumping years and the proposed Project would not
result in substantial decreases in groundwater levels for the Santa Maria Groundwater
Basin that would affect the basins hydrologic conditions.
Table 3.6-2. Historic and Predicted Groundwater Pumping (AFY)
1122
2006200820152020
Basin20101
Santa Maria 1,0251,096539798497
Groundwater Basin
Pismo Formation 0 6770200200
Total Groundwater 1,0251,164609998697
Pumped
1
Historic groundwater pumped.
2
Predicted groundwater pumped.
Source: (City of Arroyo Grande 2012).
Overall groundwater useis expected to decrease with the conversion of irrigated
agricultural lands to less water-intensive urban uses. Additionally, given implementation
of the Projects LID, groundwater recharge will occur.
Due to the expected decrease in groundwater extraction given the change of uses associated
with the Project, impacts to the hydrologic conditions of groundwater resources and the
groundwater levelof the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin would be
less than significant.
Impactsassociated with the adequate water supply are addressed in Impact UT-3 in Section
3.11,Utilities and Public Services.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures required.
Impact
HYD-3 The proposed Project wouldalter existing onsite drainage systems,
resulting in potential impacts to the erosion, siltation, and flooding on
or off the site(Less than Significant).
3.6-16
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
The Project site iscurrently serviced by a manmade drainage ditch historically used to
capture surface runoff from agricultural operations and reduce the risk of farmland
flooding. The drainage ditch directs captured runoff from the site, adjacent hillside, and
offsite flows from eastern properties adjacent to the drainage ditch, and directs the runoff
to an existing 24-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) storm drain near the southwest corner
of the site. The Project site is predominantly covered by permeable open soils which do
little to increase surface flows and flooding, but have a higher tendency to increase
sediment loading.
The direct effect of development of the Project would be to replace theProject sites 15.29
acres of largely permeable surfaces with commercial, residential, and other related
development that includeparking lots, buildings, walkways, roadways, bikeways,
driveways, and other potentially impervious features.
Subarea 1Impacts:
Subarea 1 has historically been cultivated with irrigated agriculture and runoff within the
site generally flows overland towards East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way, where it then
enters the existing drainage infrastructure at this intersection. Development of Subarea 1
would result in the generation of approximately 72,000 square feet (sf) of impervious
surface area, covering approximately 74.3 percent of the Subarea 1 site with impervious
surfaces. Development of Subarea 1 for hotel and restaurant use would include an onsite
storm drain network which would collect, detail and retain, and release storm water in
accordance with City, County, and state requirements (RRM Design Group 2016;
Appendix J). The onsite drainage network would include approximately 3,800 cubic feet
(cf) of storm water detention with apeak release flow of 1.6 cubic feet per second (cfs),
and a retention facility which can retain a minimum of 11,700 cf of storm water. These
facilities will be located under the proposed parking stalls, and volume is achieved through
the use of underground infiltrators. These detention/retention facilities are designed to
capture and contain storm water flow expected of a 50-year stormevent. Should storm
water flows exceed capacitiesof these facilities, excess flows would discharge into the
proposed EastCherry Avenue 48-inch storm drain, which includes consideration of these
flows and has a maximum capacity of approximately 120 cfs. The Subarea 1 Hydrology
Report concluded that the proposed drainage on Subarea 1 would meet applicable storm
water standards and that onsite peak flows would be captured through the proposed
detention basin (see Appendix J).
3.6-17
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
Subarea 2 Impacts:
The Applicant-prepared Tract 3081 Site Plan for Subarea 2 indicates that approximately
55.6 percent of Subarea 2 would be covered by impervious surfaces attributed to
streets/alleys, buildings, on-street parking, and walkways. Such areas would have the effect
of increasing both the total volume of stormwater runoff and the peak flow runoff. To
accommodate the increased flows, the Projectincludes a Low Impact Design (LID)
features to comprehensively address stormwater management onsite. The LID includes
conveyance of 40 percent of building roof runoff to landscape areas and detached
hardscape to provide infiltration into parkways. The development within Subarea 2
proposes to retain and infiltrate approximately16,400cfof stormwater onsite. Additionally,
the Project proposes approximately 11,300 cf of onsite detention and improvements to the
existing drainage system onsite. The Project would involve removal of the existing
manmade drainage ditch and construct a new pass-through 48-inch diameter subsurface
stormwater pipe within Subarea 2, which willcollect stormwater and runoff, tying into the
existing 48-inch stub at the intersection of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue and
catching flows at the southeast corner of the site(refer to Figure 2-8).
Subarea 3 Impacts:
The Applicant would develop thelargely undeveloped Subarea 3 with impervious surfaces
for structures, parking areas, driveways, pathways and curbs. While historic drainage
patterns through Subarea 3 had been modified over time, the majority of onsite flows
predominantly flow overland to East Cherry Avenue. Proposed gardens and landscaped
areas within Subarea 3 would retain some stormwater flows within the Subarea; although,
the majority of flows would be directed toward the proposed headwall inlet located at the
southeast corner of Subarea 3 and would divert flows through the proposed 48-inch
subsurface stormwater pipe.
Therefore, given compliance with proposed Project features, Specific Plan development
standards, and stormwater management Best Management Practices (BMPs), and
prescribed mitigation measures,the proposed Project would not expose persons or
structures to significant flood hazards, nor result in new significant flood events.
Furthermore, due to the suitability of the new drainage system to divert offsite flows,
mitigate onsite flows, implementation of BMPs, reduced potential for sediment loading,
and implementation of City-reviewed Project design guidelines, impacts to erosion,
3.6-18
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
siltation, and flooding both on and offsite are considered
less than significant with
mitigation.
Mitigation Measuresfor All Subareas
MM HYD-1d also applies.
MM HYD-3a Storm Water Quality Treatment Controls.Best Management Practice
(BMP) devices shall be incorporated into the project Final Master
Drainage Plan.The devices shall be sited and sizedto intercept and treat
all dry weather surface runoff, the runoff from 28 percent of the 2-year
storm event, and accommodate the first flush (1 inch) during 24-hour storm
events.The storm water quality system must be reviewed and approved by
the City.
MMHYD-3b Stormwater BMP Maintenance Manual.The Applicants shall prepare a
development maintenance manual for the Project, whichshall include
detailed procedures for maintenance and operations of any stormwater
facilities to ensure long-term operation and maintenance of post-
construction stormwater controls. The maintenance manual shall require
that stormwater BMP devices be inspected, cleaned and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturers maintenance specifications.The
manual shall require that devices be cleaned prior to the onset of the rainy
th
season (i.e., October 15) and immediately after the end of the rainy season
th
(i.e., May 15).The manual shall also require that all devices be checked
after major storm events.
MM HYD-3c Stormwater BMP Semi-Annual Maintenance Report.Thedeveloper or
acceptable maintenance organization shall submit to the City of Arroyo
Grande Public Works Department a detailed report prepared by a licensed
Civil Engineer addressing the condition of all private stormwater facilities,
BMPs, and any necessary maintenance activities on a semi-annual basis
thth
(October 15 and April 15of each year).The requirement for maintenance
and report submittal shall be recorded against the property.
Plan Requirements and Timing.Stormwater BMP Semi-Annual
Maintenance Reportand notices shall be submitted for review and approval
by the City prior to the initiation of construction. The Plan(s) shall be
designed to address the conditions of private stormwater facilities, BMPs,
3.6-19
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
and necessary maintenance activities on a semi-annual basis throughout
implementation and operation of the Project.
Monitoring.The City shall ensure compliance with the SWPPP. A Civil
Engineer shall be made available to monitor conditions and maintenance
activities of all private stormwater facilities on a semi-annual basis.
Residual Impact
With implementation of the above mitigation measures, impacts associated with runoff
resulting from construction and operation of the Project would be less than significant.
Impact
HYD-4 The proposed Project is located outside a 100-year flood hazard area
and presents less than significant issues regarding onsite flood hazards
(Less than Significant).
As discussed in Section 3.6.1, Environmental Setting of this section, the site is located
outside the 100-year flood hazard area. Therefore, implementation of this Project would
not result in risks to on-site structures, nor would the Project impede or redirect flood flows,
and this impact would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures required.
Impact
HYD-5 The proposed Projectsiteis located at the base of an adjacent natural
hillside that has the potential to result in a mudflow,which could
directly inundate the Project development(Less than Significant).
As previously discussed, the Project site is located at the toe of a natural hillside and an
applicant prepared Slope Stability Report found that the hillside was stable under normal
conditions. However, the study concluded that poor drainage of the hillside could increase
soil saturation and slope erosion which would result in a potential mudflow. If such an
event were to occur, the Project is directly in the path of the mudflow and significant
damage and threats toward lifecould occur on the properties located on Subarea 2 and
Subarea 3. Plans for development of the Subarea 2 site include the construction of 5-foot
retaining wall along the southern slope to shield residential units from runoff and flows
3.6-20
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.6HWQ
YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
traveling down the natural hillside.Final plans and specifications would be submitted for
review and approval by the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department. The City
would ensure that the retaining wall would meet performance and safety standards
established by the City Engineer or designated specialistas part of planning review
processes.
Therefore, while the Projectcould potentially face inundation by mudflows, thisimpact is
considered to be with construction of the retaining wall
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures required.
3.6.5Cumulative Impacts
With consideration of the development of other independent projects currently under
construction or planned for constructionlisted with Table 3.0-1, the proposed Project
would contribute to adversecumulative impacts to hydrological resourcesand water
quality. Implementation of the Project would result in the conversion of permeable surfaces
to impermeable surfaces, incrementally contributing to cumulative runoff and water quality
issues. However, proposed mitigation measures described for the project would reduce
impacts of the project, and therefore its contribution to cumulative impacts within the
region, to a less than significant level. Additionally, all proposed developments within the
City would be required to adhere by the rules and regulations established by local, state,
and federal agencies. Therefore, impacts associated with this Project, cumulative to those
generated by cumulative projects, would be considered
less than significant.
3.6-21
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
3.7LU
AND SE
This section describes existing land uses onthe Project site and surrounding vicinity, and
evaluates potential land use effects associated with the amount, location, and type of future
development that could occur under the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
(Project).This section also evaluates the consistency of the proposed Projectwith
applicable adopted programs and policies adopted by the jurisdiction within which the
Project site is located.
3.7.1Environmental Setting
3.7.1.1Project Vicinity
The Projectsite isentirely within the City of Arroyo Grande (City) jurisdiction,located at
the southeasternextent of the City, an area characterized by a mix of urban and agricultural
uses. The Project site is located approximately 300 feet of the U.S. Highway 101 Traffic
Way 186 off-rampon the southeast corner of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue in a
predominantly residential area. Residential neighborhoods border the Project site to the
east, north, and south, with commercial uses along Traffic Way west of the site.
3.7.1.2Project Site
The Project site is composed ofthree parcelsreferred to as Subarea 1, Subarea 2, and
Subarea 3 (Table 3.7-1). Subarea 1 is the western-most 2.16-acre subdivision that is
currently designated as Traffic-Way Mixed Use. Subarea 2 is the middle and largest parcel
at 11.62 acres,which is currently designated as Agriculture and used for row crops. The
smallest parcel, Subarea 3, consists of 1.51 acres of vacant and fallow agricultural land
owned by the Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association(JWA)and is
designated Agriculture, although it has not been historically used for this purpose.
Together, the Project site consists of 15.29 acres of undeveloped land.
Table 3.7-1. Project Site Land Use Designationsand Zoning
SubareaOwnershipLand Use Designation/ZoningAcres
1 SRK HotelsMixed Use/ Traffic Way Mixed-Use 2.16
2 Mangano Homes, Inc.Agriculture/ Agriculture11.62
3 Arroyo Grande ValleyJWAAgriculture/ Agriculture1.51
3.7-1
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
3.7.2Regulatory Setting
3.7.2.1Federal
No federal policies or regulations related to land use would apply to the Project.
3.7.2.2State
Government Code Section 63450
State law (Government Code §63450) authorizes cities to adopt specific plans for
implementation of their general plans in a defined area. All Specific Plans must comply
with Sections 65400-65457 of the Government Code. These provisions require that a
Specific Plan be consistent with the adopted General Plan andthat all subsequent
subdivisions and development, public works projects,and zoning regulations must be
consistent with the Specific Plan. Specific plans are required to include distribution,
location and types of uses, development, and improvements to public facilities and
infrastructure. Tailored regulations, conditions, programs, standards and guidelines help
implement the vision for long-range development of the specific plan area.
3.7.2.3Local
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
In accordance with California State law, the City adopted a general plan to guide
development within the City. The General Plan expresses the Citys development goals,
state public policy in regardsto future land uses, provides the basis for local government
decision making, and informs citizens and decision-makers of policies pertaining to
development. The purpose of the General Plan is to identify appropriate location of land
uses, as well as basic design and function of circulation, open space, and infrastructure
policies, as well as public service needs. The Citys General Plan consists of eight state-
mandatedand optionalelements: (2001)
Fringe and Urban Land Use ElementCirculation
(2001); (2013); (2001); (2001);
ElementHousing ElementNoise ElementSafety Element
(Amended 2007); and,
Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space ElementParks and
(2001). Project consistency with specific policies from the General
Recreation Element
Plan are analyzed below in Table 3.7-3.
3.7-2
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
Land Use Element
Policy LU10-2 For relatively large properties or sites involving diverse adjoining land
uses or unusual or unique features, the City may utilize a Planned Development or
Specific Plan combining designation or land use classifications.
Policy LU10-2.1 Planned Development (PD) combining designation shall require
any use or development (more than one dwelling) to be subject to PD zoning
approval as described in the City of Arroyo Grande Development Code.
Policy LU10-2.2 Specific Plan (SP) classification shall require any use or
development (more than one dwelling) be subject to preparation and adoption of a
Specific Plan pursuant to Article 8 (Sections 65450-65456) of State of California
Planning, Zoning and Development Laws.
Policy LU10-2.3 Encourage appropriate use of Specific Plans, and/or Planned
Development combining designation with beneficial features that could not
otherwise be achieved. Examples of such features include clustering houses and
maintaining open spaces, mixed use, and a design that is sensitive tothe site as a
whole and its setting.
3.7.3Environmental Impact Analysis
3.7.3.1Thresholds of Significance
With respect to land use, Appendix G of the 2015 California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines states that a project would have a significant impact on the
environment if it would:
a)Physically divide an established community;
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; or,
c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan.
3.7-3
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
3.7.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology
Consistency with relevant General Plan and Municipal Code goals, policies, and programs
are evaluated in Table 3.7-3 below, as well as within individual sections of this EIR. Only
those stated goals, policies, or programs that are most relevant to the Projectare highlight
in this section.
In accordance with CEQA and the purpose of this EIR, this discussion primarily focuses
on those goals and policies that relate to avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts, and
an assessment of whether any inconsistency with these standards creates a significant
physical impact on the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d) requires that an
EIR discuss inconsistencies with applicable plans that the decision-makers should address.
A project need not be consistent with each and every policy and objective in a planning
document. Rather, a project is considered consistent with the provisions of the identified
regional and local plans if it is compatible with and will further the objectives and policies
of the plans.
3.7.4Project ImpactsandMitigation Measures
Table 3.7-2. Summary of Project Impacts
Land UseImpactsMitigation MeasuresResidual Significance
Impact LU-1.The proposed Project would None requiredLess than Significant
not result in the physical divide of an
established community.
Impact LU-2. The proposed Project would None requiredNo Impact
not conflict with any habitat conservation
plans or natural community conservation
plansas none exist within the Project
vicinity.
Impact LU-3. The proposed Project is MM AG-1a Less than Significant
potentially inconsistent with adopted City MM HAZ-4a-e with Mitigation
policies in the General Plan designed to MM REC-1a
protect agricultural resources, public views, MM VIS-1a
recreational resources, and reduce the threat MM VIS-4a
to new developments from fire.
Impact
LU-1 The proposed Project would not result in the physical divide of an
established community (Less than Significant).
The Project site is located in the southern urban fringe of the City, adjacent to residential
communities that lie to the north and east. Implementation of the Project is intended to be
3.7-4
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
compatible with the existing residential developments located to the north and east of the
Project site. Currently, the site consists of undeveloped Traffic Way Mixed Use and
Agriculture zoned lands, which would be developed with residential and commercial uses
consistent with the existing land use pattern of the City.Given the Project would be
developed on the edge of existing development, and would provide a smooth transition
with respect to existing nearby land uses, the Project would not divide any established
communities. Therefore, impacts would be.
less than significant
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures required.
Impact
LU-2 The proposed Project would not conflict with any habitat conservation
plans or natural community conservation plans as none exist within the
Project vicinity(No Impact).
No Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans (HCP or NCCP)
have been adopted that apply to the Project siteor immediately surrounding areas.
Therefore, the proposed Project would have on these conservation plans.
no impact
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures required.
Impact
LU-3 The proposed Project is potentially inconsistent with adopted City
policies in the General Plan designed to protect agricultural resources,
public views, recreational resources, and reducethe threat to new
developments from fire (Less than Significant with Mitigation).
Consistent with the purpose of this EIR, this discussion primarily focuses on those goals
and policies that relate to avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts, and an assessment
of whether any inconsistency with these standards creates a significant physical impact on
the environment. Discussion of each applicable General Plan policyisprovided in Table
3.7-3. Based on thisreview, it is found that the Project is potentially inconsistent with
policies designed to protect aesthetics and visual resources related to public views,
agricultural resources, hazards related to wildland fires, and recreational resourcesas
further summarized below.
3.7-5
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The proposed Project presents a potential inconsistency with General Plan PoliciesC/OS1-
1and LU11-2.4. These policiesestablish standards and protect the scenic resources and
viewsheds of the City. Views of the Santa Lucia Mountains and natural hillsides from East
Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way would be partially blocked by the development of the
Project site, disrupting existing unobstructed views for the residents of East Cherry Avenue
and travelers along this road and Traffic Way. Many residences included in the
development of Subarea 2 and Subarea 3 would be provided views of neighborhood
amenities, visually pleasing landscape designs, and the existing views of the natural
hillsides south of the Project site. Existing views from the site and vicinity would be
disrupted by implementation of the Project. While views of the hillsidesto the south would
be obstructed for existing residents along East Cherry Avenue, the Project would result in
site visual characteristics consistent withadjacent residential areas,resulting in a more
uniform visual character in the Project vicinity. With implementation of MM VIS-1 (to
reduce neighborhood loss of scenic views) and MM VIS-4 (to reduce nighttime lighting
effects), both of which require review by the ArchitecturalReview Committee, impacts to
associated with aesthetics and visual resources would be
less than significant with
Further discussion of these impacts and their determination can be found under
mitigation.
Impact VIS-1 in Section 3.1,
Aesthetics.
Agriculture
Implementation of the Project would result in the conversion of 14.0acres of prime
farmlandsoils and the overlapping 12.85 acres of prime farmlanddesignated by the
Department of Conservationto developed uses. To be consistent with the General Plan
ObjectiveAg1and related PoliciesAg1-4, and Ag1-4.2, loss of these prime farmlands is
considered a significant impact, and possible mitigation may include the permanent
protection of prime farmland soils at a ratio of at least 1:1. The Project proposes dedication
of a 9.79-acre parcel of primefarmland soils into an agricultural conservation easement to
mitigate the loss of prime farmland soils for Subarea 2. On July 28, 2015, the City Council
adopted the resolution determining that the offsite agricultural parcel constitutes as
appropriate mitigation for the conversion of prime farmland in Subarea 2 (City of Arroyo
Grande 2015).Mitigation of the loss of 1.74 acres of prime farmlandsoils on Subarea 3
would be requiredto be consistent with Policy Ag1-4.2and the City Council must
,
determine if the inclusion of 0.38 acres of orchards and cultural buildings is sufficient to
count towards agricultural mitigation.While Subarea 1 contains prime agricultural soils,
3.7-6
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
development of the subarea would not result in any significant impacts to agricultural
resources as the subarea is not zoned for agriculture, and the subarea has been planned for
development by the City. Therefore, development of Subarea 1 does not require mitigation
for the loss of these prime farmland soils. Further discussion of these impacts and their
determination can be found under the discussion of Impact AG-1 in Section 3.2,
. With the implementation of addressed under Impact
Agricultural ResourcesMM AG-2a
AG-2impacts associated with the conversion of prime farmland soils to nonagricultural
,
uses would be
less than significant with mitigation.
Hazards
The proposed Project is potentially inconsistent with Safety Element Policies S3 and S3-1.
These policies set standards for new developments to address potential threats from fire on
the proposed Project. The Project would be developed adjacent to a hillside; this proximity
presents a potential wildland fire threat to the site. Aside from the stub of the residential
road being left for the connection to future developments, the Project does not currently
provide any additional access to the adjacenthillside for firefighters in the event of a
wildland fire,and firefighters mayneed to access the slope from theSt. Barnabas
Episcopal Church property.The proposed Subarea 2 residential developmentis located
along the sites southern boundaryadjacent to thishillside. In the event of a wildland fire,
development at the site would put these structures atrisk of fire damage. With
implementation of mitigation measures , which provide requirements for an
MM HAZ-3a-e
Applicant prepared Wildfire Emergency Management Plan, implementation of smoke
detectors and emergency evacuation plans, use of fire resistant building material, and fire
resistant plant selections, impacts associated with risk to wildland fires would be
less than
significant with mitigation.
Potential inconsistencies with General Plan Safety Element policies regarding the
protection of public views, provision of recreational facilities, and threats to developments
by wildland fires would present potentially significant impacts. However, with the
implementation of proposed mitigation measuresdescribed above,policy consistency-
related impacts would be
less than significant with mitigation.
Recreation
Development on theProject site would result in potentially significant impacts to
recreational resources, specifically, because of the requirement thatpark and recreation
facilities be provided at a ratio of four (4) acres per 1,000 individuals, established by Policy
3.7-7
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
PR1 of the General Plan, . The Project would result in an
Parks and Recreation Element
increase to City population by approximately 140 individuals from the development of 58
residential unitson Subarea 2 of the Project site. To be consistent with the General Plan,
the Project would require the provision of 0.56acres of park and recreation facilities, but
the Project proposes the development of 0.35acres of qualifying parkland on the Subarea
2 site. Thismay result in an unmet need for parks facilities based to the General Plan
requirement. As discussed in Section 3.9, , implementation of
RecreationMM REC-1a,
which requires dedication of additional useable public recreation area (e.g., enlargement of
existing proposed park lot, provision of a needed trail connection) and/or payment of a park
development impact fee for the acreage shortfall could offset this potential impact to be
.
less than significantwith mitigation
Mitigation Measures
and would apply.
MM VIS-1a, MM VIS-4a, MM AG-1a, MMHAZ-4ae, MM REC-1a
Residual Impacts
With the implementation of proposed mitigation measures regarding potential impacts to
agricultural resources, public views, recreational resources, and wildland fire hazards,
impacts to these issues would be less than significant.
3.7.5Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the proposed Project in conjunction with other pending/future projects
listed in Table 3.0-1, would increase the number of new housing units and office
developments. The proposed Project, in combination with pending/future developments, is
consistent with the Citys General Plan and supports planned orderly growth in the City.
All pending/future projects would be required to adhere to General Plan policies and other
applicable City regulations, including those related to retaining the small town character of
the City, improving the pedestrian and cyclist environment, and promoting a healthy and
unified community environment.
Therefore, cumulative impacts to land use caused by the development of the proposed
Project, in combination with other pending/future projects, would be
less than significant.
3.7-8
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
Table 3.7-3. Consistency with General Plan Policies
Related PoliciesConsistency Analysis
General Plan Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element
Ag1 Avoid and or mitigate loss of prime Potentially Consistent(with mitigation) The Project
farmland soils and conserve nonprime would result in the development of prime farmland and
Agriculture use and natural resource lands.is required to mitigate this loss through the creation of
prime farmland at a ratio of 1:1.The Project site
consists of 14.0acres of prime farmland soilsand 12.85
acres of prime farmland designated by the Department
of Conservation.
While the majority of the 15.29-acre Project site was
found to contain prime soils and prime farmland as
designated under the FMMP, the estimated LESA score
for the entire site was found to be 66.42 (see Appendix
D for complete LESA Model worksheets). Therefore,
while the Project would result in a loss of agricultural
resources, impacts are considered less than significant
with specific Subarea mitigations as further described
below.
As Subarea 1 is currently a nonagricultural zoning
districtanddevelopment of onsite prime soils would
result in a less than significant impact and remain
consistent with this policy.
A 9.79-acre property located at 1189 Flora Road is
proposed for the mitigation of the development of
Subarea 2prime agricultural soils (10.1 acres). The
City Council found this property suitable for the
mitigation of Subarea 2.
Development of Subarea 3 would result in conversion
of agricultural zoned lands to a Village Mixed-Use
zoning district, requiring mitigation of the loss of prime
soils under this policyto be consistent with City
standards and regulations. Implementation of mitigation
measure , which address the mitigation of
MM AG-2a1
the loss of Subarea 3 prime farmland soils, would result
in a less than significant impact to prime farmland soils.
Refer to Section 3.2, .
Agricultural Resources
Ag1-4 Establish a criterion that considers Potentially Consistent The Project would result in the
loss of prime farmland soils as significant loss of prime farmland and the impacts associated with
environmental impacts.their loss are considered a significant environmental
impactunless feasible mitigation is proposed that
addresses the loss of onsite prime farmland soils. Refer
to Section 3.2, .
Agricultural Resources
Ag1-4.2 Possible mitigation for the loss of Potentially Consistent Refer to Ag1 discussion.
areas having prime farmland soils may
include permanent protection of prime
farmland soils at a ratio of at least 1:1 and up
to 2:1 with regard to the acreage of land
removed from the capability for agricultural
use. Permanent protection may involve, but is
not limited to, dedication of a perpetual
3.7-9
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
Table 3.7-3.Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued)
Related PoliciesConsistency Analysis
agriculture or conservation easement or other
effective mechanism to ensure that the area
chosen as mitigation shall not be subject to
loss of its prime farmland soils. Suitability of
location shall be determined by the City
Council. The aim shall be to protect and
preserve prime farmland soils primarily
within and continuous to City boundaries,
secondly within the Urban Land Use Element
area, and thirdly within the larger Arroyo
Grande Valley and La Cienega Valley within
the Area of Environmental Concern. Other
potential mitigation measures for loss of areas
having prime farmland soils include payment
of in-lieu fees or such other mitigation
acceptable to the City Council.
Ag1-5.3.1 Assure that urbandevelopments Consistent The proposed Project wouldincorporate
incorporate adequate runoff and drainage new stormwater systems for the conveyance of on and
detention and flood control.offsite runoff and stormwater flows expected of a 100-
year storm.Refer to Section 3.6,
Hydrologyand Water
.
Quality
Ag2 Allocate and conserve ground and Consistent Subarea 3 of the Project site seeks to
surface water resources for agricultural use supplement water use through the connection of an
and minimize potential Fringe Area and existing groundwater well for the use of landscape
Urban development that would divert such irrigation. The use of groundwater for supplemental
resources for agriculture.irrigation on Subarea 3 would not result in significant
impacts togroundwater, and impacts associated with
such activities would be . Referto
less than significant
Impact HYD-2 inSection 3.6,
Hydrologyand Water
.
Quality
C/OS1-1 Identify and protect scenic Potentially Consistent The proposed Project would
resources and view sheds associated with obstruct views of natural hillsides and the Santa Lucia
them.Mountains,which are considered scenic resources
consistent with Policy C/OS1-1.1. Development of the
Project would result in changes to the onsite visual
character which are consistent with the visual character
of the surrounding area. Furthermore, development of
the three subareas is subject to review by City staff and
the Architectural Review Committee, as well as MM
VIS-1,to ensure that the Project complies with the
Citys applicable design guidelines and that the Project
would result in minimal impacts to visual resources.
Refer to Impact VIS-1 in Section 3.1,
Aestheticsand
Visual Resources.
C/OS2-1.2 Preserve stream and riparian Potentially Consistent The drainage ditch along the
corridors in their natural state, except where southern edge of the Project is vegetated by a variety of
necessary for flood control, periodic riparian plant species, and is considered a riparian
maintenance, creek bankprotection, and habitat. Development underthe proposed Project would
creek restoration consistent with State and result in potentiallysignificant impactsto stream and
Federal permits. Concrete channel and riparian corridorswith construction of onsite flood
3.7-10
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
Table 3.7-3.Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued)
Related PoliciesConsistency Analysis
underground piping of creeks and drainages improvement systems including a drainagesystem
shall be minimized and allowedif it is which supports riparian vegetation. Implementation of
determined by the City Council to be , which addresses impacts to habitat created
MM BIO-1a
necessary for public health, safety and by the drainage ditch,would result in impacts, which
welfare. Bridges are preferred over arched or are considered less than significant with mitigation.
piped culverts.Refer to Section 3.4,
Biological Resources.
C/OS2-1.3 Where feasible, maintain a Potentially Consistent Refer to C/OS2-1.2 discussion.
development setback of 25-50 feet from the
top of stream bank or edge of riparian habitat
depending on slope, habitat and floodplain
characteristics. Locate development outside
the setback.
C/OS2-1.6 Plan, design, and develop sites Potentially Consistent Refer to C/OS2-1.2 discussion.
to protect natural resources and further the
restoration of degraded habitats.
C/OS2-4.2 Developments shall avoid the Potentially Consistent(with mitigation) The drainage
disturbance of significant wildlife corridors ditch along the southern edge of the Project site is not
and/or wetlands.considered a federally protected wetland under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and is verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulatory staff
(Appendix F). Subarea 3 of the Project site consists of
oak trees and other ruderal vegetation which provides
habitat for migratory birds. Impact BIO-2 addresses
potential impacts associated with development of
Subarea 3 and construction activities which may disturb
migratory bird habitat, and the implementation of
MM
wouldresult in impacts that are less than
BIO-2a
significant,and therefore the Project would be
consistent with this policy. Refer to Section 3.4,
Biological Resources.
General Plan Circulation Element
CT2 Attain and maintain Level of Service
Potentially Consistent (with mitigation) The proposed
(LOS) C or better on all streets and Project would increase traffic along roadways within
controlled intersections.the region. The projects TransportationImpact
Analysisfound that Project-related impacts to local
intersectionsand roadwayswould besignificant, and
require mitigation. Implementation of the Project would
result in reduced LOSat two of the studied intersection.
Project generated traffic would present a significant and
unavoidable impact at the intersection of EastGrand
Avenue/WestBranch Street. Proposed mitigation of the
impacts are summarized in mitigation measures
MM
andand include the
TRANS-3aMM TRANS-3b
installment of traffic signals and payment of a
development impact fee to the City. With
implementation of these mitigation measures, the
Project would be consistent with Policy CT2 of the
General Plan.These impacts and potential mitigation
3.7-11
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
Table 3.7-3.Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued)
Related PoliciesConsistency Analysis
measures are further discussed inSection 3.10,
.
Transportationand Traffic
CT2-1 Where deficiencies exist, mitigate to Potentially Consistent Refer to CT2 discussion.
an LOS D at a minimum and plan
improvement to achieve LOS C (LOS E or
F unacceptable = significant adverse impact
unless Statement of Overriding
Considerations or CEQA Findings approved).
The design and funding for such planned
improvements shall be sufficiently definite to
enable construction within a reasonable
period of time.
CT2-3 Require that General Plan Potentially Consistent The proposed Project would
Amendments, Rezoning Applications or generate more than 20 peak hour trips, so a
development projects involving 20 or more TransportationImpact Analysis (Appendix K) has been
estimated peak hour trip additions provide prepared, which assess potentialimpacts associated
traffic studies according to City LOS policy, with Project trip generation andsuggests potential
including subsequent amendments and mitigation of those impacts. Refer to Section 3.10,
refinements..
Transportationand Traffic
CT3 Maintain and improve existing multi-Consistent Improvements along East Cherry Avenue
modal circulation and transportation systems and potential implementation of mitigation measures to
and facilities, to maximize alternatives to new existing intersections would result in overall
street and highway construction.improvements to circulation networks. These
improvements offer new opportunities to present
alternativemodes of transportation improvements
throughout the City. Refer to Section 3.10,
Transportationand Traffic.
CT3-3 Promote non-motorized bike and Consistent Implementation of the Project would result
pedestrian circulation facilities to serve all in improvements along East Cherry Avenue, including
areas of the City and linking regional the construction of bikeways and pedestrian pathsalong
systems, with priority coordination with East Cherry Avenue and interior residential collector
school, park, transit and major public roads. These improvements aim to follow the goals set
facilities.by the Bike & Trail Master Plan for a more connected
system of pedestrian circulation facilities. Refer to
Section 3.10, .
Transportationand Traffic
CT4 Ensure compatibility and Potentially Consistent As discussed under Impact
complementary relationships between the TRANS-7 of Section 3.10, ,
Transportationand Traffic
circulation/transportation system and existing the proposed Project would result in demand for transit
and planned land uses, promoting services. To remain consistent withthis policy,
environmental objectives such as safe and un-mitigation measurerequiresthat the
MMAQ-5a
congested neighborhoods, energy Applicantscoordinate with the City and Transit
conservation, reduction of air and noise services to determine if there is an appropriate location
pollution, transit, bike and pedestrian friendly to establish a transit stop which can service the Project.
characteristics.
General Plan Parks and Recreation Element
PR1 Neighborhood and community park Potentially Consistent(with mitigation)
facilities, including the sports complex, Implementation of the proposed Project would result in
an estimated increase to population by 140 persons,
requiring the provision of 0.56acres of parkland.
3.7-12
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
Table 3.7-3.Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued)
Related PoliciesConsistency Analysis
should be provided at a ratio of four (4) acres Currently, the project will construct 0.35acres of
of parkland per 1,000 persons.parkland on the Subarea 2 lot. This results in a need for
additional parkland, but the project does include the
provision of additional recreational facilities. Proposed
mitigation measure would ensure the
MM REC-1a
adequate mitigation of this deficit via the payment of in
lieu fees to the City, or the further dedication of
additionalparklands and recreational facilities, and the
Project would remain consistent with General Plan
Policy PR1. For further discussion, refer to Impact
REC-1 in Section 3.9,
Recreation.
PR1-1 Neighborhood parks serve as the Consistent The Project includesthe development of
day-to-day recreational areas of the City, and 0.35 acres of parkland which will provide both active
should include such amenities as and passive areas for recreation including playgrounds,
playgrounds, playfields, and areas for passive park seating, pathways, bikeways, and benches. Refer
recreation.to Section 3.9,
Recreation.
PR4 A network of trail, bicycle lanes and Consistent Project improvements to East Cherry
bikeways should be established for use by Avenue will include development of a bikeway that
local residents and visitors to the Arroyo provides both residents and visitors (including visitors
Grande Valley.of Subarea 1) opportunities recreate on these bikeways.
Additional opportunities may be explored to enhance
connection with the existing bikeway system as
provided in consistent with this policy
MM REC-1a
intent and the goals of the Bicycle & Trails Master
Plan.
The provision of both bikeway improvements is
therefore consistent with the intent of this policy. Refer
to Section 3.9,
Recreation.
PR4-1.3 Proposed trails, especially bicycle Consistent The proposed Class II bikewaysalong
lanes which serve as connections to school East Cherry Avenue Flora Road would strengthen the
and recreation facilities, shall be given high bicycle and trail connections throughout the City of
priority in implementation.Arroyo Grande. This connection would provide
residents of the southeasternareas of the Citywith
bicycle route connections to the urban/ruralfringe areas
of the City. Refer to Section 3.9,
Recreation.
General Plan Land Use Element
LU2-4.1 Allow a maximum density of 4.5
Potentially Consistent Subarea 2 of the proposed
du/acre within the SR-MD designation, and Project will include the development of 58 medium
encourage neo-traditional or modern density single familyunits on 11.74 acres of property.
subdivision depending on the character of City standards restrict residential development to a
adjoining existing development.limit of 4.5 dwelling units per acre(du/acre), allowing a
total of 52.83 units on the 11.74 acres. Proposed
development of residential units is above this limit.
However, Policy LU2-4.1 of the City General Plan
allows for a 10 percent increase in allowable residential
development per acre. As Project Design Guidelines
(Appendix M) state that Subarea 2 development will be
of superior design, maximum allowable dwelling units
per acre would increase to 58.11 units, and proposed
3.7-13
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
Table 3.7-3.Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued)
Related PoliciesConsistency Analysis
development of 58 units would be consistent with this
policy.The City may determine that the Project merits
the density bonus based upon a determination of
superior design.
LU2-4.2 The Development Code may Consistent The Specific Plan would requirethat all
provide for alternative developments housing units for Subarea 2 be consistent with the
standards, and increased density (maximum Development Code standards for superior neo-
of 10%) in all SFR districts where superior traditional design. Compliance with the Development
neo-traditional subdivision design is Code would allow a 10 percent density increase on
proposed.Subarea 2 to permit development of 58 SFR units.
Refer to Section 3.1, .
Aestheticsand Visual Resources
LU9 Provide for appropriate maintenance, Consistent The proposed Project would amend
development and placement of Community existing land usedesignationsand zoningto allow
Facilities (CF) relative to existing planned residential development. Currently, no Community
land uses.Facilities exist on site; however, the Project includes
dedication and improvement of a public-neighborhood
park. Development of the Project would result in the
creation of facilities consistent with newly proposed
land uses.
LU9-4 Ensure that new developments Potentially Consistent The Project wouldconsist of
provide opportunities for recreation that are the development of a hotel, restaurant, and residential
commensurate with the level and type of and mixed use villages, and will provide recreational
development. Ensure that recreational uses resources such as a neighborhood park and community
are compatible with surrounding uses and gardens. Development of these resources are
with sensitive resources that may be present.compatible with surrounding uses and are considerate
1
of any sensitive resources that may be present. Refer
to Section 3.1, .
Aestheticsand Visual Resources
LU11-1 Require that new developments be Consistent The proposed density of the new
at an appropriate density or intensity based residential developmentisconsistent with the single
upon compatibility with the majority of family residential medium density land uses located
existing surrounding land uses. north and south of the site.Refer to Section 3.1,
.
Aestheticsand Visual Resources
LU11-1.4 Restrict new urban single family, Consistent The proposed Project will result in the
multiple family, and mobile home uses to development of medium density single family
infill areas adjacent to existing developments residences and independent senior living unitsin an
of similar density.area surrounded by such land uses at similar densities.
The proposed new residential lots within Subarea 2 are
of similar density to the existing single family
residential developments northof the site.The
provision of senior housing on Subarea3 addresses a
special housing need consistent with the Housing
Element and would be in keeping variable densities that
occur proximate to the site including the mobile home
park to the west. Refer to Section 3.1,
Aestheticsand
.
Visual Resources
1
Sensitive resources include, but are not limited to: Sensitive receptors (e.g., residential areas, places of
worship, schools, etc.), biological corridors, and sensitive habitats.
3.7-14
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
Table 3.7-3.Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued)
Related PoliciesConsistency Analysis
LU11-2 Require that new developments Consistent The Project seeks to maintain the small
should be designated to create pleasing town characteristics of the City. Compliance with the
transitions to surrounding development.Specific Plan development standards and design review
requirements of the City will ensure that the project
design provides a compatible transition with
surrounding development. Refer to Section 3.1,
.
Aestheticsand Visual Resources
LU11-2.4 Require that new developments Potentially Consistent Development of the Project
be designed so as to respect the views from would result in the obstruction of views from the
existing developments; provide view residencies along East Cherry Avenue of the natural
corridors which are oriented toward existing hillside located south of the Project site. However, the
or proposed community amenities, such as a Project proposes development of single- and two-story
park, open space, or natural features.buildings, up to a maximum height of 30 feet in the
Subarea 2 development to limit obstruction of views.
Refer to Section 3.1, .
Aestheticsand Visual Resources
LU12 Protect components of rural setting Consistent The Project site is located in the
and small town character.southeastern urbanfringe areas of the City close to rural
settings. Closest to U.S. Highway 101, the Project
consists of development of a hotel and restaurant to
serve existing residents and visitors, while transitioning
to development of single family medium density
housingand mixed uses compatible in design with
surrounding land uses and in keeping with the Citys
small town character. Refer to Section 3.1,
Aesthetics
.
and Visual Resources
LU12-1 Recognizeagriculture, natural Consistent Developmentof the Project would result
hillsides, clean air quality and linear open in the conversion of prime farmland currently zoned for
spaces along Arroyo Grande and Tally Ho agriculture. However, the Project proposes to dedicate a
creeks as valuable components of the Citys conservation easement of prime farmland adjacent to
rural setting and essential elements worthy of the southern banks of Arroyo Grande Creek, which
conservation and preservation.would ensure long term conservationof Subarea 2
prime farmland soils, as well as the conservation of
open space adjacent to Arroyo Grande Creek. The
conservation of this land would be consistent with this
policy, as well as with Policy Ag1.Refer to Section 3.2,
.
Agricultural Resources
LU12-3.5 Require the provision of open
Potentially Consistent Refer to PR1 discussion.
space and recreational areas within the urban
residential portions of the City.
LU12-6 Require that residential street Potentially Consistent The proposed Project includes
design be sensitive to existing landforms and the development of residential streets and a residential
minimize traffic volumes on local residential alley way withinSubarea 2 to connect with East Cherry
streets.Avenue. The Project alsoincludes improvements to
East Cherry Avenueto accommodate additional traffic
volumes along the roadway. Impacts to the residential
streets of Subarea 2 are discussed under Impact
TRANS-5 of Section 3.10,,
Transportation and Traffic
and implementation of the recommended condition of
3.7-15
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
Table 3.7-3.Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued)
Related PoliciesConsistency Analysis
approval would result in General Plan
MM TRANS-5a
consistency withthe Project.
LU12-8 Emphasize the incorporation of Consistent Project development wouldinclude
landscape themes and extensive landscaped landscaped areas along East Cherry Avenue, throughout
areas into new development.the Subarea 2 residential development, and extensive
landscape design for the Subarea 3 development.
Landscape design and considerations are assessed in
Section 3.1, .
Aestheticsand Visual Resources
LU12-9 Encourage the provisions of Consistent The East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
custom homes or homes that simulate rural, Design Guidelines includes design standards and
small town, custom home atmosphere.architectural guidelines for the single family residential
component of the Specific Plan. Proposed design of the
Project seeks to achieve compatibility with existing
residential units and encourage a friendly and
pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. Several home
designs are proposed for thedevelopment that
incorporate architecturalelements (e.g., board and
batten siding, color tones, maximum two-story tall
residences, etc.) and details of a small town
atmosphere.
LU12-14 Consider refinement to outdoor Consistent Lighting for the Project wouldbe designed
lighting design, height, placement and to comply with City Development Code Chapter
intensity level to minimize disruptionof light 6.48.090 and the International Dark-Sky
sources to adjacent properties or public Association/Illuminating Engineers Society Model
spaces.Lighting Ordinance. Such features are designed to
minimizespillover light ontoadjacent properties while
addressing security and energy efficiency needs.Refer
to Section 3.1,
Aestheticsand Visual Resources.
General Plan Safety Element
S2-1 Strictly enforce flood hazard
Consistent The Project is not located within or
regulations both current and revised. Federal adjacent to designated floodplains andconforms to
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations established to minimize the risk of flooding
regulations and other requirements for the or flood hazards. Additionally, the Project would not
placement of structures in flood plains shall result in the creation or worsening of known flood or
be followed. Maintain standards for drainage problems. New drainage facilities are
development in flood-prone and poorly proposed for the Project site which are designed to
drained areas.withstand runoff and stormwater flows in the event of a
100-year storm.Refer to Section 3.6,
Hydrologyand
.
Water Quality
S2-1.1 Discourage development, Consistent Refer to S2-1discussion.
particularly critical facilities, in areas of high
flood potential.Do not allow development
within areas designated as the 100-year flood
plain that would obstruct flood flow or be
subject to flood damage. Do not allow
development which will create or worsen
known flood or drainage problems.
S2-1.3 Review development plans for Consistent Refer to S2-1 discussion.
construction of structures in low-lying areas,
3.7-16
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.7LU
ANDSE
Table 3.7-3.Consistency with General Plan Policies (Continued)
Related PoliciesConsistency Analysis
or any area which may pose a serious
drainage or flooding condition. Susceptibility
to damage from flooding should be
determined based on the 100-year flood.
S3 Reduce the threat to life, structures and Potentially Consistent (with mitigation) Onsite fire
the environment caused by fire.and emergency vehicle access would be provided to
serve the Project consistent with City requirements. The
development wouldbe located adjacent to a hillside
which presents to potential risk of wildland fire to the
site. However, mitigation measures
MM HAZ-3a-e
address the mitigation of potential threats caused by fire
including requirements for an Applicant prepared
Wildfire Emergency Management Plan, implementation
of smoke detectors and emergency evacuation plans,
use of fire resistant building material, and fire resistant
plant selections. With theimplementation of these
mitigation measures, the Project would remain
consistent with Policy S3 of the General Plan, and
would impacts associated with threats of wildland fire
would be less than significant with mitigationRefer to
.
Impact HAZ-4 in Section 3.5,
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials.
S3-1 New development should be designed Potentially Consistent Refer to S3 discussion.
and constructed to minimize fire hazards,
with special attention given to fuel
management, adequate water supply for
suppression and improved access to higher
fire risk areas.
S4-6.1 For developments in areas of known Potentially Consistent (with mitigation) The Project
slope instability, landslides, or slopes steeper would develop an infill site located adjacent to the foot
than 20 percent, the stability of slopes shall be of a natural slope along the sites southern boundary.
addressed by registered professionals An Applicant prepared Numerical Slope Stability
practicing in their respective fields of Evaluation (Appendix L) was conducted for the
expertise. For subdivisions, such studies adjacent slope to determine the risk of mud flows to the
should be performed prior to delineating lot Project site. The report concluded that the slope
lines and building envelopes.adjacent to the site is stable, but the slope may be
affected by periods of prolonged saturation or severe
erosion due to poor surface drainage.Impact HYD-3
provides mitigation measures () which
MM HYD-3a-c
address alteration to onsite surface drainage and
promote the use of BMPs such that onsite stormwater
facilities adequately convey onsite and offsite
stormwater.With implementation of these mitigation
measures, the proposed Project would be consistent
with City General Plan Policy S4-6.1. Refer to Section
3.6,.
Hydrology and Water Quality
3.7-17
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
3.8N
OISE
This section addresses the noise and vibration impacts associated with construction and
development under the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project). Noise is generally
defined as unwanted sound that interferes with normal activities or otherwise diminishes
the quality of the environment.Noise is usually measured as sound level on a logarithmic
decibel (dB) scale.
3.8.1Environmental Setting
3.8.1.1Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise
Noise
Prolonged exposure to high levels of noise is known to have several adverse effects on
people, including hearing loss, communication interference, sleep interference,
physiological responses, and annoyance. The noise environment typically includes
background noise generated from both near and distant noise sources as well as the sound
from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing
by to continuous noise from sources such as traffic on a major road.
The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the dB and given that the
human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-
dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-
weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against
frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Decibels are
based on the logarithmic scale that compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to
a more useable range of numbers in a manner similar to the way that the Richter scale is
used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, studies have indicated
that a noise level increase of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to most people, a5 dBA
increase is readily noticeable, and a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a
doubling of loudness. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA to 100. Examples of
various sound levels in different environments are shown in Table 3.8-1.
3.8-1
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
Table 3.8-1. Representative Noise Levels
Noise Level
Common Outdoor ActivitiesCommon Indoor Activities
(dBA)
110 Rock Band
Power Saw
Crying Baby
Jet Fly-over at 100 feet
100
Subway
Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet
90
Rail Transit Horn/ Tractor
Food Blender at 3 feet
Jack Hammer
80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Rail Transit At-grade (50 mph)
Noisy Urban Area during Daytime
70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Gas Lawnmower at 100 feet
Normal Speech at 3 feet
Rail Transit in Station/ Commercial
Area
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60 Sewing Machine
Air Conditioner Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Area during Daytime 50 Dishwasher in Next Room
Refrigerator
Theater, Large Conference Room
Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime 40
(background)
Quiet Suburban Area during
Nighttime
30 Library
Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall
Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime
(background)
20
Broadcast/Recording Studio
10
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing0 Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing
Source: California Department of Transportation 1998.
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community
noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider the
effect of noise upon people largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of
the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Each noise rating scale
applicable to this analysis is defined as follows:
3.8-2
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
L(equivalent energy noise level) is the average acoustic energy content of noise
eq
for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a
steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear
during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not
vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.
CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) is a 24-hour average Lwith a 5
eq
dBA weighting during the hours of 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and a 10 dBA
weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account
for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic
effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24-hour Lwould result in a
eq
measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL.
L (day-night average noise level) is a 24-hour average Lwith a 10 dBA
dneq
weighting added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account
for noise sensitivity in the nighttime. The logarithmic effect of these additions is
that a 60 dBA 24-hour L would result in a measurement of 66.4 dBA L.
eqdn
L(minimum instantaneous noise level) is the minimum instantaneous noise
min
level experienced during a given period of time.
L(maximum instantaneous noise level) is the maximum instantaneous noise
max
level experienced during a given period of time.
Noise levels from a particular source decline (attenuate) as distance to the receptor
increases. Other factors, such as the weather and reflecting or shielding by buildings or
other structures, intensify or reduce the noise level at a location. A common method for
estimating roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the noise
level is reduced by about 3 dBA at acoustically hard locations (i.e., mostly asphalt,
concrete, hard-packed soil, or other solid materials) and 4.5 dBA at acoustically soft
locations (i.e., contains normal earth or vegetation, such as grass).
Noise from stationary or point sources (including construction noise) is reduced by about
6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance at acoustically hard and soft locations,
respectively. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures. Generally, a
single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level
by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm can reduce noise levels by up to 5 to 10 dBA.
The manner in which older homes in California were constructed generally provides a
reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows.
The exterior-to-interior noise reduction of newer residential units is generally 30 dBA or
more.
3.8-3
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
Groundborne Vibration
Vibration is sound radiated through the
ground. The vibration of floors and walls
may cause perceptible vibration, rattling of
items such as windows or dishes on shelves,
or a rumble noise. The rumble is the noise
radiated from the motion of the room
surfaces. In essence, the room surfaces act
like a giant loudspeaker causing what is
called groundborne noise. Groundborne
Roads nearthe Project siteexperience noise-
producing traffic from adjacent residential
vibration is almost never annoying to people
areas to and from arterial roadways.
who are outdoors. Although the motion of the
ground may be perceived, without the effects
associated with the shaking of a building, the motion does not provoke the same adverse
human reaction. In addition, the rumble noise that usually accompanies the building
vibration is perceptible only inside buildings. The ground motion caused by vibration is
measured as particle velocity in inches per second; in the U.S., this is referenced as
vibration decibels(VdB)(Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006a).The vibration
velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration
velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and
distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused
by sources within buildings, such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of
people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne
vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a
roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. The
range of interest for groundborne vibration is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the
typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold
where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings(Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc.
2006a). General human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity
levels are described in Table 3.8-2.
3.8-4
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
Table 3.8-2. Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration
Vibration Velocity
Human Response
Level
65 VdBApproximate threshold of perception for many humans.
75 VdBApproximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible.
Many people find transit vibration at this level annoying.
85 VdBVibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day.
Source: (Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006a),
3.8.1.2Existing Noise Environment
The Project site is located adjacent to alow density single family neighborhood, on the
semi-rural edge of the City. The predominant source of noise comes from vehicular
traffic on adjacent or nearby roads. The Project vicinity generally experiences low noise
levels. Noise in this areaischaracteristic of quiet suburban neighborhoods that typically
experience noise between 46 and 52dB CNEL(EPA 1974).Roadway noise is a function
of traffic volume, vehicle fleet mix, and traffic speeds. High traffic volumes generate
more noise than low volumes. A vehiclefleetmix with a high percentage of trucks is
noisier than a mixcomposed of mostly passenger automobiles. These variables indicate
that roads with hightrafficvolumes of mixed traffic traveling at high speeds are prime
sources of roadway noise.
Specifically, the principal contributors to the ambient noise environment at the Project
site are traffic along TrafficWayadjacent to the site,and along the U.S. Highway 101,
approximately 300 feet west of the Project site.Traffic along East Cherry Avenue also
generates some traffic-related noise. The Project site may generate some minor noise
levels associated with agricultural activities that occur within Subareas 1 and 2, such as
tilling, planting, irrigation, and harvesting.
3.8.1.3Sensitive Receptors
Noise sensitive uses, or receptors,generally include single- and multi-family residences,
schools, libraries, medical facilities, retirement/assisted living homes, health care
facilities, and places of worship. Such uses can be sensitive to increases in both short-
term and long-term noise due to a range of issues,such as sleep disturbance and
disruption of conversations, lectures or sermons, or decreased attractiveness of exterior
use areas,such as patios, backyards, or parks. Of particular concern is exposure of
sensitive receptors to long-term elevated interior noise levels and sleep disturbance,
which can be associatedwith health concerns.
3.8-5
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
No sensitive land uses are currently within the Project site. Sensitive land uses in the
Project vicinity includea residential neighborhood with single-family residences along
East Cherry Avenue to the north, single family residences adjacent to the northeast and
south, Vagabond Mobile Home Parkadjacent to the southwestcontaining approximately
25 units, and the St. Barnabas Episcopal Church located on the adjacent hillside property
200 feet to the southeast (see Figure 3.8-1).
Figure 3.8-1. Noise Sensitive Receptors
3.8.2Regulatory Setting
3.8.2.1Federal
Federal Transit Administration Criteria
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) developed methodology and significance
criteria to evaluatenoisevibration impacts from surface transportation modes (i.e.,
passenger cars, trucks, buses, and rail) in the Transit Noise Impact and Vibration
Assessment(Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006a). For residential buildings, the
3.8-6
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
noise and vibration threshold applicable to these projects is 64 dBA CNEL and 80 VdB,
respectively.
Federal Noise Control Act (1972)
Public Law 92-574 regulates noise emissions from operation of all construction
equipment and facilities; establishes noise emission standards for construction equipment
and other categories of equipment; and provides standards for the testing, inspection, and
monitoring of such equipment. This Act gives states and municipalities primary
responsibility for noise control.
3.8.2.2State
State of Californias Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Element of the
General Plan (1987)
These guidelines reference land use compatibility standards for community noise
environments as developed by the California Department of Health Services, Office of
Noise Control.Sound levels up to 65 Lor CNEL are determined to be normally
dn
acceptable for multi-family residential land uses.Sound levels up to 70 dBA CNEL are
normally acceptable for buildings containing professional offices or defined as business
commercial.However, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is
recommended when new residential development is proposed in areas where existing
sound levels approach 70 dBA CNEL.
3.8.2.3Local
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
General Plan, Noise Element
According to state law, a Noise Element is required in all City and County general plans.
The City slightly modified land use compatibility standards recommended by the
California Department of Health Services.The Citys maximum noise exposure standards
for noise-sensitive land use (specific to transportation noise sources) are shown inTable
3.8-3. Since residentialland uses are considered noise-sensitive, there arerecommended
maximum noise exposure guidelines.
3.8-7
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
Table 3.8-3. Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure Transportation Noise Sources
Outdoor
Activity Areas¹Interior Spaces
Land Use L/CNEL, dBL/CNEL, dBLdB
dndnsq1/2
3
6045--
Residential
3
6045--
Transient Lodging
3
6045--
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
----35
Theaters, Auditoriums, Music Halls
3
60--45
Churches, Meeting Halls, Office Buildings
4 3
6045--
Restaurants
----45
Schools, Libraries, Museums, Preschools, Child Care
Facilities
Playgrounds (including school playgrounds)70----
1
Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown. The exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the
property line of the receiving land use.
2
As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.
3
Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB L/CNEL or less using a practical
dn
application of best-available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB L/CNEL may be
dn
allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise
levels are in compliance with this table.
4
Restaurants included with or without outdoor dining or entertainment and/or drive-up windows.
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2001.
Policy N1-2 New development of noise-sensitive land uses shall not be permitted in
areas exposed to existing or projected future levels of noise from transportation noise
sources which exceed 60 dB Lor CNEL (70 L/CNEL for playgrounds and
dndn
neighborhood parks) unless the project design includes effective mitigation measures to
reduce noise in outdoor activity areas and interior spaces to or below the levels specified
for given land use in Table 3.8-3.
Policy N2 & 3-3 New development of noise-sensitive land uses shall not be permitted
where the noise level due to existing stationary noise sources will exceed the noise level
standards of Table 3.8-5 unless effective noisemitigation measures have been
incorporated into the design of the development to reduce noise exposure to or below the
levels specified in Table 3.8-4.
The Citys Noise Element lists mitigation strategies in a descending order of desirability.
If preferred strategies are not implemented, it is the responsibility of the applicant to
demonstrate through a detailed noise study that the more desirable approaches are either
not effective or not practical, before considering other design criteria contained in the
General Plan:
3.8-8
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
Table 3.8-4. Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Land Use Areas Due to
Stationary Noise Sources
DaytimeNighttime2
(7:00 AMto 10:00 PM)(10:00 PM to 7:00 AM)
3
Hourly L, dB 5045
eq
3
Maximum level, dB 7065
4
Maximum level, dB-Impulsive Noise 6560
1
As determined at the property line of the receiving land use. When determining the effectiveness of noise mitigation
measures, the standards may be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property line noise mitigation
measures. Where the noise-sensitive land uses are parks or playgrounds, add ten (10) decibels to the noise level
standards in this table.
2
Applies only where the receiving land use operates or is occupied during the nighttime hours.
3
Sound level measurements shall be made with slow meter response.
4
Sound level measurements shall be made with fast meter response.
Source: (City of Arroyo Grande 2001).
Table 3.8-5. Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment
Construction EquipmentNoise Levels in dBA Leq at 50 Feet
8295
Trucks
Cranes (moveable)7588
Cranes (derrick)8689
6882
Vibrator
Saws 7282
Generators 7183
7587
Compressors
Concrete Mixers 7588
Concrete Pumps 8185
7395
Back Hoe
Tractor 7798
Scraper/Grader 8093
8588
Paver
Note: Machinery equipped with noise control devices or other noise-reducing design features does not generate the
same level of noise emissions as that shown in this table.
Source:U.S. Department of Transportation2013.
Policy N5-1 The City would consider the followingmitigation measures appropriate
where existing sound levels significantly impact noise-sensitive land uses, or where
cumulative increases in sound levels resulting from new development significantly
impact existing noise-sensitive land uses:
a)Rerouting traffic onto streets that have low traffic volumes or onto streets that do
not adjoin noise-sensitive land uses.
b)Rerouting trucks onto streets that do not adjoin noise-sensitive land uses.
3.8-9
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
c)Constructing noise barriers.
d)Lowering speed limits.
e)Acoustical treatment of buildings.
f)Programs to pay for noise mitigation such as low cost loans of noise-impacted
property or establishment of developer fees.
City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.16 - Noise
The Citys Municipal Code (§9.16) specifies noise standards for various sources of noise,
exceptions to noise standards, noise level measurement standards, and the penalties
associated with the violation of any provisions of this chapter.
Section 9.16.030(d) Noise sources associated with construction, provided such
activities do not take place before 7:00 AMor after 10:00 PM on any day except
Saturday or Sunday, or before 8:00 AM or after 5:00 PM on Saturday or Sunday.
Section 9.16.030(e) Noise sources associated with the routine maintenance of a
residential, commercial, industrial, or public/quasi-public property provided that such
maintenance activities take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM.
Section 9.16.030(g) Noise sources associated with work performed by the city or
private or public utilities in the maintenance or modification of its facilities.
Section 9.16.030(h) Noise sources associated with the collection of waste or garbage
from property devoted to other than residential uses.
Section 9.16.060(a) Air Conditioning and Refrigeration. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 9.16.040, when the intruding noise source is an air conditioning or
refrigeration system or associated equipment installed prior to the effective date of this
chapter, the exterior noise level as measured as provided in Section 9.16.070 shall not
exceed fifty-five (55) dB, except where such equipment is exempt from the provisions of
this chapter. The exterior noise level shall not exceed fifty (50) dB for such equipment
installed or in use after one year after the effective date of this chapter.
Section 9.16.060(b) Waste and Garbage Collection Equipment. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 9.16.040, noise sources associated with the collection of waste or
garbage from a residential use by persons authorized to engage in such activity, and who
are operating truck-mounted loading or compacting equipment, shall not take place
before 7:00 AMor after 7:00 PM, and the noise level created by such activities when
3.8-10
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
measured at a distance of 50 feet in an open area shall not exceed the following
standards:
85 dB for equipment in use, purchased or leased within six months from the
effective date of this chapter;
80 dB for the equipment set forth above after five years from the effective date of
this chapter;
80 dB for new equipment purchased or leased after six months from the effective
date of this chapter;
75 dB for new equipment purchased or leased after 36 months from the effective
date of this chapter.
3.8.3Environmental Impact Analysis
3.8.3.1Thresholds of Significance
Sound levels for the Project must comply with relevant noise policies, standards, and
ordinances. Appendix G of the 2016CEQA Guidelines provides a set of screening
questions that address impacts related to noise. Specifically, the Guidelines state that a
proposed project would have a significant adverse impact related to noise if:
a)The project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies;
b)The project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels;
c)The project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project;
d)The project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project;
e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the project
would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels; or
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project would expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
In addition to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance, the City
considers exceedance of a 3dB increase (a perceptible change) along roadways and/or the
Citys Noise Elementdefined maximumdecibelsfor both outdoor and indoor residential
uses (see preceding Tables 3.8-3 and 3.8-4) as a potential significant noise impact.
3.8-11
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
3.8.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology
Construction Noise
Anticipated construction sound levels were estimated and analyzed based on projected
construction vehicle requirements, distance between sensitive receptors and construction
activities, and proposed daytime operational levels. Standard noise generation levels for
typical construction equipment were used to estimate construction sound levels.
Noise levels were estimated using data published by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) regarding the noise-generating characteristics of typical construction activities
(seeTable 3.8-5). These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the
construction site, at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance as equipment
is generally stationary or confined to specific areas during construction. For example, a
noise level of 86 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would
reduce to 80 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and reduce by another 6
dBA to 74 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receptor. The noise levels from
construction at the offsite sensitive uses can be determined with the following equation
from the High-Speed Ground Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report:
Lat sensitive use= Lat 50 feet 20 Log(D/50)
eq eq
L= noise level of noise source, D = distance from the noise source to the receiver, and
eq
L at 50 feet = noise level of source at 50 feet (U.S. Department of Transportation 2012).
eq
Vibration Levels Associated with Construction Equipment
Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the
City were estimated using the 2013 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration
Guidance Manual. Potential vibration levels are identified for on and offsite locations
that are sensitive to vibration, including nearby residences. Caltrans provides thresholds
of significance for vibration and methodology for calculating vibration levels at distances
from generation. Table 3.8-6 indicates vibration levels at which humans would be
affected by vibration levels.Table 3.8-7 identifies anticipated vibration velocity levels in
inches per second (in/sec) for standard types of construction equipment based on distance
from the receptor.Vibration impacts areassessed by estimating the vibration levels of
Project construction equipment and the distance of sensitive receptors to the site
boundary.
3.8-12
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
Table 3.8-6. Caltrans Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria
Maximum Vibration Level
Maximum Vibration Level
Human Response Condition(in/sec) for Continuous/Frequent
(in/sec) for Transient Sources
Intermittent Sources
0.040.01
Barely perceptible
0.250.04
Distinctly perceptible
0.90.10
Strongly perceptible
2.00.4
Severe
Source: Caltrans, 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual Table 20.
Table 3.8-7. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Construction Vibration Level (in/sec) Vibration Level (in/sec) Vibration Level (in/sec)
Equipmentat 25 feetat 50 feetat 100 feet
Large Bulldozer 0.0890.0310.011
Loaded Trucks 0.0760.0350.017
Jackhammer 0.0350.0160.008
Small Bulldozer 0.0030.0010.0004
Source: Caltrans, 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual Table 18.
Operational & Traffic Noise
Noise generated from proposed Project stationary sources wasestimated based on the
typical dBA levels generated from urban uses, such as HVAC equipment, delivery trucks,
and other common uses.Project-related roadway noise was considered in terms of traffic
impacts related to existing conditions by the proposed Project. Daily operational noise
levels generated by Project traffic was derived from the Transportation Impact Analysis
(TIA)prepared by Omni Meansin 2015 (See Appendix K). Noise projections were
derived based on calculations and percentage changes in evening peak hour traffic
volumes using applications consistent with FHWA traffic noise modeling(FHWA 2014).
3.8.4Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impactswere analyzed for the existing and future noise environment, and appropriate
noise-control mitigation measures are recommended below.
3.8-13
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
Table 3.8-8. Summary of Project Impacts
Noise ImpactsMitigation MeasuresResidual Significance
Impact NOI-1. Short-term construction MM TRANS-1a Less than Significant
activities would temporarily generate adverse MM NOI-1awith Mitigation
noise and vibration levels that would exceed MM NOI-1b
thresholds established in the Citys General
Plan Noise Element.
Impact NOI-2. Long-term noise impacts None requiredLess than Significant
from vehicle traffic associated with the
Project would result in increased noise levels
to sensitive receptors of up to 1.4 CNEL;
however, this increase would be
indiscernible to the human ear and not
exceed federal, state, or City noise criteria.
Impact NOI-3. Long-term operational noise MM NOI-3aLess than Significant
impacts associated with the Project from the MM NOI-3bwith Mitigation
operation of stationary equipment and site
maintenance activities could result in the
exceedance of thresholds in the Citys
General Plan Noise Element.
Impact
NOI-1 Short-term construction activities would temporarily generate
adverse noise and vibration levels that would exceed thresholds
established in theCitys General Plan Noise Element (Less than
Significant with Mitigation).
Implementation of the Project would involve construction that could generate noise levels
that exceed applicable standards for mobile construction equipment in the Citys Noise
Standards and result in temporary substantial increases in noise levels primarily from the
use of heavy-duty construction equipment.Construction activities would also involve the
use of smaller power tools, generators, and other equipment that are sources of noise.
Haul trucks using the local roadways would generate noise as they move along the road.
Each stage of construction would involve various combinations of operating equipment,
and noise levels would vary based on the amount and typesof equipment and the location
of the activity. Further, not all construction equipment would be operated simultaneously
and peak sound levels associated with construction equipment would occur sporadically
throughout the workday.Becauseestimated sound levels associated with construction
activities would exceed the Citys threshold for noise exposure during construction,
onsite and offsite short-term noise impacts would be potentially significant.
3.8-14
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
Onsite
The grading and site preparation phase of the Project would generate the highest
construction sound levels because of the operation of heavy equipment; specifically,
work associated with the construction of the proposed hotel and restaurant on Subarea 1,
the 58 single-family residences on Subarea 2, and acommunity center building and 10-
unit senior housing building on Subarea 3 would potentially generate the greatest noise
levels for the nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Peak sound levels associated with heavy
equipment typically range between 75 and 95 dBA at 50 feet from the source (EPA 1971;
refer to Table 3.8-5).No construction phasing of the Project has been determined at this
time, but at the time of construction, each phase would be subject to permit review to
ensure conformity with the approved Project Specific Plan and consistency with
applicable regulations.
Given that the noise-sensitive single-family residences adjacent to the northand south of
the Project site, the FiveCities Swim School adjacent to the north,and the Vagabond
Mobile Home Park adjacent to the southwest are located 50 feet or less from proposed
construction activities, sound levels at these locations associated with construction
activity have the potential to be slightly greater the estimated sound level ranges of
construction equipment shown in Table 3.8-5 (exact noise levels of construction
equipment is dependent on year, make, model, condition, and presence or absence of
noise mufflers) and would exceed maximum sound level criteria (refer to Table 3.8-4).
Anticipated sound levels at other noise-sensitive receptor locations at 200feet of the
Project site boundary (St. Barnabas Episcopal Church approximately 200 feet to the
southeast, single-family residences approximately 100 feet to the northeast) would also
most likely exceed construction-related sound level criteria (refer to Table 3.8-4). These
noise-sensitive receptors,at their maximum distance of 200 feet from the Project
boundary, would experience construction-related sound levels approximately 6 to 12
dBA less than the estimated noise levels of the construction equipment (e.g., 63-83 dBA
for trucks and backhoes instead of 75-95 dBA). Although construction activities could
still potentially generate noise that would exceed City noise standards for residential use
and cause periodic annoyance to nearby residents(see Table 3.8-9), under City municipal
code 9.16.030(d), noise sources associated with construction are exempt from City noise
standards, provided construction does not take place before 7:00 AM or after 10:00 PM
on any day except Saturday or Sunday, or before 8:00 AM or after 5:00 PM on Saturday
or Sunday.
3.8-15
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
Maximum Lnoise levels anticipated to be experienced by these nearby sensitive uses
eq
due to Project construction activities are shown inTable 3.8-9. All distances are a
conservative estimate anddo not account for potential noise barriers due to vegetation or
topography.
Table 3.8-9. Estimated Outdoor Construction Peak Noise Levels at Sensitive
Receptors (Unmitigated)
Residences
Residences Residences
to the 5 Cities Vagabond St. Barnabus
to the Northto the South
NortheastSwim Mobile Home Episcopal
Along E. off of S.
Along SchoolParkChurch
Cherry AveTraffic Way
Launa Ln
Distance from
40feet20feet50 feet40feet20feet200 feet
construction
Construction
Noise (dBA 77-97 83-10375-9577-9783-10363-83
L)
eq
Note: Noise levels at sensitive uses were determined with the following equation from the High-Speed Ground Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report: Leq = Lat distance (feet). 20 Log(D/50), where Leq = noise level
eq
of noise source, D = distance from the noise source to the receiver, Leq at 50 feet = noise level of source at 50 feet.
Noise levels have been rounded up to the nearest whole number.
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation 2012.
Project construction could also increase exposure to vibration levels. Based on Caltrans
vibration criteria inTable 3.8-6 and Table 3.8-7, sensitive receptors within 100 feet of the
Project site would be subject to vibrations from construction equipment.Sensitive
receptors within 25 feet of the Project site boundary would include those within the
Vagabond Mobile Home Park and residences adjacent to Subarea 3 along Launa Lane.
These sensitive receptors could experience periodic vibrations up to 0.089 in/sec. This
would be distinctly perceptible. However, vibrations would be temporary and intermittent
due to the nature of construction, and would only occur during the hours of construction
in accordance with Mitigation Measure NOI-1a.Sensitive receptions located between 25
and 100 feet from the Project site may experience vibrations up to 0.035 in/sec. This
would only be barely perceptible.
Offsite
Off-site construction vehicles would exceed maximum noise level criteria for mobile
equipment (refer to Table 3.8-3). Sound levels associated with large haul trucks would
have an approximate range of 75 to 95 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source. This sound
level range would most likely exceed maximum allowable mobile source noise levels
associated with sensitive-noise receptorslocated along construction truck routes in the
3.8-16
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
vicinity of the Project site including East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way.
Implementation of the Construction Transportation Mitigation Plan would mitigate noise
impacts associated with constructiontraffic.
Due to the temporary nature of construction activities, these exceedances would be
adverse in the short term. Overall, onsite and offsite construction noise and vibration
impacts would be .
less than significant with mitigation
Mitigation Measuresfor All Subareas
MM TRANS-1a would apply.
MM NOI-1a For all construction activity at the Project site, additional noise
attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed to ensure that noise
levels are maintained within levels allowed by the CitysNoise Standards.
Such techniques shall include, but are not limited to:
Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment.
Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65
dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with a barrier that
meets a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers
attenuate sound) of 25.
All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and
shall be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of
passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors
shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday
through Saturday.No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on
Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day).
Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction
sites and affected uses.
MM NOI-1b The contractor shall inform residentsand business operators at properties
within 300 feet of the Project site of proposed construction timelines and
noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to
construction noise. Noise-related complaints shall be directed to the Citys
Community Development Department.
Plan Requirements and Timing.The Applicants shall provide and post
signs stating these restrictions at construction site entries. Signs shall be
posted prior to commencement of construction and maintained throughout
construction. Construction plans shall note construction hours. At the pre-
3.8-17
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
construction meeting all construction workers shall be briefed on restricted
construction hour limitations. A workday schedule will be adhered to for
the duration of construction. The Applicants shall designate the equipment
area with appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans.
Equipment and shielding shall be installed prior to construction and
remain in the designated location throughout construction activities.
Construction plans shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to
be implemented during construction. All construction workers shall be
briefed at a pre-construction meeting on how, why, and where BMP
measures are to be implemented. BMPs shall be identified and described
for submittal to the Cityfor review and approval prior to building or
grading permitissuance. BMPs shall be adhered to for the duration of the
Project.Construction plans shall include truck routes and shall be
submitted to the Cityprior to permitissuance for each phase of
development. Schedule and mailing list shall be submitted 10 days prior to
initiation of any earth movement.
Monitoring.The Applicants shall demonstrate that required signs are
posted prior to grading/building permit issuance and pre-construction
meeting. Building inspectors and permit compliance staff shall spot check
and respond to complaints. The Applicants shall demonstrate that the
acoustic shielding is in place prior to commencement of construction
activities. City staff shall ensure compliance throughout construction.
Permit compliance monitoring staff shall perform periodic site inspections
to verify compliance with activity schedules.
Residual Impact
Some noise from construction activities associated with Impact NOI-1 would occur
despite implementation of mitigation measures MM NOI-1a and NOI-1b. These residual
noise impacts would be temporary and would occur within limited hours, and
construction activities would avoid sensitive receptors to the maximum extent feasible.
Therefore residual impacts to Impact NOI-1 would be less than significant with
mitigation.
3.8-18
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
Impact
NOI-2 Long-term noise impacts from vehicle trafficassociated with the
Projectwould result in increased noise levels to sensitive receptors of
up to 1.4 CNEL; however, this increase would be indiscernible to the
human ear and not exceed federal, state, or City noise criteria (Less
than Significant).
Implementation of the Projectwould increase traffic volumes and associated noise levels
along major transportation routes. According to the TIA, the Project is anticipated to
generate 1,646 average daily trips (ADT), including 132 AM peak hour trips and 157 PM
peak hour trips (Omni Means 2015, see Appendix K). These Project-generated trips
would be distributed throughout the Project vicinityacross a number of intersections (see
Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic for further detail).The additional daily trips on
streets that are farther away from the Project site, such as Fair Oaks Avenue, East Branch
Street, and West Branch would not causea substantial increase in traffic-related noise to
the Project siteas these streets would experience less than eight percent increases in
ADT.
Traffic counts along Traffic Waywould result in a 10 percent or less increase when
comparing baseline to proposed scenarios(based on data provided in Appendix K), thus,
according to the FHWA transportation noise model,sound levels would only increase by
approximately 0.4 dBA (FHWA 2014), at 30 feet from the centerline of the roadway.
Traffic counts along East Cherry Avenue would increase by 37percent and would result
in an associated noise level of +1.4 dBA (FHWA 2014). Changes in noise level of 3.0
dBA are considered just noticeably perceptible to the human ear(Harris Miller Miller &
Hanson Inc. 2006a).Therefore, the increase of traffic-related noise of +1.4 dBA from
nearby sensitive receptors would only be an incremental increase.
Table 3.8-10. Estimated Noise Increases Attributed to Project Traffic
Estimated Increase in PM Peak Hour Estimated Increase in Traffic
Roadway
1
Noise (dBA)
Traffic
Traffic Way 10%0.4
East Cherry Avenue 37%1.4
1
At 30 feet from centerline of roadway.
Source:Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006a.
Given this increase and sensitive receptors along the roadway, traffic sound levels of both
existing and proposed Project were calculated. Calculation inputs included PM peak hour
traffic along East Cherry Avenue (289), traffic fleet mix (98percentautomobiles and 2
3.8-19
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
percent buses/large trucks), speed limit (35 miles per hour), distance from center line (30
feet), and vehicle reference constants as depicted in the Federal Transit Administrations
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.Given that the PM Peak Hour counts are
approximately 10% of the ADT and assuming that 24-hour Leq is equal to Peak PM hour
Leq, which would overestimate traffic sound levels in non-peak PM hours, calculated
noise levels from traffic along East Cherry Avenue would be 61.0CNELunder existing
conditions and 62.4CNELwith implementation of the proposed Project, at
approximately 30 feet from the roadway. This 1.4 CNELincrease along East Cherry
Avenue would be indiscernible to the human ear(see Table 3.8-11).
Table 3.8-11. Existing Noise, Estimated Noise, and Noise Increase Attributed to
Project Traffic
RoadwayEstimated Existing Estimated Noise under Increased Noise
12
Noise (CNEL)the Proposed Projectunder the Proposed
Project (CNEL)
61.062.41.4
East Cherry Avenue
1
At 30 feet from centerline of roadway.
2
Estimated noise at nearest sensitive receptors.
Estimated existingnoise levels associated with transportation along East Cherry Avenue
currently exceeds the Citys Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure for Transportation
Noise Sources at Outdoor Activity Areasof 60CNELfor sensitive receptors; however, as
stated inPolicy N1-2 of the Noise Element,whereit is not possible to reduce noise in
outdoor activity areas to 60 dB CNEL or less using a practical application of best-
available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB CNEL may be
allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been
implemented and interior noise levels are below 45CNEL.Typical reductions in noise
levels from exterior to interior conditions for older construction style residences is
approximately 22-25 dBA (City of San Luis Obispo 2003), thus the +1.4 dB CNEL
increase associated with traffic along East Cherry Avenue would only incrementally
increase interior noise levels and is anticipated to below the 45 dB CNEL interior noise
threshold and would comply with the Citys Noise Element. Given that noise levels
would remain below federal, state, and City (with exception)noise criteria, impacts
would be .
less than significant
Mitigation Measures
Nomitigation measures required.
3.8-20
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
Impact
NOI-3 Long-term operational noise impacts associated with the Projectfrom
the operation of stationary equipment and site maintenance activities
could result in the exceedance of thresholds in the Citys General Plan
Noise Element (Less than Significant with Mitigation).
Implementationof the Project could increase stationary source noise levels from new
development, with potential to exceed the land use capability and stationary noise
exposure standards in the existing Noise Element.
Long-term operational noise impacts associated withthe proposed Project would include
maintenance and pickup/delivery activities, andnoise-generating rooftop equipment such
as air conditioners or kitchen ventilation systems. The residences and buildings on
Subareas 2 and 3 would contribute some of these noise impacts, due to maintenance
activities such as trash pick-up and landscaping, but most of these impacts would come
from the proposed hotel and restaurant uses on Subarea 1.Noise levels from commercial
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment can reach 100 dBA at a
distance of three feet (EPA 1971); however, these units are typically fitted with noise
shielding cabinets, placed on the roof or in mechanical equipment rooms to reduce noise
levels. Noise from mechanical equipment associated with operation of the proposed
Project is required to comply with the California Building Standards Code requirements
pertaining to noise attenuation. Therefore, with the application of these noise reduction
techniques, noise from these pieces of equipment does not typically exceed 55 dBA at 50
feet, and would not exceedthe Citys 45 dBA CNELinterior spaces threshold.As such,
noise levels from HVAC systems would be below the interior and exterior ambient noise
thresholds. Landscapingand maintenance activities may include the use of equipment
such as noise-compliant leaf blowers or hedge trimmers, which would reach levels of 65
dBA at 50 feet,potentially exceeding theCitys60 dBA outdoor activity areas threshold
at the property line of the receiving land use. Landscaping and maintenance personnel
perform maintenance and performance activities within daytime hours between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m.Sound levels associated with diesel trucks and trash pickup activities
generate noise levels of approximately 80 dB at 50 feet and could potentially exceed the
Citys 60 dBA outdoor activity areas threshold (City of San Luis Obispo 2002).
With the implementation of noise-reducing standard procedures and practicesfrom the
Citys Noise Element and the mitigation measures below, impacts related to the operation
3.8-21
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
of stationary equipment and site maintenance activities would be
less than significant
.
with mitigation
Mitigation Measurefor All Subareas
MM NOI-3a All noise-generating rooftop building equipment, such as air conditioners
and kitchen ventilation systems, shall be installed away from existing and
proposed noise-sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) or be placed behind
adequate noise barriers.
Mitigation Measure for Subarea 1
MM NOI-3b The Applicant (SRK Hotels)shall submit a truck traffic plan to the City
Public Works Department which will address timing, noise, location, and
number of deliveriesfor each project component.The Applicant shall
cooperate with the City to ensure that impacts to noise-sensitive receptors
are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible.
Plan Requirements and Timing.The Applicant (SRK Hotels)shall
ensure that all noise-generating mechanical equipment associated with
operation of the proposed development complieswith the California
Building Standards Code requirements pertaining to noise attenuation. The
Applicant shall prepare a maintenance and truck plan to the City that
addresses timing, noise, location, and number of deliveries for each
project component, as well as ensuring that noise impacts are mitigated to
the maximum extent feasible.
Monitoring.The Applicant (SRK Hotels) shall ensure that all noise-
generating mechanical equipment is compliantprior to installation.The
Applicant shall receive approval from the City before maintenance and
truck activities begin. Building inspectors and permit compliance staff
shall check before implementation.
Residual Impact
Residual impacts to Impact NOI-3 would be less than significant.
3.8.5Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the proposed Project would continue the existing development pattern
in the southern portion of the City, which includes commercial uses along Traffic Way,
3.8-22
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.8N
OISE
and residential uses away from major arterials. Development under theProject would
temporarily generate significant adverse noise levels due to construction activities and
would result in long-term operational noise impacts due to stationary equipment and site
maintenance activities. Further,as shown in Table 3.8-10 and 3.8-11, the long-term
increase in traffic related noise exposure near the Project site would be negligible along
all areas roadways (up to 0.4 dBA) with the exception of East Cherry Avenue when
comparing the Cumulative-No Project to the Cumulative-Project. East Cherry Avenue
would experience a 1.2 CNELincrease when comparing the Cumulative-No Project (61.6
CNEL) to the Cumulative-Project (62.8CNEL) at 30-feet from the roadway centerline
(see Table 3.8-12). This increase would be indiscernible to the human ear and would
remain below federal, state, county, and City(with exception)land use and noise criteria.
Therefore, if the recommended project-specific mitigation measures are implemented,
and all other projects are consistent with Noise Element requirements and conditions, the
Projectscontribution to cumulative noise impacts is .
less than significant
Table 3.8-12. Existing Noise, Estimated Cumulative Noise, and Noise Increase
Attributed to Project Traffic
RoadwayEstimated Existing Estimated Estimated Noise Increased Noise
1
Noise (CNEL)Noise under the under the under the
Cumulative No CumulativeCumulative
2
Project (CNEL)ProjectProject (CNEL)
61.061.662.81.8
East Cherry
Avenue
1
At 30 feet from centerline of roadway.
2
.
Estimated noise at nearest sensitive receptors
3.8-23
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.9R
ECREATION
3.9R
ECREATION
This section analyzesthe impacts of the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
(Project) on existing parks and recreational uses within the City of Arroyo Grande(City).
This section analyzes adverse and beneficial impacts on recreational resources, identifies
mitigation measures to reduce impacts, and determines residual impacts and cumulative
effects upon recreational resources.
The information in this section is based on the CitysGeneral Planas well as information
developed during field reconnaissance by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment &
Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler)staff. It is also based oninformation from the
City Public Works Department Streets & Landscaping Division.
3.9.1Environmental Setting
3.9.1.1Recreational Resources
The Project site is located within the City of Arroyo Grande.There are 15 public or quasi-
public recreational resourcesand open spaceswithin the vicinity of the Project sitelocated
within the City (Table 3.9-1). These recreational resources includeover 147.9-acres of
active parks, sports complexes,and passive open spaces managed and maintained by the
City of Arroyo Grandewith the Project vicinity. The City Recreational Services
Department also maintains approximately 20.4 acres of non-useable landscape areas for a
total of 168.34-acres of public lands in parks, landscaped areas, and open spaces (City of
Arroyo Grande 2013).
3.9.1.2Project Site
The Project site is located within a predominantly residential neighborhood in the
southeastern portion of the City limits. The Project site does not currently contain any
recreational resources.Within the direct Project vicinity, the adjacent neighborhood to the
east contains a small neighborhood park, with remaining City recreational facilities
scattered to the north, east, and west.
3.9-1
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.9R
ECREATION
Table 3.9-1. Public Open Spaces and Recreational Resources
Distance
Recreation Private
# from Project AcreageActivities
FacilityOr Public
(miles)
1 Centennial Park Public0.370.25Creek-side picnics, eating areas,
and Gazebomusic events, the weekly Farmers
Market, and other community
events
2 Prospective Private1.65- Community garden plots
Garden
3 Elm Street ParkPublic1.555.0Public barbeques, picnic tables,
and playground
4 Hart-Collett Public0.250.36Picnic area
Memorial Park
5 Health Fitness Public0.810.51Jogging trails and exercise stations
Park
6 Heritage Square
Public0.292.12Picnic tables and small barbeque
Park and Rotary grills
Bandstand
7 Howard Mankins Public0.460.31Historic resources
Hoosegow Park
8 James Way Public0.7275.02Equestrian trails, jogging/walking
Habitat and trails, and wildlife viewing
Wildlife
Preserve
9 Kingo ParkPublic1.870.8Picnic tables, playground, and
small barbeque grills
10Kiwanis ParkPublic0.353.30Walking trails and picnic areas
11Parkside ParkPublic1.800.14Basketball court, picnic tables, and
a playground
12Rancho Grande Public1.208.0Baseball/softball field, basketball
Parkcourt, horseshoe pits, barbeques,
playground, and a soccer field
13Soto Sports Public1.7040.01Baseball/softball diamond, football
Complexfield, soccer field, and tennis
courts
14Strother ParkPublic1.188.14Baseball/softball field, basketball
court, horseshoe pits, and
barbeques
15Terra De Oro Public1.03.94Playground
Park
Total Acreage+/- 147.9
Note: All distances are approximate.
Source: (City of Arroyo Grande 2015; City of Arroyo Grande 2013)
3.9-2
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.9R
ECREATION
3.9.2Regulatory Setting
3.9.2.1Federal
There are no federal regulations regarding public access or recreational resources
applicable to the proposed Project.
3.9.2.2State
There are no stateregulations regarding public access or recreational resources applicable
to the proposed Project.
3.9.2.3Local
City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code
Chapter 3.36.030of the City Municipal Code establishes development impact fees which
are imposed as a condition of approval upon all development projects for which a building
permit is issued. Thesefees mustbe paid to the City at the time a building permit is issued,
pursuant to §66007 of the California Government Code. A park improvement fee shall be
required of subdivisions that do not provide a sufficient amount of park and recreation
facilities pursuant to regulations established in Chapter 16.64.060 of the Municipal Code.
These fees are intended to address the need of,or increased use of existing park and
recreation facilities in the service area of a proposed residential development.
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
Recreational resources in the Cityare managed through the General Plan, including the
Fringe and Urban Area Land Use Element and the Parks and Recreation Element. The
Fringe and Urban Area Land Use Element designates recreational land uses, including
open space, recreation, and public/quasi-public uses. Thegoal of Parks and Recreation
Element is to adequately provide for the recreational needs of the City area residents and
visitors.
General Plan, Fringe and Urban Area Land Use Element
Goal LU9 Provide for appropriate maintenance, development and placement of
Community Facilities (CF) relative to existing planned land uses.
Policy LU9-4 Ensure that new developments provide opportunities for
recreation that are commensurate with the level and type of development. Ensure
3.9-3
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.9R
ECREATION
that recreational uses are compatible with surrounding uses and with sensitive
resources that may be present.
Policy LU12-3.5 Require the provision of open space and recreation areas
within the urban residential portions of the city. Within the rural residential
portions of the planning area, emphasize the preservation of natural landforms and
vegetation.
General Plan, Parks and Recreation Element
Goal PR1 Neighborhood and community park facilities, including the sports complex,
should be provided at a ratio of four (4) acres of parkland per 1,000 persons.
Policy PR1-1 Neighborhood parks serve as the day-to-day recreational areas of
the City, and should include such amenities as playgrounds, playfields, and areas
for passive recreation.
3.9.3Environmental Impact Analysis
3.9.3.1Thresholds of Significance
With respect to land use and planning, applicable sections of Appendix G of the 2016
CEQA Guidelines state that a project would normally have a significant impact to
recreation if it would:
a)Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated; or,
b)Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
3.9.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology
Impacts to recreational resources within the Project vicinity areassessed throughreview of
existing City standards and regulations, and available City resources. Recreational resource
impacts associated with the Project are evaluated based on Goal PR1 of the Parks and
Recreation Element, which calls for the ratio of four acres of parkland per 1,000 persons.
3.9.4Project Impacts andMitigation Measures
This section discusses the impacts to recreation from the proposed Project. Table 3.9-2
below provides a summary of the recreation impacts resulting from the proposed Project.
3.9-4
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.9R
ECREATION
Table 3.9-2. Summary of Project Impacts
RecreationalImpactsMitigation MeasuresResidual Significance
Impact REC-1. The proposed Project would MM REC-1a Less than Significant with
increase the use of and need for recreational Mitigation
facilities, resulting in potential increase
physical deterioration of existing recreational
facilities.
Impact REC-2. The proposed Project NonerequiredLess than Significant
includes the construction of recreational
facilities which may have an adverse effect
on the physical environment.
Impact
REC-1 The proposed Project would increase the use of and need for
recreational facilities, resulting in potential increased physical
deterioration of existing recreational facilities(Less than Significant
with Mitigation).
The City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code Chapter 16.64.040, pursuant to California
Government Code Section 66477, establishes a development impact fee for improvements
to park and recreation facilities to servethe needs of residents of the subdivisionand the
greater public residing in the City. In the event that a subdivision consists of more than 50
parcels, the Applicant is required to dedicate land and/or pay a fee for park and recreation
facilities. Payment of these fees shall be required of the Applicant in the event that only a
portion of required land is proposed for local park purposes. Pursuant to Section M of this
chapter, Subarea 1 and Subarea 3 wouldremain exempt from such fees as their land uses
do not propose residential subdivisions. Should their intended uses change, future proposed
uses would be reviewed to ensure that park-related development impact fees are not
required.
The development of residential housing for Subarea 2 would create58 single-family
medium density residential dwellings, and would result in anincreaseinthe City
population by approximately 140 individuals. Based on City standards described in the
General PlanParks and Recreation Element,the City requires four acres of parkland per
every 1,000 individuals. To comply with thisregulation, the estimated 140 new residents
would require an additional 0.56acres of parkland. The proposed Project includes the
public dedication and development of a 0.35-acre public neighborhood park within Subarea
2, which would also serve as a stormwater drainage and storage facility. This park would
3.9-5
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.9R
ECREATION
not fully address the park dedication requirement, since it would be 0.21 acres short of the
required 0.56 acres.
The site plan for Subarea 2 identifies a 0.21-acre area of land located along the northern
residential interior street, directly in front of residential units. The applicant proposes to
include this strip of land, in part, to address the required 0.56 acres of parkland. This 0.21-
acre area of land would be 15-feet wide, extend approximately 580 feet, and include a
meandering sidewalk. The linear open space abuts private residences andwould appear to
function more as a front yard then an effective public open space for recreational use given
itwould not be large enough to support active and passive recreational uses defined in
Chapter 16.04.070 of the City Municipal Code.
The Project site would result in potentially significant impacts to recreational resources,
specifically, the provision of park and recreation facilities at a ratio of four (4) acres per
1,000 individuals, established by policy PR1 of the General Plan, Parks and Recreation
Element. With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures which would
require dedication of additional useable public recreation area and/or payment of
parkland development impact fee for the acreage shortfall, this potential impact would be
.
less than significant with mitigation
Subarea 2 Mitigation Measure
MM REC-1a Development Impact Feesfor Subarea 2.The Applicant for Subarea 2
(Mangano Homes, Inc.)shall pay a park improvement impact fee equal to
the land value, plus twenty (20) percent of toward the cost ofoffsite
improvement, for the additional 0.21 acres of parkland required to be
dedicated pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 16.64.060 of the City
Municipal Code.The value of this fee shall be based upon the fair market
value of 0.21 acres, as determined by the formula provided in Section E of
Municipal Code Chapter16.64.060, immediately prior to the filling of the
final map.At the discretion of the Community Development Director, this
requirement may be met by one of several alternative means thatwould
result in additional dedication of lands for recreational use,such that
Projectsuits the need for 0.56 acres of required parkland. Potential
alternatives include the expansion of the existing proposed 0.35
neighborhood park to provide more adequate park space, implementation
of trail connections from the property to proposed trails identified in the
City Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, or the connection of the Project
3.9-6
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.9R
ECREATION
proposed Class I Bikeway located along the Project Residential Collector
road with the City proposed bikeway along Trinity Avenue.
Requirements and Timing.Price ofin-lieu fees shall be determined by the
City Council at the time of the final map approval. The payment of these in-
lieu fees shall be made in their entirety prior to the issuance of any building
permits and paid to the City Council and deposited in the parks development
fund.
Monitoring.The price and payment of in-lieu fees will be determined and
approved by the City Council at the time of Project approval.
Residual Impact
With implementation of the above mitigation measure, impacts associated with the
increased use of and need for park and recreation facilities would be less than significant.
Impact
REC-2The proposed Project includes the construction of recreational facilities
which may have an adverse effect on the physical environment(Less
than Significant).
The proposed Project includes the development of a 0.35-acre neighborhood park that
would provide the day-to-day recreational needs of the residents of the new housing
development on Subarea 2. This park would include amenities such as playgrounds,
pathways, park benches, and BBQs. Construction would entailgrading of the site, staging
of construction equipment, cut and fill operations, over-excavation and compaction of
soils, and other construction operations listed in Section 2.7.2.1 of the Project Description.
The construction of the neighborhood park has the potential to result in construction-related
impacts toair quality, noise, and traffic. However, these impacts would be negligible due
to the small size of the neighborhood park, implementation of construction best
management practices (BMPs), and adherence to the Citys General Plan policies. Project
construction impacts are further addressed in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Section 3.8, Noise, and Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic.
Subarea 3 of the proposed Project would include recreational and open space opportunities
through the creation of cultural, native, and farm gardens,educational classes, and native
grass areas for play and gatherings.Currently, Subarea 3 recreational uses may be limited
to members of the Arroyo Grande Valley Japanese Welfare Association(JWA).
3.9-7
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.9R
ECREATION
Consequently, impacts to the physical environment associated with the construction of
recreational facilities are considered
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures required.
3.9.5Cumulative Impacts
The Project would also contribute, in combination with other projects in the City of Arroyo
Grande listed in Table 3.0-1, to increased recreational use of parklands and recreational
facilities.Cumulative projects with the Project vicinity include a number of residential
developments that have been approved or are currently under construction. Implementation
of these projects, along with the proposedProject, could result in anincremental increased
use of,and demand for, park and recreation facilities.The Parks and Recreation Element
requires that neighborhood and community park facilities be provided at a ratio of four (4)
acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. The City maintains at least 147.9 acres of parkland;
this ismore than doublethe required 71.63 acres of parkland required to serve thecurrent
estimated City population of 17,908(U.S. Census Bureau 2015)as well as the 80acres of
parkland needto support the projected City buildout population of 20,000 individuals.
Other future and pending projects may require the acquisition of land for the development
of parkland to comply with City standards. Should inadequate parklands be provided for
these developments, individual developers would be subject to development impact fees in
accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 16.64.060. As the City currently provides a more
than adequate amount of parkland and open space for the projected buildout of the City,
cumulative impacts to parkland and recreation facilities within the Arroyo Grande area
would be
less than significant.
3.9-8
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
This section was prepared based on
the Transportation Impact Analysis
(TIA) prepared by OmniMeansfor
the proposed East Cherry Avenue
Specific Plan (Project) (see
Appendix K;Omni-Means 2015).
The TIA contains detailed analyses
of local traffic circulation issues,
with particular attention to potential
increases in congestion at major
Traffic Way is a two -tothree-lanearterial roadway
intersections along the areas limited
located immediately west of the Project site.
arterial system.The adequacy of
pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit facilitiesare also discussed as well as anticipated
impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project.
The scope of the TIA was developed in consultation with City staff and conforms to
standards for such analysis set forth in the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Circulation
Element.In particular, careful consideration was given to which intersections could be
substantially affected by Project-generated trafficand the likely outer boundary of such
impacted facilities.
3.10.1Environmental Setting
3.10.1.1Area Roadway Network
Regional access tothe City is provided via the U.S. Highway 101, and access in the Project
vicinity is available via northboundand southbound rampsat Traffic Way,as well as a full
interchange at East Grand Avenue.These two interchanges provide access to a limited
arterial system which funnels traffic generated in this automobile-dependent area to a few
key intersections. For orientation purposes, East Grand Avenue is considered an east-west
arterial roadway, while U.S. Highway 101 and Traffic Wayare considered north-south
roadways (see Figure 3.10-1). Local access to the site is provided via Traffic Way and East
Cherry Avenue.Key streets and highways which provide access to the Project site and
vicinity are described below, while pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities along these
roadways are described in Section 3.10.1.3, Alternative Transportation.
3.10-1
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Figure 3.10-1. Existing Transportation Conditions
U.S. Highway 101, located westof the Project site, is a multi-lane interstate
highway which extends through the City, south to Los Angeles, and north to San
Francisco and beyond.Within the Project area, U.S. Highway 101 contains four
laneswith a center median of 35 to 50 feet in width.Primary highway access to and
from the site would be provided via on- and off-ramps atTraffic Way and the full
interchange with an overapss at East Grand Avenue.
Traffic Way, located along the western boundary of the Project site, is a two- to
three-lane roadway with a generally north-south alignment running parallelto U.S.
Highway 101 from the southeastern City limit in the southeast region of the City,
north to West Branch Street.Traffic Way would serve as the primary entrance road
for the proposed restaurant and hotel on Subarea 1. Traffic Way serves as an arterial
roadway. Traffic Way is a partial interchange at U.S. Highway 101, providing
Highway 101with both the southbound on-ramp and northbound off-rampat an
uncontrolled intersection 450 feet south of East Cherry Avenue;Traffic Way does
not support an overpass linking areas of the City east and west of U.S.Highway
101.
East Cherry Avenue, located along the northernsite boundary, runs east-west and
perpendicular to Traffic Way. It is a two-lane roadin the Project vicinity, with
sidewalks developed only on the north side of the street opposite the Project site.
East Cherry Avenue provides access to the residential communities located to the
3.10-2
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
north and east of the Project site and would serve as the primary entrance road for
the proposed residential development on Subarea 2.The intersection of East Cherry
Avenue with Traffic Way is stop sign controlled only on Cherry Avenue, with
uncontrolled traffic on Traffic Way. Cherry Avenue supports a southbound left turn
lane onto Traffic Way.
South Traffic Way,the southern-most extent of Traffic Way, starts at the Traffic
Way/U.S. Highway 101 on- and off-ramp. The four-lane South Traffic Way
provides access to Vagabond Mobil Home Park, local churches, and the rural
residential areas of southern Arroyo Grande.
Fair Oaks Avenue,afour-lane traveling east to west, begins just west of the Project
site at Traffic Way and winds west through the City. Fair Oaks Avenue provides
the quickest access to the Arroyo Grande Community Hospital, Harloe Elementary
School, and City parks from the Project site.
Bridge Street,a short two-lane side street, is north-/south-oriented and connects
Traffic Way with the downtown area along West Branch Street. Bridge Street
provides vehicular and pedestrian access to the two streets via a 140 foot long
bridge over Arroyo Grande Creek.
East Branch Street,located 0.42 miles north of the Project site, is a two- to four-
lane arterial that runs east to west. East Branch Street services the village center,
providing traffic flow through thevillage core and shops, businesses, and
residences located along Arroyo Grande Creek.High volumes of traffic along this
road conflict with the communitys desire for a pedestrian-friendly downtown.
West Branch Street,atwo-lane collector road running parallel to U.S. Highway
101, is located 0.60 miles north of the Project site. This road runs east/west from
East Branch Street,to Oak Park Boulevard.Itserves as a frontage road to local
schools, residential streets, public facilities, and commercial retail.
East Grand Avenue,afour- to five-lane arterial, starts at the intersection of East
Branch Street and West Branch Street, immediately east of U.S. Highway 101. The
primary roadway west of U.S. Highway 101, East Grand Avenue continues west,
through theCities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach before ending at the historic
California State Route 1(Pacific Coast Highway),adjacent to the beachfront. East
Grand Avenue runs through the majority of industrial and commercial retail
districts of Arroyo Grandeand Grover Beach, connecting many communities and
residential neighborhoods throughout the two cities.
Circulation and traffic flow in the Projectvicinity is constrained due to thelimited number
of north-south arterials parallel to U.S. Highway 101,which funnels traffic onto a limited
number of major streets, and the non-standard design and spacing of some intersections.
Intersection operation and congestion is discussed below.
3.10-3
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
3.10.1.2Traffic Operations at Intersections
The following eight study intersections within the Project vicinity were evaluated for
potential Project specific and cumulative impacts associated with potential increases in
traffic congestion. In order to determine existing operational characteristics and levels of
congestion, traffic counts were collected at each of these intersections (Appendix K):
1.Traffic Way/East Cherry Avenue
2.Traffic Way/ South Traffic Way
3.Traffic Way/Fair Oaks Avenue
4.Traffic Way/Bridge Street
5.Traffic Way/West Branch Street
6.EastGrand Avenue/WestBranch Street
7.EastGrand Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 northbound ramps
8.Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 southbound ramp
Because traffic flow on arterials is most constrained at intersections, detailed traffic flow
analyses focus on operating conditions of critical intersections during peak travel periods,
which are typically the AM and PM peak hours. The quality of service offered by any
roadway can be described by measuring its Level of Service (LOS), a qualitative method
for describing operational conditions within a traffic stream or at an intersection, generally
in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic
interruptions, and comfort and convenience. In rating intersection operations, LOS A
through LOS F are used, where LOS A indicates free-flow operations and LOS F indicates
congested operations (seeTable 3.10-1). The Transportation Research Board (TRB) 2010
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)is the standard used for evaluating all types of LOS
(e.g., signalized, unsignalized, freeway intersections).The City considers LOS Cas the
minimum acceptable operating standard for intersections.Where deficiencies exist,
mitigate to an LOS D at a minimum and plan improvement toachieve LOS C (City of
Arroyo Grande 2001).
3.10-4
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Table 3.10-1. LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections
Control Delay Per Vehicle
(seconds)
LOSDescription
SignalizedUnsignalized
A Uncongested operations; all vehicles clear in a single cycle.
1010
B Uncongested operations; all vehicles clear in a single cycle.10.1 2010.1 15
C Light congestion; occasional backups on critical approaches.20.1 3515.1 25
D Congestion on critical approaches, but intersection functional. 35.1 5525.1 35
Vehicles wait through more than one cycle during short peaks.
No long-standing lines formed.
Severe congestion with some long-standing lines on critical
E55.1 8035.1 50
approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal
does not provide for protected turning movements.
F Total breakdown with stop-and-go operations.> 80> 50
Source: TRB 2010.
The LOS criteria for stop-sign-controlled intersections have different threshold values than
those for signalized intersections primarily because drivers expect different levels of
performance from different types of transportation facilities.A signalized intersection is
designed to carry higher traffic volumes than a stop-sign-controlled intersection. Thus, a
higher level of control-related delay is acceptable at a signalized intersection for the same
LOS.
LOS was calculated for the area intersections using the SYNCHRO 8 LOS analysis
software program, which implements the HCM methodology. The methodology accounts
for geometry, traffic controls, signal timing, and the mix of traffic using the facility,
including autos, trucks, buses, bicycles,and pedestrians.Existing traffic signal timing
information was retrieved from the City and California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) and was theninput into a model to accurately represent the existing conditions
at the signalized intersections(see Table 3.10-2).
3.10-5
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Table 3.10-2. Existing Peak Hour Intersection LOS
AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
Delay Delay
Intersection (seconds (seconds
IntersectionControlLOSLOS
Numberper per
vehicle)vehicle)
1S. Traffic Way/Traffic TWSC11.9 B 10.8 B
Way/U.S. 101 Ramps
2E. Cherry Avenue/Traffic TWSC14.6B 19.7C
Way/
3Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic AWSC34.6D26.9D
Way/
4Bridge Street/Traffic Way/TWSC19.3C 15.1C
5 W. Branch Street/Traffic Signal29.2 C 25.4 C
Way/
6E. Grand Avenue/W. TWSC56.1F116.6F
Branch Street
7E. Grand Avenue/U.S. 101 Signal18.9B10.1B
NB Ramps
17.8C
8Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S. AWSC38.4E
101 SB Offramp/Orchard
Avenue
Note: TWSC = Two-Way Stop-Control; AWSC = All-Way Stop-Control
Intersections in bold operate at an unacceptable LOS.
Source: Omni-Means 2015 (see Appendix K).
Based upon this analysis, a majority of existing signalized intersections in the Projectarea
operate at acceptable free flowing conditions of LOS C or better. Three of the study
intersections currently operate at unacceptable LOS during the AM and/or PM peak hour
periods. Those intersections operating at unacceptable LOS include Fair Oaks
Avenue/Traffic Way, East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street, Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S. 101
southbound off-ramp/Orchard Avenue.
3.10.1.3Alternative Transportation
Transit Services
San Luis Obispo Regional TransitAuthority (SLORTA) operates bus service within the
City of Arroyo Grande and throughout San Luis Obispo County. The South County Transit
(SCT)provides bus services throughout the Five Cities region, servicing the City. SCT
Routes 23 and 24 are fixed routes that service the City, with a bus stop approximately 0.29
milesaway from the Project site, slightly further than the accepted ideal maximum walking
distance of 0.25 miles for transit stops.SLORTA operates intercity bus service within San
3.10-6
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Luis Obispo County and to Santa Maria in Santa Barbara County.SLORTA also operates
Runabout, the County-wide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transportation service,
and Dial-A-Ride, an affordable curb-to-curb transportation service.
Hours and operation and service frequencies for SCTand SLORTA routes in the Project
vicinity are described in Table 3.10-3. SCT routes 23 and 24provide service throughout
the Five Cities area and stop in several locations aroundthe Historic Village of the City.
There is no direct transit service to the Project site, but the nearest transit stop is located
approximately 0.30 miles north at Hart-Collett Memorial Park. This location provides
transit stopsfor SCT Routes 23, 24, and 25.No SLORTA service stops are readily
accessible to the Project site for pedestrian access.
Although one transit stopthat services several routes exists within approximately 0.30
miles of the site, transit service frequency (also known as headway) in the Project vicinity
is infrequent, with the two key routes in the Project vicinity (Routes 23 and 24), operating
at 60-minute headways(seeTable 3.10-3). This low headway can lead to delays for transit-
dependent individuals and may not make public transportation an attractive option for non-
transit-dependent individuals. Ideal headways to make transit most useful to transit
dependent households and attractive to non-transit dependent individuals are generally
from 10 to 15 minutes during peak hourswith transit stops within 0.25 miles. However,
the auto-oriented, low-density nature of area land uses and the large-block, arterial-based
street system present a challenge to improving transit service to the area.
SLORTA Route 10 isthe only regional transit route thatstops in the general Project
vicinity. SLORTA Route 10 travels north-south along the U.S. Highway 101 from the City
of San Luis Obispo in San Luis Obispo County to the City of Santa Maria in Santa Barbara
County. The bus makes minimal stops each way, and offers only one stop in the City on El
Camino Real at Halcyon Road, approximately 1.0mile from the Project site, well outside
of the typically accepted ideal maximum walking distance of 0.25 miles.
In addition to inner-city transit, Amtrak provides intercity rail and bus service at the station
located at the Grover Beach Amtrak Station, approximately 3.0miles westof the Project
site. The station can be reached using local transit SCT Route 21, which has a bus stop at
East Grand Avenue and West Branch Street, approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the
Project site. The Pacific Surfliner line operates two trains daily from the station to
destinations south of San Luis Obispo.
3.10-7
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Table 3.10-3. Existing Transit Services
Headway
RouteService to Project SiteDay of WeekService Span
(minutes)
SCT
21 Pismo Beach Premium Outlets Mon Fri6:29 AM 7:24 PM60
Arroyo Grande Grover Sat7:29 PM 7:24 PM60
Beach Pismo Beach Shell Sun7:29 AM 6:24 PM60
Beach Pismo Beach Premium
Outlets
23 Grover Beach Oceano Mon Fri6:00 AM* 10:40 PM60
Arroyo Grande Grover Beach Sat8:10 AM* 6:05 PM60
Oceano Grover BeachSun7:55 AM* 6:21PM60
Pismo Beach Premium Outlets
24 Mon Fri6:29 AM 7:25 PM60
Grover Beach Arroyo Sat7:29 AM 7:25 PM60
Grande Pismo Beach Sun7:29 AM 6:25 PM60
Premium Outlets
AM th
Romona Garden 13at Mon8:45 AM 9:15 AM-
25
Menton Hwy 1 at Pershing Tues - Fri7:03 AM 7:30 AM-
th
Wilmar at 19 Arroyo
Grande High
PM
25 Arroyo Grande High Mon - Fri3:03 PM 3:40 PM -
Halcyon Park and Ride
Oceano Lagoon Ramona
Garden Park
SLORTA
10 San Luis Obispo Pismo Mon Fri 5:45 AM 9:43 PM60
Beach Arroyo Grande Sat7:14 AM 8:43 PM180
Nipomo Santa MariaSun8:14 AM 6:43 PM240
Notes:* On the first trip of the day, SCT 23 service starts at Oak Park Blvd at Longbranch Ave at 5:55 AM. All
other SCT 23 trips depart Romano Garden Park at :29 past each hour.
AM
Service route for morning hours only. Only one route timeeach day.
PM
Service route for evening hours only. Only one route time each day.
Source: SLORTA 2015; South County Transit 2015.
Bicycle Facilities
The City developed and adopted the City
of Arroyo Grande Bicycle & Trails
Master Plan in 2012. This plan identifies
the existing network of bicycle paths and
trails, and sets standards for the
expansion of that network. Within the
City, current bicycle and trail networks
Bicycle lanes and concretesidewalks are provided
consist of bicycle lanes (Class IIbicycle
on both sides of Traffic Way providing pedestrian
access to the Project site and the surrounding
lanes) and bicycle routes (Class III
3.10-8
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
bicycle lanes). Within the Project vicinity, existing Class II bicyclelanesrun in both
directions along Traffic Wayfrom South Traffic Way to East Branch Street, adjacent to
the Project site.The Historic Village area provides bicycle racks, and bicycle friendly
facilities. Other major roadways such as East BranchStreet, East Grand Avenue and Fair
Oaks Avenue lack designated bicycle lanes, presenting a challenge to cyclists using these
relatively high speed facilities.
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities comprise sidewalks, crosswalks, and off-streetpaths that are intended
to provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access destinations such as
institutions, businesses, public transportation, and recreation facilities.Pedestrian facilities
are incomplete and lacking in some areas in the southwest corner of the City, with
discontinuous sidewalks along some roadways such as Traffic Way,and lack pedestrian
connectivity between neighborhoods due to topography, existing roadway layout and few
developed pedestrian trails. The Project site is located at the southeast corner of Traffic
Way and East Cherry Avenue.East Cherry Avenue provides paved sidewalks on only one
side forpedestrian travel. The west side of Traffic Way supports a paved sidewalk for
pedestrian use, while the east side of the roadway fronting the project site isan unpaved
gravel foot path, with a paved sidewalk resuming north of East Cherry Avenue. Along the
northern side of East Cherry Avenue a paved cement sidewalk is developed adjacent to
existing homes while the south side supports an informal dirt pedestrian path. Dirt roads
and informal pedestrian paths on hillsides south and east of the site appear to receive light
pedestrian use.
None of the intersections within the Project vicinity support marked or protected
crosswalks. For example, the nearest marked crosswalk to the Project site that provides
safe access across to the west side of Traffic Way in the Project vicinity is located more
than 500 feet to the north, limiting pedestrian access to commercial uses (e.g., Log Cabin
Market) west of Traffic Way. A Pedestrian Safety Review of the City was conducted by
ITS Berkeley in 2010 which found that improvement could be made to the street system to
increasepedestrian safety, especially at large street crossings.
3.10-9
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
3.10.2Regulatory Setting
3.10.2.1Federal
Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (codified in Title 42 of the United
States Code \[USC\]), prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in places of public
accommodation (i.e., businesses and non-profit agencies that serve the public) and
commercial facilities (i.e., other businesses). This regulation includes Appendix A to Part
36, Standards for Accessible Design, which establishes minimum standards for ensuring
accessibility when designing and constructing a new facility or altering an existing facility.
Examples of key guidelines include detectable warning for pedestrians entering traffic
where there is no curb, a clear zone of 48 inches for the pedestrian travel way, and a
vibration-free zone for pedestrians.
3.10.2.2State
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Caltrans manages the operation of State Highways, including the U.S. Highway 101, which
passes through the Arroyo Grande area.
Senate Bill (SB) 743
To further the states commitment to the goals of SB 375,AB 32 and AB 1358, SB 743
adds Chapter 2.7, Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill
Projects, to Division 13 (Section 21099) of the Public Resources Code. Key provisions of
SB 743 include reforming aesthetics and parking CEQA analysis for urban infill projects
and eliminating the measurement of automobile delay, including LOS, as a metric thatcan
be used for measuring traffic impacts in transit priority areas.Under SB 743, the focus of
transportation analysis will shift from driver delay to reduction of GHG emissions, creation
of multimodal networks, and promotion of a mix of land uses.
Pursuant to SB 743, the Office of Planning Research (OPR) released a Draft of Updates to
the CEQA Guidelines in August 2014. OPRs Draft of Updates proposesvehicle miles
traveled (VMT) as the replacement metric for LOS in the context of CEQA. While OPR
emphasizes that a lead agency has the discretionary authority to establish thresholds of
significance, the Draft of Updates suggest criteria that indicate when a project may have a
significant, or less than significant, transportation impact on the environment. For instance,
3.10-10
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
a project that results in VMTs greater than the regional average for the land use type (e.g.
residential, employment, commercial) may indicate a significant impact. Alternatively, a
project may have a less than significant impact if it is located within 0.5 mile of an existing
major transit stop, or results in a net decrease in VMTs compared to existing conditions.
3.10.2.3Local
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
The City General Plan sets objectives and policies for all city resources. Those associated
with the standards of streets and highways incorporated within the City are managed
through the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
General Plan, Circulation Element
Goal CT2 Attain and maintain LOS C or better on all streets and controlled intersections.
Policy CT2-1 Where deficiencies exist, mitigate to an LOS D at a minimum
and plan improvement to achieve LOS C (LOS E or F unacceptable = significant
adverse impact unless Statement of Overriding Considerations or CEQA Findings
approved). The design and funding for such planned improvements shall be
sufficiently definite to enable construction within a reasonable period of time.
Policy CT2-3 Require that General Plan Amendments, Rezoning Applications
or development projects involving 20 or more estimated peak hour trip additions
provide traffic studies according to City LOS policy, including subsequent
amendments and refinements.
Goal CT3 Maintain and improve existing multi-modal circulation and transportation
systems and facilities, to maximize alternatives to new street and highway construction.
Policy CT3-3 Promote non-motorized bike and pedestrian circulation facilities
to serve all areas of the City and linking regional systems, with priority
coordination with school, park, transit and major public facilities.
Goal CT4 Ensure compatibility and complementary relationships between the
circulation/transportation system and existing and planned land uses, promoting
environmental objectives such as safe and un-congested neighborhoods, energy
conservation, reduction of air and noise pollution, transit, bike and pedestrian friendly
characteristics.
3.10-11
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
General Plan, Parks and Recreation Element
Goal PR4 A network of trail, bicycle lanes and bikeways should be established for use
by local residents and visitors to the Arroyo Grande valley.
Implementation PR4-1.3 Proposed trails, especially bicycle lanes which serve
as connections to schools and recreation facilities, shall be given high priority in
implementation.
City of Arroyo Grande Bicycle & Trail Master Plan (2012)
The Bicycle & Trail Master Plan was prepared and adopted by the City in 2012 to improve
and encourage bicycle and pedestrian transportation within the City. This plan works to
establish a comprehensive system of bikeways and trail facilities in compliance with State,
County, and City regulations and policies.
3.10.3Environmental Impact Analysis
3.10.3.1Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with Appendix G of the 2016CEQA Guidelines, the proposed Project would
result in a significant effect under CEQA if it were to:
a)Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, takinginto account all
modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit;
b)Conflict with an applicable congestion management program(CMP), including but
not limited to LOSstandards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways;
c)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);
d)Resultin inadequate emergency access; and/or,
e)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities.
Relationship of SB 743 to Project Analysis
As previously stated, a key provision of SB 743, passed in September 2013, is the
elimination of vehicle delay and LOS as a CEQA significance criterion in urban areas.
3.10-12
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
However, since the proposed Project is not within a transit priority area, and OPRhas not
yet adopted new CEQA Guidelines for replacement criteria to LOS thresholds, this section
continues to evaluate the project using the Citys adopted significance criteria of
automobile delay (LOS), and impact analysiswill not include a complete VMT analysis.
3.10.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology
The transportation and traffic impact analysis addresses the impacts associated with
implementation of the proposed Project. Project access would be provided by the
construction of a new, two-lane collectorstreet between Subarea 1 and Subarea 2(refer to
Section 2.0, Project Description for a complete description of Project subareas). The
Project additionally proposes the improvement of East Cherry Avenue to include upgrades
to the right-of-way in the form of pedestrian sidewalks, parkways, parking, and bicycle
lanes. Residential interior streets would be designed to provide access throughout the
single family residential neighborhood. An alley way will provide access to the rear side
of the housing units that would be facing East Cherry Avenue, as well as those facing
inward toward the proposed neighborhood.
The TIA for the proposed Project analyzed the following scenarios(see Appendix K for
further detail):
Existing Conditions;
Existing plus Approved/Pending (A/P)Projects Conditions;
Existing plus A/P Projects plus Project Conditions;
Cumulative No Project Conditions; and,
Cumulative plus Project Conditions.
Based on the Goal CT2of the Citys Circulation Element,attain and maintain LOS C or
better on all streets and controlled intersections, the TIA utilized a LOS C standard for all
scenariosin terms of identifying acceptable conditions. In addition, seconds of delay were
considered. Significance thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections were
evaluated. In accordance with the Citys Draft TIA Guidelines for signalized intersections,
if LOS D or E conditions exist under the "No-Project" scenario, any additional delay
introduced by the project of more than 7.5 seconds for signalized intersections is
considered a significant impact. Likewise, if LOS F conditions exist under the No-Project
scenario, any additional delay introduced by the project of 5.0 seconds or more for
signalized intersections is considered a significant impact.For unsignalized intersections,
the Project is considered to have a significant impact if it would go from acceptable to
3.10-13
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
unacceptable LOS conditions, or if it would increase the delay by more than 5.0 seconds
at an intersection that is already operating at an unacceptable condition under the No-
Project scenario.
Existing and proposed Project conditions were evaluated during the weekday PM peak
1
hour period, which is expected to be the worst-case scenario for Project trip generation.
The estimated Project trip generation during the AM peak hour is not expected to result in
impacts beyond those identified in the PM peak period; therefore, per City direction, no
quantitative analysis was conducted during the AM peak period or on weekends.
Cumulative traffic volumes were developed using forecasts from the traffic models
developed by the City and the San Luis Obispo Citywide Traffic Model (SLOCTM).The
roadways and intersections included in the TIA were identified jointly by the traffic
consultant and City staffbased on the magnitude and specific location of Project-generated
traffic and the potential for newly generated trips to impact streets and roadways in the
Project area.
Project Trip Generation
The amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadway system by the proposed Project was
estimated by applying the applicable trip generation rates to the development proposal.
Project trip generation estimates were calculated based on data presented in the Institute of
th
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Report (9Edition) and other sources. The
trip generation also accounts for pass-by trips (i.e., trips to the site made by vehicles already
traveling by the site on the adjacent street, vehicles that would make an interim stop between
their primary origin and destination) and internal capture rate (i.e., trips that are internal
within a mixed use development and will complement each other, such as a restaurant and
hotel next to each other) reductions. Pass-by trips are not considered new trips added to
the street system by the Project, per se, but are included in the analysis of traffic that enters
and exits the site. The Quality Restaurant (Land Use Code #931) rate of 40 percent was used
to calculate the trip generation estimates for the proposed Project, and so a conservative 40
percent pass-by trip reduction was applied to the Project. After considering trip generation
and reductions, the Project as a whole is anticipated to generate 1,646 average daily trips
(ADT), including 132 AM peak hour trips and 157 PM peak hour trips.
1
The PM peak hour typically represents the worst-case for intersection operations unless affected facilities
are near a school or other generators with a high AM peak hour. Outside of major tourist or recreation
destinations, weekend roadway conditions do not typically exhibit peak hour traffic in excess of PM
periods.
3.10-14
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
The Project-generated traffic volumes were distributed and assigned onto the adjacent
street network based on use of the City of Arroyo Grande Travel Demand Model,existing
traffic flow patterns in the area, geographic location of the Project site, and the relative
locations of complementary land uses in the community. The Project trips were distributed
throughout the study area as follows:
30 percent to/from northbound U.S. Highway 101 via East Grand Avenue/Traffic
Way north of East Cherry Avenue;
5 percentto/from WestBranch Street north of East Branch Street;
35 percentto/from southbound U.S.101 via Traffic Way south of East Cherry
Avenue;
12 percentto/from East Grand Avenue west of U.S. 101/Traffic Way and north of
East Cherry Avenue;
8 percentto/from Fair Oaks Avenue via Traffic Way north of Cherry Avenue
7 percentto/from EastBranch Street via Bridge Street/Traffic Way north of East
Cherry Avenue; and
3 percentto/from East Cherry Avenue east of the Project (becoming Branch Mill
Road connecting to Huasna Road & Orcutt Road).
Intersection LOS
Themajority of existing signalized intersections in the Projectarea currently operate at
acceptable free flowing conditions of LOS C or better. Three of the study intersections
currently operate at unacceptable LOS, including Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way(LOS D,
AM and PM peak hours), East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street (LOS F AM and PM
peak hours), and Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 southbound off-ramp/Orchard
Avenue (LOS E, AM peak hour only).Tables 3.10-2 and 3.10-4 compare the LOSof
intersections studied with and without the proposed Project.Existing LOS of the study
intersections are shown in Figure 3.10-1.
As shown in Figure 3.10-2 below andTable 3.10-4 and Table 3.10-5, with implementation
of the proposed Project, significant impactsareanticipatedto occur at the Fair Oaks
Avenue/Traffic Way and EastGrand Avenue/WestBranch Street intersections atboth AM
and PM peak hours.These impacts are further described in Section 3.10.4, Project Impacts
and Mitigation Measures.
3.10-15
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Figure 3.10-2. Existing + Approved/Pending Projects + Project Transportation
Conditions
Table 3.10-4. AM Peak Hour + Short-term + Project Delay Impact Summary
Existing +
Change in
Existing +
Approved/
Intersection Delay due Significant
A/P + Project
Intersection
Pending
Numberto Project Impact?
11
(Seconds)
DelayLOSDelayLOS
S. Traffic Way/Traffic Way/
1 12.0 B 12.4 B 0.4No
U.S.101 Ramps
2 E. Cherry Avenue/Traffic Way14.6 C 16.5 C 1.9No
3 Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way36.1E 43.2E 7.1Yes
4 Bridge Street/Traffic Way19.9 C 21.5 C 1.6No
2
5 W. Branch Street/Traffic Way25.0 C 32.2 C 7.2No
6 E. Grand Avenue/ 71.9F101.9F30.0Yes
W. Branch Street
7 E. Grand Avenue/U.S.101 NB 19.7 B 20.6 C 0.9No
2
Ramps
8 Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S. 101 SB 38.9 E 39.5 E 0.6No
Offramp/Orchard Avenue
Notes: Intersections in bold operate at an unacceptable LOS.
1
Delay expressed in average seconds per vehicle. LOS is based on delay.
2
Signalized intersection.
Source: Omni Means 2015 (see Appendix K).
3.10-16
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Table 3.10-5. PM Peak Hour Short-term + Project Delay Impact Summary
Existing +
Change in
Existing +
Approved/
Intersection Delay due Significant
A/P + Project
Intersection
Pending
Numberto Project Impact?
11
(Seconds)
DelayLOSDelayLOS
1 S. Traffic Way/Traffic Way/10.8 B 11.1 B 0.3No
U.S.101 Ramps
E. Cherry Avenue/
2 20.4 C 24.9 C 4.5No
Traffic Way
3 Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way28.0D 34.7D 6.7Yes
4 Bridge Street/15.4 C 16.3 C 0.9No
Traffic Way
5 W. Branch Street/23.2 C 26.7 C 3.5No
2
Traffic Way
6 E. Grand Avenue/ 166.6F233.0F66.4Yes
W. Branch Street
E. Grand Avenue/U.S.101 NB
7 10.2 B 10.3 B 0.1No
2
Ramps
8 Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S.101 SB 18.3 C 19.2 C 0.9No
Off-ramp/Orchard Avenue
Notes: Intersections in bold operate at an unacceptable LOS.
1
Delay expressed in average seconds per vehicle. LOS is based on delay.
2
Signalized intersection.
Source: Omni Means 2015 (see Appendix K).
3.10.4Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The impacts of the proposed Project related to traffic were evaluated using trip generation,
trip distribution, and trip assignment. Trip generation estimates the amount of added traffic
to the roadway network. Trip distribution estimates the direction of travel to and from the
project site. Trip assignment allocates trips to specific street segments and intersection
turning movements. The results of these three components, as well as the intersection LOS
calculations, are considered traffic data under Project conditions and are compared to
traffic data for existing conditions under Section 3.10.1, Environmental Setting (refer to
Table 3.10-2), to determine impacts on traffic in the Project area. The transportation related
impacts associated with the proposed Project are described below.
3.10-17
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Table 3.10-6. Summary of Project Impacts
Mitigation Residual
Transportationand TrafficImpacts
MeasuresSignificance
Impact TRANS-1. Project construction activities would MMTRANS-1a Less than
potentially create short-term traffic impacts due to congestion Significant with
from construction vehicles (e.g., construction trucks, Mitigation
construction worker vehicles, equipment, etc.), traffic lane and
sidewalk closures, and loss of on-street parking.
Impact TRANS-2. Project generated traffic would potentially MM TRANS-2aLess than
cause the LOS at the Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way intersection Significant with
to deteriorate from acceptable to unacceptable LOS in both the Mitigation
AM and PM peak hours, causing a significant impact. With
installation of a traffic signal, intersection LOS would be
maintained at acceptable LOS.
Impact TRANS-3. Project generated traffic would potentially MM TRANS-3a Significant and
cause delays at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street MM TRANS-3bUnavoidable
intersection which operates at unacceptable LOS F to increase
by more than 5 seconds in excess of City standards in both the
AM and PM peak hours, causing a significantimpact. There are
no feasible funded or scheduled mitigation measures available to
reduce this impact to a less than significant level consistent with
the requirements of City General Plan Policy CT2-1 which
requires improvement to LOS D.
Impact TRANS-4. Project generated traffic would potentially NonerequiredLess than
cause incremental increases in delays at the Fair Oaks Significant
Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 southbound off-ramp/Orchard
Avenue intersection which operates at unacceptable LOS E
during AM peak hour. However, increased delays would not
exceed City standards.
Impact TRANS-5. The proposed Project would potentially MMTRANS-5a Less than
create conflicts with turning movements at driveways and Significant
(Recommended)
intersections on the Project site.
Impact TRANS-6. The proposed Project would potentially NonerequiredLess than
generate and attract trips to and from U.S. Highway 101, Significant
incrementally increasing congestion of the regions main
highway.
Impact TRANS-7. The proposed Project would potentially MMAQ-5a Less than
increase demand for transit services in an underserved area, Significant
presenting a barrier to both transit dependent and non-transit
dependent households for using transit.
Impact
TRANS-1 Project construction activities would potentially create short-term
traffic impacts due to congestion from construction vehicles (e.g.,
construction trucks, construction worker vehicles, equipment, etc.),
traffic lane and sidewalk closures,and loss of on-street parking (Less
than Significant with Mitigation).
3.10-18
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Construction related increases in traffic would be short-term in nature and would
incrementally contribute to road or intersection congestion over the planning horizon.
Increased construction traffic, particularly large haul trucks and other heavy equipment
(e.g., earthmovers), may disrupt local traffic flows, congest limited turn lane capacities,
and generally slow traffic movement. A grading plan for the entire site has not been
prepared, making it difficult to forecast haul truck trips for import or export of fill during
site grading. However, thegrading plan for Subarea 2 gives 17,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut
and 11,000 cy of fill, which implies an export of 6,000 cy. Assuming a typical haul truck
holds 10 cy, there would be approximately 600 haul truck trips associated with Subarea 2.
Cut and fill amounts for Subarea 1 and 3 are unknown at this time, but would contribute
substantially to the total number of haul truck trips. However, this estimate does not
account for the compaction of soil, which has the potential to reduce the number of trips.
Construction activity during early site preparation typically also includes use of haul trucks
for fill import or export, cement trucks, material and equipment delivery trucks and worker
vehicles. These vehicles would likely use U.S. Highway 101 to travel to and from thesite.
Other potential construction-related impacts include idling, parked, or queued heavy trucks
that could potentially obstruct visibility, traffic flows and interfere with pedestrian and
bicycle flows. Further, construction activities would require parking for construction
workers. Construction may also require the temporary or extended closure of traffic lanes,
sidewalks and bicycle lanes on surrounding streets (e.g., Class II bicycle lane on Traffic
Way) to accommodate parked vehicles, operation of construction equipment, installation
of Project improvements, etc. Depending on final construction plan details, such lane and
sidewalk closures could extend from a single day to several weeks.
Construction parking demand combined with temporary removal of on-street parking
resulting from development under the Project would potentially affect on-street parking
availability on East Cherry Avenue. Project construction activities could create potentially
significant short-term impacts along major access routes in the vicinity of the Project site.
However, implementation of mitigation measure MM TRANS-1a would require
preparation of a Construction Impact Mitigation Plan, which would address construction
traffic routing and control, vehicular and pedestrian safety, pedestrian/bicycle access and
parking, street closures, and construction parking. This Construction Impact Mitigation
Plan would address individual phases of development including demolition, site
preparation, and on-going construction activities. Implementation of mitigation measure
MM TRANS-1 would reduce construction-related traffic impacts to
less than significant
.
with mitigation
3.10-19
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Mitigation Measure for All Subareas
MM TRANS-1a Future development occurring under the proposed Project shall be
required to prepare a Construction Transportation Management Plan
for review and approval by the Cityprior to issuance of a building
permit to address and manage traffic during construction and shall be
designed to:
Prevent traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway network
Minimize parking impacts both to public parking and access to
private parking to the greatest extent practicable
Ensure safety for both those constructing the project and the
surrounding community
Prevent substantial truck traffic through residential neighborhoods
The Construction Transportation Management Plan shall be subject to
review and approval by the following City departments: Community
Development, Public Works, Fire, and Police,to ensure that the Plan
has been designed in accordance with this mitigation measure. This
review shall occur prior to issuance of grading or building permits. It
shall, at a minimum, include the following:
Ongoing Requirements throughout the Duration of Construction:
A detailed Construction Transportation Management Plan for work
zones shall be maintained. At a minimum, this shall include parking
and travel lane configurations; warning, regulatory, guide, and
directional signage; and area sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and parking
lanes. The plan shall include specific information regarding the
Projects construction activities that may disrupt normal pedestrian
and traffic flow and the measures to address these disruptions. Such
plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Department prior to commencement of construction
and implemented in accordance with this approval.
Work within the public right-of-way shall be performed between
9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. This work includes dirt and demolition
material hauling and construction material delivery. Work within
the public right-of-way outside of these hours shall only be allowed
after the issuance of an after-hours construction permit.
Streets and equipment shall be cleaned in accordance with
established Public Works requirements.
3.10-20
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Trucks shall only travel on a City-approved construction route.
Limited queuing may occur on the construction site itself.
Materials and equipment shall be minimally visible to the public;
the preferred location for materials is to be on-site, with a minimum
amount of materials within a work area in the public right-of-way,
subject to a current Use of Public Property Permit.
Any requests for work before or after normal construction hours
within the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and
approval through the After Hours Permit process administered by
the Building and Safety Division.
Provision of off-streetparking for construction workers, which may
include the use of a remote location with shuttle transport to the site,
if determined necessary by the City.
Project Coordination Elements That Shall Be Implemented Prior to
Commencement of Construction:
The traveling public shall be advised of impending construction
activities which may substantially affect key roadways or other
facilities (e.g., information signs, portable message signs, media
listing/notification, and implementation of an approved
Construction Impact Mitigation Plan).
A Use of Public Property Permit, Excavation Permit, Sewer Permit,
or Oversize Load Permit, as well as any Caltrans permits required
for any construction work requiring encroachment into public
rights-of-way, detours, or any otherwork within the public right-of-
way shall be obtained.
Timely notification of construction schedules shall be provided to
all affected agencies (e.g., Police Department, Fire Department,
Public Works Department, and Community Development
Department) and to all owners and residential and commercial
tenants of property within a radius of 500 feet.
Construction work shall be coordinated with affected agencies in
advance of start of work. Approvals may take up to two weeks per
each submittal.
Public Works Department approval of any haul routes for earth,
concrete, or construction materials and equipment hauling shall be
obtained.
Plan Requirements and Timing.The Applicants shall submit the
Construction Transportation Mitigation Planto the City for review and
approval prior to issuance of grading and building permits. The
Applicants shall conduct necessary construction employee training prior
3.10-21
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
to the commencementof construction. The City Public Works
Department, Police Department, and Fire Department, and nearby
residences shall be notified of the construction schedule prior to
construction.
Monitoring.The City shall ensure compliance with the Construction
Transportation Mitigation Plan with periodic inspections ofthe Project
site during construction.Complaints related to construction traffic at the
site shall be directed to the City Public Works Department.
Residual Impact
Residual impacts under TRANS-1 would be less than significant.
The Citys municipal code establishes development impact fees for traffic signalization
and transportation facilities, which are imposed as a condition of approval upon all
development projects for which a building permit is issued. These impact fees are
established in order to pay for the capital costs of public facilities reasonably related to the
needs of new development in the City.
Impact
TRANS-2 Project generated trafficwould potentially cause the LOS at the Fair
Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way intersection to deteriorate from acceptable
to unacceptable LOS in both the AM and PMpeak hours, causing a
significant impact. With installation of a traffic signal, intersection
LOS would be maintained at acceptable LOS (Less than Significant
with Mitigation).
The unsignalized Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way intersection currently operates at an
unacceptable LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hours (refer to Table 3.10-4 and Table
3.10-5), and meets warrants for installation of a traffic signal. OmniMeans(2015) calculated
that the Project wouldadd more than 5.0 seconds of delay to the Existing plus
Approved/Pending Projects Scenario (i.e., +7.1 seconds in the AM peak hour and +6.7
seconds in the PM peak hour) which exceeds the significance threshold established by the
City for unsignalized intersections, thereby creating a Project-specific significant impact at
this intersection. The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan identifies the need for intersection
improvements at Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way; these improvements are planned and
discretionary funding to the City for preliminary phases may be available(SLOCOG 2014a).
3.10-22
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Implementation of the mitigation measure of installing a traffic signal as discussed below
would reduce this impact to .
less than significantwith mitigation
Mitigation Measurefor Subarea 2
MM TRANS-2a Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way: A new traffic signal shall be installed at
the intersection of Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Avenue.
Plan Requirements and Timing.Prior to issuance of a development
permit for construction, including grading, the Applicant shall 1) submit
a funding agreement between the owners of the three subareas for the
Traffic Signal Improvements to the City for review and approval; and
2) submit Traffic Signal Improvement Plans to the City for review and
approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall
complete construction of the traffic signal improvements.
Monitoring.The City shallreview and approvethe funding agreement
between the owners of the three subareas for the traffic signal design
and construction prior to the issuance of any development permit for
construction, including grading. The City shall ensure the traffic signal
is installed and operational prior to the issuance building permits.
Residual Impact
Residual impacts under TRANS-2 would be less than significant with the mitigationfor
installation of a traffic signal.
Impact
TRANS-3 Project generated traffic would potentially cause delays at the East
Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection which operates at
unacceptable LOS F to increase by more than 5 seconds in excess of City
standards in both the AM and PM peak hours, causing a significant
impact. There are no feasible funded or scheduled mitigation measures
available to reduce this impact to a less than significant level consistent
with the requirements of City General Plan Policy CT2-1 which requires
improvement to LOS D (Significant and Unavoidable).
Under all analyzed scenarios, the East Grand Avenue/WestBranch Street intersection
currently operates at a LOSF. Under the Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus
Project conditions, Project-generated traffic would contribute to the projected AM and PM
3.10-23
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
peak hour operation at LOS F at the intersection and would increasethe delay by more than
5 seconds in each peak hour, thus creatingaProject specific significant impact at this
intersection (refer to Table 3.10-4 and Table 3.10-5).
Signalization of the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection is not
recommended, as it is projected to cause queuing that exceeds available storage between
the closely-spaced East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street and East Branch Street/Traffic
Way intersections, which would create significant secondary impacts that would cause the
existing signal at EastBranch Street/Traffic Wayto decrease from LOS 'C' to LOS 'D' in
the AM peak hour.Modifying the lane geometry of the intersection to add a free right turn
lane from westbound East Branch Street onto northbound West Branch Street as depicted
on Figure 13 of Appendix K would reduce Project-created delays,but would result in the
continuation of unacceptable LOS F in both the Existing Short Term plus Project and
Cumulative plus Project scenarios. Although this alternative would appear to mitigate the
Project's created increase in delay impact at this location to a less than significant level
(reducing delay overall), it would be inconsistent with the requirements of City General
Plan Policy CT2-1:
"Where deficiencies exist, mitigateto an LOS 'D' at a minimum and plan
improvement to achieve LOS 'C' (LOS 'E' or 'F' unacceptable = significant adverse
impact unless Statement of Overriding Considerations or CEQA Findings
approved). The design and funding for such planned improvements shall be
sufficiently definite to enable construction within a reasonable period of time."
Because thesemeasures would leave the Project inconsistent with adopted City General
Plan policy, this impact would remain significant, requiring adoption of a statement of
overriding considerations per City General Plan Policy CT2-1.
An alternative mitigation measure at this intersection would be to construct two modern
roundabouts: one at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 northbound
ramps, and oneat the intersection of EastBranch Street/Traffic Way, as shown in Figure
3.10-3 below. However, the cost to design and construct these two roundabouts may not
be roughly proportional to Project impactsas the intersection already operates at LOS F,
leaving this measure infeasible for the proposed Project alone to implement. Because this
mitigation is unscheduled and unfunded and no other feasible mitigation measures are
available, Project short-term impacts would be considered .
significant and unavoidable
However, if the mitigation measure below is implemented, the long-term impact could be
reduced to less than significant.
3.10-24
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Figure 3.10-3. Roundabout Alternative
Mitigation Measuresfor All Subareas
MM TRANS-3a East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street: The Applicants shall modify
the lane geometry of the intersection of East Grand Avenue and West
Branch Street in order to design and install the necessary improvements
including widening, restriping, and curb reconstruction of westbound
West Branch Street/ northbound West Branch Street to create an
exclusive right turn lane.
Plan Requirements and Timing.The Applicants shall submit plans for
the restriping of West Branch Street including any modifications
necessary to the northeast curb return and sidewalk to provide for design
vehicle turning movements to the City for review and approval from the
City Engineer, prior to the issuance of any development permit for
construction, including grading.
Monitoring.Road improvements shall be inspected and approved by
the City.
3.10-25
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
MM TRANS-3b East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street: The Applicants shall pay a fair
share portion of the design and construction costs for construction of
two roundabouts at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/U.S.
Highway 101 northbound ramps and the intersection of East Branch
Street and Traffic Way, or an alternativetransportation improvements
that would provide an acceptable LOS consistent with adopted City
policy, in order to mitigate the Projects long-term impact on the
cumulative condition, using the Equitable Share Responsibility
Formula from the 2002 Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic
Impact Studies.Applicants shall fund a fair share of the estimated costs
for construction of two roundabouts at the intersection of East Grand
Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 northbound ramps and the intersection of
East Branch Street and Traffic Way.
Requirements and Timing.The Applicants shall submit payment of
their fair share of funding for the above mitigation prior to issuance of
land use and/or CUPs grading and/or building permits.
Monitoring.The City shall determine the amount of payment of fair
shares for each Applicant commensurate with metrics that demonstrate
the relative level and intensity of proposed development (e.g., square
footage, land use type, trip generation, etc.).
Residual Impact
Residual impacts under TRANS-3 would remain unavoidable and significant as there are
no feasible mitigation measures that could both eliminate Project relatedincreases in delay
at this intersection and which are consistent with the Citys adopted General Plan. MM
TRANS-3a is feasible for the Project to implement but would leave the Project inconsistent
with City General Plan Policy CT2-1. MM TRANS-3b would fully mitigate Project
impacts in manner that appears to be physically feasible and consistent with the Citys
General Plan mitigation, but is unfunded and unscheduled and therefore it cannot be stated
with certainly when or if the improvements will be completed. Based upon the TIA
prepared by Omni Means Engineering Solutions, the Applicants fair share contribution to
these improvements may constitute a limited portion of overall roundabout costs, which
have not yet been identified, leaving the timing of and potential for full mitigation
uncertain.
3.10-26
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Impact
TRANS-4 Project generated traffic would potentially cause incremental increases
in delays attheFair Oaks Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 southbound off-
ramp/Orchard Avenueintersection which operates at unacceptable
LOS E during AM peak hour. However, increased delays would not
exceed City standards (Less then Significant).
TheFair Oaks Avenue/U.S. Highway 101 southbound off-ramp/Orchard Avenue
intersection is currently operating at unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour. The
Project is calculated to add less than 1.0second of delay for each peak hour over both the
Existing plus Approved/Pending Project Scenario (refer to Table 3.10-4 and Table 3.10-5).
Therefore the Project would only incrementally increase delay atthis intersection. In
addition, the Cityhas obtained federal funding todesign and construct a roundabout to
address existing deficiencies at this intersection. Although the timing of the improvement
is unknown, aroundabout at this location was evaluated using SIDRA modeling software,
and a modern roundabout is projected to operate at LOS A in both the AM and PM peak
hours. Therefore, Project-related impacts to LOS at this intersection would be
less than
.
significant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Impact
TRANS-5 The proposed Project would potentially create conflicts with turning
movements at driveways and intersections on the Project site (Less than
Significant).
The implementation of the Projectwould potentially create conflicts with Project
driveways and access point near intersections, especially at the intersection of East Cherry
Avenue and Project access points, and the intersection of Traffic Way and the driveway to
the proposed hotel. Project access to East Cherry Avenue would need to be stop sign
controlled, while the rest of East Cherry Avenue would remain uncontrolled. Project access
for Subarea 1 would be Traffic Way and the new collector road installed by Subarea 2.
Project access from Traffic Way would be limited.Access to East Cherry Avenue would
create conflicts with the intersection of Traffic way and East Cherry Avenue and the
intersection of East Cherry Avenue and the new collector road. Relatively low traffic
3.10-27
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
volumes and speeds, and excellent line of sight on East Cherry Avenue would ensure that
this new intersection would operate at acceptable LOS with minimal turning movement
conflicts. Project access to Traffic Way would potentially create turning movement
conflicts due to the relatively high speed of traffic coming from the U.S. Highway 101
northbound off-ramp onto Traffic Way, which is not controlled by a stop sign. This impact
is considered adverse but .A recommended condition of approval is
less than significant
detailed below in order to further reduce potential impacts associated with Subarea 1.
Recommended Condition of Approval for Subarea 1
MM TRANS-5a As part of review of permits for development of Subarea 1 and the
proposed hotel/restaurant, acirculation study shall be preparedto
guide driveway location, design, and ingress/egress accessin such a
way to ensure public safety and utility.
Requirements and Timing.Prior to approval of the CUP, the
Applicant shall submit a circulation study prepared by a Traffic
Engineer.
Monitoring.The City require will require the submittalof circulation
study, with review and concurrence to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, prior to CUP review and approval.
Residual Impact
Residual impacts under TRANS-5 would be less than significant.
Impact
TRANS-6 The proposed Project would potentially generate and attract trips to
and from U.S. Highway 101, incrementallyincreasing congestion of the
regions main highway (Less than Significant).
Approximately 30to 35 percent of Project-generated traffic is anticipated to use U.S.
Highway101, adding approximately 576 ADT and 55 PM peak hour trips to this roadway
(OmniMeans 2015). Traffic on the U.S. Highway101 through Arroyo Grande was
estimated at 50,575 ADT in 2012 and wasoperating at near capacity during peaks
(SLOCOG 2014a). Project-generated traffic would contribute to a less than 1.5percent
increase in volumes along U.S. Highway 101 in this segment.
3.10-28
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
The U.S. Highway 101 Corridor Mobility Management Plan confirmed that San Luis
Obispo Countys mature transportation system is beginning to experience increasing and
recurrent congestion. U.S. Highway 101 will eventually need to be widened for additional
capacity. Based on future funding projections, this is beyond the ability of the region to
address (SLOCOG 2014b). The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan includes new
interchange construction at South Traffic Way/Fair Oaks, which would extend the U.S.
Highway 101 ramps at South Traffic Way (SLOCOG 2014a); while this would improve
operating conditions within this segment of U.S. Highway 101, this improvement is
currently not funded.Although the Project would contribute incrementally to these
congestion issues along the U.S. Highway 101 in the long term, the increase of less than
1.5percentis considered .
less than significant
Mitigation Measures
None required.
Impact
TRANS-7 The proposed Project would potentially increasedemand for transit
services in an underserved area, presenting a barrier to both transit
dependent and non-transit dependent households for using transit
(Less than Significant).
It is expected that the proposed Project would increase transit demand that may not be
easily served by the existing transit services. As described in Section 3.10.1, Environmental
Setting, existing transit headways (i.e., time between buses) in the Project vicinity are
infrequent, and there is no direct transit service to the Project site, with the nearest transit
stop located approximately 0.30 miles away from the site.The nearest Amtrak station is
accessible by a local bus route that stops approximately 0.50 miles northwest of the Project
site. The very infrequent headways and distance to the nearest transit stop would inhibit
future residents and employees from using transit and not facilitate City policies to
encourage transit use. Becauseof the long headway in this portion of the City, it is assumed
that individuals that have the choice to drive or take public transit would not choose public
transit. Therefore, although area transit routes may have sufficient capacity to serve the
demand created by the Project, increased demand for relatively convenient transit service
would remain unmet. This impact is considered adverse but .
less than significant
3.10-29
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-5a would apply.
Residual Impact
Implementation of mitigation measure MM AQ-5a would further ensure that residual
impacts under TRANS-7 would be less than significant.While transit capacity would
appear to remain adequate, due to location of the site and design and operation of the
existing transit systems, future residents and employees would be largely reliant upon the
automobile.
3.10.5Cumulative Impacts
The Project would continue the trend of urban development in the City and would
contribute incrementally to the need for improved transportation facilities in the area.The
Project contributes to cumulative traffic impactsat two of the eight study intersections. At
the EastGrand Avenue/WestBranch Street intersection, the proposed Project would
contribute to a significant and unavoidable impact that cannot be readily mitigatedin a
known timeframe because of lack of funding and programming.Under cumulative
conditions, significant LOS impacts would continue to occur at the intersection of East
Grand Avenue/West Branch Street; however, all other study intersections are anticipated
to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or above)after the implementation of Project
mitigation (seeTable 3.10-7). Overall, the Project contribution to cumulative impacts to
transportation is considered .
significant and unavoidable
3.10-30
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.10TT
RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
Table 3.10-7. Cumulative + Project (Mitigated) Conditions: Intersection LOS
Intersection AM Peak HourPM Peak Hour
Control
Number
Intersection
Delay Warrant Delay Warrant
Type
LOSLOS
(sec/veh)Met?(sec/veh)Met?
1 S. Traffic Way/Traffic TWSC12.4 B No11.1 B No
Way/
U.S.101 Ramps
2 E. Cherry Avenue/TWSC16.5 C No24.9 C No
Traffic Way
3 Fair Oaks Signal17.3 B --25.5 C --
Avenue/Traffic Way
4 Bridge Street/TWSC21.5 C No16.3 C No
Traffic Way
5 W. Branch Street/Signal36.2D --24.5C --
Traffic Way
6 E. Grand Avenue/ Signal8.8 A --13.3 A --
W. Branch Street
7 E. Grand Avenue/U.S.Signal18.6 B --12.4 B --
101 NB Ramps
8 Fair Oaks 9.1 A --9.1 A --
RNDBT
Avenue/U.S.101 SB
Off-ramp/Orchard
Avenue
Legend: TWSC: Two-Way Stop-Control; AWSC: All-Way Stop-Control; RNDBT = Roundabout
LOS based on delay of worst minor street approach for TWSC intersections; average of all approaches for AWSC,
Signal, and RNDBT.
Warrant: CA MUTCD Peak-Hour Warrant-3.
3.10-31
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
3.11UPS
TILITIESAND UBLIC ERVICES
The following section describes existing and planned utilities and public services, and
evaluates the operation and capacity of these utilities and services with the development of
the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan (Project). Utilities and public services used during
construction and operation of the proposed Project include water, wastewater, solid waste
disposal, police and fire protection, schools, and energy services.Parks and recreational
facilities are addressed in Section 3.9, . Development of the Project site with
Recreation
residential and commercial uses wouldincrease demand on City services, including fire
protection, police protection and other City supported public services; however, the
required impact fees and potential tax revenue is designed to accommodate such services.
3.11.1Environmental Setting
3.11.1.1Public Services
Public Schools
The Project site is located within the Lucia MarUnified School District(School District)
(K-12), which encompasses the communities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Nipomo,
Oceano, Pismo Beach, and Shell Beach(Lucia Mar Unified School District 2016a). The
School District is the largest school district in San Luis Obispo County, and serves over
10,700 students. The School District consists of 19 schools: elevenelementary schools,
three middle schools, four high schools, and one continuation high school. The school
district contains one full-time teacher for every 23students, which is below the State
average of one teacher per 24 students (NCES 2015).The nearest public schools are Arroyo
Grande High School,Paulding Middle School, and Harloe Elementary School. A list of
nearby public schools that could serve the Project site are listed below (Table 3.11-1).
Although school enrollment has been decreasing in recent years, nearly all schools within
the School District are operating at or above capacity (City of Arroyo Grande 2013).
Table 3.11-1. Public Schools within the Project Vicinity
SchoolLocationDistance From Site(miles)
495 Valley Rd., Arroyo Grande0.40
Arroyo Grande HS
Village PS 146 Traffic Way, ArroyoGrande0.32
600 Crown Hill St., Arroyo Grande0.53
Paulding MS
Harloe ES 901 Fair Oaks Ave., Arroyo Grande1.11
713 Faeh Ave., Arroyo Grande1.60
Arroyo Grande PS
Ocean View ES 1208 Linda Dr., Arroyo Grande1.41
3.11-1
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
Police Protection
Police services in the Project vicinity are provided by the Arroyo Grande Police
Department (AGPD). The AGPD is staffed by 30 full-time employees who provide law
enforcement and emergency response throughout the City and surrounding area. The Police
Department is located at 200 NorthHalcyon Road, approximately 1.0 milefrom the Project
site, with an average emergency response time of 2.8 minutesto the site location (Linda
Cox 2015). The department is organized into two major divisions: Patrol Services and
Support Services, each led by a Commander. In addition to the 30 full-time employees, the
department has six part-time employees, two Reserve Offices, two Neighborhood Services
Technicians, one Fleet and Equipment Technician, on Training Manager, and 52
community volunteers. Provision of police protection services are regulated under the
, which requires adequate provision of these services for a
GeneralPlan Safety Element
build-out population of 20,000 individuals.
Fire Protection
The Five Cities Fire Authority (FCFA) provides emergency and non-emergency fire and
protection services. Emergency services include fire suppression, emergency medical
services, hazardous materials services, Oceano Dunes response, technical rescue, fire
investigations, disaster response, and public assistance. Non-emergency services include
fire and life safety inspections, building inspections, fire code investigations, code
compliance and public education. The FCFA currently operates three fire stations that
service the Five Cities region, responding to an area approximately 9.5 square miles (FCFA
2015a). The FCFA also provides the only ladder truck in the south San Luis Obispo County
and responds to emergencies anywhere between Avila Beach and Nipomo (FCFA 2015b).
According to the , response
Cityof Arroyo GrandeGeneral Plan,Safety Element
throughout the City should be a maximum of six (6) minutes. Just as with police protection
services, fire protection and prevention services are regulated under the ,
Safety Element
which requires adequate provision of these services for a build-out population of 20,000
individuals.
Station 1 of the FCFA is located closest to the Project site, just north along Traffic Way at
140 Traffic Way, approximately 1,760 feet away. The response time for emergencies to
the Project site would be less than three (3) minutes (Steve Lieberman 2015).
3.11-2
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
3.11.1.2Utility Services
Water Supply
The Urban Water Management Plan assesses the City water demand and water supply in
regards to the proposed build-out population, and anticipates adequate supply of water
upon reaching build-out of the City (City of Arroyo Grande 2012a).The City receives its
water primarily from Lopez Reservoir, as well as groundwater extracted from the Santa
Maria Groundwater Basin and Pismo Formation (City of Arroyo Grande 2012a). Water
retrieved from the Lopez Reservoir is treated at the Lopez Water Treatment Plant located
at the reservoir and operation of the dam and treatment facilities is conducted by the San
Luis Obispo Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SLOFCWCD). This is the
primary supply of fresh water and is transported to the Five Cities area via the Lopez
Pipeline. Current capacity for the reservoir is approximately 49,400 acre-feet (af) with a
safe yield of 8,730 acre-feet per year (afy)(City of Arroyo Grande 2012a).Total water
demand for the City in 2010 equated to 3,793afyand it is projected that the City water
supply availability will be approximately 3,813 afyin 2020 (City of Arroyo Grande 2012a,
seeTable 3.11-2). In accordance with the Urban Water Management Plan, the City of
Arroyo Grande is contracted to receive2,290 afyfrom the Lopez Reservoir, accounting for
approximately half of the available water allocation; however, in surplus years, the City
may be offered surplus supplies.
Table 3.11-2. Arroyo Grande Water Supply
WaterSupply SourcesHistoric 2010 Amount (afy)Projected 2020 Amount (afy)
Groundwater Santa Maria 1,3231,323
Groundwater Basin
Groundwater Pismo Formation80200
County of San Luis Obispo Lopez 2,2902,290
Reservoir Project
1
OceanoCommunity Services District1000
Total3,7933,813
1
Assumes that the current contract allowing for 100 afy from the Oceano Community Services District will have
expired.
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2012a.
Groundwater makes up almost 25 percent of the Citys water demand, which is typically
used for agriculture within the City limits and produced from privately owned wells. The
City of Arroyo Grande has a Groundwater Management Agreement with an entitlement of
1,323 afy from this basin. Lastly, the City receives approximately 200 afy from City wells
within the Pismo Formation Groundwater Basin, which is not an adjudicated basin, nor is
3.11-3
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
identified as an overdrafted basin by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). Thus,
total water supply availability to the City from entitlements and appropriative rights is
approximately 3,813 afy (City of Arroyo Grande 2012a). The Project site utilizes
groundwater and is not connected to the Citys water infrastructure. At the Project site,
groundwater is primarily supplied by two existing onsite wells and is used for the overhead
spray irrigationof row crops on the 11.62-acre Subarea 2. Water demand for types of crops
produced on the site ranges from 1.5 to 3.5 af per acre. Historic and current annual water
use for the 11.62 acres of active agricultural land is approximately 34.86 afy. Subarea 1
and Subarea 3 of the Project site consist of undeveloped and fallow land which currently
do not utilize water from City supply, and recent water demand for these sites is estimated
to be very low (i.e., less than 1.0 af per acre)(Oasis Associates, Inc. 2015);however,
Subarea 1has historically been irrigated and used for row crops,and is estimated to have
had a long-term water demand of 6.48 afy.Subarea 3 is not irrigated and has a water
demand of 0 afy.
Wastewater Treatment
The City provides a public wastewater collection system for developments within the City
limits which conveys raw wastewater to trunk mains owned and operated by the South San
Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) for wastewater treatment. This
wastewater treatment district serves the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and the
community of Oceano. The sanitary sewer system consists of nearly 73 miles of gravity
sewer systems and five wastewater lift stations throughout the City (City of Arroyo Grande
2012b). The sewer pipe collection system conveys approximately 1.20 million gallons per
day (mgd) of wastewater with peak daily flows of approximately 3.16 mgd (SSLOCSD
2014). The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) was designed to operate at a capacity flow
rate of 5.0mgd and a 9.0mgd peak wet weather flow rate (SSLOCSD 2014). Routine video
inspections of the collections system are carried out every four years, with cleaning of the
system done on average of every fourth year of inspection as part of the Districts
preventative maintenance plan (SSLOCSD 2014).
Existing City infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project site includes existing sewer mains
that run along the south side of East Cherry Avenue.The Project site lies with the service
area of the SSLOCSD, approximately 3.2 miles east, but the site is not currently serviced
by the facility.
3.11-4
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
Solid Waste Disposal
South County Sanitary is the service provider for the City, including the Project vicinity,
and offers curbside solid waste and recyclable collectionservices.South CountySanitary
is a municipal waste hauling company supported by the Cold Canyon Landfill, and is
owned by Waste Connections, Inc.(South County Sanitary 2015). The Cold Canyon
Landfill is the primary Landfill for the Five Cities area, as well as for the City of San Luis
Obispo, and is projected to reach its capacity around 2018. The landfill was operating at
approximately 250,000 tons per year between 2004 and 2009, resulting in an average of
685 tons per day (tpd); however, the facility is permitted to accept up to 1,620 tpd (SWCA
Environmental Services 2012). The landfill has been approved for the expansion of the
facilities capacity from 1,620 to 2,500 tpd, extending the landfills projections to reach
capacity in approximately 30years in order adequately service current and anticipated
districtneeds (County of San Luis Obispo 2012).
Energy Services
Californias three main energy sources are electricity, natural gas, and crude oil.
Approximately 61.3 percent of the States total electricity comesfrom natural gas, 8.6
percent comesfrom nuclear, 7.1percent comesfrom large (non-renewable) hydroelectric
power, 0.5 percent came from coal, and 22.5percent comesfrom renewable sources.
Renewable energy sources used to produce electricity include geothermal, small
hydroelectric power, wind power, biomass and waste products, and solar energy (CEC
2015b).
In 2014, California consumed approximately 282,154million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of
electricity and 10,208million Therms (thm) of natural gas (CEC 2015a).As the population
in California grows over the next fewyears, consumption is anticipated to steadily increase
at a rate of 1.27percent annually for electricity and 0.70percent annually for natural gas
(CEC 2013).
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electrical services and the Southern
California Gas Company (SCG) supplies gas services to the City.Existing infrastructure
in the vicinity of the Project site includes a gas main infrastructure that runs along East
Cherry Avenue. Gas and electricity services are not currently provided to the Project site.
3.11-5
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
3.11.2Regulatory Setting
3.11.2.1Federal
Clean Water Act
The federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, is the primary
statute governing water quality. The Clean Water Actestablishes the basic structure for
regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and gives EPA the
authority to implement pollution control programs, such as setting wastewater standards
for industries. The statutes goal is to regulate all discharges into the nations waters and
to restore, maintain, and preserve the integrity of those waters. The Clean Water Actsets
water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters and makes it unlawful for
any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a
permit is obtained under its provisions. The Clean Water Actmandates permits for
wastewater and stormwater discharges, requires states to establish site-specific water
quality standards for navigable bodies of water, and regulates other activities that affect
water quality, such as dredging and the filling of wetlands. The Clean Water Actalso funds
the construction of sewage treatment plants and recognizes the need for planning toaddress
nonpoint sources of pollution.
3.11.2.2State
California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) (1989)
This Act requiresall jurisdictions to divert 25 percent of waste stream by 1995 and 50
percent by 2000 through source reduction, recycling, and composting to limit reliance on
landfills.
Assembly Bill (AB) 341 (2011)
This bill established a State policy goal that no less than 75percent of solid waste generated
be source reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020, and requiring CalRecycle to provide
a report to the Legislature that recommends strategies to achieve the policy goal by January
1, 2014. AB341 builds on the existing AB 939 requirement that every jurisdiction divert
at least 50 percent of its waste. AB341 requires any business (including schools and
government facilities) that generates four cubic yards or more of waste per week, and
multifamily buildings with five or more units to arrange for recycling services.
3.11-6
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) (1998)
This bill requires that cities and counties mitigateimpacts to school facilities as a condition
of approving new developments. SB 50 also authorizes school districts to levy statutory
developer fees are level which may be significantly high than previously permitted. To
levy fees higher than permitted, theschool district must conduct a Needs Analysis and a
Fee Justification Study which address the justification of the levying of developer fees.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
The SGMA is a statewide policy that empowers local agencies to adopt groundwater
management plans that relate to the needs and resources of their communities. It is the
intent of the SGMA to:
Provide for the sustainable management of groundwater basins;
Enhance local management of groundwater consistent with rights to use or store
groundwater and Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution. It is the
intent of the Legislature to preserve the security of water rights in the state to the
greatest extent possible consistent with the sustainable management of
groundwater;
Establish minimum standards for sustainable groundwater management;
Provide local groundwater agencies with the authority and the technical and
financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage groundwater;
Avoid or minimize subsidence;
Improve data collection and understanding about groundwater;
Increase groundwater storage and remove impediments to recharge;
Manage groundwater basins through the actions of local governmental agencies to
the greatest extent feasible, while minimizing state intervention to only when
necessary to ensure that local agencies manage groundwater in a sustainable
manner; and
Provide a more efficient and cost-effective groundwater adjudication process that
protects water rights, ensures due process, prevents unnecessary delay, and furthers
the objectives of this part.
The State of California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
The SWRCB has adopted a statewide construction general permit that applies to storm
water and non-storm water discharges from construction activities. This general permit,
which is implemented and enforced in the Five Cities region by the Central Coast Regional
3.11-7
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), requiresall owners of land where construction
activity occurs to:
Eliminate or reduce non-storm waterdischarges to storm water systems and other
waters of the U.S.;
Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
emphasizing storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs); and
Perform inspections of storm water pollution prevention measures to assess their
effectiveness.
California Education Code (EC) Sections 41376 and 41378
The California EC establishes standards regulating the California education system.
Section 41376 and 41378 of the EC prescribe maximum class sizes and penalties for any
school district that should exceed the limits established in 1964. Districts which exceed
established class sizes will have their revenue funding limit reduced by the Superintendent
of Public Instruction. Size limits for classes K-8 are:
Kindergarten Average class size is not to exceed 31 studentsand individual class
size is not to exceed 33 students.
Grades one through three Average class size is not to exceed 30 students and
individual class size is not to exceed 32 students.
Grades four through eight Average number of students per teacher is not to exceed
the greater of 29.9 or the districts average number of students per teacher in 1964.
Executive Order B-29-15: Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements
Based upon the severe statewide drought, in April of 2015, the Governor of California
declared a Drought State of Emergencyand authorized the State Water Resources Control
Board (Water Board) to impose restrictions to achieve a statewide 25percentreduction in
potable urban water usagethrough February 28, 2016. These restrictions will require water
suppliers to California's cities and towns to reduce usage as compared to the amount used
in 2013.
3.11.2.3Local
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
The City of Arroyo Grande General Plan contains goals and policies that address many of
the services to the city including fire services, law enforcement, and other emergency
services.Theseservices have been outlined in the of the General Plan which
Safety Element
3.11-8
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
establishes programs and mitigation measures to ensure the effective deliverance of these
services. The following goals and policies are applicable to the Project:
General Plan, Safety Element
Goal S3 Reduce the threat to life, structures and the environment caused by fire.
Policy S3-2 Ensure that adequate facilities, equipment and personnel are
available to meet the demands of fire fighting in the City of Arroyo Grande.
Policy S3-3 Maintain and improve the Fire Departments ability to respond to
emergency calls and suppress fires throughout the City within a maximum
response time of six (6) minutes.
Program S3-3.1 Prepare and work to achieve a maximum of six (6)
minutes response time goal. This maximum response time will be based
upon density of development, and the value at risk contrasted with an
acceptable level of risk. More concentrated urban uses should be within
four (4) minutes response time.
City of Arroyo Grande Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements
Based upon the Governors Executive Order B-29-15, the City has implemented a
comprehensive water conservation, monitoring, and enforcement program including
restrictions to water use, landscaping irrigation limits, conserving uses of potable water,
and conservation measures for hotels and restaurants. This authority is based upon
provisions of the California Water Code relating to water shortage emergencies and water
conservation programs (Water Code Sections 350 et seq. and Water Code Sections 375 et
seq.).
3.11.3Environmental Impact Analysis
3.11.3.1Thresholds for Determining Significance
In accordance with Appendix G of the 2016 CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the
proposed Project would have significant adverse impacts on utilities and public services if:
a)Impacts to water supplies would be significant if any component of the Project
generated a demand that would potentially exceed the capacity of existing or
forecasted supplies, facilities, or service lines;
b)Impacts to wastewater infrastructure would be significant if the proposed Project
would potentially exceed the design capacity of sewer lines or the wastewater
treatment plant;
3.11-9
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
c)Impacts to solid waste disposal would be significant if the Project site generated
solid waste which could not be accommodated by the designated landfills
permitted capacity;
d)Impacts to police protection services would be significant if response times to the
Project site were inadequate, or if police staffing would be inadequate to support
the proposed Project;
e)Impacts to fire protection services would be significant if response times to the
Project site did not meet established requirements (e.g. less than 6minutes), or if
the firefighter/population ratio would decline, or if firefighter staffing or equipment
would be inadequate to support the proposed Project;.
f)Impacts would be significant if operation of the Project consumed energy beyond
PG&E or SCG capacity to supply or produce;
g)Impacts would be significant if the proposed Project conflicted with adopted energy
conservation plans.; or
h)Impacts would be significant if construction or operation of the proposed Project
used non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner.
3.11.3.2Impact Assessment Methodology
Potential impacts of the proposed Project were evaluated by reviewing Project
characteristics to assess their potential to affect the capacities of wastewater, potable water,
and energy service utilities.General Plan documentsand other available City resources
were reviewed to provide anassessment of impacts. Projected utility demands and
wastewater generation for the proposed Projectwere compared with the current and
projected capacity available for allocation within the City.Impacts to wastewater
infrastructure are considered significant if the proposed Project would result in sewer line
or treatment plant system deficiencies. Impacts to public services were assessed in the
Initial Study, located with Appendix A of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and
were further analyzed for the Projects impacts to the capacity of local public schools and
demand on police and fire protection services.
3.11.4Project ImpactsandMitigation Measures
Utility Services
Currently, the Project site is not serviced by or connected to primary City utility services
(e.g. water, wastewater, gas, electricity). To accommodate utilityserviceneeds of the
onsite development, the individual developers would install necessary water and
wastewater conveyance systems,dry utility connectionsconnecting to existing City
infrastructure located primarily along East Cherry Avenue.
3.11-10
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
Park and Recreation Services
Given the development of additional residential units and the generation of approximately
140 new individuals to the City population, the need for park and recreational services
would increase. To accommodate City requirements for four (4) acres of parkland per 1,000
individuals, a total of 0.55 acres of parkland would be needed for the Project. The Project
would include the development of a 0.35-acre neighborhood park, community gardens,
additional pathways, and construction of new bikeways which present recreational
opportunities to residents of the Project and surrounding Project vicinity. However, the
addition of 0.35acres of parkland for the Project would not meet the City requirement of
0.56acres of parkland required for the additional generation of 140 individuals, resulting
in increased demand for,and use of, existing recreational resources. Impacts to park and
recreation facilities and mitigation measures are further discussed in Section 3.9,
(refer to Impact REC-1).
Recreation
Stormwater Drainage Facilities
The proposed Project would result in the removal of current onsite drainage facilities in an
effort to adequately manage stormwater throughout implementation of the Project. This
would require the removal of the manmade drainage ditch adjacent to the southern border
of Subarea 2 and the construction of a new stormwater drainage system throughout Subarea
2. The new stormwater network would convey on and offsite stormwater to the current 48-
inch storm drain located at the south east corner of Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue.
Impacts associated with this aspect of the Project are further assessed in Section 3.6,
(refer to Impact HYD-3).
Hydrologyand Water Quality
3.11-11
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
Table 3.11-3. Summary of Project Impacts
Utility and Public Service ImpactsMitigation MeasuresResidual Significance
Impact UT-1.Implementation of the NonerequiredLess than Significant
proposed Project would not exceed the
wastewater capacity of the SSLOCSD
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Impact UT-2. The proposed Project would MM AQ-1aLess than Significantwith
require the expansion of existing utility MM AQ-1bMitigation
infrastructure including water, sewer, gas and MM AQ-1c
electricity into the site; the construction of MMAQ-1d
which would cause less than significant MM BIO-1a
environmental effects.MM NOI-1a
MM NOI-1b
Impact UT-3. Implementation of the Project None requiredLess than Significant
would result in as overall decrease in water
demand compared to historic water demand
and would not significantly impact the Citys
water supply or water infrastructure.
Impact UT-4. The proposed Project would None requiredLess than Significant
generate additional solid waste needing
disposal at the Cold Canyon Landfill;
however, impacts would be less than
significant.
Impact UT-5.The proposed Project would None requiredLess than Significant
increase demand for fireprotection, police
protection, and public school services.
Impact
UT-1 Implementationof the proposed Project would notexceed the
wastewater capacity of the SSLOCSD Wastewater Treatment Plant
(Less than Significant).
Wastewater treatment services for the proposed Project would be provided by the City
collection system. As described in Section 2.6.7, the City collection system would convey
raw wastewater to mains operated by the SSLOCSD, which would also provide wastewater
treatment servicesto the Project site. As of 2013, the collection system conveys peak flows
of approximately 3.16 mgd; as the SSLOCSD has a capacity of at least 5.0mgd,the
SSLOCSD currently operates at only 63 percent of its 5.0 mgd capacity.Wastewater
production for all subareas is estimated at approximately 10,802.36 gpd, a value that would
result in an incremental increase to wastewater flows(less than one percent) (see Table
3.11-4). Due to the facilitys relatively large remaining capacity, operation of the proposed
Project would not adversely impact the SSLOCSD infrastructure and collection system,
nor produce a significant increase in strain on the wastewater treatment facility.
3.11-12
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
Table 3.11-4. Projected Wastewater Production
Sewer Flow Wastewater
Proposed Land
SubareaProposed UsesAcresFactorProduced
Use District
(gpd/acre)(gpd)
1
1 Commercial Hotel and Restaurant2.16405874.8
Mixed-Use
2
Village Residential Medium Density 11.62 (±0.5)7738,982.3
2
(VR-SP)Residential
3
3 Village Mixed-Use Community Center, 1.51 (±0.5)626945.3
(VMU-SP)Senior Housing,
Caretaker Unit,
Single Unit B&B,
and Farmstand
Estimated Total Wastewater Production 10,802.36
1
Commercial Mixed Use Sewer Flow Factor is based off of Regional Commercial Sewer Flow Factor.
2
Village Residential Sewer Flow Factor is based off of Single Family Medium Density Sewer Flow Factor.
3
Village Mixed Use Sewer Flow Factoris based off of Mixed-Use Sewer Flow Factor.
Source: City of Arroyo Grande 2012b.
To limit effects from the production of wastewater by new developments, developers are
required to pay a development impactfee for the connection to a public sewer. As the
Project would require the connection to the City collection system for Subareas 1 through
3, the Applicants would be subject to development impact fees implemented by the City
for utility services that would offset any impacts to capacity at the SLLOCSD Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
Therefore, payment of development impact fees as part of standard conditions for Project
approval would address potential impacts to SSLOCSD Wastewater Treatment Plant
capacity associated with the development. Impacts related to wastewater treatment of the
proposed Project would therefore be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures required.
Impact
UT-2 The proposed Project would require the expansion of existing utility
infrastructure includingwater, sewer, gas and electricityinto the site;
the construction of which would cause potentiallysignificant
environmental effects (Less than Significant with Mitigation).
As the Project site is not currently connected to City water supply pipelines, wastewater
facilities, nor supplied by electricity and gas, and the Project requires connection to such
3.11-13
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
facilities in order to provide associated utility services tothe Project site. New 8-inch lines
would connect to existing lines that run along East Cherry Avenue. The new lines would
run beneath the proposed Subarea 2 residential and collector streets; Subareas 1 and 3
would also construct utility lines connecting to existing City infrastructure in an
undetermined location at this time. Construction of onsite utility lines would mainly be
limited to excavation and trenching within the Project site. Due to the current and projected
adequacy of the capacity of water supply and wastewater treatment services, no further
construction or expansion operationswould be required.Construction of utilities would
occur in conformance with the Uniform Plumbing Code and City standards. Impacts from
construction of utility improvementsare described in other sections of this EIR (e.g.
Section 3.3, , Section 3.4,
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas EmissionsBiological
, and Section 3.8, )and would be less than significant with the
ResourcesNoise
implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore,impacts to the environment due to the
construction or expansion of electricity, gas lines, water supply and wastewater facilities
are focused on those construction activities occurring onsite, and impacts to the
environment by these actions would be
less than significantwith mitigation.
Mitigation Measuresfor All Subareas
and would apply.
MM AQ-1a-d, MMBIO-1a,MMNOI-1a-b
Residual Impact
After implementation of the above mitigation measures, impacts related to the construction
of utilities would be less than significant.
Impact
UT-3 Implementation of the Projectwould result in as overalldecrease in
water demand compared to historic water demandand would not
significantly impact the Citys water supply or water infrastructure
(Less than Significant).
City water is provided by the Lopez Reservoir, which currently supports a safe annual yield
of 8,730 afyandsupplies the City with 2,290 afy. The City water supply also is supplemented
by groundwater from the Santa Maria Basin and Pismo Formation, which is able to provide
an additional 1,523 afy. Projected City water supplyfor 2020-2030includes the estimated
City build-out supplyfor water, and is approximately 3,813afy. Projected water demandfor
the City by 2020is 2,838 afy, well below the estimated availablewater supply.
3.11-14
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
Historically, given the relatively higher water demand associated with irrigated agricultural
crop production, water demand for the 11.62acres of active onsite agricultural landequates
to approximately 34.86 afy based on a water use factor of 3 afyper acre.In addition,
although Subarea 1 is currently fallow, this parcel was historically irrigated with an
estimated 6.48 afy. Overall, the long-term historic water demand for the Project site was
41.34 afy.Water demand for the proposed Project, which includes water needs for single
family residential units, gardens, parkland, hotel needs, restaurant use, and landscape
irrigation is estimated at 36.22afy.Water demand factors for the proposed Project are
derived fromthe City of Arroyo Grande Urban Water System Master Specific Plan and are
presented in Table 3.11-5.
Therefore, the Project would result in a potential net decreaseincreaseof water demand by
5.121.36afy, Design principles for the proposed Project state that designs for the Subarea
2 and Subarea 3 developments shall incorporate water conservation designs which would
reduce the estimated 36.22afyof water demanded by the Project. These designs would
include implementation of low water use fixtures and appliances, low volume irrigation
systems, and appropriate landscape design incorporating drought tolerant native or non-
native, non-invasive vegetation.
Table 3.11-5. Projected Water Demands
Proposed Water
Quantity (#
SubareaLand Use Proposed UsesWater Use FactorDemand
of Units)
District(afy)
Commercial Hotel Units1000.0.092 afy/unit9.2
1
Mixed-Use
1
Restaurant1 (4,000 sf)4.6afy4.6
Village Medium Density 58(1400.34 afy/unit19.72
2
Residential ResidentialPersons)
(VR-SP)
2
3 Village Mixed-Visitor-Serving (Cultural 3,403 sf0.06 afy/1000sf0.20
Use (VMU-SP)archive & community
center)
2
Senior/Group Housing100.10 afy/unit1.0
Caretakers Unit10.3 afy/unit 0.30
2
+ Commercial Kitchen690 sf+ 1.32afy/1,000 sf0.91
2
Bed and Breakfast 1 0.13 afy/unit0.13
Unit/Guest House
2
Retail/Farmstand550 sf0.30 afy/1,000 sf0.16
Estimated Total Water Demand 36.22
1
Average water use factor for restaurant land uses(Communications with Taylor, City of San Luis Obispo 2016).
2
Water use factor based on Urban Water Management Plan (2012).
3
Use factor based on estimated water demand for Subarea 2 of the Project from the Initial Study (Appendix A).
3.11-15
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
The projected future City water supply incorporates the anticipated City build-out
population. Overall, the Project would result in a slight net decrease from historic water
use, which accounts for cyclic variations in water use typical for agricultural operations by
approximately 5.12 afy.In aworst case scenario, in consideration of the current fallow
status of Subarea 1,net water demand may increase approximately 1.36 afyfrom current
conditions; however, the Project would not substantially increase City water demand, nor
would it substantially decrease City water supply. Therefore, impacts to water supply
would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures required.
Impact
UT-4 The proposed Project would generate additional solid waste needing
disposal at the Cold Canyon Landfill; however, impacts would be less
than significant (Less than Significant).
Solid waste generated at the Project site by residents, employeesand visitors would be
disposed of by South County Sanitary to the Cold Canyon Creek Landfill. The County of
San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors approved expansion of the landfill, increasing
capacity from 1,620 tpd to 2,500 tpd. The proposed Project would contribute an estimated
1,096.28 lbs of solid waste per day, equating to 0.55 tpd(Table 3.11-6).The landfill is
anticipated to reach capacity in 2040 (County of San Luis Obispo 2012).
As the landfill is receiving roughly 685 tpd, the waste produced by all subareas of the
Project would not substantially affect the landfills expanded capacity or ability to comply
with federal, state, or local regulations. Therefore, impacts regarding the generation of solid
waste by the Project would be .
less than significant
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures required.
3.11-16
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
Table 3.11-6. Estimated Solid Waste Production
Quantity Waste Waste
Proposed Land
SubareaProposed Uses(# of Generation Generation
Use District
Units)Factor(lbs/day)
1 Commercial Hotel Units1002.0 lb/day/unit200.0
Mixed-Use
Restaurant4,000 sf0.005 lb/sq ft/day20.0
2 Village Medium Density 5812.23 lb/day/unit709.34
Residential Residential
(VR-SP)
Village Mixed-Visitor-Serving 3,403 sf0.03 lb/sq ft/day102.09
3
Use (VMU-SP)(Cultural archive &
community center)
Senior/Group 105.1 lb/day/person51.0
Housing
Caretakers Unit 1 5.1 lb/day/person 8.55
+ Commercial 690 sf+ 0.005 lb/sq
Kitchenft/day
Bed and Breakfast 1 2.0 lb/day/unit2.0
Unit/Guest House
Retail/Farmstand550 sf0.006 lb/sq ft/day3.3
1,096.28
Estimated Total Waste Generation
Source: (CalRecycle 2013a; CalRecycle 2013b; CalRecycle 2013c).
Impact
UT-5 The proposed Project wouldincrease demand for fire protection, police
protection, and public school services (Less than Significant).
Development of the proposed Project would incrementally increase demand for both non-
emergency and emergency fire protection and police protection services provided by the
FCFA and Arroyo Grande Police Department respectively; however, as described above
in Section 3.11.1.1, the FCFA and AGDPcurrently have adequate facilities and staffing
levels to accommodate the slight increase in demand associated with the Project.The
Project site is located within safe and timely response periods (less than 3-minute response
time) for local fire and police stations and the proposed Project is not predicted impede fire
and police protection services to the site.
The population increase attributed to theProject could further impact enrollment capacity
of local schools within the Lucia Mar Unified School District. As discussed earlier, schools
within the Lucia Mar Unified School District are operating at or above enrollment
capacities. Sections 41376 and 41378 of the California Education Codelist standards for
class sizes in every school district (refer toSection 3.11.2, ). The Lucia
Regulatory Setting
Mar Unified School District average student-to-teacher ratio is 23.00, a value less than the
3.11-17
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
ratio requirement established by the California EC. While the schools expected to service
the Project site are at or above capacity, those schools are within California EC
requirements and the addition of pupils generated by this site will not significantly impact
current student-to-teacher ratios.Pursuant to SB 50, impacts on schools are considered to
be less than significant with payment of development fees to the School District,which
was established to provide for school facilities construction, improvements, and expansion,
or equivalent fee as adopted by a local school district in accordance with SB 50. A
developmental impact fee (Level 1/Statutory Developer Fee) is required by the Lucia Mar
School District for any residential or commercial/industrial development at a cost of $3.36
and $0.54 per square foot respectively(Lucia Mar Unified School District 2016b).
Due to the minimal impacts to public services caused by the addition of residents by the
Projectand required development impact fees, impacts to these services would be
less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures required.
3.11.5Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the incremental increase in demand
for water supply, stormwater and wastewater management, and the supply of utilities (e.g.
electricity, gas, and cable). Cumulative impacts toutility andpublic services are largely
related to City-wide population growthand development.Under the 2001 General Plan
Update, facilities providing these services have anticipated the demand of these services
for the build-out population of the City, and are prepared to adequately supply these
services with regard to current and future developmentsand planned growth anticipated
under the current General Planfor a population up to 20,000.As described in Section
3.11.1,, existing public services including schools, police, and fire
Environmental Setting
protection services and existing utility services including water supply, wastewater
treatment, solid waste, and energy services are all currently operating under capacity, and
have sufficient remaining capacity to absorb cumulative increases in demand as projected
under the General Plan. Water supply availability at full buildout of the General Plan is
anticipated to be 3,813 afy, which is below the anticipated demand of 2,813 afy in 2020
(City of Arroyo Grande 2012a). Wastewater treatment within the district is only operating
at 63 percent of its total capacity, and the Cold Canyon landfill has been approved to
expand its capacity to 2,500 tpd. As such, utility infrastructure within the region has
3.11-18
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
3.11UPS
TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
sufficient remaining capacity to account for cumulative increases in demand resulting from
development anticipated under the General Plan.
Planned and pending development in the City includes multiple mixed-use commercial and
residentialprojects. These projects are also expected to increaseresidential units and
contribute to additional population increases in the City, thereby increasing demand for the
Citys utility infrastructure and public services.Implementation of this Project and other
proposed or current projects in Table 3.0-1within the range of these services would
increase the demand on utilities and public services; however, these projects would be
required to comply with standards for adequate public services utilities set forth in the
Citys General Plan, would be subject to City planning and review processesthat would
ensure that adequate utility infrastructure, and public services are in place to support
increased demandand in compliance with General Plan Policy S3-2. Developers would be
required to paydevelopment impact fees tooffset any impacts to utility and public service
infrastructure and capacities. As such, cumulatively the Project would not result in any
significant or adverse effects on the supply of these services. Therefore, the cumulative
impact of this Project and projects (listed in Table 3.0-1) within the vicinity would be
less
.
than significant
3.11-19
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
4.0OCEQAC
THER ONSIDERATIONS
4.0OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
4.1IEI
RREVERSIBLE NVIRONMENTAL MPACTS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15126.2(c)
requires that irretrievable commitments of resources be evaluated to assure that such
current consumption is justified.This includes use of nonrenewable resources, the
commitment of future generations to similar uses, and irreversible damage,which can
result from environmental accidents associated with the Project.
Construction of new buildings and paved surfaces would involve consumption of building
materials and energy, some of which are nonrenewable or locally limited natural resources
(e.g., fossil fuels and wood).Nonrenewable resources usedfor the proposed Project could
no longer be usedfor other purposes.Consumption of building materials and energy is
associated with any development in the region, and these commitments of resources are
not unique or unusual to the proposed Project.The proposed Project would represent an
incremental commitment to long-term use of nonrenewable resources, particularly gasoline
for substantially increased automobile use and oil, coal,and natural gas for power
generation. Although not unique to the proposed Project, the auto-oriented nature of the
proposed Project would result in the consumption of additional energy, particularly
gasoline and electricity.In addition, as discussed in Section 3.3, , use of each
Air Quality
of these forms of non-renewable energy would contribute to the generation of greenhouse
gases (GHGs) with an incremental contribution to global climate change.Thus while
Project energy demand and use of non-renewable sources itself would not be significant, it
would incrementally contribute to resultant secondary impacts to other resources.
Implementation of the proposed Project would irreversibly commit 14.0 acres of prime
soils from active agricultural production to residential and mixed-use development. The
proposed Project would commit future generations to similar uses.However, the
irretrievable commitment of this site for these uses is considered justified given that the
site is surrounded by existing developmentand would have access to City services (e.g.,
wastewater). Further, Subarea 3 is expected to provide educational, cultural, and
commercialpurposes for the community and future generations through the development
of senior housing,native and cultural gardens, and educational opportunities for Arroyo
Grande ValleyJapanese Welfare Association members, as well as the greater community.
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 4-1
FinalEIR
4.0OCEQAC
THER ONSIDERATIONS
The proposed Project would not be expected to result in environmental accidents that have
the potential to cause irreversible damage to the natural or human environmentsuch as a
release of hazardous materials.
4.2G-II
ROWTHNDUCING MPACTS
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of how the proposed
Project could foster economic or population growth, or theconstruction of additional
housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.Induced growth is
distinguished from the direct economic, population, or housing growth of a project.
Induced growth is any growth that results from new development that would not have taken
place in the absence of the project and that exceeds planned growth.CEQA Guidelines also
state that growth in any area should not be assumed to be necessarily beneficial,
detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
Growth-inducing impacts are caused by those characteristics of a project that tend to foster
or encourage population and/or economic growth.Inducements to growth include the
generation of construction and permanent employment opportunities in the support sectors
of the economy.The proposed Project could result in four types of growth-inducing
impacts: 1) the creation of short- and long-term employment opportunities which draw
newcomers to the region; 2) the associated increase in housing demand;3) the generation
of new commercial and tourist accommodations to entice people to the area; and 4) the
extension of City infrastructure into areas where such infrastructure does not currently
exist.
4.2.1Employment Generation
The proposed Project would generate long-term employment opportunities through the
development of a hotel and restaurant on Subarea 1, and the general retail aspect associated
with the development of Subarea 3. It is not known how many of these new workers would
in-migrate or be new to the community, but it is assumed that construction and operation
of the Project would draw workers from the existing regional work force.
4.2.2Population and Housing Generation
The proposed Project would introduce 58 new single-family residential units, resulting in
a corresponding population increase of 140residents based on a ratio of 2.4 people per
housing unit in Arroyo Grande in 2013 (U.S. Census Bureau 2015).This Project, as well
as a majority of other pending/approved projects in the local area wouldresult in the
4-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
4.0OCEQAC
THER ONSIDERATIONS
development of residential units throughout the City. These developments would affect the
current City population by introducing new residents to the City. The 1990 General Plan
identifies the build-out population of 19,500 individuals. The 2001 General Plan update
identified anincrease in the Citys population from the 2001 baseline of approximately
16,000 individuals to a year 2021 population of 20,000. Currently, population and
economic impacts associated with new housing developments are accounted for in the
General Plan, which would accommodate population growth of approximately 1,500
individuals by 2021 (City of Arroyo Grande 2001).
4.2.3Tourist Accommodation Generation
With the development of an additional 100-room hotel and detached4,000 square foot (sf)
restaurant, visitor,and tourist accommodations would increase. A new hotel and restaurant
development could attract tourists and travelers to the area and generate additional revenue
for local businesses. Associated increases in visitors could potentially result in increased
traffic and use of public facilitiesand services.As Subarea 1 is designated for automobile-
oriented services, the development of hotel and restaurant uses would generate
employment and temporary populations, and has the potential to incrementally induce
temporary population growth.
4.2.4Extension of Infrastructure
Development of the three subareas of the Project site would require extension of City
infrastructure into the site, including the development of an onsite collector road and
bicycle path in between Subareas 1 and 2. This new collector roadis potentially growth
inducing as the collector road would facilitategrowth in the adjacent hillside neighborhood
located along the Project sites southern boundary. The proposed collector road and bicycle
path would provide access to, and facilitate the development of additional roadways and
construction along the hillside.However, the potential development of this hillside is
proposed under the proposed update for the
City of Arroyo Grande General Plan,
. This growth is anticipated by the City.
Circulation Element
4.3EFNTBS
FFECTS OUND OT O EIGNIFICANT
CEQA Guidelines state that the EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons
that various potentially significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant
and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR (Section 15128).After standard
regulatory conditions and/or mitigation measures are applied, severalresource areas were
found to be below a level of significance, as identified in the Initial Study Checklist
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 4-3
FinalEIR
4.0OCEQAC
THER ONSIDERATIONS
(Appendix A). Someof these issues have been reassessed in this EIR, and further analysis
resulted in mitigation measures provided as appropriate.Results of the environmental
analyses are either presented in Section 3.0,
Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation
,or discussed below.
Measures
4.3.1Cultural Resources
Project impacts to culturalresources were identified inthe Initial Study Checklist
(Appendix A) asbeing The Project would not be
less than significantwith mitigation.
located within a Historic District. While there were no recorded cultural resources found
within the Project site, seven archaeological sites are recorded within a 0.5 mile-radius of
the Project site, with two of the sites located within 328 feet of the site. Subarea 3 of the
Project site, known as the JWA property, is regarded as an important location relative to
the settlement history of Japanese Americansin the City. Development of Subarea 3
intends to raise awareness of this history.
Several searches for cultural resources were conducted within close proximity to the
Project site. The presence of two shell middens were detected within the vicinity, but no
cultural remains associated with these sites were identified during subsurface testing of the
sites. Further cultural resource studies were conducted within a 0.25 mile radius but no
significant culturalresources were identified.
The Northern Chumash community was consulted in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB)
52. Tribal representatives were contacted and notified about the proposed project and
findings of the relatedrecords search and field surveys. Interested Northern Chumash
representatives included individuals and groups identified by the Native American
Heritage Commission(NAHC)who had historical ties to the Project site. Mona Olivas
Tucker and Fred Collins, respective representatives of the yak tityu Northern Chumash
Tribe and the Northern Chumash Tribe Council, requested that the Project site be inspected
by a qualified archaeologist and a Northern Chumash community member during the initial
excavation phase to confirm the absence of potentialburial sites.These recommendations
are incorporated as Project mitigation measuresin the Initial Study.
Should potential archaeological or paleontological resources be discovered during site
preparation or construction, activities would cease until suchresources are evaluated for
their nature, integrity, and significance, as described in mitigation measures and
MM CR-1
of the Initial Study.
MM CR-2
4-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
4.0OCEQAC
THER ONSIDERATIONS
4.3.2Geological Resources
The Initial Study identifies Project impacts upon geological resources as
less than
.The City is located within the Coast Range
significant impacts with mitigation
Geomorphic Province, which is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and
fracturing. The Wilmar Avenue fault is a potentially active fault line adjacent to the City.
According to the of the Citys General Plan, the Wilmar Avenue Fault poses
SafetyElement
a moderate potential fault rupture hazards to the City.
The Project site lies within an area identified as having a moderate liquefaction potential
(City of Arroyo Grande 2001).Potential soil hazards could arise in the form of slope
stability issues along the southern edge of the site, where high landslide potential has been
identified offsite. The Project site is located in an area that has been identified as having a
moderate to high potential for expansion, but with prescribed mitigation measures,
potentially significant impacts will be reduced below a significant level.The report
indicates that any potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant
level with compliance with the California Building Standards Code, Title 24 (Title 24), the
City Development Code, and the prescribed mitigation listed in the Initial Study, which
includes preparation of geotechnical studies and incorporation of applicable standards that
address the potential for expansive soils, soil settlement, and subsidence.
4.3.3Mineral Resources
No known mineral resources are associated with the project site; therefore, to
no impact
mineral resources are expected from the proposed Project.
4.3.4Population and Housing
The proposed Projects 58lot residential subdivision on Subarea 2 and 15-unit senior
housing development on Subarea 3 are expected to be aligned with local and regional
growth projections and further, would meet the goals established in the
Housing Element
of the General Planand State Housing Element laws, including provision of special needs
housing for senior citizens.The City plans for build-out to2020, with an estimated
population growth of approximately 3,000 individuals, resulting in a build-out population
of approximately 20,000 individuals. As such, a impact is anticipated
less than significant
and the issue will not be evaluated any further.
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 4-5
FinalEIR
4.0OCEQAC
THER ONSIDERATIONS
4.4USEE
NAVOIDABLE IGNIFICANT NVIRONMENTAL FFECTS
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(b) requires a description of any significant impacts
resulting from implementation of a project, including impacts that cannot be mitigated to
below a level of significance.The proposed Project was evaluated with respect to specific
resource areas to determine whether implementation would result in significant adverse
impacts.A detailed discussion of each of the impacts can be found in Section 3.0,
.
Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Specific significance thresholds were defined for each potential impact associated with
each resource area.Based on the environmental impact assessment presented in the relative
sections of this EIR, the resource areas of aesthetics and visual resources, air quality,
agricultural resources, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, land use and
planning policies, noise, recreation, transportation and traffic,and utilities and public
services would result in less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with
mitigation, with implementation of the proposed Project. Mitigation measures were
developed that would reduce impacts to below a level of significance.However, the
following impacts cannot be mitigated below a level of significance:
Significant and unavoidable impacts caused by Project operational air quality
emissions;
Air quality impact inconsistencies with assumptions in the County of San Luis
Obispo APCDs 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP); and,
Significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic flow at the East Grand Avenue/West
Branch Street intersection, resulting in an LOS F rating in both the AM and PM
peak hours.
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, when an EIR demonstrates that implementation
of a proposed project will cause significant unmitigable impacts, the agency must issue a
Statement of Overriding Considerations before approving the project.A Statement of
Overriding Considerations is a report of the lead agencys findings regarding the merits of
approving a proposed project despite its environmental impacts, and reflects the balancing
of competing public objectives. The Cityof Arroyo Grande will be required to adopt a
Statement of Overriding Considerations to address the unmitigable impacts listed above.
In this instance, the City may weigh the long-term benefits of the project, such as provision
of a mix of housing types, dedication of a new public neighborhood park, improvements
to road and bikeway systems, development of visitor serving commercial uses that could
contribute sales tax revenue, in light of the potentially significant air qualityemissions and
4-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
4.0OCEQAC
THER ONSIDERATIONS
circulation impacts created by the Project. To facilitate consideration of these issues, this
EIR discloses potentialimpacts and also provides a range of project alternatives which
could more fully alleviate environmental concerns.In addition, Section 3.7,,
Land Use
provides an overview of the Citys policy context, which provides information on how the
project meets anumber of important city policy objectives and where it may raise concerns
over consistency with other city policies.All of this information should be reviewed when
considering this Project.
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 4-7
FinalEIR
5.0A
LTERNATIVES
5.0ALTERNATIVES
5.1I
NTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines state that an EIR shall
describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project,
which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project, and evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives (Section 15126.6).
The CEQA Guidelines state that the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed
by a rule of reason that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to
permit a reasoned choice.The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project.Of those alternatives, the
EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the Lead Agency determines could feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the project (Section 15126.6).
In defining feasibility of alternatives, the CEQA Guidelines state that among the factors
that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site
suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency,
other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent
can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (Section
15126.6).
The alternatives must adequately represent the spectrum of environmental concerns in
order to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives.The EIRmust also provide the rationale
for selecting or defining the alternatives evaluated throughout the document, including
identifying any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but rejected as
infeasible during the scoping process.
The alternatives analysis for this EIR is presented in four major parts.The first section
describes the objectives of the East Cherry Avenue Specific PlanProject(Project).The
second section summarizes the potentially significant unavoidable short- and long-term
impacts of the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project from information presented in
Section 3.0,Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures.The third section
discusses potential impacts under the Project alternatives.The final section concludes with
the selection of an environmentally superior alternative, based on the Project configuration
with the fewest significant impacts while meeting the greatest number of Project objectives.
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 5-1
Final EIR
5.0A
LTERNATIVES
5.2PO
ROJECT BJECTIVES
The primary applicants and City objectives of the Project are discussed in Section 2.5 and
summarized below.
Objective #1.To designate appropriate land uses and design guidelines within the Specific
Plan that will guide future development within the Project site;
Objective #2.To provide for historical, recreational, and residential opportunities that
both complement and augment the existing uses in the City;
Objective #3.To comply with the Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element
Implementation Policy AG 14.2 with the protection and preservation of
offsite agricultural lands;
Objective #4.To set forth a development plan(s) capable of underwriting thecost of
public and private infrastructure and capital improvements proposed as part
of the Specific Plan; and,
Objective #5.To promote orderly and attractive community development in the context
of existing neighborhoods and in recognition of future development in the
vicinity.
5.3SPSUPI
UMMARY OF OTENTIALLY IGNIFICANT NAVOIDABLE ROJECT MPACTS
5.3.1Long-Term Impacts
5.3.1.1Air Quality Emissions
Long-term operational air quality emissions associated with the Project would marginally
exceed the San Luis Obispos Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) operational
threshold for combined reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen oxides (NO), and
x
particulate matter (PM) after the implementation of mitigation measures, resulting in
2.5
significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality emissions and potential inconsistency
with the County of San Luis Obispos Clean Air Plan(CAP).
5.3.1.2Transportation and Traffic
Long-term operational impacts from the proposed Project would contribute to the projected
AM and PM peak hour LOS 'F' at the EastGrand Avenue/WestBranch Street intersection
and increasedelay by more than 5 seconds in each peak hour, resulting ina significant and
5-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
5.0A
LTERNATIVES
unavoidable impactas nofeasible mitigationis available to reduce traffic impacts at this
intersection.
5.4AA
LTERNATIVES NALYSIS
This section discusses alternatives to the proposed Project, including the NoProject
Alternative, Reduced Development Alternative, and alternatives thatwere considered and
discarded.Each of these considers the abilityof a particular alternative to substantially
reduce or eliminate the Projects significant environmental impacts, while still meeting
basic Project objectives.The alternatives analyzed in the EIR include:
CEQA NoProject Alternative; and,
Reduced Development Alternative.
5.4.1Alternatives Considered but Discarded
As discussed above, CEQA Section 15126.6(c) requires that an EIR disclose alternatives
that were considered and discarded and provide a brief explanation as to why such
alternatives were not fully considered in the EIR.In particular, as required by the State
CEQA Guidelines, the selection of alternatives included a screening process to determine
which alternatives could reduce significant effects but also feasibly meet Project
objectives.The following alternatives were considered but eliminated from further analysis
by the Lead Agency due to infeasibility,inconsistency with primary Project objectives, or
inability to reduce significant impacts.
5.4.1.1Other Comparable Sites Alternative
This alternative involves review of the potential to construct a development of similar size
and scale as the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan at alternative locations,
thereby lessening or avoiding site-specific impacts to traffic, agriculture, and other resource
areas. Under the Other Comparable Sites Alternative, the proposed Project would be
located at another large, predominantly vacant property to meet the Projects objectives of
providing ahistorical, recreational, and residential development. Potential offsite
alternative locations were screened for consideration based on size requirements
(approximately 15 acres) and objectives for residential and commercial development,
similar to the proposed Project. However, a limited number of undeveloped, comparatively
sized,infillsiteswere identified within City limits as a result of the screening process.
Potential sites generally consisted of other agricultural parcels located along the City
boundary, which would not necessarily result in a reductionof impactsto agricultural
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 5-3
Final EIR
5.0A
LTERNATIVES
resources or land use. Larger agricultural parcels located west of the Project site, on the
opposite side of U.S. Highway 101, are located adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School
and Arroyo Grande Creek, and could potentially result in increased traffic congestion, as
well as impacts to hydrology and water quality,and biological resources. In addition, the
historical use objective metby the proposed JWAmixedcultural development inSubarea
3could not be realizedat an alternate location due to its ties withthe historical Japanese-
American cultural activitiesthat took place specifically at the proposed Project site.
Therefore, this alternativewas considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6(c).
5.4.1.2Circulation Planning Alternative
Analternative circulation plan to avoid or lessen traffic and transportation safety impacts
was considered as an alternative to the proposed Project, including realignment of onsite
roadways and/or connectionpoints to surrounding roadways, as well as, improved
connectivity for onsite and offsite pedestrian and bike facilities. Project impacts to site
access, connectivity, and safetywere determined to be less than significant; however,
contribution to AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) F impactsat the East Grand
Avenue/WestBranch Street intersection were determined to besignificant and unavoidable
under this alternative and would not be reduced compared to the proposed Project.
Therefore, this option was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6(c).
5.4.1.3Agricultural PreserveAlternative
Preservation of the Project site solely for agricultural production,facilitated through an
agricultural preserve designation, was considered as an alternative to the proposed Project.
However, this alternative would be inconsistent with the CitysGeneral Plan/Land Use
Map designation intended fortraffic mixed-use development inSubarea 1, and therefore,
would require a General Planamendment.In addition, this alternativewould not meet the
Project objectives, which include the provision of historical, recreational, and residential
opportunities that complement and augment existing uses in the City. From a land use
perspective, the Citys General Plan identifies Subarea 1as being appropriate for
development over the long term. Finally, this alternativewould not be necessaryto reduce
potentially significant impacts since the proposed Project would meet City policies through
agricultural land dedication and payment of in-lieu mitigation fees.Therefore, this option
was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c).
5-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
5.0A
LTERNATIVES
5.4.1.4Additional Park and Recreational Facilities
Development of a portion of the Project site (Subarea 1) for additional park and recreational
facilities was considered as an alternative to the proposed Project.Possible useas a
community park would include development of ball fields, picnic areas, and other major
park facilities. This would increase the ratio of park land acres per resident asrequired by
policies and standards in the Citys General Plan Parks and Recreation Element. However,
this alternative would be inconsistent with the Citys General Plan/ Land Use Map for
Subarea 1, and would not be necessary sincethe proposed Project could meet City park
standards andreduce potentially significant impactsby dedicating and improvement the
proposed neighborhood park and through payment of in-lieu mitigation fees. Therefore,
this option was considered and discarded, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(c).
5.4.2Alternatives Considered for Analysis
5.4.2.1NoProject Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Project would not be approved and no proposed
development would occur. This alternative could result in two possible outcomes.
Under one possible outcome, the NoProject Alternative would beacontinuation of the
existing setting. The Project site would remain vacant for the foreseeable futureand no
development would occur. Under this alternative, ongoing agricultural production would
continue in Subarea 2 and 3, with associated water use, application of pesticides and
herbicides and other ongoing impacts (e.g., dust generation).Subarea 3 would retain its
agricultural zoningand would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future.Subarea 1
may remain a fallow agricultural field unless agricultural uses are resumed. No new
hotel/restaurant or residences would be constructed and no associated new source of
automobile trips would be generated with impacts to congestion, air pollutants, and GHG
emissions. In addition, the Japanese Welfare Association (JWA) cultural heritage and
historic garden facility would not be developed. Therefore, no changes would occur with
regard to aesthetics,agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, hazards and
hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, recreation,
transportation and traffic, or utilitiesand public services.
A secondpossible outcome of the No Project Alternative would bedevelopment of the
Project site in accordance with the Citys existing zoning and General Plan/Land Use Map.
The Citys General Plan/Land Use Map identifies the Project site land use as Mixed-Use
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 5-5
Final EIR
5.0A
LTERNATIVES
(Subarea 1) and Agriculture (Subareas 2 and 3), and defines residential densities,
subdivision designs, envisioned mixed uses, and design standards to address land use
compatibility between varied uses onsite and with the surrounding neighborhood. The
currentzoning designation for the Project site isTraffic Way Mixed-Use (TMU)with D-
2.11 Design Overlay (Subarea 1) and Agriculture (Subareas 2 and 3), consistent with the
Citys General Plan.Under this version of the NoProject Alternative, ongoing agricultural
production would continue within Subareas 2 and 3; however, potential development of
Subarea 1 could result in a variety of automobile-related developments (e.g., automobile
sales, automobile parts sales,tire store,quick vehicle lubrication shop, and automobile care
center), ranging from approximately 13,000 to 38,000 square feet(sf)of floor area, as
intended by thezone designation, or other mixed-use commercial/retail uses under a use
permit, including hotel/restaurant, similar to the proposed Project. Environmental impacts
similar to the proposed Projectwould occur as a result of hotel/restaurant development in
Subarea 1 under a conditional use permit (CUP) (i.e., significant and unavoidable impacts
to LOS at the East Grand Avenue/WestBranch Street intersectionfromthe new source of
automobile trips). Impacts to the Project site as a whole would be reducedcompared to the
Project.In addition, impacts to agricultural resources and land use would beless than
significant, as development of Subarea 1 for this use would be consistent with existing land
use and zoning. While this Subarea contains prime farmland soils, the site is designated for
development, and loss of these soils is already anticipated in plans for City build-out.
Impacts to other resource areas, including aesthetics, biological resources, hydrology and
water quality,land use, noise, recreation, and utilities and public serviceswould be less
than under the proposed Projectand would have less than significant impacts.
Overall, neither outcome of the NoProject Alternative would achieve the stated Project
objectives. The NoProject Alternative would reduce the magnitude of impacts to trafficand
air quality emissions. As the No Project Alternative would not involve the development of
Subareas 2 and 3, operational air quality emissions would be reduced and would be below
APCDs air quality emissions thresholds and would achieve greater consistently with the
CAP; however, trafficimpacts would still potentially be significant under the NoProject
Alternative, in particular, LOS at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection.
5.4.2.2Reduced Development Alternative
The Reduced Development Alternative is designed to meet the central objectives of the
proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan, namely, to provide for historical, recreational,
and residential opportunities that both complement and augment the existing uses in the
5-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
5.0A
LTERNATIVES
City. However, this alternative would reduce the scale and intensity of proposed
development, and associated trip generation and intersection congestion, air pollutants, and
GHG emissions generated by new source of automobile trips.
Under this alternative, reductions within the hotel/restaurant component in Subarea 1 and
the residential component in Subarea 2 would reduce the number of hotel rooms/restaurant
size and the number of residences compared to the proposed Project. The specific square
footage and number of units reduced under this alternative wasdetermined based on trip
reduction necessary to reduce potential impactsat the Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way
intersection from a less than significant unavoidable impact with mitigation under the
proposed Project, toa less than significant impact with mitigation.
Subarea 1.Based on a traffic level reduction required to reduce impacts to the Fair
Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way intersection,the proposed number of hotel rooms in
Subarea 1 would be reduced from approximately 100 to 70, and the restaurant size
would be reduced from approximately 4,000 to 3,000 sf.
Subarea 2.Based on traffic level reduction required to reduce impacts to the Fair
Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way intersection,the number of proposed residences in
Subarea 2 would be reduced from 58 to 40.
Subarea 3.Development within Subarea 3 would the same as under the proposed
Project.
Based on these development reductions and a traffic rate of 8.92trips/unit/day, traffic
generated by the development of a 70 unit hotel would result in a total of 624.4 trips per
day, with an AM peak trip level of 46.9 and a PM peaktrip level of 70.7. For the Subarea
2 development, a traffic rate of 9.52trips/unit/day for a 40 housing units would equate to
a total of 380.3 trips per day, with an AM peak trip level of 30.0 and a PM peak trip level
of 40.0. Under these reduced development plans, total trips per day would be reduced by
approximately 449 trips/day, from a total of 1,646 trips/day generated under the proposed
Project, to 1,197 trips/day, with anAM peak trip level of 76and a PM peak trip level of
104 for the Project.
Initial traffic analysis indicates that the reductions in hotel rooms/restaurant size and
residences under this alternative would reduce delays and congestion the Fair Oaks
Avenue/Traffic Way intersectionto a less than significant impact, and implementation of
any mitigations measures required under the proposed Project would not be required.
Despite a reduction in trips generated by reduced development of the Project,
implementation of this alternative would not reduce traffic impacts atthe East Grand
Avenue/West Branch Street intersectionbelow a significant and unavoidable impact;
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 5-7
Final EIR
5.0A
LTERNATIVES
therefore, impacts at this intersection would remainthe same as those anticipated under the
proposed project. In addition, reduced employment could incrementally reduce long-
distance commuting. Therefore, this alternative would reduce, but not eliminate all of the
proposed Projects significant impacts to traffic and transportation.
Short-term air quality impacts would be slightly less than those described for the proposed
Project as a result ofdecreased construction building size for the hotel/restaurant and
number ofresidences, but remain less than significant with mitigations. Operational air
quality impacts would be reducedas smaller development would result in fewer automobile
trips for hotel/restaurant patrons and residents, and a decrease in air pollutants and GHG
emissions when compared to the proposed Project. With the reduction in daily trips due to
reduced development of the Project, thisalternative would further reduce operational air
quality emissions, and impacts would potentially beless than significant.This alternative
would also potentially achieve CAP consistency if standard mitigation measures within the
CAP are applied.
Visual impacts would be slightly less than under the proposed Project due to the decrease
in square footage of new building space and resulting views of a reduced scale and intensity
development from U.S. Highway 101 and surrounding streets. Lighting and glare impacts
would also be somewhat less due to the decreased amount of development in proximity to
the existing residential uses surrounding the site. Similar to the proposed Project, standards
for outdoor lighting would be applied, per Section16.48.090 of the City Municipal Code,
and exterior light fixtures would be shielded and directed downward to avoid light spill
and glare, per Project Design Guidelines and General Plan Policy Ag/C/OS.23. Overall
aesthetics impacts would remainless than significant.
Short- and long-termnoise impacts associated with reduced developmentof Subarea 1 (i.e.,
construction, maintenance and pickup/delivery activities,and noise-generating rooftop
equipment such as air conditioners or kitchen ventilation systems) would be slightly less
than under the proposed Project due to thereduced development size and close proximity
of residential units onsite.Mitigation measures listed within Section 3.8, Noise, would
continue to be applied to this alternative in order to reduce impacts to below a less than
significant level. Similarly, impacts to utilities and public services would slightly decrease
with the reduced hotel rooms/restaurant size and dwelling units requiring water,
wastewater, solid waste, and police and fire services, and would be less than significant.
Impacts to recreation,associated with the Citys required parkland-resident ratio of 4 acres
per 1,000 individuals, would be reduceddue to the decrease in residential unitsand
5-8 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
5.0A
LTERNATIVES
individuals. The number of single-family medium-density residences in Subarea 2 would
be reduced from 58 to 40, with an associated reduction in individuals from 140 to 96. Under
this alternative, the estimated 96 new residents would require 0.38 acres of parkland to
meet City standards. Therefore, the proposed Projects development of a 0.35-acre
neighborhood park within Subarea 2 would require the dedication of an additional 0.03
acres of parkland. Similar to the proposed Project, mitigation for payment ofa park
improvement in-lieu fee equal to the fair market land value, plus twenty (20) percent
toward the cost of offsite improvement, for the additional 0.03acres of parkland would
reduce impacts to less than significant.
Impacts to agriculture, biology, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water
quality, and land use under the Reduced Development Alternative would be slightlyless
or similar tothose described for the proposed Project. All proposed Project mitigation
measures would also apply under this alternative.
Overall, this alternative would reduce impacts to transportation and GHG emissions.
However, LOS impacts at the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street would continue to
be significant and unavoidable.
5.5IESA
DENTIFICATION OF NVIRONMENTALLY UPERIOR LTERNATIVE
Table 5-1 summarizes the environmental impactsassociated with the proposed Project and
the analyzed alternatives.CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 states that if the
environmentally superior alternative is the NoProject Alternative, the EIR shall also
identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives.
Table 5-1 summarizes the environmental impactsassociated with the proposed Project and
the analyzed alternatives.Of the alternatives considered, the No Project Alternative would
result in the fewest impacts as no development would occur within Subareas 2 and 3;
therefore, it is environmentally superior.Of the development alternatives, the Reduced
DevelopmentAlternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative since
impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, except for anticipated significant
and unavoidable long-term impacts to traffic and transportation at the East Grand
Avenue/WestBranch Street intersection. Withimplementation of this alternative, impacts
to the East Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection would be reduced, although
impacts to this intersection would not be fully reduced to a less than significant level.
Therefore, because this alternative would reduce all but one impact to a less than significant
level with required mitigation,the Reduced Development Alternative is considered to be
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 5-9
Final EIR
5.0A
LTERNATIVES
the environmentally superior alternative.
Table 5-1. Impact Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Proposed Project
ResourceNoProjectReduced Development
Residual Impact
Less (Less than Similar (Less than
Less than Significant
Aesthetics
Significant)Significant)
Less than Significant Less (Less than Significant Similar (Less than
Agricultural
with Mitigationwith Mitigation) Significant with Mitigation)
Resources
Significant and Less (Less than Less (Less than Significant
Air Quality & GHG
UnavoidableSignificant) with Mitigation)
Emissions
Less than SignificantLess (Less than Similar (Less than
Biological Resources
with MitigationSignificant)Significantwith Mitigation)
Less than SignificantSimilar (Less than Similar (Less than
Hazards &
with MitigationSignificant)Significantwith Mitigation)
Hazardous Materials
Less than SignificantLess (Less than Similar (Less than
Hydrology and
with MitigationSignificant)Significantwith Mitigation)
Water Quality
Less than SignificantLess (Less than Similar (Less than
Land Use
with MitigationSignificant)Significantwith Mitigation)
Less than SignificantLess (Less than Slightly Less (Less than
Noise
with MitigationSignificant)Significantwith Mitigation)
Less than SignificantLess (No Impact) Less (Less than Significant
Recreation
with Mitigationwith Mitigation)
Significant and Less (Significant and Less (Significant and
Transportation &
UnavoidableUnavoidable)Unavoidable)
Traffic
Less than SignificantLess (Less than Slightly Less (Less than
Utilities & Public
Significant)Significant)
Services
YesNoYes
Project Objectives
Met?
5-10 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
6.0LP
IST OF REPARERS
6.0LIST OF PREPARERS
City of Arroyo Grande
Teresa McClishCommunity Development Director
John Rickenbach JFR Consulting
Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure,Inc.
Rita Bright EIR ProjectManager
Julia PujoDeputy Project Manager
Dan GiraQA/QCTechnicalEditor
Linn Zukor Senior Environmental Planner
Nick MeisingerSenior Environmental Planner
Taylor Lane Environmental Analyst
Laura Ingulsrud Environmental Analyst
Holly Ayala Environmental Analyst
Steve OchsSenior Air Quality Specialist
Brian Cook Senior Noise Specialist
Janice DepewWord Processor
Graphics Consultant
Deirdre StitesGraphics Specialist
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 6-1
FinalEIR
7.0R
EFERENCES
7.0REFERENCES
S3.1AVR
ECTION ESTHETICS AND ISUAL ESOURCES
California Department of Transportation. 2015. Scenic Highway Program.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/departments/mtce/scenic.htm.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. General Plan Integrated Program EIR.
S3.2AR
ECTION GRICULTURALESOURCES
California Department of Conservation. 1997. California Agricultural Land Evaluation
and Site Assessment (LESA) Model.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2015. City of Arroyo Grande (07-28-2015) Ag Supplement
Memo.
County of San Luis Obispo, Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures. 2015.
San Luis Obispo County 2014 Crop Statistic.
Department of Conservation. 2010. San Luis Obispo County Williamson Act FY
2009/2010.
Department of Conservation. 2012. San Luis Obispo County Important Farmland 2012.
Laura A. Pennebaker. 2009. Agricultural Buffer Cirteria for the City of Arroyo Grande.
NRCS. 2015. Ag Soils Report.
S3.3AQ
ECTION IR UALITY
Air Resources Board. 2015. Top 4 Summary Pollutant/Year Range Selection.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
California Regional Assessment Group. 2002. The Potential Consequences of Climate
Variability and Change.September.
EPA. 2012. CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion - Million Metric Tons CO2
(MMTCO2).
EPA. 2015. State Energy CO2 Emissions. July 8. Accessed August 10, 2015.
http://epa.gov/statelocalclimate/resources/state_energyco2inv.html.
EPA. 2015. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. January 1.
Accessed August 10, 2015. http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/index.html.
San Lius Obispo APCD. 2012. "CEQA Air Quality Handbook - A guide for Assessing
the Air Quality Impacts for Projects Subject to CEQA Review." Accessed January
22, 2016.
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 7-1
FinalEIR
7.0R
EFERENCES
http://www.prcity.com/government/departments/commdev/planning/pdf/CEQA_
Handbook_2012_v1.pdf.
San Luis Obispo. 2013. San Luis Obispo Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status.
U.S. EPA. 2015. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed August 10,
2015. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-
Inventory-2015-Main-Text.pdf.
S3.4BR
ECTION IOLOGICALESOURCES
CDFW. 2015a. California Natural Diversity Database Home.
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/.
CDFW. 2015b. Special Animals List.
CDFW. 2015c. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List.
CDFW. 2015d. State & Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of
California.
CDFW. 2015e. State & Federally Listed Endangered & Threatened Animals of
California.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2007. Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element.
CNDDB. 2016. Special Animals List - California Natural Diversity Database.
file:///C:/Users/laura.ingulsrud/Downloads/CNDDB_Special_Animals_List.pdf.
CNPS. 2015a. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - CNPS.
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/.
CNPS. 2015b. Rare Plant Program - California Native Plant Society.
http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php.
Erin M. Hanlon. 2015. E. Cherry Avenue Specific Plan, Arroyo Grande - The Ditch,
September 24.
Sage Institute, Inc. (SII). 2015. Biological Resources Assessment for the City of Arroyo
Grande East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan.
USFWS. 2015a. IPaC: Resources - My Project.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/project/4O5FTX7YNNDA3NZOENYMHIVP44/resour
ces.
USFWS. 2015b. National Wetlands Inventory Home Page.
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.
7-2 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
7.0R
EFERENCES
S3.5HHM
ECTION AZARDS AND AZARDOUS ATERIALS
Buenaresources. 2014. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report. June. 2014. Phase
II Environmental Site Assessment for East Cherry Avenue Property located in
Arroyo Grande, CA. June
Buenaresources. 2014. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for East Cherry Avenue
Property located in Arroyo Grande, CA. June
Cal Fire. 2007. FRAP Fire Hazzard Severity Zones in SRA.
Cal Fire. 2009. FRAP Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA.
CDFFP. 2005. San Luis Obispo Fire Management Plan.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. Safety Element.
DSTC. 2015. GeoTracker. Accessed December 22.
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=140+Ea
st+Cherry+Ave%2C+Arroyo+Grande%2C+CA.
USEPA. 2015a. Learn About Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) | Underground
Storage Tanks (USTs) | US EPA. Accessed December 22.
http://www.epa.gov/ust/learn-about-underground-storage-tanks-usts.
USEPA. 2015b. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program | US EPA. Accessed
December 22. http://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program.
S3.6HWQ
ECTION YDROLOGY AND ATER UALITY
Central Coast Salmon Enhancement. 2005. Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed
Management Plan.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2012. Urban Water Management Plan.
Department of Water Resources. 2002. DWR - Southern Region - Arroyo Grande -
Nipomo Mesa.
http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/maps_and_reports/southern_region/Ground
waterQuality/arroyo_grande/arroyo_grande-nipomo_mesa.html.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=100%20East%20Cherry%20A
ve.%2C%20Arroyo%20Grande#searchresultsanchor.
GeoSolution, Inc. 2015. East Cherry Avenue Numerical Slope Stability Evaluation.
RRM Design Group. 2015. Preliminary Hydrology Report.
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 7-3
FinalEIR
7.0R
EFERENCES
RRM Design Group. 2016. East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Subarea 1 Hydrology
Report Preliminary.
San Luis Obispo FCWCD. 2014. San Luis Obispo County IRWM Plan.
http://www.slocountywater.org/site/Frequent%20Downloads/Integrated%20Regio
nal%20Water%20Management%20Plan/IRWM%20Plan%20Update%202014/.
US-LT Resource Conservation District. 2015. Arroyo Grande Creek | SLO Watershed
Project. http://slowatershedproject.org/watersheds/arroyo-grande-creek/.
Waterways Consulting, Inc. 2010. Arroyo Grande Creek Channel Waterway
Management Program.
S3.7LU
ECTIONAND SE
City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. Circulation Element.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. Noise Element.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. Safety Element.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. Fringe and Urban Area Land Element.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2007. Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2013. Housing Element.
S3.8N
ECTION OISE
California Department of Transportation. 1998. Technical Noise Supplement.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. Noise Element.
FHWA. 2014. Traffic Noise Model - Noise - Environment - FHWA.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/.
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006a. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment. May.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf.
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006b. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment. May.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf.
U.S. Department of Transportation. 2012. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and
Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report.
7-4 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
7.0R
EFERENCES
USEPA. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect
Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.
http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels74/levels74.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1974. Information on Levels of
Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an
Adequate Margin of Safety. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Noise Abatement and Control, Washington D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971. Noise from Construction
Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances.
S3.9R
ECTION ECREATION
City of Arroyo Grande. 2013. City of Arroyo Grande Inventory of City-Maintained
Parks, Landscape Areas, and Open Space (Revised September 2013).
City of Arroyo Grande. 2015. Arroyo Grande, CA - Official Website.
http://www.arroyogrande.org/Facilities.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. Arroyo Grande (city) QuickFacts from the US Census
Bureau. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0602868.html.
S3.10TT
ECTION RANSPORTATION AND RAFFIC
City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. Circulation Element.
Omni-Means. 2015. Transportation Impact Analysis.
SLOCOG. 2014a. Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)-Sustainable Communities
Strategy San Luis Obispo County.
https://library.slocog.org/PDFS/RTP/2014RTPFinal/00_Complete_Contents_SLO
COG2014RTP.pdf.
SLOCOG. 2014b. US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan San Luis Obispo County.
https://library.slocog.org/PDFS/Planning/101%20Corridor%20Study%202014/SL
OCOG%20US%20101%20Mobility%20Study%20Final.pdf.
SLORTA. 2015. Schedules & Fares. http://www.slorta.org/schedules-fares/.
South County Transit. 2015. South County Transit Routes.
TRB. 2010. 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.
S3.11UPS
ECTION TILITIES AND UBLIC ERVICES
CalRecycle. 2013a. Commercial Sector: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Commercial.htm.
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 7-5
FinalEIR
7.0R
EFERENCES
CalRecycle. 2013b. Residential Developments: Estimated Solid Waste Generation
Rates. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Residential.htm.
CalRecycle. 2013c. Service Sector: Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/Service.htm.
CEC. 2013. California Energy Demand 2014-2024 Final Forecast.
CEC. 2015a. California Electricity & Natural Gas Consumption Data.
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/.
CEC. 2015b. Total Electricity System Power.
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2012a. Urban Water Management Plan.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2012b. Wastewater System Master Plan.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2013. Housing Element.
County of San Luis Obispo. 2012. Cold Canyon Landfill Expansion EIR.
FCFA. 2015a. About - Five Cities Fire Authority. Accessed December 21.
http://fivecitiesfireauthority.org/about.
FCFA. 2015b. Services - Five Cities Fire Authority. Accessed December 21.
http://fivecitiesfireauthority.org/services.
Linda Cox. 2015. Arroyo Grande Police Department Response Time Phone Call with
Linda Cox at 2:30 PM December 22, 2015.
Lucia Mar Unified School District. 2016. Lucia Mar Unified School District.
http://www.luciamarschools.org/the-district/.
Lucia Mar Unified School District
http://www.luciamarschools.org/business-office/business-office-faq/.
NCES. 2015. Search for Public School Districts - District Detail for Lucia Mar Unified.
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?ID2=0623080.
Oasis Associates, Inc. 2015. Draft East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan.
South County Sanitary. 2015. South County Sanitary. Accessed December 21.
http://southcountysanitary.com/default.aspx.
SSLOCSD. 2014. Collection System.
http://sslocsd.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43:collection
-system&catid=28:collection-system&Itemid=127.
7-6 East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
FinalEIR
7.0R
EFERENCES
Steve Lieberman. 2015. Five Cities Fire Authority Response Time Phone Call with Steve
Lieberman at 2:43 PM December 22, 2015.
S4.0OCEQAC
ECTION THER ONSIDERATIONS
City of Arroyo Grande. 2001a. General Plan Integrated Program EIR.
City of Arroyo Grande. 2001b. Safety Element.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. Arroyo Grande (city) QuickFacts from the US Census
Bureau. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0602868.html.
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan 7-7
FinalEIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
8.0RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Section8 is organized as follows:
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Format of the Response to Comments
: This section describes the format and
organization of the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) and the responses to those comments.
8.3 Index of Comments Received
: This section provides a list of the comments
received on the Draft EIR by a member of the public, agency, company, or
organization, and lists the unique number for each commenter.
8.4 Response to Comments:
This section provides individual responses to comments
provided in letters and oral testimony.
8.5 Public Comments Received After the Close of the Comment Period
: This
section provides comment letters received after the 45-day public comment period
for the Draft EIR for informational purposes. No response to comments are
required by CEQA; however, the City has provided for these lettersas a courtesy.
8.1I
NTRODUCTION
Comments received during the 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIR, ending
May 26, 2016, included written comments from nine individuals, one agency, as well as
the Applicant. Oral testimonies were received from three individuals, along with the
Applicant and four Planning Commissioners during a public workshop held on May 17,
2016. In accordance with 2016 CEQA Statute and Guidelines, this sectionprovides a
written response to each of these received comments, and describes any revisions to the
EIR due to accepted comments and suggestions as well as reasoned analysis in response to
specific comments and suggestions that were not accepted. In addition, fivewritten
commentletters and emails were received by individuals after the close of the public
comment period on May 26, 2016. Comment letters that were received after the close of
the formal public comment period have been also included at the end of this section.
8.2FRC
ORMAT OF THE ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Comments received on the Draft EIR are organized by written comments, then oral
testimonies. Each comment letter or e-mail, and testimony is assigned a unique number
with each comment individually numbered as well. Individual comments and issues within
each comment letter or e-mail are numbered individually along the margins in Section 8.3.
For example, Comment 2-1 is the first substantive comment in Comment Letter 2; “2”
represents the commenter; the “1” refers to the first comment in that letter.
8-1
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
8.3ICR
NDEX OF OMMENTS ECEIVED
Table 8-1 lists all agencies, organizations, companies, and individuals that provided written
and oral comments on the Draft EIR. As described above, each comment letter was
assigned a unique number.
Table 8-1. Index of Comments Received on the Draft EIR
Commenter Comment and Response
NumberName of Commenterto Comment Location
Organizations
1.Brubaker, Jeff – San Luis Obispo Council of Governments8-5
Individuals
2.Albert, Colleen8-7
3.Bachmann, Anne8-9
4.Clift, Warren8-11
5.Ingham, Doug8-13
6.Jones, Daniel8-16
7.Joralemon, Gary8-19
8.Lori (no last name provided)8-21
9.Schmidt, Marilyn8-23
10.Zammit, Kent and Sue8-25
Applicant
11.C.M. Florence, AICP Agent, Oasis Associates, Inc.8-37
Oral Testimonies at Public Hearing(May 17, 2016)
12.Commissioner John Mack8-34
13.Commissioner Terry Fowler-Payne8-35
14.Commissioner Glenn Martin8-35
15.CommissionerJohn Keen8-36
16. Osty, Linda8-36
17.C.M. Florence, AICP Agent, Oasis Associates, Inc.8-37
18. Bennett, Minetta8-37
19. Gibson, Shirley8-38
Public Comments Received After the Close of the Comment Period
20.Austin, Don and Joanne8-45
21. Hedderig, Bruce8-47
22. Keating, Linda8-50
23. Nichols, Ann8-53
24. Osty, Linda andKent and Sue Zammit8-57
8-2
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
8.4RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
The following pages contain copies of the comment letters. Presented first is a copy of the
comment letter with vertical lines indicating the extent of specific numbered comments,
and on the subsequent pages are the corresponding numbered responses to individual
comments.
8-3
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
8.4.1Organizations
\[Insert Comment Letter 1, Jeff Brubaker, SLOCOG page 1 of 1\]
8-4
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 1 –Jeff Brubaker, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
Comment Response 1-1:
Comment noted and identification of related transportation
projects included in the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan is much appreciated. Edits have
been made to Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic, to incorporate these planned
projects into the impact discussion. See pages 3.10-22 and 3.10-29.
8-5
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
8.4.2Individuals
\[Insert Comment Letter 1, Colleen Albert page 1 of 1\]
8-6
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 2 –Colleen Albert
Comment Response 2-1:
Comment respectfully noted; however, the commenter addresses
the Project rather than the adequacy of the EIR. The substance of this comment will be
considered by City decision-makersasthey consider potential Project approval.
8-7
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 3, Anne Bachmann page 1 of 1\]
8-8
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 3 –Anne Bachmann
Comment Response 3-1:
Thank you for your comment. Regarding the height of the hotel
within Subarea 1, while the hotel could have a maximum height of up to 36 feet, the design,
height, massing, and character of the hotel would be required to complywith Arroyo
Grande’s Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District Traffic Way and
Station Way (D-2.11), which state that buildings shall have a small to moderate scale with
horizontal massing, and shall have an architectural character that transitions to the historic
character within Arroyo Grande. Further, the hotel as well as the entirety of the Project
would be subject to review by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to ensure that
the Project would be consistent with the design guidelines and the character of the
surrounding area.
Comment Response 3-2:
Please refer to Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic and
Appendix K regarding traffic associated with 58 residences and the hotel. The traffic
analysis found that while traffic operations on East Cherry Avenue and the northbound
Highway 101 ramp would slightly increase, impacts would not exceed City level of service
(LOS) thresholds within the General Plan and would be less than significant. Please note
that the proposed traffic signal at Fair Oaks Avenue/Traffic Way was found mitigate
significant impacts and is estimated to reduce delay from existing conditions, from 34.6
seconds to 16.4 seconds in AM peak hour and from 26.9 seconds to 24.9 seconds (see
Tables 3.10-2 and 3.10-7).
Comment Response 3-3:
Your comments in support of the proposal for Subarea 3 and in
opposition to Subareas 1 and 2 have been acknowledged. Please see Section 3.2,
Agricultural Resourcesregarding the conversion of agricultural land to developed uses,
and Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic, regarding Project-generated traffic.
8-9
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 4, Warren Clift page 1 of 1\]
8-10
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 4 –Warren Clift
Comment Response 4-1:
Thank you for your comments and your opposition to the Project
has been noted. Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, describes impacts to agricultural lands
within the Project site and Impact UT-3 with Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services
describes water usage resulting from the Project.
8-11
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 5, Doug Ingham page 1 of 1\]
8-12
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 5 – Doug Ingham
Comment Response 5-1:
Your preference for a smaller Project size is acknowledged.
Comment Response 5-2:
Your comments on traffic and transportation have been noted.
For further detail on transportation issues and Project impacts, please refer to Section 3.10,
Transportation and Traffic.
Please note that U.S. Highway 101 northbound off-ramp onto Traffic Way is
not proposed to be stop sign controlled. However, MM TRANS-5a
recommends a circulationstudy thatwould further study traffic conditions to
reduce potential impacts.
Please note a road is proposed leading to the property to the south of the Project
site as this is proposed as part of the update for the City of Arroyo Grande
General Plan, Circulation Element. However,this road is not proposed to be
connected to Trinity Avenue under the Project.
Thank you for your suggestion. This road is already included as part of the
Project.
Project trip generation and distribution onto Traffic Way is described within
Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic, and Appendix K.
Please note that U.S. Highway 101 southbound on-ramp does not proposed to
be stop sign controlled. However, MM TRANS-5a recommends a circulation
study that would further study traffic conditions to reduce potential impacts.
Please note that East Cherry Avenue at Traffic Way is already stop sign
controlled.
Comment Response 5-3:
Your opposition to the restaurant, unless confined to the hotel
st
1 floor, has been noted in this EIR. Thank you for your comment.
8-13
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 6, Daniel Jones page 1 of 2\]
8-14
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 6, Daniel Jones page 2 of 2\]
8-15
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 6 – Daniel Jones
Comment Response 6-1:
We appreciate your comments and feedback on the Draft EIR.
We also acknowledge your opposition to the Project. Please see comment responses below
regarding project density, water resources, and traffic safety.
Comment Response 6-2:
Thank you for your comment. Regarding the height of the hotel
within Subarea 1, the hotel could have a maximum height of up to 36 feet, and has been
evaluated in regards to current and applicable zoning height regulations. The design,
height, massing, and character of the hotel would be required to comply with Arroyo
Grande’s Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District Traffic Way and
Station Way (D-2.11), which state that buildings shall have a small to moderate scale with
horizontal massing, and shall have an architecturalcharacter that transitions to the historic
character within Arroyo Grande. Further, the hotel as well as the entirety of the Project will
be subject to review by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to ensure that that
project would be consistent withthe design guidelines and the character of the surrounding
area.
Comment Response 6-3:
Comment noted. The Project’s water consumption is described
in detail within Impact UT-3, Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services. As described in
this section, agricultural land uses within the Project site currently use an estimated 34.86
acre-feet per year (afy) of water, with a historic long-term water use of 41.34 afy. The
Project was calculated to result in a water demand of 36.22 afy. Overall, the Project would
result in a slight net decrease from historic water use, which accounts for cyclic variations
in water use typical for agricultural operations by approximately 5.12 afy and would
therefore not result in a net increase upon City water supplies. Additionally, as described
in Section 2.0, Project Description, the Project would incorporate low water fixtures and
appliances and drought tolerant landscaping in order to conserve water.
Comment Response 6-4:
Thank you for your commentand your preference for less
residential lots has been noted. This EIR analyzes a Project alternative that would
potentially reduce the number of lots within Subarea 2 (see Section 5.4.2.2, Reduced
Development Alternative).
Comment Response 6-5:
Comment noted. Please see Comment Response 6-3.
Comment Response 6-6:
Thank you for your comment. Traffic safety is a priority for the
City and the intersection of Traffic Way/East Cherry Avenue was analyzed for traffic safety
issues; see Impact TRANS-5 within Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic.MM
8-16
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
TRANS-5a recommends a circulation study to study circulation of vehicles from Project
access points to Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue, which would further study traffic
conditions and provide recommendations to reduce potential safety impacts.
Comment Response 6-7:
Thank you for your comments and your support of the Japanese
Cultural Center has been noted in this EIR.
8-17
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 7, Gary Joralemon page 1 of 1\]
8-18
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 7 – Gary Joralemon
Comment Response 7-1:
Thank you for your comments. Your opinions of the Japanese
cultural garden and hotel are duly noted in this EIR.
Comment Response 7-2:
In regard to the comment on water supply, a detailed analysis of
Project water demand is included within Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services, and in
particular, impacts to the City’s water supply are discussed in Impact UT-3. Water
conservation measures are also included as part of the Project (see Section 2.6.4) which
include low water fixtures and appliances, and drought tolerant landscaping.
In regard to comments on circulation and ingress/egress onto East Cherry Avenue, Section
3.10,Transportation and Traffic, and Appendix K analyze circulation issues in depth. In
particular, Impacts TRANS-5 addresses ingress/egress from the Project site onto adjacent
roadways and found impacts to be less than significant. In addition, a recommended
mitigation measure, MM TRANS-5a, recommends a circulation study to study circulation
of vehicles from Project access points to Traffic Way and East Cherry Avenue, which
would further study traffic conditions and provide recommendations to reduce potential
safety impacts.
Lastly, in regard to comments on the hotel and keeping present with the “small town
ambiance,” this EIR analyzes changes to visual character resulting from the Project within
Section 3.1, Aesthetic Resources. The character of the hotel would be required to comply
with Arroyo Grande’s Design Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District Traffic
Way and Station Way (D-2.11), which requires buildings to have an architectural character
that transitions to the historic character within Arroyo Grande. Further, the hotel as well as
the entirety of the Project would be subject to review by the Architectural Review
Committee (ARC) to ensure that that Project would be consistent with the design guidelines
and the character of the surrounding area.
8-19
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 8, Lori page 1 of 1\]
8-20
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 8 –Lori (no last name provided)
Comment Response 8-1:
Thank you for your comments. Regarding your comment on
Arroyo Grande traffic, please refer to Section 3.10, Transportation and Trafficand the
Traffic Impact Analysis within Appendix K, which includes a detailed analysis of
transportation and traffic impacts generated by the Project. Your opposition to the hotel
and residences included in the Project has been duly noted in this EIR, as well as your
opinion on the senior housing within Subarea 3. For further analysis on impacts to the
“rural feel” or agricultural character of the Project site, please refer to Section 3.1,
Aesthetics and Visual Resources.
8-21
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 9, Marilyn Schmidt page 1 of 1\]
8-22
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 9 –Marilyn Schmidt
Comment Response 9-1:
Thank you for your comments. Your opinions on the proposed
Project have been duly noted in this EIR. It is noted that the commenter largely addresses
the Project proposal rather than the adequacy of the EIR, and comments should be directed
to City decision-makers. Please note that the current zoning for Subarea 1 (where the
proposed hotel would be located) allows a maximum height of 36 feet, or three stories with
a conditional use permit. Regarding water demand for the proposed Project, Section 3.11,
Utilities and Public Services contains a detailed analysis of impacts to City water supply
and found impacts to be less than significant. Also see Comment Response 6-3.
8-23
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 10, Kent and Sue Zammit page 1 of 1\]
8-24
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 10 – Kent and Sue Zammit
Comment Response 10-1:
Thank you for your comments on the EIR. In regard to traffic
issues, Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic, contains a detailed analysis on circulation
and traffic at the intersection of East Cherry Avenue/Traffic Way and Traffic Way/U.S.
Highway 101 ramps. The Transportation Impact Analysis within Appendix K of this EIR
found that while the Project would add trips to these intersections and would result in
slightly longer intersection delays (e.g., less than 5 seconds during peak hour traffic), traffic
would not exceed City LOS thresholds within the General Plan and would be less than
significant. In addition, Impact TRANS-5 analyzes ingress/egress from the Project site onto
East Cherry Avenue and Traffic Way. A recommended mitigation measure, MM TRANS-
5a, is also included while would require an additional circulation study to guide
ingress/egress from Subarea 1, which would identify potential measures to further reduce
traffic and circulation impacts.
Comment Response 10-2:
The hotel’s impact on visual character of the vicinity is
discussed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, and found impacts to be less
than significant.Further, the hotel as well as the entirety of the Project would be subject to
review by the ARC to ensure that that Project would be consistent with the character of the
surrounding area. The hotel within Subarea 1 would serve as a transitional use from
commercial and highway commercial uses along Traffic Way to residential uses along East
Cherry Avenue. In accordance with the Design Guidelines and Standards for the Design
Overlay District D-2.11, the hotel design would include an architectural character that
would transition to the historic district that would include elements of both the village
mixed use and Traffic Way mixed use character, and color palettes that would be
compatible with adjacent development. Please also see Comment Response 10-3 below
regarding hotel design and character.
Comment Response 10-3:
Regarding the height of the hotel within Subarea 1, the current
zoning for Subarea 1 (where the proposed hotel would be located) allows a maximum
height of 36 feet, or three stories with a conditional use permit, and a similar scale building
could develop within Subarea 1 without the approval of the East Cherry Avenue Specific
Plan (Project). However, the height, design, massing, and character of the hotel would be
required to comply with Arroyo Grande’s Design Guidelines and Standards for Design
Overlay District Traffic Way and Station Way (D-2.11), which state that buildings shall
have a small to moderate scale with horizontal massing, and shall have an architectural
character that transitions to the historic character within Arroyo Grande. In addition,
8-25
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
proposed design guidelines specific to the Specific Plan area would be implemented, which
would ensure a high quality character compatible with the surrounding village character.
Comment Response 10-4:
Your comment has been noted. However, as Subarea 1 is zoned
TMU, the restaurant is already a conditionally allowable use that could be developed within
the Subarea 1 site regardless of whether the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan is approved.
Traffic issues associated with the proposed restaurant are included within the analysis of
this EIR within Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic.
Comment Response 10-5
: The Project’s water consumption is described in detail within
Impact UT-3, Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services. As described in this section,
agricultural land uses within the Project site currently use an estimated 34.86 acre-feet per
year (afy) of water, with a historic long-term water use of 41.34 afy. The Project was
calculated to result in a water demand of 36.22 afy. Overall, the Project would result in a
slight net decrease from historic water use, which accounts for cyclic variations in water
use typical for agricultural operations by approximately 5.12 afy and would therefore not
result in a net increase upon City water supplies. Additionally, as described in Section 2.0,
Project Description, the Project would incorporate low water fixtures and appliances and
drought tolerant landscaping in order to conserve water.
Comment Response 10-6:
Please note that street parking along East Cherry Avenue would
be provided to accommodate approximately 24spaces and is planned as part of the
roadway improvements. Please see Section 2.6.5, Circulation and Parking, and Figures 2-
5 and 2-6. For proposed residences within the Project site, parking would include two
spaces per unit within an enclosed garage as well as street parking along proposed
residential interior streets.
Comment Response 10-7:
Thank you for your comments and your opinions on the
Japanese cultural gardens and proposals for Subareas 1 and 2 have been noted within this
EIR.
8-26
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
8.4.3Applicant
\[Insert Comment Letter 11, Oasis page 1 of 4\]
8-27
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 11, Oasis page 2 of 4\]
8-28
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 11, Oasis page 3 of 4\]
8-29
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 11, Oasis page 4 of 4\]
8-30
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 11 – C.M. Florence, AICP Agent, Oasis Associates, Inc.
Comment Response 11-1:
Thank you and we appreciate your comments on the EIR.
Please see comment responses below.
Comment Response 11-2:
The spelling has been corrected on page 2-2.
Comment Response 11-3:
Text has been corrected on page 2-19 to reflect the current
setting where Subarea 3 is undeveloped and is not cultivated with row crops.However, the
change does not modify the analysis or conclusions included in the Draft EIR.
Comment Response 11-4:
Figure 2-7 and text on page 2-29 has been edited to reflect the
slight changes to the proposed interior roadway cross sections.However, the change does
not modify the analysis or conclusions included in the Draft EIR.
Comment Response 11-5:
Text has been added to Section 2.6.3.2 of the Project
Description to clarify that lots 1 through 24 would be designed to be one story, while lots
25 through 58 could be up to two stories. In addition, a footnote has been added to Figures
3.1-3 and 3.1-4, and to page 3.1-20 to indicate that while simulations depict residences up
to two stories in height along East Cherry Avenue (as originally proposed), Project design
has been modified to reduce the height to one story for residences along East Cherry
Avenue. However, the change does not modify the analysis or conclusions included in the
Draft EIR.
Comment Response 11-6:
Please note that the change on page 3.1-20 was made to replace
“removal of several larger trees” to “removal of some larger trees”. However, the change
does not modify the analysis or conclusions included in the Draft EIR.
Comment Response 11-7:
Comment noted and clarifying text has been added to page 3.3-
29 to indicate that some of the listed measures under MM AQ-2b do not have quantifiable
air quality emissions reductions. Please note that Impact AQ-2 accuratelycharacterizes that
mitigated Project emissions for ROG + NOwould be marginally over the APCD
x
threshold; however, the EIR found that PMemissions would continue to be decisively
2.5
over the threshold after mitigation. Further, while is accurate to state that many measures
included within MM AQ-2b do not have quantifiable reductions in air quality emissions,
particularly when estimating with CalEEMod, it may be inappropriate to state that the
Project’s true emissions may be below the thresholds. The methodology used to determine
Project air quality emissions is consistent with the guidance within APCD’s CEQA Air
Quality Handbook and found emissions to be over the APCD thresholds.
8-31
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Comment Response 11-8:
As the commenter identifies and EIR states, the Project does
embody land use planning strategies such as mixed use development, improving the
jobs/housing balance, and compact communities which are mentioned within the 2001
Clean Air Plan; however, consistency with the Clean Air Plan was determined using the
methodology outlined in the guidelines in the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Based
on a strict interpretation of the APCD’s criteria, the Project was found to be inconsistent
with the 2001 Clean Air Plan. However, it is noted that the 2001 Clean Air Plan does not
include population or growth projections beyond the year 2015, and does not account for
the City’s more recent growth patterns nor would it accommodate any growth beyond
2015. Given these limitations, it is acknowledged that Criteria 1, which states, “Are the
population projections used in the plan or project equal to or less than those used in the
most recent Clean Air Plan for the same area?”is very restrictive.
Regarding MM AQ-5a, as stated in the mitigation text, the City shall determine the
appropriate actions required, and/or fair share of payment for funding the additional transit
stop. The timing of this measure would occur prior to the issuance of land use permits or
CUPs. Regarding fair share payment, the exact metrics of determining payment or a
particular dollar amount need not be included in the EIR mitigation measure. As stated in
the EIR, the City would determine a fair share payment amount that would be
commensurate to the size and intensity of the Project’s impact.
Comment Response 11-9:
Figure 3.6-1 has been edited accordingly.However, the change
does not modify the analysis or conclusions included in the Draft EIR.
Comment Response 11-10:
Edits to MM TRANS-3b have been made as requested. It is
noted that these edits further clarify and define the mitigation and do not change the intent
of the mitigation or its ability to mitigate the impact, nor do they modify the conclusions
of the analysis included in the Draft EIR. See page 3.10-26.
Comment Response 11-11:
Thank you for your comments, and calculations performed by
Public Works Supervisor, Shane Taylor, are included as Appendix N. Edits were made to
Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services, to reflect the fact that Subarea 1 has been
historically irrigated although thisparcel is currently fallow, and that the long-term water
need for the site is 41.34 afy (see pages 3.11-4, 3.11-15 and 3.11-16). These edits were
made in recognition that long-term historic water use within the Project site is an indicator
of average agricultural water demand and accounts for cyclic variations in irrigation
patterns due to weather, rotation of crops and the temporary fallowing or resting of soils.
Please note that while the commenter asserts that the Project will increase water supply by
8-32
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
7acre-feet per year (afy), these calculations do not account for the estimated 2.7 afy of
projected water demand for Subarea 3. As such, the EIR has been amended to reflect that
the project would result in an approximate 5.12 afy increase in water supply. Further, as
Subarea 1 is currently fallow, the analysis also conservatively reflects current water use for
the site and estimates that water demand would also increase approximately 1.36 afy from
current conditions.However, this updated information does not modify the analysis or
conclusions included in the Draft EIR.
Comment Response 11-12:
Text has been corrected and edited accordingly on page 5-5.
Comment Response 11-13:
Thank you for your comments. It is noted that the Reduced
Development Alternative would meet some but not all of the Project objectives, including
the provision of housing and economic feasibility. The commenter also notes that the
Reduced Development Alternative may not be in line with the City’s development goals
for housing, housing affordability, and anticipated retail/commercial uses. However, as the
commenter correctly recognizes, economic feasibility is not typically assessed under
CEQA and selection of the environmentally superior alternative is based solely on the
alternative’s ability to reduce environmental impacts identified in the EIR. This EIR finds
the Reduced Development Alternative to be the environmentally superior alternative as
this alternative would slightly reduce impacts to many resources areas analyzed within the
EIR, and may reduce significant air quality impacts to a less than significant level after
mitigation. This alternative was designed to reduce traffic impacts on Traffic Way/Fair
Oaks Avenue to a less than significant level so that signalization of this intersection would
no longer be required; however, as the commenter points out, without signalization,
improved LOS at this intersection would not befullyrealized. However, neither the Project
nor Reduced Development Alternative would reduce traffic impacts to a level that would
be less than significant; therefore, each would require the adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations. City decision-makers willdecide if the proposed Project better
meets the needs and goals of the City, particularly whennon-environmental factors are
considered.
8-33
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
8.4.4Oral Testimonies
Oral testimony was received for the Project on May 17, 2016at a public workshop held
before the City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, where members of the Planning
Commission provided comment, followed by comments from the public. Summarized
below are the comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to comments, followed
by the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Planning Commission Comments
Commenter 12 – Commissioner John Mack
Comment 12-1:Pismo Clarkia –This is a seasonal species, are additional biological
surveys needed to look at seasonal species on the hillside area?
Comment 12-2:Water Demand - 36.22 AFY for the site, is this broken down by Subarea?
Comment 12-3: Night Lighting – how was night lighting analyzed?
Comment 12-4:Traffic...is there an interim solution?
Comment Response 12-1:
The Biological Resources Assessmentidentifies suitable
habitat for sensitive species and assesses the potential for such species to occur within the
Project vicinity, even if none were found during field surveys. The Biological Resources
Assessment ultimately concluded that the Project site does not support suitable habitat for
any special status plant species, including Pismo clarkia. While no known occurrences of
Pismo clarkia have been within the Project site, the Biological Resources Assessment
found that this species has been found within 5 miles of the Project site (see Figure 5 of
Appendix F). In addition, Sage Institute, Inc. conducted a walking field survey on June 2,
2016 where special attention was given to the identification of Pismo clarkia within the
Project vicinity. No Pismo clarkia was identified within the Project site and the survey
concluded that soils onsite do not support Pismo clarkia. Findings of the field survey are
included within Appendix F, Biological Resources Assessment Addendum, Pismo Clarkia
Rare Plant Survey Report for the East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Project, City of Arroyo
Grande, CA.
Comment Response 12-2:
Yes, Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Servicesincludes a
breakdown of water demand by subarea. See Table 3.11-5, Projected Water Demand.
Comment Response 12-3:
The Projectdesign is conceptual and at the time of EIR
analysis, no lighting plan is available. However, it is reasonablyassumed that the Project
8-34
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
could introduce new light sources on a site where none currently exist. Nighttime lighting
is analyzed within Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Impact VIS-4 (pages 3.1-
24 through 26).
Comment Response 12-4:
Near term traffic conditions are analyzed in the Traffic Impact
Assessment (TIA) within Appendix K, which represents a scenario where approved and
pending transportation projects are assumed to be constructed. This scenario is
representative of conditions within the foreseeable future. Tables 3.10-4 and 3.10-5 within
Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic, demonstrate the Project’s impacts within this
near-term scenario.
Commenter 13 – Commissioner Terry Fowler-Payne
Comment 13-1:Traffic and circulation in the village – Traffic is currently not good and the
village did not anticipate this level of growth in the area. Traffic analysis focuses on
circulation on Traffic Way, was Garden Street analyzed? Garden Street could be a potential
shortcut.
Comment Response 13-1:
Omni-Means prepared a supplemental memorandum within
Appendix K that addresses traffic and operational issues that may result from Project trips
on local roadways, particularly those that may be used for shortcutstoavoid the village
core. Garden Street, as well as other local roadways are expected to distribute a small
percentage of Project-generated trips. The traffic supplemental memorandum
conservatively assumes 7 percent of trips could use local roadways such asGarden Street;
however, this would only equate to approximately 3 AM and 4 PM peak hour trips, which
would not result in a significant increase of new traffic on this roadway.
Commenter 14 – Commissioner Glenn Martin
Comment 14-1:Parking - Is there enough or too much? Ensure that anappropriate amount
is provided for the given uses. Estimates in the EIR may not reflect real parking needs.
Does EIR cover the outside envelope? Subarea 1 is the big concern.
Comment Response 14-1
:Parking for the Project is described within Section 2.6.5,
Circulation and Parking. As the EIR analyzes a conceptual design for Subarea 1, parking
for this subarea is assumed to comply with the provisions of the City of Arroyo Grande
Municipal Code for thepurposes of analysis within this EIR. This includes at least 122
parking spaces in Subarea as well as proposed street parking. City planning review of future
8-35
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
entitlement requests for Subarea 1 would address parking requirements to ensure with city
zoning and parking regulations.
Commenter 15 – Commissioner John Keen
Comment 15-1:Good job on the EIR. One of the best ever seen.
Comment Response 15-1:
Thank you for your comments on the EIR.
Public Oral Comments
Commenter 16 – Linda Osty
Comment 16-1:Prefers Reduced Development Alternative.
Comment 16-2:Opposes two story homes, this is not in the character of the village.The
lot sizes are too big, smaller houses would be more in keeping with the village theme.
Comment 16-3:Traffic on East Cherry Avenue will be a concern.
Comment 16-4: Questioned if enough parking is proposed for the hotel.
Comment 16-5:Questioned if adequate ingress/egress exists on East Cherry Avenue to the
property.
Comment 16-6:Against the traffic signal proposed for Fair Oaks/ Traffic Way; this may
cause circulation issues.
Comment Response 16-1:
Thank you and we appreciate your comments. Your support of
the Reduced Development Alternative has been noted.
Comment Response 16-2:
In regards to your comment opposing proposed residences up
to two stories, please note that the Applicant has modified the proposal so that 40 percent
of the units would be designed and constructed to only be one story. This includes lots 1
through 24 shown in yellow on Figure 2-3, which are along East Cherry Avenue and the
alley-loaded lots to reduce the size and massing of these residences. Second stories on the
remaining lots would be either partially visible, or would not be visible from East Cherry
Road and Traffic Way. Further, the proposed East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan Guidelines
to ensure that residence have appropriate setbacks, second story stepbacks and architectural
design that reduces the overall size and massing.
Comment Response 16-3:
Roadway traffic on East Cherry Avenue was assessed within
Section 3.10, Transportation and Trafficand within the TIAin Appendix K, and found
8-36
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
that while the Project would result in increases in traffic along East Cherry Avenue and
slightly longer delays at the East Cherry Avenue/Traffic Way intersection, impacts would
be below the City’s thresholds in the General Plan and would be less than significant.
Comment Response 16-4:
Regarding parking adequacy within Subarea 1, as stated within
Section 2.0, ProjectDescription, the amount of parking spaces provided for the hotel and
restaurant use would be required to comply with Chapter 16.56 of the City of Arroyo
Grande Municipal Code. City planning staff would ensure that that parking is compliant
prior to the approval of a CUP for the hotel and restaurant.
Comment Response 16-5:
Regarding ingress/egress issues on East Cherry Avenue, please
refer to Impact TRANS-5 within Section 3.10, Transportation and Traffic.
Comment Response 16-6:
Regarding comments addressing the traffic signal proposed for
Fair Oaks/ Traffic Way, additional traffic analysis was performed for the intersection of
Fair Oaks/ Traffic Way and for the intersection of Allen Street/ Traffic Way. This analysis
is containedwithin Appendix K. The TIAfound that existing LOS and queueing at these
intersections are currently deficient. However, after implementation of Project mitigation,
including installation of the traffic signal at Fair Oaks/Traffic Way, intersection operations
would be improved to LOS C or better. See Appendix K.
Commenter 17 – C.M. Florence, AICP Agent, Oasis Associates, Inc.
Comment 17-1:The commenter noted that she is available to answer questions during the
public hearing. No comment response need.
Commenter 18 – Minetta Bennett
Comment 18-1:Density of the development is too much and will cause congestion on Allen
Street and Traffic Way.
Comment 18-2:Traffic and parking are concerns –particularly parking on both sides of
East Cherry Avenue.
Comment 18-3:Increased traffic in the area will create more hazards for pedestrians
crossing the street.
Comment Response 18-1:
Regarding comments associated with potential congestion at
the intersection of Allen Street and Traffic Way, additional traffic analysiswas performed
for the intersection of Allen Street/ Traffic Way. This analysis is contained within
Appendix K. The traffic analysis found that existing LOS and queueing at Allen Street and
8-37
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Traffic Way are currently deficient. However, after implementationof Project mitigation,
including installation of the traffic signal at Fair Oaks/Traffic Way, intersection operations
would be improved to LOS C or better. See Appendix K. This would improve current
queueing and congestion within the Allen Street/ Traffic Way intersection.
Comment Response 18-2:
In regards to comments on parking along East Cherry Avenue,
please note that street parking along East Cherry Avenue would be provided to
accommodate approximately 24 spaces and is planned as part of the roadway
improvements. Please see Section 2.6.5, Circulation and Parking, and Figures 2-5 and 2-
6.
Comment Response 18-3:
For analysis on traffichazards and pedestrian safety issues,
please see Section 3.10, Transportation and Trafficas well as in the TIA within Appendix
K.
Commenter 19 – Shirley Gibson
Comment 19-1:The densityis too much.
Comment 19-2: Why is there no study of Allen Street and Traffic Way? Circulation is
already poor and dangerous intersection. Pacific Coast Railway and Allen Street needs to
be looked at.
Comment Response 19-1:
Thank you for your comments and your opinion on the
proposed density of the Project has been noted. While density in of itself is generally not
considered a CEQA issue, this EIR indirectly analyzes the proposed density of the Project
as it relates to traffic trip generation and congestion (see Section 3.10, Transportation and
Traffic), change in visual character (see Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources), and
demand on public services and utilities (see Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services).
Comment Response 19-2:
Regarding comments pertaining to traffic along local
neighborhood streets including Allen Street, Pacific Coast Railway Place, and Mason
Street, additional traffic analysis was performed for these roadways and is contained within
the traffic supplemental memorandum in Appendix K. This analysis includes Project trip
distribution, and found that a small portion of Project trips may use these roadways to reach
East Branch Street; this includes an estimated 3 AM peak hour trips and 4 PM peak hour
trips and is not considered a significant impact to the neighborhood streets. See Appendix
K.
8-38
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[
Insert PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 1 of 4\]
8-39
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[
Insert PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 4\]
8-40
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[
Insert PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 4\]
8-41
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[
Insert PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 4\]
8-42
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
8.4.5Public Comments Received After the Close of the Comment Period
\[Insert Comment Letter 20, Austin page 1 of 2\]
8-43
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 20, Austin page 2 of 2\]
8-44
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 20 – Don and Joanne Austin
Comment Response 20-1:
Thank you for your comments. The Project’s water
consumption and effect on City water supply is described in detail within Impact UT-3,
Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services. As described in this section, agricultural land
uses within the Project site have ahistoric long-term water use of 41.34 afy.In general,
agricultural land uses usually have higher water demands that residential uses. The Project
was calculated to result in a water demand of 36.22 afy. Overall, the Project would result
in a net decrease of 5.12 afy from historic water use, which accounts for cyclic variations
in water use typical for agricultural operations and would therefore not result in a net
increase upon City water supplies. Additionally, as described in Section 2.0, Project
Description, the Project would incorporate low water fixtures and appliances and drought
tolerant landscaping in order to conserve water. In addition, we acknowledge your support
of the Subarea 3 proposal.
8-45
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 21, Hedderig page 1 of 1\]
8-46
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 21 – Bruce Hedderig
Comment Response 21-1:
Comment noted. The Project’s water consumption is described
in detail within Impact UT-3, Section 3.11, Utilities and Public Services. As described in
this section, agricultural land uses within the Project site currently use an estimated 34.86
acre-feet per year (afy) of water, with a historic long-term water use of 41.34 afy. The
Project was calculated to result in a water demand of 36.22 afy. Overall, the Project would
result in a slight net decrease from historic water use, which accounts for cyclic variations
in water use typical for agricultural operations by approximately 5.12 afy and would
therefore not result in anet increase upon City water supplies. Additionally, as described
in Section 2.0, Project Description, the Project would incorporate low water fixtures and
appliances and drought tolerant landscaping in order to conserve water.
8-47
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 22, Keating page 1 of 2\]
8-48
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 22, Keating page 2 of 2\]
8-49
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 22 – Linda Keating
Comment Response 22-1:
Comment respectfully noted; however, the commenter
addresses the Project design rather than the adequacy of the EIR, and comment will be
considered by City decision-makers in that context.
Comment Response 22-2:
Please note that while the residential alley would not provide
public parking, street parking along East Cherry Avenue would be provided to
accommodate approximately 24spaces and is planned as part of the roadway
improvements. Please see Section 2.6.5, Circulation and Parking, and Figures 2-5 and 2-
6. For proposed residences within the Project site, parking would include two spaces per
unit within an enclosed garage as well as street parking along proposed residential interior
streets.
Comment Response 22-3:
Regarding emergencyhome evacuationconcerns and adequate
accessand egress viaresidential alley,the Project is subject to reviewand approval by the
City and the Five Cities Fire Authority (FCFA)to ensure adequacy of Project site designs
related to emergency ingress and egress.
Comment Response 22-4:
Comment noted. No additional data was provided by the
commenter to support the conclusion of increased crime rates with regards to the proposed
alley. The Project will be reviewed to ensure adequate lighting to prevent visual resource
impacts while ensuring security of the Project area.
Comment Response 22-5:
For responses to comments addressing guest parking, please
refer to Comment Response 18-2. Emergency vehicles could access East Cherry Avenue
or the proposed residential interior streets within the Project site to access units within the
Project site. In addition, the Project, including roadways would be subject to review by the
FCFA.
Comment Response 22-6:
For guest parking, including those performing household
services, please see Comment Response 18-2.
Comment Response 22-7:
Comment noted. However, the comment does not address the
adequacy of the EIR.
Comment Response 22-8:
Thank you for your suggestions. However, the comment does
not address the adequacy of the EIR, and comment should be directed to City decision-
makers.
8-50
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 23, Nichols page 1 of 2\]
8-51
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 23, Nichols page 2 of 2\]
8-52
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 23 – Ann Nichols
Comment Response 23-1:
Thank you and we appreciate your comments. Please see
comment responses below.
Comment Response 23-2:
Thank you for your comment. For a discussion of analysis
relating to the height of the hotel in relation to the hills in the background, please see
Section 3.1, Aesthetics and Visual Resources. The EIR found impacts to visual resources
such as distance views of the Santa Lucia Mountains to be less than significant after
mitigation.
Comment Response 23-3:
Thank you for your comments.Please refer to Section 3.10,
Transportation and Traffic and the TIA in Appendix K regarding traffic associated with
proposed residences within Subarea 2. Please refer to Section 3.11, Utilities and Public
Services for a discussion on Project water usage.
Comment Response 23-4:
Your comments in support of the proposal for Subarea 3 have
been acknowledged within this EIR.
8-53
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 24, Osty page 1 of 3\]
8-54
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 24, Osty page 2 of 2\]
8-55
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
\[Insert Comment Letter 24, Osty page 2 of 3\]
8-56
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.0RC
ESPONSE TO OMMENTS
Commenter 24 – Linda Osty, Kent and Sue Zammit
Comment Response 24-1:
Thank you for your comment. Please note thatthe roadway
leading to the hillside to the south of the Project site is only a stubout for a future connection
and the Project does not include the extension of this roadway to any connecting road
network to the south (see Figure 2-5). Future growth facilitated by this stubout is described
within Section 4.2.4, Extension of Infrastructure.
Comment Response 24-2
: Regarding the height of the hotel within Subarea 1, while the
hotel could have a maximum height of up to 36 feet, the design, height, massing, and
character of the hotel would be required to comply with Arroyo Grande’s Design
Guidelines and Standards for Design Overlay District Traffic Way and Station Way (D-
2.11), which state that buildings shall have a small to moderate scale with horizontal
massing, and shall have an architectural character that transitions to the historic character
within Arroyo Grande. Further, the hotel as well as the entirety of the Project will be subject
to review by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to ensure that that project would
be consistent with the design guidelines and the character of the surrounding area.
Regarding parking adequacy within Subarea 1, as stated within Section 2.0, Project
Description, the amount of parking spaces provided for the hotel and restaurant use would
be required to comply with Chapter 16.56 of the City of Arroyo Grande Municipal Code.
City planning staff would ensure that that parking is compliant prior to the approval of a
CUP for the hotel and restaurant.
Comment Response 24-3:
Please see Comment Response 10-1.
Comment Response 24-4:
Please see Comment Response 10-2.
Comment Response 24-5:
Please see Comment Response 10-3.
Comment Response 24-6:
Please see Comment Response 10-4.
Comment Response 24-7:
Please see Comment Response 10-5.
Comment Response 24-8:
Please see Comment Response 10-6.
8-57
East Cherry Avenue Specific Plan
Final EIR