The URL can be used to link to this page

R 5060 RESOLUTION NO. 5060 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE BRISCO-HALCYON ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS PROJECT AND AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR DESIGN WORK WHEREAS, in January 2005, the Council approved a Consultant Services Agreement with Wood Rodgers to prepare the required Final Project Report and supporting environmental documents for several alternatives for the Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project ("Project"); and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2015, the Council selected two alternatives with which to proceed for completion of the draft environmental study for the Project; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2018, a public workshop was held for review and comments of the draft environmental documents; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2019, the Council received a status update for the Project and after a lengthy deliberation recommended Alternative 4C as the preferred alternative for the Project; and WHEREAS, planning for the Project has progressed to the point that the City intends to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for design work; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) for the Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA, which supports the issuance of an RFP for design work; and WHEREAS, based upon all evidence in the record before it, the City Council hereby adopts the following CEQA Findings in support of the Project: 1. The Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) was prepared and circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis, and adequately addresses potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project; and 2. There is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment as mitigated in accordance with the measures identified in the IS- MND; and 3. All potentially significant environmental effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced IS-MND, subject to the mitigation measures identified in the IS-MND being incorporated into the Project and subject to the mitigation monitoring program identified in the IS-MND, which are hereby incorporated herein in their entirety. RESOLUTION NO. 5060 PAGE 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, with the above findings and subject to the mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby authorizes the issuance of an RFP for design work for the Project. On motion of Council Member Storton, seconded by Council Member George, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Storton, George, Barneich, and Paulding NOES: Mayor Ray Russom ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 26th day of January, 2021. RESOLUTION NO. 5060 PAGE 3 CARE 'AY ' OM, MAYOR ATTEST: ANNAMARIE PORT INTERIM CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: e616)/ Off it WHITNEY i - DONALD, CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: TIMOTHY J. CARMEL, CITY ATTORNEY EXHIBIT A CITY OF 0ROYO RANO INITIAL STUDY/ G r MITIGATED NEGATIVE vi".111111111•11"Pir4CALIFORN DECLARATION s , . , -. igh tF - Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo,California 05-SLO-101-PM 13.1/14.6; EA 05-0A370 Project ID 0500000008 September2020 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Project: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Lead Agency: The City of Arroyo Grande (City) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the federal lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A separate NEPA compliance document has been prepared and is circulating concurrently with this IS/MND. Document Availability: • City of Arroyo Grande Community Development Department 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 • Arroyo Grande Library 800 West Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 • California Department of Transportation, District 5 50 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • http://www.arroyogrande.org/ Project Description: Operational deficiencies at the northbound US 101 on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road, and nearby intersections, currently cause severe congestion at the Brisco Road undercrossing, resulting in queue spillover onto adjacent roadways, particularly West Branch Street. The purpose of the proposed Brisco- Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project is to provide congestion relief, alleviate queuing, and improve the traffic operations of the regional and local street system in the vicinity of US 101.The purpose is also to continue to accommodate access to existing and planned local development along West Branch Street and El Camino Real in the City. To achieve this stated purpose, the project should seek to provide direct access from US 101 to and from the commercial, governmental and recreational facilities along West Branch Street and El Camino Real and to reduce congestion and queuing at the Brisco Road undercrossing intersections and along Grand Avenue. The project would be designed such that it would not preclude the ultimate widening of US 101 or future improvements at any of the affected intersections within the project area. The City, in coordination with Caltrans, proposes modifications and improvements to the US 101 interchanges at Brisco-Halcyon Road, Grand Avenue, and/or Camino Mercado in the City of Arroyo Grande.The City and Caltrans have discussed numerous project design alternatives over the last decade, many of which were determined to be infeasible due to geographical limitations or traffic conditions. Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C, described in more detail below, have been carried forward for a review that is more detailed. Alternative 1 proposes closure of the northbound US 101 on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and modifications to the adjacent interchanges at Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado. Alternative 4C Page 3 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project proposes closure of the on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and modifications to the Grand Avenue interchange, and also proposes construction of new US 101 northbound on-and off-ramps and a new US 101 ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection at an immediately adjacent location to replace the ramps being removed at Brisco Road.The new intersection of the new on-and off-ramps and the local road system would consist of a single lane roundabout. The project would also include the installation of soundwalls on the southbound side of US 101 between the Oak Park Boulevard interchange and Stonecrest Drive and between the Halcyon Road on-ramp and the Grand Avenue off-ramp. On March 26, 2019, after the close of the 30-day public comment period for the Draft Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration(IS/MND),the City Council selected Alternative 4C as the Locally Preferred Alternative. With this selection, the City Council also voted to phase/postpone certain improvements until additional funding is available. Project components to be phased to a later date were determined to have independent utility and not necessary to meet the project's purpose and need, and include: (1) the physical improvements to the US 101/East Grand Avenue interchange; and (2) the soundwalls along the southbound side of US 101.The physical improvements to the US 101/Grand Avenue interchange, including the realignment of the US 101 southbound ramps to form a four-legged intersection, would be postponed to a later date until additional funding can be secured. Although the physical improvements would be postponed, signal timing improvements would be implemented during the initial project phase to improve operational efficiency at the interchange. The construction of the soundwalls on the southbound side of US 101 would also be phased until additional funding is available. All project components are anticipated to be completed by the design year(2035). Summary Document Preparation: Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Arroyo Grande (the City) has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed project and finds that these documents reflect the independent judgment of the City.The City,as lead agency,also confirms that the project mitigation measures detailed in these documents are feasible and will be implemented as stated in the IS/MND. /f." September 21, 2020 Prep ed by: Emily Creel,JD Date SWCA Environmental Consultants, Environmental Planner ��frrt I i,,• , hvds-i Reviewed by:Wf tney McDonald Dat Community Development Director Page 4 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Table of Contents: 1. Introduction 7 Introduction and Regulatory Guidance 7 Lead Agency 7 Agency Roles 7 Environmental Compliance Documentation 7 Purpose and Document Organization 8 Summary of Findings 8 2. Project Description 9 Project Location 9 Project Background and Purpose 9 Project Description 12 Other Required Public Agency Approvals 22 Related Projects 22 3. Environmental Checklist 23 Project Information 23 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 24 Determination 24 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 25 4. Environmental Issues 26 I. Aesthetics 26 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources 28 III.Air Quality 34 IV. Biological Resources 39 V. Cultural Resources 47 VI. Geology and Soils 52 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Energy 54 VIII. Hazards, Hazardous Materials, &Wildfire 57 IX Hydrology and Water Quality 64 X. Land Use and Planning 71 Xl. Mineral Resources 81 XII. Noise 81 XIII. Population and Housing 85 XIV. Public Services 87 Page 5 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project XV. Recreation 91 XVI. Transportation/Traffic 92 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems 97 5. Mandatory Findings of Significance 99 6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 101 7. References 147 Appendices: Appendix A. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form NRCS-CPA-106 and Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Worksheets Page 6 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 1. Introduction Introduction and Regulatory Guidance This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared by the City of Arroyo Grande (the City) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), Public Resources Code §21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15000 et seq. An Initial Study is conducted by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines §15063). If there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines§15064(a). However, if the lead agency determines that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant mitigate the potentially significant effects to a less-than-significant level,a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared instead of an EIR(CEQA Guidelines §15070). The lead agency prepares a written statement describing the reasons a proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, why an EIR need not be prepared.This IS/MND conforms to the content requirements under CEQA Guidelines §15071. Lead Agency The lead agency is the public agency with primary approval authority over the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines§15051(b)(1), "the lead agency will normally be an agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose." The lead agency for the proposed project is the City of Arroyo Grande for compliance with CEQA and Caltrans is the lead agency for compliance with NEPA(a separate NEPA document has been prepared and is being separately circulated, as discussed below).The contact person for the CEQA lead agency is: Whitney McDonald Community Development Director City of Arroyo Grande 300 E. Branch Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 T: (805)473-5420 E: wmcdonald@arroyogrande.org Agency Roles The City of Arroyo Grande has taken on the role of implementing all phases of this project and therefore is managing the scope, cost, and schedule of each project component. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as the owners and operators of the highway facility must review and authorize all proposed modifications. Environmental Compliance Documentation Separate environmental documents have been prepared: this Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration that complies with CEQA and state environmental laws, and an Environmental Assessment(EA)that complies with NEPA and other federal environmental laws. Page 7 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Purpose and Document Organization The purpose of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. Mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the project to eliminate or reduce any potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. This document is organized as follows: 1. Introduction—This chapter provides an introduction to the project and describes the purpose and organization of this document. 2. Project Description—This chapter describes the background and scope of the project,all proposed project components, and identifies project objectives. 3. Environmental Checklist—This chapter summarizes the project and the environmental issues to be considered, and describes the process for evaluation of environmental impacts. 4. Environmental Setting, Potential Impacts, and Mitigation Measures — This chapter explains the environmental setting for each environmental issue area, identifies the significance of potential environmental impacts,and evaluates the potential impacts identified in the CEQA Environmental (Initial Study) Checklist. Mitigation measures are incorporated, where appropriate, to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. 5. Mandatory Findings of Significance — This chapter identifies and summarizes the overall significance of any potential impacts to natural and cultural resources, cumulative impacts, and impact to humans, as identified in the Initial Study. 6. Summary of Mitigation Measures — This chapter summarizes the mitigation measures incorporated into the project as a result of the Initial Study. 7. References —This chapter identifies the references and sources used in the preparation of this IS/MND. Summary of Findings Section 3 of this document contains the Environmental(Initial Study)Checklist that identifies the potential environmental impacts (by environmental issue) and contains a brief discussion of each potential impact that would result from implementation of the proposed project. In accordance with §15064(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be prepared if the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment after the inclusion of mitigation measures in the project. Based on the available project information and the environmental analysis presented in this document, there is no substantial evidence that, after the incorporation of identified mitigation measures,the proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment. It is proposed that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. Page 8 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 2. Project Description Project Location The proposed project extends along an approximately 1.5-mile stretch of U.S. Highway 101 (US 101) in the city of Arroyo Grande.The project corridor begins just north of Arroyo Grande Creek (near the Grand Avenue overpass) and extends northwest toward the City of Pismo Beach. It includes the northbound US 101 intersections at Grand Avenue, Brisco Road, and Camino Mercado (refer to Figures 1 and 2). The city of Arroyo Grande is situated in southwestern San Luis Obispo County, in the Arroyo Grande Valley, approximately 15 miles south of the city of San Luis Obispo and 10 miles north of the Santa Barbara County line. Project Background and Purpose Operational deficiencies at the northbound US 101 on-and off-ramp/Brisco Road intersection,and nearby intersections, currently cause severe congestion at the Brisco Road undercrossing, resulting in queue spillover onto adjacent roadways. The purpose of the project is to provide congestion relief, alleviate queuing, and improve the traffic operations of the regional and local street system in the vicinity of US 101 in the city. The purpose is also to continue to accommodate access to existing and planned local development. The project is needed to correct existing operational deficiencies in the project area. Increasing traffic demand due to increasing development in and around the city, lack of alternative routes, limited freeway crossing opportunities, and non-standard existing roadway geometrics combine to cause escalating congestion and safety concerns within the project area. The levels of service at the northbound and southbound ramp intersections of the Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange are forecast to deteriorate to unacceptable levels by year 2020. Existing interchange and ramp spacing along US 101 in the project area do not meet current standards. Ramp closures and associated improvements to adjacent interchanges have been evaluated as a means of improving traffic operations.The project is needed to maximize the efficiency of the existing State and local roadway systems to better serve the needs of commuter traffic within the city. To achieve the project purpose to an adequate degree this project should: • Provide direct access from US 101 to and from the commercial, governmental, and recreational facilities along West Branch Street; • Reduce congestion and queuing at the Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange and along East Grand Avenue; and, • Correct ramp and mainline operation on US 101 at the Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange. The City of Arroyo Grande (City), in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), proposes modifications and improvements to the US 101 intersections at Brisco-Halcyon Road, Grand Avenue, and/or Camino Mercado in the City of Arroyo Grande. Numerous design alternatives have been discussed over the last decade, many of which were determined to be infeasible due to traffic issues or geographical limitations. Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C, described in more detail below, are now being carried forward for more detailed review. On March 26, 2019,the City Council selected Alternative 4C as the Locally Preferred Alternative. Page 9 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map .,, `'+•_ate— °r . , le, f SalinasF .. • Q+i ,Z4 �t� — - .r3i,��`��. ``� --...0 ii! „Visalia Sani-145 r _n , •).)----- ' .. ' tde Atli 41 i'' ,. .. ,.-_,-37 .1.1?, ‘'Ne;60 c a. „It, , ... . .. Obispo '`'7: �( Project frfr r �+�� nit..1.51. "lYtitibk.&.-41111111111111is- till'7*'.. 411°11-„... L�. Stoitit-: � smt_, 41 e ,j ��a />j� Locationntarl:, � �. �/ �aR t } Lompoc S-, J� TY J',•j •0� ,;,,4 ,•,,, }.. C 3 r -_--v. -,,, ,s f��,/ y 5.�i`t.� Grua,A • �as k' 7 -r; — (4\ �� / l Lon I ,t,,4-nirL:5R .t 1_ '4„ -ek ..---.t" )111,0_,,iv,,,_„,. .. 4...47,...... :,..‘,.-,1, . ---.-.--— . , .. ., . .,' -,--N,„, .)..,... ,,„..L.. ., r.v............i,y. ' „fp -7- ..m.4 .,..,..,..,4%, r.444, ..„„,..,,,,,,,...... 0 vt•wik..r.7 e(1.1:-:;1'*. ...;....1 liTill'. it‘ ,1b. ' -1 ' ' '—`....----j."4""° 200 -, .;:•0,11 - dit, thil , •I 'iv )41,0r1 Art .- '-'" ,4 . ) -,-4 4416... '---- • -`7-lige Nittp . , . , 4•1 , • W ,. ' -f:;" _ ' '\ is .4 ) '';..N i 'rte \... lit ....-. .. `.. dpitya - �:�i\ill c � it '-- ' f' / i. : o - Tar, - ,fq : ' f v k ° `? . y � t, � M a .V.:;;;ui2l..riMilrd ^ .�s.41e. e$ � -ssa 1)31: 4" i -. • l �� iGiLR ,-...), . ,.... ..,„„_. . cy f'.. '• '. ) .,w4(....itillAr11/11111111r11 - ._. z,_ ._ ,, 0*) • ..7%.,:411.".. :-qh-r-' ,' 4 6 {r•�� 11*Tiral. .44NW ti � t U i il ,...,:-::::::hf;":.-::.-:.;1.1101111111111ii 'I, ' tk,e,.‘.__ \-;,,. , 2 4, A .. , I 1 . 11% 1! "J''-- -1:- -1::::::-A:, IW. MVO .1'.1.)., :).;lf:81'9" c. t ,041. "I•itk, r 36 7 -- /3 1'' 4. • ,44401 .--... /_. . . it , .,.. P. r\ epi ! `w::.: ,>, _ } ' S. Lrrdrrq 0 off fl -- - - - �_' s �. �" --:/,'-- --. 173$1nP 01.25 2.5 Miles N SWCA I I I n SW CA EN vIq'Ju Mku Ip 1.CONSV L1AN15 Project Vicinity Map Copyright:c02096 National Geographic society. Bri sco-Halc on Road interchange Modifications Project U.S.Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Series(Topographic). y g J Page 10 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Figure 2.Project Location Map u 9 O .� Q O` it- I 4. UeS�(;3n Rancho Grande ob EQ ,hJ Park V rd ages Rd '.t No 0Aj 4 o Aco(n ` a.° a. age O Er a� o,es 44'5%. ft .P� MesVo-re 4n h 4feado' �``aA' A.a e la Oak Park E' 70i N Plaza Via lay of ao ��eraldeaypr C amigo Sferc ado pen id° c chaton S s co O e Via VaQ`' c Sq„,,.. F> :ode. '1 odt v 0, t• • �. = Montego SI •7 O 0 v a. O'ra S US•r� O\ in `c a` c -• c ov". v r F �S``'` • Pre h': h$t o u z Fier r� --- -:--. z o o Z 0 C V - P' cC v o ' SI/ , E Grand Ave v' Lr c °. r 0� Oaks �a, o o b SI m LA and Pie o m G( x E a` Poplar S tZ toto So4�se 4r p� Sage U st t a — .+ vs U] C o 4, L 2 a Maple St a o Eman Ct vii 4 o T ti raspberry Ave E to ... W _ in N Ave '� C in Soto Sports T m` Complex in a N N c QProject Boundary c Todd—I r7 L y Palm G1 ri m Olive St N SWCA Miles �~.\- 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 µ �� E ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Source:Esrl,HERE,DeLorme,USGS,(Merman.increment P Corp.. s Project Location Map NRCAN,Esri Japan.MET!.Esri China(Hong Kong).Esri(Thailand).TomTom. BHIRoad Interchange Modifications Project Mepmylndia,©OpenStreetMrISCo-Halcyon ep contributors,and the GIS User Community yg Page 11 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Alternative 1 proposes closure of the northbound US 101 on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and modifications to the adjacent interchanges at Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado. Alternative 4C proposes closure of the on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and modifications to the Grand Avenue interchange, and also proposes construction of new US 101 northbound on-and off-ramps and a new US 101 ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection at an immediately adjacent location to replace the ramps being removed at Brisco Road.This intersection would include a single-lane roundabout. The project has been presented before the Arroyo Grande City Council and Traffic Commission in various meetings since 2009. The City held a public meeting in the spring of 2011 to allow community members the opportunity to discuss and comment on the project. The meeting was publicly noticed and very well attended, with an estimated 80 to 100 community members attending. The main concern expressed by community members was increased traffic on Rodeo Drive (although traffic projections and modeling indicate that no increase in traffic on Rodeo Drive would occur). The City has established a Council Sub- Committee for the project,which meets on a periodic basis with local and regional stakeholders. Project Description Two build alternatives were considered to address the project objectives (Alternatives 1 and 4C). On March 26, 2019, after the close of the 30-day public comment period for the Draft IS/MND, the City Council selected Alternative 4C as the Locally Preferred Alternative because it would best achieve the project purpose to improve the traffic operations of the regional and local street system and provide better access from US 101 to and from the commercial, governmental, and recreational facilities along West Branch Street. Caltrans concurs with the City of Arroyo Grande determination and has formally adopted Alternative 4C as the Preferred Alternative. The two build alternatives carried forward for analysis are detailed below and shown in Figures 3a, 3b, and 3c. Alternative 1 Alternative 1 proposes the removal of the US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and improvements to the adjacent East Grand Avenue interchange to the south and the Camino Mercado intersection to the north.Alternative 1 includes the following design elements,which are shown on Figure 3a: • Construction of an additional left-turn lane on the northbound off-ramp at the East Grand Avenue/US 101 northbound ramps intersection and provision of an exclusive right-turn lane on the westbound approach. • Relocation of the US 101 southbound on-ramp at Grand Avenue to opposite the existing US 101 southbound off-ramp approach, and associated traffic signal phasing modifications. This would also include installation of a double 54-inch concrete pipe culvert to carry storm water under the realigned ramp. • Widening of East Grand Avenue,including the East Grand Avenue overcrossing through both ramp intersections,to provide 12-foot lanes, eight-foot shoulders, and six-foot sidewalks, which would provide upgraded pedestrian and bicycle facilities. There are currently no bicycle facilities on the Grand Avenue Overcrossing. Page 12 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project • Reconstruction of the southbound US 101 pavement under the Grand Avenue overcrossing on a lower profile to provide 15'0"vertical clearance under the bridge. • Improvements to the northbound US 101 on-ramp/Camino Mercado/West Branch Street intersection. These improvements include widening and restriping the northbound West Branch Street approach to provide a second northbound left-turn lane to the US 101 northbound on- ramp and modifying the northbound on-ramp to provide dual receiving lanes that merge to a single lane with a 950+-foot auxiliary lane on northbound US 101. Provisions for future ramp metering would be provided on the US 101 northbound on-ramp. • Closure and removal of US 101 northbound on-and off-ramps at Brisco Road and removal of the associated traffic signal equipment. • Reconstruction of Brisco Road between El Camino Real and West Branch Street on a lower profile to provide 15'0"vertical clearance at the Brisco Road undercrossing. • At the Brisco Road/EI Camino Real intersection, restriping to provide for one exclusive left-turn lane and one shared through-right lane for the southbound Brisco Road undercrossing approach to El Camino Real. With this improvement, the existing Brisco Road three-lane undercrossing would be re-striped to accommodate two southbound lanes and one northbound lane. At the Brisco Road/West Branch Street intersection, one left-turn lane and one shared left-right turn pocket (at least 100 feet long) would be constructed for the northbound approach. Preliminary operational analysis indicates that the existing three-lane undercrossing, with the above-noted restriping modifications, would provide acceptable operating conditions at the Brisco Road intersections with El Camino Real and West Branch Street. • Permanent storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be constructed within the City-owned portion of this alternative. • Fill at the northwest quadrant of the US 101/Grand Avenue interchange would cover part of an existing bio-strip. Hydroseed and compost would be placed to restore the existing bio-strip. • Slopes along the area of the northbound ramps at Brisco Road would be re-graded to blend with adjacent slopes and revegetated with plantings similar to what is present along the freeway fringes and interchange areas. • The areas to both sides of the realigned southbound on-ramp at Grand Avenue would be re- graded to blend with adjacent slopes. Revegetation would include plantings similar to what is existing along the freeway fringes and in the interchange areas. Any slopes or other areas along the highway or local roadways that are impacted by construction would be re-vegetated with species similar to those that currently exist in adjacent areas. Alternative 4C Alternative 4C, the Preferred Alternative, proposes closure of the US 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and construction of new northbound on-and off-ramps and a new intersection to intersect with West Branch Street across from Grace Lane. This intersection would include a single-lane roundabout. Alternative 4C includes the following design elements, which are shown on Figures 3b and 3c: • Relocation of the US 101 southbound on-ramp at Grand Avenue to opposite the existing US 101 southbound off-ramp approach, and associated traffic signal phasing modifications. This would Page 13 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project also include installation of a double 54-inch concrete pipe culvert to carry storm water under the realigned ramp. • Reconfiguration of the existing Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection to provide a larger radius curve on Grace Lane that would convert Grace Lane to a "through street" and Rodeo Drive to a "side street." Rodeo Drive currently acts as the "through" street and continues south/west to connect to West Branch Street. With the proposed reconfiguration, Grace Lane would become the "through" street and extend south/west from the intersection to West Branch Street. Rodeo Drive would become a residential "side" street and terminate at the reconfigured Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection (refer to Figure 3). This modification would result in a street name change from Rodeo Drive to Grace Lane between the Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection and West Branch Street. A retaining wall or cut slope would be required at the reconfigured intersection,which would be visible from the roadway. • Closure and removal of the US 101 northbound on-and off-ramps at Brisco Road and removal of the associated traffic signal equipment. • Construction of new US 101 northbound on-and off-ramps to intersect with West Branch Street across from Grace Lane (formerly Rodeo Drive), and installation of a single-lane roundabout at the new US 101 northbound ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection. • Realignment of West Branch Street to provide greater separation between the new US 101 northbound ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection and the US 101 mainline. Retaining walls would be required along the north side of West Branch Street and between the Grace Lane off-ramp and West Branch Street,which would be visible from the roadway. • Reconstruction of Grace Lane (formerly Rodeo Drive) on a new alignment and profile to intersect West Branch Street opposite the proposed US 101 northbound on-and off-ramps at Grace Lane. • At the Brisco Road/EI Camino Real intersection, restriping to provide for one exclusive left-turn lane and one shared through-right lane for the southbound Brisco Road undercrossing approach to El Camino Real. With this improvement, the existing three-lane Brisco Road undercrossing would be re-striped to accommodate two southbound lanes and one northbound lane. The westbound El Camino Real approach would be modified to include a single left,through,and right- turn lane. • Reconstruction of Brisco Road between El Camino Real and West Branch Street on a lower profile to provide 15'0"vertical clearance at the Brisco Road undercrossing. • Construction of a new bridge adjacent to the Brisco Road undercrossing to carry the US 101 northbound on-ramp at Grace Lane onto US 101. • Construction of auxiliary lanes between the US 101 northbound on-ramp at East Grand Avenue and the northbound off-ramp at Grace Lane,and between the northbound on-ramp at Grace Lane to the northbound off-ramp at Camino Mercado. • Construction of a left-turn lane for the eastbound West Branch Street approach to the Arroyo Grande Library/South County Regional Center driveway. • Directional signage at the Rodeo Drive/James Way intersection to reflect street name change to Grace Lane. • Relocation of a modular building and reconfiguration of parking at the Arroyo Grande Library/South County Regional Center. The project would remove approximately 46 existing parking spaces from the South County Regional Center and would construct a new parking lot on Page 14 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project the same parcel with 46 new parking spaces. Handicap parking spaces and ADA accessibility would be provided. • Development of a bus pull-out and pedestrian access improvements along Grace Lane (formerly Rodeo Drive) in front of St. Patrick's school. • Permanent storm water treatment BMP5 would be considered for implementation. This is expected to include design pollution prevention infiltration type BMPs or bio-strips or bio-swales, if feasible. • Slopes along the area of the northbound ramps at Brisco Road would be re-graded to blend with adjacent slopes and revegetated with plantings similar to what is present along the freeway fringes and interchange areas. • The areas to both sides of the realigned southbound on-ramp at Grand Avenue would be re- graded to blend with the adjacent slopes. Revegetation would include plantings similar to what is existing along the freeway fringes and in the interchange areas. • Any slopes or other areas along the highway or local roadways that are impacted by construction would be re-vegetated with species similar to those that currently exist in adjacent areas. • Construction of soundwalls on the southbound side of US 101 between the Oak Park Boulevard Interchange and Stonecrest Drive and between the Halcyon Road on-ramp and the Grand Avenue off-ramp. The soundwalls would be constructed at the existing Caltrans right of way boundary and would not preclude the ultimate six-lane configuration of US 101. Although not needed to meet the project purpose and need,Alternative 4C would also provide additional improvements to increase alternative transportation facilities in the City. • A Park-and-Ride lot with landscaping would be constructed on the City-owned lot between the proposed US 101 northbound ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection and St. Patrick's school.The Park and Ride Lot would include approximately 22-26 spaces and is expected to serve workers commuting to north San Luis Obispo County, Diablo Canyon Power Plant,San Luis Obispo, and Santa Maria. The bus stop would continue to be located on Grace Lane, not inside the Park and Ride Lot. The Park and Ride Lot opportunity evolved during preliminary design for Alternative 4C in response to public comment received during stakeholder outreach efforts during its development, including those with San Luis Obispo County, SLOCOG, and St. Patrick's School. The Park and Ride Lot was included in Alternative 4C when it was identified that Rodeo Drive would be realigned eastward at the area adjacent to the City-owned vacant lot, along with other access revisions included for the County-owned property east of the proposed roundabout and St. Patrick's property to the west. Additionally, SLOCOG has commented that a Park and Ride Lot located at this location is desired to work with the existing lot located at the southbound ramps at Halcyon. This location was included in the San Luis Obispo County Highway 101 Bus Rapid Transit Applications Study (SLOCOG 2013) as a potential location for a Park and Ride Lot and SLOCOG has indicated strong support for the Park and Ride Lot component under Alternative 4C. It is not anticipated that removal of the Park and Ride Lot would substantially reduce costs of Alternative 4C, due to the remaining need for and extent of construction in the vicinity to realign Rodeo Drive and property access drives. Page 15 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Project Phasing The estimated cost of both alternatives exceeds the funds currently programmed for the project. On March 26, 2019, the City Council selected Alternative 4C as the Locally Preferred Alternative. The City Council also voted to phase/defer certain improvements until additional funding is available. An Independent Utility Technical Memorandum was prepared (Wood Rodgers 2019),which determined that the project would successfully meet the stated purpose and need even if the components identified for later phases were not constructed during the initial phase. The initial construction phase would include all improvements described above, except the physical improvements to the US 101/East Grand Avenue interchange proposed under both alternatives, and the soundwalls proposed along southbound US 101. All project improvements are anticipated to be fully implemented by the design year(2035). Under both alternatives,the physical improvements to the US 101/Grand Avenue interchange, including the realignment of the US 101 southbound ramps to form a four-legged intersection, would be phased/postponed to a later date until additional funding is available. Although the physical improvements would be postponed, signal timing improvements would be implemented during initial project construction to improve operational efficiency at the interchange in the interim period before the physical improvements can also be completed. Construction of the soundwalls along southbound US 101 would also be phased to a later date until additional funding is available. Surface Disturbance The project would result in a maximum disturbance of approximately 13.75 acres and up to 1.71 acres of new impervious surface area. Estimated areas of soil disturbance and new impervious surface areas under each design alternative are shown in Table 1, below. Table 1. Soil Disturbance and Impervious Surface Areas Design Alternative Disturbed Soil Area(acres) New Impervious Surface Area(acres) Alternative 1 5.47 1.04 Alternative 4C 13.75 1.71 Source:Caltrans Draft Appendix E Long Form Storm Water Data Report(Wood Rodgers 2016) Construction Access and Staging Construction access would be facilitated along existing roadways within the project area, with traffic controls implemented as appropriate.All staging is currently proposed to take place within existing right- of-way areas or on adjacent publicly-owned parcels. Construction is expected to last between 160 and 200 working days, or approximately 9 months for Alternative 1 and 12 months for Alternative 4C and spanning one rainy season. Page 16 of 151 Ln Iligri rsl , ti r F_' - 0 1 *0 r-. • 41 CU o,t ✓� , r - tit.- ''4. 1 1 ��, r ti.•. - - • / IDA f6 e T > •'.-% a - s� _ fl. ° ga --, ry'.�OdJ� ' ,g, V(6 4H" r � r yJdp • 1/ • - v ' 4 ; C •' O O y .- ' +11510' . ` F ,' 0 < / La CD CD gyp+ , - (�0 Ur > C 73 C13 al -C OIL � avi. • 7 12 o_ ,_, E ,.,, � co- rfir . DN _N r ., ,a .. . ' I pH >, _ ,/ 021 HONha ol0 L la)i �s a, • p,� ..• U • ,4 Ni S3U3Da3WCI) Y C O Z , �` d7 vQ� ° • U _ , ! l r� C b e f '' CO 'i� y - > �� `+�v.;-'s O U is r ,� ` • • � i` s' d'O . /• t .'�. r .., '. , • Q > >1 t !ti p .. • y�3 O•O0 j , 1 �! w"' * z. O ' s 2t< r;w4 .„3-,`' 7• :�Y✓,r eta?• I - ' .7 d - .1,T;x.r x- ' [,.,,f' w` .i• <' .' Ilk 7 `C.,"? y #t �, ? 4N. ! ,fir . TFC ' ( SON� -rte # ,.• '.'0. �•;: - F ; ` {':G ¢' I d• ,� L - 'gyp i ', ,,--- �P 2�. y ,- ` 'girl•w f . - aao3aoa I 4 '%8'4111I - i WI.7k4f4 , „, -1114, .".-- 0• ' *. ' * ;,-"' / • ",' 1'2' '.' '''''"-"-4j1 U 8 .rep, i l 4, JP 4 . < V)Z.1- 4t. It. 61 j. r co J CO 0 as �i• yj;-, r♦ 4, ,\ a '�O $. _ 1 �OJS,/� Z Vii) 5 x` a, s �° I :i : C C (a O a 1 c ,a,; c/ . l� '! �, T'a� 1 co ,i • C L U O n -..,LOS SEGOS#'Av 7�__/ s 11. .1 } , 0 ' . '1-• ,' O L 0 [ - PA a � �, �V ,: o Z , i N O f { :Lig m C �� , 44. � �� Ob� �,03 i @ O Ura=y • 0 W ! e) ,,' s j� • 1, , f spy.. 1 ' +r . :Q O 0 -0 - . , 4 tos '°VA I •. „ rz L- 8 ix ..;„..mhe IP,---,- ,, r 11/ ' Nea., J.. / 1!6 m .BYO ' � .!. !. O // (r N di _ 1' \ J3l t o " ., �- 11141% O 215378021 A l :: \fr ``r � CSi 40$ 11/6"-4.'" _ 4P w pI 5 a +ice 5300 � J ; C2 V r b ' 1 a21 S v L �" � I a. � ♦ s r ac C . dAI C ip >+ R x o Q 4 �� ;� It cL -....4,4 (6 (6 ; r a: d c /d'`4. ° z 75 01 y 1 0 o- - . ...I, - .„. 4/* (73 .. ; - , , . ,,, - . 0- wY �r cc a.,. = i I - .6 Lu '- , y -" {1 141 _ " ��J'::•..':.i r .tii..m,,,, R1'� l Sy�-1 Z - t"7.74 ?. 7 . ' \ ' j4.--v... 410 1 c2LE gcn 7 % AR1CkL . { t`4,F® o O oo� "U xr� dOA4ARICBLOOd Lrflir y . 4 �_/- ..,-__:- k !LVb — ' w _ = _,Q O _ y i4.P�-� r� o N Vl o N 4- Cr, v 131)E (1▪1 Q (v 4- (v 0 Q.) co n I- Z O • O d C Q O U W 3 W• La > O 2 C7 CO Z c L • � H v a • C � 1q > To Q � N Zm rsi r �RpC ,,,:),...--..0-7.,' �� E '- AtlM'NOI1tl1S.a o rsi F ep{ 1ii.n Q y � 'eelliri, m to cc V) K\4��C� s-w�t yJYS w4 O 'Jn V /Sak o C 0kTf .r' '..FY •' �5.>.•.. qm, T VO C N R M t' � "-'sc1 6M, 1144 i • .145, v' dr e C4 CD CD CO. R Z hk : �. i .,Oj ct m co • po. 464 „Lo 2 OC e v m _ Os�t y (1) o yP7 C yLbv .0 ++ Oo� o 0oo. - asa�ona�s3a O :FJO a � , COiii , y �� --. + �`?e 1� ,'; 0, - - L CSS :� L O.. Q O 1$14,„ a`0i r -, ,$ i �3 "JJJII” , ,,.,, oa H3NYa 4� (� i �'� '+' _ U ! yy ! 'r i�' O 07 — as Q Ate' '.'�; ;' t O r,= x L 2 . w e t 'i, F il..;y M 53(7 i7213W - 0 cz iii • r O 0 - ,, s, s. O i-+ .,l ,sem , O L N O p y + m ill:M I. �4 ` 92E: R Y O 761: x w J c/7�. 4t..s. 2' • # r1r ti E as k.: �..y O CCI Q cp 12 - { er 0P7 4-1 E ,� c',�" LL Q C Q co . L e- c co t) a . S a r. - 1 o to s 'rn [n •� N�°'' Ilk lir M . -... .G \ ti ,. Ai i In L C m CC e,\ i `. ' ' E it z C O N E 0.4%, O CS3G ''wa � - ' ram_� i0 ,�., . jffl7OU yam .*, iso O o ,.. �i3�va� � ' 1aU 15_°; N • yI� •off. U _t ________II ' g .•2.1' • it.,A 0 i2 ,i _tle.-1 •• - CC CO 2 0 .e.-- , r- ,< fJlatcoQL o .i' 4 2 I 11 0 •� ` r� r is D.,,, /a, 1. ;Ss Z , a � N ... . T .. w C r ¢ o �. Z �, °p ice' ° fl Kr` . r w„g re' �yi -7d t• 0 a� uvi p cLs r. \� s . : Q. O to U L r \ bd s s z '_ _ O --F."`” 1, ) Q U _� 7 ,' Q7 C m +� ` =SEC S '" 1 r LA LOS O �. ti 1 p U Qiihi • -:„}ED>c,: Lc,'' 041\, y ' h w .GP4 i t' s ' \ .._,..,,,o,,011,. CLS - .,i j ,4,,.,,... ,_,. ., a. . ,, __ 1:41 .4.,:. II. _‘..'",\:. ,:":16:,\„i:i': so Qk.l AO., I , \ 1 ay-I CEI. m N n LL o csi W__44.. "'a�4 o '� •' �. ►t� GAS l., • 02f 537800 r A f' g r _ Z v rpt * z¢ .5 ;- . 1111 e S C c,_'- • ., , • 1,,,.,,t. . w CVJ ' y r a a -Lt o , p. �r t .. v MEM •~ , I•2- Lu Oo ' 1. o O : \o.:. I— .5 iZ - ;: 1. II 0 _ — rE 2 c0C I - - x �:-:."� _ ,. . 'yrs �� .. -'. . Q O O r `71i gyW Y m H v M I �r 80� • _ a�, 1{ DAKEf r: m _ \ ■ r 11111^1111{ E J {.M 4 Fri Q O ^� F ; 1 "` I �- r�� ` PARKgLVS7 -......--.--FcN H `L' bA . , i m 1,,,,,,,,4„.6` „III, OAK r `m Ir ‘1/0-'.: - p. ...IIWul6•:' i - t:---' j r o p Q 2 m LL t , r _ ,�-_ r�t'f`I s rs�l X41. I{. o N L1 o N w 0 N N UJ Q f0 4- CO f6 O C Q.) C n I- U Z (IJ O o d c Q O U W 3 W• La > O a 2 C7 w C Z O L w v a • c C ? To Q I N Zm INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Figure 3c.Alternative 4C Detail .. • - ! ,i - A' ,,---""•• 4 . _ Bus pull-out and pedestrian access improvements `•' ' -+a,•.!!.• ;"- _ 1 • i .1 !. `�.* . 1 '' New Parking Area 4' .5;'\ ,...... 010 • . •. • • .. ., • it,. .:.:..• A. V\ 11104 10::4j:11 4 Laft , 7 P ..`N F Relocation of modular building and , \ \ eplacement/reconfiguration of parking _ it New Park and Ride lot 0" i A��'• J1, ` ;` ' .rte r 1�„ .... ,. :r ,.____. . --------:,,,, . IA. -----" i1tIiiilaceLaI _ / ------- Branch Street intersection New northbound Grace Lane on-ramp _14 bridge spanning Brisco Road Y Restriping/lane reconfiguration at Brisco Road undercrossing and Brisco Road/West Branch a ' 1 1G� Street and Brisco Road/EI Camino Real intersections ---!`___ L 4 c _ ftp 3 1 _ Project Boundary Proposed Improvements ' `,, Removed Infrastructure Feet 0 50 100 200 300 ` Meters Alternative 4CR Intersection 0 25 50 100 `��\ Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Aerial Imagery:County of San Luis Obispo,2014, Page 21 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Other Required Public Agency Approvals Project construction and implementation would require the City to obtain permits and other forms of approval from various federal and state agencies. These authorizations may be issued in the form of regulatory permits, agreements, or other forms of environmental review/approval. Authorizations will likely include numerous requirements for environmental compliance, which will be enforced through construction monitoring, documentation, and reporting. As proposed, the project is expected to require authorizations/permits from the following agencies: Table 2.Agency Permits/Authorizations Responsible Agency Applicable Permit or Authorization City of Arroyo Grande CEQA Lead Agency Environmental Clearance/Adoption Encroachment Permit California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Compliance with NEPA Superseding Freeway Agreement U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) Section 7 Programmatic Biological Opinion for California red-legged frog State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)/ Clean Water Act§401 Water Quality Certification Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Construction General Permit U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(USACE) Clean Water Act§404 Nationwide Permit California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW) Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Construction Permits, if necessary (APCD) Permits in the event hydrocarbon contaminated soil is encountered during construction, if necessary Related Projects The proposed project is not related to any other past, present, or future planned projects. Page 22 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 3. Environmental Checklist Project Information Project Title: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Lead Agency Name&Address: City of Arroyo Grande 300 East Brach Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Contact Person &Telephone Number: Whitney McDonald, Community Development Director (805)473-5420 Project Location: US 101, postmile 13.1 to 14.6,Arroyo Grande, California Project Sponsor Names&Addresses: City of Arroyo Grande 300 East Brach Street Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 General Plan Designation: Multiple Zoning: Multiple Description of Project: Modifications to northbound US 101 ramp intersections at Brisco Road, Grand Avenue, and/or Camino Mercado, and adjacent roadway improvements Surrounding Land Uses&Setting: Regional commercial, retail, and community facilities adjacent to US 101. Approval Required from Other Public Agencies: Caltrans, SWRCB/RWQCB, USFWS, USACE, CDFW, APCD Page 23 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: n Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources n Geology/Soils n Greenhouse Gas Emissions & ❑ Hazards, Hazardous 171 Hydrology/Water Quality Energy Materials, &Wildfire 171 Land Use/Planning n Mineral Resources 171 Noise n Population/Housing 171 Public Services n Recreation FITransportation/Traffic n Utilities/Service Systems 171 Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ▪ I find that, although the original scope of the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect because revisions/mitigations to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or its functional equivalent will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment. However, at least one impact has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document, pursuant to applicable legal standards, and has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, as described in the report's attachments. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the impacts not sufficiently addressed in previous documents. ❑ I find that, although the proposed project could have had a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, pursuant to applicable standards, and have been avoided or mitigated, pursuant to an earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, all impacts have been avoided or mitigated to a less-than-significant level and no further action is required. September 21, 2020 Whitney McDonald Date Community Development Director Page 24 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation, adequately supported by the information sources cited, is required for all answers, except "No Impact." A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact does not apply to the project being evaluated (e.g.,the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on general or project-specific factors (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must consider the whole of the project-related effects, both direct and indirect, including off-site, cumulative, construction, and operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether that impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate when there is sufficient evidence that a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change may occur in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project that cannot be mitigated below a level of significance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 4. A "Mitigated Negative Declaration" (Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures, prior to declaration of project approval, has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR (including a General Plan) or Negative Declaration [CCR,Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, § 15063(c)(3)(D)]. References to an earlier analysis should: a) Identify the earlier analysis and state where it is available for review. b) Indicate which effects from the environmental checklist were adequately analyzed in the earlier document, pursuant to applicable legal standards, and whether these effects were adequately addressed by mitigation measures included in that analysis. c) Describe the mitigation measures in this document that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and indicate to what extent they address site-specific conditions for this project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate references to information sources for potential impacts into the checklist or appendix (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances, biological assessments). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should include an indication of the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. A source list should be appended to this document. Sources used or individuals contacted should be listed in the source list and cited in the discussion. 8. Explanation(s) of each issue should identify: a) the criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate the significance of the impact addressed by each question; and, b) the mitigation measures, if any, prescribed to reduce the impact below the level of significance. Page 25 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 4. Environmental Issues I.Aesthetics Environmental Setting Southern San Luis Obispo County is characterized by both urban built environments and open space areas that maintain a rural identity between communities and seek to prevent urban sprawl (i.e., "community separators"). The project area encompasses a disturbed urbanized landscape within the City of Arroyo Grande on rolling terrain at an elevation of approximately 120 to 240 feet. The project site contains substantial public infrastructure, transportation facilities, and is surrounded by intensive commercial, retail, mixed use, and community facility development adjacent to the US 101 corridor.Vegetation within the project area includes primarily landscaping/ornamental vegetation, with minimal amounts of agriculture, ruderal (disturbed), riparian, and freshwater marsh vegetation associated with channelized drainages that bisect the area. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic ❑ ❑ ® ❑ buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the area? Discussion a)—c): For CEQA purposes, a scenic vista is generally defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur if the proposed project would significantly degrade the scenic landscape as viewed from public roads or other public areas. The project corridor extends through a highly urbanized area comprised of substantial development and infrastructure and is not considered a scenic vista. The project site is visible from numerous public roadways throughout the project corridor, including US 101,West Branch Street, Rodeo Drive, Brisco Road, Halcyon Road,Grand Avenue, El Camino Real,Camino Mercado, and Rancho Parkway. The number of viewers would be very high due to high vehicular use of this area.The project would modify and/or replace existing transportation infrastructure of relatively low visual quality with similar transportation facilities and components. The new intersection and Park and Ride lot proposed under Alternative 4C would be the most visually prominent features of the proposed project and would be located in a currently vacant lot.These features would generally be consistent with the level and types of development in surrounding areas. The improvements would predominantly be built at grade and would not protrude into the skyline or block views due to a rise in elevation. Page 26 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Short-term construction activities would create visual impacts in the project area associated with the presence of construction equipment, earthwork activities, detour signage, etc. However, these impacts would be temporary in nature and limited to the construction period (currently estimated to be between 9 to 12 months). US 101 in the project vicinity is designated as an "Eligible State Scenic Highway—Not Officially Listed" by the California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Visual quality of the project area is dominated by extensive urban development and road and highway infrastructure.There are no scenic rock outcroppings or historic buildings in the project vicinity that would be damaged as a result of project development. Both build alternatives would require removal of a mature eucalyptus tree adjacent to the Brisco Road undercrossing; however, widening of the existing infrastructure would not substantially change the existing urban setting,would be minimally visible,and would not significantly degrade the view. Disturbed areas adjacent to the modified infrastructure would be revegetated with native species and softscape vegetation, consistent with surrounding areas. The soundwalls proposed on the southbound side of US 101 would obstruct views across the US 101 between the Oak Park Boulevard Interchange and Stonecrest Drive and between the Halcyon Road on- ramp and the Grand Avenue off-ramp. However, no views of identified scenic vistas are provided across the US 101 at these locations, and the existing views across US 101 are largely obstructed by existing infrastructure and landscaping along the southbound roadway shoulder at these locations. Impacts from the sound walls and other unnatural elements (e.g., retaining walls) would be minimized through design techniques and compliance with City policies.Solid (sound)wall design is required to go through the City's Architectural Review Committee, and design details must include stepped design and/or natural looking rock finish (shotcrete or equivalent). Landscaping would either be maintained or replaced in the location of the soundwalls. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d): The project proposes removal and replacement of existing traffic and safety lighting in the project corridor to accommodate roadway modifications and improvements.The new US 101 ramps/West Branch Street/Grace Lane intersection and Park and Ride lot proposed under Alternative 4C would also add new sources of traffic and safety lighting in the project area. Construction of the project may also require the use of additional temporary lighting during construction activities. The project is proposed in a highly urbanized area predominantly comprised of roadway and highway infrastructure, and includes substantial sources of existing light and glare, including standard traffic and pedestrian signals, safety lighting, and outdoor lighting associated with adjacent land uses. The lighting proposed in relation to the project would not substantially differ from existing conditions. In addition, compliance with applicable Municipal Code standards in Section 16.48.090, including shielding of outdoor lighting and measures to minimize light trespass onto adjacent properties and glare,would further reduce the potential for significant impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts No significant impacts to aesthetic resources were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. Page 27 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project II.Agriculture and Forestry Resources Environmental Setting The California Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) classify agricultural lands into five categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Farmland of Local Potential. Non-farmlands are classified as Grazing Land, Urban and Built Up Land, Other Land, or Water. The project area encompasses a small area of Prime Farmland south of the Grand Avenue interchange. The Williamson Act of 1965 is the state's principal policy for the preservation of agricultural, open-space, and rangeland.The program encourages landowners to work with local governments to protect important farmland and open space in exchange for tax benefits. As land is restricted to agricultural and compatible open-space uses under the Williamson Act, it is assessed for property taxes at a rate consistent with its actual use, rather than the potential value of the land. No portion of the project area is currently subject to a Williamson Act contract. The Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element of the City's General Plan identifies the importance of avoiding and/or mitigating for the loss of prime farmland soils and of conserving non-prime agriculture uses and natural resource lands.The City's policies also recognize the importance of allocation and conservation of ground and surface water resources for agricultural uses and the need to minimize potential urban and fringe area development that would divert such resources away from agricultural uses. Two parcels located at the southeastern end of the project area are Prime Farmland and currently support the production of row crops (APN# 006-311-067 and 006-311-076). These parcels are not subject to an agricultural preserve or Williamson Act contract; however,they are zoned for Agricultural land use. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? c)Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220)g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources ❑ ❑ ❑ Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of ❑ ❑ ❑ forest land to non-forest use? Page 28 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? *In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997),prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model for use in assessing impacts on agricultural and farmland. Discussion a)—b): Based on current design/right-of-way estimates, both build alternatives would require the acquisition of approximately 0.58 acre (25,314 square feet) of land zoned for agriculture use for the project right of way. The area to be acquired includes approximately 0.37 acres of Prime Farmland and 0.29 acres of land currently in agricultural production (not all areas of Prime Farmland are currently in active agricultural use). Based on current estimates, approximately 0.37 acre of prime farmland would be acquired into the State right of way to accommodate the proposed realignment of the southbound US 101 on-ramp at Grand Avenue under Alternatives 1 and 4C. This amount comprises approximately 0.4% of total agricultural lands within the City of Arroyo Grande. Agricultural uses within the project area consist of vegetable crops southeast of the Grand Avenue interchange. The estimated average value of vegetable crops in San Luis Obispo County is approximately $7,269.00 per acre, based on 2012 San Luis Obispo County Crop Report harvested acreage and yield totals (San Luis Obispo County 2013). The proposed project would impact two parcels currently supporting vegetable crops.The acquisition under either alternative would be permanent. The Arroyo Grande General Plan identifies any conversion of prime farmland as a potentially significant impact and requires that loss of prime agricultural soils be avoided or mitigated. An exception to the requirement that prime soils be avoided is provided for necessary public facilities.The City has determined that roadways fall within the public facilities exception and, because they are an allowed use on agricultural parcels, do not constitute a conversion of agricultural land that must be avoided pursuant to the General Plan. Because of the project location adjacent to existing highway infrastructure, surrounding development patterns, and existing protections in place through City and County plans and policies, the conversion is not likely to lead to additional development or conversion of farmland in this area.The project would not conflict with the agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts of any adjacent parcels, which have historically operated in similar proximity to the US 101 and other local roadways. No secondary impacts are expected as the project would not bisect or cut off existing agricultural areas, leaving portions unviable for agricultural uses, and would not create a new use that does not currently exist adjacent to the agricultural parcels.A portion of the state right of way to be acquired in this area will act as a buffer between the on-ramp and existing agricultural activities; no additional buffer area is required or necessary to protect adjacent farmlands. Page 29 of 151 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project USDA Farmland Conversion Impact Rating System The NRCS was consulted regarding the project,and potential agricultural impacts were analyzed pursuant to the USDA's Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects using Form NRCS-CPA-106. The USDA Farmland Impact Rating System rates the value of potential impacted farmlands using a point system based on specific site assessment criteria.Applying the point system,the project was scored at 52 points out of a possible 260 points for both build alternatives (refer to Appendix A). Although there are different build alternatives, proposed improvements at the southbound US 101 Grand Avenue on-ramp are the same; therefore, impacts on adjacent agricultural resources would be the same under both alternatives. Based on the USDA's rating system, if the project results in a combined score of 160 or less, the land is not subject to the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) and the agency is not required to consider alternatives that would avoid or lessen the impacts (USDA 2012). Therefore, a score of 160 under this rating system is typically used as the point at which impacts are considered significant. Because the project rating is less than 160,the conversion of agricultural land is considered mitigable to less than significant through implementation of identified mitigation measures. California Department of Conservation, California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Potential effects on agricultural resources as a result of the proposed project were also analyzed under the California Department of Conservation's (CDC) Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model (1997). The LESA Model is a point-based approach for rating the relative importance of agricultural land resources based upon specific measurable features. The Model was developed to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that potentially significant effects associated with agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process. Based on the CDC's LESA Model,the proposed project would result in a LESA score of 25.7,which indicates farmland impacts that are not considered significant.The project's rating below the threshold under both the LESA Model and the USDA Farmland Conversion Impact Rating System is largely a reflection of the project's proposed location within the heavily urbanized area of central Arroyo Grande and the extent of existing non-agricultural development throughout the project area. The LESA Model includes the following thresholds of significance (Table 3). Table 3. California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds Total LESA Score Scoring Decision 0 to 39 points Not considered significant 40 to 59 points Considered significant ONLY if Land Evaluation and Site Assessment subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points 60 to 79 points Considered significant UNLESS Land Evaluation or Site Assessment subscore is less than 20 points 80 to 100 points Considered significant The project's rating below the threshold under both rating systems is largely a reflection of the extent of existing development at the site and the site's landlocked position within the heavily urbanized area of central Arroyo Grande.Additional information and graphics regarding the project's scores and the USDA's rating system and CDC LESA Model processes are provided in Appendix A. Page 30 of 151 N:' 'V/ E s r' 1{ • cvn cov ---;- le / ./ iti at.",-, c 4...,„.., , r":" L tr;` �2, li; 13 ilk 4 A. ,y2M1 1' Q 14 1,41‘ O a * - a) , LL asc ",,, ilk\ drififrilk WI* ' ., 0 U as• U - , 40 likk ' .••, co ,- y\itii...lik._ viogyod., • ll r r�11 ..* N. "4 LID r ''' r M R O Q a tilZ a O V J . cLZ < Q \\\/ .. v)Z Z ••,- \ Ittlit• V) z 1 • . \ \--1/ , •l F `a r i re, z7N74.''.071,"2.4" �, Cr CO I % r ../ Ai a @ \\11:1111111111 .E - i v . 114 N /1 ,. ..... .. , m a 1. O o ` ` a_8 ` a m an v Q c r , i fr o • 0 Q O t 0o " 44\:..c...._ Q = �, 47 OO 15 I-11 0 \ O N 3 o C �. / - N Q a, C , . : ' ,•,.,rr Lu rt, l LL @u 6 \..., •• ik to ,C,-; cp 0_ -° C d73 0 �, O O a c .if,t ,..•.x\,,, .` Ililihilul L> L'' • } 1 . „07-.l .• . u_ D a D O d Q d E nmoQ ° a •' a g 1 [ ...0 I 10 s, idOk ,� — a— 2 m 61... y _ ' A s•uewie -a k: �/�+' �,.. w i ^-� '�� o 0) Q o N LI) o N w 0 N N .0 m v CUDv _ (11N CO 4- N f6 O C v C co n I v Z 'o O ▪ C Q .o 47. V u C w O 2 ac01 w ca z t w w N a c E 2 cc — o C � V H � Q O � N 2 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project The project would be required to comply with the requirements of the City's Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element, Policy Ag1-4.2, and Right-to-Farm provisions of the City's Development Code (Section 16.12.170(F), Agricultural Land Conversion). There is an exception in the General Plan for necessary public facilities.The City has determined that roadways fall within the public facilities exception and, because they are an allowed use on agricultural parcels and do not constitute a conversion of agricultural land that must be avoided pursuant to the General Plan. Compensation for loss of agricultural revenue is not an environmental impact under CEQA. However,the City would be required to compensate the affected landowner consistent with City and Caltrans policies. The loss of prime farmland would be mitigated consistent with the City's General Plan and Agriculture, Conservation,and Open Space Element.Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. c)—d): There is no forestland in San Luis Obispo County. Therefore, no impacts would occur. e): The proposed project would expand existing transportation infrastructure adjacent to an intensive agricultural use. No secondary impacts are expected as the project does not bisect or cut off existing agricultural areas, leaving portions unviable for agricultural uses, and would not create a new incompatible use that does not currently exist adjacent to the agricultural parcels.The portion of the state right of way to be acquired will act as a buffer between the on-ramp and adjacent agricultural activities. Transportation and agriculture are generally compatible land uses and no additional buffer area is required or necessary to protect adjacent farmlands. The proposed project would not create a permanent increase in demand for groundwater; impacts on agricultural water supplies associated with construction related water demands would be minimal. Alternative 4C would require relocation of the San Luis Obispo County Agriculture Department building. However, the County has indicated that relocation of the modular structure is feasible and there is adequate space on the same parcel to accommodate the relocated structure. Permanent impacts would be minimal and would not result in the loss or conversion of agricultural lands within the County. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact To minimize the potential significant impacts to agricultural resources,the following mitigation measures would be implemented. AG/mm-1 Farmland impacts shall be minimized in accordance with the City's Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element, Policy Ag1-4.2, and Development Code Section 16.12.170(F). Permanent protection of prime farmlands shall be provided in the form of a perpetual agriculture or conservation easement. The agricultural or conservation easement shall protect lands at a 1:1 ratio if within the City limits, or at a 2:1 ratio if outside of the City limits but within the City's area of environmental concern. The land shall be comparable in soil quality to the land being converted to non-agricultural uses and shall have an adequate water supply to support agricultural use that is also protected in the agricultural conservation easement,farmland deed restriction, or other document evidencing the permanent agricultural protection. Page 33 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project As an alternative to the permanent conservation easement, the City may elect to pay in-lieu fees if the City Council determines that the payment of fees provides a superior opportunity to satisfy the goals and policies of the General Plan, in accordance with the Development Code (Section 16.12.170). With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts to Agriculture and Forestry would be less than significant. III.Air Quality Environmental Setting This section is largely based on information provided in the Air Quality Study prepared for the project (Terry A. Hayes and Associates, Inc. [TAHA] 2017). San Luis Obispo County is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin,which also includes Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.The climate of the basin area is strongly influenced by its proximity to the Pacific Ocean. Airflow around and within the basin plays an important role in the movement and dispersion of pollutants. The speed and direction of local winds are controlled by the location and strength of the Pacific High pressure system and other global weather patterns, topographical factors, and circulation patterns that result from temperature differences between the land and the sea. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) has developed and updated their CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2012) to evaluate project specific impacts and help determine if air quality mitigation measures are needed, or if potentially significant impacts could result. To evaluate long-term emissions, cumulative effects, and establish countywide programs to reach acceptable air quality levels, the APCD has prepared and adopted a Clean Air Plan. The County's air quality is measured by multiple ambient air quality monitoring stations, including four APCD operated permanent stations, two state-operated permanent stations, two special stations, and one station operated by Tosco Oil Refinery for monitoring Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) emissions. San Luis Obispo County is in non-attainment status for ozone (03), respirable particulate matter (PM10) and vinyl chloride under the California Air Resource Board (CARB) standards.The County is in attainment status for all other applicable CARB standards. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved.The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has identified the following typical groups who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14,the elderly over 65 years of age, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Sensitive receptors near the project area include nearby residences, Saint Patrick's Catholic School, Arroyo Grande Montessori School, and Valley View Adventist Academy. Page 34 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality ❑ ® ❑ ❑ violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ® ❑ ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of people? *Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied on to make these determinations. Discussion a): The project would replace/improve existing infrastructure and does not propose a new or increased use in the project area. The proposed use is consistent with the general level of development anticipated and projected in the Clean Air Plan as well as other applicable regional and local planning documents. It would improve the function of state and local transportation systems in the project area, thereby reducing congestion and generally benefitting air quality.Therefore,the proposed project would not conflict with or otherwise obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. b)—d): Construction Impacts. During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions (airborne dust) and other pollutants generated by excavation, grading, hauling, and various other activities related to construction. Site preparation and roadway construction would involve clearing, cut-and-fill activities, grading, removing, or improving existing roadways, and paving roadway surfaces. All construction vehicles and equipment would be required to be equipped with the State-mandated emission control devices pursuant to State emission regulations and standard construction practices. Project construction is estimated to last between approximately 9 and 16 months. After construction is complete, all construction-related impacts would cease. Short-term construction emissions would be further reduced with the implementation of standard dust and diesel particulate matter (DPM) suppression measures outlined within the APCD rules and regulations. Caltrans Standard Specifications for Construction (Section 10 and 18 [Dust Control] and Section 39-3.06 [Asphalt Concrete Plants]) would also be adhered to. Page 35 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project The Air Quality Study prepared for the project included detailed construction emissions. Those emission calculations have been updated to account for a 2018 start year instead of a 2016 start year.As shown in Table 4, both alternatives would exceed the Tier 1 threshold for reactive organic gases+ nitrogen oxides but neither alternative would exceed the Tier 2 threshold. In addition, Alternative 4C would exceed the Tier 1 threshold for diesel particulate matter but would not exceed the Tier 2 threshold. Based on the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, standard mitigation and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) would be implemented to reduce potential effects on nearby sensitive receptors. Site disturbance would occur within an area designated as non-attainment for fugitive dust.Therefore, in order to prevent a dust nuisance and contribute to fugitive dust generation, standard dust control mitigation set out in APCD regulations would be implemented. In addition, the project is located within 1,000 feet of potentially sensitive receptors (residences), who may be adversely affected by exposure to DPM emitted by construction equipment. Based on the APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, standard mitigation and BACT would be implemented to reduce potential effects on nearby sensitive receptors. Table 4. Construction Emissions Pounds Per Day Tons Per Quarter ROG+NOx DPM ROG+NOx DPM Dust(PMio) Alternative Alternative 1 86 2.8 2.8 0.09 0.25 Alternative 4C 115 3.7 3.8 0.12 0.49 Threshold 137 7 Tier 1-2.5 Tier 1-0.13 2.5 Tier 2-6.3 Tier 2-0.32 Source:Terry A.Hayes Associates Inc.2017. Therefore, construction related impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Operational Impacts.A regional operational emissions analysis was completed based on peak hour delay. Both proposed build alternatives would decrease vehicle delay and congestion within the project area, resulting in lower emission rates. Therefore, modeled regional emissions under both project alternatives would be less than baseline conditions in years 2015 and 2035. Therefore, the build alternatives would result in beneficial long-term air quality impacts in the project area. Operational impacts would be less than significant. Exposure to Pollutants. A carbon monoxide hotspot analysis was completed based on Caltrans guidance. The analysis indicated that the proposed project would not generate a carbon monoxide hotspot. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the ARB. Under the CARB Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM)for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, prior to any grading activities a geologic evaluation should be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present,an exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM.This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Page 36 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Based on Technical Appendix 4.4 of the APCD's CEQA Handbook, the project site is within a location of potentially occurring NOA; therefore, compliance with the Asbestos ATCM would be required and standard mitigation would apply. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. e): Construction of the proposed project would generate odors associated with construction smoke/dust and equipment exhaust and fumes. Excavated and demolition materials may also contain objectionable odors within unearthed materials. The proposed construction activities would not differ significantly from those resulting from any other type of construction project.Any effects would be short- term in nature and limited to the construction phase of the project. Therefore, the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact To minimize the potential significant impacts to air quality, the following mitigation measures would be implemented. AQ/mm-1 Prior to issuance of construction permits, the following measures shall be incorporated into the construction phase of the project and shown on all applicable plans: Construction Equipment a. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications; b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary power units, with CARB-certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road); c. Maximize to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment meeting the CARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation; d. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB's 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation; e. Construction or trucking companies with fleets that that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures(e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance; f All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5-minute idling limit; g. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible; Page 37 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project h. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors to the maximum extent feasible; i. Electrify equipment when feasible; j. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible;and, k. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane, or biodiesel. Best Available Control Technology I. Further reduce emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on-road compliant engines; m. Repower equipment with the cleanest engines available;and, n. Install California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies. These strategies are listed at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm. AQ/mm-2 Upon application for construction permits, all required PA measures shall be shown on applicable grading or construction plans, and made applicable during grading and construction activities as described below. a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible; b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour(mph); c. Reclaimed(non-potable) water should be used whenever possible; d. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed; e. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities; f. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; g. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD; h. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; i. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site; Page 38 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project j. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard(minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer)in accordance with California Vehicle Code§23114; k. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site;and, I. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading,construction and building plans; and the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20%opacity, and to prevent transport of dust off-site. Their duties shall include monitoring the effectiveness of the required dust control measures (as conditions dictate), and shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition. AQ/mm-3 Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a geologic evaluation of naturally occurring asbestos of the project site to the APCD. If naturally occurring asbestos is present onsite, the applicant shall comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. These requirements may include, but are not limited to:1)an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan that shall be approved by the APCD prior to construction, and 2)an Asbestos Health and Safety Program. Prior to development on the 30-acre portion of the site, the applicant shall submit a Naturally Occurring Asbestos Construction and Grading Permit Exemption Request Form to the APCD. With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts to air quality would be less than significant. IV. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The following section is based on the Natural Environment Study prepared for the project (SWCA 2020). The majority of the project site contains disturbed areas,such as the US 101 road surface and other roads, medians,and developments.Vegetative communities present within the area include ruderal (disturbed), landscaped areas (mainly ornamental groundcover and planted trees), riparian, and man-made drainage ditches. While no jurisdictional wetlands were delineated within the project area, drainages within the site have the potential to be considered "other waters of the U.S." under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)definitions.These three drainage ditches were identified as having a significant nexus with Arroyo Grande Creek. Some of the drainages are vegetated by riparian vegetation and an herbaceous and/or shrubby understory; others are unvegetated or minimally vegetated with forbs, weeds, and/or species characteristic of freshwater marsh. Wildlife corridors are not present in the project area. Page 39 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Based on the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), an online species list approved by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS),and biologist professional knowledge and local experience,48 special-status plant species, 34 special-status animal species, and 2 sensitive habitats were considered for potential to occur within the project corridor. Of these species that were considered, the following were determined to have potential habitat conditions within the project corridor based on a desktop review prior to conducting the field surveys: Gambel's watercress (Nasturtium gambelii), San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum), California red-legged frog(Rana draytonii), least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus),and other nesting birds. Focused surveys for special-status animal species were limited to protocol California red-legged frog surveys with a focus on a drainage ditch leading to Arroyo Grande Creek (referred to as Excavated Ditch #3).These surveys were conducted in 2006 and 2007.The findings of the study were negative and habitat within the project area was considered poor habitat for California red-legged frog.A revised critical habitat designation for California red-legged frog was also finalized on March 17, 2010.The project area does not occur within a designated California red-legged frog critical habitat unit. Some of the drainage ditches within the BSA are tributaries to Arroyo Grande Creek and occur within the South-central California coast steelhead critical habitat unit defined as Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit 3310— (xv)Oceano Hydrologic Sub-area 331031. Based on surveys taken in March 2006 and between March 2007 and August 2007 (eight surveys total) within the project area, it is determined that the project site does not contain the constituent elements of critical habitat. Essential spawning sites, rearing sites, suitable water quality, migration corridors,and proper estuarine parameters were not observed within the project area. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a sensitive, candidate, or special status species in ❑ ® ❑ ❑ local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by §404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal ❑ ® ❑ ❑ pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Page 40 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife ❑ ❑ ® ❑ corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ® ❑ preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion a): Plant Species. Marginal freshwater marsh habitat for Gambel's watercress occurs within the beds of the drainage ditches in the project area, but this species was not observed during appropriately timed floristic surveys performed in 2005, 2006, 2011, and 2014. The much more common watercress (Nasturtium officinale) was observed. Marginal habitat for San Bernardino aster occurs in some of the drainage bottoms/beds within the project area, but these species were not observed during appropriately timed floristic surveys. Heavy equipment operation and disturbance of areas with vegetation associated with the interchange improvements have the potential to lead to injury or mortality of native plant species; however, the project area is not located near any known extant sensitive plant species populations. No impacts to Gambel's watercress or San Bernardino aster are expected. Wildlife Species. No steelhead were observed within any of the drainage ditches within the project area. The open or concrete-lined on-site ditches convey seasonal flows and offer no habitat for fish species. In addition, there is no opportunity for migration from Arroyo Grande Creek to these drainage ditches, due to steep drops or other impassable barriers. Because there is no potential for steelhead occurrence within the project area, there would be no effect to this species. Heavy equipment operation and disturbance of the drainage ditches associated with the interchange improvements have the potential to impact areas of extremely marginal habitat quality. Introduction of sediment into the drainages leading to Arroyo Grande Creek could conceivably be carried downstream, which could adversely impact water quality and spawning habitat for steelhead; however, this will be mitigated through standard BMPs. While a search of the CNDDB yielded 65 known occurrences of California red-legged frogs within a seven- quadrangle search area,only two California red-legged frog occurrences have been recorded within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project site (CNDDB 2006). To determine the potential for occurrence of the California red-legged frog within the project area, an assessment of the habitat was conducted following the USFWS Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs Page 41 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project (USFWS 2005).A California Red-legged Frog Site Assessment Report was submitted to the Ventura USFWS office on April 4, 2006 (Morro Group 2006). As recommended by USFWS Fish and Wildlife Biologist Mark Elvin (2006), surveys for California red-legged frog were conducted within the project area with a focus on Excavated Ditch 3, beginning on March 7, 2007, and ending on August 7, 2007. Eight surveys were conducted, and no California red-legged frogs were observed during any of the survey efforts. Habitats within the project area and within 1 mile of the BSA are highly fragmented due to urban development, US 101, and other roads. While California red-legged frogs have the potential to occur within large areas of good to excellent quality habitat with riparian and emergent vegetative cover, suitable water quality, and minimal disturbance, these conditions do not occur within the project area. It is extremely unlikely that California red-legged frogs inhabit the drainage ditches within the project area, which are minimally vegetated to non-vegetated, typically convey only seasonal storm water flows, and subjected to considerable disturbance (e.g., right next to road edges). Dispersal to these areas from habitats outside of the project area would be difficult due to the extensive network of roads and urban development existing in and near project area. Water quality degradation within the drainage ditches leading to Arroyo Grande Creek could result from concrete spills, fuel spills, or excessive project-related sedimentation, which could indirectly adversely affect the species. These impacts would be avoided or minimized through standard BMP5. Furthermore,the proposed project would require the implementation of standard avoidance and minimization measures included within the Programmatic Biological Opinion for Projects Funded or Approved under the FHWA Federal Aid Program (USFWS 2011). Project construction may result in the temporary loss of vegetation that provides potential breeding and foraging habitat for a number of protected bird species. The removal of vegetation could directly impact bird nests and eggs or young residing in nests. Indirect impacts could also result from noise and disturbance associated with construction,which could alter perching,foraging, and/or nesting behaviors. While temporary loss of trees supporting potential nesting habitat would result from tree trimming or removal,any trees removed would be mitigated by planting new trees.Although there is marginal nesting habitat within riparian and landscaped trees and man-made structures within the project area, no nesting birds were observed during field surveys in 2005, 2006, 2011, and 2014. The implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures such as appropriate timing of vegetation removal, pre-activity surveys, and exclusion zones will reduce the potential for adverse effects to nesting bird species. Therefore, potential impacts to sensitive species would be less than significant with mitigation. b): Old Ranch Road Drainage and Excavated Ditches 1, 2, and 3 (as well as an additional drainage adjacent to the southbound off-ramp at Grand Avenue outside of the project study area) can be considered tributaries to Arroyo Grande Creek and occur within the south-central California coast steelhead critical habitat unit defined as Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit 3310— (xv) Oceano Hydrologic Sub- area 331031. It has been determined these drainages do not contain the constituent elements of critical habitat. Essential spawning sites, rearing sites, suitable water quality, migration corridors, and proper estuarine parameters were not observed within the project area. These drainages are man-made, ephemeral, and function to convey storm water runoff, and they do not provide any suitable steelhead habitat. Arroyo Grande Creek and its tributaries do not occur within a designated California red-legged frog critical habitat unit.Therefore, impacts to critical habitat would be less than significant. Riparian habitat occurs in scattered locations within the project area, mostly in or adjacent to the on-site drainage ditches. The areas of riparian habitat are relatively small and fragmented. These riparian areas do not provide adequate continuity and are too close in proximity to traffic disturbance to be considered a substantial riparian migratory corridor within the project area. However, the proposed project has the Page 42 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project potential to impact riparian areas within the project area. Mitigation would be implemented to minimize effects on riparian habitat to less than significant levels. Therefore, impacts on riparian or sensitive habitat areas would be less than significant with mitigation. c): An assessment of jurisdictional features was conducted to determine the extent of impacts to wetlands within the project area (SWCA 2017). No jurisdictional wetlands were delineated within the project area and no other isolated or adjacent wetland areas were identified within the project area.The project area does not occur within the Coastal Zone, so a one-parameter wetland delineation is not necessary for compliance with the California Coastal Act. The assessment of jurisdictional features identified three drainages within the project area that may qualify as other waters of the U.S. (non-wetlands). These drainage ditches have a nexus with Arroyo Grande Creek, which is considered a water of the U.S. due to its connectivity to the Pacific Ocean. The three drainages rank low in terms of function and value.This is indicative of their relatively small size and floodwater storage capacity, low vegetation density (especially along the beds of the drainages), moderate groundwater discharge and low recharge capacity, and low biological diversity. The project is not expected to impact jurisdictional wetlands, but may impact other waters of the U.S. Mitigation has been identified to reduce potential impacts. Potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. d): The project site does not contain wildlife corridors due to the extent of urban development. Proposed improvements would modify or replace similar existing infrastructure, and would not interfere with the movement of species. In addition, the project would not disturb drainages or streams suitable for fish migration. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. e): The City has coordinated with the USFWS, CDFW, and NOAA Fisheries, and has implemented mitigation measures designed to avoid existing marginal habitat areas and resources to the extent possible.The project would not interfere with the natural function of project area habitats and disturbed areas would be restored after project construction. Therefore, the project would not be in conflict with any applicable policies protecting biological resources or environmentally sensitive habitats. Impacts would be less than significant. f): The project is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other habitat conservation plan. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact To minimize the potential significant impacts to biological resources, the following mitigation measures would be implemented. BIO/mm-1 Prior to project implementation, the City shall retain a qualified biological monitor(s) approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to ensure compliance with mitigation measures within the project environmental documents. Monitoring shall occur Page 43 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project throughout the length of construction or as directed by the regulatory agencies. Monitoring may be reduced to part time once construction activities are underway and the potential for additional impacts are reduced. BIO/mm-2 During project activities, the biological monitor(s) shall coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies and the construction contractor to ensure construction schedules comply with biological mitigation requirements. BIO/mm-3 The project site shall be clearly flagged or fenced so that the contractor is aware of the limits of allowable site access points and disturbance. Areas within the designated project site that do not require regular access shall be clearly flagged as off-limit areas to avoid/discourage unnecessary damage to sensitive habitats within and near the project site. 81O/mm-4 During project activities, any work that must occur within drainage ditches shall be conducted when they do not contain flowing water, if possible. BIO/mm-5 Erosion control measures shall be implemented during construction. Temporary sediment control BMPs (i.e., temporary large sediment control barrier) shall be installed in appropriate areas to prevent introduction of silt/sediment to aquatic areas within the project area. At a minimum, temporary sediment control BMPs shall be checked and maintained on a daily basis during the rainy season throughout the construction period. The contractor shall also apply adequate dust control techniques, such as site watering, in areas where necessary during construction. 81O/mm-6 During project activities, the cleaning and refueling of equipment and vehicles shall occur only within a designated staging area and at least 100 feet away from a concentrated flow of storm water if performed within a flood plain, or 50 feet if outside of a flood plain. This staging area shall conform to Best Management Practices (BMPs) applicable to attaining zero discharge of storm water runoff At a minimum, all equipment and vehicles shall be checked and maintained on a daily basis to ensure proper operation and avoid potential leaks or spills. BIO/mm-7 All project-related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to project sites shall be cleaned-up immediately. Spill prevention and clean-up materials shall be on-site at all times during construction. BIO/mm-8 The biological monitor(s)shall ensure that the spread of introduction of invasive exotic plant species will be avoided to the maximum extent possible. When practicable, invasive exotic plants in the project site shall be removed and properly disposed. 81O/mm-9 During construction, trash shall be contained, removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction debris shall be removed from work areas. BIO/mm-10 Prior to construction, when feasible, tree trimming and removal will be scheduled to occur from September 1 through February 14,outside of the typical nesting bird season, to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds.All tree trimming or removal should be monitored by a qualified biologist. 81O/mm-11 If construction activities are proposed during the typical nesting season(February 15 to September 1), a nesting bird survey will be conducted by qualified biologists no more than 2 Page 44 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project weeks prior to the start of construction to determine presence/absence of nesting birds within the Biological Study Area (BSA) and immediate vicinity. Caltrans will be notified if federally listed nesting bird species are observed during the surveys and will facilitate coordination with the USFWS, if necessary, to determine an appropriate avoidance strategy. Likewise, coordination with the CDFW will be facilitated by the City, if necessary, to devise a suitable avoidance plan for state- listed nesting bird species. If raptor nests are observed within the BSA during the preconstruction nesting bird surveys, the nest(s) shall be designated an Environmental Sensitive Area and protected by a minimum 500 foot avoidance buffer until the breeding season ends or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival.Similarly, if active passerine nests are observed within the BSA during the preconstruction nesting bird surveys, the nest(s) shall be designated an Environmentally Sensitive Area and protected by a minimum 250 foot avoidance buffer until the breeding season ends or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. Resource agencies may consider proposed variances from these buffers if there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as protection of a nest via concealment due to site topography. BIO/mm-12 If least Bell's vireo or any other special-status bird is observed within 100 feet of the BSA during the course of construction or during the preconstruction surveys, all project activities shall cease immediately, and the pursuant resource agencies shall be consulted. Development of additional avoidance and minimization measures will occur as necessary in coordination with the pertinent agencies, as necessary. BIO/mm-13 During construction, the contractor will make a deliberate effort to limit the use of imported soils for fill. Soils currently existing on-site should be used for fill material. If the use of imported fill material is necessary, the imported material must be obtained from a source that is known to be free of invasive plant species,or the material must consist of purchased clean material such as crushed aggregate, sorted rock, or similar. To avoid the spread of invasive species, the contractor will: a. Remove any invasive plant species within the BSA during construction activities and ensure that they are not replanted. b. Stockpile topsoil and redeposit the stockpiled soil on the slopes after construction is complete;or, c. Transport the topsoil to a permitted landfill for disposal. BIO/mm-14 During construction, the biological monitor(s) will ensure that the spread or introduction of invasive exotic plant species is avoided to the maximum extent practicable. When practicable, invasive exotic plants in the project site will be removed and properly disposed of. Removed invasive plants shall be bagged and tied up so that they do not blow in the wind when being driven off site. BIO/mm-15 The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) restoration planting plans must emphasize the use of native species expected to occur in the area. The HMMP will include an invasive species control program. All erosion control materials including straw bales, straw wattles, or mulch used on-site must be free of invasive species seed. Page 45 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project The following avoidance and minimization measures are based on the specific measures included within the Programmatic Biological Opinion for projects that are not likely to adversely affect California red- legged frog, or its critical habitat(Programmatic Concurrence): BIO/mm-16 A biologist with experience in the identification of all life stages of the California red-legged frog, and its critical habitat(75 FR 12816), will survey the project site no more than 48 hours before the onset of work activities. If any life stage of the California red-legged frog is detected the USFWS will be notified prior to the start of construction. If Caltrans and the USFWS determine that adverse effects to the California red-legged frog or its critical habitat cannot be avoided, the proposed project will not commence until the Caltrans completes the appropriate level of consultation with the USFWS. BIO/mm-17 Work activities will take place during the dry season, between April 1 and November 1, when water levels are typically are at their lowest, and California red-legged frogs are likely to be more detectable. Should activities need to be conducted outside of this period, Caltrans may conduct or authorize such activities after obtaining the USFWS's written approval. BIO/mm-18 Before work begins on any proposed project, a biologist with experience in the ecology of the California red-legged frog, as well as the identification of all its life stages, will conduct a training session for all construction personnel, which will include a description of the California red-legged frog, its critical habitat, and specific measures that are being implemented to avoid adverse effects to the subspecies during the proposed project. BIO/mm-19 If any life stage of the California red-legged frog is detected in the project area during construction, work will cease immediately and the resident engineer, authorized biologist, or biological monitor will notify the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office via telephone or electronic mail. If Caltrans and the USFWS determine that adverse effects to California red-legged frogs cannot be avoided, construction activities will remain suspended until Caltrans and the USFWS complete the appropriate level of consultation. BIO/mm-20 During project activities, all trash that may attract predators will be properly contained, removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly. Following construction, all trash and construction debris will be removed from work areas. BIO/mm-21 Prior to the onset of work, Caltrans will ensure that a plan is in place for prompt and effective response to any accidental spills. All workers will be informed of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to implement should a spill occur. BIO/mm-22 All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles will occur at least 60 feet from aquatic or riparian habitat and not in a location from where a spill would drain directly toward aquatic habitat. The monitor will ensure contamination of aquatic or riparian habitat does not occur during such operations by implementing the spill response plan described in measure 21. BIO/mm-23 Plants used in revegetation will consist of native riparian, wetland, and upland vegetation suitable for the area. Locally collected plant materials will be used to the extent practicable. Invasive, exotic plants will be controlled to the maximum extent practicable. This measure will be implemented in all areas disturbed by activities associated with the project, unless Caltrans and the USFWS determine that it is not feasible or practical. Page 46 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 81O/mm-24 Habitat contours will be returned to their original configuration at the end of project activities in all areas that have been temporarily disturbed by activities associated with the project, unless Caltrans and the USFWS determine that it is not feasible or modification of original contours would benefit the California red-legged frog. BIO/mm-25 The number of access routes, size of staging areas, and the total area of the activity will be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the project goals. Environmentally Sensitive Areas will be delineated to confine access routes and construction areas to the minimum area necessary to complete construction, and minimize the impact to habitat for the California red-legged frog;this goal includes locating access routes and construction areas outside of aquatic habitat and riparian areas to the maximum extent practicable. BIO/mm-26 To control sedimentation during and after project implementation, Caltrans will implement BMP5 outlined in any authorizations or permits issued under the authorities of the Clean Water Act that it receives for the specific project. If BMP5 are ineffective, Caltrans will attempt to remedy the situation immediately, in coordination with the USFWS. BIO/mm-27 If a work site is to be temporarily dewatered by pumping, the intake will be screened with wire mesh not larger than 0.2 inch to prevent any California red-legged frogs not initially detected from entering the pump system. If California red-legged frogs are detected during dewatering, and adverse effects to California red-legged frogs cannot be avoided, construction activities will remain suspended until Caltrans and the USFWS complete the appropriate level of consultation. BIO/mm-28 Upon completion of construction activities, any diversions or barriers to flow will be removed in a manner that would allow flow to resume with the least disturbance to the substrate. Alteration of the creek bed will be minimized to the maximum extent possible; any imported material will be removed from the stream bed upon completion of the project. BIO/mm-29 Unless approved by the USFWS, water will not be impounded in a manner that may attract California red-legged frogs. BIO/mm-30 A qualified biologist will permanently remove any individuals of exotic species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and centrarchid fishes,from the project area, to the maximum extent possible. The biologist will be responsible for ensuring his or her activities are in compliance with the California Fish and Game Code. BIO/mm-31 To ensure that diseases are not conveyed between work sites by the USFWS- approved biologist, the enclosed fieldwork code of practice developed by the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force will be followed at all times. With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. V. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting This section is largely based on the information provided in the Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) and Supplemental ASR prepared for the project (Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. 2012 and Page 47 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 2014); Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) and Supplemental HPSR prepared for the project (JRP Historical Consulting, LLC 2012 and 2014); and Paleontological Evaluation Report (PER) prepared for the project (SWCA 2014). The project vicinity was inhabited by speakers of the Obispeno language of the Chumash language family. The entire project area was surveyed for archaeological resources through preparation of the ASR and Supplemental ASR. No cultural materials were identified during surveys conducted during preparation of either report.The HPSR and Supplemental HPSR further concluded that no historic architectural resources are present within the project site. According to geologic mapping by Hall (1973),the project area is underlain by the following geologic units, in approximate ascending stratigraphic order: 1) Pliocene Pismo Formation; 2) Plio-Pleistocene Paso Robles Formation; 3) Quaternary older sand dune deposits (Pleistocene); and 4) Quaternary alluvial deposits (Holocene). Museum collection records maintained by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) indicate that at least seven fossil localities yielding scientifically significant vertebrate specimens have been documented as close as 10 miles from the project area and within Quaternary-age deposits, the Paso Robles Formation, and the Pismo Formation (McLeod 2011). In addition, the University of California Museum of Paleontology has documented 11 fossil localities in the Pismo Formation yielding at least 27 individual vertebrate specimens as well as an undisclosed number of invertebrates. No fossil specimens were discovered during field surveys conducted in preparation of the PER. The combined results of the literature review and museum records search indicate that the project area is, in part, underlain by geologic units determined to have a high paleontological resource potential (sensitivity). Therefore, project-related ground disturbances in previously undisturbed paleontologically sensitive geologic units may result in an adverse impact to nonrenewable fossil resources unless proper mitigation measures are implemented. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to§ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ® ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ❑ ® ❑ outside of formal cemeteries? e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Public Resources Code Section 21074? Page 48 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Discussion a)—b): The entire project area has been the subject of multiple records searches and intensive pedestrian surveys, and no recorded prehistoric or historic resources were identified within the project study area. The project area is heavily disturbed and comprised largely of engineered/artificial fill material.Therefore, potential for disturbance of unknown sub-surface archaeological resources is low. However, portions of the project would require excavation in areas of native soil or at depths in subsurface areas containing native soils. If native surfaces are disturbed, there would be the potential for disturbance of unknown buried cultural materials. Standard mitigation has been proposed to ensure impacts to any unknown resources that may be encountered during project development would be minimized. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. c): The combined results of the literature review and museum records search indicate that the project area is, in part, underlain by geologic units determined to have a high paleontological resource potential (sensitivity).The project site is largely comprised of engineered fill associated with development of US 101, where presence of paleontological resources is very low. However, areas of the project site would be located in native soils or areas of minimal disturbance. Therefore, project-related ground disturbances in previously undisturbed paleontologically sensitive geologic units may result in an adverse impact to nonrenewable fossil resources unless proper mitigation measures are implemented. Excavation plans have been developed for both Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C showing specific areas where excavations are expected to occur to a depth of greater than 1.5 feet or within previously undisturbed areas of paleontologically sensitive formations and excavations that are expected to occur within existing fill or at a depth of less than 1.5 feet. Mitigation is identified to minimize the potential for disturbance of paleontological resources to less than significant levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. d): No human remains are known to exist within the project area outside of formally delineated cemeteries, and the likelihood for unknown remains to exist is very low due to the extent of previous disturbance at the site. In addition, based on the archaeological survey, there is no evidence indicating presence of burial sites within the affected area. However, the discovery of unknown human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbances. Protocol for properly responding to the inadvertent discovery of human remains is identified in the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. This code section states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),which will determine and notify a most likely descendant.The potential for discovery of unknown buried human remains at the site is low, and compliance with existing state law requirements would minimize adverse impacts. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the disturbance of human remains would be less than significant. e): The Native American Heritage Commission was notified of the initial proposed project in a letter sent by consultant staff to Rob Wood, dated September 15, 2005. The letter requested a records search of the sacred lands files and a list of local Native American contacts with whom consultant staff could communicate concerning the project. In a letter dated November 12, 2005, Wood responded that the records search indicated that no Native American sacred sites were known in the immediate area. A list Page 49 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project of Native American individuals/organizations that may have knowledge of local cultural resources was provided. These individuals/organizations were notified of the project by letter (dated November 29, 2005) and asked to express any concerns they might have regarding Native American cultural sites within the project area. Follow-up telephone contacts were conducted by consultant staff on January 2, 2006. Comments were offered by several individuals. Julie Lynn Tumamait and Diane Napoleone felt they did not have any specific knowledge of this area. Ms.Tumamait suggested that we speak with someone who knows the area and can prove local lineal descent,such as Lei Lynn Odom. Ms.Odom feels that the general area is sensitive for cultural resources and recalls that bowl fragments have been found in the vicinity.She also noted that there are two historic-period cemeteries in the area; her great-grandmother Rosario Cooper is buried in the Catholic cemetery. Mona Tucker also remarked on the presence of historic-period cemeteries in the area and recommended that a monitor be involved in the project. Additional contact was made with the Native American Heritage Commission on August 10,2011 updating them on project changes and requesting a current search of the sacred lands files and a list of local Native American contacts. Program Analyst Katy Sanchez responded in a letter dated August 11, 2011 that the records search identified no known Native American cultural resources in the immediate project vicinity. A list of Native American contacts with potential knowledge of the area was provided. Additional letters of notification were mailed to these individuals/groups on August 23,2011 to update them on the project. Responses received included a telephone call from Obispeno Chumash Peggy Odom on September 1, 2011. Ms. Odom noted that she observed site deposit and bowl mortars well to the south of the project area. Based on mission record information,she has been informed that her ancestors Rosario Cooper and two aunts are buried in the old cemetery north of the highway and east of Camino Mercado. Northern Chumash Tribal spokesman Fred Collins also called to discuss the project. On September 13, 2011 Jones spoke with Mr. Collins in detail about the project Area of Potential Effects, prior surveys, and current negative survey results. He also has relatives buried in the old cemetery and is concerned that no impacts are planned for this location.An email from Mona Tucker, current Tribal Chair for yak tit"u tit''u yak tithini Northern Chumash, was received on October 14, 2011. The communication reiterated her families concerns with the rich Chumash cultural of the general southern San Luis Obispo County area and stated the need to protect cultural resources in this sensitive area. In addition to ongoing consultation that the City has conducted throughout the project development phase (since 2005), the City complied with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 by sending a Notice of Opportunity to Consult to all Native American tribes that have provided notice to the City regarding consultation under AB 52 in July 2017.The results of consultation that the City has been engaged in since 2005 identified the general project area as sensitive for cultural resources and several potential sites and cultural resources in the project vicinity.These resources are considered tribal cultural resources. The project area is heavily disturbed and comprised largely of engineered/artificial fill material and no known tribal cultural resources exist within the proposed area of disturbance. Therefore, potential for disturbance of unknown sub-surface tribal cultural resources is low. However, portions of the project would require excavation in areas of native soil or at depths in subsurface areas containing native soils. If native surfaces are disturbed, there would be the potential for disturbance of unknown buried tribal cultural materials. Standard mitigation has been proposed to ensure impacts to any unknown tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during project development would be minimized. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Page 50 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact To minimize the potential significant impacts to cultural resources, the following mitigation measures would be implemented. CUL/mm-1 If a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities within a 100 foot radius of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the uncovered resource requires further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR)forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of,but are not limited to, stone, bone, glass, ceramic, wood, or shell artifacts; fossils; or features including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the appropriate Information Center and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. CUL/mm-2 A qualified paleontologist will be retained to prepare a paleontological mitigation plan for the proposed project and supervise monitoring of construction excavations. CUL/mm-3 All project-related ground disturbances which may disturb geologic units that are considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity(i.e.,previously undisturbed Quaternary older sand dune deposits, or any portions of the Paso Robles and Pismo Formations) will be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. However, the frequency of monitoring may be reduced at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist if the disturbed geologic units are determined to have a low potential to yield significant fossils resources upon further examination of the geologic units during grading operations. Based on the excavation plans provided for both Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C, portions of the project area will involve the placement of fill material,shallow excavation in previously filled areas,or only surficial excavations of less than 1.5 feet in depth. These excavation areas will not require paleontological monitoring. However, the portions of Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C that are expected to require excavations greater than 1.5 feet in depth or to any depth in previously undisturbed areas of geologically sensitive formations, as designated in the PER (SWCA 2014) should be monitored full-time by a qualified paleontologist. CUL/mm-4 Paleontological resource monitoring will include inspection of exposed rock units during active excavations within sensitive geologic deposits. The monitor will have authority to temporarily divert grading away from exposed fossils to professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect associated data.All efforts to avoid delays in project schedules will be made. Monitors will be equipped with the necessary tools for the rapid removal of fossils and retrieval of associated data to prevent construction delays. This equipment will include handheld global positioning system receivers, digital cameras, and cellular phones, as well as a tool kit containing specimen containers and matrix sampling bags, field labels, field tools (e.g., awls, hammers, chisels, shovels, etc.), and plaster kits. Page 51 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project CUL/mm-5 At each fossil locality,field data forms will be used to record pertinent geologic data,stratigraphic sections will be measured, and appropriate sediment samples will be collected and submitted for analysis. CUL/mm-6 Recovered fossils will be prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and reposited in a designated paleontological curation facility. The qualified paleontologist will prepare a paleontological mitigation and monitoring report to be filed with the City of Arroyo Grande, as lead agency, and the repository. The report will include, but will not be limited to, a discussion of the results of the mitigation and monitoring program, an evaluation and analysis of the fossils collected(including an assessment of their significance, age and geologic context), an itemized inventory of fossils collected, a confidential appendix of locality and specimen data with locality maps and photographs, an appendix of curation agreements and other appropriate communications, and a copy of the project-specific paleontological mitigation plan. With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant. VI. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting The proposed project is located within the Coast Ranges province, which is characterized by its many elongate mountain ranges and valleys extending 600 miles along the coast of California from the Oregon border south to the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County.The Arroyo Grande Valley(and the southern Cienega Valley portion)is located near the intersection of the California coastal ranges and the Los Angeles ranges. The project area extends along the base of the coastal foothill terraces that abut the extensive dune fields bordering the Pacific Ocean, and the sloping foothill topography of much of the project area gives way to old stabilized sand dunes to the southwest. The project area encompasses an urbanized landscape within the City of Arroyo Grande on rolling terrain at an elevation of approximately 100 to 140 feet. Soils within the project area are generally channery sandy clay foams to sandy loams with a portion of Xererts-Xerolls-Urban land complex. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has mapped twelve soil series within the project vicinity(SCS 1984), including map unit(MU) 115—Chamise shaly loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes; 116—Chamise shaly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes; 117 — Chamise shaly sandy clay loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes; 126—Corralitos variant loamy sand, 175—Mocho silty clay loam, 184—Oceano sand,0 to 9 percent slopes; 189 — Pismo loamy sand, 194 — Riverwash, 210 —Still gravelly sandy clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes; 216 — Tierra sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes; and 221 — Xererts-Xerolls-Urban land complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes. Arroyo Grande is located in a geologically complex and seismically active region. Seismic, or earthquake related, hazards have the potential to result in significant public safety risks and widespread property damage. Two of the direct effects of an earthquake include the rupture of the ground surface along the trend or location of a fault, and ground shaking that results from fault movement. Other geologic hazards that may occur in response to an earthquake include liquefaction,seismic settlement, and landslide. The US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service's Web Soil Survey was used to estimate the erodibility of the project site. The erosion factor within the project area was in the lower third of the range for erodibility. Page 52 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable, as a result of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste disposal ❑ ❑ ❑ systems, where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion a)—d): The project is located in an area with multiple geological characteristics that could contribute to unstable earth / soil conditions, including compressible/collapsible soils, high groundwater elevation, moderate liquefaction potential, and moderately high potential for seismic activity, ground shaking, and seismic settlement.The placement of structures within these soil conditions creates the risk for structure instability, damage,failure, and/or collapse. Development of the project would be required to meet or exceed the most current requirements of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which have been developed to establish the minimum requirements necessary for design to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare through structural strength, stability, access, and other standards. Seismic design is based on Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC),Version 1.7 (Caltrans SDC April 2013). Roadway, Page 53 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project pedestrian, and bicycle path elements would comply with the 2011 edition of AASHTO's "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" and relevant City standards. Compliance with AASHTO, Caltrans, and other applicable standards would typically indicate that risks to people and structures, including those related to unstable soil conditions, were properly safeguarded against.The project does not propose development of any habitable structures;therefore,no risk of injury or death as a result of damage or collapse of a habitable structure would occur.Through compliance with applicable standards, the structural components of the project would be designed to withstand anticipated seismic and geologic stresses according to current established engineering practices. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e): The project does not propose installation of any septic disposal system. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts No significant impacts related to geology or soils were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions &Energy Environmental Setting Greenhouse gases(GHG)are any gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere,and are different from the criteria pollutants discussed in Section III,Air Quality, above.The primary GHGs that are emitted into the atmosphere as a result of human activities are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), and fluorinated gases. These are most commonly emitted through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), agricultural practices, decay of organic waste in landfills, and a variety of other chemical reactions and industrial processes (e.g.,the manufacturing of cement). Carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG and is estimated to represent approximately 80-90% of the principal GHGs that are currently affecting the earth's climate. According to the ARB, transportation (vehicle exhaust) and electricity generation are the main sources of GHG in the state. The passage of AB32,the California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006), recognized the need to reduce GHG emissions and set the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal for the State of California into law. The law required that by 2020,State emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels.This is to be accomplished by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from significant sources via regulation, market mechanisms, and other actions. Subsequent legislation (e.g., SB97-Greenhouse Gas Emissions bill) directed the ARB to develop statewide thresholds. In March 2012,the APCD approved thresholds for GHG emission impacts,and these thresholds have been incorporated into the APCD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook.APCD determined that a tiered process for land use development projects was the most appropriate and effective approach for assessing the GHG emission impacts. The tiered approach includes three methods, any of which can be used for any given project: 1. Qualitative GHG Reduction Strategies (e.g. Climate Action Plans): A qualitative threshold that is consistent with AB 32 Scoping Plan measures and goals; or, Page 54 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 2. Bright-Line Threshold: Numerical value to determine the significance of a project's annual GHG emissions; or, 3. Efficiency-Based Threshold: Assesses the GHG impacts of a project on an emissions per capita basis. For most projects,the Bright-Line Threshold of 1,150 Metric Tons CO2/year(MT CO2e/yr)will be the most applicable threshold. The APCD thresholds are for a project's amortized construction and operational- related GHG emissions. In addition to the land use development threshold options proposed above, a bright-line numerical value threshold of 10,000 MT CO2e/yr was adopted for stationary source(industrial) projects. It should be noted that projects that generate less than the above-mentioned thresholds will also participate in emission reductions because air emissions, including GHGs, are under the purview of the California Air Resources Board (or other regulatory agencies) and will be "regulated" by either CARB,the Federal Government, or other entities. For example, new vehicles will be subject to increased fuel economy standards and emission reductions, large and small appliances will be subject to more strict emissions standards, and energy delivered to consumers will increasingly come from renewable sources. Other programs that are intended to reduce the overall GHG emissions include Low Carbon Fuel Standards, Renewable Portfolio standards and the Clean Car standards. As a result, even the emissions that result from projects that produce fewer emissions than the threshold will be subject to emission reductions. Under CEQA, an individual project's GHG emissions will generally not result in direct significant impacts. This is because the climate change issue is global in nature. However,an individual project could be found to contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact. Projects that have GHG emissions above the noted thresholds may be considered cumulatively considerable and require mitigation. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ greenhouse gases? Discussion a—b): The project proposes circulation and transportation infrastructure improvements that would alleviate traffic congestion on US 101 and the local roadway system. Project-related traffic would be limited to construction activities and the project would require limited amounts of electricity for traffic and safety lighting, etc. A greenhouse gas analysis was completed pursuant to Caltrans guidelines (TAHA 2017). The build alternatives would result in less GHG emissions than no-build conditions in 2015 and 2035 (TAHA 2017). In addition, certain project components would partially offset greenhouse gas emissions, such as bicycle/pedestrian improvements, additional landscaping, and the roundabout and Park and Ride lot proposed under Alternative 4C. Page 55 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project California has passed several pieces of legislation in the past few years aimed at dealing with GHG emissions and climate change. Executive Order S-3-05 set a goal to reduce California's GHG emissions to: (1) 2000 levels by 2010; (2) 1990 levels by 2020; and (3)80%below 1990 levels by 2050.These goals were reinforced in 2006 with the passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) which set forth the same emission reduction goals and further mandated that the CARB create a plan, including market mechanisms, and develop and implement rules to achieve "real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases." Executive Order S-01-07 set forth California's low carbon fuel standard,which requires the carbon intensity of the state's transportation fuels to be reduced by 10% by 2020. In addition, Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) required amendments to the CEQA Guidelines to address GHG emissions; the amendments were put into effect on March 18, 2010. The project would not exceed adopted GHG thresholds applied by the APCD and is not anticipated to generate significant GHG emissions due to the minimal short-term traffic generated, limited energy use, and the beneficial impact on traffic operations and congestion. The project would not conflict with the statewide regulations listed above. In response to CEQA legislation requiring the consideration of Appendix F Energy Conservation when analyzing a project's impacts, the State CEQA Guidelines were amended in 2019 to incorporate a new subdivision(b)of Section 15126.2,Consideration and Discussion of Significant Environmental Impacts.This new subdivision requires the evaluation of a proposed project's estimated energy use to determine if it would: (a) result a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or (b) conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. A proposed project is required to mitigate a wasteful use of energy. The analysis may be included in related analyses of air quality,GHG emissions,or transportation or utilities,at the discretion of the lead agency. Because GHG emissions resulting from construction activities, transportation, and the provision of utility services generally correlates to the consumption of energy resources, particularly non-renewable resources, a project's estimated GHG emissions serves as a useful proxy to also determine if a project would result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. To reduce GHG emissions—which in turn could reasonably be expected to reduce the consumption of energy resources that result in GHG emissions—the City adopted a Climate Action Plan in November 2013. The Climate Action Plan identified transportation as the largest source of GHG emissions in the City, at 44 percent of overall emissions. As discussed above, project construction would require limited amounts of electricity for traffic and safety lighting. During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. The energy consumed during construction would be temporary and would not represent a significant or wasteful demand on available resources. Regarding operational impacts,the Air Quality Study concluded that both alternatives would not increase vehicle miles traveled and would improve (reduce) vehicle delay at area intersections. The intersection improvements proposed under both alternatives and the auxiliary lane proposed under Alternative 4C may serve to increase roadway capacity, although the increase in vehicle energy consumption would be somewhat offset by increased vehicle speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with higher fuel economy). As a result, the GHG analysis found that both Alternatives 1 and 4C would only slightly increase emissions by 2035 due to due to higher traffic volume in future years. Page 56 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project An increase in GHG emissions is associated with an increase in energy consumption. However, the movement of vehicles along US 101 in the project area is not considered a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The project would comply with goals and policies of the City's Climate Action Plan, which indicates the City as the lead agency, does not consider the project's impacts to be a wasteful, inefficient,or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Motor vehicles are the primary mode of transportation in rural communities such as Arroyo Grande, and improvements to the roadway infrastructure serve this mode of transportation in a more efficient manner. Further, Alternative 4C proposes improvements to reduce single-occupancy vehicles,such as the bus turnout along Grace Lane and the Park and Ride lot adjacent to the proposed roundabout intersection. Neither alternative would conflict or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Alternative 4C would further the goal of the City's Climate Action Plan to install bicycle routes, street and sidewalk improvements, and park and ride facility improvements. New project components— such as the relocated modular building and new parking lots–would be designed in accordance with applicable efficiency codes (e.g., Title 24). The implementation of bus pull-outs, pedestrian access improvements, and improved traffic signal phasing would further reduce congestion and fuel consumption. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts No significant impacts related to GHGs or Energy Consumption were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. VIII. Hazards, Hazardous Materials, &Wildfire Environmental Setting Based on a search of the California Department of Toxic Substance Control's EnviroStor database and the State Water Resources Control Board's Geotracker system,there are several environmental cleanup sites within the project area.All sites have been determined completed and closed, indicating that the site has been remediated to the satisfaction of regulatory agency staff. There is also a current Cleanup Program Site within 0.5 mile of the project area at the northbound US 101 ramps/Grand Avenue intersection.The site is related to pending cleanup of gasoline and other contaminants discovered during underground storage tank removal in 1988. The project area is a major transportation corridor supporting millions of trips over previous decades. It is highly likely that the surface soils along these roadways are affected by deposition of contaminants, including aerial lead, oils,fuels, and other lubricants. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ disposal of hazardous materials? Page 57 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ hazardous materials, substances, or waste into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste ❑ ® ❑ ❑ within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites, compiled pursuant to ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Government Code §65962.5, and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) Be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport? If so, would the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so, would the project result in a safety hazard for people ❑ ❑ ® ❑ residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ❑ ® ❑ evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,or death from wildland fires, including areas ❑ ❑ ® ❑ where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion a)—c): Although US 101 and local roadways within the project area are commonly used for the routine transport of potentially hazardous materials,the proposed project would not significantly change existing land uses or cause a routine or permanent increase in the transport of hazardous substances within the project area. No change in the transport or handling of hazardous materials within proximity to adjacent schools would occur outside of construction activities. Oils,gasoline, lubricants,fuels,and other potentially hazardous substances would be used and stored on- site during construction activities. Should a spill or leak of these materials occur during construction activities, sensitive resources within the project vicinity could be adversely affected.Such activities would also occur in close proximity to Saint Patrick's School and other sensitive adjacent land uses. However, such use would be short-term and subject to standard requirements for the handling of hazardous Page 58 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project materials. Mitigation would be implemented to ensure potential impacts were reduced to less than significant. The Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment(Haro 2017) prepared for the project identified two sites that may have residual contamination that could impact the project area:the Arroyo Grande Shell gas station located at 222 Grand Avenue and the Chevron USA gas station at 251 Grand Avenue.The Shell station has a long history of releases and cleanup for petroleum related contaminants. While the site has been deemed closed by the Central Coast RWQCB, a notation in the case file states: "Residual soil and groundwater wastes continues to underlie the site that could pose an unacceptable risk under certain site development activities such as site grading, excavation, or de-watering. The County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health Services(EHS)and appropriate local planning and building departments must be notified prior to any changes in land use, and site redevelopment. Future site disturbance could require worker health and safety protection, and restrictions on the disposal of soil and groundwater. The levels of residual wastes and any associated risks are expected to diminish with time.Additionally, EHS may also require additional assessment and remediation if the property is proposed to be redeveloped.Additional action by the EHS may include, but is not limited to, a case review,further investigations, soil gas analysis, remedial action, and human health risk assessment." The Chevron USA gas station was also the location of multiple investigations from underground storage tanks releases. This site has also been closed to further action by the RWQCB. In this case, however, the RWQCB did not place restrictions on future use or construction like those applied to the Shell station(Haro 2017). The project does not propose the use, storage, or discharge of any hazardous substances during project operation and would not change the existing land use of the project site or substantially increase the potential use of hazardous materials in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public through foreseeable accident or upset. However, existing infrastructure proposed to be demolished could include asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint, or aerially deposited lead. A previous analysis was conducted for the project(Kleinfelder 2006,2007),which included limited testing for asbestos and aerially deposited lead.The limited asbestos survey indicated asbestos was not detected above the reporting limit; however, ACM may still occur in other untested areas of the project area.The limited aerially deposited lead assessment identified soils containing lead in excess of concentration thresholds to a depth of at least 1.5 feet below ground surface. In addition, paint used on bridge railings and other built components within the project area proposed for demolition could contain lead-based paint. Other identified hazards identified in the project area include gas transmission lines, chemically- treated wood posts that could contain elevated concentrations of preservative chemicals, pole-mounted transformers that may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs, a toxic pollutant previously used in electrical components before being banned by the federal government in 1979),and yellow traffic striping paint that may contain lead. A review of the U.S. Geological Survey map of the Arroyo Grande Northeast 7.5-Minute Quadrangle indicates the majority of the project area is underlain by Holocene to late-Pleistocene-aged alluvial deposits consisting of unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay, and old Pleistocene-eolian deposits. These deposits are not likely to contain NOA(Haro 2017).The project is not located within an area identified as Page 59 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project having the potential to contain naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) based on the APCD's NOA map. Therefore, potential impacts associated with NOA are less than significant. Disturbance and handling of these toxic substances can result in significant health impacts on workers or other persons exposed to the substances. They can also damage adjacent habitats and contaminate proximate soils, surfaces, and waters that receive storm water runoff from within the project area. The primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes and materials are the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980(CERCLA)and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). The purpose of CERCLA, often referred to as "Superfund," is to identify and clean up abandoned contaminated sites so that public health and welfare are not compromised.The RCRA provides for "cradle to grave" regulation of hazardous waste generated by operating entities. Other federal laws include:the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act(CERFA)of 1992,Clean Water Act,Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA), Atomic Energy Act, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The California Hazardous Waste Control Law is administered by the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). DTSC has adopted extensive regulations governing the generation, transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes. These regulations impose cradle-to-grave requirements for handling hazardous wastes in a manner that protects human health and the environment. The Hazardous Waste Control Law regulations establish requirements for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes. They prescribe management practices for hazardous wastes; establish permit requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal,and transportation; and identify hazardous wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills. Hazardous waste is tracked from the point of generation to the point of disposal or treatment using hazardous waste manifests. The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) is responsible for assuring worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations. Cal/OSHA hazardous materials regulations include requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal/OSHA has established the Asbestos Construction Standard and Lead Construction Standards to regulate all construction work where exposure to asbestos may occur or where an employee may be occupationally exposed to lead. Caltrans requires that any encounter with an unknown hazardous contaminant during construction follow the Caltrans Unknown Hazards Procedure.The procedure includes a stop work in the vicinity of the find, field review by the Caltrans resident engineer or district construction hazardous waste coordinator/district hazardous waste coordinator, and development of a hazardous waste investigation and removal plan (if necessary). Mitigation measures have been proposed to minimize the potential for exposure to unknown hazardous contaminants, and to minimize potential impacts associated with ACM, lead-based paint, aerially deposited lead, and other known hazards within the project area. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. d): There are no active hazardous material sites within the project boundary. No disturbance is proposed within 0.5 mile of the nearest underground storage tank cleanup site, and project activities at the northbound US 101 ramps/Grand Avenue intersection would be generally limited to minor lane Page 60 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project widening and restriping. Mitigation has been identified to ensure project-related activities do not disturb proximate contaminated sites. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. e)—f): The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of any public airport or private airstrip.The proposed project would not substantially change existing uses and would not result in increased hazards related to air traffic. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. g): The project would improve existing transportation infrastructure to improve operation of US 101 and the local roadway network. The project would improve long-term access in the project vicinity and adequate alternative access exists for emergency purposes during construction activities. The project would not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. h): The proposed project is located in an urban area and would not expose people or structures to a substantial risk of wildfires. The Arroyo Grande Fire Department is located less than 0.5 mile from the project corridor and response times would be within acceptable levels. In response to several years of extreme and destructive fire seasons, Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines was updated in 2019 to include new questions that address a project's potential wildfire impacts in more detail than previously required.The new questions focus on whether projects located in or near state responsibility areas (where the state has financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires), or lands classified as very high fire severity zones by local agencies, and would: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads,fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? As discussed above,the project site is located in an urbanized area and not located in an area designated as a state responsibility area or lands classified as a very high hazard severity zone. In addition,the project would improve long-term access in the project vicinity and adequate alternative access exists for emergency purposes during construction activities.The project is located in an urbanized area of stabilized soils and both alternatives propose storm water drainage improvements to ensure adequate conveyance capacity.Thus,the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks related to wildfire. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Page 61 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact To minimize the potential significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, the following mitigation measures would be implemented. HAZ/mm-1 Prior to construction, the City shall prepare a Hazardous Material Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan to minimize the potential for, and effects of,spills of hazardous or toxic substances during construction of the project. The plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Public Works Director, and shall include, at minimum, the following: a. A description of storage procedures and construction site maintenance and upkeep practices; b. Identification of a person or persons responsible for monitoring implementation of the plan and spill response; c. Identification of Best Management Practices(BMPs)to be implemented to ensure minimal impacts to the environment occur, including but not limited to the use of containment devices for hazardous materials, training of construction staff regarding safety practices to reduce the chance for spills or accidents, and use of non-toxic substances where feasible; d. A description of proper procedures for containing, diverting, isolating, and cleaning up spills, hazardous substances and/or soils, in a manner that minimizes impacts on surface and groundwater quality and sensitive biological resources; e. A description of the actions required if a spill occurs,including which authorities to contact and proper clean-up procedures;and f. A requirement that all construction personnel participate in an awareness training program conducted by qualified personnel approved by the City Public Works Director. The training must include a description of the Hazardous Materials Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan, the plan's requirements for spill prevention, information regarding the importance of preventing spills, the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur, and identification of the location of all clean-up materials and equipment. HAZ/mm-2 Demolition of existing structures and/or infrastructure shall be conducted in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart M — asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include, but are not limited to, notification to the APCD, an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector, and applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified asbestos containing materials. HAZ/mm-3 A Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be developed for the project and subject to approval by Caltrans to ensure contaminated soils excavated during the project construction are handled, stockpiled, and disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Soils excavated during the project shall be tested for lead concentrations and the Soil Management Plan shall establish a Reuse Screening Level for the excavated soils; excavated soils with contaminant concentrations below the Reuse Screening Levels may be reused during construction on the right-of-way, while soils with contaminant concentrations exceeding the Reuse Screening Levels shall be managed as hazardous waste and disposed of at a facility that accepts soil with the detected concentrations of contaminants. Special handling, treatment, or Page 62 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project disposal of aerially deposited lead in soils during construction activities within that portion of the project within Caltrans right of way shall be consistent with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and Caltrans Soil Management Agreement for Aerially Deposited Lead- Contaminated Soils(effective July 1, 2016). HAZ/mm-4 Prior to initiation of construction, a Lead Compliance Plan shall be prepared by the contractor to prevent or minimize worker exposure to lead from handling material containing aerially-deposited lead(California Code of Regulations, Title 8,Section 1532.1). This plan shall also be required for work performed on painted structures. The contractor shall prepare a written, project-specific Excavation and Transportation Plan establishing procedures the contractor shall use for excavating, stockpiling, transporting, and placing (or disposing) of material containing aerially deposited lead. The plan must conform to Department of Toxic Substance Control and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. For samples where lead levels exceed hazardous waste criteria, the excavated soil shall be either managed or disposed of as a California hazardous waste or stockpiled and resampled to confirm waste classification and potential utilization of Caltrans' hazardous waste agreement to recycle soil on site. The appropriate Caltrans Standard Special Provision shall be included in the Plans, Specifications, and Estimate. HAZ/mm-5 Built structures within the project area proposed for demolition or removal, including all concrete, painted surfaces, and treated wood poles and soils at the base of poles, shall be tested for asbestos containing material, lead-based paint, and petroleum hydrocarbons and other wood preservative chemicals. Testing shall be conducted prior to initiation of construction and estimates during the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates phase of the project shall include provisions for proper removal and disposal by a licensed contractor. Any identified contaminants and toxic materials shall be handled, treated, and disposed of in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. In the event hydrocarbon-contaminated soils are encountered, the APCD shall be contacted immediately and no later than 48 hours after affected material is discovered to determine if an APCD permit will be required. HAZ/mm-6 The electrical company responsible for the electrical transformers present within the project area shall be contacted to determine if the transformers contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If the transformers contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), then they shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. Any identified leaking transformers shall be considered a potential PCB hazard unless tested and shall be handled accordingly. HAZ/mm-7 The gas company responsible for the gas transmission pipelines located within the project area shall be contacted to delineate the location of the gas transmission pipelines. The location of the pipelines shall be shown on all project plans and specifications. HAZ/mm-8 Underground Service Alert for Northern/Central California and Nevada (USA North) shall be contacted prior to any subsurface excavation to determine the location of any subsurface utility lines. HAZ/mm-9 Testing and removal requirements for yellow traffic striping and pavement marking materials shall be performed in accordance with Caltrans Construction Policy Bulleting 99-2 (Caltrans Construction Manual Chapter 7-107E). Page 63 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project HAZ/mm-10 Any previously unknown hazardous waste or material encountered as part of construction of the proposed project shall be handled, treated, and disposed of in accordance with Caltrans Unknown Hazards Procedures. HAZ/mm-11 Prior to any disturbance at or within 100 feet of the Arroyo Grande Shell Gas Station located at 222 Grand Avenue, the City shall consult with the California Department of Toxic Substances, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health Department, and Caltrans Headquarters Hazardous Waste Management Section regarding the potential disturbance of hazardous substances and materials at the site. Prior to any disturbance at or within 100 feet of the Arroyo Grande Shell Gas Station, the City shall prepare a Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste Management, Removal, and Remediation Plan. The plan shall, at minimum, include worker health and safety protection measures and restrictions on the disposal of excavated soil and groundwater. The plan shall incorporate any additional assessment and remediation required by the California Department of Toxic Substances, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health Department, and Caltrans Headquarters Hazardous Waste Management Section. The Plan shall include measures that ensure all hazardous materials involvement would be coordinated with the appropriate federal,state, and local regulatory agencies and all hazardous materials encountered would be removed, handled, and disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations. With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. IX Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting This section is based on information provided in the Water Quality Assessment Report prepared for the project (SWCA 2017). Hydrology within the project area has been significantly altered by development and road construction. Hardscape runoff from streets and buildings in the project area is diverted through a series of manmade drainage ditches, detention basins, and culverts. There are three man-made ditches excavated in upland areas to capture and direct urban runoff within the project area. The ditches consist of open v-shaped channels with exposed soil/substrate or concrete lining.They convey runoff from US 101 and surrounding roadways to the Old Ranch Road drainage and Arroyo Grande Creek. All surface waters west of Rancho Parkway generally flow west, eventually draining into Meadow Creek and Pismo Lake Ecological Reserve, while all surface waters east of Rancho Parkway generally drain east towards Arroyo Grande Creek. The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map indicates that floodplains are present on the northwestern and southeastern ends of the project area. In the northwest, Meadow Creek and the East Fork of Meadow Creek converge near the intersection of West Branch Street and North Oak Park Boulevard with Zone AE and Zone X floodplains. In addition, a Zone A drainage is located between West Branch Street and Highway 101 from a detention pond east of Camino Mercado to the Meadow Creek confluence. In the southeast,Arroyo Grande Creek east of Grande Avenue contains Zone A,AE, and X floodplains. Zone A and AE floodplains have a 1% chance of annual flooding while Zone X floodplains generally have a 0.2%to 1%chance of annual flooding. The project area is located in the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, in the Arroyo Grande Hydrologic Area, and in the Oceano Hydrologic Sub-Area — Hydrologic Unit Number 310.31. The proposed project is located Page 64 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project primarily within the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed,approximately 7.5 miles below the Lopez Lake Dam. US Geological Service quadrangle maps for Pismo Beach,Arroyo Grande Northeast and Oceano,California show two blue-line channels within the project area, one at the western end of the project area near the Camino Mercado/West Branch Street intersection and another beginning just north of Old Ranch Road in the northeastern portion of the project site. Road construction has altered the original natural channels for these blue-line drainages, and flows are now contained by man-made channels, detention basins, and culverts. The Camino Mercado drainage directs flows west through a culvert and concrete v-ditch to Meadow Creek and the Pismo Lake Ecological Reserve. The Old Ranch Road drainage diverts flows east via a culvert that passes under Grand Avenue before connecting to Arroyo Grande Creek east of the project site (SWCA 2017). The project area is underlain by the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin, which underlies more than 280 square miles in the southwestern corner of San Luis Obispo County and the northwestern corner of Santa Barbara County. In San Luis Obispo County,the Santa Maria Basin consists of the main basin (Santa Maria) and three subbasins: Arroyo Grande Valley, Pismo Creek Valley, and Nipomo Valley. The project area is within the Arroyo Grande Valley subbasin, which underlies approximately 3,860 acres. The subbasin is drained by Arroyo Grande Creek and its tributaries from below Lopez Lake Dam to the basin's southern boundary at the Wilmar Avenue fault, which separates it from the main Santa Maria Basin. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑ discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge,such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial on-or off-site erosion or siltation? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in on-or off-site flooding? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater ❑ ® ❑ ❑ drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Page 65 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area,as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place structures that would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ® ❑ flows within a 100-year flood hazard area? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from flooding, including flooding ❑ ❑ ® ❑ resulting from the failure of a levee or dam? j) Result in inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion a), c)—f): Based on the highway storm water runoff data collected by the Caltrans Storm Water Research and Monitoring Program, typical pollutants from California highways include heavy metals, sediment, and litter.Caltrans has a well-developed storm water program that, under most circumstances, addresses all potentially significant impacts to water quality during storm events.This program is primarily intended to comply with Caltrans Statewide NPDES Stormwater Permit and ensures that all construction, design, and treatment best management practices (BMPs) are implemented and comply with RWQCB requirements. As traffic increases in the project area,the amount of pollutants originating from cars and trucks (i.e.,tire and brake lining wear, litter, and spills during vehicle accidents) is also expected to increase. The project would incorporate proposed design pollution prevention BMPs and temporary construction site BMPs under both alternatives. Alternative 4C would also utilize permanent storm water treatment BMPs if the required water quality volume cannot be infiltrated through design pollution prevention infiltration type BMPs. The project design allows for the ease of maintaining all BMPs throughout the period of construction. Construction activities can be phased to minimize soil-disturbing activities during the rainy season and all disturbed soil areas would be paved or stabilized by the end of construction. There is an existing permanent storm water treatment BMP within the project limits. Two biofiltration swales are located on the southbound side of US 101 from postmile (PM) 13.35 to 13.61 and PM 13.19 to 13.29(generally between the southbound Halcyon Road on-ramp and Grand Avenue overcrossing). Under Alternative 1, fill at the northwest quadrant of the US 101/Grand Avenue interchange would cover part of an existing bio-strip. Hydroseed and compost would be placed to restore the existing bio-strip. All constituents and parameters in nearby surface water bodies found to be elevated (compared to background) or exceeding published water quality standards are potential concerns for the proposed project. The proposed project will incorporate permanent design pollution prevention BMPs (and permanent storm water treatment BMPs under Alternative 4C, if necessary) to the maximum extent feasible to minimize the direct discharge of highway storm water to adjacent waterways. Permanent impacts to water quality could occur over months or years following construction of the project. The primary causes of these impacts would be from increased storm water runoff rates and Page 66 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project volumes, increased storm water pollutant loads, changes in riparian and wetland areas, and spreading of invasive plant species that could adversely affect riparian areas. Construction of the project is expected to take between 9 and 12 months to complete and span at least one rainy season. The exhaust from construction equipment contains hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, suspended particulate matter, and odors, which could have an effect on adjacent waterways. Leaky construction equipment has the potential to drip or spill fuels, petroleum products,and hydraulic fluids among other hazardous substances. The use of asphalt, concrete, and other harmful chemicals during construction activities would also add to the potential of these substances entering creek channels during activities in and near water bodies and wetlands or other jurisdictional USACE waters within the project limits. It is estimated that the largest percentage of construction pollutants would be sediment, construction debris from demolished structures, and dust generated during excavation, grading, hauling, demolition, and various other activities.The impacts of these activities would vary each day as construction progresses and onsite conditions change. Potential sources of temporary surface water impacts include construction materials, contaminants in the existing roadway, vehicle leaks, traffic accidents, and illegal dumping. Temporary construction site storm water BMP5 will be implemented to minimize or eliminate chemical releases to ground and surface waters. Due to the urbanized nature of most drainage systems throughout the project corridor, many potential opportunities exist for upgrading deficiencies and or enhancing impaired beneficial uses within the project corridor.The proposed project would be subject to two separate National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Areas of the project within the Caltrans right-of-way will be regulated consistent with the requirements of the Caltrans NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems(MS4) permit,and areas of the project within the City right-of-way would be regulated consistent with the City's NPDES MS4 permit. The proposed project's Project Scope Summary Report (PSSR) was signed on June 25, 2013.Therefore, it is grandfathered under the new Caltrans NPDES permit(Order 2012-0011 DWQ).The new Caltrans Permit Order No. 2012-0011 DWQ, effective July 1, 2013, states, under the Project Planning and Design section, that the new permit requirements only apply to new and redevelopment projects that have not completed the project initiation phase. Therefore, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements contained within the Caltrans 1999 NPDES Permit Order No. 99-DWQ-06. Standard temporary construction site and permanent design pollution prevention and storm water BMPs will be utilized during and after construction of the project to control potential discharges of pollutants to surface water. BMPs would be designed with the goal of controlling general gross pollutants and/or sedimentation/siltation, depending on location. The required storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will address all the BMPs necessary to prevent water quality impacts during construction of the project. In addition, buffers from sensitive resources such as wetlands and riparian corridors would be established throughout the project area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. b): The project would not create long-term water demand and would not deplete groundwater supplies. Short-term construction related water demands would be served by the City's non-potable municipal water supply. Page 67 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Impacts would be less than significant. g)—i): The proposed project would not place any housing within a 100-year flood zone. Based on County mapping, small areas of disturbance near the northbound US 101 ramp intersections at Camino Mercado and Grand Avenue would occur within areas designated as within the 100-year flood zone. However, no new or substantially different use would be developed that would impede or redirect flood flows. On-site drainage patterns would be controlled as described above. The project would not create a new use that would expose additional people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from flooding, including flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. j): The project is not in an area that would be affected by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact To minimize the potential significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality, the following mitigation measures would be implemented. HYD/mm-1 Prior to commencement of construction activities, the City shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which shall include Best Management Practices(BMPs) to be implemented and monitored prior to and during construction. The SWPPP would include a Construction Site Monitoring Program that presents procedures and methods related to the visual monitoring and sampling and analysis plans for non-visible pollutants,sediment and turbidity, and pH. HYD/mm-2 The City shall implement, at minimum, the following BMPs. Temporary Construction Measures a. All substantial ground disturbance shall be limited to the dry season or periods when rainfall is not predicted to the extent feasible, to minimize erosion and sediment transport to surface waters; b. Disturbed areas shall be stabilized or re-vegetated prior to the start of the rainy season; c. Impacts to vegetation shall be minimized. The work area shall be flagged to identify its limits. Vegetation shall not be removed or intentionally damaged beyond these limits. d. Construction materials and soil piles shall be placed in designated areas where they could not enter storm drains due to spillage or erosion. e. Waste and debris generated during construction shall be stored in designated waste collection areas and containers away from watercourses, and shall be disposed of regularly. f. During construction, washing of concrete trucks, paint, equipment, or similar activities shall occur only in areas where polluted water and materials can be contained for subsequent removal from the site. Wash water shall not be discharged to the storm drains, street,drainage ditches,creeks, or wetlands. Concrete washout area shall be isolated from Page 68 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project storm drains, and wash water and waste shall be removed from project site. The location of the washout area shall be clearly noted at the construction site with signs. g. All fueling of heavy equipment shall occur in a designated area removed from on-site drainages,such that any spillage would not enter surface waters. The designated refueling area shall include a drain pan or drop cloth and absorbent materials to clean up spills. The location of the fueling area shall be clearly noted at the construction site with signs. h. Vehicles and equipment shall be maintained properly to prevent leakage of hydrocarbons and coolant, and shall be examined for leaks on a daily basis.All maintenance shall occur in a designated offsite area. The designated area shall include a drain pan or drop cloth and absorbent materials to clean up spills. i. Any accidental spill of hydrocarbons or coolant that may occur on the construction site shall be cleaned immediately. Absorbent materials shall be maintained on the construction site for this purpose. j. Temporary placement of fill shall be located outside of any drainage ways. k. Adequate measures shall be applied to all disturbed portions of the project site to control dust, such as daily watering or hydro-mulching until vegetation cover is well established. I. Any fill or stockpiling that is to be left more than 30 days shall be hydro-seeded or covered immediately upon completion of the fill or stockpiling work. m. All fill material shall be "clean" and free of any potentially hazardous materials or hazardous waste. n. Rain Event Action Plan (REAP). Risk Level 2 projects are required to prepare a REAP, which will describe projected storm information and list specific actions required to be taken before predicted rain events. o. Soil Stabilization Measures. Minimum soil stabilization measures for the project shall include move-in/move-out erosion control, use of temporary hydraulic mulch on any exposed disturbed soils, temporary covers to protect disturbed soil areas, and temporary fencing to designate environmentally sensitive areas as outside of the work area limits. Analysis of additional soil stabilization measures will continue during the design phase. p. Sediment Control Measures. Minimum sediment control measures for the project shall include temporary fiber rolls to minimize sediment-laden sheet flows and concentrated flows from discharging offsite, and temporary drainage inlet protection to prevent sediment from entering current or proposed storm drains. Investigation into additional sediment control measures, including the use of sediment traps, will continue during the design phase. q. Tracking Controls. To prevent the tracking of mud and dirt off-site, stabilized construction entrances and exits shall be placed at multiple points throughout the project site. Street sweeping shall be implemented to remove any tracked sediment. r. Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. Concrete washout bins shall be considered for all concrete-related work activities. s. Job Site Management. The project's proposed Construction Site Management includes controlling potential sources of water pollution before they enter any storm water systems Page 69 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project or watercourses and employee and subcontractor training, including the proper selection, deployment, and repair of construction site BMPs used within the project site. t. Storm Water Sampling and Analysis. Risk Level 2 projects are required to perform storm water sampling at all discharge locations during qualifying rain events. The samples shall be analyzed for pH and turbidity, and subject to numeric action levels. Permanent Design Measures u. Downstream Effects Related to Potentially Increased Flows. Design pollution prevention BMP5 shall be incorporated to promote infiltration, maintain or restore pre-project hydrology, as well as provide overall water quality improvement of discharges. Potential water quality improvement measures include grading slopes to blend with natural terrain and decrease the need for dikes, designing permanent drainage facilities that mimic the existing drainage patterns of the area, constructing permanent vegetated drainage ditches to decrease the velocity of discharge, and maintaining existing vegetated areas to the extent feasible. v. Alternative 4C would modify local drainage along the roadway by bisecting a roadside ditch. Connectivity shall be maintained with a culvert crossing the north portion of the proposed intersection. w. Slope/Surface Protection Systems. The proposed side slopes to accommodate the new improvements would be minor and would be 2:1 or flatter, consistent with existing slopes, except for slopes adjacent to the realigned southbound US 101 on-ramp from Grand Avenue, where slopes would be 4:1 (horizontal:vertical [H:V]). Other slope/surface protection items shall include slope paving, hydroseed, and move-in/move-out. x. Concentrated Flow Conveyance Systems. Open vegetated conveyances would be prioritized and utilized before lined and piped conveyances. Depending on the alternative selected, new drainage inlets and culvert pipes will be necessary to convey runoff to existing drainage ditches. There are currently no known existing areas of erosion or slope failures at existing culvert crossings, so additional installation of flared end sections, rock slope protection, or other outlet protection/velocity dissipation devices may not be required. However, because the runoff will drain to existing or proposed natural drainage ditches, calculations will be conducted during the design phase should show that the increase in volume can be contained within the ditches and that the increase in flow and velocity will not result in erosion or scour if the ditches are only vegetated and lined with rock or other hard material. y. Preservation of Existing Vegetation. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. The project would result in minimal clearing or grubbing because the majority of the project area is currently paved. Proposed roadway improvements entail graded side slopes of 2:1 or flatter, except for slopes adjacent to the realigned southbound US 101 on-ramp from Grand Avenue, where slopes would be 4:1 (H:V). Any slopes steeper than 2:1 (H:V) will be stabilized with retaining walls, except the 4:1 slopes adjacent to the southbound US 101 on-ramp from Grand Avenue, which would be stabilized with erosion control/landscaping. Page 70 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Permanent Treatment Measures z. Treatment BMP Strategy. Permanent treatment BMPs will be considered for Alternative 4C if design pollution prevention BMPs are not sufficient to infiltrate the water quality volume and are expected to include infiltration TBMPs. Onsite soils are most generally classified as HSG Type D. Based on this information, it is estimated that soil amendments will be needed to achieve a 90%infiltration ranking for biofiltration and infiltration devices under Alternative 4C. Treatment for this project shall be to the maximum extent possible, and the project will attempt to treat all added impervious areas, which varies based on the alternative selected. aa. Biofiltration Swales/Strips. Currently, vegetated ditches capture sheet flow and convey runoff to Arroyo Grande Creek and Meadow Creek and Pismo Lake. Design pollution prevention infiltration type BMPs will be prioritized for the project. However, under Alternative 4C, infiltration will also occur at seven proposed biofiltration strips/swales. Vegetation mixes appropriate for the biofiltration swales based on project climate and location have not been determined at this time. However, biofiltration swales shall meet 100%treatment of the added impervious area. Maintenance Treatment Measures bb. The project will require drain inlet stenciling in areas where there is pedestrian access, primarily at the Brisco Road undercrossing, on West Branch Street, and on Grace Lane. Stenciling detail will follow the Caltrans Standard Plans for drain inlet stenciling. Other types of maintenance BMPs, including maintenance vehicle pullouts, shall also be considered during the design phase in coordination with the City and the Caltrans Maintenance Area Manager. With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. X. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The project corridor consists of a 1.6 mile stretch along US 101 within a highly urbanized area in the City of Arroyo Grande. The project corridor extends from Grand Avenue and the Arroyo Grande Village Core, through the large Five Cities regional shopping area adjacent to Brisco Road and Camino Mercado. Land uses within the project area predominantly consist of US 101, local roadways, and related traffic/circulation infrastructure(i.e.,sidewalks, right of way, road shoulders,traffic signs and signals).The delineated project area also includes portions of several adjacent parcels where right of way would be acquired; land uses in these areas include agricultural row crops, private school recreational facilities, and vacant disturbed lots. The project boundary includes the entire parcels on which Brisco's Hardware and the Arroyo Grande Library and San Luis Obispo County Agriculture Department buildings are situated, due to the need to evaluate these parcels for architectural history resources per Caltrans guidance (refer to Section V, Cultural Resources, above). The parcels directly surrounding the proposed project area have experienced many new developments in the past 10 years, most notably the development of 44 acres of land for the Five Cities regional shopping center northwest of the US 101 ramps/Brisco Road interchange.This shopping center includes a Walmart, Haggen supermarket,Office Max, Marshalls,Trader Joe's,Chili's Grill and Bar Restaurant,and Regal movie Page 71 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project theater, and draws customers from the surrounding communities. The Brisco Road/ Halcyon Road/ US 101 interchange serves as an important connection to these and other adjacent commercial uses. Halcyon Road is a significant regional route to the communities of Grover Beach, Oceano, and Nipomo. Adjoining properties along the corridor have a variety of land use designations, including Community Facilities (CF), Regional Commercial (RC), Agriculture (AG), Mixed Use (MU), Single Family Residential — Medium Density(SFRMD),Single Family Residential—Low Density(SFRLD), and Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) (refer to Figure 5 — Land Use Map, below). The parcels surrounding the project area are zoned Public Facility (PF), RC, AG, Office Mixed-Use (OMU), Industrial Mixed-Use (IMU), Planned Development (PD), Single Family (SF), Multi-Family (MF), Highway Mixed-Use (HMU), and Village Mixed-Use (VMU). Land use categories are shown in Figure 5 and zoning categories are shown in Figure 6. The largest designation of parcels adjacent to the project boundary is Community Facilities, with 13 parcels comprising approximately 97 acres (31%) designated for this use. Of these, four are currently undeveloped. Existing uses on developed Community Facility parcels include St. Patrick's Catholic School, the Arroyo Grande Library,San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Department,the Arroyo Grande Cemetery, Rancho Grande Park, Grace Bible Church, Hampton Inn, and the St. Patrick's Cemetery. Other significant adjacent land uses are Agriculture (two large parcels comprised of approximately 59 acres, 19%), Regional Commercial (14 parcels of 27 acres, 18%)and Conservation/Open Space(2 large parcels of 51 acres, 16%). The Agriculture parcels are in active row crop production (refer to Agricultural Resources, above), and the Conservation/Open Space parcels are undeveloped open space lands. The Regional Commercial parcels accommodate three large shopping centers, with a K-Mart, Walmart, Trader Joe's, Office Max, Albertson's, Marshalls, Regal Arroyo Grande Stadium movie theater complex,and other large retail stores. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Conflict with the applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, ❑ ® ❑ specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ❑ ❑ ❑ or natural community conservation plan? Discussion a): The project would improve existing infrastructure within the City to improve the circulation network of the US 101 and local roadway system.The project would not divide any portion of the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b): The San Luis Obispo Council of Government's 2010 Regional Transportation Plan and City of Arroyo Grande General Plan (Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space, Land Use, Circulation, Economic Development, and Noise Elements) were reviewed for consistency with the proposed project. Both Page 72 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project project alternatives are generally consistent with applicable local and regional plans, including the Regional Transportation Plan and the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan. The project would improve efficiency of the local circulation system and would be designed to improve the interconnectedness between transportation modes, delaying the need for capacity expansions, consistent with RTP policies. The proposed project is identified in the Regional Transportation Plan as an "emerging issue" and improvements to the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue interchanges are proposed to improve capacity and congestion issues along this section of US 101. The project is consistent with the growth strategies and goals of the Land Use Element. It is intended to improve circulation infrastructure within the project area and would bring the circulation system capacity into consistency with the intensity of surrounding land uses without compromising the integrity of adjacent land uses. The project would also bring the project area into consistency with the policies and standards of Caltrans, the Circulation Element, and the US 101 Transportation Concept Report, which identifies a concept peak Level of Service (LOS) D for the segment of US 101 extending through Arroyo Grande. Under build out conditions of the Arroyo Grande General Plan (year 2035), both alternatives would attain a LOS D or better on all intersections within the project area with the exception of Grand Avenue/West Branch Street, which is projected to operate at unsignalized LOS F conditions under both build alternatives and the no project alternative. Although the Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection is expected to operate at LOS F conditions under all alternatives, worst-case movement delays at this intersection is substantially reduced under Alternative 4C. As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, above, under both alternatives, physical improvements to the US 101/East Grand Avenue interchange would be phased to when adequate funding is available. Under both alternatives, all improvements are anticipated to be fully implemented by the design year (2035). A Technical Memorandum was prepared by Wood Rodgers, Inc. in April 2019 to assess the independent utility of the phased implementation of the East Grand Avenue Interchange improvements. The Technical Memorandum evaluated how the current US 101 southbound on-ramp and southbound off-ramp "offset" intersection configuration would operate during the interim period before implementing the physical improvements at the US 101/Grand Avenue interchange.Although the physical improvements would be postponed/phased, including the realignment of the US 101 southbound ramps to form a typical four-legged intersection, signal timing adjustments would be made to the US 101 southbound ramps at Grand Avenue to account for higher volume of vehicles during the interim period. As concluded in the Technical Memorandum and shown in Table 5, 2035 (Design Year) PM Peak Hour Level of Service, in Section XVI (Transportation/Traffic) below, even if phased until the Design Year(2035), the southbound interchange would operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better during the PM Peak Hour) throughout the interim period with the implementation of signal timing improvements. The delay would be 25.5 seconds per vehicle during the interim period and would be reduced to 22.8 seconds per vehicle when the US 101 southbound ramps are realigned to a four-legged intersection at Grand Avenue. The Technical Memorandum also concluded that the operations of other study area intersections would not be negatively affected through the design year if the US 101/Grand Avenue interchange improvements are phased until a later time when funding can be secured.This is because the benefits of the Grand Avenue interchange improvements would primarily be contained to the US 101 southbound ramps/Grand Avenue intersection. Thus, the phased implementation of the East Grand Avenue Interchange improvements would not result in a significant impact (LOS D or lower) at the interchange and the project would be consistent with applicable transportation-related land use plans. Page 73 of 151 September 2020 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Figure 5.Land Use Map •-. -.• _. • :•• - -• • • -• -..4-.74••• .4,Tait _.-- -..--_,0 -•,------ , cit.. 7'..L.L•••c".- .1.--.. .--'_',46,...• - -r4:1....'!'''.. '.._,111P;7. - ' '..'.2.-,....?"77.-.: A.•.':-.. - e ,:,. ... ...... ...„..,...444._. . :•..;::..p.,:. ,... .:5...Kr...41_,..:j., ._ r.--7 ; -.... .1._''::--- - .L. ;-• -. ........_,....-,.-1:-.:",iti. _.N_.,-, f • :. -i!.-:• •,•( -, 4c.,:,/,...-.:.'_-..._ :.4 •.:-• . 02, ,.. •,.4. .. , . ...... , _ .. . . . .,.„,, , 1- .,v,,.. .. ,i ... 1.4 , .., •,,.,,.- ,, n.4-.. ....,.. 1 -r'''-' IP•!IN- ' .• 1'•4•• ls'"-- -1-•'-• • - ,-... --....,-- •__ - .7 -!: -•.. 7-'2 •Pre,..••`.,• - _:` , . .• ' ' '• • •A• , ,r'''::5-•„Sir -74f_ 7. , : --4,._..7..1. ,.., _:.,:::,-....,-.,,,,,pi,. . , ,,,..„:•6.7...,. .._ --v*...:...; • ,..-.7.._ -,..-....„t .:v.,..:.. -,.-., ....•.--. •f-p. • • • ',:.!.- •• '', ,..•%-•^:‘,:-.t....7,-*.-T-: •N..r 4 -. ..!r; - . , .---- ,,.,,,,,,, ,• • ,. -- •....,• L.7,-,fii.ag-_-•. .-..:- t. %.,f•-. •-r A.,' :--,-;r.'.' -... 11.'7'. •,.' ' -- -''.•4, '.-,r.'.•--,_,, '--r• •, - ,i''..4'"%;.,'4: 4-••-...4.:. r4k.i •,...:2-. •-•'" !..--1.,9. ..•(*;*-- :: - . '• ''''''• • - • l'. • 'e'!.--..,' -•!..."`• •• ' . -Ai' .I• ...•,•;.: %-. -'-' --•• '.••-•'-• ---I-,'. -E-•••:-......- ••• 'gar :2',..i.:' ,-:[. .:,.,:z."?.?'•- '"-1.11tf..-,%:*...:;042,-:! .4,-.J4•.''..• :-. ..E ....;: -.;'."...., _c,f, . -•:,: ..4,,..0.4.•_-•-„. . -•„.,,...;., ..-7, .....,,,,.:t.'• , 1)...,4.,••`. ..-:.:S7- .:..*::,4.--',-2-...;11 ` •,..c."15,i1•..4;if,,i...i,ilit. ..4,3.•..-- :-T.:2....,ir-T :•.-.•, '.',:4...ar'''-•;LL.,. ,•:'.,.'.. .,....i-t4,„, .,t,:--:-,. .;!:.-.. r.:,..-..1 .._..r.. „ .,:.... r.,N,,,.,--... -7*,--...._ ".-- 9•--.''. ..A.: .-...:.. -,•'.:.- • „or.-. • • .L a.=-......,--,..i.•:. -ka.4. . 4,G ..E.i.--1,c-_::7 -• ..-,--,...... ...._,....-.... - ,_t:r..` •-••`2•.'r..7, •.•'-4'5' mr-,!°- .0. ' - L.,-. ...2.,,C. •• tyr,--,•••., -'' ' lic't•'.'-•--i• ,fri.vt.•,.-,--Ni..,-- - - 'IL... `-':„.: ••-•-•j• -- - k•-•••-'4 - '. •-• ....',.• -' :•+0----.4:-4 - t-..7 4 .'...r-.--- - .., ...„,,,a-•..... ••-0..-. .., , . t.,..-'; li .• .. '-.. .'",' .',„.:L-rir'..---.-7'....: i. ‘-`•••':•.-.., -••••'•.! t4 .-..--• 1' -*.- - '- r. - .-.-•--. 441' •'• - • '.i.:it.. "' . ' 4. '. • - r'-\ .•:.• --' V:. - ,--- - ".MII'M .•'.--' • .r ....?...,-,1 .'.• ...."..p..,1i- '1.:,,.4.- • , -.. .:,:..„. •-, c: •. ...&.":„.-... .: ......4 rr- -.....-, x--. . - .. ,. .. .,,.., .,.-,- --.. __.-..,...A'. • -,ir• ..k7,4• r"7- ''-'"1":. ..'1.-.• 4'41 '';•ii....:k•-•1(3;- , .."•-•• ''''' • -• . ..•,-, '-:r -1, • : •''..). 2' 4.' -.., .'•" ....• -•:•'...:-j .-s•iN..'• '. • •••••:". -.'•••:.-k'.. 7 • .•,•••'..--...:A",..e.. -',.-'v.".-..._• • '-*:-'7: -f' ,,.0.1,. .?'. ''..t.:"•,.`..i.x" ••...:-:.,.. '''''.,.•- •_..40:tr--t- ''-',::''''•-•' ::•el:cf'.•-'-.'-:i'''- 1.61-aii•-,;11.... . • ..,--',•---?••••.•---• •-•.:4•-.- .. --- -'-,•,-''---.- - • .--- • ir' ...,. -1.-. .•--.:. .. ,,....! •...-4 :.:,-:„,..,,„,.. ,.. ,-- ,4., :,•4107.i.„1.fie.-::,.-"•.-0,...... . .44,.,.: •,. ••••_.-.. ... .......:N:,„Fr..; .. _ .f.ti., .:-*•..X,.......4.-".....::•......d 44044 7.4• -••:,:''''': :c..;:....;_.. .•-•.'! r.i .'. S'".,:1_. . ..„... -._. -. . A• . •--;I:• • ;:•?.....,..:.7-4.•-,C.---N;•• •-, '...-e ./. 14f-14 •s-'014- --,- -• -• • lit' ''4'1F-7' •• •. - ' ... I • . -r ....A.':41.4••••,-: . ;•Ir.--••MIP-..e'A'No '40' '-i '."'• .%--.-P•7,..:A:-irlY"-' ' ...",:-••.••• • ..•• i,:::..A::• ' L• lit• .'2.;W':.I.J.Wc . ' n.... '....•••4?,C.• '.• '•-; ,•:•+1.. •• 1.0tiOar.illir4V.114;•,;t• -'-•- N'!i:.....••A. . ''• --;. .A.2 14-:fl•'V j -- . .-=, --,- .,t,.- .--. . -- •- •-- • e - ...,1 ..• • .:.,.1.......... -... -.,„,.-_..,.- ilt„. 0, li,..,..0.101...1.410,44„41 ...„. .. ,_7- ••••, -.• l•• .--... - +.-.....y .r2.-•-!, - • . ,..., • .,..,:.•..-'s • e. . ' . iter. p 41,,,... ei.,....%4.,4,,tirif\-... 44111,, 0 e •••;e? i, '.-_.•,g-•,-,e- .: --;,!..., ,_ 1-:-.111.r.- ., ...-.....4 ... - , . :- . ,.,. - .. „ L:_•,:......-- :. „ , • - ,,.,...._.... . •..• Lisivriowaig w---0'..../Vf ,. 0 -,...,,,,i,...4;01,„...:,,,7 41, .....:„._._......,,., . „ ..„.:„. _:_„,.. :.,,_:._ .-.*.c, .r.* . • - -.„., .-..,- 4...),,,-k.. ..r: ,,,.., ,x-ii -- • ,46.4z*.:_:.;'••:'.k- .dli..- • •:!,'i.,.. _. .:., --i•--.4.•.:.:-..--.. •:........•.. , ., -1,,ii .. • . ::::'•.'' gisior ItA)lb 41111,-...'-*Arris ciff.1, .,.... -.`if " . .. . - ''".. '., ..1.: , : •• ' 41,411V4km "lik" ::•'11'w IPL "A. _._,1111111b. • ... •. •-• - -; -.- •- ..1:- - ' ,I.44,1,,- ....- •• .7. •'-. '... ..•4 4 i'..- •44;' 10 • 11.::;`-••'' , .r ',....t.„,, AM• V Vt114! 444'.4.-••4' • ., ' 440 . . -"... ..... 4-t).te. 4111t 4 -.T•tr ..,fore . . . .... "----..., - -"--'1%,"•- •-•• ..,:,. }-„,-- ' „„fi••,......-. •..,... 1.-•,..6.4.-J-. , --.•_. -.. - . ----..: Lli: '.' '.•'.'"' Li"ii ' 44FS A•firo4r4.0 11E6 0\.. '',.. -,1-f!.i..:f,•72_1'''..:.,....-;.:-i-•:.' 2.• /J. .i.: ,.+. '"...t. •-•w 4 '-...:.`" 42 .• • r"' ' -,.;P,-'1.i.:.."::.'rt.. ••• • 4 a irt.r 1.• ,i,...,m, .....4,-,- 4,, --......„... -,...Tr, I,. . 7 ..--,•'/..'.-.--.. '... -•'.!•'."- •...• • : t.1,0* 4t Ili& 1--'WI - • •Vtt-4'4 40114140b k'''.•'.'-,"•-•1!•',:. `'•''''.:*iir •etit.'-trA.1-•.!•-'-]'''g-i:,-.,,i6i:•i-i•:1- . • •••• : ‘,.. tc. •.:L: 'trivial oro.) # Av #:44..:1450/4...,..Si ilk ''''.--rt.Y..:‘,.A*1:01.-....:. .,-_,6:-., ,:•••• iii-l.t.'.h,.......;.....,,,,.-:"._... ,..,.ii':-..re./..-r.77...._•:4. -.-:;•-.1 i-.-..,-.'-'.... • • 41.1%. tomes" i......-e• 4, ali 41,......:4P joi .` A._ ktr l'Ai•N;. .11"4114.1, Ai) 'pea: •.- ''u.'•-•iii.-.'•',/,4-•.:.,• ..;;.-.• -.....,,,-.... .. • •.11• _ .-011_.....eilk,- est 4.,4% - - v‘,11 , ft" •-. .rip• '••--i.wp•,,...-----167.., ....VI X eve".-I, •,1-7.1..i-....' 4-•?........-r•--'• '••'.....,' • • i " "fiarrair-6 , .2?1,„Eiluile, •41,,„,,,oark,,,,ti. . 4.04, iillsofi,11170,41:-‘4N.e.ficit-V., e.'•,,''' . .:.:,..,::,•,!..:. ),-v--5. 4-•....,.. ........- ...64111/030-e•4V Vti2V17.4.1.qti•,:- /Sr 4i4 #AP* *iit, 4111141Ifirl 'irdli:illg°4"'-•-i- - (:-'-•,.••••••:!,`•••-* - -d;31" • - . i r Amr/0,101010 "I'47,1,,Avarir --;-..viTircf:-.7.4i:4,.......41...dral-,01:74,7. I illiiiir.:Ift z,zt.,..i4.14,4, .,,.-...- -..: - .- - . - ar wiirEalsr---40 44.,..tip Aii....._:-- •,••-.*,...111: ‘ z 4.404#0,40,4.4f -.7 , ....n.„ .4-.4,,,o.pvi....,:ip,:.;-.......!..r., L-: - 4.. .. „_..r,..itstiogilir.,s,..y.410,1,t,..„,k Ara rw . .44 .1, Ai._Aib _,:,„if to,*•\04.110./411' ,,,,`-•.:1":::.;:rill...iiii. ifiegfiril,"(44110-MX•••.;•;-...".,-....,..-4.-_ ..,. ''j.,'.-',7..,, -• ..- -'.-.. '.-41' . i ./ Ati.,,,A.--ro, go k‘tAtif f ipi,vs-;. -..4,41:!ty, iit .., ,....,..Ari.,---orpri(z*fi-i-fPNAtio .s,i'.-4.-,.., ..!'--,:- • 4111111, 44•14iV0-"-Nr'4«.-iiso.J.L, .9*, 4i....--st.-. .., or- 4,„fv,. 4...,* 41:,.. i:- Lrj.z,ltritile.re44;..t.:4-6..-,! N.,--..;trf,,,,;,-r ,,°•:..i,:ii; f.',. .. - '4.; •-. ---',-,-. . iff ,.r.--str- ..,41•2---14.10.0-•*----- twat-P*1p ....4 0444-..kte7SA'' ;0.4% .11 .P,t11,firlair'ir.triVq#4,,.40-.,--t. ...W.. A:.. *. --. !.. -.4!•••i....:.,irif Lfa t4P.,'',...'4;.s,.-711F -. ..r•:.12,141147$4,r,,.....-zz: -,.. 'lialivr, 7,47 ...//4..... 11 411111131.: 12 tte ,....4,1).,1.r5;,' '''''.',...994'"--47:9;j1 lilegli.,it , ' ..'":.:...E: . - • -i.1`,. , de tliretrier.‘-t`•.::':.._ ill iii.1!:,/lit , ,.,417, '•0-1, ,wrArf- 11''milli lib.._ ,l'.P.F..-",44.'-':'' ei,11.410.011 .-•--="....-,---'•••uvintrive,' • . 4..., -. ;44., 414,.. •••• ...g.1....., ....... ,ry., ..:, - ...i.,44% *'-'. 4..'r.lia.1"r 144...44N.1.46ri• ....'''..... 11111111k. _411.44:11 NIIIP.air fiP.fq .4..5.41',z,,601,...e..,..,...,1- -;.-.. , -...•.. ." •,r-i.r.,r,-.iN,.4,9i-.-•'fr.*rity-'"14$4,.4. •••'',-.:-., 40' . ilir;e4Q"`101, =I Ir'r, r;-`tt?-„,,g• .,...-41 oft Vtia ..., Ap4.4414*-.. •-•;., plit:'-''..ilii•Weroa VI, ore'lisiollilike,c,,i,e1,?:..!--^ ...- •,m„am r 4, - .- _:7! w 44,..,...AO.-•,'.1....- *i kl.V'2'7'•--•-1 /4/.egjitall1114PA,,„ .., ji /414%.,411 lifigttrilifikk.;:'•‘-illn§4% _L-.... ligi \ 4./.....t., ... :.:.,.., , ,... , ,....Z. .114 Hiltnipuippoor,...,..... N---• ---14••: --•-.- ,• ,..v..e-i141\••90.,, No.,..or....* 'Ain'400V-Z41.01 OWIEL ic'.,14141fir 4. 4001°' N4FR?..,:',',:f _ f:r1,:j311,6L: • '-,..RI'i-g&I'Pre.r.:4-1.1-rE-411.2...e '1100.466.40..,,:...... . .,.,_ As fit.....%.4.,...hwerA, ‘..".1„....0...rAy% ,Lik v ,r...., V.:-:. .z,"0;2.••••,.4'"- . •••• •-`---•-1.1.21-zoil;1.ng.nii-it67.i pl. *Auntie.'1: \s'1,..•-.V•IIIP 5'11700.4.4t•''....4`...'At. • ...,49,:,-.,F,-.-i---,:z.Jr.'t--4...'eie-riii+Wog!'t.': ....-32%!'•' e--.--..-----... tialinwit. VI'-:•S'''..+3,\.,1"".:- '''01.4.144.t.1.14 - • ••.,•.1...'1.::* -, Itla.167-11.-t v.tr-,..42.eali ..111111-0...-----.=-':-...„:„.'':;;;;.'211.4. imoligil . . ..•.. ff ;11E1E= .-4. Lji 1,0,1,..th.„-•.:..••_...__ ,• .11.,,,iii„.........-.-...1...t..'si,401.„.7.0. -1- Fir .g :Aiwa a •-...4 4'14 71.csr •V.----,...--._.•-•.• ,,,,•,41. .:.4. ..6,...,. ,r..............v.„,..,..., , ......0, X.1 mirifOglailii1 ".4 .„1.....,.-..4,,,=•;,..:7-.... .....,....,,,t74.qe I. RN air.:;;;,.. 4...,\,dititi, ..,.....----'44..1:10{0*OLIO. ...,.A7' •-.•:.... 91...11P ••-•L'Airrj4%lir I.V.APVII, ,.1%19'ISA. -. • . , . .q -'0.1.L''.•.-4•4 1.111111.11r1114/11-7444.-.2.MMINIO"„0.1SAZVti.%0''''- " - - ' 10.*:.04NVItt.:40. V1141.1i.VA V 4, -.----• 11.11.•.• linill lii -F-611ftlreAdLir 41/011114111jAAIW"'‘ne •• .411.,....,...4., \_ ,--„,,,.„Iv,' .....,..rii...;sifilbl, ___ . • •• .. • r•-•-•-•--•-•!`. .. i ,4•1.1w a..1 c . i.-4,41.r7#4.;,,,..... -;40,e• 1,11# r low-......r.4.C.N,"r"r .. •''... ' 4.1,.. le' • :-7-ft";LAM't4J-_ X . • . • . • '''';'W''e4 1 ...'• .''' . . .. . .-r• . . :- 7 11%.1112 IPPII*7 ,...::..:1•r 7-' ' - -.. • . f ....1. '4:' • r?..:34rt 'r.. ,11 1.ggii,,q ... I......... ....,.. -°t-21 - -. i3'. . • • .: ==in F.J. .„•' ..",Wiel.••• '' '.6rel ‘° % ' ,....%. i "Z."....°[4' r• •7 - - ' ._. _ . . ;. E.S.Eljni ta. ••t•-• 10 1....'''..4.• .••••:e•AL. . • -•• •• ....•' .•,..'.•,:bi - . • ' '''' •EIIIIII .: --•'2 ri:WM... 4.';'•? JbAN'•• '' • •.''-' .. i . ...- f• . ..- .•=II • . i, rl,0 1........ /A ..,..... 1 _... ,. . . . . ,•... ,; ,..,..__._ 17i.• II . .=Arum ,-.,•••-,,?:`,•'.4.4 ' -'-d-Cii-. ... _.., .7..:,.P.V.;.!,.011 .. : . _..._ , Jr f '.-,_. :,-,'1:'.!..i 911 !!.• -'1...•=p 14'"gimMEvill''''1"-r .A...:....r. i .. 1........4.7=..E6ms .::,:ii,..,, Irmi .:- • i _1 No-kot, ,__ ... Iiiptibor44Iii ..,.,:,- -Er,..---. •„, ,. -•.',*1,-' :. • . • . . • - • 1 1,1 4 • * ':•::-1 :' • : , . . NAlti44f,": , . . . .r..i....;:f.'W. '.'..!`"1 .• .. -_.... , . 'CAJAL ..._---. - .. i;j7,--,-- Y-L•tP,''...":.:".--:-7 - `4?)".':-r-t7 4:-.' . • - • • ..: .,-,. ,1 . - - . . ._...... .._ . ,..... ,71.• ..4., . . [ ...34.• :'.-7......4'Y''... .( 1.1 .- ' 1 . '.........._ . ., - '-...,S.' i., .. ' • ' - ;:k•L; '':-:-' : -e'L.....'' •I. ' r..; . N.,..,--`4. - III. • ..• ..,,,,..:•-•,;-4- -r'.• Ni-it.' --'.. L.;•.'' , •••:.4‘_1 i,':..L,,7- .'.-• . • . ,..,.i. .,-2,t.7.'N- - . .,_-.,, . ,..$,' ." . •. .:.,,,,,k.f.,.'c.,-7..t:.. ..,‘..,.*.,4-:-.,....- . .,..... ... , . ..„ P.' •.!, 1-i•: F... .n.I ,2.r.,,-••:• *,-,'.• •?1S...1...'-',4 i 44,.., '• ...' .. :i."' - • -4414..114;4'1•411'.•fA+. _ r -....„.,._ _ .... . -; ,,..4.. ....,.......:.. ,. -• 77. , ...',(,,Y'.- ..--....: - •A ;-,: It; -. . ....--V....,'47-:ie-f,,-1..„,.,-,? .i,I.A.. f ,- i ,,, , :, .... ...:,;!. •••-f.,.- r'. '7,;';-._,_._1.-- 4A,15,,,, . IP- .-1,--..Vr 1,4.11*-,01A14 .1 --,--='..--` ...i.,'' :.. .-c& f';„,•• f. k\ .4,;..,... ...:,.., ,,,•,..,...,..j,.,.....-....,, ..,,,.), .. ...,„,vri.,.., . A .- :- -i•-•:0.- ..- . •• It,. ..i •'• --.--:' ., 4.. 411---,•-,-, -.C.'•''4,-A-N101` ' - I (:-..-.-•:.:!_ ..-:‘. '-...90".-.5. r:-.T.:i.. ' • . „1,1F1'.• _v ..„,_-,...- ... . z,-*J0.4,-•.?;:.r:.:.L.:, 7 .•,- •• -'S-i•• ••• .-'.• - ..i....- -. i.....4 - :...'•17-,:'.1..., ":;-• -, -- r-.-:.,_ w,v.•• ,',.:.•..„. .i. '..,_ , ,-- -----..,...-• ----....-- ,,,,...-e...-.:--r.-4,-,..; -..--,...-_....., 2 . - ,..... - - .--4 - • 'Y f.'w-•'1•:-.,-.)1,-44r..1:.-F:17..1.1,-,. . ---7 _ -. --,:...1..„.1.,,..•..-. •.•;..-; " ---:,ri --I.• ' ' • 1!''... A"' . .... .•-. ;:i5'• ..r rA • ' . -..4,- c,,i;i; ---gittr.:i-A,": ...,..-. -•,_- -fit:F", .c - -- 0:_...-42;c74, - ...1 4,• -• ..- 1,6.0.,_, . , .• _ Land Use Categories • •-••• _,... .i.ri." ... -. -- •,. , --,,„„,„ 4, - , . • r7 : - .._ . I. • ' .:;.:::'314::.t•C)-CiA}1.3.'.. -.....16:1, .- .. --*e c,:Af04.• Pt .• 41..4 -:1 ' ' ' Agriculture - • im iiy ' '-••....•.,101f.,.....-.•:.-‘1,... ',...,:v-.:._.-...... ...- .- 4 •••-•7 • Pr.7.". Conservation Open Space 1I 4 • ..•-. , Iii :•.14 .: ...---;?: ., ..... -0.•'„, ': -- 7•,... ... TP••• 3 -i . . . • I community Facilities ....i.----- r. „ . .. . ,k,..., .. . . • A r .-3i, ...z,.... .lirE.--.• .1. ... - , i ;,... w- . ''.4'='''''''''- .-.-n''..:.4- '1‘ ' I SFR Very Low Density I • •1...: - • • ''- I SFR Low Density ). ,..",.•..?-i...•••••,77.,...:- ---.... '•-':•!..,r''.. '.::- . :: _ -_-i 5.-.--, •-....,...' ' - ,..-,„, . _, . „:44-i...,:..-.‘ rp7-,...--;..,.. . ..- -!!i. A.':'1 Ai':- . ,' • _ . , -- ,."-..7°4, •L' ''''le'''. .-'-'• '0''''''' • . ., ..0. -.01.1•.. • SFR Low-Medium Density 1.,. ).- -... . ITIE SFR Medium Density ......• , .41K-Nw"-• ..-roti),•"--' •. ' ---- 01404. - N 4 4 - . r-1 MFR Medium-High Density •- rk;•. - --.-. ..rrir,,,,.••,,•• ..-._., _ ..i.., . ....4 ...,„ _. = f .7.:-..,' -...ik- • . • . , . ..I.,MFR High Density •f-- M-. . et- .. = MFR Very High Density iv - / 4.. .i.^...4•t-'4,--4•. ,..1," Mixed-Use •'•••-..,S1........,: . 1 4',p.1,.. .:'4',•,t,:;`..:.4' ..e. 4 .-I ..... . '. . • ' •••,,.---,,,er- --P. . .•:- , 1 Village Core ....-.. • •-. 4/ - -..,•...2t---,-. , •,.-•6. .. Ce 1 /6 6 tr Office Professional 101.0-.-' . ...,...„,. . - i.• _ ilitoiL .. _. . • . Regional Commercial i.._ • 7.;•-`-‘ :-.:- rot .- -::--- -•••• •tk-:. . L, • ...-- -.',.-- . . -- \,-.... .. , !='• 1 ; Arroyo Grande City Limits \ ... . , • • • •- - - ....,,.. t,--,--N,4-' " • ••-_,-:,:.,„;,7- ,....-4,w -- - -• . ,•1. I=1 Project Boundary f..:. ______, .,,•- „?...:-...• •- - ..:•.4 .,_____.„._ .r. . ....,..„...,,,. . . „........ .,...16.4.:_.,, •••.. ......„. •,..„.. . . _..: 4.,,,.. ......, , .. •.• .• .• .... ......, •,..144.f.: rr- . •,- . • .. a ,t.+, ",r'V-;:s- :-WWI:412.4i.,49•::..10 c...-.L'-''''' • I, SWCA 4) E NT. ,IROHME ,L COMIL-ANTS-. o 1.6DC Z 03 3 .1.000 Fee: Land Use Map y.•;., Brisco-Haicyon Road Interchange Source.County'cf&n Lut.Obi sp..,C ly uf Amyu Gr -1d8. Modifications Project Apriq Imagery Cc:11.-17re.F.an I 1.1 S ObiSr1.-7c.-ri Page 74 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project This page intentionally left blank. Page 75 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Figure 6.Zoning Map �yy 'ti :r.'.__ -t 04¢, 4:.al 'I:"... ..' ._-p':✓� .-.....14.`RR^t•• • • - in 'Air... n. A, P'� �'� '';':"1...,. '"'. '' ?,Y `•+ } �;� _ .,* • • s. ,C',.- . .,ars.,,- +: ., .F:.. - r':r '. '., --J + R�C 1 ' �• 3 :2Y:E''~� +i. - :11'r i " • • - _ _. . .'. - ".i, � Fi.. �. 1L• . ,.1'. 5 I '. qui. p - y. `}=' " V.'...-.'.. • • T.. -f•'i. ': �,}},,� • Alit 3�yrr(( :..w...'i.,!•eW. _ -i �'} :.:.,�f • • • r - -r•'C''..- ` '-1• �" ,a 4* T..4. Y''• - c#.r. ` --.:...!-',1.2._•;...1.4f,,,,-,.t3/41 •-'y t;�. • '!< -• - .- � • O. i.' ' •r _�.°I - ,_aY - • • `ti • lc '.L__ ..+ . �•, ^y, _ ,. .f€c?�''_' .' 2 • 4' .. ,ems- ti..r< .. '�tY - •s, • "44 .......,,,,......„, „,..„-,._,.,....g,..„."f�a J' ;'Y, .$'F.I-� - -_:•±` j' -5'+ t• ,..c..-,.---,,....„• ►•' „ • •�ti 11 . .7 • _ •.,r • y3r 4 _:- T • N. 04' .. #s,. • .�,4 �� M;0.04IIFS .,. .: tiki:/-.'4--,r..t y'�'t.A y;%;iia:., , .r -•.; . :.a�sr : 'a' "I, J0.•, � . / At'V br drq.A�" :-......A. :..• ;`, 10.41:tttr.44r.% -r ..4 . ',�a .'.� 1� + ANtt,p: 4 .� � 410.l....-:•:. .• 'A 1• k ` S"µ' '1rF`- . Gi S } + .• ' l'fDr , it_TTTf Y f•%I� • a'+A • s,_ ry_L• _ �f..yam. ow...�a'(,��I.�.�{. My4� •jx'lE4�p�` ,7—A*1111b.: . '.-- . • '. •# ti .�•' r'ir•t .3y:^.. • 0. • •� . .isrf rr wY ,s<.•. .� u ' . yL. ;,' 3b m(�� +�� 46•810 • r ......4r. 4 * 't}A Vis' `�� .•! r`• .T e ._•i:'_:.e { 041 r��q$#,W�1� =twill,*ai\ - -,''■n i1//w , 4.,-.;-'177:•?/.... ' I*f ,,.=...[':i, " I:xF i? ! "�+lAii�* �! �r, m _k.romm,lq/I ++f r 'aSJ a 5{r.`,• •'+''` ti 'ti - : ^ ' • - :f • +r6 r�.v 4 .14 . *} +•iti �Z.71:44,44.441,rV dr3 * Ib . r l f �ti �� ta { O'b-A:- �fLti #� �*1� 1 ■afi •r�1+ ," _ ti �L P � '� {O y SSA A l � *4.%./.10 ! rr4r y 1l4 •-:.2..* - --illy "1' 4 M V 'V t 'f +.5,,i,,..,;-,,L::;..!,41,..:-„,4I ►�{{4ti�Yl+f ti�a dm,..,#11►,...'_.i.,t 44� �, ��'a i`�t/ �I �� Al +.;~t'..!r.,i• �i . .'.. ' ,► ti'11b6 If 4415. �•—..../��' t;}'/� r�\�Q�s -."..--..-380'"1.04,--411..0.14.1."�A. rya +�� ,rir ,} ''.. .:: x•11.0- gyp' .tA ' � .4?AiI�'r g + */ . , _ * �y � I.��'',..,41t.�Y�I4 `1ti i s ai .1 +�eyraw �7*ff tI # flr M 1 T t YVil61�.'' . � P -■r itr.:`14 + \AH, ;' y .i i,1 ■* 1,41, :a ILO 'l" } /ti# *�ai. t w:;r�afry�I,+ia��- fir.+ r•:. { 1►J + ra,.+► 1 4'bT ` t d ir. i ...4r-,...? *wt;..r +fit ,4, r. v#.. t,+# 6fs3ti . 1 s E+,ei t• i, r • .f Np t �4,09,.1 '47.itr'• Y!. ..,„„iii,46,0 ��33i ''I A�.11144,4•1,414.f'±`r'a, s� - .` f � L:S;D �tw 1,.,*k a;-= °i `� .:. JI w . F` .-'Jrr R + .=P•4".• !�*A ` r� y } # l. S•' t�`t5 15• .'1 llr ■ T ,. n=om 4% ':'r ++i // .fir f e .:f: rrrl+-rA.-r rli% r' - r .. - :qF; � ltp 4.4.7.11.‘tr�, r .4.-i,£i�"r:ti„f.r i�::,""r.l'� •h :' - -4 Y"�ti-.. ;f rulingi _.1 #�1. fir•F.�� , .wi r f• "‹.-..:%•,::.'•;ri I _ :% �:'z-, - Z.Ilitiiiii 1 - a. 11117...-',,,,--. i i, a ori:5+:� +1 a �� si• '�~'.! 1`4ti�• .`'k+..."�.RI4t5i11411 .! ,r�.•f y. t ♦1h1xl�;; r ~—-a tip:tIrAis' 1'' S 4„Y z -. s n+iJ 3�i1► i►}TL. <. JJrr 03,E -■ S „„A --.4:-,,---„.._,..:.� -w"'•` _� � � w.� A � r .� �i�l '� �� J 51St ll rl:1/4 . ' .4 r� } �'.rff., ♦i tL, , i+�Ffff+ ..!P.-1•44'i .. intAII� / *le . A y ..., •trt' 'i / \a .P�! r:: _ ,�..�__'Y J ■2 n / 1 rry+ pp {! /f .` 'S ti fr �.-`�,�a. J •t ul'.... +rr wEIJ 4q�lf+ Ell '� . ••• •.a + ++{-IIi!111Hn11.,. .....►i' ! *! /// g' / / r L ti :+k'':i.i+il : INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project This page intentionally left blank. Page 77 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Despite the general consistency discussed above, the proposed project alternatives would potentially conflict with some applicable policies related to circulation interconnection, promotion of non-motorized and pedestrian facilities,and/or convenient and well-designed parking facilities, if those resources are not protected through final design of the proposed project. Both alternatives would potentially interrupt or disrupt bike and pedestrian facilities and public transportation services within the project corridor both through the construction period and permanently if project designs do not adequately protect connectivity and convenience of existing and planned features. Both alternatives would affect a small portion of the parking area at Brisco's Hardware, at the corner of El Camino Real and Brisco Road. Alternative 1 would also require the acquisition of portions of the Arroyo Grande Shell and Chevron stations east of the Grand Avenue/US 101 interchange to accommodate the proposed exclusive right-turn lane along East Grand Avenue.Alternative 4C would also require the acquisition of a portion of the public parking associated with the County of San Luis Obispo Department of Agriculture offices and Arroyo Grande Library. This acquisition is necessary to accommodate the new US 101 northbound ramps/West Branch Street/Grace Lane intersection. Both alternatives would also potentially create conflicts with Land Use Element policies related to the development of solid walls, i.e., sound or retaining walls. Both alternatives would require the installation of several retaining walls(i.e.,along West Branch Street and at the reconfigured Camino Mercado/US 101 northbound ramps, Grand Avenue/US 101 northbound ramps, and Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersections). The Noise Study Report prepared for the project (refer to Section XII, Noise, below) also analyzes the potential benefits and feasibility of noise barriers along the highway to minimize noise effects on surrounding communities. These noise barriers, which are proposed along the southbound side of US 101 between the Oak Park Boulevard Interchange and Stonecrest Drive and between the Halcyon Road on-ramp and the Grand Avenue off-ramp, would be for noise attenuation purposes consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU12-3.2. Mitigation measure LU/mm-6 requires development of a solid wall design and landscape plan, including requirements for aesthetic and graffiti-proof treatments and requirements for landscape plantings,to minimize the visual impacts of solid walls. Mitigation measures are identified below to ensure appropriate design elements will be incorporated to ensure the interconnection of transportation systems, encouragement of non-motorized transportation alternatives, design of convenient, well-designed aesthetic parking facilities, and consistency with transportation and land use policies and goals. They also identify appropriate design and landscape standards to ensure the project's consistency with additional policy goals of the Land Use Element related to solid walls. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. c): There are no applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in the project vicinity. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts To minimize potential significant impacts associated with inconsistency with policies and goals, the following measures would be implemented. LU/mm-1 Prior to initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare circulation and traffic plans which shall incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways to the greatest extent feasible through, Page 78 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project at minimum, incorporation of crosswalks,sidewalks and bike lanes.All new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways shall be ADA-compliant. Temporary construction activities shall avoid conflict with bike and pedestrian access ways to the greatest extent feasible. If construction activities will interfere with existing bike or pedestrian routes, temporary access shall be provided to all areas of the project area. The plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction. LU/mm-2 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare a Non- Motorized/Public Transportation Plan in consultation with the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department and the County Bicycle Advisory Committee on any improvements that may affect facilities identified in the County Bikeway Plan. The plan shall include, at minimum: a. Designs for providing bicycle, pedestrian and car interaction along the project area that would minimize conflicts through the use of striping, signage, lighting, bollards, etc.; b. Examples of the signage, striping, lighting, designs, etc.for safe bicycle, pedestrian, and car interaction; c. Methods for ensuring the project would not interfere in any way with existing or proposed future bike and pedestrian lanes and paths, whether formal or informal,particularly those associated with St. Patrick's School, the Arroyo Grande Library, and adjacent public buildings and facilities. d. Methods for ensuring bike and pedestrian circulation to serve schools and public facilities are made a priority consistent with policies of the Circulation Element. e. Methods to ensure the project would not adversely impact, temporarily or long-term, any routes, schedules, or operations of the RTA (Regional Transit Authority)stops at Walmart and the Arroyo Grande Library. f Methods to ensure the project would not adversely impact the Park and Ride parking lots located within the project area, including the lot on El Camino Real in between Halcyon Street and Grand Avenue. g. Compliance with applicable requirements of the Complete Streets Act of 2008. The plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction. LU/mm-3 The project shall be designed to allow convenient and/or improved access to the Regional Transit Authority stops along West Branch Street at the Arroyo Grande Library and Walmart and the Park and Ride lots along El Camino Real. Construction activities shall not interfere with or inhibit access or usability of the public transportation stops or parking lots and shall take into account existing RTA and Park and Ride schedules and routes. LU/mm-4 All proposed areas of disturbance shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible and shall be clearly marked on project design plans.All adjacent areas of disturbed parcels shall be kept open for parking and customer use to the greatest extent feasible. No adjacent portions of the parcels'parking area shall be utilized for staging areas or equipment storage. Page 79 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project LU/mm-5 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare a Parking Plan, in consultation with the City of Arroyo Grande City Engineer, the owners of Brisco's True Value Hardware (APN#077-051-019) and any other affected public or private property owners. The Plan shall include: a. Methods for ensuring all public parking associated with Brisco's Hardware, the Arroyo Grande Library and adjacent county public offices are protected from project impacts and acquisitions and maintained to the maximum extent feasible; b. A restriping and landscape design plan for the Brisco's Hardware parking area, and any City or County public facility areas that will be affected by the proposed project, which shall be prepared in consultation with any affected private property owners, and be prepared in compliance with the Arroyo Grande General Plan; c. Measures to ensure visitor parking and use of these public facilities and private businesses would not be deterred during construction of the project, to the maximum extent feasible; and, d. Requirements that upon completion of project construction, all adjacent disturbed areas shall be restored to original conditions to the extent feasible. The plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction. LU/mm-6 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare a solid wall design and landscape plan for the proposed project area that includes, at minimum, the following provisions: a. Design the walls with an aesthetic and graffiti proof treatment consistent with the surrounding visual character and setting. b. Design the walls to allow for landscape planting on any visible surface, as detailed in subsections e. through i., below. c. Plant vines or shrubs in front of the walls, as more particularly described in subsections e. through i., below. d. Treat or modify the existing walls to be visually consistent with the new walls. e. Include large-scale trees, vines, shrubs, and bushes, as appropriate, along the base of any retaining walls to help disguise the form and scale of the retaining walls. f Include shrub species on any walls and any wall benches to the greatest extent possible. g. Select plant material for the retaining wall faces and benches which has informal growing habits, and include species which will cascade over the steps/walls and help hide visibility of wall geometry. h. Select plant material for the retaining walls, benches, or fences which, when seen from a distance, is similar in color and shade to the majority of the vegetation on existing slopes. Avoid plants with distinctive flower colors or vegetative characteristics. i. Select plant material horticulturally appropriate for the site, which will result in long-term survival with a minimum amount of maintenance once established. j. Use of drought tolerant species shall be emphasized. Page 80 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project k. The project plans shall include a water efficient drip irrigation system if necessary to maximize the establishment and long-term success of the plantings. I. The project plans shall include a "plant establishment"requirement which guarantees the successful establishment of the planting and replacement of plants which fail. m. The project plans shall include a long-term maintenance strategy and resource commitment which ensures the ongoing success and effectiveness of the planting, including replacement of plants which fail. n. All drainage pipes shall be placed underground, including down-drains. Solid wall design and landscaping plans shall be approved by the City Community Development Director prior to the start of construction. Subsequent visual review of the walls by a consultant approved by the City shall be required once final design of the walls has been completed. With the incorporation of this measure, residual impacts to land use and planning would be less than significant. XI. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The project site does not contain any known mineral resources. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that is or would be of value to the region and ❑ ❑ ❑ the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ❑ ❑ ❑ general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Discussion a—b): There are no known mineral resources in the project area, and future extraction of mineral resources is very unlikely due to the urbanized nature of the area. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would occur. Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact No impacts to mineral resources were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. XII. Noise Environmental Setting This section is based on the Noise Study Report prepared for the project (Terry A. Hayes Associates, Inc. [TAHA] 2017). The Noise Study Report (NSR) follows the California Department of Transportation Page 81 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project (Caltrans) Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects (Protocol) (Caltrans 2011). A field investigation was conducted to identify land uses that could be subject to traffic and construction noise impacts from the proposed project. Noise-sensitive land uses within the project area include residences and schools adjacent to the project corridor and the Arroyo Grande Library. Short-term noise levels were measured at four representative locations to document the existing noise environment and were used to calibrate the noise prediction model with concurrent traffic counts. A total of 128 representative existing sensitive receivers were evaluated for potential noise impacts resulting from the traffic along US 101. The project area on the north side of Highway 101 includes a mix of large-scale commercial/retail developments and a school site.The south side of Highway 101 includes commercial/light industrial uses, schools, and a hotel. Single-family residences are located near Highway 101 south of El Camino Real between North Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue. Existing noise levels within the project area generally range from 38 to 76 decibels (dB) and US 101 was the dominant noise source at each of the measurement locations (TAHA 2017). Predicted future noise levels without the project were estimated to range from 45 to 77 dB. Based on the Noise Element of the City's General Plan, maximum allowable noise exposure from transportation noise sources is generally 60 dB for exterior areas(70 dB for playgrounds)and 45 dB for interior spaces(35 dB for theaters,auditoriums, and music halls). Table 5 summarizes the results of the short-term noise monitoring conducted in the project area. Table 5. Short-term Noise Monitoring Results Number of Start Duration Measured Number Trucks Observed Position Location Land Uses Speed time (min.) Leg of Auto Medium Heavy (mph) School St. Patrick's 9:40 School 20 67.3 N/A N/A N/A 65 Building School a.m. Bennett ST-3&4, Ave./EI Residential/ 11:10 20 67.3 N/A N/A N/A 65 P Camino School a.m. Real Faeh ST-5 0 Ave./EI 11:45 Residential 20 66.7 899 27 37 65 Camino a.m. Real El ST-5 CU Real Camino Residential 12:15 m5 20 69.1 N/A N/A N/A 65 Source:TAHA 2017. Page 82 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Generate or expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards? b)Generate or expose people to excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ® ❑ vibrations or groundborne noise levels? c) Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project (above levels ❑ ❑ ® ❑ without the project)? d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project, in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ excess of noise levels existing without the project? e) Be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport? If so, would the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) Be in the vicinity of a private airstrip? If so,would the project expose people residing or working in the project ❑ ❑ ® ❑ area to excessive noise levels? Discussion a) —d): Construction Impacts. During construction of the project, noise from construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. Construction noise is regulated by Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-8.02, "Noise Control" which requires the following: Do not exceed 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the job site activities from 9 p.m.to 6 a.m. In addition, the City's Municipal Code creates an exception to noise standards for construction activities occurring between 7:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays and 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Therefore, the project will meet Caltrans Standard Noise Control Specifications, and will also meet the City's noise standards or be limited to the hours identified as acceptable in the City's municipal code for construction noise in excess of those noise standards. Table 6 summarizes noise levels produced by construction equipment that is commonly used on roadway construction projects. Construction activities would occur intermittently over approximately 9 to 12 months. Construction equipment is expected to generate noise levels ranging from 70 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet, and noise produced by construction equipment would be reduced over distance at a rate of about 6 dB per doubling of distance. Page 83 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Table 6. Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Maximum Noise Level (dBA at 50 feet) Scrapers 89 Bulldozers 85 Heavy Trucks 88 Backhoe 80 Pneumatic Tools 85 Concrete Pump 82 Source:TAHA 2017. Sensitive receptors (St. Patrick's School, the Arroyo Grande Library, and adjacent residential areas) are located within a couple hundred feet of construction activities. Therefore, the noise levels identified in Table 6, above, would dissipate over that distance and be reduced by approximately 6 to 12 dB at the location of the sensitive receptors. As directed by the City and/or Caltrans,the contractor will implement appropriate additional noise reduction measures, if necessary, to ensure compliance with Caltrans Standard Noise Control Specifications, including changing the location of stationary construction equipment, turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, and/or installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources. Construction of the proposed project will generate temporary groundborne vibrations and increase ambient noise levels; however, the project would meet Caltrans Standard Noise Control Specifications and City noise standards, or the days and times of construction activities would be limited per the City's municipal code, which creates an exception to noise standards for construction activities occurring between 7:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays and 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Construction noise would be short-term, intermittent, and partially overshadowed by local traffic noise.Therefore,this temporary increase is not anticipated to exceed the City's thresholds for noise (TAHA 2017). Therefore, construction related noise impacts would be less than significant. Operational Impacts. The Noise Study Report prepared for the project determined that potential noise impacts from the proposed project would not be substantial and would be largely consistent with predicted noise levels in the area without the project (TAHA 2017). No increase in noise levels over predicted no-project conditions over 2 decibels was identified at any nearby receiver. The 2 decibel increase would be insignificant when compared to the transportation noise currently generated by vehicles on US 101,the main noise source for this area. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dB are generally not perceptible. Therefore, under CEQA, impacts associated with increased noise levels as a result of the project would be less than significant. Alternative 4C changes would affect the St. Patrick's Catholic School and the Arroyo Grande Library. The roundabout would shift the intersection towards the library and away from the school, resulting in marginally higher noise levels at the library and lower noise levels at the school. However, the change Page 84 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project would not be perceptible to the human ear and the NSR concluded that the intersection would not result in noise impacts. Other improvements associated with Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C, including restriping, signalization, and realignment of specific intersections were not modeled due to their minimal impacts on the noise environment when compared to the Route 101 travel lanes. For example, the realignment of the southbound on-ramp at Grand Avenue will align that ramp with the southbound off-ramp, moving it approximately 100 feet to the southwest, closer to potential sensitive receivers. However, it is not a significant noise source when compared to the Route 101 travel lanes. As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, above, the implementation of the soundwalls would be phased and constructed at a time when available funding is available. During the interim period, noise levels would continue to exceed Caltrans'federal protocols for the consideration of noise walls. However, as discussed above, neither alternative would result in an increase in noise by more than 2 decibels over existing conditions at any nearby receiver. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dB are generally not perceptible and noise impacts during the interim period prior to the construction of the soundwalls would not generally be noticeable to adjacent sensitive receptors. Impacts would be less than significant. Although project development would not increase ambient noise levels above levels without the project, current exceedances of City and Caltrans standards currently exist adjacent to the US 101 corridor due to highway traffic noise.Therefore, though not required under CEQA,the installation of noise walls is being included as part of the project per Caltrans' federal protocol. Under NEPA 23 CFR 772, because the noise levels at nearby receivers already approaches or exceeds the noise abatement criteria of 67 dBA, noise abatement would need to be considered. e)—f):The project site is not within 2 miles of any public airport or private airstrip. The nearest airport is the Oceano County Airport, located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the project site, and airport-related noise at the project site would generally be dominated by highway and traffic noise sources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Residual Impact No significant noise impacts were identified;therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. XIII. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The City of Arroyo Grande's population has grown from 3,291 in 1960 to 17,252, based on the 2010 Census. Population growth during the 1960s occurred rapidly, some years exceeding 12%. In the 1970s, growth slowed to an average of 7%, falling still further in the 1980s to less than 2% from 1980 to 1990. Annual population increases of less than 1% have been experienced since the 1990s. Growth in surrounding areas (Nipomo, Nipomo Mesa) has outpaced all other areas of the County. Between 2000 and 2010,the population of Nipomo grew by 24.5%,compared to 12%in the total unincorporated county and 8.5% in the county as a whole (U.S. Census). According to the 2010 Census, Arroyo Grande's population is 15.7% Hispanic and 84.3% not Hispanic. Of the not Hispanic group, 85%are white,with the remaining 15%being African American,American Indian, Page 85 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Asian, or Pacific Islander. Over 21%of the population is aged 18 years and under, 59% is between 18 and 65 years, and 20% is 65 years or older. At the time of the 2010 Census,there were 7,628 housing units in the City of Arroyo Grande, an 822-unit increase from 2000.The vast majority, 75%, are single-family units.The overall average household size in Arroyo Grande is 2.41, with owner-occupied units averaging 2.45 persons per household and renter- occupied units averaging 2.33 persons per household. This rate is relatively consistent with the 1990 city average of 2.48, and slightly less than California's average rate of 2.87 persons per household. There are no residences or residential uses within the project corridor; however, there are numerous residences adjacent to the project corridor both north and south of US 101. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes ❑ ❑ ® ❑ and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ❑ ❑ ❑ elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion a): Residential areas within Arroyo Grande are largely built-out and less than 3% of residentially- zoned parcels in the City remain vacant and suitable for development (City of Arroyo Grande 2001; City of Arroyo Grande 2011). There is currently some demand for additional residential development in the City, evidenced by requests for conversion of non-residential classifications to residential designations and increases in allowable densities.The proposed project could remove a potential obstacle to increased residential development by reducing traffic congestion and potentially accommodating additional access to residential areas or increased densities within the project vicinity. However, increased development in this area is not an effect of the proposed project; rather,development demand presently exists regardless of the project and residential development along Grace Lane and West Branch Street is already occurring. In addition, although the demand for increased development currently exists, recent population growth has been limited, declining by 0.5% between 2013 and 2014. The goal of the project is to relieve congestion and safety issues associated with current conditions, and the proposed project is designed to improve existing traffic conditions within the local road network and US 101 interchanges at Brisco Road, Grand Avenue, and Camino Mercado. As with many other Caltrans projects, the project is the result of development and growth already existing within the City of Arroyo Grande and at the relevant intersections. The project is not expected to result in any significant direct, indirect, or cumulative growth- related impacts in the project area. Page 86 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project The project will not affect residential development or generate an increase in population. The project makes improvements to or replaces existing roadways and intersections and does not connect or open up areas of the urban fringe or other large undeveloped areas that are not currently accessible. The project does not expand capacity on existing roadways to allow for greater volume of traffic; rather, it is intended to more efficiently manage existing traffic levels. Therefore, it is best described as a reactive measure to population growth. Potential impacts would be less than significant. b)—c): The proposed project would not displace any residences or people and would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts No significant impacts to population or housing resources were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. XIV. Public Services Environmental Setting Fire Protection Services. The Five Cities Fire Authority was established on July 9, 2010 by a Joint Powers Agreement between the cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and the Oceano Community Services District to provide fire protection services of these communities. Five Cities Fire Authority also provides services to the Town of Halcyon and the Oceano Dunes State Vehicle Recreation Area. The Authority has three stations: one in Arroyo Grande,one in Grover Beach,and one in Oceano.The Arroyo Grande station (Station 1) is located at 140 Traffic Way and serves as the headquarters for the Authority and serves the City of Arroyo Grande and the greater Arroyo Grande area. Station 1 is serviced directly by the Grand Avenue interchange proposed for reconfiguration under both project alternatives.The California Division of Forestry (CAL FIRE) provides fire protection to surrounding communities, as well as back up support in Arroyo Grande. CAL FIRE has four substations in the area, at the following locations: 2391 Willow Road, Arroyo Grande; 450 Pioneer Road, Nipomo; 990 Bello Street, Pismo Beach; and, 2555 Shell Beach Road, Pismo Beach. Police Protection Services. The cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach provide police services within their respective city limits.The City of Arroyo Grande's police station is located at 200 North Halcyon Road, directly serviced by both the Grand Avenue and Brisco Road/Halcyon Road interchanges proposed for reconfiguration under both project alternatives. In addition to the City police station,the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff substation is located at 1681 Front Street in Oceano and provides backup support within the City of Arroyo Grande. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) office located in San Luis Obispo serves the south county including the City of Arroyo Grande.The response times of both the Sheriff Department and CHP can be delayed due to the large coverage area. Emergency Medical Services. The San Luis Ambulance South County sub-station, located at 201 Brisco Road in Arroyo Grande, provides southern San Luis Obispo County residents paramedic services. There are currently two units stationed at the South County substation, which provide South County residents with emergency transportation to and from the Arroyo Grande Community Hospital located at 342 South Halcyon Road. Page 87 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Schools. The project area is within the Lucia Mar Unified School District (LMUSD). LMUSD covers 550 square miles and serves the adjoining communities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Nipomo, Oceano, Pismo Beach, and Shell Beach. The district serves the City of Arroyo Grande with seven public schools, including three elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school, and one adult school. The San Luis Obispo County Office of Education (SLOCOE)oversees the Arroyo Grande Community School, a public alternative school, within the city limits. In addition to these public schools, there are seven private schools in the City of Arroyo Grande. One of them, St. Patrick's Catholic School, is adjacent to the project area. Parks. Ten City parks, a 26-acre sports complex, and a community garden are located within the City of Arroyo Grande. One of these public park and recreation facilities, Rancho Grande Park, is located directly adjacent to the project area delineated around the James Way/Rodeo Drive intersection(where proposed development would be limited to new signage). Park facilities are further discussed in Section XV, Recreation, below. Libraries. The Arroyo Grande Library is located directly adjacent to the project area at 800 West Branch Street.The branch library is one of 15 county libraries. Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant Significant with Significant No Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a) Result in significant environmental impacts from construction associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,to ❑ ® ❑ ❑ maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Police protection: ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Discussion a): The ramps/intersections proposed for construction under both project alternatives serve as primary routes for emergency service calls.The project would result in improved circulation at the subject intersections and along US 101; therefore, no permanent impacts to emergency facilities and services would occur under either alternative. However,temporary impacts during construction may have a short- term adverse effect on law enforcement,fire protection, ambulance services, and schools. The Arroyo Grande Police station is located less than a mile from both the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue interchanges.According to the Arroyo Grande Police Department(Sergeant Pryor, personal communication 2007), proposed closures of the Brisco Road on- and off-ramps would not result in a significant increase in response times during peak traffic times, and would result in decreased traffic Page 88 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project congestion in the vicinity of the Brisco Road underpass,thus improving response times to areas east of US 101. Sergeant Pryor recommended implementation of measures to minimize short-term construction delays in emergency response, namely construction traffic management. Over the long-term, emergency responses would be improved because of better traffic flows at the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road interchange. According to City of Arroyo Grande Department of Building and Fire Department (Fire Captain Randy Steffan, personal communication 2007),temporary closures of the Grand Avenue and Brisco Road ramps may cause potentially significant impacts to fire response time goals outlined in City policy. Implementation of recommended measures would address this delay in emergency response. Long-term emergency response would be improved under both alternatives because of better traffic flows at the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road interchange and along US 101. However, permanent closure of the northbound Brisco Road ramps under Alternative 1 would require re-routing of fire response routes to the west side of the City, as the Fire Department would no longer be able to utilize US 101 to access the Brisco Road undercrossing. Because alternative routes exist and both alternatives would result in improved circulation at the Brisco Road Undercrossing,this impact is considered less than significant. Ramps proposed for modification (Grand Avenue, Brisco Road) currently act as the primary highway access points to and from the Arroyo Grande Community Hospital and the South County San Luis Ambulance sub-station, which serves the hospital. Both the ambulance sub-station and the hospital are within 1 mile of the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue interchanges. According to San Luis Ambulance Operations Manager, temporary closure of Brisco Road on- and off-ramps during project construction would not significantly affect ambulance response travel within Arroyo Grande, as alternate routes could be used (Joe Peidalue, personal communication 2011). However, permanent closure of the northbound Brisco Road ramps under Alternative 1 would eliminate a primary access way used by the ambulance station to access the hospital and may result in some delays. Because alternative routes exist and circulation at the Brisco Road Undercrossing would be improved under both alternatives,this impact is considered less than significant. Both of the Brisco Road ramps serve as primary routes for traffic to and from Oceanview Elementary and St. Patrick's School. The proposed closure of the northbound US 101 on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road would divert northbound traffic heading to and from Oceanview Elementary,thus increasing northbound traffic on West Branch Street, El Camino Real and the northbound US 101 on-ramps at Oak Park and Camino Mercado. Although there would be temporary impacts during construction, the permanent flow of school traffic would be improved as a result of either project alternative. Measures have been recommended to minimize temporary construction impacts. Both project alternatives would improve traffic flows at the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road interchange and adjacent roadways.Alternative 4C would also have a beneficial effect on services(police,fire,ambulance) and schools by maintaining existing highway access at Brisco Road. Short-term construction impacts would be similar under both alternatives and minimized through implementation of recommended measures. No changes are proposed at the James Way/Rodeo Drive intersection other than new signage under Alternative 4C; therefore, no impacts to Rancho Grande Park would occur. Alternative 4C would require construction within and acquisition of a portion of the Arroyo Grande Library parcel into state and/or local right of way. Access to the library may be temporarily impacted through the duration of construction activities, though no permanent impacts to the facility would occur. Measures have been recommended to minimize temporary construction impacts. Page 89 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts To minimize potentially significant construction-related impacts on public services, the following measures would be implemented: PS/mm-1 All construction activities shall be planned so as to minimize inconvenience to the traveling public, i.e., through minimization of the amount and duration of lane closures, minimization of lane closures during peak traffic hours, and goals to complete project construction without unnecessary delay. Public traffic traveling north on US 101 should be rerouted, via highway signage, to use the Grand Avenue exit should the northbound ramps at Brisco Road be closed temporarily, and vice versa. PS/mm-2 Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare a Construction Timing,Access, and Circulation Plan, which shall include the following measures. This plan shall be approved by the City Public Works Director prior to the start of construction and made available for local residents to review and comment on prior to the onset of construction activities. a. Methods for ensuring permanent access to the commercial/retail centers north of the Brisco Road/US 101 interchange is preserved and/or improved to the maximum extent feasible through implementation of the proposed project. b. A signage plan and other methods, if feasible, for increasing the visibility of business blocked by construction activities and educating travelers that businesses adjacent to the project corridor are to remain open during construction; c. Clearly marked detour routes for alternate access to any businesses that are made inaccessible or difficult to access due to construction activities; d. Hours of haulage (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.); e. Designation of truck routes that avoid sensitive receptors (including residential areas, schools, parks, day care centers, nursing homes, and hospitals) to the greatest extent possible; f. Methods of traffic control on adjacent streets within the project area; g. Adequate safety signage regarding traffic control; h. Designated construction staging areas for construction personnel vehicles, supplies, and equipment; i. A telephone number for local residents to call if there are issues or complaints; and j. Measures to resolve potential conflicts between construction activities and adjacent businesses. Business owners directly adjacent to the project area shall be directly notified of the availability of and allowed to comment on the plan. PS/mm-3 Traffic control plans affecting state facilities shall be reviewed and approved by Caltrans, and traffic control plans affecting City facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Director, through consultation with affected emergency responders and service Page 90 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project providers (i.e., the police department,fire department, San Luis Ambulance, and Arroyo Grande Hospital), prior to construction activities. With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts associated with public services would be less than significant. XV. Recreation Environmental Setting The City of Arroyo Grande supports various community and neighborhood parks, as well as multiple designated bikeways and recreational paths. Recreational uses include a 26-acre sports complex that offers lighted tennis courts, little league and softball fields, and soccer and football fields; ten city parks that offer a variety of active and passive uses, including picnics, barbeques, playgrounds, and entertainment areas; an off-leash dog park; and a community garden. There are also hiking and walking trails along Arroyo Grande Creek and within the James Way Oak Habitat and Wildlife Preserve. Rancho Grande Park is located adjacent to the project boundary at the James Way and Rodeo Drive intersection.A portion of the James Way Oak Habitat and Wildlife Preserve is also located adjacent to the project boundary(APN#No.007-771-059); no changes are proposed for this area under either alternative. Another recreational area,located east of the Brisco Road/US 101 ramps/West Branch Street intersection, is a part of the private school facilities at St. Patrick's School and is not open to public use. The San Luis Obispo County Bike Map identifies several "suggested bike routes" within Arroyo Grande, including along West Branch Street and James Way within the project area (San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 2011). Bike lanes are currently located along Rancho Parkway, approximately 0.25 mile northwest of the Brisco Road/US 101 ramps/West Branch Street intersection,and along other portions of James Way outside of the project area. Non-motorized vehicles, including bicycles, are prohibited within the US 101 corridor through the project area. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion a—b): No changes are proposed within the open space areas of APN# 007-771-059 or at the James Way/Rodeo Drive intersection other than new signage under Alternative 4C; therefore, no impacts to Rancho Grande Park or the James Way Oak Habitat and Wildlife Preserve would occur. The project does not propose any changes along Rancho Parkway;therefore, no impacts to the Rancho Parkway bike path Page 91 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project would occur. Potential impacts to planned "suggested bike routes" within the project area are discussed in Section XVI(g),Traffic/Transportation, below. The recreational area,track and field associated with St. Patrick's School is located approximately 300 feet northwest of the proposed US 101 ramps/West Branch Street/Grace Lane intersection. The new intersection proposed under Alternative 4C would require acquisition of approximately 10,736 square feet from the parcel on which the school and field are situated into the State and City right of way. Based on preliminary design graphics, the proposed right-of-way acquisitions would impact usable areas of the school field. There is an approximately 60- to 70-foot-wide buffer of vacant land and a fence separating the maintained field area from West Branch Street. Most of the 10,736 square feet proposed for right-of-way acquisition under Alternative 4C would be comprised of this buffer area. However, approximately 350 square feet in the southernmost corner of the school field would be acquired to accommodate the new alignment of West Branch Street,encroaching into the field approximately 10 feet past the fence line at the widest point. The area to be acquired is adjacent to the fence line in the southernmost corner of the field and does not contain any developed infrastructure or sports or recreational facilities (i.e.,track, baseball backstop and field). It would not split or segregate any portion of the field from the remainder and the loss of lawn area is not expected to substantially affect the current capacity or use of the field. The proposed project would not create a new use that would generate population growth or increase demand on existing recreational facilities.Therefore, no deterioration of existing facilities would occur as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would include connections and improvements to various public bike paths and public walkways.These improvements would be located almost entirely within existing State and/or City right of ways, adjacent to existing transportation facilities and urbanized areas. Development of these features would not result in impacts above those associated with the project in general and discussed in other sections of this IS/MND. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts No significant impacts to recreational resources were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. XVI. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting US 101 is a major freeway of statewide importance that traverses north-south through the Central Coast. US 101 serves as the main travel route that connects San Luis Obispo County with San Francisco to the north and Los Angeles to the south. According to 2013 Caltrans traffic volumes data, US 101 mainline carries an AADT of approximately 54,400 vehicles just south of the study interchange at Brisco Road, and approximately 57,500 vehicles just north of the study interchange area. Trucks comprise approximately 9%of the average daily traffic on US 101 through the study area. East Grand Avenue is a major four-lane, east/west arterial roadway that extends through the main downtown areas of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach. It provides an essential link between the Village of Page 92 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Arroyo Grande and the residential and commercial areas located west of US 101. Halcyon Road is a two- to four-lane roadway that connects US 101 to State Route 1. Halcyon Road provides connection from US 101 to Oceano,the Nipomo Mesa,the community of Halcyon and the Arroyo Grande Hospital. Brisco Road is a two-lane roadway that links US 101 with East Grand Avenue.The southbound ramps at Halcyon Road and the northbound ramps at Brisco Road form a full-access interchange with US 101, approximately 3,000 feet north of the Grand Avenue interchange. West Branch Street is a two-to four-lane facility that runs parallel to and east of US 101,connecting Oak Park Boulevard at the north end of the City and Grand Avenue at the south end. West Branch Street provides access between US 101 and the regional shopping center and local businesses located east of the freeway. The Arroyo Grande Circulation Element specifies a LOS C or better on all streets and controlled intersections.Where LOS D exists, policies in the Element direct the City to plan improvements to achieve LOS C or better. The US 101 Transportation Concept Report identifies peak LOS D for the segment of freeway through Arroyo Grande. Most intersections within the project area currently operate at a LOS C or better, with the exception of Brisco Road/EI Camino Real (LOS D), Halcyon Road/EI Camino Real/US 101 southbound ramps (LOS D), and Grand Avenue/West Branch Street (LOS E). The US 101 mainline currently operates at a LOS D between Brisco Road and the north boundary of the City. Other insufficient Levels of Service under the City's Circulation Element standard exist at various US 101 ramps, including the southbound off-ramp at East Grand Avenue, the northbound on-ramp at Brisco Road, the southbound off-ramp at Brisco Road, and the northbound off-ramp at West Branch Street (all of which operate at LOS D). Public transportation facilities within the project area include Regional Transit Authority stops at the Arroyo Grande Library, Walmart, and Arroyo Grande Shell Station and Park and Ride lots along El Camino Real between Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial increase in traffic, in relation to existing traffic and the capacity of the street system (i.e., a substantial increase in either the number of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, individually or cumulatively, the level of service standards established by the county congestion ❑ ❑ ® ❑ management agency for designated roads or highways? c)Cause a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location, that ❑ ❑ ❑ results in substantial safety risks? d) Contain a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or a dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g., ❑ ❑ ® ❑ farm equipment) that would substantially increase hazards? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Page 93 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus ❑ ® ❑ ❑ turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion a), b), and g): This section is based largely on the Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers for the project(Wood Rodgers 2012). In the year 2035, which is predicted to be the year the City reaches build out under the General Plan, almost all intersections within the project area would operate at inadequate levels, with many intersections operating at an LOS D or even F. The entire US 101 mainline and every US 101 on- and off- ramp are estimated to operate at LOS E or worse by the year 2035, except for the southbound on-ramp at Brisco Road (LOS D). Under Alternative 1, the proposed project would maintain or improve traffic levels at all US 101 intersections within the project area including the Grand Avenue/US 101 southbound ramps intersection, except for the West Branch Street/Old Ranch Road intersection which would degrade from LOS B to C. No change to freeway mainline operations would occur, and slight improvements to freeway mainline-ramp junction operations would result. Alternative 1 would also fragment the existing US 101 interchange at Brisco-Halcyon Road, by removing northbound ramps at Brisco Road, and maintaining southbound ramps at Halcyon Road. Short-term construction activities would likely cause increased congestion throughout the project area. However,these impacts would be short-term and minimized to the extent feasible through adherence to standard Caltrans road construction standards and BMPS contained in the Caltrans Standard Specifications 2010 manual and City measures contained in the General Plan. Measures have been recommended to minimize construction related traffic impacts. Under Alternative 4C,the proposed project would improve all traffic levels at US 101 interchanges within the project area, except for the West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive intersection,which would degrade from LOS B to C. All study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better with the exception of the Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection (LOS F). Although the Grand Avenue/West Branch Street intersection would operate at LOS F conditions under all alternatives,worst-case movement delays at this intersection is substantially reduced under Alternative 4C. No change to freeway mainline operations would occur.Alternative 4C would improve levels of service at most project area on-and off-ramps to LOS D or better, while three ramps would remain at LOS E and one at LOS F (southbound off-ramp at West Branch Street/Camino Mercado). The anticipated future expansion of the US 101 mainline through the project area would improve conditions on all ramps to LOS D or better. Because both alternatives would improve and/or maintain traffic conditions at all study area intersections, along the entire US 101 mainline through Arroyo Grande, and at all on-and off-ramps within the project area, impacts to traffic and level of service standards would be less than significant. Page 94 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, above, under both alternatives, improvements to the US 101/East Grand Avenue interchange would be phased and implemented at a later date when adequate funding is available to complete these improvements. Under both alternatives, all improvements are anticipated to be fully implemented by the design year (2035). A Technical Memorandum was prepared by Wood Rodgers, Inc. in April 2019 to assess the independent utility of the phased implementation of the East Grand Avenue Interchange improvements. The Technical Memorandum evaluated how the current US 101 southbound on-ramp and southbound off-ramp "offset" intersection configuration would operate during the interim period before the physical improvements at the interchange are completed. Although the physical improvements would be phased/postponed to a later date, including the realignment of the US 101 southbound ramps to form a typical four-legged intersection, signal timing adjustments would be made to the US 101 southbound ramps at Grand Avenue to account for higher volume of vehicles during the interim period. As concluded in the Technical Memorandum and shown in Table 7, even if postponed until the Design Year(2035),the southbound interchange would operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better during the PM Peak Hour) throughout the interim period with the implementation of signal timing improvements. The delay would be 25.5 seconds per vehicle during the interim period and would be reduced to 22.8 seconds per vehicle when the US 101 southbound ramps are realigned to a form four-legged intersection at Grand Avenue. The Technical Memorandum also concluded that the operation of other study area intersections would not be negatively affected through the design year if the US 101/Grand Avenue Interchange improvements are phased until a later date.This is because the benefits of the Grand Avenue interchange improvements are primarily contained to the US 101 southbound ramps / Grand Avenue intersection itself. Thus, the phased/postponed implementation of the East Grand Avenue Interchange improvements would not result in a significant impact(LOS D or lower) at the interchange and impacts to the roadway network would be less than significant. Table 7. 2035 (Design Year) PM Peak Hour Level of Service Offset US 101 SB Ramps Aligned US 101 SB Ramps (Interim Period) (Full Project Implementation) Intersection Delay Delay (sec/veh) LOS (sec/veh) LOS Grand Avenue/ US 101 SB Ramps 25.5 C 22.8 C Grand Avenue/ US 101 SB NB Ramps 12.9 B 12.3 B Source:Wood Rogers(2019) Both proposed project alternatives are consistent with applicable local and regional transportation plans, including the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan and 2014 Regional Transportation Plan. The proposed project is identified in the Regional Transportation Plan as an "emerging issue" and improvements to the Brisco-Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue interchanges are proposed to improve capacity and safety issues along this section of US 101. The project is generally consistent with the growth strategies and goals of the Land Use Element. It is intended to improve circulation infrastructure within the project area and bring the circulation system capacity into consistency with the intensity of surrounding land uses. The project would also bring the project area into consistency with the policies and standards of Caltrans, the Page 95 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Circulation Element, and the US 101 Transportation Concept Report,which identifies a concept peak LOS D for the segment of US 101 extending through Arroyo Grande. Alternative 1 would require relocation of the RTA bus stop at the Arroyo Grande Shell Station to an adjacent location, so that buses were not required to enter the proposed westbound exclusive right-turn lane on Grand Avenue. Alternative 4C would include development of a new Park and Ride lot adjacent to the new US 101 ramps/West Branch Street/Grace Lane intersection, consistent with Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the RTP. Measures have been incorporated (refer to Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-5 in Section X. Land Use and Planning,above)to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. c): The project would not affect local air traffic patterns. No impacts would occur. d)—e): The project would improve the local transportation system by improving or replacing infrastructure currently operating at unacceptable levels. Emergency access would be maintained at all adjacent properties and congestion relief would improve emergency access throughout the City for police, fire, and emergency protection services. The project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan. Therefore, no dangerous design components would occur. Potential impacts would be less than significant. f): Project development would result in minimal impacts to the parking area of Brisco's Hardware under both design alternatives. Alternative 1 would also impact landscaping, signage, driveways, and accessory components of the Arroyo Grande Shell and Chevron stations. Alternative 4C would also result in the acquisition and conversion of a portion of the parking area for the Arroyo Grande Library and San Luis Obispo County Department of Agriculture building. Approximately 46 parking spaces would be removed to accommodate the new roundabout intersection and a new parking area behind the library would be constructed to replace lost parking spaces. Parking requirements by land use are identified in Municipal Code Section 16.56.060. Municipal Code Section 16.56.050.1 allows for a discretionary parking reduction up to 20%.The City would replace all lost parking spaces within the reconfigured parking lots to the extent feasible. Mitigation has been identified (refer to Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-5 in Section X. Land Use and Planning, above) to ensure impacts to parking are reduced to less than significant. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts To minimize potentially significant impacts to traffic and transportation facilities,the following measures would be implemented: Implement Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-S and PS/mm-1 through PS/mm-3. Page 96 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts associated with traffic and transportation would be less than significant. XVII. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The project site is located within the incorporated City Limits of Arroyo Grande. Utilities will be served by both the City and other regional entities.The exact location of existing utility components, infrastructure, or systems in the project area, including water, sewer, natural gas, electric power, and telecommunications has not yet been determined. However,any existing utility component or facility that would be impacted by the project would be relocated or replaced in kind. Water and wastewater services within the City are provided by the City Public Works Department. The City has a franchise agreement with South County Sanitary Service for collection, diversion, and disposal of solid waste and is served by the Cold Canyon Landfill located approximately 4 miles north of the City in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment restrictions or standards of the applicable Regional Water Quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ facilities? Would the construction of these facilities cause ❑ ❑ ® ❑ significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ facilities? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are ❑ ❑ ® ❑ new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination, by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to service the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project's anticipated demand, in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑ disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulations as they relate to solid waste? Page 97 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Discussion a), e): The project does not propose use or development of any on-site wastewater disposal systems or connection to any community wastewater system. The project would not include any use that would require wastewater discharges, except for short-term construction activities that would be serviced by on-site portable restroom and hand-washing facilities and/or existing facilities within the project area. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. b), d): The project does not propose any new use that would create demand for new water or wastewater treatment facilities and would not require the construction or expansion of these facilities. Short-term construction activities would be serviced by the City's municipal water supply and portable wastewater facilities and/or existing facilities within the project area. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. c): The project would not result in the need for new or expanded storm water drainage or water quality control facilities. The new infrastructure could alter surface slopes and drainage patterns within the project area.These effects will be addressed in a drainage plan to avoid impacts to adjacent areas and ensure that storm water continues to flow along existing contours that drain naturally into the existing storm water drainage system. The project would result in ground disturbance of 1 acre or more of ground disturbance; therefore, the City would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to SWRCB requirements. The project does not propose substantial changes in long-term use of the project area; therefore, no permanent and substantially changed effects associated with discharge into or contamination of surface waters would result above that which currently exists. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. f), g): Upon completion, operation and use of the project would not generate any solid waste. Construction activities would result in the generation of solid waste materials, including cut volumes and demolition of existing infrastructure. The proposed project will be served by the Cold Canyon Landfill, which has adequate permitted capacity to serve the project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Residual Impacts No significant impacts to utilities and service systems were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. Page 98 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 5. Mandatory Findings of Significance Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact a)Substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a ❑ ® ❑ ❑ plant or animal community; substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species; or eliminate examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environmental goals? c) Have possible environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are ❑ ® ❑ ❑ significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of possible future projects. d) Cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ either directly or indirectly? Discussion a): The proposed project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment. Implementation of identified mitigation measures would ensure that the project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.The proposed project would not contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions or significantly increase energy consumption, and would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. b): The proposed project is designed to achieve the goal of the City to improve operations within the highway and local roadway system. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short- term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c): Because the project does not propose a new or significantly different use than the existing use, the project's impacts would be limited in extent and duration and could be generally minimized through application of standard control measures. The proposed project does not have impacts that would be individually limited but cumulatively considerable with implementation of identified mitigation.There are no proposed or planned projects in the area that would create similar impacts, which when considered Page 99 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project together with the project-related impacts would be considerable, or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. d): The proposed project would not create environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project would improve existing infrastructure providing beneficial impacts on existing traffic and circulation systems. Adverse project effects would generally be limited to the construction phase of the project and minimized through standard mitigation measures.Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Page 100 of 151 o NL L(1 O O —, N +I+ Z.; U 0 C i a1 L ra U > L v E a +• ci a) o a) a1 N =c C � (1) c- v a v c cu0 E E w 0w o Oa a) U U OC 0 > a1 D 0 00 '} .,., w a1 C O O +, z •- cu U E U E 7 > E aJ U C ~ (a Q" C l6 °- C on (o C 7 C 7 C 7 C t .2 '.n .0 ° O i •- Y •- +' ‘- gb OU O U _C .1..4: + V ' = +.,7 +' 'i O vi O v C U C C a a 0 a 0 0 U L O L ++ O +. (a ( O - {' Z V/ C a) N C N a to -O c +' o U w QJ O CAL >' L a o .0 a i Q1 L L c U +_• (moo •c +- p C i=• a1 vi 3 ° C C C U 0 C +-+ 0 U L C a1 >' E 'i • Uw E C c ++ c '+ L a -' O > C L1 a C fd c -a a, v v E v u 4-. a" 0 '+, a, a1 '5 >. O c w N E -a S E E ;, C ) C (o L L U 0 a- �_• U •Q� - U .v •- o O •N O a1 _0 `C _ .0 a1 v i EU 0- 41 > O —vi — O a1 -c U o v E o +' _c a U +' C D +, U C }; N a1 w C 'a a) 0 E C O v O v +' t (o J--, OU C as L C co i••i �' > U O = a) •c E — o c ° on 0_ a) (V OL N +U+ • C = a) E C vii U a) a1 U C C a bA v v a o ° O v, u, a) a, (a c a c9 a, 3 0 +' O U W (D a.) o L L = 0 > a) Q a) ° �..• �r (o U ri �- C 7c CD v N CO U (o +-+ a! O O a _ _ _• a 2 (NI i u N ,n aJ ca O O v, 7, a1 >C co U "a O U t C C °' 0 rl v, U C of C +' ++ as •V fo E aJ •> •� '� as i�l N ro a, (n "a ° C (o a1 C — L > -C O •U Vi a +' U C v L ca bb L ° - +' L - a) +' O C 4-1 a' E O °a (—° E o ns v m m o o '' a o E t ° v `7 O ° +, c U a a E �•_ E v CU u v �>, n3 o o L +4 v v ° v o a 0- = �+ 0 E (a c w a CI) E U a .- a - t o aci al w (ca a •E a v+ C v +� C _ ao L +' +� c a ° ,A v a a -. a C •C o E E o C E n3 ° O U (a a' p o v (a a' v Z •o .0 E •E > o .Q •E > v c o o c ° o v c a as C = ,_ ° o Od L a, O o - vv, t _' _ O a on .° a a T t L C fl- o }' 7 4- ( o tC 0- co— c > c c c c as +-' a (a U (La -C a Q- a o ° C v c a .Y tip a, C 0 0 O +� o +.. C 0 v, CU 'c ° '' o v c > E c ra CJ u CC v) U -a U a L +' a 0 Y L C .,- ++ 0 +' .+, a! `ti 0 _ O �" , c _a -0 L a1 ° +' +, U O v t U E 0 i.,=. .rl +'j )1 (a +v-• N of C N ro ,E CU U a1 a +, vai C a) a — O u • Lr (U 7 o a ns ++ (o > L > n3 n3 U — — +� a + N L to L c a a +, a1 t O a C C w an To �; - .b mon ac0 -r13', U u ~ CCo 0 . -0 CU °J E c c o v .v U `o Li, t O co a < C E s U � 5 41:5) ° C C co , c C o ° � ri o L E o ns a ° E c U '- O Ci L w a U n3 L,.., a) wt L - L a) a) (a +-• c c Q L (U a. a, a C Q cum a) Q c �, v (o - 0 a, t t +-, O (a C (a v v, _c v a t.o L o u w U a a +� H (a O U (a (a a a + a O d a +-•E U (a • -0 O 3 ✓• c o ai cc +� 3 ° CO a w X 2 E a E a o c a u i z m Q a a s o N Ln O c-i N Y O L d N E o ✓ N Q _o N (3.0a) Y) ra N C 0 0- 0 H 4) cc 00 C E C 0 ✓ r6 LI F 'al -o v a) vagi o " j a) _o ' u t 2 0 o p +' 0w L L ++ 3 E U v v c a1 Q c u 0 r6 C O C C it; c L caS U •ca E ") ° Q °- �' o E o Q c O N i a1 a) �, N C �,, C_ >- L ut c +O-' i) of ` c a) L O vt ro `n -, 4 op b �O "a ut x N Z Q- ro Q > ` N _ m j' -0 ro C (Li Ui a) C ` 4 3 0 U U L v s_ -o a CC > CO v v v . O E o +, . O O ut a) aC ut N +-' 7 c of -a a) u o ,, •-a v c v .v o c v •. v v E v v v 03 4 E a m T f° 4--' CU O 0.1 N cc CV C -p 0 hC0 v a) CU •� v a ro p O O , L ic O O U E O +-, Y +-' E CU v) O 7 .+' N O a) c v. 4- O ro a) U) m aJ 0 cu S �, L a) v) _ C N O c a) +, +- U o -O a1 ut O U �+ +, +-' �, Vo O t a) �+ �+ N a) c ,� c O 0 . '+, a) c C c m cc vOi a1 0.0 �' a-' fC6 N > N Q r0 O E O v) a �^ Q o a) _o oa Q c N O a) ro , - U '= C -O u'1 +.' v 0 ._ c6 O- OL H vi U O .7 O L _C ) ms3 L ro ro C a' c a) a) N CV C Q ++ O ro +-' L c >- p sisro N CO _c 4 E a) E v v ao co a v o oo E v v vCD> z z o E o 0 , , > 4-, c +� E c +., E 0 in v o t 3 v, -0 3 v c c O▪ a L v v u > p o 'E E U r6 i > 3 a v v Q c •3 C _ - x x Q L- Q >, •C a a) v N a) -a ate+ tic) O 4.4 C E C :: c N `- a U ro Lio OC o C fo +� v, a + o E > u c ; ,C_ x > co a ro a) .5 v) a) c u 4- c Ga J + °) o o v a- m o CU `•- CU L °° �' v ro 0 •a a) a) += +� Si) v E °' > V, n3 c� ° °c C Q v o v c u t L v O c x C E a a '3 o a a Q o t > ai L 4- ca -.- > a LU u ° = U o C p o U)O -CU u c o v -O z o o OD +., -a o a CIO as4-4 ' o 0 C- OJ a) a=, a) ro 0 N •no •p u a o r6 rCo aJ c '� v C 4_, a) U) c C ro c F _ c vi u 9- 'N 7 v vi c a) +' 7 L N 110 ro CO N w +O-, a) +LO-, ,~ N • v CU L as E a) c as RS L +-' ro c c L O E v _ _ v +-, w c•_ o a) v +w 0 -p ? c a) aO a) > .a o -0 L -c a co L LU n3 W x v CU c C N .- v O O cco a O ° O N .> •a) N ro o ro N t o Z L u- .E o ro a ° u v o -0 CC U -a t'i u a Q E -a -a o r+n ri w rn v D 3 = w a) Q c _ci cv -a ai ..1 oo t ._ ., � F 2 0 2 cc c oo N Q L m u fa In To to as a) N = = 47 o g 2 H 2 m` , o N Lfl O c-i N >, 4-+ (6 i 0 v fa) Cri 0 E a a) o a) a) c a) a _ 1:10 °° CV N C W C o > 0. Y VI U a) cc V) Ln E u t, 00 •> c a C 0 as ao as C 0 C c c o N 0 0 0 �, O u t ++ u +- c .= u LO .0 c +, a) c c ca o d Ou 0 v - C `, O _0 +� v v, o c Q co ' +�' 0 U _ '^ v., _c aJ -O ' ' c +, a) E •� d 3 a) `p $ -6 cu C 2 v -O v >, E •c V) o O a) _ U >j U c 4U+ O > c �_ a c 0 v E C „ 0 '+7, v 4 •5 o C a C u v fa L1 41 0 41 cn Cr u U . E u c •5 .Q a) _a -0 C ,- a) O c U •- a Eco co 0 tail +- W 0 a a `1 o _c as a cs u C v E U v t O 0_ c O 1 N 4-' U U -ON O a) a1 . a) v CU -6 -p - cc G (6 a c a) Y O -, L CO `n .(21d ti4 0 4-, O E N C C i v, to +-, 0.) m C a a) y C N a) c o v, c vi >- 'ED >s o E uv a° v 3 `° Q o— a) C bO a ._ c o v v c a o ao t > '� v 'E a) o v C a) CO* C C c v, ca v, ca -0 o- > CU 0 > O to Oa a c a ca aJ 110 'u > O to C . _ C C . (o - v a a) -0 w N _a a) 0 f6 > Q) j -0 + O CU caa c v E o v �_ >' C c Ln •• co - c - v C la oo v, > v, -0 ca ' — ca a) o > a) c v v, v v = oa v o a+,) `- -0 •E Q `—° a u C o cis U)) c u c E +� 12 E a _ v t^ , O v u v v c +� v C aS as a CU a) w > a) .co U i -a O r' i O `° C co a c`- a N a) a) 0 0 aXi O a) C 1- o ry .) c .- a v *" C( C >' v - N o 0 _0 v .0 •c - `) a Y c U cC Y cum a+ O .0 C ++ U a) 0 a cs • "6 O c U c v +.+ c +, c C O a-+ a) ro u O v, o f o a) -a U CD a U v v X 3 E ° o +� 0 > v, a) a) C C O a--+ -0 00 7 c -0 ut c Q Z t O p +, O t4 O ca i co �) -a v, O O N ,n a) a) N v, a t U a } CL •i a) NI a-+ •C 0.0 c c E ut O C a) +�+ a) c N C O N 0 ha a) 4J as a) ac a v E 0 t cocv v v u ett IC, °C v •� c v 0 V +•' E '+: 0- +, c0 a) -o c n v_ v ra ca a u s_ ca v > a c .O O C L +� L.1-1 r= 0 c CO C C c co i 0 cs •3 C Y -0 s_ E 0 0 a) +� -0 -a O (J -0 O 6 o ff 3 0 f6 U a1 +' 3 U -' a c i - v a) a) i > o co 4 (a a) 3 0 73 Cr- C as 0 -O v v O c -O a) O oo a) s Q) _ .N O L N U U t C C >j .1) a) > Q) N c a) 4- -0 i C ++ 7 P o en V o o v I E +� > -a v co as ca +, -0 sn Q s o °+�' a ., ., c o c co C .(1 0 a to ,' 0 V c 0 w > v a 0_ m v O O a a) co v u E a o E a a+3 v, -0 -c ") u o 0 Q �i 1- cu cc CU Ln t o U) = D 0 3 o0c a < a as ,x)v, 0u w -0 .0 ccs < .0 C < F Y a) a v o 0 Q c m — E E00 cs u -o ai ob F 2 - - 0 2 cc ›- c C a) D y u V N M To ba as E N = = a) o g 2 E PN a zm a 0 N vs O c-i N >, w i 0 E a 1 a, ar a a) cn v 4 a N C 0 0- 4.11 H a) cc 00 C E C 0 V (6 U w L (r 13 0 t ++ a) 2 a) u C ca Q E O 0 tio N C a) To ° ..-) 0 +:)C O VI Q1 C v N O L v ° O C 4J +' bA C n5E O to •5 _a a) O 03 a) 1.2 °- N -a = N C -o of -p — t E C f6 O aA 5 co o c • cn c E o ° o v a• a v a ° v v v 4 °+i-' -' > o _o Ln CO C a •u `c° , o , ._ a 4- 4_, 7 4-, N U (.,) t ca a) p -0 -C v v1 ON c Vf _ 4- !6 N () i +' a) a) 7 c i 7 "O U, a1 i p c u a) N t >• > 7 0 m a) -O U L O a) _ 4" a) ' 0 0 -o > O O 4-, ca C u ca "6 Q ° a) p- °" -C C) Q in () O ts0 ra a) C CD Q" p c O -p = C N t -o u C Ln E _y ° v a) - °) u) ns v, 4-, v a E L3 > c n3 a v c c u \ '� -0 O_ v O as C ( - U > ut — O > O fa a) u +' O - O c c 0 c c c C +O N 'O_ O "6 O C n3 ca (U) a) ca ca •., cn (a N -D v O ++ v) O_ "a �_ u i C t i a) U C 0- O ,a v+'i c c 7 •- ca a) a) aa) ° -° s a3 JD a) c c i � a) i O v a) vi a) O c 7 N O a) .0 C cv •,n "0 to 0 , 'O Q a) p O .5 = 0_ Q Z O >- ca h.0 ° >� > — a-+ a) C �O c "O i a1 H a O Q i ca -p C U C +.•-• vi a) cr i vi c E ca C) C JD a) c C c C H W a) — -a — to _ C) ° " v O ' c co ca sn +� T ° ,O 0 Kc a N O a) c -° ° O •(� ,-I _C �' bA U c ° c ut v� C to to vi O ._ O a) O • eta -0 E M vs C c -° N +Z (ya c a) _O C > a' J '(C a) O_ t cn �O •+a+ c a) N ca O .> C .v L •- .° 'ncn E ° O (� u °C E vv, ).), -o a ^ v ._ ° `o1 3 v + ns �_ > .�^ C O ° a) ` a) C w u CB o r v E o t o - o v o +, a) u '3 :*F c = C ra v e 3 c c -0 UJ 0Q ° a vs r--i . a) -a U -c ,`n i �hp0 Ov N a) D C u c j .� 0 H a To co C aC0 a) -a c u -0 p c a) 3 a) E a .0 a Cli a) OA U 7 • ° > 1 o u o 2 ca _u ra cm, .Q- a) a) v v .c 2 v u c E c w ca O ca L u c }' a) a) c�a C N Q 7 a) N ro L -0 c) w to > O a) ° Lnp ° O Z o Q v) -0 o`n > axi o Q o > E = aW V) E vs CD s4- * (a n3 > E (U, p_v ' o a o C w ai tf — c c0 ECCU -0 C v c v a F 2 — 0 2 cc • O pN , m u (gyp c3 I- ca Op CO N = = a) O g 2 H 2 m` o N Lrl o c-i N >• T . > 4- v U ++ d ▪ o ++ o ++ }, 0 U 0 E d s:- Y a) ¢ C C C C C C C Y o 4! p c ,- a) p 7 v a1 p 4 aa) c CL C E E E E E 2 ate) , °' v C E _O v — E o L to — E O L — C E CO in ro ro ro rl _ cLD4 E > u ) v a u v v a U E O w U N co p >- N v O T a) U O w U t. >> 0 a 4-, D +' 0 >. N +, N O 0 0 U 0 +, CC 0 0 m m c0 U + CA 4-- ,, 4- N a) a) a) C O O L '5.474 a) ,: cu a) C CO amU �H fo Q U ro Q r6 y0 C r6 C , as , C c C O CO C O O C O O v v`)i O COa 'o 0 t 'z 0 +-' t co O U O U s- " u = co u O_ 7 Li +, 7 'W O t O 7 O O p O �F �••. L N }r -0 L -0 L d .L 0 0 0 -a vs H vs a) > a O a Ou r(a O O u u 0 aoc GU _ CA _C >•• >- ro C t U -a To :' C *' *' C a ro —� > ami p (5 v '3 -0 'ap _ `o ac) p 4 v c v a) c p ,>, v c E .E a +� U C p }' E +, c v N v •+� +, c v a1 73a, ut a)U 7' E m o E o c o E o c E o - u b.0 CD.c E C O o " 0 +, o C :t-' ' u 'Q u o > E .c 2 >. f6 E v a E o .f6 E v a v c um •Q _0 as O E H U a) +, ;o C a U N += p Q U a, G cn v p ¢ D a C E Oa o 0 in E 0 0 a) Q U a) v H t v D v ' O +, E N Cro (C6 C o -0 a) .0 (13 7 C U f 6 '++ >• +�+ Q ++ C U a) a) a) 0 u _ N o o 0 an C a o a o • ° + E v = +, C L v.,‘," N ro of 0 _U C T C U r0 +') 0 a) co C of CA i ro 'a 'a +, U +, C p of x > ro O c a) c U C > OA a) C C f1 ro C a) o U U VI 4 — 0 i E �, i O t L d co O ,+' E O 'i co 0 `n ro t of ra .E ++ to to +' +' ¢ N C E c U O '^ U 0 `� vUi a) OE C C r6CC5 a) '-^ as C p 0) C a) i U p +' a) CO i .0 vi a) }' a ro N apt C C �' O .'7 +-, o L - - C O C '+� a p U C +, U u a1 to C �= p 41 U d 'cn U +' ro ro .- -0 c O •> E C O C C a) -p ate) w L U a ¢ n, '5 0 •o ri° 4- a) C a) C C To •- o 3 E v, Lo a oA O _0 o u v ro v v o :° v ° ' r_ ,� U T p O0 O C LL CU Q +�, •U v 0 0 bJ) To O E _T " ro - 0 W 'Av.) a) o- >` L c _ Y 0- o > o +, o C s C 4- p L ul +� N ro +O, N ¢ U _c ¢ a) Q i 6 co 0 U C i Lo "C O O O >' +' +J v a) Q- c C a) ~ a t CO� 0 0 oUC +-' +U., O O `- v +U' N o��p C Z •O E CA to CO +�, ut vi rC6 +, N ro U C +, O v"i U O (U U ro t co N = +�-+ O a C C U c C > ro O o C +_' c •� t c u +, +' ^ o +� H 3 4- p 'Q .E U O rca o > +- E o o + C i E a) +, ,n Q .° asi ao c a v o ° a)03 v `� E °1 E v u v v o •+' a)a) o `a v CC 4- < v ',(1) a -0 o ro C v Q — v t U E a > E 'ao CIS v w w ro C +, i a) +' r+,6 W .E U ••U o a-, +' C U 4- -1-+ (-5 f6 • �w 0 C > +' ai 0 U as E 0 ,,, O Z +, ▪ O O U O +, to H C .- O +, t0 E a) to +' L us -6 ro U C F CO of c ¢ C +, a) C +, L O O ro 3 to +O, a a) C v r6 ¢ N u +, o v ^ c - E E a a � " C 0cv ° > ° +' '� 3 v o w C `n +, E v to Lo a to -o p v •C -O ' "' a c c •O -, +c' ro O p +, N 41 N O O a) +, 0 3 >, , Z C ++ U C i U i ¢ _O ,n C +, ro 7 +-+ v a) CA 1- U ro U - O a) a • '^ co co of C a) — i �_ ut al a) C C p- p- 'a Q '' .. 0.0 'o v v N . . > t " .17 = v N O s_ N 0 = Oo O E C O C CL ro Q a i c Li) -0 +, N -a in L7 v CL Cr E o L O D U U U H U ro -0 v F• ee 0 • c 0 d o) o T it 3 M CC rl N m I- To (5E E E v) = .•°�° a, E a, E E E °u a p O O O Z •- ¢ m on m m m o N '(1 O N Y 03 4- U 0 fa C c U 4-' >. C C U O +, >, C •C 0 E aJ E E O U C E E O O c E E a, v o °1 E _O U m O c 0 (Co Na) L ., 0- VI c v Q c E V a ,_ a, c E v Q o > a, ao o > a, v O O > a, V) 0 o w U 0 U . 2 0 0 0 two cc 0 w Vf 0 VI OA a, N a, c IP ,•+2 •+ •5 •5 •5 O U c +' O U C ,, O U C (o (o = c (o (o D c (o c C O O O C O O O C al V 0 7 U 0 7 0 £F -aL d Q L .- L •L VI yam, c ... VI d > O 0 0 0 U 0 L O LO +T, O .--+ 8 4, (o C O �' +, „ }, (o c O t _c••• +.. O U — L C O_ (a +-. O U — (^ vci L C O_ (o +-. O +* c a, — v •° C(a v '- c a a, C L a, CJ c +v; CU, c a c L a, v 3 L t . • c L L O v C E • 3 v $ -0 a, t c E . 3 v 2 v E •° H . 7 O a o C E v a, a, -0 v v >. E '2 ~ `” O O +, v a, -0 c a', >. E .o Q.2 c v Q •c v E • > .Ip " ' O E •5 ,,, 0 •> c v 0- = a) a, �' E 5 � 0 .> c v a a V V •5 T O V LO V .V-. c T U _c y1 cr O '+, a, a, •5 T O a, O_ c U ,_ cr O '+, a) +0•. O (a v, U .0 4- Q (o L co v �, V c CO L . 6 U .0 0 c a, c u Vi 6 a �' v L a •EE0 0 a N 3 Cr a, _0 C v a, i c E u •(° a a, _0 `c _o • �' a, E = O a) .-- V w E O O N — v O N .� 4-, "' Q a — 72 — O ° +� V C U (o U c E _c (o l6 0 U t a) Q 0 H N L OU Q C O H a L +, +, U +, C c '� O .-, O C O C V, o LE U = v CO 4-' 4-' oO N E c 3 0 •C Cl. c L nz a, o v °; 0 v c tin qO E 4-, 0 "O `n E u O 40 -0 o v v g O 'N .E _c a) v n c °° VI o E `' >- ,0„ (o (o 'p c E O c CU _0 •c < = v VI L v L a, O a, CU ate, O N O- .E a,-, t C •C •'.0 n3 O = c L i .V, v C O OL (o 0-(n LI° 0 r0 m co O U _0 O L +, ,., C L +., c �n V) C > = E C •- v m o Z .a, co -O C c _, -a o c •'o -o o E a, C c O 0 a, u C L o ,,, Q .-, RS Q 3 C N v v _c C RS O \ • n3 "6 O C (13 U U tlO Y N O O- V +, _C a, 0 V) Q- E VI VI w O a, ( Oa E >a +, +-. L O H ha L > 'O C > '_ O 3 N a, +L, co ca ('^o ,./ O 4-' 03 LJ (7 c v 02 v Q a, 3 V U (o '(La ro (Lo c w (o L > bO lla c 7 L O_ .0 L '(o zt +, CU oO m L o 0 U O ••. .� C C •C •� y Q OL (6 Q- c w a) C C O (LO O OL c E Q s E (o Q c O E E "o = VV) 0 -6 1 w OU +V, (o (o .V. F 2 0 2 ›- c C a! L o T it O cr '() I- co Wf6D E E `" _ N E E o 2 2 O O H 2 co c0 m o N Lr, o .-i NO v L .}T' T .I., n ea d U U .4' v O� a, a/ C a) a 0 v O Q on kRS r, S (-) a) E O to_ c C E 7)> a o0. c ono v N U w U p CC 9 tov c N '+-, •5 H c o U c co c C a5 O O O c o +' t '+./ O lla ra) am CO 0 7 c, Fc d 7 i L _c vi al 4-. C > O U "C O a 0 T >' C L .- 0 I- CU CU 0 +a a) a.) ai O C N .� v O oA = N T a'' a1 C d YO N co v ut ° coc '2 vi a! t .� L L QJ Q C CO C E .- a1 3 w i L •+� L L N g I- '^ 7, O Q C s E v • v +, V c E v v -0 c 3 T E .o I- V) 7 O Q C s E v v ai c L E '+� T o +' o f ao aci v O = E E a) C a) U a1 Q c L •C. _T o �' E L u O v L U CU U >.. L) ---' C C U E O c 0 ° > c O v u a� U >' }' a1 = , O CL) a-+ N E c -p (.0" 6 •+� a1 a1 'C T N O a1 ...1 ° _ .5'- CCI ra V .c Q rD L ro i1 �, 'DBE v Q a1 c r0 v, •4 U .0 O co L la L1 ,_, .Q c GA a) v U c a) U _ U a) L ) `F a1 Ut a) U L E a) C U c § a L Q C ° ri 0 a) c L a� Q CU C E c Lu E o o •5 o E o v U o N N w E O O C v ✓ o v 0 v E ° N C O , QJ 0 .— U v 0 U Q �' .... U Q �' o r'n E onro kn .E -a L C C C) t ,} pCp o o as C - o 41 0 in a1 C — r6 'ro +v' L 4-, CU U •ru ra 0 E • 0 v� C -O C C 4 c E .E Q u — o a 0 a) Fs co as u +L' t E co O 0) CCSC E 0 L C U O - LEv E ° ro •" r>o ul u - 3 ° °n CO. +`6 a _c v; C > C co Q a, 09 a; I- = V C as C co - C • - o 0.0 o 3 a o t ,O 0 0 (13 , .0 C U u +' a t m n v U en a U v v H L a) v u aci O_ +� •� U ° `- E •c v o Z 'o E o o t _c= 00 0 '+ o _c v U C i +•1 a1 ro a Cs- c .o c Ou co v a1 Q- 0 d E a1 Q F, u N O ++ u Q '- a) v, +-, p U co CC C Ut u > L �+ `� N v, L v w w O -0 v u a) 0 .� ro E > C > ° CU O LU O ++ LJ +' c ra a1 m a) C a) CO a) a) ro ro Etz C ,- f6 O v, a, a o v o + r° C C .(h o. (7 cLu ci, O -°a 3 a a! ro vim, C u a! v, `n zu c >. 2 � Qco � � aSD_ c s 0- C c cr a° o N O a.) a Fsv Q J-+ CO D v in 4- N a1 LS F• 2 0 2 ›- c 0 " o ? it ko I- ro OA R E T = ai E o g 2 — oi 2 m m o N Lr) O c-i N 4-. > O :W 0 L *' >' 4-' �., +' U +' +� 00 d U 0' 4 C C C . +T,• c C 0 E _y U a) Ocl) a) c-i + o E E 2 v g E E a, U) to '-' a1 - — C 0' i (13 W �, u v E o E O rz N C (0 o E a) Q U pp E N Q O pA O a) pp W O > a) 0- CCG1 O w U 0 0 u 0 *' U 0 OC pp L) 0 0 pp a) a) > cu > C O U C O T_-) N 7 C al f6 7 C (B C O 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 O a-+ s •+, 0 +' t 'a, 0 R▪I 0 7 CD '+' pp CD '+' U 0 U Oi dOir- O D L -0 LY Y N > 00 U U L 'G v, C v, L +>, 0 a) N to C of L +T' N T >' o C Q C 0 +-� 0 U L `� o C Q as O Y O U _ v, 0 a) U d a) E tl 0 C L cu To— a) N .0 roc N +., 0 0 <ZC L a) f6 u o +' Q) 0 pop fa a) L v -0 v; 3 >, E .� ~ N ' o Q' o 2 E v v o -a v; >a) >, E .- I- N o o , v +' o U W o > c v a •c v E u v • ° l',' E a+) o > c v 0 c v 'v 3 ep v U o c o- 0 .+' i) a) •5 T O a) 0 a) +' O 621 6 0 .+7, a) a) •7 T O a) 0_ C V a) •i E C -O c6 v ;; v u v .0 �- `� ; u �' •� v ° a) _ v u u .o E 0 C E 0 u .� +' v, 7 C -0 7 , 7 pp ++ co +� +' .0. N _0 _Lo o L a) L c Q .c a) La 3 Cra a) _0 -0 o L w L C L u o Q v — v ° ° N "' E o o a) v cu aui o a ' `u o Q 0 •5 0 E E r0 U C U ° E o 0 C v, N o v o N a " o a o v E u +' Q +' u _ U) o >- a a) +' cn E -0 a) W a) a E °1 o ° 0- ra + as > -0 �_ a Cu v v c c N N ca E •w 0- = ai -0 roE L o E O u = a) D v + ,a) '+_ 40 -4co ra ra •U ((.-,3) L) a1 E a) — a) L C C co +', Q Q C ro _c C .� O a) U O v To O u n v, co > t l6 C to N .L N Q a) C Na) w co N — U j _ a) z O E _c CU fp L O vl s E o X '� +' Q C •3 - +C' 3 i > Q O K a ° aa) Q 7 c ° v, +' 0_ U▪ U_ -0 U 4! O 0 C CU t L.1-1 w a) a) U .+' O C X +' O 0 � o -0 u E ,— a) , > 2 a) Q m + 0 E 'v, u o c +' cal pp ° co •o u E `—a -o v Z co •O U C c 0 co CD- CI Q• C Q co O_ -0 H .E +' a) -o F 2 0 2 cc ›- c 0a1 L I u ra u1 E E 0 pp ca "' _ = a) E E o g 2 O O 2 m co co o N Lf, ON >. U U 4- CIO 0.0 CD 0 +>+ +, 0 +, p +,, >. rn E a o V U .,- C0 a, O 0 U +, o N m L ,- c E [Q L c a) a _c i O U , L p a) E to v, a c .c E a) a o .c a _ f c E o U 0 b0 O > a) U o bo o N UJ U D p co 2 c U a) c c ce 0 0 U U c a) 60 +' -a O v CC E 0 (6 U > • 00 i N O Y O u I= O a1 ccsj C co a L c :4-,p O O O c 0 _cc6 bA U O 7 fes- U U +O 7 .c OL 'a L L a - +, L O , O N 'al _ + c E 0 0 U is coC O +-, O 0 u Y v, a) to c O t c p_ co 4- -c +, O U _ L +,0 U c N i U c p_ c6 `� y > c c a °�' 3 v ca a; ° > v m °0- 0 (6 0 >' c c a) c a a) 3 2 c E v v C a, T E .c v •'v, o a o M s V) E a) ��• m 'c v, c E a) v v a y 7 p_ E v v a c L E >- c) u v C p +, bn a, v o a E U E p i O p O▪ > c O N L U a) -a O U }' C C U E O L 0 O O > a cc6 E v a c u VI Cr +' u .c a vt .s- v b0 v 'W O L c0 a) E — CDa) a d p u +, Q U > v v .N U L o a c N E o ._ O > ciiv .,., a1 a) `E L a) E a1 O Q a1 a) `.E -0 c p p v — U ° CD "� a E " o v o E U '21 p v — aa'i �a o O t m 0CL) a) c — Cr E o _c as 0 E 60 '(".5 O O p bA t Y C Y a a) c o E L ,,, E v, O on a) co .L 'p0 E 66c TS c _0 a) +, 0 v • v, E E N a) Oo cu _ Cli O Y U, •� u_ -a a) `� c Q m v E .., ,A a) 0 i CO +., p v, -a L a) .F OU 3 U a„- ,- a c 3 ' O a) by 7 -0 a ra 60 n3 y, -0 a) .,, 'N U U_ c T }' — u U • C n5 w C a) O Q a) a) C 0 O `� O +-' U v Z •p E v) -O U c +' a) c L O a2 t a) 'O " a) "O L O O Qc 3 m o a3 v +�, c Q ° a-, v)0 co C 0a) fU6 O co a) c -O co i O _c 'a Q E U U o -a . O Y U ,., EID ww •U C _ 3 U v, +, W o 7 f0 N 0 f6 L E Y '4=, 12 v, ci" C O u — O (7 � p `� -▪ a 0 >, +, v, y U Li, ca U L 7 a1 p co L Q ro Z C to O L > Y > - > 0 O L O i -a O W aa) L a) c E - E o f QY c L a) > C p � o a) a v LL c v F 2 0 2 cc c oa) O L 1- ToC a E E "' _ = a) E E o o 2 m m m` o N Lr) O -0 c-i N a 4- ‘0-.) -0 ra C +' o +, > C 'w 0 a a E E C7C E a) 111) a aL v) C a p_ 4-O 0 .° E v a O > a cu0 O 'ills- a O > N 0 ° m w U 0 C CC 0 U vs 0.0I CU C '+_+ _c H C +•' V C co 7 C C ro O O O c o +' C '.0 O i+ L •40 CO 0 0 f'E U F d .O -0 i vs a +' c > O 0 +L•+ C +O a) = coc `^ vi N Q rca 73 c 09C +T' ++ C .� C a 0 as N O bp a _ a) ° o °' v y E E a 3 3 ° o O a) •Q 0 �bn aco a v c ._ aa) E •c L :+_' o a v -0 `) a u E 'L p ° c E E + c ro '� 3 c o C E a) L1 0_ c a c ' > E 's a, _o '> C E °- U >.1 -p c Q O C a 'moi' ° o o on a +' c Q C 7 . 0) —^ O c U 6 ° ++ v •c i CU 'a a E O U o c .+' .E E V E O m ° •� p '� v c o a .7, 0 u N o f > • " C ° -9 o C o ,°, C E > i p a .4= 03 a ut a _ L O O bA a +� r6 O Q. a L ° o Q U a Q _o c ,_ a C u Q U a) +' c LE ro E E •E o •Q u o EN ' ' a Q a v — v 0 a y o a 0 a 0 v .c , L a O U ° a o t N u c ra p -0a > 7 v, E o 1 4--. U 0 of +.., 0 c >, , - a? c _ = p ra a +' a , a+ t - a _ • •w etc +a' � vi Q `a ra C a a (0 C 0 To �° 0 a �o c - as v o -o a ,v +, Cb.n .E C - o W a v, >> *„ E •- — c S +° i ',+>_' •`n ° in ro a _a v, +-' C 0 a) -0 N a) _ a) m- a) C C a p -0 "o 0 U Q of v' C a - C f6 v) v7 _, ._ O >- C C , +' — a) a) c ra a M -0 a) O a > m CU +' E °" E +' +' am — > _c ro4— O o v) C a) —_ ° E' bn ` of -o a) ., : a) c — ro ra i t v7 - '' a) +' ,n i c `'- 'bn o f v' °; C O -0 i Latta ;a ' 73a) -op +' a) a)) C N C a 3 •: 0 p +, ..' c 4-+ > — ra c c O c ^ c C Q O -o •ro 'u a 75 iv •- ° E co v 3 Y . r°'o 'V E r>° — `o a) °J v c E t .� u u +' r6 +, > a) v +a' ° U ,o .r--° a c c 0 0 CT ban v 3 vi 'N _a O v tICI Q •a i of +� 0- LL -0 i C L 4— ra 'a ra -a > c bn 0 (13 0 a +-+ '^ ? N ra O ra O •p •j _ a u a a a a o C u v1 Q N • c0 c •- •U •C i (..) ++ Q C 00 ++ ,� i i v7 70 ° ++ ++ C o C a) -0 Q a) 7 (a U LLA L!1 C a +' a C >, c° -a C > C v' 'n ca O O Z 'p E v 6 O bc0 •> -a O C t co y `= ,}ii rb 0 p L v O +ra-' •O `= a (= O a) — +, :0 a •_ co t v' v' c n bn Q a c > as ra Q c o a`)i RI v +a - c 3 v 'u o .E c cp an E +6 a > °c 0 s + 0 +� o 75 a . C a) O ° +`^' •}c-, c °o rca •> p_ Q OD E >. o f6 IP v t v E v .c ° a '�, ro o — a) s v •5 o 4 v N c +' a ,� +' c -a a >, v �o C C C c 0 `— rua LL- O O C •- C = a . +' - _o ra +' a s C C N C bn i Lu 0 C CO +' N '� -° r6 bA _a -0 vai L +�' 0 C E O v o H .. — O (u6 _o .O a v, -° O 0 a hCC0 ,- _ �-' to C a 4-) co 7 vs o N v _ _ o Q ba U a cl c >. U 0 •47, -a t o _p a Q v i v ,E C > U Z t v) a0 >, Y C m ro >, v, . 03 v . C8-;"1 •7, o v +' ° C Cu, ra C t ' C C a a a va C E bn c O •++ > a 'n a > a N >; N m v*'vi -a CU +a•, 03• > O •ej ca V) N F +a, U N 3 i) i) -p N ++ N a C a N v a > oco 61 O as Q 4- C v' N Q Q 4=• v' C J U _ +' C as +-+ -O i as °- "O -0 'n T 0- (..9 (.7 -O F 2 O 2 ›- c C a) .--I Qc:„,' L l-i T 3 1- To40 R E T = a, E O — 0 Z m m` o ,i N Lh O ,-i N .4>... T' >'` O L d Ca) a) O i ' v U :' a v a O v ,,0 N C C, _ co U cv CE a _ c C aj Q L .0 E o •ao W o v a) aA o U, O T U p p O w U G1 O +' U OC pp U vi OA v C 10 aj ' a) t ? t 4-0 C O C roc U C (o no 7 O O O c O O O +, C IP 0 y t RI O = U O = !'s O -0 i O L +, Y > 0 U '(S T T O U, L +T+ aj a1 vi T T vi C v) O O L v> +, co O O ++ i a) C O T u O L +, co L ao ' U , o_ to .w +-,-' O U — U ,.n vi .' 0 -6 a1 "o O bA a) +, n3 O au U c O- fo °C' v •c a v > v g i_ t _a v y C 0 N '^ m v m •c v v c a C ro OD dA N -O C T E • ~ v) O ° cu vt L c OA 3 i +' c al to do N -O vi u C 'a -° o > c v a o v •v �. 3 E u o °,o > ° .- o Cl.) ,- 0- C CU as 'a °+-. o a a) to C cr O ' v a, '= }T, ._ cu Q C a) a) c '*'j 61 O .E E a� E O a, o O O �, ,- CO E c v v u a) .'^ v v u •tt7.0 E ° 'a --`0Q L v o o > E o U •Q. N .� -0 Vd i 41 C C L U •13 a }' C co L ° ' O •.- U a1 i a1 4- E a v — U O a) W ° Q a o c v V) E o a p a " a) — aa)i o a) -O v t m Q _ U O v vs E v o E E al -a v t a U 0 to 0_ H N vi vt _C O Q •c 0 u u 0 p O n +, U U oA v C O O 0 T C L O IA C C O O_ O a U aj — C +' a1 CU O a1 O +, +, v) "O OU a) V v> v) - O0 -O O n3 a1 CO ° a.) , cO �_ + v) O- L U U O a1 C -o O 4- E a) C Q v o cti°v a Y � c no J--' no L N ( L +, UUI 4_ ,n to ' 7 to u O> a1 >- E O t6 O O o U ( E O — U 7 3 a! ut a! N — ut CU O • � N T O (o c U) — q- O +, U L aj `� C ut aj i O� O ° CI" Q }' L '- O O L V) -0 O . • 0) O aJ .4' C C CU U a1 no 4 +-, C v 'L +, U L -O Cl) a) a) O 4 L C C O CU 0 �-' O O - O C CL E _ C Q C •3 O — C m i T C vs C L O K C L CO C n5 N a1 v i1 aj +, -O Q .o a) c a) = c +, E oA v 0 13 oo°C ao0 -U u - o a O m ° W U N O a1 c +- O v. e- _ W O a1 c > N aj i +, +' 1 co> 0 0 s E p o aj E C ._ C (a7 To n3 `� O oA '^ C O" 0 O 0 W C W U > m ri C aj +O, •N O) 2 bA Z C O aA +-' U) C 'i U = E +-, c +, c a) O O C cu CO C (o C +, L 0 U) Q C a s n3 '} 3 0 F, 8 E 3 0 a a) C7 -O F 2 O 2 ›- C o N N M o T it 3 I- a OA COE E "' _ = a, E E O g o 0 H Z • m m m , o N L(1 o N >,, w 0 E a a) (pc U U •*' a) V U 1 +.) N E E O C E E 0 s v a -0 O_ +-s �, O O_ �, N OA U. a) ( o c) v O U v a v) c u Q (10 c E ., Q n3 c o > v ao o a>i a) c 'on N 0 (O w U 0 U w CC v5 OA a) a) C + N .47, a) O U C +' O U C +-' ~U (O CU = c (D CU 0 C O C O O O C O O G +' O +' -C '+' O +-' L U 0 C U 0 O F '6 i d O '- O •L F' a'' a) c Y C Y > O O U U o0 +T' -1 aOi T E O FN+ (O C O +' •+U' Cu ej +N' co t 4 O U — v, c - .� U C a1 a) C c , oN *�•' O U — `^ vOi +�+ v. N O' v ` t $ v = a) ° OA o •° E c a a) 3 v o t •- CDs wc E E . 3 u E •° ~ •o O 3 c ° E O c F, u • v v c a) CU •c ~ 0 .o o +' a) v -0 cv vCli > c _` g v v v E a) > v C v v O > C L a o v a, O c i) a) O >- a1 Q C U a) i i of v E -cU E .L O ++ a1 a) • >- a) Q C U i 6 O CO vU .c Eto E o c •.� o ° v c E Q > v n C ..w .-Pc. E o c 5 v c •Q _O SrL, a) L c L U ••- a 0' CU U W � U 0 L CD -0 , 1- L U •- a cu E — O N N W O Q Q v .s- U .O Q 0 a) O V) �+ N W O Q a a1 (° �' c E EA E > t (° U c w E t U C O a E O c w 0 v c a 5 t ° a c o +-, U U U �••, U U v, +r OD a) • Co w -o v c t ca .'_^ 4 a) O a, c + + v c a) > CO v + C 0 a) a) ca F-' i . CO v NO Vi y0 0 0- V., O U _ Q C C N N O al .0 'T .o f3 c D 3 > •� Ll O E v ''' v ' c aF') •(,, o v cr, c 3 U 'E =a) v F' v . a - cu cco > c c� ._ N E Y 7 'O +•' 6 O Q O 'ts N (a E a) . 3 a +' c v (Ts v E > a 'v a) •'n t 'n v a) v v oA (o t o L. aF', v, v fl- c 1 o E ro CU O- 'v, o C ° E (n CU (a co i V, a) 0 U a) U > 4' ate-' C N U E a +' a n a •ao E c (co v °� o v5 v a) v c 'c ca O a; Q n O C Z 'oa) o N Q N v 0 o 3 , ax) U_ a s - E d i C i — a) a) U _ .-P N 7 O D of u, N CU O ••C > +_ c O a) .� E O v) 46 C CU 2 U v cC s- U 0 O C 0:5 O O 0 0 C 70 x 2 0_ C -O cti C L L L a) a) Q o Q E o c Y n c D o ai (o (o c o 'O CU 'n O (B a) O CO +' -0 a1 c9 c +' E U a c U m -0 ( .0 LE '+, Lu t a+�) -0 > o o CU a) O aCt ° O csa aA Q v O > 3 CU `�° o aY`) O- > v '- v o E (o C v Q c E .E a O O� (o _6 u . 0 CO a v v) 3 H v F 2 0 2 ›- CO o L1 art p it = T rC f6_D cc Wa E E (" s a) E E Q o 2 2 0 0 H 2 ',‘,3- m m o N sr) O -0 N Y a) O L -a CO > C r6 4--, Y >. C 4., (Yl E a '=• v Ccu O 0 0 .- a) v -1 a _ a a) v) m c fl- E 0 a, •N E o a E o a v c E w Q e o ° E v a o O > a cua p 'tic— O > a G1 USD C0.JL1J OC O U pp a v aa,> cu •_ O U C +' O U c to ca C c co a O c O O O c G +J o +' L r=, O VO U £ i d sO -0 i C 'al VI N > O O U U >- 'G ,n +a•, `^ +v+ to `� O aT+ O O O CoT y v a1 c n—3 +' C �O a) = 0 `" }, �; v co +� O U C U to O U CC a! = O - bp = ai o 5 , v Q •c v �' E 5 °- o > v a L E +, u :Id v c O C on v v o c '+, v a1 '5 >. o v a c u v o- 0 v a� •E > .o cu o cu aY' o t,', u " L E f6 co N +' U .0 O C a1 C a5 u C ai- Q (o v) •L by 50 +' E O C f6 •Q. `•_ c u a i C U •- a v -0 `.0 -0 C 6�1 a i C 0 E v O C a! •c V +� O Q a' E aui 03 o 0 c "� o Q a v v — v o a N W ° E U 0 C ° E o � � t ou Q c E c Q" � o E o o E o c 1 +, u +, � a a -a a 0 v) -Q o0 0 � - CU _ L Z O O a E u "v s ° c tz .a a -ac LL 2 c o° u L.o a a 0 E = v -a Q o a a U v a a N a, 4' v u c � � `� � a af0i H — 3 v d, °i v v c ° c Q .v c p i:, U 'O c O C arci ca V v v .a; u v C a u 0 CU 40 n3 +' ° a '-c a o u N a aC, 0 IA V a +, C t p vi > Q Y C a 0 E N u +' Q v 'N •E CU a p C' u L E a Z O •� -0 CO a - a., OL O > O 0u a cl_ L c 3 .E c aa) v o i s - Z 'L Q• .P y ° Ou U/ ° a C 0 01 in _..0 +, O w U O W Lo bC0 - N 4= O � .00 a U O, •CI - v "6 aJ S O a a 2. p •C U p 2 a �n U +, 3 a l0 a .° L L O O S H v Q a ,C 4-, 4-, H L C O t co L.Q +., w e a •N - E a, O v ° a a `� v v co a co 4J _O O LL f LLw aa a O O u1 p p to 01 o ° v)+ Q' C E Q C co O Q LO � -c c D a u D C7 -O F 2 O 2 cc ›- C OO a! LO T it 3 1- o to as) T = a, E Ti o g 2 p P 2 m m` , o r1 N sr, O -O -0 c-1 N T a a, w i t 0 m m y Y >, C 4' m 4.' >, c-1 E a 0u 'u .' a m 0vu :' r1 a) d C7 c E CJ c aa) O 0. _o L N a, C 0_ „ L •"L' (o in 'yf ° b.0 a, O O ao v d C +' 0 C. E a, Q * O ,C E o m o 'Ea O a, p 00 O 0a, c m UJ U 0 c m w U cc o 0 U U V) U) 1113 a) a) c z : E -c> > C O U C O U C m a C m m c C m O o 0 C 0 0 0 C o +' C . 0 a-' C +' 0 m 0 O " U 0 0 � U L N Y N 435 d C > 0 0 U U 0 � m C 0 +T+ O O_ U Y v) a ,�, m O a >' C +' C C 0_ v 3 v L t ,a 61 co •° 0 _T •C a s 00- C a >' ' c U C 0_ �°' 3 c c E a v -a vi a, T E .c v) 0 0 mE v �' *' •c E a �' v > a1 7 0_ E • a, U a, Q C i E :0 _>, U U a, Cr' O +' 00 a, (i)Ln , 0 0 E a, U 0 E 0 O ° ° > C ` o a a i O 4t o c., a-' C C U +' E 0 1- O O 0 > C fC6 E v Q a) C U VI O- — 0 .0 : 0_ (B .O v 00 v }, a •0 f0 a E a a d C U +' •Q. O > a a .N a v i Eo v) CO Q N C N E O ._ O > a a ,)n a, a `, i a c a O Q a, a, 9E -0 c v — 0 ° al "� E " o v o E U v — aa, �a o O t m 0 a C — E o _, a) 0 a z Q., v v) 3 om'o m a N _ +' O U 'a +-' L a •oA -a 'O OA o .� N j -°c O o a C C O ° �� C " ° U0 0 C 4- v v v oL. a CO • tit) 'n a 0 a v tin �, a ..' pi a= 13, L. - al O 0 • 4_, U co N C 41 aa) -9., v ‘1.- � s a• C m ° a _ a1 L a, a� U -0 — a 0_ . O O 0 at C 0 j U C i of 3 - E N a a) .O O v y a, N v .-S C O 4-' m i U U L Z •o E a -a m U ° z ao � a, O a, 3 a 4-) > o c t Q c 0 v rj - 'a U ras m Q CO 17 o a, a s o .0 0 ° `�° 0 U u E U 'L O C cc O lc -O v, LU C a, �, C C 'o o v o a -a _ v _a0 a, O U C U a 3 a, 3 C +' 0.0 wri3 E c o °/ o a_s ° a U a Q- a U Q C Q �. E O a 00 a, i ++ .E C7 -O F 2 O 2 ›- CO o i N 00 o T a„) 3 ri r1 11) To Om-0 m E E v) _ = a, E E o 2 2 O O P 2 m m m` , o N L) O .1 N >, w ++ 0 _a (p c +... l.(1 E a N N ..-1-1 a) N E E a a o_ to (11 V) .i p " a C a) p_ o > a) 00 0 (1) CC bA C E H C O 5 N 0 F i a) "C +T+ O p u roC +, en C >. L . o U _ i -0 u C bA ++ •7 cLlo -0 V 41 N "O H L •+V_+ C .0 CO �' co Q N cc N tab '- f0 L v C 2 E •L 7, O Q- ( , E v E _. ` t E E v a) N a c L E +0 >. V U N p 0 _0 :,:; ++ - p p E U • m"- _• p v i V N i -00 O V +' C V N vi of ++ E O i CO • U C N L a) bA L ++ E C Q) +V+ E v a .Q i a1 c v C a) O a v •C 0 a) ' .(6 41 ++ O N E ,a) C 'n w E " p O Q co E u o v — ap- E •E E � o 0 E o �) v o VS N V bA N C p_ 7 a1 to i L cts _c 3 +-+ +.. N as C O (0 ++ 2 N , N +' L U o c 4_ w N IA 4- ++ CO a) aa)) a) E Z p E U N u Q d i C ) U Q L- (= aC• p 0 0 -6 0- U U C: w c f0 v w N o w O — O > +—' N Q H N Z as c+' N (7 0 t a) w o E exo ZQ i u v c w a) ++ 0- •L Q F U ._ -o F 2 O 2 • O oo N Q L m u (o u1 6 b4 R N = = a) o g 2 H 2 m o N U) o 'a -0 N >. a) a) w i O co o 4-, T O Y �o 4-, 4-, T C Y to E a v u v ° ° v ° ai ai d }; - c E E 0 }; v • C E E a) a - � .^ v ai L .� v a ) W •I O tin v E o v E . C 4 o ° E v o ro O a C E w o a o. CO o ao o a) v o •ao o > v al m w U 0 +L., m w U Cs I l c c re OO U U ,,, U) pp a) a) c '+-, •++ C 4,,, O 0 C }, OU N 7 c (U 7 C ro O O O C O O O C 0 +' s '+_, O +' -C ..0, 0 +' GA CO •++ OA rL •+, U 0 7 U Li '17.F a O -0 L a Q L L Y Y ) > O 0 U 0 +., CD O +.,0 Y a-, CO O O C O L U L +-, C a) L _a U Q 9 +• o U _C Q to +, +, O — -a 0 rt, ++ 4-. E .E a v •3 v ,_ t a U •° c > C 2 •Q v 0_ aco CO c C E .c a .3 aa)i ,_ t v -0 v >, E ,o I- N ` o a .o s E v v •P +� c E v v c v >, E 'c a) E a+,' o > c v a c v 'u Tu D °' o ° C °°° v ° °- ., ,-, o '> c v a c = v c m v +� _ c o v +' +L' ° " a) t a) .L E ° E o ro aii c ro v 4 o O n U 4- a ro v, 'L tw L �+ E O a co a; E v ,n U •Q v CU as U v o a v •c v = o .Q +' ° v v ci v `c - `' v U U — OO N w U U C > C •`- C E U U) r-) —• p a) t N E v v ro U N +- c E +.. o v ° O E - v a v 0 U (n 4-' C tai c• a t ° o v E a t ° +-, v- +� C a! -0 VS __ •4 CU ° +U •°A -0 v a; o▪ f° U O v ro ai ro °� o ^ a , -C •-av Y a) a) Ts c E v) v C • O ° E vaa > U ,N L C L U (I) U O ++ L 3 U U N ro _▪ ,+ 0 ca tin o C _ O a a) E O a E cu to L t O N 3 N > +-' U +' `- U r6 U a •F "a 0O •O a) E ' 0O C +�+ O 'a) a v •+, ua c u v U ro • > U > of 0 C ,n c O o ° a, o ° C o E a°o E L +� L 4-. a) co Y L • O al = O 0 c v •7..> ra a as v L r6 U of = a) no co (") ,n N O Q c •3 U pp i) L +.• a) .+, CO v •- L.L = J c a) c C• L O U +' _ D `- > C L of U U 4- 70 ' +' C a1 O -a ° +� O ro w L.1-1 w p -a C 0 .0 C a) N U U o p a)110 v ra E a E fo cCU > }• L a) -a r0 ro U La) Utr) a) — U L (7 ,a) r6 b.0 .f6 -a " ,n •c a a U W C _ 0.1 Z t — O -a O > N 'a .0 a dA N �n i Q U c Q v O U O r� 0 C _0 O N W v v E _0 = LL tO E o_ O_ C F a., a: L �� in bA O O_ O `n O c 2 .E_ 0 0 a) L ro D 3 a U C7 -O F 2 O 2 m ›- c o L1 Ol O 0 T it 3 `V N M U ra v� E E To da r6 ") _ = (1) E E O g 2 O o ~ ' m m 2 m o r1 N Lrl O -0 -0 .-i N >. a a w -. t 0 E a mc� u .' a v m00 :' r1 v a) C7 = E c1 }> = to a .0 L v) a C a L .� N cn y o E0 0 ,-- 0 CU o M a E rl C ++ 0 ,C E a a +•' 0 ,C E 0.( 0 O GO O a ro o hA O VI c m UJ U 0 c m w U cc o 0 v v Ln En Oa v v C E -o -c 4— =, Q5,, .t } C O U C O U C ra 7 C ra ra 7 C ra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ++ C .0 0 ++ C IP 0 r6 0 M 1- u 0 7 u F d i d L_ -o i L N v. d > 0 0 0 0 0 �O O U rCa C O +T+ O D u +-+ to C O t — -0 0 co v ca -0 a,. +, O U _ -0 0 co a ra -O y °, c •° o � � .Q a vi E .c a s '3 v t a; ° o a � .Q a E' E •c a s 0 a .� a v 3 > E .o .� E 3 E •+, > u u a (DE t E v C a u a a c LA E." ..c° ------ u u a)"-- 0 E a a U a) i 0 +0+ 0 -O '' OU U +' a C p > C •L 0 N i 0 cji Ti) C -O '' OU U +' O 0 v f6 C .O a ra � v +••� '� a C ra 4 •6 •" a-+ C �O a N ••- r6 a .i O C r6 '- qA a C -O C a 11 C 7 a ` a ;C a VI a c..0 = Iu a '&1 -a C a v C m Cr L a a Q C a . a o a � '3 u", a aa) _o u C ` a C a . a ou a a) •3 Le) a °; 0 -0 E w E O a t wCU �' O a ca a to U In +' C E ++ O a a t6 U ,- o O H N c o o 0 H , C •N C ns ru s_ O a C ( .co -O i1 a c0 -0 O O 4-' .0 73 In r6 U C V7 a i 0 a t co ra 132 E o = > O N .a u yl m ra Q- ra 0 CU a >- In o E a a 0 v1 0 V C U, a N O E O ra a C Ca = In C a t10 L 0 C 2i C `� C 0 _ E O O C v, -o OE 1_ VI ra a a L ++1 ++ L a) E a -0 a 0 •}; C +' a a)aa) ra > o CU C C co p C +6-+ Z •c E U +-' `� O v Lc C La 0 " 112 Y v .E t 0 u 0 ra Q c '3 O v -0 `8 — C v O u OC 0 0' 3 -a O Q C a-+ O r7. a J r+a cd 0 C 3 C ra 'O+ ra ra 7 w o ++ � as "a E 7 3 Cr ra Q a a i VI O (6 U W o c E Y = 0 E u 0 O > o 0 a a o ao a t a 3 c c •3 c o C7 C 'w " — } a) a v, ra +' z t ° o a C E ,} a (CI > U a Vi a a a — +- *' U O 0 U _ N 0_ '- a F 'Z ra a — a ra ` a c a s V, a .-Q > t =a F o 2 Q ? it 0 N N M u IV In to as E E "' _ = a, E E o 2 2 o o 2m m :,3- o R G B » 7 / V- CT) % > \ >. >" C ® CO E $ E E / / 2 \ E i .flu4 aD as / > f -0 ? 0 0 { •2 3 u A 0 cc o u C CU { E \ / t u _ _ ro o 2 / / S ■ 0 ¥ 2 u — y m ¥ e 0 » 0 \ u % \ _0 » 0 § _ 2 = 4 0 0 _ \ ( \ ® -c = o _ \ ( cu . c4-) a.) = , » - ' .- _ ' m = ° a) 2 \ m = / y m — c % / j \ ƒ E .c = u a m = ° > § e m 2 t E 2 e m 0 & . s . E a) u E " t E \ e / \ o k .- co . ® E@ • C E e, & E \ j \ } 0 S e E s / \ ƒ _ $ e, » [ f a j - / 0 o a f c « » / c o J § » ° % o z / 7 2 g e ° e » � / o u a o ® m / m @ m = � — ± _ s_ s = – » . ® 5 ._ ® _ / « s_ E 0. / » \ \ ƒ \ ._ \ 0 k m 7 a = \ 2 / 2 » e c 0 = 5 ° m = _ E / u » _ _ ._ u ] = m ® - § u ) £ E a o ( m = 2 g § ° 5 C E a 0 ( s u a ( E ƒ 2 s 3 \ 0 E / 2 } o ° ` C 2 / 0 0 03® \ o m E c / as ) w \ \ { a m c — / ® _ 0 0 o a % co ® 7 / / / 7 t \ / ƒ § a � 0 / E B 2 / m s _ 0 0 0 2 2 \ = } ƒ C t _a.) \ E - / w m a f 0 7 E 0 \ » 4' v") 2 5 \ — – m i = e @ c . _ - o _o _ e = 2 / z / E G f } \ 7 / a « 5 G I u e 0 © \ _ \ 5 5 = . _ \ E s ) .- ® / 0. } § \ C ° > _ ° £ / G _s % a) EUE / 2 .> \ as= 0 \ ± / 0 » .g / `13 § m c c £ > $ ° o 0 2 5 \ \ 2 \ % a a I- © = -CI- = kms / ° 4— 0 ) 2 ) § ° ° = 3 ® 3 CL \ Ls) 2 # _ \ a u / E C 3 § e • 5 = C k / \ ( _ C o / \ S \ ƒ f } / & [ / � / \ § E § £ 3 » / vccosE \ 6 k o \ ] co R G B » 7 / j % » » # ® E ) / f E E t m t , _ { talD \ a e E o = o •- [ \ � ) 9 u o a = _ cc / 0 { � \ / \C _ ; C 2 / / S ■ \ 2 2 £ - • y e 2 e \ 3 0 _ » ` 5 & >••• 2 / ° c » 2 o { 0_ ( ® azo O = \ ( ± { o G _ = o { ° = E \ — c ® m = u / - > _ E _ ° 0 < = c > { a) \ •f / 3 ° E / •• ' ® ° E / \ ° & / = m _ \ * / / / 3 _ cu 2 E = 2 § / { •s f ( ƒ / [ k § » E \ j \ \ ( E a) { E .- ° E / k @ — E 2 = _ ° = e / 5 � . u p u o % z o = E 2 = CO @ \ = e o E s & / C 3 m = t . ® 5 f ® _ ° ® E © � � E o = 2 a E e = • t / - » U 7 ° \ 2 £ 2 7 e e e & = 5 = m = § o > _ 0. E 2 2 _ _ . u ) = m — a E t / u = e § § E m — 2 § \ a » E e \ E 'S o E E o S 0 / 0 5 / / o .E \ 2 } 0 mat 74 ra ® \ 2 7 E # .E 0 — / E k \ � � } ( \ / 0 VI \ \ \ > C I m = To e 0 a, >- e '- m % ® _ & 0 = 2 = ® ® _ 2 � � ± \ / t z / E » ° E o £ f % t ( \ ( ( _ ) / { j \ a) \ / - \ E •E � \ § # / \ b \ \ > ° o — J a ° 0 \ C £ f ° e C o u = z2 R \ 2 / k \ B ® ° C C La % > _ c 0 } \ 282 £ .52 \ cc § E § £ 3 » / VS W E \ 6 k 2 o \ ] co o o -0 U) N >. a) a) CC6 w oL cc L E a) U 4-, L-U c E E U U c E U a) a -0 a) i L `" a) O 0- C co as ca) '7 p Fa v E O O oA v E 0 a, d O C O U U 0 .0 E O E O a) N ID-0 O (n � m w U 0 0 +L, m w U 0 co a) C C Q Ce 0 0 a) U U 0 U) U) 0.0W CU C •+- •+, H C +, ° U c +, O U N 7 c co CO 7 c CO O O O C O O O C 4-� to co •+, etc as •+, U 0 7 0 .F o_ O -0 L fa_ 0 L .L Y 4-, �--, ) > O O U 0 "C C VI O -0 0 O U Y cn a) na c O +_�+ t C Q n3 +, O U — L +, C a) L _o U C Q (o4_, +, 0 U y E .c a v '3 aa)i - (� a; " .co c ? (Co .Q v 0a) f6 c C .c a v . v t v -0 v >, E .o I- N ' o a .o i N E v v •� 5, +, c E v v 73 c v > E '= +v o > c a c v E o v C °' o O 4- C aco c u ° p Q E 5 Y o •> c v a c = v c m v a _ o v *, ° " v O .L E c E o co acr i c ro a) a) •5 o CO to U 4- Q CO 1n •L on L 4., E O 7 (o ell E a) V) 6 U 'Q a) _0 - •c v U � c v c 0 o a a) •c 0 3 v •= o .Q .4-, ° v v v -0 `o `^ au o ) U — o a) N w a) U t C `— C -a E U 0 0 N U — Q a) t N E v o 03 m U 0 a.., c E 0 a) ° 0 E v ( °' U +, C a, 4-, L c o v (o 40 O °N 4-'wo +) a) _cen �_ a oE o c Y MTO . a) ° EC p ° LL C n3 +, co •0 E -- (o E U cn (o a) U o U a) �' E C u n (o v p +,a) a) V) a) a, L a) (0 0 (o U a -a X o a a t Q) C v a) L Q +.., j C ate, > C C ._ u E Q m v v +, +-, Ea) n -a O a +, to O ' (o Ev oa) 02 a) co ao U) X + 0 NJ oA CO (U U) 0ca) n o O ' O w E (n N . ao -O O .E t co E co c >• c a a) v, •a) a .c E au o +' L = v n z 'a E E -0 > + 2 ° CI- Q c •z 0 +_, t a) n a) 0 (Ca CU U .0 +, c ba c UvVN U OJce C U > +, J u u — v (o )n co LU w L L U 0 4- a) U V L +, a) (o E C o a) ° w O O +�-, (o (o M C (o cn .Q' O (+o 4 E > L ' ° E' c O N L w n3 .N (U C E H a) a) O ++ Q • O U E C +, L > E c E a L a) U +U, 'O O (0 0 a1 t C cu .— (.9 C w L (o > 7 v L �,VI (13 C C co O Z U c v) •tn . Q CO(o N 4-, c a) O to a=, 0 U v O CO U a (o (o U F O v v O O C 0 (o O E C Q c I— +, C V) U U +, CO -C I— .= CO ,-, CD (7 0 -O F 2 O 2 cc C C ›- a) u1 l0 0 ? it ="a) N N u (p (n E E o da (a (" _ = a) E E zi O g 2 O o ~ ' m m 2 m R G B » 7 ,-i j % » » > { w 2 $ ' / f E E t 3 z » c _ { (13 _ o u - k o > / O. } El � 0 " CC 0 C.) C e ƒ pp \ / % \ _ C _ C 2 / / o # 0 = 2 o - y m ¥ e c _c> 0 13 0 0 0 ° u » ` C » -0 >. 0 0 2 _ _ \ ( ± { O t ( ® e = o - _ _ 2 7 / z / / _ / - \ / E C 2 / t § E . 2 $ E ® ± $ 2 c > _ ) m \ & . 5 3 E _ , > / / § / o > a f E \ e / § k / = 3 # u » [ £ j d } 0 0 £ 2 2 ° E 2 ,- 0 { 5 cu \ f = $ 0 & ( t j \ / 0 C L _ _ 4u # o & z a, •E E _ = e 2 = 0 = E u s » .g u = u a o % @ ® 5 2 ' E © E E o = s a E m & e m = - t .- ® 0 ® _ E - k m , a = » _ = o > o u . u 5 f u E _ m = 5 = m = _ _ � = o o_ m ' a E t \ .- u u 2 \ -0 £ @ u = 0_ . u 0 = m . § E • o ( 5 S ' E / ° 2 g S a a 7 E a / o •E / 2 } ; \ 3 / •S 7 / u ~ >• -0 a C / 6 s ± a t a % : 2 \ u E - .c E 2 \ J E a = 4 « t >. \ \ Ta C. a) § - C \ - / \ a / J \ Q) w g o V) » 2 \ £ \ \ mc / / 7 \ k ) \ 0 � / E \ \ J / j / V) = '- f E 2 •§ / 2 as ; - 2 E z ƒ E & z § w \ / Ek c o £ ci » 2 % 7 u p @ 5 ) -0 - / » 7 CU \ / E o c u - m 6 O CC _O u > » f 2 a E 0 \ U CU C \ \ / \ o e » c E = t n $ / \ / / ) 2 A U 0 $ 0 w 2 \ _ $ / 3 \ \ \ w 2 0 u 2 t $ 3 t a s Li, ® ® 3 = $ ® 2 / _ / § \ / / / % ƒ ) u k 0 e = \ § E § £ E » / RS OA C) E / 6 k 2 o \ ] 2 o N L(1 O -0 -0 N y. a1 DJ 4- iF F o E a m00.— m m Ovu :' a) a) C7 c E C7 c a) a L VI v c O_ .. i .� 0) Io ,a) '( o a a) E 0 o ba a) E a c +, 0 .c E v O_ *' O •c E o. `-' 0 a O > a1 co o bA O ai c m w v M 4-, m w u Ce 0 0 v v a) a) OD a) a) c : E -c >> p C +, O U C +, O u (O 7 C (B (B 0 C ra O o 0 C 0 0 0 0 O +, C •a-+ 0 a.' L +, 0 CO 0 = "ca u 0 7 u Li 'EO - OF � d L L N - N > O 0 0 0 "C N T >' in C cn i .-. 0 C a)o 0 v., v) i N >, C C a a1-C as +' i f6 +, ,n 0 C ? .474-c L f 6 +�+ C o_ ++ cu a 0- cf° t .� a1 E 3 t . c 0 — (o a c E . v E al N v c co +, c E v v -0 C aai T E .- • v) 0 0_ .+, 03 i `^ E a' a' u -0 v >- a) U L > U C U o a) u +' c O_ L '5 a+'' 0 •> c v 0_ •c v E •Z Tu 0 -a °+,' o 0 E '5 0 '> c c cv s v .L E c E o c' C 'co v a� 0 .o c o v Y p u v v v °' (o - +' E O (� +w.' E a) a a U U L a ca N •L a) bA L } 7 L U .) .0. N O Q U a1 a) Q `� Q1 L a) C 0 Q a! .0 N 3 a) _0 - C E 6 p EO - c0 a1 a O N ate-+ , W E U O N vCli To v O 0 aJ E c� N N Q , O p 0 H o o a� E o -a C + ' C ' o E > a o > , v o E w E >- C L y0 "1 U c +, +' a) a1 o 0. j vi C +'NOi = O_ - -0 a (a 2 •+, E •E •`C , cu U ( L E tH Y L c (U •� v O 3 0 in o -0Latn _ E o (1)--,- Y um _ > +' + o EO (.4 (a O LL U a � V) a) v a) o f D I • , c al O_ 0 +' Q C 3 o v t E U v l6 K o CT U -0 +' a., C +, T as▪ U u 47, — ++ U C a _a E w w C �. a1 (O M Y O 0 •- a C av -0 a (0 > 2 CU 0 E w _a v > +, O o .N OL i Q E O c o E a aJ C7 c E +' v O 0 (B a C O a b3 C wZ s U i 0 +' Y, v b3 o U c .v +, RS c +, E Lu a) a5 F Y a (6 0 +_' X 2 a c D _0 ,. Q a) +, D .c C7 -O F 2 O 2 ›- o o L1 00 o > it = N N M U C6 VI qp as E E v, _ = a, E E o 2 2 0 0 Z • m m m` R G B » 7 / j % > ® » # ® Cn E $ E E co/ / O \ E E t . 0 . m » E = { to \- ) a m E o co > ) - •— ? A 2 { •a 3 0 0 CC 0 u 0 e { E \ J % •u p j = ro o 2 / / S CO 0 ¥ 2 £ - y e ¥ - > 3 0 13 -0 » 0 0 ° o » ® 5 0 » 2 2 ° o ° - _ \ ( O C ( ® a z o O _ 2 { / \ / m / / % / \ / 0 / / 4-, § E g J $ E ® 2 u § E . r m § & . - . E e . E / / § E m E _ . a t E \ e / •\ § k / cu E _ § & E \ j \ } ( 0 a ƒ 2 ° ° 49 2 % { .5 a ( ƒ e = / » E \ j @ 0 » \ © o cu 4_, .,c, o % z m = E 2 = _ ° = e E 5 ± . u CO _ - C ® Cl- 2 ' e - e 4 E o m 2 ) E s & / = m = • t 7 k / % » 0. » \ { � k 7 \ ) k m 7 C a E t 0 a / ± 0 a 2 / 2 ƒ e \ e 2 \ 7 \ o E \ a E a K ( s S E E m — 2 § ° 5 « E 3 / ( J ƒ 2 7 ? 4 \ k ƒ ) .- \ 9 Cli E / \ \ Cu > 2 = s- _ C2 C ± m 0 { 0 C =u .5 2 I) > m © '2 o C _ / ( \ \ / k 5 E E \ { \ / / a 11) = g 0 g = z ) k E -- � ° a £ , ro / ) E , = m 2 Cu 5 § = 2 / • k < _ Ce » m ° E um k - = — u \ \ k / 5 1- s \ { 7 o ) c 7 u 9 \ % ® g .\ U1 t \ , ® / 7 ƒ / / co• < \ < 4- / / co / e = . \ cc § E o £ m » / to OA co E \ 6 k 2 o \ ] E R G B » 7 ,-i j % » » # ® 3 E $ / / f E E t m » _ { ca _alD c o - k E EC o > \ I § / 3 0 2 IA o u c a { E \ , % \ _ ; C 2 / C S ■ \ 2 2 £ y - ¥ e \ 0 _ _ >. > § >. = c >. o ° ( « / 2 ^ { — » 0 _ O ° ( a) / _ _ 0 u = ® � z 0 = \ _ _ = 0 u = o { ,, a) = — \ .- _ ® m = § ^ = e = = o _ m _ > * / / / £ ° E / — eL ® ° G / / •• ` k / m _ > / / U \ / ( § / / 2 + ° 2 E \ { ƒ \ \ / / \ § » ( � a j To„ \ ( § / / E U ® \ _ E $ ° ' \ f E & / c g @ a J % # ° % m 3 ° _ i = a E o e > _ � � u . \ o » . _ \ E 2 ) . E o = = m . a E t / u \ t e « » 2 e 2 u = _ . u ) = m . - t - § a / E s S flo0 m — 2 03 cL § ° a » E e / E 5 o 0 / 2 7 4 , k ƒ ) .E o ° } / \ \_ C \ / . Eƒ ®m 2 .- +, < _ \ � � 22 = g j n a) % ° _ _ I > 2 2 0 _ ® e / o 0 / m 0a) =uf ® 2 » e > u z ƒ a) 3 \ = / f £ a3,_ \ J k 5 § » > Tu S j \ a) ) } [ i ± \ dcrs� 7 � / \ / ( ) 2 \ V) 0 LU n3 z2 mo2 § e ( 470- 2 \ / _o S 2 e = \ cc § E § £ Q » / fa tko a) E / 6 k 2 o_ kj ® o N Lh O N 0 Ln E d Oo U +•' v v c-i i C O E E a) a -0 w O +O O Q to a) C co v i c 0 CU a N C co 2 co L O. L O Q v CI a)VI Q U CC v) OAN Q •+7, HC +-•' O U ro 7 C (O O O O c N 0 j cLu a F LI d OL -o i L _c u a) N c > O U 4) N C v) _0 4-•• Ln _c _ V C a as Ca) o _ O U — 0 C _c v - ' C E +� o_ +� 5 +, o c L a) a) 0 E o a0 '+� c + > a) •5 >, o v ac °EL' m as a) E a) a v ° p •v `� u .� o c . Q Q .- U v v a) ;F U ; v c v U � c E co E E E o a) —_ v o L o v t +„ 1-L) o v Q „Cr O O _0 C CU o_ co U U v) y 0 a uU 0H in O Q c O u 0 U CU +' }, •� C U L v v a) 'O 7 v -0 v C E O L) 4- O C C ;} v L ++ 7 L O co i vi a) ate••, 'L a Y C 0 > C 0 0 N = (o C a+ co C v c,_ C O C O CU O +cll C vi v L as to }' L (o a) O '4 v U L co a) Y' cc 0 U a) S C Q ut Q , -a OU 7 u O > Oc0 = 7 c O E C p V1 N w v L O >O Y (O Q_ L U E u a L • N C co -O ON O C 4O a) u O L v LJ Q_ `^ ,,, +� .E cLa O �) Q_ O — - L v Q O _U co I" O C L ns — C "O . -O O a) C 'L N U C v i "O coflt}'o U c0 p O +' C E t i > c N U — :., t c0 i O v v 4_ 7 U O 7 L v '7 co +' 3 L l6 as c 3 +° o v u v -0 as cu v aj O v :a) O 0Ouwc. ap ro O co Yw cococo - Q U v0 fo _7 c . v U "6 O co C 'LvvcJo' b.0 v E CO > ji: LN E -O L L Y v . Q_ —a) Y U (a v E 7 L a) +-� U O T v CO U U '- VI bA W — O a) L .o U o o v L c o u Y n3 C c CU C 'c .o v E a) H y C O -O v v •p .O — o Q 7 °° -o E " t 0 as a aac 0 a 00 O n i = � v C C 4 c O N a as v u to v v - 0 U U ce c v OC O 4- CU Q. 0 E as co U c 0 'E • v o -O U C O- °) C w ;� OA U CU p "' >' .2 r-, LO p a)) a) p cCo CL) i vi .( ,O vcCl E ai :1-'0-7 = .� CU ' 0 00 E c •E-(1) SC Q c a Lifts IC o a a) ago tct o G To U a CU C C N v In ++ C - , v E L a) 0 U v v ~ C Q_ U w :: v v u C:) c v " E c CU ovvua uvZ pO.0 ,+-+ OaL+ LO.0Ov p Cu 'LU C (op Q- .L p7 .L .- +p+ ++ •7) O _c Ta a) — C - +-, E Q YLu cU 7 U 7 N N p aa) 7 co C C O E NO • N ++ 7 N bl) v C ± -0 CU Cr L -0 U L -0 U CU w 0_ = tY t — Cr L V) _ > fl_ 0 u L.2 cc 0 c O N 0 1- ° d° ca e E _ = a)o M E g i= b.,' U v C.)m o N 0) YL +-, +-, o a) U ++ U +., ++ lD E a . c c .� 4 c C N v a) r, a; a) a) •- o E p a) 'aa o E E a) 47_v) otan ,13 - E ; a 03 0E u 0- a 0-VI 0 0 0 0 a U a) 0 cu na ca ce a a V) v) pp a) a C 'E +-' ++ '> > C O U C O U N 7 C al (B 7 C f6 C O o O C O o o C O +, s '+, 0 4-' t '+, 0 4-. s- Cs0 O 7 r +, L tin rra •++ ni U 0 7 U !..Ea O - L a Q L Y .0 d > 0 0 U U -43 v +, a ++ v I— ccs V) 0 +.' C o a) — U C +, N a) ra _° a_, C o t (6 ++ C a°) 0 as - U L v •C a v v v >' E '5 a+,, 0 '> c v O_ '+, o a v c v v +, c U Cr o c c v a) •'- a 0 v O_ G u a) °- o '+, a +O, •- > U w c 3 o t a) .L E C E ra E o •- .� •n u v •.c E o c E v c ° u +OL, o •° •v L +� E ° u •.- °) E Q S° ° m L C s1 a) i C L �) .- a a) -0 C )- a) `^ a) `° a>i ° v .'J ° Q .— (J E °1 Q .°+-° ° ° 4--, `�, o Q O v c — v — O N o Q :°+-_° L , •5 o E E ro U E a ca u U v a o v Q E o Q C o v N E U v E u N a) -0 •E rcs -aa) t a) +, U_ +- cCo _0 +t., f6 +, T +�, a) > v hn T L >• m -C N ,- O V) V) o 4 ° ° a) O ° a) a) O Lt 4O C .0 vi n a • v — C > ci C C ,_ .O a -0 0 v •7co a m '.0 o ' C o aa) C 3 1 'a ,_a-) ° _ a) 0 c E '- c aa)) a) 0 C `° v > O `° L — O_ > ro c O_ v 42 .o t -0 O_ O E v v a 'E v v - 0 v 1, X t '- N -0 O 3 > v >, roo a1 ++ as `•- o a) m c N '+, w a N a a) X 03 O = '} to a) a) ro � L • fa ate-+ C c o •5 +4•, C •- _0.0 _ ,- .-, Q a v .0 C '4- mc N L) L ° +' a) O ° O fL6 L r6 v) o O of w u L a) O- Q o o c o c Q ° a o rti 3 0 -a L = o N Lr, Y ��+ ��+ O a L U +-, U +., +, U +-, E d 'O N +' a -O N a a .�-i a) a) a C E a C E a c E a) a p a p a F o a E oA Q) �, E o @ E o •� E oco csn c c o > 0 CI c E > 0 Ci c E > a 0- o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a°, U (1.) 0 a (U (U co a a a Vf V) V) oav v a) C a +-+ a +5 a +-+ t > > > + a = C n3 (.13 = C (.13co 0 C C '3 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 c o +' C '.0 O +' _C 0 0 'w -c }+ 0 0 m 0 = fp r*.) 0 0 ro 0 0 = L j 0° ° - L a °w a -0 a -0 - d > O O O 0 0 0 o To To a >• Y VI a a >• Y VI a a > Z �, U t om.4 C i V r••+ U t y C tip V �, U t y C y oa >. a a a > C +� a Q a > O , a C E 0 Vf VI �1 y., N �, C a� O O _>6cn VI �1 .p c �, C a1 CO O Vf U a E , a a C c 4-, e a U 5O O a c'''' C a a C °'° a s +O O a a a C +L-+ ° r`v v o a E c E o v o 3 a E c E o cu o o f a s a E o m ro a' E v a a E o m ro a E u a a L +_+ t v a a 'r O •3 a +, o •- t U v a a '- ° •3 a +, o •Q •- cj v a a '- 0 O 3 0 ° a ao L C - 0 ° on 0 ° CLO ;+� D O E Ea .+, c O E E a .+' E u Cr E ° = E -0 0 v E o C I- E -D u o a c °* ' m C> ry J-+ a °�° w O .+' 0 -C > E CU 0 C - f6 Cl.) N C •a +, a a • V, Q V; 0 0 u a v 0 C 0 0) 0 - ca E v v • w - a 0 a 0 V E a v v 0 a a E O ° v E c • C + •- v .E on 3 X u +' u +� 0 E a t' 4- V) >" a ra C u i .) 3 3 O co i -0 '3 0 -O — f6 a v) v; 0 a O U) U +.+ 3 a v v) 4' an' V) -aa a •N >- .4.7, ,, c-a E c a •o CO o v N •- _o m Q ° 70 a o -aa a t m f6 = E-CI 0 E a rts •o eCn (U 7 = +, a X a O a ,� O - C t '§ a ro a l6 a a 3 > >o a i m - o o `° V; V) '^ V im- C o •O C Cco X _u -c O a O '3 O U -.0 2 •3 CO CO � t N •� O a�J (U 0 C w o _ v ° co E �' - tp4C 0 i+ p o a T U i E U c a ._ 7, r6 v C N o0 +' > i r0 2 O , v C a -° O • +, to a C ra vi a a -0 a aJ ¢ O0 U �O > C O _c C +U.+ (O +' V) N a i -D "0 C z O� E (--) 4_, c E �M O ++ a °O a +' C to a '^ - a +`_ +; O a) a ro HCl- i O a C E C 0 a C @ 0 t RI .E O a) a - -00 0. .c r0 0 ¢ c 3 -- v E =O 'u ai a > a u Cr) '- 4 ( •Q v - a + Q ', N w a ~ r`o two +� a a CO > 0L .}Y• _ 0) ,a, or°o J +. O v, on a -a E s a O (.0 ,F Q +, a •E 3 V) t •P w w a v v •+- N C -O a o O c u CCo V; c U .o � -0 - ro a E C w p +-+ `•= (o C , > +a+ cn +@+ = +@•+ C a.) to O 0 -O v, cn C v •ate+ to 2 c (a u oat a .2 = o ro 3 _ ' 0 " U) o c C o � � = U To a ° o a 0 3 + ,, a C — +U,• V, au ro _a _0 C •(13 o to Lu ci, ro >- a VE a O t a N a o " on a 0 o ° Q' ) a a a o 'a •v 0 > a„ o v •o c - o a°, w a V) — a 0 E 0 - 0 V) O U o ao o a s U a ro — F a E ro x a a L 0 U a V) C- a 0 ro t 4 a 0 a C C CD ¢ C "0 Cl- s ao +-+ a U V) C co a ++ 0 V, < a E U CC co U a F 2 0 2 cc c o N y I- To � ° E E E NE E E < 0 2 2 ~ m' Z U U U o Ni Lrl 0 0 ,-i N +�' Y U O aC cu U U •c- 6 cv Q U i a1 7E' CUD O d v be 00 0 0 w a) CU CC U > 0 vi tov C >, vi '+' CU,� 4- H 4- O C +, O U 0 - (130 c ra 0 ? -0 O O O C O N +' t •.0 O i cou v by U Li O O 0 7 F 0 0 d i +' 1= -C '3 v +' c > o 0 >- 0 Y v1 a) +T' +,, To U co — co w-' cu _0 U a)C _ i > C C +� .0 of t ate' O yN Q C ro a) >, c H 0 C Q O N � E ,C C 00 "0 E -0 f06 o LO 3 C i c c0 •O C v .4, t Y a� a �. by CS a) •4- Q •N C - CS CS a-+ L N Q = '} v O •0 • 'f6 vl C O C ° roc Ts i of N +, r6 0 i U +� '-' a1 ++ O ° 7 O O a-' O O .� 7 > D a1 U a1 C a) c L a i 0 a1 E o •+, C a) •� c C ca c , 4- v -C ami C +' 0 L +' E c 'p ,n v vs °� 'O +, ,,.n c co E 0 c ,m +, E j i O by �O >, i +' c i rc -a d C i C ,n U c C Q v :' O a •t' U a) o_ °' :+-' E +_' '3 zr v -0 = = v °� a ca v 'c v a., o ° O E O 0 E E o a) Q E O — v c v v — N a C — v CL 0 v t U U 0 O o E ro v a, C CS a, ca cm O U +' a, o v E U N N o -c Q = v cv a +' as o 4J 0 0 C ° CVi T N c a ao, o 4 ,.' +' s -av, d -a 0 0 i in c E O — C 3 +, 4. oro ,n -00 coo U +) 4.E 0 v - 2 +' s_ v i' – ca O 2 C c C 0 ° -0o c o E x E a a c 0 u U L }' a) ro N bJJ — c _c (a O .0 "a ca i 7 (o (a i l6 i fa +' co co 3 +' U L. v c E .O CO O `C O a rl a 0 E a bn a ai v, a) c 'r 0 'E o Q a E O v U o o -0 -0 v v o ° c .E ° co c ca O C +' a O O +' ) 0 ti4 VS OD C 0 0 U o a c v U v '+0 v .+' '7) '� a) c a) c - n3 w U a, 0 E � U) O v > > ca cco +' o ca 3 .E u ca a o v E bU co v, +�+ Ert, '� .0 co O v) O a) N .aa) — o a o C a0 C C bU U C a1 N C _ +' -0 c > ca O C -0 t C a) y u +, 'fit as C C C apt aac •+' , E ° C O O a • -0 by G to a — o ca +' E bA a u v c o c c cam° a v C .E v v Q c .0 O +N' C v +_' O O ra N +�+ O — c -0 CS 0 7 a E U c U i O 0 > i C 0 X O v a +' m = a1 i in -0 ca N m a1 0 _1 'U O O L '+' E C C in C C +' "0 +, 0 O C O O 0 0 -0 J ca a a1 ra `n a +' +., O a1 C v, +' a c,, v v ' v O U }, > °' v E v c v c E c +' o w Q i a� ,n x a c -O • " v o c L O U o o v C c c W O O +' N ra a) a ra C ft, 2 i - a ra N Q } C •+' ba •+ c N N O > g > 1- 4- C O c `° a a e = m v •Q' c 0 c o v E E U c E a To U i C C CID O +' (a C L Owl O 'a a" �_ O of - ' .0 O +' a1 OL ro +-. c O E c O c E a' +' U _ N v, - bn v .c C C C +' v, c,,z _ct m a 'an v > E a o U t c -0 co ° O ° 0- > C C Li, Y+ -+ a 0 0 c O C 0 " a .0 ca .0 C c 3 v 0 a-- b° 0 n 0 CS °u -OQ a 2 E o a a 42 ro si u ~ o a rr = C ›- c O a r, ToOOiD co wt 4. o g 2 o Q 2 m o Lh Ni Lrl O O 9-i N - +T, U O S2 (5 U T ,v N a +� E _v v c o +� aJ tuD (1a) C E c v, _ v aco E E 0 a. T U O ce U U 0 vi aoaJ c "+ +, 4- = H C +' O T_-, co c C al o O O O C O +, O co 0 7 U F d O- - L+ cvi a) + > O U i "C .O +, C to 0.0 >. +U+ v v,c CU ate, c v, O L QJ +-, _c v o_ C 4_ ciao .0 U = U vC a- U 0 ro +, +' �O O_vs _0 U �,, • a E v o o c -0 •- v $ '5 aJ t c E •E a v 3 v L v aco a c +, _ U U an i ra a .E aJ vi U aJ v) 2-,) 7 O > c Q aJ aJ �O Q E c O c +, +, C v UJ O c � O- o +, v v •5 > ° E c -0 E O +, ra U w of p C a0 +-, aJ C O C '� W C U 0 6 U ra U E U coo >, C U ra U "N U U +_, O > Q Q. . a-+ O 2 E •E O C c u a U `= _0 c v U O Q U U E = v u v D . +-, 4021.1.1 .42 v a v v, U — o a t E E o 0 ra o u coo .^ E t Q co U +' c O _ U C +' v -o0 +, ra a C O H c N t 0U u N O U -° vi _� C -0 > C CO} v v co C — O .,. p O ca a, .1- c c }, ,n to O_ - i 0 7 ,n i „� _c t U ro u v) c 0 U ra u-) as N a'' 4, cu u 4. O N O i L S N c U .c aJ T c +' E u Q 'x C -0 0 U aJ CO ro E C c O 5) ° a `+° d O ° c ra .E C p °- _Q D = v 0 C - ra +' v ° O Q C° E +..'" Q a C v �` y c > a O_ b aoc a' •a v v O v 'w 'M ° U o O o U ? o v 0- L av) • E i O U — L c , ca O U Q O c " U ,*„ Q aJ +' VS U V31 L •- +' w U Q u C cu C E vi ut TE C Q vUi -O CO ._ O U L L ca +' 3 H 0 -0 7 CO 7 fl_ U a1 fa c U '+' •Q C u U C ° • , U 0 vi CU O C ca L C C c .fl V) ca — ° — U co v C Lao 3 o +� E a a E Q "� 6 0 .0 E Cr U +' U C O +� 0 co v 2 •+� QJ v) +U, Vi‘ aJ C C L 0 i as u -° U Y ate-+ •7 z W O U O ca +�, +� uo COCO ° N Lo c ° c 0 v z ra E c C ui v c C v C O aJ c v v ^ 3 v o v, o > ao a) v -osz: Q u tin o �, oo ao +' -0 o E t v ro 4- 0 +, C v; :c +� v O N U c�a aJ — U O — C 7 +� a0 N O 7 U L ^ -0 -O c •C Cl- I' aJ ° ca f6 v f° E c v '� C ra C } +U, ,v, as co I- L,, 0 L ° tab- i v v _c c co a_ v > c t OA c v •E O ra C aC 0" O W Q c ° u i +, ro cCa t +, > •w v .1 " E +, tin Q — co — -O > O U c+ v.uo �' w O ,,, i p O v vi +, v Q ,- O_ '^ v +v, O '+� EO N *O CO O w S O. 3 C o ra ll '^ c U v C c 0 E = c � CO C ^ u U C C u u O u „ v ° .- v) c v ° 3 O E v ra aco c� a g O_ •° +, aJ .E •- •° v >• 2 ° u n- ao u ° ro Q- ao �aJ v ca v •"c —^ aJ '+, ° n3 v o •v, a n3 — Q Cl) u CCS U •+C-, rro U 'tto •U C O 7 COiC "33 •s_- +,+, CO Q - E C U aCJ E . • c vCi U r6 w N 'O > Q O "6 v O_ E c0 aJ t 0 O U U 6 +, 73 U C rl U �O a o L u vO, Q =a v) .cLaQ .E cQ .E O_ 1- 2a .E +S7 v E o •- oLo7 v c Q C -a ai 0 _o v z u •S ro as E 2 0 2 ar c 0 T it 3 N M U Ca 0 Ta Oa aJ E J \ O Q 2 m o N i L(1 0 +>• O O O ` U > ,`12 U > v o a '- +� .0 E ai a) c 4, v C a v ° c v c c CO Q) 71c E v c E U a (n c ac° E E acoE E O. T (_j O TU O vs CU +3 (1) ++ a) Ce 0 N 0 N 0 0 V) V) OD a) a) c •+-+ a > as > , O H C + u C +,- 0 u (a C C (O fa 7 C f6 O O O c O O O C CO O = asu 0 7 u F d '- -0 i d OL -0 i L Y N vs > O O U U cu▪ v °Q' C 3 C °I° o E 'c a v •3 aa)) ` t v -c c E .c a a) •'� v 3 �' c o o 0, v v > E •° ~ L o o •+' v v c v o E a) >; a° U c (a c t ° •c +., O '> c v a c v v v, > E c - O > c v c L E m v }' I 0- O '5 v v 'c >. o v Q c a o +� v o '5 ° •O C ._ a0 E .t.: vs W C U v) a •" u .c Q C '5 d C U of 0- (13 Q a •" o E v v ro o a) _0 `c - c v v � c , u •- a a) _0 _ , v oE C u a o _C 03 0_ ca u c . E a u o E v Q H c v N o a c o -F., v +.' u +, - LE v _ _ ,, u ^ c (a v vcu as 3 ,`° — c N C +' a) (5 a) C •Ow vs (a 0 ( E Y L O Mc L a U O v) N rU+ +, a° � "0 to N O N a .- '( vi O — vi >, a) (a u -ciao C c a) U C 4 C m � v c (tea = (>a `�' -a °C CU a . ao ns u • E o O 3 C d m L a) • 471 0 1f1 Q U -c X ' a) U (a- t UA •C Q a) ''' J n3 i u (6 i CU X co vs 03 3 v v ac ° oc v a +� c auo v .' (ay n(a Q O -O a a Q = O C - 'Q a O ' Q a) O i Uccs N -0 _° ++ 4, v +, C O ,n COC f6 l0 U i) `~ 6 C ((5 "O O -Q C (a N c -O O U '^ o +, Q a) r-I 0 O_ CU Ou C CO 4-1 u -p E N 7 C 03 v N -° 0 C ON J o •E O °1 `� C U > a) - _OCA > W E a)C C U O- (a Q .`n O — rl (a i -0 U O H o — 0 (a = C = (a U N U as N a) a.., vt U .(5 > c (a . H (a U Q (a (a C X C C C E a C of i c' U C fa v) , ++ U N x o a) _cm a) O OU C C U +' O U a) .Q 4.7 as t C a) +' C 2 a) uO = i a) iv v, o +, +, 2 v (U +- — 4- (a — c v c < v u +' E o (a O ++ (a U — t (a by of > 2 C tvs a-+ U -O . o N Q O N (a u) +., K CO •s d •o v 'O N Q a1 C -0 si3 c 3 `n N C 0 U N Q N 03 Q 'a (a O' c Q C (a v -6 N OU uUi C N co °U ,a ++ (a 'X N ,n Q - o N t w u v v t 9 C _, +' 7 O n3 > O i -o H `� t E a) L bA di) C U U bA Q U) '+-' 4- I— aO O C U U fa -O E ++ L a-., ,C N C N L C C 0 N co U O a vs c }' �--� O_ > a°�o O C `a 3 M c 'c .c v t' •c c 03 +" O +� c ca 4- O ccu o a) E - 3 v v .o o c C +� c v o Q- O o r.1 Q a▪ To � 0 `-,-0 � ,2 (a - 2vi OcN '� a, EC_taA C CU co .= � X � � v aCD c c _ E Li, t _o us O c c `i' ° E n ^ c 0 c a°1° E o v > c i O a) C v� O U VI U a) vUj "Q U - N fs6 CO c co L — `1 (a •+,Q- 0 I- +' N N Q Q> cucu X O v N - v 0 u 0 (a U 0 0' C Q a) v U a - < 'O +-+ u (a a) U cC 3 _1 3 (a u 0 D U C U a v� 3 (a v) a C7 F 2 O 2 cc C o ° m 1- m u ea fnE E v) _ •°+-° a) E E Zit o Q Q � 2 _ I m o NL L L(1 O O +>' O O L U > v U > v a Y L Y m ac, o v c 0 v C 0 a v c 4-, v = c I= a) •Nc E a, c E v a v, c aco E E aco E E 0. T U O T Lu U O +-, a, + a, OAC 0 N 0 > o 0 0 4, 4) OA a, a) C +-, a+ C O U C O u co 7 c ro co 7 c ro 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 c o t •+_+ 0 +' C IP 0 (6 0 7 c' u a 0 7 ' u d -0 u a s- -0 i F_ Y VI dC > 0 0 U U T a) 'G aT' v v., +'^' to GCA T _0 4-+ CU }' v v a) O ++ -, a) — _u C +-' V) a) O- vl U O •' C O N — U `n +' cn O O -0 O C •i ~ N O 0 • a, 'O vi 03 +' a1 >. E •L ~ 4) 0 0 • O a, '> 'i a) a c L L 4-' 3 E a) C c 0 3 (' a) a c L 'c +' 3 E E E o a U T O a) {n •� O O +' a) aci .L >` .0 aVi °, VI a) a) Q 4 L > f6 a-+ V .� a O C L C }' L a, vl U .� a O C •L `, L a +' .Q a, L c E V - a u rc a •- -0 C ,- a) L C V •- a L - U) E _cN LL, Q a N —_ 'V v >O O N N W 0 Q a v OO +' t o c a) N E C CU a) .. (a V c } U O a •C O H a a O Q C O a 3 Ln W C ra a, O O = L "c a, = ate-+ C d O O fa j. 'O 'O O �, T C I C • 0 7_ 7 -0 u C 9_ a) 0 *' C +' 0 73 U +-' - a) — E co O O p — tea) a) u a N 0 O _ (6 0 N to — (a N — 3 • n3 ro vi '-' U rts L U •C C C .(7) ,_,4‘ L vl .2 ),33 Q (a U w a) 0 L 0 0 7D C E Iz U a, +' a) 0 o +' , a V7 v E 0 CO L C v L -0 cu U L L (a - Q U a v — cu GA Q v E o 0 v N .0 73 •� n3 o 4-, — .X 0 tin z • ao E to •- O V a) L E -0 0 a E -0 c GA •o a O t 0 0 v) 0 0 Ln j H is Q -0 ,u N a) }, GA c CI)a O a) sr, cn O O ca C > Q ,r C•- a) L L (a L U C 0• to 7 .0 toc 075 0 to vl +�+ 4-' ,.O .O O +' 0 0 U too I C CD + >` 03 V, O `C as a 4 co `a vui o C E .0 Q c v }, a, Q U) `� +0+ > 4-, p GCA .O • cN0 VI ++ t a) ° 'a 1'Jn t (6 vi +O' *' •cn a, , a aa) u O Q ;c E cm v `n ca u -°a v o Z. v c a c p °c v o v 0 Z •c7,' E w a, C (a @ — t a) a) L V •- a •to C c > U ro 'Y O -0 v a C a 4-' O d u L m c a (a (a N N c+a a) U 0 (o c a) co co O c C > N L v = VI + O a, O V) > 'E ca ca 4! s .� O a1 C E E 41 -6 a, as O L }' �, a Cl- c 3 0 v tip O 0 �, v co L a '-' = 3 0 0 �; O .+' v ':} °; 0. v >. vui -a >, 3 c c Q ., a Q C CO 0 Q a X O E ^ O V *- c„:, -0 'O . U 4-, �y L C (a L (a Q; "a L) C c _c �, ° cc Q a, E v (Ea Co E }, O +; +; a . , -0 a v C Ca •c aa) E a U1 `� " o u fa o O (U 0 +' U) - 3 v v +; -0 v C m 2 70 -0 ° ° v •(a v o v a 'O o a ° o .-_ ° x 0 9 1- co �' o 73 v o c L0 Q 73 7 v E *' _0 n3 Q o c GA O U C L 4- +-' O • t O C — +'' 4- , C L +' ._ ca U +' 'p a) 'n +' C (o — C > 0 O N L (o f6 .- a, 'i C a s _ao - ° o � -0 a) o } c ai = o „ _c • 'o c 'ro c o t 0 c aa) E - E -a, Lu (a N cn •+' C 7 = }, U a) a O +' L ,+' cn a > O U O u a) '-c U L a-+ O Z C ' •- U '. E (o C a) C •N (o - u +, 'v (o E V a; +' a) o U 0 •L -0 > O (-) +' O E N O E _' 0 (a I^ 0 U, (a 0 L _ •- (a 03 u E a) cn U �w a) +' U ra CD Q r0 -0c pp v, N - - 0 +' E i (I a) .'-' a) 0 C (a a C C ,} L a) fC6 c �' Q ''' v x c v a) +' O L vl 7 a) 0 0 (a L a L 0 C 0- 0 0 , 0 s L 0 O (G v v -0 Q CO L 3 -0 L O N a W m -O N a 0 a .E cn a U vs (o U U co a H +' U a F 2 - - 0 2 w c 0 0 c tr.) to m U CO InE E vl _ •.,,-° U, E E zti O 2 2 Q Q 2 m` o N L Lcl O OL Y � U 0 U � U _T E a • 3 m a) a) a C a C a a = c a = c ovn a li, c E a c E a a v) c a E E .cc E E Q. T (_j_ O ,. 0 O Y a) Y a) Olif AC U N U N 0 0 sn v) pp a) a) C E '5 cu •> C O u CO u ro c C ro (a 7 C ro O O O C O O O C c6 0 7 U 0 c L- U F_ d• O -0 L a C •s70 -0 L L N C WC > 0 0 U U a O C a O Ca• U a) � tOU •- ca v) u _0 1E O Un Lo +4,++ a = u .,, caraa 4 v o cao a — C 0.) ToC +' ca C N a L aL a) • oa) L d a) L -C L ca a C L L }, > a E > L C a) T > QL .L 0 (a > L C cu a E o Q o C a v E E o Q o_ 4.> Q E L �_ O c Q CO C 2 U `" t v - c N N = O .0 Q CO cw E a'' U 4- _c a) +' 0 L v aJ C U .0 Q aA E '+' to v O .-' U L a �, V) Q to- E , ra a O , 22 U L a w 0 Q aA .Q L C L U 5 c a V) .-, .VI ca L C L U c t — a) V) .-' .V) ca L C +, W _O Cl.) p — a + O a O — a + E v L E v a t +' o C p ELr, LI) v E 3 t o o E o w L.) o Q C 0 a N N U $ Q C o a U U U U -O OC CD CU > -0 -0 _c c ca O 'a' _ ca •c ✓ c -0 ' c .as.. v Q O C a) u !a O C C U ca • O '- a) co T 4- _0 a) c C , u Q •- U C C n3 s_ v) _o a L — co L Q y_ O O N a a a' c = c = +-, '+� ET -0 E N fa ca p ra C L co cu 7 a) U o 4_, .L' C , c U •C O Ln t •- ,� 'i' O — Q_ - Ca �' Q of N ca a) 'E C C a) g v c, L c v ,0 U 3 a, v 4 ,F t y' 7 �., cp O .�-' u a) O ', .�.' pp -O L U ▪ U C C V, Y rJ •y_ CO - Z o E a aU a cl) rt, 03 L a Q p u +' C a) ra q- a a) ▪ v,Q al V • y • i aU a) - O - >, C NQ c c o `E OCo Qc K O a au +' ca Q- C C C C vi C co a +' a U c u u °C c -a a) ao L ro a 0 > n3 i.,= -0 4- a o E c a) o Q o aL) o > co ._ w p v o c a l � +, a Cr, Z U _ c'o a ca O Q a +�' 75 Q aa)) m a u E U c v� H a C v) ' 0 U O +' a oq -L O C a ra Ou ut a) O `•. p D u u (7 C O L u ra ra O Q -O a) *' C a) too Z C C a -0 a � C a .O Q s- -0 L L CI L > v tin 0D c c cu a C ,' v a v) v) F▪ ''' O C a) O ra = .Q a U- ro C C N a - Q co L U C 1- Q 't5 O ra D Z v) v) F 2 O 2 1 C Wo T it c N W m U E E of h o 2 2 Q Q o rs1 L L L L.rl 0N >. > 4O > 4O > �O w ++ +, U Z. U Z. U O _a L 0 T 2) U T 2) U T v m a ._ } m E a) a) c 0 a) c 0 a) c 0 a v c C a) c C a) c C to c E a) c E a) c E a) cu ,z) •c 'ocn E E 'aco 'aco Q. w 0 0 w 0 0 w O 0 U U U y .+>• a) 4>• a) 4-' a) OC U v 0 v U u, Lopa a) a)) a C +, O U C +, 0 U C .., 0 U (a 7 C (a (a 7 C (O (a 7 C a5 C O O O C O O O C O O O C O +, t ... O +-' -C ... O +' t '+_. O i+ aA CO j., L aA CO •y, L OA ra •++ r6 0 = U 0 = u 0 C U •CO *CO • OF c L c L d c L Ld Y +4, C N +-) c C > 0 0 0 U U U v v , C _ v v , c _ v a) , c 4. > > v L V) - C Q t cB in , t C Q t ra v 0, - C Q 0 C +, L C O U _ 7) co }, U C +, a) I- t U C +' V, a) H L U C +' N N 00 a) U �O }' C +'' a) — U a) a a) > E .2 v; , cu _.F. C E .2 v; L - cu _.F. c E •c c tc a, att o O . c L a) c c a) O o }' v a) c c a) O O •— a) a) c v, .2 = +, v >•• E ~ v) o a) 'c +, 3 v ;° •- a) O co 'c +-' 3 E •` a) O a) •c 4-' 3 E •`• v c O s U a, Q E L 'c C Q" c u v U a°) c u 'Eo Q- o v v c u ao Q- o C v v c •c " c > °J .a +>, o cw Q- CD o _ E L a! L C E C L C E C C L U of C Q) a) v, U LU ra w +- co a) C ra c n on .7:).. E O a) .Q 6 C N y O a) Q a) in .�+ O a) Q a) in _ U FL > CO +-' W O Lb U a CO U Q c o H - v, U Q C o H _C a O Q- u t O a U ut U ut U ut +, U L a) L a1 eta N U .- o T Y -.. .Q .O O Y Q) C - O C C Ol U O � U r� c � O .., h0 — O_ C a) 0 C +, CZ a) a5 a) v, Vl C ra ra _1,-- H O CO Lc 0 U N a) v v - CD C O UCL v)= O s- OL a'C no O L rl > U U • E — +, O O +, > +, O +, >, o m w E o `) O v +° c a) O v, E +, 'a-.) I� L .., c C co — +, >. c a) E N E v u o o Q c v E v N 0• 7 O Oar O L Ca a) a VI 4-' O 0 C7 0- .0,, cC IV a) -C+4. ¢ N c 'E rco ps a) > C L 2 L = v 3 O v v 0 N 0 > •> +v.• a as 4E 2 E E a) C O t O 0- V, C 0 7 C +, •ra C ra Q) `n `- r6 OOA +' 7 c of of U (a 7 O O O E CO C TO w 7 C .ra O U V .". V, O O --. V, +, L C O 0- +, L +, L C = ra CO n3 c •r—La ro r`o c o 3 - 'ED v C v co E v v a) o c N CO o co a, E o L v c O L 0 U a e0 u3 c r° U O a rCo 0 a) v ,1 — _ Q C v c c U v n3 U t '‘IS C vC c f>6 a U C ONC ("13i ro 0 C v 2 (13+-. }' U a MO U +' C I- -1 0 LU• `� O E t i c 0- -s3 +0 (a C OC a) N O a) - (CS +>• SU 0 N +- 3 N rO - c La C7 C v T ro D n3+, t ( Cl_C N -O U• C +-� C ., C ut O 7 C vi C C a) v O C 2 O LU co > ca c v +' a) " m c U E • o cc)ca •+_' ro f6 ra co Z s Q -O I- Q ra Q .-.. c L r6 ) ' L a) L L a) E L.,.., +, O as T U +, O as >• 0 co Q m coN +C, ti; as F aa) C U U C c t ra 'L L +' O O a1 ca ^ ra a) a) ¢ F- ra ra < a) v, U a U U v) 00 0 G t -a C7 CG t F• 2 0 2 cc c o y o ,-I ›- C L al ,-i c-I o u 3 CC VI E E E vs _ .°„-° a E E E a o 2 2 a a a ~ vu• -' I I I o N Lrl O ,-i N >,. +, T O (a E a u Y m▪ e v �-� v c m a) a) a) c E E c c E E a) v w E o •E LIU a E ato _ c E v Q w L E (7.) Q O. w O a1 a) }> O O > a) (n .}T' U U U U o 0 cc U aA w .+,, a) C O • U E Uci, +=' -c)C N C 0 u p Q f6 7 0 (a C 7 C O O O c aA ra 'o CO 0 U 0 7 Q U L .., o OL LJ i Fc O ,n t +' a) L C + c > 0_ O Q U U C a-, U N ° _o t ,n _c -° -°a1 E• a! 'O as U C Q ca ' t +�+ 0 a) +V3 > 6 O Q ro c a a > c E c a j i 2 o +, v ° o ) ' c u Q o c E E a) v -0 3 >, E .O Q U 7 r6 ra E L C aJ L u 3 E Q v u ° ° ° Q ° o > v Q C C U 6�1 ° N co +, aJ a) i E — nsO '� *J +Q, - a• IP s Ear ) a, QQ °1 _a ,_ ., U a) 0 °1 -0 `• -0 c � a) v E v -0 a a) > Q a n a, as o — v t E Q O (n Q oc cn v H co a ° +, "6 t `L° C a) 3 .v v o a; o 0 c a , O co U Q • p ,v 0▪ N -0 in t 0 f6 O a) oc O U +, - @ U , b.0 E v C C o v m -0 v co C :c *, f6 v Cl) (5 CD v c t rO u ra •+, E 0 bA +; U L- a) r_v p +� E C � v ro +, a L O -0 c Na) In 0 aC) a1 2 -o O °+,) N C a L +L+ N 1:5 c c >i' a) v.O E v m E (°Aa v o : a c o ,n co +, o - a +, H a) •.. i c +, ° 7 > C a) L C a) aA -O SD +, i E' . L o co co U C O C } a) E Q O L C C = O O a, + > Uco N a+-, C c v -0 m 3 3 `° v aa) ° ca Q +, a) t .� a (o ra (6 ° O 0 +O, :11 -0 _ v a) C d L a! U E C a., in — C c� c c v t v' c u L U O c coc • -° o °• E E UU) ra C a) a) +T, +'' vCi O O +,, N U o C O Q 7 C C +, 0 0 m y ,n v c +QL, c •- +I•, m• y E CU - S- v H L v, L 0 2 = E C C 0 0 v, ._+;' C C L a a) omcE -� C E -°1a E +a) a) ca ° a v cco o vC 4-' E v Z 'o ra +, a) N Q > :p •c `� 4; -O -6 Q ° +16+ r6 3 °�) _ C >> u +� % c -a Q c '7 v, o E — C > a) ° C > C C a t O o c o 7 0 ra Q .o aa)) v -- o c — a) l'-') .N a) a v E E _ E as +' E Q- E U ° c U (a C: +, -° = - OD w CO C •i v, �- y0 Q a) N Q- 0 0 W 0 U C t Q cy- (13 % y; O a) CD U .E I- o > > .� C C C aL) >_ x (a +, +, N a ra `° E a) t v a v c = o a O v F a) v E • Lco > (a w o o v 0 = 1- m o a (0 c ° Q ° 7 .c o L v) , a) .E v In V, _ L ,n +, LU C n Q v .03 .O , CO -°0L Q = v •r 'a . Q d of i ° ° o — i 'C U O L — +, J L +-+ as (a ra -a 7 L — a a - +a) N 0 • Q -O E ci,1, a Q O s c c ''' U N a) -0 c as or o g c o (a c v E Q c LE .= U (n CO (n CO +-, rraa t a us (Am °U G s1 Q a 1- H R7 O a E 0 3 ›-• c o y e o L a N M u o f E ~ ° as as ° E E NT = (1) o 0 2▪ •S 2 2 = m o N L`1 O N >., w ++ 0 L _0co Ln E a m al U) a) a _a a) cn Q, a N C 0 0. (n CU CC OD C E H C 0 y, co U F i 01 >' L a) 0 ro 4, a) �o v v., .4. C CU •`° H C v " C o " ` 'o a E n3 ° `L° 3 0 +- 2 1- N ,7, c a c v a + 4-', cca 3 0 ° v ' `^ 2 ms Q v v u E CCU L O > O +s, E L C N v, +4, U Q _u N m N a U 1 i s U O 0 U a) t."..». 0U " a) C C `O i U) -p O LL6 C > c v - v, — C O O 4! 7 t E O ° C +-' C a) +, p o L m • a) C c `3 `a U .0 4c v, "co L `O ,_ Y a) 0 4-, N L Q Q L .Q' ▪ w C U 0 0 C 3 cr 4 Q p O o L > a) ^I Q- c c +-'' a) a) E c E U .a 00 v CV .� U Q > 41 +' LE ro N O N > N C7 0 U Q +-' Q) N a) +' CU O v, 'O IA 0 15 4- O 0 C CU O Y `O ° , n3 v C 4 a) fC6 +, v, +, CU -p 0 To N v E N a co CU c `a N v a .-n° c bCA O C •° a) O c C • O v, U 0 c a) c o N CU `6 ° L a) r6 •v, v O U O- C a1 bA ▪ 3 C +-, O -0 _� - > C L C +' L C ,+'i, U Q i OL fa v, +, a) O -O Q •+, C U o N p a) L ++ C N a) U (O f6 i O U t `6 co ° C +' a) LO O C -0 C `O -0 ✓ H• +CU 0 - +, 7 N co 0 +, L a) 2 -D ut U U _c L -p 0 a) `6 E a) IT > O N aa)i v -O +O, u t +" _c t 7 j H 0 t w ° H to c v O Q v N v _o t +, c `o c v u c a v v v +' ° H `+° U 3 > -O ,n O O co L p U L a) `6 C +' 0 O vi a) `O vi +' C vi c6 A 0 E v; 0.0 v ° oun C v c = U Ui v -' H = v r a •= `a 'ro v E t' `a — - C ,., N o �°w _c io cc, U ai v 3 .E a E `o - n3 v •E E E a o L v v +� C CU o U C a) `Lo 0 v a) C >. °-' N 0 — a) v ° O O 00 a) co a) ,- U of U C C LL6 co C ° = CU 0 • +, > v, > -p U L C +, C -0 v, .0 a) a) L co C C `a L_cm -0 0 4-4 a+ f0 -° a) a) a) a) > E +' 'a `6 L a) 7 a) CU �` L CO u C v, ° `U '} `U C +, C c�E V) `O C +, E E C O N Q +, of -a a1 L v, U -O 73 Z '� v c O n C CU v o v r f6 03 v O U el W c 0 ° w O ° E ^ v +, — v ^ 3 L L v, v E E a) o C u a) v) c L Q c 0 C •o •- ac) v 3 `v b U) o c •`—° — m t 3 0 ° °1 E v - a on aC p ut `v c +' ut L v, `� ° E CO O +' 0 <O > o p n3 •`-L° = O N a) L +, (6 ro F, ro •� L E v m Crors O w ;o co +L-+ b�A O C COLOv.O a) 0 a) v 'O Y OL >O n3 C -° 16 `D `� a) ns `, C > `o CU a) a) a) ao o v ° v E co - `- Oo a) ° -O — -O 'O v, > C " ' - C LU 2) -O E L . > O `O C CU a) •L > 2 N ° +, > u 'Q C C U) m O v o a) co U +p, a) CU c E 3 pU c co) C CU a) E U L V, v o �, `o C a L v; `o v +� v C vao +' E U I=• v co u _ E • ; c O a) tin E a) s v o a) v ao 2 on •,, c ; o ▪ QJ Q m +, c v a ` .c a a) -° u '� ^ v ,0a) ° v O c t t > v — LC u ° z t t E t v E 0 a) c o p a c v +' v t n3 +� — v a v -a m .+5 a) v a) t U 0 +, — v, Q = U -° -° cn U 0 0 a) > cn - -u -0 v, v, Q `O v, L co w > > Q v, CI Lu a`) H Q c _6 u -a v � ao � E ns 0 2 cc • O o N Q L m U `O H H co d0 `S O g 2 H vU z m, o N N O N ). w L 0 -a (5 up E a m a) a) a ic a) CO v a N a 0 0- 1.05 H 4) ce 00 C E C O V (6 U w L N 0 -C ++ a 2 N u C (a Q E O 0 4-, C C _ T - +� >. _ C C — 4-, w - (o v u C 0 (a (o a L a) oVI C N of -Q c C (0 .Q ° ° > O u pCp O c L yam., v) .0 co a) co Q O u Q v ni E u O a) a) C +, >. 'D v, (0 (a c -0 "a cn C +' °1 co Q .0 v +' N u ° to Q •N E Q ,n ai > (Lo L 0 (o N a) _ +.; 0 a) n3 N v, v, `� > ' N c a) Q 0 +, v 'O O48 Uro OLa ° •a) a) 'a C O O a) U c vOi .� Cl. L u L U — u O ++ E a) L a) +, > — o v( E L > C N +, 0.0 ++ +., 4- vii Q o a) n3 a•• O +, 0°0 +, E O i) vs a) — 'u a) -0 p `^ •N E v a) O 0 O O E -° U a) to Ca 0 D Q n3 +, v LO N .� 7 (o Q OU 'C v - (o o cc C o a) .0 .E (LLo LO O 'n +�-' C c C CO N O m c u +; a Q o ° a) Y a 3 a v — o Q Q E E v o °° — 4_, 0 4, f0 nco — lla ,•n o O a)CO N Q d `n c V• (13 Q CO •- C - L L a ° +, L O (0 of _U O 7 U a'' vi -0 > n3 v, U 2 E a) Z •O •(p ,n t 'U C o - t +, +t, O a1 L c -° 73 VI a) C F. 4- a) (0 a) E o ° d % -6 Q O 7 a1 C N v O b4 a) _ (0 (6 C (0 0 ° p N O v O '� C ut 7 L L +, v C -Q — d a) co U a) L N N vi C of L N v, a) a) Q c c (v O 7 v o o = v v m (0 L C 2 Q v, -O co a ',� ++ Q N oA ,- < , a) -6 (0 Q C _0 C U (o N Q -Q •Q N t N N o Q ° �J C = _o CU v T >. O OL a) O c Q -iCC na) O < O (0 (0 ) — +' .++ 6P p_ O +, p L (o — U +, +, .v ,� .c U U ns U u uL •, L O — � C bA U1 w U U - • .= L ° �' U Q 1 O 0 •� EQ QE ° O4. aOL c-O C O C b +, - 'a-) vN C 'Es 2 (o N .- C m N i .� +, O� OA t p .- n3 Q0 N -p C a) -a a) O -Q 0) +, a) C a) E (0 +' Q a, •CO U U �° O ° 7 O •_ _ _ W - ,-, 7 o VQI p 0 O a) ti4 a) ( v u EQ - v — CQ — c v L_ v Q U) (o a) (0 > U E a) >• a) L L3 >• (o E ' N .0 p Y — 0 Q N > co m *- co u E O Z s L E -ca) C -Q O N C t o (0 f6 a +, (6 Q L X C L aJ O o a) L o u (0 E Q o +, 1- (o Q Q 3 v Q v) u Q t oc L n +, (n E a) v 'Q v (a E (n E L u +, w L.,.., a) F Q c ._ ., Y _• E c o a F 2 0 2 cc ›- c CO N L I- co ba (0 NT = 47 o g 2 H 2 m o N L(1 O c-i N >, w L 0 _csfa m E a m a) a) a a) 013 v V) co N c 0 Q V) a) cc 00 C E C 0 V (6 v F L G) 13 0 t ++ a) 2 a) U C (a Q E O 0 _ C -O in v p U_oa La C O U O v co +�-+ n3 L - b0 v n v) 0 v, v v C vvj v -p 'l al yv' v L = 'W (0 u O Q b0 C >, .O C L v cu L O_ O u v H 1 v O +- 0.3 E 7 O •p > To - >. Q v N N O = c v t a--, N c p L Q- O v v L (a b0 v +- c L o +' 4- c' a E c ° V) +' C L 00 > .0 v 4 c co •,7 a) m - v o v o O co _c v ,0 -0 U 0 v - v . J o v .- >. 0 C 0 *' c20 a' U - v O U 0-0 C u , 4-, 7 •p vui O `� N C ro d .� '� ro O 4' '> o C o o -0 a -va _o `) Q- o oc V,ro `L° *' .0 E > O v C Ca vs C vi (L6 (L6 av' O • v 7 c .0 Vf v c C av+ m C OL O �1 b0 v U -C UC E 0 v c O v OU ~ .0 - O lap >, (b • n3 �O O .7 Q v c1 U N C 4- _6 0 -C CU vs �' 4' _ t' v v o v -a o E > v _c ,- -o b0 4-, 4, m v o -, E 2 To •> E E a ro u ij o a °) v c c v •� U +� U C C > O C ._ C u v v a) 3 c O C bA p C *' •c v +' (o Z o a Q �vvii a C (a (0b (0b CU L i (b 'C nvi v v Q (� o O 41 _O v c co c C C O bA •rb 0j 7 > 'ij 0C E Q- a c - o o °1 4-' La o o ' Q o v N v, . C vC -, v v co ro (= O CT O v v V) -0 i_' Vf 4+ v v v V, °, '(co -0 u E a o `6 •L v v a O C C `L° a C .,--� J VI In(b OL =.^, n b0 a) v +' +' U j, 4-' C v CU O '+' N `" Q 0 -0 v v 7 40 '(o vM U U +' E +' n n L v, L ca o ,^ +' (o E c w +' > > > +' C L v Q w C v a C +' CL bf0° (1b (b C C C L �O t; Q N o (O 7 - aco 'a t O O •c > -6 O O co (0 v "6 C v O O ON v U c +' vO t C 'v (b •vf +v' +' Q Q b0 b0 4--. SU O } '- c U +' a) v co3 4' •'' +- n3 N v (O i v O iv- v v CU U +�_ '� C C > (b b0 OD 3 '^ v v U U — (b L -C v on VI �' p0 L .v E - v ;_, v F to C cu _C +-+ (b +' v v N 1_•' L L 4_' .....a3 C >. c 6 " v u +' ti Q O >, >, -O . (O Q ti4 vt —p Y v �. +' U L 0 ' C E O 0 E v t a v C C ut L a +' •*' -p vi v C v U V> a v U N U v L U L L U v 3 O - - C v Li, caW CU > .� C H o n - 0 0 0 0 o � v }' o v v, 0 = r O O C a 7 7 v -o _ v U U U U Q V, V, -O > V) CO -O V, V, CI LL — Q Cr 0- -0 -O }' 0- CI w4) F +' v Q - s vi a - - F 2 0 2 cc • C p N Q L m u ea til I- co 00 00 N = = 47 zi O g 2 H 2 mL o N Lr) o ,-i N >., w , O vCO a m E a) a) a v oA v 71 co N C 0 0. v, 43) CC OA C E H C O y, co U F i a) O t 4, a! 2 a) u C m .Q E O U O -0 v 5- -0 v = - c °1 tab, v • o a) a1 co c i- c ,� N — O = c L o • n c 'L v 'x r>o v v > _o t .° °,71 o 'Y a1 3 v •0 H a) oA > 0- 'O 3 Y a! v Q > a1 c 2 -o i p a) 0 +' O u CO O L v -0 La C oA O u +� ut to C 0 ° C a! v, v v co Q v >i L dA v i c co a1 i O +, — a-, v, v ° + a1 to p c i v •co � O C = > O u c 'J0 a) C c o E v v Q > a1 O • •N ra ,Q Q '0 v v .0 *' Y 0o O to U • oA O v 5- a) +, i 2 7 - t +, ro a1 v O co +�., .0 U .- C 4-, o - i N U L °- > .� v U �^ 7 ++ i -0 03 ha v, °- a1 (L6 L v a1 O 0 ,n a; to ro 3 tap •m t +, v o ° co u .E E p C > on 00 •E v .7_ 45 +' E v,co a X X c v toro c o u EE E O O C7 , = c ° C C v, O tab 7 v y ° W a1 CO a) .° - .N E u +� v , T co C u •.• •; O >, v L •= o o o c E a, a N +� E t - u 0.' -' ° t o :° U a1 O E a; v O >• v� ° v a1 -° c v v c u o .0 .E c E U o c o 72 u v v Y U co v, a1 U N c ro O o c v o 3 to ro v, f° >, ° `—�° r° a c E o 03 � a + > u v > -0 v co o v X E ° E v y-• CO v • CA -C E o ,+°1, E >• o a1 a1 o = v \ v v61, u v o v v v E C t v ru C -p _ p o > O +, o CU CU .c — a1 •c D C 0 c U c p c c +.+ c .7., 7 - C v .--i C c > 0_ c h0 0 o O O. C -- > O E Z O E co co E co u �, ° a-, v C ° c v v v = O C c •Y = p c •- "O c , c o O ai v u +� oz, N °- o +, v o u to •+, v U -o } ° d i aJ ,_ -o oA co N v "O a1 O U > U c > C "6 +a, j C- OU t C O ro �' ° +, Y Q c '3 E0 +, 7 •-C C i +, O v O i.. +O+ O -0 co .c a! >` •X v 0 v +, co `n •� +' 'i ) J aa,' u X co w 3 v) 3 E a E ° rn _0 a 0 U- ° > 0 o a°i Q" a oo _-CD t - +, co > v 'E w o ut v U v .- a1 O O Q D v c -° 3 c > u i 4- a1 a1 •+., +, U O D o v v > ° °CU U 3 v cuo f° a+,' v ° v ° u v L v •x v, a —_ o v v w o p +L, > O i 03 X j O i C ° ° i N c O 6X1 O t > +� Q ° +�, Fg >, O m O o v) 0 °' 0 3 N v a s RI .4=0 m o ° > > v v • To u 0 E a v v o v t v v o r°J, 'Q u v v v 2. ° o v v Li, C 0 v °+,' fB E v 0- a c a ° a a -0 C C o v u v a Y o > ' u O C 0 ° Y v, = u Z s a) i p N 0 0 O O O O >• O p c v v t o ) i c- u ro t v L ,- v _c 0u a1 D L > co Q u -0 +, cn v, E v, cn v v t U U co o C H v, .E O E -0 U o 5 > RI E d v, a -0 w a) Y c > 3 X >, F 2 2 ›- c C a! D L m u ca of H o do c6 Ti o g 2 H vU, 2 m O N L(1 O .-i N )4 w v i 0 E a m E a) ar a) a _0 to v a N c 0 0- 4.05 H a) cd Oa C E C 0 V fa u w L a) 0 t ++ a) 2 a) u C ca Q E 0 0 0 _ — C -6 3 U� 0 o O C ut a) 0 0 C C 0 (a C (/) +, ++ a) 'LS a) +, -O a) co a) .0 0 .y0- _ P2 N O E U (6 U t u Q c O c v CO +, +' +� v v +� ro +, a, o +, bn CU O ( C CO 0 C L (o -a C a) o L7 C c = +�, i 0 OD L O L 0 Ca) 4- Q _ E o L v, E O t 3 0 Q -O a) O 3 a) Q co_ +, a) ++ Q +, a) v, an > v, , L +i L v, L a) +, +, E L- c v L LT = v o 3 u +L, •v, ' c >` •V, > c .v •o -Co >cu 0 J m o o '� a; V1 O Ni +.. +-+ a) O v 0 OL w4- CL E +, (a E w C v C -0 +-, (a +_' '•, Q C >, O 0 N i Q Q U a, v +, o r' — v +-' ° v - (o Q a) 4=' c E > v c Q a) +- o > Q c-I V C (a C C C C (6 +, `� L C 7 L, ++ > a) (a O 0 Q X N > -o E •U v boa O O --+ (o v > Q C ji > N Q C rl L L o +' +, t E v D — ° ° v v > v vi E a 0 (Co io U > cco .P _ 'X c v u C (a +, -0 O Q C O 7 d. }' cn Q- E O 'O C +, a) c ,,, O Cc +, l6 E O E Z o E 3 3 C 3 > O C7 U rt, E c v v v c v o_ •� v v v .a a,n) •- (o O a) -O .= O v) C a) a) L L C O E '^ > a) +, C L O ou �' co E t a) a L c L o a) > E O (a +, v CU CU N •,_ +� ) L c) (a U C O +, so L cn L Q C '� O O +, O = ut ++ Q (0 "6 `n +--, s_ a) Q Q a) v, O Q O a) v, v, CU K O a rl 7 `~ OL C N L v, C O C = +' L +, E a) N O 0 +, a) v, Q) a) a) v J .Y a) a) (*NiO `n ,__I _C Q a) a) a 4-O d v, O ;} H c . u, to C n3 > n3 (o O U u oCIII 4- v NI +- E 2 -0 2 a) v - 3 ° c.i a+,) -0 a) 3 +, v > L — c 3 •> 0 0 0 ° C t t CU C 3 v m aa)) m O C (0 v o a, v -0 m o _ a -0 C (oo o -0 0 a 2 a a •—lap .. L x O m H aa)) - o ° p m E 1611 '}>- o c a) o 3 , o C, •E H O (a t� N +, E C C >` v, Q -0 C E as N L L) (6 0 +--� VI L L Q bQ 0 VI a) c c,_ O a• +� O a) "' d '03 +, (a Y L +, N +' c )- (a U > a1 Z s (o -0 L > _3 v) 2 m y a) v = m Q E +�-+ c N O v O •� c '" Oas O c) Q •v, +, Q v, 5 D ut E H -0 Q O- H H (o L Q E +, +, m U U Q Q v, -0 C -0 (o W a) L H ''' a) (o Q - d Ni (o 2 cc ›- C C a) L o m U CO N H o 00 CO N = = a) o g 2 H vu,m z o r1 NL v) rs1O Y +> O O O CT) (5 U v U v o a) _a) a) N aJ o Ci C L v) co c to O Op O Q w w HU >. U OAC U = U = a a v1 OAa) `- ++ C N E • :O C 0 +-, 4- U cu O C H ra +_, U c ro ra a a O O O c c c vs v •O OA CO u O LJ F d 00 i ++ i t N • O v1 a) c C > 0 d O U U a) "G - Y ,++ ate+ - +_-++ -C O ° U _ i^ vOi ate-, O o U _ ++ ++ a-+ N CD L ++ c �"'+ aJ — ,- c co U C +-. i fo a = O .3 v t v 0 3 a, t w t aJ c v - Q- c v v , E t v c v -0 a c v c vs v a; 0 a O •° c a c u v N ai °J a O o c Q � v v Lo E0 co a n3 v 'v, v a) L on E d ` p v U N w aJ a v d ` p v U N LIJ oU Ut aJ c fl' E U VI au 0 C U +-' +, Ov a C Ov *' a-+ Ov U i= C v. ++ O NN U + n3 N Ou _ o co a) O a1 = C cu •5_ ,- C7- L �+ c v E v m c0 a1 C C O cTo Q •; cUo '� s >•• cu .— O Q- .— 4_, C o ++ c +, c v) aJ >- U c v, C D p .0 C v ++ aJ aJ a U E C C +, co N w 'a ut — C a aJ co aJ 0 +-, o ++ ,} C C .— E '47.°C° v cCo ° > C U = 3 v v a > v v o ° +' g O C E •— aJ b aJ c "' t c n3 E cc v i v w v 'co a n3 � (o ++ as (o f0 �••+ v) .0LE O a N ca i >- +� i aJ L VI a1 c N E In U ++ c U vj _, "a -a ,. a c •C a +' > p D O aJ -a (5 .L U a1 v —, c U N ' C E c p 0 (U U ,_‘1,13) cCo .> :,:, 7 y +- a C s -a +, v Y v ca aJ v co C i -0 - U 2 cu v a +' co -p -a 3 c 'a CS `—�° • Y v O ro C7 Q c .1 m 3 O E v C U 0 v r� + ai a >- o 1— o cu 4" = a v Cl.) +� ° rw tin v m co ,X a ago 3 ° ( L QJ +� U > u o t ++ 7 (o co CU •C C •- aJ O Q- a1 "C O 'a +t-+ o *.+ vt O 'a c TD OL U 4 �^ Z 'o E cu v '@ c 3 aa)i U ° t C � 0 3 v v Y aJ °U w a s C ° co a ° a �_ '� ° '— 0 •E aJ + - TC Y v CLO a., a °U >' c E aJ aJ ao +• .� -0 -C 2 C co •N 01 3 Q C +1 C -0 ca c v +' t ( 0 3 IT v Sr c aJ aJ a p .- p > CD 3 O N = v O O .L U U 170' I— co OC Q p ba c co to c Q O C N 2 +-, O ;�+ _0 .— 4,7;,,, aJ v) =To _0 c O ac 0 te-+ _c v, ca U U ra E E = O v C ,., C `U = — O °J -C v, n3 L +, o +, _ a L.L.I w v — U — 'co co .— U c O c co v u — > +-, v1 t vs •f6 +�-, -a c ww 0 I— U aJ CCIE C -0 C ut ,- fC6 •C I_YO OU C f° •§ U CO � '— C fT0 To E U 4.., n • v o _c ra +� a, 2 m("0 a s- -0 N v) C O p c . m CL v w v + as E Z t t t CU o co C •� ca O a '.w v a `^ ••'_' 4 c ° ~ af6+ o U C H 3 OC J d E a G i b.O L ._ of •� ut a Si) i y (o C O a • -0 — O N > — (U O a a O I- +� f- en i v C U 7 U U M = v v t •i v p aJ C O Q C a a s ca ++ .E a co as 3 3 + co + o_ a U 0 ca U c F o a 2 cca. c 13 } c o ,a) o 2 u Ca h OJ `-- I N N To op co ' E E _ 7, ) Z OE E H Uvi a D D 2 :,;3— ....1I J J o N sr) L N i +T+ 0 CD a v v LCr E O a) N UU) a) a _a C Y 2 N N SD . c Oa o c a C C C LU (n >- U U Cr' U _0 a cn OA a) C N +' ,, 4- H C +, O U (0 o C CU O O O c o 4' -C 10 O CO 0 7 CO U dO LL - > o 0 a) v v _ o V, VOj _C _ {t,, + 0 0 d U C a"' to CO L . C v -C c -C ° 3 a) > o O p } CU cn -a >. E .v •c a) N 3 E C v , v To Q- = a C U a) n3 •c _ L f0 O C ,- fl- p 6 O o. ,-• u •'- s u > C �1 v E Q a v v Lo v U o a) La E O U v. a) 0 U a c O a +L ' 1 u O a) c > `- C — -C p vi CU 0 +, a) L; co +' ca +, a) t a) 0 E _ ^' ao v E > L n3 co " _o ca E C a) L O M 0 +-' _T -O >- C p O Ui i c0 L +� V) 'a C �-' L +' TU L Q) t C • a - N V, Ui co • 73 E _ +' L N O Q 41 In t L a) 3 a3 t O n3 O o L C U -6 a) 'E O O L E > vi C t�6 > "6 +' a +' > c0 U O ca C 7 OA C O a CU U U U a) W c0 +U+ Q � (0 +' O a) O L C C . L • v, +-) ca o c0 O C 'L — c -p +-+ 7 +' J +' CU C 7 v, v O co c6 a) o Lns tap v o co n3 0 o c oa o E m c c ac) to COtan o v v "3 -a c " (a 4 U > E c c Q a) c }' ate) N '• �' c N C -p O 7 ca ~ O O — a) w n ' a) N U O To O c > a ✓ v a ti4 L U v a te•' U a `n L 3 E C o 3 0o c co 5 +' 3 c CU ca C O 'L a) o .3 +' L o o +, o L a v o E 0 'L o o �' Q- U o a C _ a! U +� pp L U L ++ L1 •00 a) « H W O v, H a) U 4- 'C -O L o -p CU CU U t a) N L N ca O -O O t > OA L Q- v a) O OC Q ? a) O N CU v a C +' C a) 4— O OCA O a a) lC6 >- +' C C ' O a) a) U O a) L +-, ca �_ U O Q Q L N +� + n3 a O L Z •O a p Oo + O a co uO v L +' '� O -p v Q a) cO Q C •� Y +� N L �, (a L 'L a a) C co a) C -0 (A a Q 2 ,n a)w _c +' L co Q O a) o) -O La x v, `n • v, C Q' ut `� L ut 1 U 0 +' a C +' n3 'a O ca Ce O O OOA a) C a) a1 O , c c0 t C LO o t0 C L C >. .*-' 4! Q- O O o +' () U +' a 0) c t a) v, != a) a v, E a co v 3 a) CU _0 }' v +' v, w — o _ ca +� 3 C — a + a) .v — of 0 C y_ ULU O O C ++ O O U 0 '-' C L o O ++ o o O to o N a) = U N L a) C ns > 2 O +�' N v u p T ,c-L° co C7 - U a) -p +' ra +� as c cococu _+' is ,*i, 'n u L Y ns c) ~ v C U U -0 a O ca +' O o a) o v, +' o +'' N r0 0 +' u N ._ N L C U n3 U t0 c ._ Q To no (° L -0 t 3 v u >• +' t a) ''_^ t rCa a v, L CU a) v a a La O v C o_ U1 CO v o o X v c tea) c`a 0 v > o cv E o0 CI ca E ° a o o o ° > m °; Q- U 0 . U Q W v, G co a a Q G v, U C ._ O ut c .- a U U a 0_ 0 ' •> w a; a a) a a) 'a ' +' L L E > C U 4- Q C CU .0 U -6 a) oo H vH . > co co O F 2 O 2 cc ›- C C a) Q L m u tn en N OA ca E x = a) Ti o g E 2 m J o NL Lr) O •a> O O _a ra U a) L U v V E d O 5 +� Cl) a) a) U 4! of CA +-4 a) v) a) a -0 c 2 c Yro to c bA p , M O Oa. '-'-' > 0 Lu --- >. . h 4-- CC U o U , a a v) C ppa) +-' -O O G N •+, p C ~ ra 7 C c0 OO O 0 a) C O O O c L C C +� O +, C 1 O _ •O OU •> �+ C▪O O 7 " U " L O "06 i p+, O .0 (Cl O a) O C > O d O u 4- .0 U — u -C = 4--, O C ▪ OU _ L^ vOi L — 4--• O O U _ C +, C +, a1 U C +'' ra L C L a) = U C 4-' +`; r6 L C i CU f6 U .L lC6 •� +V, °2 _c ai t •_a v c 0 3 °' O H t • v ° 3 °' O t C + a c C N O p a1 v) -O T .0 'i i^ O p N to -O T .V 'L O O in O a1 a) C L L +' 3 E C a) U v 70 O' C L L E C a) U a) _ a C L C C O L E ru = O C Q u v to aj 4_, '-, a O .O c a C V v Q v +, C a 0 0 C a O p p cu -c v '- ea V O C •� a v) Cr +, U O C ut LT +, U +, L bA L +, .7 U +, .Q L L .0 a U •� •Ncu L L U •� •N L L a1 c • CT E N w O Q a 2 O L p O U▪ L w O O a Y L Q a) U •L N w 0 Q O c v v, E o u a v c v CIE L U VI a) o c C r.) O m v o a c o a o a c O (ClQs o Q o 0 U CO U U E T a) aJ N = > 7 C a) c O N to _c +�-• O .E U to 0 Q v Q a) a a ca O _0 a, +' o a r6 ago o v E E VI D .3 u ate) -0 Ln m ocn � 0 T ca a' +, c O v m 0_ °v' c +, — U ra L T O cu NJ Y U a) 0 C U N a) N 'v T ` N O E L L by a) L `= O -6 O -C C+, p O fa 'E ra co O a V) C H 7 N L �, L 0 a �-, 3 E v 0 v E +_ t an a) v L N fa W L -0 ++ L Q '> ++ O +, = C a1 p C O +�, CO O ra co'O L > a1 7 f6 7 U •3 'C T C i C a 4 a .+T' _o C cu c ro U N 7 0_ 03 p CaC Q v .0 C U O O us N O 0 ++ O -0 co U E co ., C +, Cl) rn c v = O E u +—' iCO -0 0- a -c ° aui o +. ra c To u, O Oro C O U) a) O p u c -0 . 0- +4 C Q CO N fa 4-, N v +`, a CCr/ t O_ ,�} CO v C v v = Q o Q ra I- v B c v, v a) a Z •0 E L '6ctiu 0 `� c o O o v; Q. u c u co" O CL L N (a 4-, C L ,.- 4-, O •C � ‘LI a) C +�+ ,O -O VI LJ Q C3 +, v I'D Q p +, C .L O ut C l6 ?) ( 0 S U s too b0 +., +, C ra L A 0 U) v Q O o hC0 +-' L vt O a I� C 73 r6 ut Q ca LY a1 O� r0 -o Y a) L a) T 2 4 0 0 C Y L.1-1 `� C a) `� QS ra O r6 C •c L -6 7 (Cl 0 -o n L +, Q a -O ;+, C Z Q O O c )n C Q r0 2 w O 0 CD C L O C L w a 0 = u ra c O CU 3 Q To ro a v v cca C Z +' t aJ v t p u a u (7 C O +, O a) • O +- U L a-, +, U co ^ a1 LLI (0 Z t • 4-+ O O a)• Q O a) a) O v a) to 03 .� •to Cl) - ,O-' •D •O L •E L L 4-, O as 3 m ria ._ N Q S .F ,,-_, o LJJ a) a a s •�-�D a s �a O a F ''' NC L Cl) a) v L L L L CO L Q - +, CO Q OD 3 V) a a U 2 0 ra _6 F 2 0 2 • c o QL M U RI V) 1• U;) OA as E E N = = a) o g 2 E H 22 2 ' J J CO- o Lh N L(1 O 0 c-i N U O _a `(a U v m E d c�-i y v0 a) Q C i to N = Fa O d fl W VI >. U CC U c a C OA C "p O C E _ (6 U H c ° Y v VI a1 C LO O CC Y O t > 10 Y Y ..F7, U CO U Y.. 7 ,C co FL ai ° v o a o 4— a "O aJ C U Y O u O v1 L bD ', C +L+ a) L •- C O O a) = U .` C U (o vi cv L (6 (o Y 2 — > E ° ~ t o __ ° v, C a) c ai c v -o Q o v ° o E a) C v . v4-4 E U Y C •� C Q'• co , Lca1 E d L ° W Q QCCNW O L O u aCa) " cooly.Oo a Q O U Y _o — 3 v a 0 a) c -o a) @ >. o v C Q a) t t C ._ n '^ s - - i C a' ° o C b _0 c Vi o C u a1 v °� 7 U L a' a) U O o a°o v ' ° a) n3 '— CS C L a1 �^ U Y t L co OD O O L u N = _ in 'O v a v x U a ) L Y `-^ C t E tin 3 co as a) C L O [a N t Y Y ° E > Y Y VI (6 (o co `� `� C O 7 "p ba bb 9— ut p N E •O a) v C 7 fro OCD co W L v1 C .0 C c = }' a1 C O ° aJ O_ Y Ln CU N a) co E L QOA La C ate..' > (o C •C CS co 3 vii p ° COLN •5 N C fl- N +�-' L (o a1 c Y C cv W *' Q E (S p (o U 3 ^ O 7 - cJ co C bC0 6 U U aJ C C u YOCU Y +> u co U L ^ ate+ 0 O N C U -0 O C VI •Y •Y _ S (o .� a1 Y of a) L Y U O -O of a) of C C u fo �, Y O p C N 'p Q Y v C aJ C v O v } ,} ai v on L C U co -6 Y C a-+ of O �0+ O p- v 0- v EO ° +�-' 7 7 01 Y C C N ° a1 }' C >` L C –.0 C c _o C .E C +' v 4 .N v; ro u C O s_ E Z 'o N Q •^ 0 u C o C Y (0 3 ° '(a E .cr, X a) v VI O Q- O O ° d % °- > ° co U U U bD _c Y lab = Y -0 U s_ _C -0 VI C — C I ut O a1 aJ N C -O > 'N yam.' Y C C a1 a) Y Y C - aJ co Q C •3 L L C O C }' _O co 0 O a1 aJ '+� O �° 0 _ t `^ aJ bD U Y •i Ln 03 Q .o a)Cr O_ s N .>_ Y -C `° ,_ Q C -0 v N ^ V^ v v (o t o *' (o (o o E a a1 +°� t J U Y C L U Y bD Q O = — v1 N N >' U VI (o LE3 as u > a) o a) o o -0 M :+a 3 v •.5 3 coC3 o o v Lo W C t H •� N bp ate, �1 N t C a) ° Q Q C E U C .0 > O cu c L13 o L N 'E , aJ bD a N v '� v c C o bD •bD (Lo bD o C o t ° t u W (o 5 E a) 'U X U v) (o , O L N •C Q1 CO 41 'VI o (a fL0 cu a=' U Q � U Y a) C Z o ° 4- -0 ) CC ° v a ° aa3 0 uo > _oa a 3 co ° (n _o �, aYLi v O Q C u -a H 0 aL a a ° (o -0 u -a ai 9 b.o F 2 - - 0 2 cc C p a/ N To Oa (a x = ai E o g 2 m J o N Lh oo c-i '17)N L 4-'' 4-, 0 0 5U v Cr c-i Na) a) N a1 QC n3 VC M >>O o_ 0. OAC U 7 a Oa C N -0 , C O O O 4-, t r L On CO O 7 ✓ E O F- a L _C `d Y 13 a) O -0 L - a co L .� C t O U U ca v CQ tv, Q. U▪ a1 C Ea) L C 2 O0 U a Ln 4— O a O +`, a1 C >' +' — a1 TU p • LE3 co N -o CU L CO L 'O a bb a1 Q c ++ U a! c6 `� E v c -c coa1 a1 C 7 VS VI a1 .° 0 r..' `n CO C to vi _ C c6 vOi *' Q O N 0 O L v N •Z .§ co Q .v t a _0 O a1 E c c co -w To '6 +, tin v V, v ° — • E u +� v c�a E a1 a — o v `O c SE E C - co 0 as a › U > U Q .> • N •N4-(1) U 0 ro L U a) E4- D = a t a 0 L = a1 3 C a > u _ L E O +- u 4U.' t a1 fo +-' N VI +, p v) v) N ( , C — }U.+ 'x (Co tomTD_/, on U c 0 Q L C (S ° 1 a v o E O O ai °- :c � � a) COC 3 c u � t � o c v, c v � a1 C +� • O C io E u v u y, a) a a1 = +� ro U +� co +� L C v, co 0 O co c ro v u a1 p 'j n3 a1 c v L v E +-' 3 ? a; ca _v a1 4 v, v ca v C C C1 Q +' v L a a p IA L O u rf E m °c-n `° on C ` v E a � O 41 .° +.+ U U °C° a+-+' N 7 L L 7 .� O E - to Q C ca +� co v C a1 E `~ (D c - p C 0. V v, a1 U c •42 U E U fl- a) •a E 7 ° = On C a/ a) 'a o L O E co ,n co v, c v, +j c cLo n3 c O a1 '} co a •v, L) co E f6 Z 'o E u vo � o v 1-' fl v •E E - - a - " v = N ° > - v 0 •a1 c tto Q c 3 u co •C CU O O cL •C v utC "a `^ U C v, = C E N co 01 j v, +_ +L-+ E Q O N = ,� +4J+ Q +p+ v O ut ut O ut O U a1 -a '> a1 ro C-)▪ co CC -C 0 E D v " E — p t ca v +, n3 Ena c° U v n3 .Q (U vvi cu > ^ u L-' t LU i.,= u �. t a1 E on a v, c a +, c a u Q vi C _a O — co p +.' �' • U C a � • 3O c n3 0 o C — C — v, o +, C t @ o u v a) u v c . u C N v 40 •E .� c cn a T. C v o 3 n3 3 v CO co u E •v ° t • E t cu.v Tan ago cL° v E • a a1 u c F v, .v, a on 41 0. 7 O O v, O N •v, 4- O - -o t u▪ C O c u a1 v u o > aui ^ 'E v v .CL to ca v O ca u - - = -0La C ( v 0 , 'c o Z c1 Q •- cn ,F °u a1 O cn ut N t L v, t v L t , C u — O �i 4-)_ s_O +' ° C a1 ,N EPI- .- a1E L Cl) 3 v, O .E < ° C p L -0 U ti v0, .� O C E w a/ •- a1 C C v, U 0 'E Qc L .- • Y • E C N ate-, ou ou "O Q .E E F Oc6 Q o i U 11.1 I- CO R V) _ = y h E E H 0 4 d 2 m , o N Lrl O 0 ,1 N Y +T+ u 0 0 a v E Ln E sz- 'p a) d v N a) a .0 0 L CU v, .a) � hA >>O 0. T1.45 a) OC U a 0 vs O N c a '+_' •> t' > O u O + O u I= 0 ro r00 z 0 r0 c O C 0 0 0 0 o i o +' L 'a=' O V U £ i d LO -a i L V, N d > O O U U 'O +_' '^ - +' +V+ O U Late-' O O U — �^ vOi w O O U — 7, c -O '+� 0 ++ 0 +' a! — U 0 +-' ,n a! L +' 0 +' aJ — u 'L O L .� vi C E . O H L o o ._' C O >, > 0 t -C rt3 O O vYi a `n V •L ~ v 0 ' 'O V •L ~ o -O ,._(13 E a) cu a) v a C L L +' E t a) V L s O- C L L C O E U a O O a1 '^ U a1 ,n V 0 L O V a! o U OU u +' a1 ra 0- ++ U ••4-4 C C o 7 0 •a1 Li) 6 a y0 V ,� U ++ OA s1 +—' 7 Q a, i E a •� a E v C N •3 a E a) L V, w O a) eL a L O a) U •L N w 0 Q O C v O N a) 0 O ac o1 Q E U v a1 0 C a .E V O a) 0 a .E O L y Ou a O 0 I +-, U ++ 4— -O i X r0 C - N a-+ CU C O a! t — aco- f° v (1,1 a o ° - C •O E 0 v a) a1 Q -0 C a) Y .47' -0 4-' C -, L ++ O U L O cu 0 o CU 'O N sr, U .O c0a a-.+ 2 0O 0 ,0 0 Y 0 +' U 7 0 Q Ou - Q- O ,0 C +cu 0 �.' 0 a! C OS' > L ro •V '} a' -O U L 'O a1 +' U v, O 7, 0 0 > C L ( .� a+ O . C 0 `n C Q vi L C .0 O U ' 'Ej 0 0 > vi O p 'a a, U O_ L -L: m Q ro 1 CU 'O ro ‘- c "� G '_' ,-i L7 0 > D N 0 V (u v a) •_ a o i a) E 'a Q v+ ,ct) � v) a.) cc •+-> ro L u o ,°1n u L E ;} TD on O v _a ,,; fl t co _ al Q C ++ O C vi i a! L 00 +-+ O t ,n +' U CU vi +� O ro 0 C d0 0 O VI •`n 0 N v 0 O a1 C t o a! u .a! 0 aJ '5 Cr; a..' O p D u 0 m ° U E n au C L CU 0 t .O O o cu., •+' O f6 u H j L L 0 +3 U Q as L co O -0 L a) 0 ) 0 cu co ++ -, ,n ++ +•, 0 +' ca O C O `—° • E c > E v +' •c C n aa) a a1'43 3 o L v L 0CO 0 a; v co 0.0 tO 0 '} Z O E ,1 oU C @ E rV O .E O u co •L a , v _0 t >, 0 •�,:' L CD U O O rLo O a, +-' C ca L O v Q- on C L 7 -,, L, 4- U E = 0 L H _ U N _� L U H -0 C 0 v Q ro O = •v +' O O E ro Q c 3 O 41 > N Lis 0 0 a! a U O 'L " 0 -0 +-� O �L.' +-' LJ 00 u +� Q .Y a) a1 +' ro O c .�, +, > O n ro N O U +� u O O v +, (1 J ro OC C O- u >j o 0 U N "C a1 0 +'j 110 Q1 .� > U O U ,F 70 u ro a, CC t -0 > '+.. U C v L c - O v m u v O ,n w w Y 4— CU 0.1 r6 E L \ f6 X t C fo 1� ++ 0 a1 u 0 t L +' u c E o rot °� Q a +' o co w O co 0 L 0 a U ro .w 0 n3 E o •0 >, .o O ,n L L E -o a1 u vVi L E C O ,} 0 00 F .o O .- .' >, v U — U -O p N +U+ O ,n .- (7/ '^ � a1 Lc) -0 >, al O C 0 a To ECEOCM w n CU ctS O a ++ rLo O v C j ,moas i, a1 ' E rl otajD u c ,n a! ,n u O U Z C +' +' -C O +� C 3 o o L C O 7 a O u 0 a) c U E ,n >, O - a L Q u o O a1 'j c u E a Q u _o o L.) _a co 2 0 Q 0 E oa v 0 a+.' a a 3 ra 0 v ra ro u -o ai F 2 0 2 o u RS Vs N To d0 CO E N = = a7 i= a o NLrl O ,-i N 4-. v 0 f(6 i a o a E L c-I a a) o a) it U tal n N _0 2 rl o a 0 a >, a4-, a)CC Li 110c O 0 10 E U c0 +L-' a C O O :> RI U U U O ca FL aio a T , CU en — 0 3 a o 0 o an — a '+c-,, L u E .V •L 'Y Q C C .0 a U v) a a E Q U °- '+= A O N V a {A a 'L L L c13a N a.., O E c U L O a U L U +'' C U > L U a c) m ra m OL .6 U t U a o Q a Y O a a s a eA U i }' O a — E N '++ O Q +a., c a) L E > Uri, +T+ aa+ Q v +�_ •. j +t ro O v 4_ U a a c 1- it 0 N a vi v O a RS a 4 ate -+ CCS ++ — +� _O of t r6 , a1 L a 0a c a t a - > r6▪ v+'▪ viE y _ 0 O viO >O C VI C ro M.- C _u 0) ..' C o '+� E U a0l •+' U eA N "06 `� C C c •v Q- + p Q c C Q r0• c rO c +-� rO Q L O -O 'a on '' v O rUa O O CO ro ,� Q J O C — VI 0 - c h1a en (6 (rs C Y r0 L C OU .0 as L �' C o a +� a U +-+ r6 a _ 4-' •• r0 i rn Y Y O c -O U �n 'O -O - ti a a c Q L +a+ c r6 OA c a vai +.' O C 03 c ra c ZO E E a c rra - O Q V) ra rB •+-' a O -O a 0 a E o c u v , a > U c E L,., U a a T tB a c > +, to +, Y aC o 17 s u +, a E p > v a) a` v L N co O J Y Cln4- U co +'j v Jam-.+ VI (a v Q Q w C U CJ U C Ce a ,v O C C O to U = a c -o 7 p a In -O > C o +O O L "6 Q L L Q- v To W 0 C L a s U V) •+.i a a V) i„H Y Q r0 Y L 0) U w s_ v Q L .••' O J-' CCS O c Y, F , > a • To a) C t a sen O a a V, +n o co O o o u a = Z• L a x ca O - •a a Y' ca O a >- a U Q u > a a U U a c Q < 0 Q- < .r^ c U c u t r. (O 4— 'ro u „n ra C p c w a) )n a Y w 'O ? -0 a Q co F L C - c a"' = E a L ,. ao C ._• co o H as .,-w a a -a c.7 F 2 0 2 cc ›- c o a Q L m u tv In cC) To bp ra E N = a Q o H . rn za m` , INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 7. References American Farmland Trust. 2002. Mitigation of Farmland Loss. American Farmland Trust, prepared for United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Arroyo Grande, California Income, Earnings, and Wages Data. 2011. Available at: www.city- data.com/income/income-Arroyo-Grande-California.html.Accessed on October 11, 2011. California Department of Conservation. 2008. 2008 Field Report — San Luis Obispo County. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. ----. 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,San Luis Obispo County Important Farmland 2008. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. ----. 2009. San Luis Obispo County, 2006-2008 Land Use Conversion. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. California Department of Finance. 2011. Table E-1 City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percentage Change. Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/view.php.Accessed on August 4, 2011. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1997. Community Impact Assessment — Caltrans Environmental Handbook Volume 4. Department of Transportation, Cultural Studies Office. ----. 2006. Guidance for Preparers of Growth-Related, Indirect Impact Analyses. Department of Transportation. California Employment Development Department. 2011. California Labor Market Information, Employment by Industry. Available at: http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localareaprofilegsresults.asp?selecte darea=San+Luis%20+Obispo+County&selectedindex=1&menuchoice=localareapro&state=true& geogarea=0604000079&countyname=. Accessed on September 1, 2011. ----. 2011. San Luis Obispo County Profile. Available at: http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsi ng/IocalAreaProfileQSResults.asp?select edarea=San+Luis+Obispo+County&selectedindex=40&menuChoice=localAreaPro&state=true&g eogArea=0604000079&countyName.Accessed on August 4, 2011. City of Arroyo Grande. 2001. General Plan Update—Agriculture, Conservation and Open Space Element. City of Arroyo Grande, California. ----. 2001. General Plan Update—Circulation Element. City of Arroyo Grande, California. ----. 2001. General Plan Update—Economic Development Element.City of Arroyo Grande,California. ----. 2001. General Plan Update—Land Use Element. City of Arroyo Grande, California. ----. 2001. General Plan Update—Parks and Recreation Element. City of Arroyo Grande, California. ----. 2001. General Plan Update—Safety Element. City of Arroyo Grande, California. Page 147 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project ----. 2003. General Plan Update—Housing Element. City of Arroyo Grande,California. ----. 2009.Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Project—Five Year Implementation Plan(2009-10 through 2013-14). City of Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency. ----. 2009. Land Use Map. City of Arroyo Grande, Community Development Department. ----. 2010. Development Code. Available at: http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientld=16194&stateld=5&stateName=California. Accessed on August 11, 2011. ----. 2010.Zoning Map. City of Arroyo Grande, Community Development Department. ----. 2011. City Parks. Available at: http://www.arroyogrande.org/city-hall/city- departments/recreation-and-maintenance-services/parks/city-parks/. Accessed on August 15, 2011. County of San Luis Obispo Department of Agriculture and Weights and Measures.2010.Reflections-2010 Annual Report. San Luis Obispo County Department of Agriculture and Weights and Measures. County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building. 2014. San Luis Obispo County General Plan—Housing Element 2014-2019.San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building. June 17, 2014. ----. 2003. San Luis Bay Area Plan—Inland. County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building. ----. 2006. San Luis Obispo County General Plan — Economic Element. County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building and Economic Advisory Committee. ----. 2009. San Luis Obispo County General Plan — Housing Element 2009-2014. County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building. County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works. 2005. County Bikeways Plan — 2005 Update. Bicycle Advisory Committee, Department of Public Works. Economic Vitality Corporation of San Luis Obispo County. 2011. Economic Impact Studies. Available at: http://www.sloevc.org. Accessed on August 23, 2011. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. 2016. Supplemental Archaeological Survey Report for the Highway 101 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project,Arroyo Grande,San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. ----. 2012. Archaeological Survey Report for the Highway 101 Brisco/Halcyon/Grande I/C Modifications Project, Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. Haro Environmental. 2017. Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment— Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for Wood Rodgers. Page 148 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project JRP Historical Consulting, LLC. 2016. Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. ----. 2012. Historic Property Survey Report. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. San Luis Obispo County Council of Governments (SLOCOG). 2010. SLOCOG 2010 Regional Transportation Plan and Preliminary Sustainable Communities Strategy.San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. ----. 2015. 2014 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy: Connecting Communities. San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. April 2015. San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare. 2010.San Luis Obispo County Bike Map—South County. Available at: www.rideshare.org. Accessed on August 23, 2011. SWCA, Inc. 2017. Community Impact Assessment—Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project, City of Arroyo Grande,San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. ----. 2017. Jurisdictional Assessment for the US 101/Brisco-Halcyon & Grand Avenue Interchange Modifications, San Luis Obispo, California. Prepared for Wood Rodgers, Inc. ----. 2020. Natural Environment Study—Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project, City of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. ----. 2014. Paleontological Evaluation Report — Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project, City of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. ----. 2017. Paleontological Evaluation Report Addendum — Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project, City of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. ----. 2014. Visual Impact Assessment—Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project, City of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. ----. 2017. Visual Impact Assessment Addendum — Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project, City of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. ----. 2017. Water Quality Assessment Report — Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project, City of Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. Terry A. Hayes Associates, Inc. 2017.Air Quality Study, US 10/Brisco-Halcyon& Grand Avenue Interchange Modifications. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. Page 149 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Terry A. Hayes Associates, Inc. 2017. Noise Study Report, US 101/Brisco-Halcyon & Grand Avenue Interchange Modifications. Prepared for the California Department of Transportation. United States Census Bureau. 2011. 2010 Census Summary File 1,Arroyo Grande, California. Available at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml. Accessed on July 12, 2011. United States Department of Transportation. 1996. Community Impact Assessment—A Quick Reference for Transportation. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. University of California Santa Barbara Economic Forecast Project. 2009.San Luis Obispo County Economic Outlook 2009. Santa Barbara Economic Forecast Project. ----.2010.San Luis Obispo County Economic Outlook 2010. Santa Barbara Economic Forecast Project. ----.2011.San Luis Obispo County Economic Outlook 2011. Santa Barbara Economic Forecast Project. Wood Rodgers. 2019. Technical Memorandum: Independent Utility of Relocating the US 101 Southbound On-Ramp at Grand Avenue; US 101/Brisco Road-Halcyon Road and US 101/Grand Avenue Interchange Improvements Project,Arroyo Grande, CA. April 8, 2019. ----. 2012. Technical Memorandum: PA&ED Phase Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis. September 7, 2012. Prepared by Narayanan, Ravi, P.E.,T.E., and Nessar, Nawid, P.E.,T.E. ----. 2014. Branch St/Rodeo Dr/US 101 NB Ramps Intersection — Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis. Prepared for: City of Arroyo Grande. May 7, 2014. ----. 2016. Caltrans Draft Appendix E Long Form—Storm Water Data Report. March 2016. Page 150 of 151 INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project This page intentionally left blank. Page 151 of 151 APPENDIX A Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form NRCS-CPA-106 and Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Worksheets U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106 Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev.1-91) FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 3.Date of Land Evaluation Request 4. Sheet 1 of 4 1/10/12 1.Name of Project Brisco-Halcyon Rd Interchange Modifications 5.Federal Agency Involved Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2.Type of Project Highway and local roadway imrovements 6.County and state San Luis Obispo County, California PART II (To be completed by NRCS) 1.Date Request Received by NRCS 2. Person Completing Form 1/10/12 Margy Lindquist _ 3. Does the corridor contain prime,unique statewide or local important farmland? 4. Acres Irri gated Average Farm Size (If no,the FPPA does not apply-Do not complete additional parts of this form). YES ❑✓ NO El 98,898 g 1492 acres 5. Major Crop(s) 6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction 7. Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA wine grapes, broccoli, strawberries Acres: 299,572 % 14 Acres:270,407 yo 13 8. Name Of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessment System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS CA Storie Index None 1/11/12 PART III(To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor For Segment Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 0.9 0.9 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly,Or To Receive Services 0 0 C. Total Acres In Corridor 0.9 0.9 PART IV(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 0.5 0.5 B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 0 0 C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 0.00018 0.00018 D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value Data not available PART V(To be completed by NRCS)Land Evaluation Information Criterion Relative 42 42 value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted(Scale of 0-100 Points) PART VI(To be completed by Federal Agency)Corridor Maximum Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points 1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 0 0 2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10 0 0 3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 0 0 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0 0 5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 0 0 6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 0 0 7. Availablility Of Farm Support Services 5 5 5 8. On-Farm Investments 20 5 5 9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 0 0 10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 0 0 TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 10 10 0 0 PART VII(To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland(From Part V) 100 42 42 0 0 Total Corridor Assessment(From Part VI above or a local site assessment) 160 10 10 0 0 TOTAL POINTS(Total of above 2 lines) 260 52 52 0 0 1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be 3.Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Converted by Project: 0.9 YES ❑ NO p 5. Reason For Selection: Although there are project alternatives, proposed modifications are the same in this agricultural area.Therefore,the alternatives would result in the same impacts to adjacent farmlands.There is no discernable environmentally preferred alternative based on impacts to farmlands alone. The project score(52) does not exceed 160 points; therefore,the consideration of alternative project locations is not necessary. Signature of Person Completing this Part: I DATE Emily Creel, Environmental Planner,SWCA 1/4/16 NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor NRCS-CPA-106 (Reverse) CORRIDOR -TYPE SITE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA The following criteria are to be used for projects that have a linear or corridor-type site configuration connecting two distant points, and crossing several different tracts of land. These include utility lines, highways, railroads, stream improvements, and flood control systems. Federal agencies are to assess the suitability of each corridor-type site or design alternative for protection as farmland along with the land evaluation information. (1) How much land is in nonurban use within a radius of 1.0 mile from where the project is intended? More than 90 percent-15 points 90 to 20 percent- 14 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (2) How much of the perimeter of the site borders on land in nonurban use? More than 90 percent-10 points 90 to 20 percent-9 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (3) How much of the site has been farmed(managed for a scheduled harvest or timber activity)more than five of the last 10 years? More than 90 percent-20 points 90 to 20 percent- 19 to 1 point(s) Less than 20 percent-0 points (4) Is the site subject to state or unit of local government policies or programs to protect farmland or covered by private programs to protect farmland? Site is protected-20 points Site is not protected-0 points (5) Is the farm unit(s)containing the site(before the project)as large as the average-size farming unit in the County? (Average farm sizes in each county are available from the NRCS field offices in each state. Data are from the latest available Census of Agriculture,Acreage or Farm Units in Operation with$1,000 or more in sales.) As large or larger-10 points Below average-deduct 1 point for each 5 percent below the average,down to 0 points if 50 percent or more below average-9 to 0 points (6) If the site is chosen for the project, how much of the remaining land on the farm will become non-farmable because of interference with land patterns? Acreage equal to more than 25 percent of acres directly converted by the project-25 points Acreage equal to between 25 and 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project-1 to 24 point(s) Acreage equal to less than 5 percent of the acres directly converted by the project-0 points (7) Does the site have available adequate supply of farm support services and markets, i.e.,farm suppliers,equipment dealers, processing and storage facilities and farmer's markets? All required services are available-5 points Some required services are available-4 to 1 point(s) No required services are available-0 points (8) Does the site have substantial and well-maintained on-farm investments such as barns,other storage building,fruit trees and vines,field terraces,drainage, irrigation,waterways,or other soil and water conservation measures? High amount of on-farm investment-20 points Moderate amount of on-farm investment-19 to 1 point(s) No on-farm investment-0 points (9) Would the project at this site, by converting farmland to nonagricultural use, reduce the demand for farm support services so as to jeopardize the continued existence of these support services and thus,the viability of the farms remaining in the area? Substantial reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-25 points Some reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-1 to 24 point(s) No significant reduction in demand for support services if the site is converted-0 points (10) Is the kind and intensity of the proposed use of the site sufficiently incompatible with agriculture that it is likely to contribute to the eventual conversion of surrounding farmland to nonagricultural use? Proposed project is incompatible to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-10 points Proposed project is tolerable to existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-9 to 1 point(s) Proposed project is fully compatible with existing agricultural use of surrounding farmland-0 points CO CO - cy = o Ls) CN U M N r o r O r 4 N U - J cn cnd co co co %- LN LO +r 0 -) U = CO co. cz `n COcri oCOo O (1) 0 N r co 0 t N J ' N Ns- 0 O > C.) LO 0 C •O JU — r CD a EU) V) a) try N i a) Qu 0 Q4-. Nd ti = �., Q w C d ar i° a o U) a CD X CD i M Ln co co 2 O O co a0 M co No co • o 2 2 0 O O 4 r r O O O r N N a) i N X = O () O D N N N CO CO LO V CO Nd c 'i w O FO U CO CO CO CO r O CO• O N JO U O O r r O r CO r O 0 V 0) oz. O CA w U C N N N N COo CNI N-O o O O O O J ~ ts U)• O JLi- (0 0 N V Ua) a) a) CO cn CD 3 a) a) ca > X O J > > > _ — > > > - = c _. A E CO o �+ Q. O O `- E 'L L Q co o CO N r N o z ^ tVO No 00 0 00 0 N U) O N 0� CL O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o NN- C U -a coC a L 2 a U co _ N CO co co m CO• CO N- CO LO ONCO D LUU, co co CO co Lf) r ca LO U C'M cVN r O r O r co coo —COz a Q Q LLI CO Q "J r — —Lc) o N- o L w 0 o r O N N- CO CO O r r N C 0 D N N N CZ J m - 20 W as O X co p co 5 c s cq U c`i c\i Q CI) d CD 12 L — 2Oc/) (tip c6 c6 Ov O O 7-13� Qcn CU c � Q co G) 0 O I— ,„CO C LE OQ co O = NU O a) O C _ , Q O r 0 O O O L 2 G) i •N Gw), W L a) s N U y m ra o L cn (0 - N O) C y L w co L N L Z N G) c U6' f Q < O — N M LC) CO N 0- O 0 op D L ° 0 O = H = a) O � O L 0 -o = ate - � �� mm c LL O (n ~ o 2 -° -0E L CU O (/) QJLL 13 CO CO 0 J rr -0 (B Co c w -J i W V a) V U O 0ooa o Nas Co Ce CC 73 Co ca) c - m o CD O a O � � co d � ' Q ori cm aQ c a) C 0 c c a) O O a) J 0 -2 m U o L � O O OL Ca) Q 0_ a) CI C M -42 N Co J a) t - c N L C0 CO CO i CO 2 0 O v QQ 4 .L C 0, � a E 0, U) c a) o y 3 Q Q Q o To 7i- a) L 6 k \ 46 : Li \ / 2 - ■ r0 LO r r \ \ 0 k CO / \ o CO o o CO / / @ @ 7 / k � 2 f o c \ rn = a) 2 0 — = o o •\ o 0 ( y / 3 ° L < = -0 _Im £ 2 0 / ® k ¥ LLJ 0) 24' I) g / / o 2 ( ( 10 .- .- IC) o 100 / E / < k > D D o 0 0 o O o co2 2 / '§ •h i 2 E ka —1 _ ¥ \ \ 5 0 2 - 33 ƒ o 2 o // 2 2 F k / t = % { / ( c U) W § _ _ - � m _I _1 § f £ £ \ - U 03 / / 2 A A CO A A A D C 2 / ) ) $1 % V V V V V 2 0 0 0 > E » x Q 3 Q@ � D-0 -0 -0 3 0 LL � % ( ( � Wi •g § § ~ % - •- I_— % R % ® / b W L_ ¥ \ < 1E —a E 2 .o m = la - -Q « _1 o m n o W — = o E E 0 2 �_ \ / / k U L_ \ = E o = = 2 n Qom — 0 3 LL2 � 22 -I CO a) m � @ 7 @ = E .2.2 5 co k ' 0 0 s 0 = m m § 7aa3 o own / / / 0oEEE w % / / / / / 0 0 2 2 = 0 - C\J01 .71- CO u_ 2 0 o _J (/) U) 3 0) C 0 \ 0 3 E 0 0 0 0 \ m 2 0) 4.1 • S R D § % ƒ u Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project On U.S. Highway 101 in the City of Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo County, California District 05-SLO-101 (PM 13.1/14.6) Project ID 0500000008 Response to Comments on the Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment err. Br eco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project INITIAL STUDY/PROPOSED o"t-t n l lni- i / Part MITIGATED NEGATIVE °AP "" 3 DECLARATION �Y°A°t"'''"A'A°°'�"w ws -swim tvw c.ma,� e�cneor. .o c0dr Pruim l➢n50[009W8 Environmental Assessment = P re pa red by the P55 of Colltornia Department of Transportation ca arr, ciry arnr'05 scr•^1.PM 13I/55 FP.05 pq;/0 cnrorm. Project ID 05000000os seer y a March 2019 Prepared by the City of Arroyo Grande and State of California Department of Transportation The environmental review,consultation,and any other action required in accordance with applicable federal laws for this project is being,or has been,carried out by Caltrans under its assumption of responsibility pursuant to 23 USC 327. April 2020 • CITY OF pt4y0Y0 GRgQ€ Et/trans. IFORNtA1,f' RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Table of Contents: Introduction 7 Response to Comments 7 Agency Comment Letters 7 1. Response to: State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (Letter Dated May 14, 2018) 11 2. Response to: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (Letter Dated May 3, 2018) 17 3. Response to: County of San Luis Obispo Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) 20 4. Response to: County of San Luis Obispo Public Libraries (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) 23 5. Response to: County of San Luis Obispo Central Services Department (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) 26 6. Response to: County of San Luis Obispo County Library(Letter Dated May 11, 2018) 29 7. Response to: County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works (Letter dated May 11, 2018) 32 Organization Comment Letters 35 8. Response to: San Luis Obispo Bicycling Advocates (Letter Dated May 12, 2018) 39 Public Comment Letters 41 9. Response to: 222 East Grand Avenue Shell Station (Letter Dated April 26, 2018) 44 10. Response to: Brisco Mill & Lumber(Letter Dated May 8, 2018) 46 11. Response to: Investec Real Estate Companies, representing Five Cities Shopping Center(Letter Dated May 10, 2018) 48 12. Response to: Farm Supply Company(Letter Dated May 11, 2018) 50 13. Response to: Mier Bros. Landscape Products (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) 52 14. Response to: HomeStar Construction (Letter Dated May 12, 2018) 54 15. Response to:John and Kari Sinner (Letter Dated April 23, 2018) 57 16. Response to: Carie Randolph (Letter Dated April 26, 2018) 60 17. Response to: Gay Spencer(Letter Dated April 26, 2018) 62 18. Response to:Toni (Letter Dated April 26, 2018) 64 19. Response to: Danny Gresser (Letter Dated May 1, 2018) 66 20. Response to: LeAnn Gresser(Letter Dated May 1, 2018) 68 21. Response to: Megan Rice (Letter Dated May 1, 2018) 71 22. Response to: Stephen J. Russ (Letter Dated May 1, 2018) 74 23. Response to:Jim and Mary Webster (Letter Dated May 2, 2018) 79 Page 3 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 24. Response to: Gary Thies (Letter Dated May 5, 2018) 82 25. Response to: Susan Henslin (Letter Dated May 6, 2018) 87 26. Response to: Franklin Bayliss (Letter Dated May 7, 2018) 91 27. Response to: Laura Kass (Letter Dated May 7, 2018) 93 28. Response to: Mardell and Robert Perez (Letter Dated May 7, 2018) 96 29. Response to: Chuck Kass (Letter Dated May 8, 2018) 100 30. Response to: Ronald Nishida (Letter Dated May 8, 2018) 104 31. Response to: Diego Bernal (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) 106 32. Response to:Jim Broz (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) 108 33. Response to: Christiane Dubrulle (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) 110 34. Response to:Trudy Jarratt (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) 114 35. Response to: Katie Merlo (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) 116 36. Response to: Will Reichardt (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) 120 37. Response to: Linda L. Smith (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) 122 38. Response to:Jeff Techau (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) 124 39. Response to: Carolyn Bayliss (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) 126 40. Response to: Sam Cotton (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) 129 41. Response to:John and Margie Gayley (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) 132 42. Response to: Rod Hatch (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) 138 43. Response to: Andrea Portney (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) 140 44. Response to:Jeff Portney (Letter Dated May 11, 2018) 145 45. Response to: Virginia Roof(Letter Dated May 12, 2018) 149 46. Response to:Theresa Schultz (Letter Dated May 12, 2018) 154 47. Response to: Sue Stanton (Letter Dated May 12, 2018) 158 48. Response to: Robert and Julia Hess (Letter Dated May 14, 2018) 160 49. Response to: Danny Gresser (Letter Dated May 7, 2018) 163 50. Response to: Brad Snook (Letter Dated April 26, 2018) 167 51. Response to: Ashley Beene (Letter Dated April 26, 2018) 170 52. Response to:Trisha Coffey(Letter Dated May 3, 2018) 173 53. Response to:Judith Hughes (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) 175 54. Response to: Robert Hull (Letter Dated May 8, 2018) 178 55. Response to: Rob Kelly (Letter Dated April 26, 2018) 184 56. Response to: Margaret Ketelsen (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) 186 57. Response to: Alicia Lara (Letter Dated May 10, 2018) 189 58. Response to:Travis McCarty (Letter Dated May 3, 2018) 193 Page 4 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 59. Response to:John and Kit Sinner(Letter Dated May 11, 2018) 195 60. Response to: Social Media Comments (Letter Dated April 27, 2018) 198 61. Response to: Colin and Kathleen Wigglesworth (Letter Dated May 7, 2018) 202 62. Response to:Jim Alquist(Letter Dated May 8, 2018) 206 63. Response to:Jim DeCecco (Letter not Dated) 208 64. Response to: Michael Furman (Letter not Dated) 210 65. Response to: Claudine Lingo (Letter Dated April 26, 2018) 214 66. Response to: Claudine Lingo (Letter Dated May 1, 2018) 218 67. Response to: Lisa Suddath (Letter not Dated) 220 Page 5 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project This page intentionally left blank. Page 6 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Introduction This project is subject to both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA).The City is lead agency for the CEQA review and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. Caltrans is the lead agency for the NEPA review and an Environmental Assessment with findings of no significant impact has been prepared in compliance with NEPA. Both documents were circulated for a 30-day public comment period during which a public workshop was held on April 26, 2018. A total of 67 comment letters were received during the public circulation period, including six comment letters from local and regional agencies (not including the State Clearinghouse), one comment letter from a local organization, and 58 comment letters from local businesses or individuals. Agency comments expressed primary concerns related to impacts to and/or interruption to current local government operations and County services (e.g.,the Arroyo Grande Library, San Luis Obispo County Department of Agriculture), loss of public parking, increased construction and freeway noise at proximate public facilities, and truck routing, hydrocarbon contaminated soils, and other air emission control requirements. Organization and public comments were generally split between the preferred alternative selection. Key considerations/issues raised by multiple commenters included concerns over project costs,the need to include multimodal transportation improvements,the loss of regional and local access to adjacent business centers,the operation and use of a proposed roundabout intersection, increased traffic and traffic speeds in proximate local residential areas, and safety concerns related to adjacent schools and public facilities. The comment letters for the proposed Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Environmental Assessment (EA) are provided below,with the responses following the individual letters. Comment letters are reproduced in total, and numerical annotation has been added as appropriate to delineate and reference the responses to those comments.The City of Arroyo Grande (City) is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).The lead agencies have prepared a consolidated set of responses to comments received on the IS/MND and EA.The comments will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. With the exception of the letter from the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, all comment letters are listed chronologically. Response to Comments Agency Comment Letters Commenter Letter Date Letter No. State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, April 12,2018 1 State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District May 3,2018 2 Contact:Gary Arcemont,Air Quality Specialist County of San Luis Obispo Department of Agriculture/Weights& Measures May 10, 2018 3 Contact:Martin Settevendemie,Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer County of San Luis Obispo Public Libraries May 10, 2018 4 Contact:Christopher Barnickel, Director of Libraries Page 7 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Commenter Letter Date Letter No. County of San Luis Obispo Central Services Department May 11, 2018 5 Contact:Philip D'Acri,A.A.E., Real Property Manager County of San Luis Obispo County Library May 11, 2018 6 Contact:Chase McMunn,Assistant Director of Libraries County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works May 11, 2018 7 Contact:Dave Flynn, P.E., Deputy Director Page 8 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#1 ,,E9FWAYN/y ti .n� STATE OF CALIFORNIA +`� 'e", Governor's Office of Planning and Research �a Via. ° State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit '1a�oV.'' Edmund G.Brown Jr. Ken Ales Governor Director May 14,2018 Teresa McClish City of Arroyo Grande 300 E.Branch St Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 Subject: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project SCH#: 2018041034 Dear Teresa McClish: The State CIearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on May 11,2018,and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 1.1 Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project,please refer to the • ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. . Sincerely, 'Cr.i4740.1.--- S organ Director,State Clearinghouse RECEIVED .MAY 1 7 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE 1400 TENTH STREET 9.0.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95813-31144 TEL 1.916-445.0613 FAX L-910-558-3164 www.opr.ea.gov Page 9 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCHtI 2018041034 Project Title Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Lead Agency Arroyo Grande,City of Type MND Mitigated Negative Declaration Description The city,in conjunction with the Caltrans proposes modifications and improvements to the US 101 intersections at Brisco-Halcyon Rd,Grand Ave,and/or Camino Mercado in the city of Arroyo Grande. The project would provide congestion relief,alleviate queuing,and irnprove the traffic operations of the regional and local street system in the vicinity of US 101 in the city through the construction of auxiliary lanes and interchange modifications.Two design alternatives were evaluated:alternative 1 includes on-and off ramp closures,interchange modifications,and a new auxiliary lane;alternative 4c includes on-and off ramp closures,interchange modifications,new on-and off-ramps,new auxiliary lanes,a new roundabout,and a new park and ride lot. Lead Agency Contact Name Teresa McClish Agency City of Arroyo Grande Phone 805-473-5420 Fax email Address 300 E.Branch St City Arroyo Grande State CA Zip 93420 Project Location County San Luis Obispo City Arroyo Grande Region Lat/Long 35°07'25"Ni 120°35'20"W Cross Streets Northbound US 101 intersection at Grand Ave,Brisco Rd,Camino Mercado Parcel No. ROW Township 32S Range 13E Section 21 Base MDBM Proximity to: Highways 101 Airports Railways SPRR Waterways Arroyo Grande Crk,Los Berros Crk Schools SL Patricks,Union HS Land Use multiple Project Issues Aesthetic/Visual;Agricultural Land;Air Quality;Archaeotogic-Historic;Biological Resources; Cumulative Effects;Flood Plain/Flooding;Forest Land/Fire Hazard;Geologic/Seismic;Growth Inducing;Landuse;Minerals;Noise;Population/Housing Balance;Public Services;Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities;Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Solid Waste;Toxic/Hazardous; TraffclCirculation;Vegetation;Water Quality;Water Supply;Wetfand/Riparian Reviewing Resources Agency;Department of Fish and Wildlife,Region 4;Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources;California Highway Patrol;Caltrans,District 5;Regional Water Quality Control Board,Region 3;Air Resources Board,Transportation Projects;Native American Heritage Commission;Public Utilities Commission Date Received 04/12/2018 Start of Review 04/1212018 End of Review 05/11/2018 Note: Blanks in data-fields result from insufficient informal-inn nrnvidad by laad ananry Page 10 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 1. Response to:State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit(Letter Dated May 14,2018) 1.1 The City and Caltrans note the State Clearinghouse (SCH) and Planning Unit's receipt of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. No state agencies submitted comments to SCH within the public circulation period. Page 11 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#2 RECEIVED MAY 11 2018 , SL COUNTY apcd Air Pollution Control District San Luis Obispo County COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE May 3,2018 Jason Wilkenson Caltrans Senior Environmental Planner 50 Higuera St. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 SUBJECT: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Dear Mr.Wilkenson: Thank you for including the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District(APCD)in the environmental review process. We have completed our review of Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project-Mitigated Negative Declaration. The following are APCD comments that are pertinent to this project. As a commenting agency in the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)review process for a project,the APCD assesses air pollution impacts from both the construction and 2.1 operational phases of a project,with separate significant thresholds for each. CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soil Should hydrocarbon contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities,the APCD must be notified as soon as possible and no later than 4l3_hours after affected material is discovered to determine if an APCD Permit will be required. In addition,the following measures shall be implemented Immediately after contaminated soil is discovered• • Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal; 2.2 • Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six inches of packed uncontaminated soil or other TPH-non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate; • Covered piles shall be designed in such a way to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted; • The air quality impacts from the excavation and haul trips associated with removing the contaminated soil must be evaluated and mitigated if total emissions exceed the APCD's construction phase thresholds; •805.781.5912 '805.781.1002 is slocleartair.org 3433 Roberto Court,5.Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Page 12 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 8risco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications May 3,2018 Page 2 of 5 • During soil excavation,odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance;and, • Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil. 2.2 cont'd The notification and permitting determination requirements shall be directed to the APCD Engineering&Compliance Division at 1805)781-5912. Construction Permit Requirements Based on the information provided,we are unsure of the types of equipment that may be present during the project's construction phase. Portable equipment,50 horsepower(hp)or greater,used during construction activities may require California statewide portable equipment registration (issued by the California Air Resources Board)or an APCD permit. The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements,but should not be viewed as exclusive. For a more detailed listing,refer to the Technical Appendices,page 4-4,in the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook. • Power screens,conveyors,diesel engines,and/or crushers; • Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greaten 2.3 • Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator; • Internal combustion engines; • Rock and pavement crushing; • Unconfined abrasive blasting operations; • Tub grinders; • Trammel screens;and, • Portable plants(e.g.aggregate plant,asphalt batch plant,concrete hatch plant,etc). To minimize potential delays,prior to the start of the project.please contact the APCQ Engineering Division at 1805)787-5912ior specific information regardingpermitting requirements. Truck Routing Proposed truck routes should be evaluated and selected to ensure routing patterns have the least Impact to residential dwellings and other sensitive receptors,such as schools,parks,day care 2 4 centers,nursing homes,and hospitals. If the project has significant truck trips where hauling/truck trips are routine activity and operate in close proximity to sensitive receptors,toxic risk needs to be evaluated. Developmental Burning Effective February 25,2000,the APCD prohibited developmental burning of vegetative material 2.5 Within San Luis Obispo County- If you have any questions regarding these requirements,contact the APCD Enforcement Division at(805)781-5912. Demolition/Asbestos Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts,including issues surrounding proper handling,abatement,and disposal of asbestos containing material(ACM). Asbestos 2.6 containing materials could be encountered during the demolition or remodeling of existing structures or the disturbance,demolition,or relocation of above or below ground utility Page 13 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Rrisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications May 3,2018 Page 3 of 5 plpes/plpelines(e.g.,transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If this project will include any of these activities,then it may be subject_to various regulatory,jurisdictions,including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61.Subpart M-asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include,but are not limited to:1) written notification,within at least 10 business days of activities commencing,to the APCD,2) 2.6 asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant,and,3)applicable removal and cont'd disposal requirements of identified ACM. Please contact the APCD Enforcement Division at (805)781-5912 and also go to slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php for further information. To obtain a Notification of Demolition and Renovation form go to the"Other Forms"section of. slocleanair.org/business/onlineforms.php. Dust Control Measures Construction activities can generate fugitive dust,which could be a nuisance to nearby residents and businesses in dose proximity to the proposed construction site. projects with grading areas that • - , , i i -- -1 ,. • •'tor or the ra. - eate i an 4.- res shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD's 20%o aci limit[APCD Rule 401)or prom,pt nuisante violations(APCD Rule 402). a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible; b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD's limit of 20%opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed(non-potable)water should be used whenever possible. During drought conditions,the contractor or builder shall consider the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant,where feasible,to reduce the amount of water used for dust control. For a list of suppressants,see Section 4.3 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook; c. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed; d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and 2.7 landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible,following completion of any soil disturbing activities; e. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating,non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetatlon should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,jute netting,or other methods approved in advance by the APCD; g. 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; h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site; i. All trucks hauling dirt,sand,soil,or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard(minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer)in accordance with CVC Section 23114; j. 'Track-Out"is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment(including tires)that may then fall onto any highway or street as described in California Vehicle Code Section 23113 and California Water Page 14 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Rrisco-Halcyon Road interchange Modifications May 3,2018 Page 4 of 5 Code 13304.To prevent Track Out designate access points and require all employees. subcontractors,and others to use them.Install and operate a'track-out prevention device' where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets.The'track-out prevention device'can be any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices need periodic cleaning to be effective.If paved roadways accumulate tracked out soils,the track-out prevention device may need to be modified. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible.Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible;and, 2.7 I. All mitigation measures should be shown on grading and building plans. cont'd The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility is to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 20%opacityfor greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress(for example,wind- blown dust could be generated on an open dirt lot). 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(Contact Tim Fuhs at(805)781-5912). Construction Phase Idling Limitations Projects that will have diesel powered construction activity in close proximity to any sensitive receptor shall implement the following mitigation measures to ensure that public health benefits are realized by reducing toxic risk from diesel emissions: To halo reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project.the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In 2.8 general,the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: 1. Shall not idle the vehicle's primary diesel engine for greater than 5-minutes at any location,except as noted in Subsection(d)of the regulation;and, 2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system(APS)to power a heater,air conditioner,or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area,except as noted in Subsection(d)of the regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2)of the California Air Resources Board's In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. Page 15 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange Modifications May 3 2018 Page 5of5 c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state's 5-minute idling limit. d. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulations can be reviewed at the following web sites:www.arb.ca,gov/msprog/truck-idlinglfactsheet.pdf and www.arb.ca.goviregact/2007/ordles107/frooel.pcl. 2. Dje,sgcee lJing Restrictions Near Sensitive Reptom 2.8 cont'd In addition to the state required diesel Idling requirements,the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to any sensitive receptors(residences,schools,parks,day care centers,nursing homes,hospitals,etc.): a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted; c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended;and d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site. Again,thank you for the opportunity to comment an this proposal. If you have any questions or comments,feel free to contact me at(805)781-5912. Sincerely, Gary Arcemont Air Quality Specialist GJA/arr cc: Tim Fuhs,Enforcement Division,APCD City of Arroyo Grande,Community Development,300 E.Branch St. fleVitHA lAM[FQMPro;ectAeWxM43Docla o32g7.g32q/.7.docz Page 16 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 2. Response to:San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District(Letter Dated May 3, 2018) 2.1 This is an introductory comment regarding the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District's (APCD) role in the environmental review processes. No further response is required. 2.2 This comment identifies the potential for hydrocarbon contaminated soil to be encountered during construction and has provided mitigation measures in the event hydrocarbons are encountered.The potential for hazardous material, including contaminated soils,to be encountered during construction is discussed in Section VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the IS/MND and Section 2.2.5 Hazardous Waste and Materials of the EA. Mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND (HAZ/mm-3) and EA(HAZ/mm-2) require preparation of a Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan to ensure contaminated soils excavated during project construction are handles, stockpiled, and disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Mitigation Measures HAZ/mm-5 in the IS/MND and HAZ/mm-4 in the EA require testing of asbestos containing material, lead-based paint, and petroleum hydrocarbons in built structures prior to demolition or construction. The APCD is listed in the table of required agency authorizations and permits in the IS/MND (Table 2) and the EA(Table 1-2).These tables have been revised to reflect the potential need for an APCD permit in the event hydrocarbon contaminated soil is encountered during construction. Mitigation Measures HAZ/mm-5 in the IS/MND and HAZ/mm-4 in the EA also been revised to specifically reference the requirements to be implemented in the event contaminated soil is discovered. In addition, temporary construction activities could generate fugitive dust from the operation of construction equipment. Caltrans Standard Specifications pertaining to dust control and dust palliative requirement is a required part of all construction contracts and should effectively reduce and control emission impacts during construction.The provisions for Caltrans Standard Specifications, "Air Pollution Control" and "Dust Control" require the contractor to comply with the applicable Air Pollution Control District's rules, ordinances, and regulations. 2.3 The comment notes APCD permit requirements for construction equipment.The types of equipment that will be utilized during project construction is not known at this time.The potential need for APCD construction permits is identified in the table of required agency authorizations and permits in the IS/MND (Table 2) and the EA(Table 1-2).The City and Caltrans will obtain any permits required for project construction. 2.4 This comment identifies the need for truck routes to be evaluated to reduce impacts to nearby sensitive receptors, and if necessary,to evaluate toxic risks if routine truck trips will occur in close proximity to sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measures in Section XIV. Public Services of the IS/MND (PS/mm-2) and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities of the EA(TRA/mm-5) require the City to prepare a Construction Timing,Access, and Circulation Plan which limits the hours of haulage and requires designation of truck routes that avoid residential areas to the extent possible.These measures have been revised to clarify that designated truck haul routes shall avoid all sensitive receptors (including schools, parks, day care centers, nursing homes, and hospitals)to the greatest extent feasible. Long-term effects of the project would generally be beneficial.Alternative 1 would close the U.S. Highway 101 northbound on-and off-ramps/Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange, removing Page 17 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project truck trips from this location proximate to St. Patrick's School (a sensitive receptor) and relocating trips to the adjacent Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado intersections.There is a hotel adjacent to Camino Mercado, but no other sensitive land uses at these locations. Alternative 4C would replace the U.S. 101/Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange with a new interchange at an adjacent location.The new interchange would be slightly farther from St. Patrick's School and would improve traffic flows through the project area, decreasing toxic risks. In addition,temporary construction activities could generate fugitive dust from the operation of construction equipment. Caltrans Standard Specifications pertaining to dust control and dust palliative requirement is a required part of all construction contracts and should effectively reduce and control emission impacts during construction.The provisions for Caltrans Standard Specifications, "Air Pollution Control" and "Dust Control" require the contractor to comply with the applicable Air Pollution Control District's rules, ordinances, and regulations. 2.5 This comment pertains to the prohibition of developmental burning of vegetation.The project does not propose the developmental burning of vegetation. 2.6 This comment identifies the potential for asbestos containing material to be encountered during certain demolition activities, which would require project compliance with additional regulatory requirements, including the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M—asbestos NESHAP). Mitigation Measures in Section VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the IS/MND (HAZ/mm-2) and Section 2.2.5 Hazardous Waste and Materials of the EA(HAZ/mm-1) require compliance with the asbestos NESHAP, including APCD notification, an asbestos survey, and applicable removal and disposal requirements. In addition, Caltrans has Non Standard and Standard Special Provisions for handling, disposal and transportation of hazardous materials such as asbestos, lead based paint, and petroleum hydrocarbons during construction that follow Federal, State, and Local regulations. 2.7 This comment recommends implementation of the APCD's standard dust control measures. Mitigation Measures in Section III.Air Quality of the IS/MND (AQ/mm-2) include standard dust (PM10) control measures as described in the APCD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook to reduce and minimize dust and airborne particulate matter, consistent with this comment.The project would not exceed any federal air quality thresholds;therefore, no mitigation is necessary in the EA. 2.8 This comment recommends implementation of the APCD's standard diesel idling control measures. Mitigation Measures in Section III.Air Quality of the IS/MND (AQ/mm-1) includes standard construction phase idling limitations per the APCD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, consistent with this comment.The project would not exceed any federal air quality thresholds; therefore, no mitigation is necessary in the EA. Page 18 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#3 CSAN LUIS COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO oRISPo DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE/WEIGHTS&MEASURES Martin Settevendemie,Agricultural Commissioner/SenEer of Weights&Measures May 10,2018 Robin Dickerson City Engineer City of Arroyo Grande 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 Re:Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange Modification Project Thank you for the opportunity for the San Luis Obispo County Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures to provide input on the Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modification Project as outlined in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration dated January 2018. After reviewing the options,alternative 1 is our preference. This option would create the least disruption and impact to our business operations. This location represents our busiest office for walk-in 3.1 customers and on-site inspection activities. The impact mitigation measures outlined below represent those we believe to be critical prior to/during construction if Alternative 1 is selected: • It is important for departmental management to be included in all discussions related to the 13.2 South County Regional Center site. • Minimizing impacts to staff and visitor site access and parking is imperative. 13.3 • Providing adequate signage is essential to direct customer traffic during all phases of the project. 34 • Adequate mitigation of construction noise,dust and debris must be incorporated into the 13.5 project plan. If Alternative 4C is selected,it is imperative that consideration and consultation be extended to the Department for the all previous items mentioned above as well as the following items: 3.6 • Mitigation of impacts to operations before and during construction including temporary facilities • Building relocation plans and parking reconfiguration 13.7 • An equal to or improved facility upon completion of project 13.8 • Adequate vehicular and customer access to facility 13.9 Respectfully Marti 'Se'eve'd m ie San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer 2156 Sierra Way,Suite A I San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 I (P)805-781-5910 I (F)805-781-1035 slocounty.ca.gov/agcomm I agcommslo@co.slo.ca.us Page 19 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 3. Response to:County of San Luis Obispo Department of Agriculture/Weights& Measures(Letter Dated May 10,2018) 3.1 This comment is an introductory comment by the County of San Luis Obispo Department of Agriculture/Weights& Measures expressing support for Alternative 1 and proposing mitigation to reduce impacts to the Department of Agriculture's modular office building at the Arroyo Grande Library/South County Regional Center. No further response is required. 3.2 This comment is a request to be included in all discussions related to the South County Regional Center site.While this comment is not directly related to the adequacy of the IS/MND or EA, it has been noted and included as part of the record.The City and Caltrans will continue to coordinate with the County Department of Agriculture regarding project-related changes to the South County Regional Center. 3.3 This comment emphasizes the importance of minimizing impacts to staff and visitor site access and parking.Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic, Question f of the IS/MND and Sections 2.1.4 Relocations and Real Property Acquisitions and 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities of the EA discuss and analyze the project's potential impacts to the South County Regional Center,the Department of Agriculture's modular office building, and onsite parking. Mitigation Measure PS/mm-2 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-5 in the EA require preparation of a Construction Timing,Access, and Circulation plan prior to the initiation of construction activities that requires signage, clearly marked detour routes, traffic control, and other methods for ensuring permanent access to areas north of Brisco Road is preserved.The City proposes to replace all lost parking spaces within the reconfigured parking lots to the extent feasible and replace lost parking at the South County Regional Center with a new parking lot at the same location. Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-5 in Section X. Land Use and Planning of the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 have been designed to ensure impacts to site access and parking are reduced to less than significant, and include a requirement that areas adjacent to disturbed areas shall be kept open for parking and customer use to the greatest extent feasible during project construction,that the project design provide convenient and/or improved access to the public transit stops and bicycle paths to the South County Regional Center, and other measures to ensure visitor parking and use of public facilities at the South County Regional Center would not be deterred during construction of the project,to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, Mitigation Measure LU/mm-5 of the IS/MND and TRA/mm-3 of the EA require the City to prepare a Parking Plan in consultation with the City of Arroyo Grande City Engineer and any other affected public or private property owners, including the County Department of Agriculture. 3.4 This comment is a request for adequate signage during all construction phases. Impacts to public and private businesses within the project area were analyzed and discussed in Section XIV. Public Services of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. Both environmental documents identified mitigation to minimize potentially significant construction-related impacts on public facilities at the South County Regional Center. Consistent with this comment, Mitigation Measures PS/mm-2 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-5 in the EA require a signage plan and other methods, if feasible,for increasing the visibility of businesses blocked by construction activities and alerting travelers that businesses adjacent to the project corridor will remain open during construction. Page 20 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 3.5 This comment requests adequate mitigation for noise, dust and debris during construction. Section XII. Noise of the IS/MND and Section 2.2.7 Noise of the EA discuss noise related impacts. Project-related construction activities would result in intermittent noise increases, and the project would be required to meet Caltrans Standard Noise Control Specifications and the City's noise standards.Therefore, construction related noise impacts are considered less than significant. Section III. Air Quality in the IS/MND analyzed and discussed potential impacts related to short- term construction-related air quality and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) effects. Mitigation Measures AQ/mm-1 and AQ/mm-2 in the IS/MND and EA require standard dust control and diesel idling control measures, per APCD requirements to minimize and reduce construction related impacts. In addition, BIO/mm-9 in the IS/MND and BIO/mm-8 in the EA require trash to be contained, removed from the work site, and disposed of regularly during construction, consistent with this comment. 3.6 This comment requests that, if Alternative 4C is selected, impacts to Department of Agriculture operations be mitigated before and during construction, including through the provision of temporary facilities if necessary.As discussed above in Responses 3.3 and 3.4, potential impacts to the South County Regional Center were analyzed and discussed in Section XIV. Public Services of the IS/MND and Sections 2.1.4 Relocations and Real Property Acquisitions and 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities of the EA and Mitigation Measures LU/mm- 2, 3, and 5 of the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, and 3 of the EA minimize potentially significant impacts on public services at the regional center. 3.7 This comment requests consultation with the Department of Agriculture regarding proposed building relocation plans and parking reconfiguration.See Response 3.3, above.The City and Caltrans would continue to consult with the County Department of Agriculture regarding the proposed relocation and proposed Parking Plan, pursuant to mitigation measure LU/mm-5 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-3 in the EA. 3.8 This comment requests an equal to or improved facility upon completion of the project. Relocation of the modular building is expected to be feasible;therefore,the Department of Agriculture's office will be equal to the existing building. In addition, proposed circulation, bike/pedestrian, and transit improvements under both alternatives would provide improved access to the site. Parking would be replaced on-site and the new intersection, roadways, landscaping, and associated improvements would generally improve areas surrounding the South County Regional Center. 3.9 This comment requests adequate vehicular and customer access to the facility. Refer to Responses 3.2 through 3.8, above. Page 21 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#4 From: Christopher Barnickel To: WW2 Subject: Brisco-Halcyon Road comments Date: Thursday,May 10,2018 10:50:52 AM Ms.Dickerson, I'm writing to you in reference to the recent hearings about the Brisco-Halcyon Road. Our preference is for Alternative 1 with improvements to Grand Ave. However,the Brisco access 4.1 is important to our patrons and their safe,convenient access to the library. We have significant concerns about losing 46 spaces of parking and would ask that the lot to the north of the library be graded and made into parking prior to construction so as to 4.2 mitigate the anticipated temporary access impacts. Moreover,we are also concerned about access to the branch for those using public transit. We also would like to see noise mitigation 14.3 solutions included both during construction and as a way of limiting increased noise pollution created by the proximity and anticipated increased traffic resulting from the 4C project. 4.4 Lastly,we want to ensure that adequate signage is placed during/after construction so the public can readily access the branch. 4.5 Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let us know if you need any further information or feedback as it relates to these comments. Christopher Barnickel Director of Libraries County of San Luis Obispo Public Libraries 805-781-5785 Page 22 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 4. Response to:County of San Luis Obispo Public Libraries(Letter Dated May 10,2018) 4.1 This comment is an introductory comment by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Libraries expressing a preference for Alternative 1 and identifying the importance of Brisco Road for convenient access to the library. No further response is required. 4.2 This comment raises concerns over the loss of parking spaces and requests that replacement parking be graded and constructed prior to construction to address temporary parking impacts. Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic, Question f of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA discuss and analyzes the project's impacts to parking. Mitigation measures in the IS/MND (LU/mm-5) and the EA(TRA/mm-3) require the City and Caltrans to coordinate with affected public and private property owners regarding replacement parking, including County Public Libraries. Implementation of identified measures would ensure impacts related to the loss of parking would be mitigated to ensure that all lost parking spaces are reconfigured and replaced. Replacement should be at a 1:1 ratio if feasible. 4.3 This comment raises a concern over the loss of access for patrons using public transportation. Mitigation Measures in Section X. Land Use and Planning of the IS/MND (LU/mm-2) and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities of the EA (TRA/mm-1) require the City to prepare Non-Motorized/Public Transportation Plan to ensure the project would not interfere,temporarily or long-term, in any way with any routes, schedules, or operations of the RTA(Regional Transit Authority) stops at the Arroyo Grande Library. 4.4 This comment is a request for noise mitigation measures to reduce both construction related and long-term noise impacts due to the proximity and increase in trips under Alternative 4C. Section XII. Noise of the IS/MND and Section 2.2.7 Noise of the EA discuss noise related impacts and determined that while intermittent noise increases would occur during construction,the project would be required to meet Caltrans Standard Noise Control Specifications and the City's noise standards;therefore, potential construction-related impacts would be less than significant. Operational noise was modeled under both alternatives and determined that projected noise levels would be the same at the library with or without the project. Noise levels would also be the same under Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C. Relocation of the intersection under Alternative 4C would result in a marginal increase in exterior noise at the library, but the change would not be perceptible, and the noise environment would continue to be dominated by traffic noise along U.S. 101.Therefore, no significant impacts are expected to occur and no mitigation was determined to be necessary. 4.5 The comment requests adequate signage during and after construction. Mitigation Measures in Section XIV. Public Services of the IS/MND (PS/mm-2) and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities of the EA(TRA/mm-5) require the City to prepare a Construction Timing, Access, and Circulation Plan which includes a signage plan and other methods, if feasible,for increasing the visibility of business blocked by construction activities and alerting travelers that businesses adjacent to the project corridor will remain open during construction, consistent with this comment. Page 23 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#5 From: Phil D"Acri To: brisco Subject: drisco-Halcyon Road Interchange project Date: Friday,May 11,2018 12:01:09 PM Attachments: imaae001.ona Ms.Dickerson, I'm writing to you in reference to the alternatives 1 and 4.c that were presented at the 4126th public workshop regarding the Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange project. Both our Client Departments(Department of Agriculture/Weights&Measures and County Public Libraries)have expressed a preference for Alternate 1 over 4.c I 5.1 We have the following concerns irrespective of the alternate: 1. Noise impacts during construction or associated with post-construction redirected area vehicular traffic 5.2 2. Any interruptions to the services provided by any users of the subject County property due to the 5.3 construction project 3. Increased traffic congestion to the County's property 15.4 We have the following concerns associated with Alternate 4.c 1. Ensuring adequate wayfinding signage,lighting and pedestrian walkways are provided by the project for the new parking lot proposed to be constructed to address the loss of 46 existing spaces to ensure business or organization patrons or clients can get to their destinations easily. 5.5 This lot would need to be made available to the affected users of the subject County owned property prior to construction so as to mitigate the anticipated temporary access impacts. 2. Any impacts to the main access to the subject County owned property as a result of traffic congestion,reduced visibility associated with grading,retaining walls,etc,Restoration of impacted 5.6 Library and other user signage. 3. Acceptable replacement facility for the Ag Commissioner 15.7 Please acknowledge your receipt of this e-mail. Sincerely Philip Michael D'Acri,A.A.E. Real Property Manager Page 24 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project (p)805-781-5206 (f)805-781-1364 darn co idea us COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CENTRAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT www slocounty ca gov Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Linkedln Subscribe on YouTube Disclaimer:This email and any attachment are confidential and may be legally privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please notify the author by replying to this email message,and then delete all copies of the email on your system.If you are not the intended recipient,you must not disclose,distribute, copy,print,or use this email in any manner.Email messages and attachments may contain viruses. Although we take precautions to check for viruses,we make no assurances about the absence of viruses. We accept no liability and suggest that you carry out your own virus checks. Page 25 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 5. Response to:County of San Luis Obispo Central Services Department(Letter Dated May 11,2018) 5.1 This is an introductory comment by the County of San Luis Obispo Central Services Department expressing a preference for Alternative 1 on behalf of their Client Departments (the Department of Agriculture/Weights& Measures and County Public Libraries). No further response is required. 5.2 This comment raises a concern with both short-and long-term noise impacts.Section XII. Noise of the IS/MND and Section 2.2.7 Noise of the EA discuss noise related impacts and determined that while intermittent noise increases would occur during construction,the project would be required to meet Caltrans Standard Noise Control Specifications and the City's noise standards; therefore, potential construction-related impacts would be less than significant. Operational noise was modeled under both alternatives and determined that projected noise levels would be the same at the library and County property with or without the project. Projected future noise levels would also be the same under Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C. Relocation of the intersection under Alternative 4C would result in a marginal increase in noise at the library, but the change would not be perceptible, and the noise environment would continue to be dominated by traffic noise along U.S. 101.Therefore, no significant impacts are expected occur and no mitigation was determined to be necessary. 5.3 This comment raises a concern about interruptions to service at the South County Regional Center. Mitigation Measures in Section X. Land Use and Planning of the IS/MND(PS/mm-2) and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA(TRA/mm-5) that require the City to prepare a Construction Timing, Access, and Circulation Plan that, among other things, is required to include measures and methods for preserving access during construction, signage for increasing visibility and ensuring travelers that adjacent business will remain open during construction, and clearly marked detour routes. These measures require the City to provide the plan to owners of adjacent properties, including the County, and allow them to comment on the plan. 5.4 This comment raises a concern about increased traffic congestion to the County's property.The project is a traffic improvement project that would substantially improve traffic levels at all intersections within the project area. Effects associated with the increase in short-term construction related traffic would be minimized through implementation of measures identified in the IS/MND (PS/mm-1 through PS/mm-3) and the EA(TRA/mm-4 through TRA/mm-8), including coordination with adjacent property owners, including the County, regarding construction timing, access, and circulation plans. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. With implementation of these measures, potential impacts would be less than significant. 5.5 This comment requests adequate wayfinding signage, lighting, and pedestrian walkways for the new parking lot and construction of the replacement lot prior to construction to avoid temporary loss of parking. Refer to Response 4.2, above. In addition, Mitigation Measures in the IS (LU/mm-5) and the EA(TRA/mm-3) require the City to coordinate with affected local Page 26 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project businesses in developing replacement parking, including development of restriping and landscape design plans for affected properties. With implementation of these measures, potential impacts would be less than significant. 5.6 This comment requests restoration of impacts to the library main entrance and signage. Mitigation Measures in the IS/MND (LU/mm-5) and the EA(TRA/mm-3) require the City to coordinate with affected local businesses in development of restriping and landscape design plans for affected properties, such as the County library.The City will consult with the County to ensure changes to the entrance, including signage, are appropriately relocated. As discussed in Response 5.4,the project would not result in significant adverse effects related to traffic congestion and sight distance from the new intersection under Alternative 4C would not be substantially different than existing conditions due to the sloped hillsides and higher elevation of the County property from this location.Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. 5.7 This comment requests an acceptable replacement facility for the County Department of Agriculture's modular office building at the South County Regional Center. Refer to Response 3.8, above. Page 27 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#6 From: Chase McMunn To: tram Subject: Brisco-Halcyon Interchange project Date: Friday,May 11,2018 11:45:48 AM Attachments: Outl ook-1518214167.ono Ms.Dickerson, I am writing in regards to Alternative 1 and 4C of the Briscoe Interchange project.On behalf of the County of San Luis Obispo County Library,we would prefer Alternative 1 to that of 6.1 Alternative 4C. If Alternative 4C is selected the Library and South County Regional Center will lose 46 parking spaces,so we would ask that the parcel north of the facility be graded to provide additional 6.2 parking for library patrons.We would also ask that RTA bus stops be relocated to an area that is easily accessible,and that library signage is replaced in an area that retains visibility with the 6.3 changing traffic flow.Additionally,we would ask that some mitigation is done to reduce potential freeway noise that is brought closer to the library facility in the Alternative 4C. 16.4 Having said that we also have some concerns about Alternative 1,and would ask that in this scenario work is done to allow convenient,safe,and readily available access to the South 6.5 County Regional Center should the Briscoe interchange be closed. Thank you, Chase McMunn Assistant Director of Libraries 805-781-5990 www.slolibrarv.orq Page 28 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 6. Response to:County of San Luis Obispo County Library(Letter Dated May 11,2018) 6.1 This comment is an introductory comment by the County of San Luis Obispo Public Libraries expressing a preference for Alternative 1. No further response is required. 6.2 This comment raises concerns over the loss of parking spaces and requests that temporary parking be provided. Refer to Response 4.2 and Mitigation Measures LU/mm-3 through LU/mm- 5 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-2 and TRA/mm-3 in the EA. Implementation of these measures would ensure adequate replacement parking is provided onsite and would result in improved public transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities.Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. 6.3 This comment requests that the RTA bus stop be relocated to an area that is easily accessible and that library signage be replaced in an area that retains visibility with the changing traffic flow. Refer to Response 5.6 and 6.2, above. Mitigation Measures in Section X. Land Use and Planning of the IS/MND (LU/mm-2) and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities (TRA/mm-1) requires the City to prepare a Non-Motorized/ Public Transportation Plan that includes methods to ensure the project would not interfere, temporarily or long-term, in any way with any routes, schedules, or operations of the RTA stops at the Arroyo Grande Library. In addition, mitigation measures LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-2 in the EA require the project design provide convenient and/or improved access to the RTA stops along West Branch Street at the Arroyo Grande Library. With implementation of these measures, potential impacts would be less than significant. 6.4 This comment requests noise mitigation to reduce potential freeway noise that is brought closer to the library. Refer to Response 4.4, above. No significant noise increases would occur. 6.5 This comment expresses concerns about continued public access under Alternative 1 and requests that safe and convenient access be provided to the library in the event the Brisco Road intersection is closed.Traffic analyses determined that adequate alternative access exists at adjacent U.S. 101 intersections to accommodate diverted trips under Alternative 1. Although direct access from U.S. 101 at Brisco Road would no longer be available, access via the Brisco Road undercrossing would be improved.Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. Page 29 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#7 COUNTY COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ',SAN Lurs OBISPO Department of Public Works • Colt Esenwein,P.E.,Director May 11,2018 Robin Dickerson,City Engineer City of Arroyo Grande 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 Subject: Comments on the Proposed Brisco-Halcyon Interchange Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms.Dickerson: The County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works would like to note the following concerns for alternative 4C as shown in the proposed negative Mitigated Declaration: • Our Flood Control District 3 Lopez water transmission line runs along the westerly edge of the current Branch Road alignment. The line and easement predate the road right of way and construction. The proposed on and off ramp construction would likely impact the existing transmission line. Any construction of alternative 4C would need to include a new water 7.1 transmission fine over the new Branch Road alignment as a first phase to continue water deliveries before,during and after construction. The waterline may be placed in a new right of way under a joint use agreement,however,the line would need to retain its seniority, The Flood Control District would be expecting any and all costs associated with the work to be reimbursed or made part of the City's interchange project. • The alignment of Branch Road fronting the South County Regional Center, for either the roundabout or signalized intersection will create the following impacts which would need to be addressed in the design: 7.2 o The main driveway would see an increase in its existing slope and would impact further into the parking lot by the building entrance. o Sight distance exiting the main driveway would be reduced due to the road alignment and potential retaining walls along the new roadway. 7.3 o Loss of parking at the southerly property line would need to be accommodated with suitable accessible parking at the northside of the parcel, adjacent to the existing structures with suitable access road onto Rodeo Street. Associated landscaping would need to be developed 7,4 along both the southerly portion of the parcel,the new access,and parking area at the north end of parcel. o ADA accessible path onto the South County Regional Center from Branch Road would need to be established under the city interchange project. 7'5 County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works County Govt Center,Room 206 I San Luis Obispo,CA 93408 I(P)805-781-5252 I(0805-781-1229 pwd@coslo.ca.us I slocounty.ca.gov Page 30 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project While alternative 4C provides improved area access for the South County Regional Center,our office would work with our other county departments impacted to determine a final assessment on 7.6 whether this is an overall detriment due to parcel impacts or an overall benefit to the community. Under Alternative 1,the impacts listed above would not occur. If you have any questions or concerns,please feel free to contact me at(805)781-4463. Sincerely, DAVE FLYNN,P.E Deputy Director c: Phil D'Acri,Central Services Manager Ron Munds,Utility Division Manager File: Caltrans-State Highway 101 L:\Management120181May\Brisc.Halcyon Declaration.docx DI=.mp • County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works County Govt Center,Room 206 I San Luis Obispo,CA 93408 l (P)805-781-5252 i (P)805-781-1 229 pwdtAco.slo.ca.us I slocounty.ca.gov Page 2 of 2 Page 31 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 7. Response to:County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works(Letter dated May 11,2018) 7.1 The County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works has identified a County Flood Control District 3 Lopez water transmission line within the project area that would be impacted by Alternative 4C, requiring a new replacement.The County requests that all costs associated with the work be reimbursed or made part of the City's interchange project.The relocation of utility lines is addressed in Section XVII Utilities and Service Systems in the IS/MND and Section 2.1.5 Utilities and Emergency Services in the EA. Both environmental documents indicate the presence of substantial existing utility systems and components within the project area, including infrastructure for water, sewer, natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications.The City will work with the County of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works regarding any necessary utility line replacements. 7.2 This comment identifies a potential impact resulting from an increase in existing slope at the main driveway to the South County Regional Center,which may affect the parking lot by the building entrance.The driveway slope would be increased from 10%to approximately 12%to 14% and would extend to the end of the existing driveway.The driveway would be reconstructed at the new profile grade. Mitigation Measures LU/mm-3 through LU/mm-5 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-2 and TRA/mm-3 in the EA address parking. In final design there is potential for minor reconstruction at the library's circulating roadway although realignment of the circulating roadway is not anticipated. 7.3 This comment identifies the potential for reduced sight distance when exiting from the main driveway of the South County Regional Center. Minor changes in sight distance may result from modification of the existing elevated building pad and vegetation which currently restricts corner sight distance.Adequate sight distances would be checked and maintained for the design speeds for all facilities during final design phase. 7.4 This comment identifies the need for accessible parking to be accommodated on the northside of the parcel, and for landscaping to be installed along the new access and parking areas.The project proposes replacement parking at the northside of the County parcel, including ADA accessible parking, as required, and access to Rodeo Street. Mitigation Measures in Section X. Land Use and Planning of the IS/MND (LU/mm-5) and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA (TRA/mm-3) require the City to coordinate with the County regarding replacement parking, restriping, and landscape design. In addition, mitigation measures LU/mm-3 and LU/mm-5 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1 and TRA/mm-3 in the EA require the City of prepare a circulation and traffic plan to improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways,to the greatest extent feasible,through the incorporation of crosswalks, sidewalks, and bike lanes, at a minimum. All new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways would be ADA-compliant. With implementation of these measures, potential impacts would be less than significant. 7.5 This comment identifies the need for an ADA accessible path from Branch Street to the South County Regional Center. All new and replaced parking lots, pathways, and pedestrian facilities will be designed in accordance with the American with Disabilities Act. See Response 7.4. Mitigation Measure LU/mm-1 in the IS/MND requires all new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways to be ADA-compliant. Page 32 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 7.6 This comment points out that Alternative 4C would provide improved area access to the South County Regional Center, but that the County Department of Public Works would work with other County departments to determine whether Alternative 4C would provide an overall benefit to the community given the overall impacts to the County parcel. No further response needed. Page 33 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project This page intentionally left blank. Page 34 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Organization Comment Letters Commenter Letter Date Letter No. San Luis Obispo Bicycling Advocates May 12, 2018 8 Contact:Lea Brooks,SLOBA Steering Committee Member Page 35 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#8 SAN LUIS OBISPO BICYCLING ADVOCATES Jason Wilkinson, Senior Environmental Planner Caltrans 50 Higuera St. San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Email:Jason.Wilkinson@dot.ca.gov Re: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project May 12, 2018 Dear Mr.Wilkinson: The San Luis Obispo Bicycling Advocates(SLOBA)appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project. SLOBA is a recently formed, all-volunteer group based in San Luis Obispo that advocates for policy, projects and infrastructure that will increase trips by bike for people of all ages and abilities,with a focus on safety, health and connectivity. SLOBA finds the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration car-centric and lacking in details on how the City of Arroyo Grande and Caltrans intend to achieve a balanced multimodal transportation network in the project area.This report is therefore inadequate in how the project area's already limited bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be 8.1 protected during construction. It lacks specific mitigations to increase bicycle and walking trips with new facilities that are convenient and connected?This report primarily focuses on improving vehicle traffic flow and not transportation choice. How does the Mitigated Negative Declaration address the Complete Streets Act of 2008 that 8.2 requires a balanced multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets roads and highways?Why is there no mention of the Halcyon Road Complete Street Plan that is under way? 8.3 The Negative Declaration acknowledges this point with the following statement: "The proposed project alternatives would potentially conflict with some applicable policies related to circulation interconnection, promotion of non-motorized and pedestrian facilities, and/or convenient and well-designed parking facilities, if those resources are not protected through final design of the proposed project. Both alternatives would 8.4 potentially interrupt or disrupt bike and pedestrian facilities and public transportation services within the project corridor both through the construction period and permanently if project designs do not adequately protect connectivity and convenience of existing and planned features." There is one exception:We agree that Grand Avenue, including the East Grand Avenue overcrossing, must include eight-foot shoulders and six-foot sidewalks.The existing 8.5 overcrossing has no bicycle facilities,which is not acceptable. Page 36 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project The Negative Declaration includes two mitigation measures that address bicycle and pedestrian transportation: 1. Mitigation Measure LU/mm-1: Prior to initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare circulation and traffic plans which shall incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways to the greatest extent feasible through, at minimum, incorporation of crosswalks, sidewalks and bike lanes.All new public facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways shall be ADA-compliant.Temporary construction activities shall avoid conflict with bike and pedestrian access ways to the greatest extent feasible. If construction activities will interfere with existing bike or pedestrian routes,temporary 8.6 access shall be provided to all areas of the project area. The plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction. SLOBA's comment: LU/mm-1 is vague.What does"prior to construction activities" mean?The day before the first shovel of dirt is turned? Preparing circulation and traffic plans both for temporary and permanent facilities is an extensive effort.Who will prepare these plans and who other than the City Engineer will review them?Safe, convenient and connected bicycle and pedestrian access is already seriously lacking in the project area, so we have serious doubt that the City of Arroyo Grande will"avoid conflict with bike and pedestrian access to the greatest extent feasible"during temporary construction activities. 2. Mitigation Measure LU/mm-2: Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the City shall prepare a Non-Motorized/Public Transportation Plan in consultation with the City of Arroyo Grande Public Works Department and the County Bicycle Advisory Committee. The plan shall include, at minimum: -Designs for providing bicycle, pedestrian and car interaction along the project area that would minimize conflicts through the use of striping, signage, lighting, bollards, etc. -Examples of the signage, striping, lighting, designs, etc.,for safe bicycle, pedestrian and car interaction. -Methods for ensuring the project would not interfere in any way with existing or proposed future bike and pedestrian lanes and paths,whether formal or informal, 8.7 particularly those associated with St. Patrick's School,the Arroyo Grande Library, and adjacent public buildings and facilities. -Methods for ensuring bike and pedestrian circulation to service schools and public facilities are made a priority consistent with policies of the Circulation Element. -The Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the start of construction. -SLOBA's comment: We checked with the chair of the County Bicycle Advisory Committee,who was not aware of this mitigation measure and noted that the project area is not included in the County Bikeway Plan except for the link to the Halcyon Road section in Oceano that connects to Highway 1. Page 37 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project In conclusion,we are deeply concerned that the purpose of the project—to provide congestion relief, alleviate queuing and improve the traffic operations of the regional and local street system in the vicinity of US 101 in the City of Arroyo Grande— 8.8 inadequately addresses existing and future needs of pedestrians and people on bikes and how the City and Caltrans will achieve a balanced transportation system. If you have any questions, please contact me at leabrooks332agmail.com. Sincerely, Lea Brooks SLOBA Steering Committee Member Page 38 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 8. Response to:San Luis Obispo Bicycling Advocates(Letter Dated May 12,2018) 8.1 This comment provided by San Luis Obispo Bicycling Advocates (SLOBA) raises a concern over the lack of specific analysis of bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements associated with the project, and the IS/MND's and EA's focus on improving vehicular traffic. The purpose of the project is to correct exiting operational deficiencies at the northbound U.S. 101 northbound on- and off-ramps/Brisco Road intersection and nearby intersections by providing congestion relief, alleviating queuing, and improving the traffic operations of the regional and local street system. While the project is not intended to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities,the potential for project-related impacts to these facilities have been addressed. Mitigation Measures in the IS/MND (LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3) and the EA (TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8) incorporate various measures to improve multimodal connectivity and upgrade facilities for both bicyclists and pedestrians, including requirements that the City consult with the County Bicycle Advisory Committee, improve connectivity to bike paths or lanes, and ensure bike and pedestrian circulation to serve schools and public facilities are made a priority, consistent with policies in the City's Circulation Element. With incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to bike and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. 8.2 This comment raises a concern about why the requirements of the Complete Streets Act of 2008 have not been addressed.As discussed in Response 8.1, above,the IS/MND and EA have considered alternative modes of transportation in project design and implementation. Mitigation measures in the IS/MND (LU/mm-2) and in the EA(TRA/mm-1) require the City to prepare a Non-Motorized/ Public Transportation Plan in consultation with the County Bicycle Advocacy Committee.At a minimum,the plan would include project design that provides for bicycle interaction with vehicles, methods for ensuring the project would not interfere with existing or proposed future bicycle paths in the project area, and methods for ensuring bike and pedestrian circulation to schools and public facilities are made a priority consistent with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan.These Mitigation Measures LU/mm-2 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1 in the EA have been modified to clarify that proposed improvements shall be implemented in accordance with any applicable requirements of the Complete Streets Act of 2008. 8.3 This comment asks why the Halcyon Complete Streets Plan is not mentioned in the IS/MND.The Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan was completed in June 2018. Mitigation Measures LU/mm- 1 through LU/mm-5 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 in the EA require the City to evaluate connection and circulation improvements throughout the project area, including connection with Halcyon Road bike paths and sidewalks.The IS/MND and EA determined that no significant adverse effects on bicycle facilities would occur and both build alternatives would have a generally beneficial impact on bicycle facilities in the project area.Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. 8.4 This comment summarizes a discussion in the IS/MND regarding interruptions to and conflicts with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Mitigation measures have been identified in the IS/MND (LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-5) and the EA (TRA/mm-1, 2 , 3, 7, and 8)to ensure potential impacts are avoided through project design and implementation. 8.5 This comment expresses support for 8-foot shoulders and 6-foot sidewalks along the Grand Avenue overcrossing and claim that this improvement should be required.These improvements are proposed under Alternative 1 and would provide a beneficial impact on bike facilities at this Page 39 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project location. Although Alternative 4C would also provide improved bike and pedestrian facilities within the project area, Alternative 4C does not propose this improvement and there is no reasonable nexus to require it as a part of the proposed project. Because no significant change or effect on existing or planned bike facilities would occur, no further analysis is necessary. 8.6 The comment claims that Mitigation Measure LU/mm-1 is vague in describing the timing of when the circulation and traffic plans will be prepared and who will review and approve them. Chapter 6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program describe the verification timing and responsible party for each mitigation measure.The plans will be prepared and reviewed for consistency by the City Public Works Director prior to construction. Periodic site inspections and compliance monitoring will be performed by the City Engineer throughout the duration of all construction activities. CEQA and NEPA only require the lead agency(the City and Caltrans)to consider the effects of the proposed project on existing conditions and whether the project would adversely affect existing resources.The project would generally improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the project area;therefore, no significant adverse effects would occur.The asserted lack of safe, convenient, and connected bicycle and pedestrian access in the City is not related to, and would not be an impact of,the proposed project. 8.7 This comment points out that the project is not included in the County Bikeway Plan except for one segment.The County Bicycle Advisory Committee chair was not consulted with in developing Mitigation Measure LU/mm-2 of the IS/MND (TRA/mm-1 of the EA).This measure has been revised to clarify that the City would coordinate with the County Bicycle Advisory Committee on any improvements that may affect facilities identified in the County Bikeway Plan. 8.8 This comment summarizes SLOBA's concerns about the project's purpose to alleviate traffic congestion while inadequately addressing bicycle and pedestrian needs. See Response 8.1. Page 40 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Public Comment Letters Commenter Letter Date Letter No. Businesses 222 East Grand Avenue Shell Station April 26,2018 9 Contacts:Katcho Achadjian, Hagop Wartanian(Owners) (Public Meeting) Brisco Mill& Lumber May 8,2018 10 Contacts:Mark Mankins, Blair Mankins Investec Real Estate Companies, representing Five Cities Shopping Center May 10, 2018 11 Contact:Gregory J. Parker Farm Supply Company May 11, 2018 12 Contact:Cara M. Crye, President/CEO Mier Bros. Landscape Products May 11, 2018 13 Contact:Michael J. Mier HomeStar Construction May 12, 2018 14 Contact:Dave Yatsko General Public John and Kari Sinner April 23,2018 15 Carie Randolph April 26,2018 16 (Public Meeting) Gay Spencer April 26,2018 17 (Public Meeting) Toni (no last name provided) April 26,2018 18 (Public Meeting) Danny Gresser May 1,2018 19 LeAnn Gresser May 1,2018 20 Megan Rice May 1,2018 21 Stephen J. Russ May 1,2018 22 Jim and Mary Webster May 2,2018 23 Gary Thies May 5,2018 24 Susan Henslin May 6,2018 25 Franklin Bayliss May 7,2018 26 Laura Kass May 7,2018 27 Mardell and Robert Perez May 7,2018 28 Chuck Kass May 8,2018 29 Ronald Nishida May 8,2018 30 Diego Bernal May 10, 2018 31 Jim Broz May 10, 2018 32 Christiane Dubrulle May 10, 2018 33 Trudy Jarratt May 10, 2018 34 Page 41 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Commenter Letter Date Letter No. Katie Merlo May 10, 2018 35 Will Reichardt May 10, 2018 36 Linda L.Smith May 10, 2018 37 Jeff Techau May 10, 2018 38 Carolyn Bayliss May 11, 2018 39 Sam Cotton May 11, 2018 40 John and Margie Gayley May 11, 2018 41 Rod Hatch May 11, 2018 42 Andrea Portney May 11, 2018 43 Jeff Portney May 11, 2018 44 Virginia Roof May 12, 2018 45 Theresa Schultz May 12, 2018 46 Robert and Julia Hess May 14, 2018 47 Sue Stanton May 12, 2018 48 Danny Gresser May 7,2018 49 Brad Snook April 26,2018 50 Ashley Beene April 26,2018 51 Trisha Coffey May 3, 2018 52 Judith Hughes May 10, 2018 53 Robert Hull May 8, 2018 54 Rob Kelly April 26,2018 55 Margaret Ketelsen May 10, 2018 56 Alicia Lara May 10, 2018 57 Travis McCarty May 3, 2018 58 John and Kit Sinner May 11, 2018 59 Social Media Comments April 27, 2018 60 Colin and Kathleen Wigglesworth May 7, 2018 61 Jim Alquist May 8,2018 62 Jim DeCecco (undated) 63 Michael Furman (undated) 64 Claudine Lingo April 26, 2018 65 Claudine Lingo May 1, 2018 66 Lisa Suddath (undated) 67 Page 42 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#9 r 'J r,a 'ti� r COMMENTS ON THE LI 0 1 OF BRISCO-HALCYON ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS PROJECT The City welcomes public input on this important project. In particular,we are seeking comment in the following categories;however,please feel free to comment on any project A__._—_.... component: • Content of the Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration; ▪ Preference for Alternative 1 or 4C for the project; • Preference for sound walls on ether alternative. Comments may be provided to briscotatarroyoarande-oro or to the mailing address on the reverse side of thin comment card prior to the close of the public comment period on May 12,2018. Additionally,the City will hold a public hearing on the project in the coming months.to provide further opportunities for public testimony.Information regarding the public hearing will be posted on the City's website at www.arrovoarande.orq and at City Hall. 14141/110 AC+tW Int and NW IUALTRNIK) ria 44.1.OIOI .rr. oP 44s�_ toot „� �Ittell Slot-HDA e�an 22Z ao- brand- i%.cfss in -/-4A+ Lt so acacia- fit. W rt ha oC_SrA,nc>L_�bs, !n RDhi DP S -_ .01,__ ..js_s __O ._.rro r1iAuctl ¢ A d , „ -- egec 9.1 Banal Iclip r 64 0w o�� ctrtc ttiro lrkoeds��•”" ' u Ok ' d c. -h en YpLrf and_ t[� /ptor� 5 µlou__OLY_'._�»nrstrtL st>, kLL tarn t _ -KM, ie er 4. c ep1vei n(Joan by -Iw Nola f et,td will lilt • r NAME: G4 7J40 l}C1.10.1 Alt) EMAIL: _ oN't , ADDRESS: 2.43 r°Q'IYl�Ul1,l-'f'. 5thi(.aE}1.31116' _PHONE: hp5" UUI /mg _._... CITY: 540_ STATE: CA ZIP: Y Ops" Page 43 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 9. Response to:222 East Grand Avenue Shell Station (Letter Dated April 26,2018) 9.1 The comment is submitted by the owner and operator of the Shell Station at 222 East Grand Avenue and raises concern over the proposed widening of Grand Avenue under Alternative 1, which would require right-of-way acquisition at the Shell Station.The comment asserts the acquisition would result in a loss of property and negatively impact business operations. While economic impacts must be discussed under NEPA, they are not considered environmental impacts under CEQA and only require discussion if the economic impacts would have a negative impact on the physical environment, or if the economic impacts would result in growth-inducing impacts.The EA identified potential adverse impacts to businesses related to necessary right-of- way acquisitions, including the Shell Station, resulting from the proposed project.The EA concluded that only partial acquisitions would be necessary, and that the acquisitions would not alter the existing land uses or land use patterns, or long-range development concepts. Furthermore,the EA did not identify any negative impacts on the physical environment due to these economic impacts. Caltrans and/or the City would ensure the property owner is fairly compensated for any necessary land use acquisition in compliance with state and federal laws. In addition, Mitigation Measure PS/mm-2 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-5 in the EA require the City to prepare a Construction Timing, Access, and Circulation Plan,which includes provisions for signage to alert travelers that businesses will remain open during construction.The comment does not identify any deficiency in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, if Alternative 1 is chosen, project designers will look for opportunities to minimize impacts to businesses where existing access,traffic patterns, etc. have been affected.The comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 44 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#10 ( 1 BRISGO'S ' LUMBER - MILLWORK - HARDWARE - GIFTS - GLASS May8,2018 5 i'UN OFFICE-1005[IL CAMINO REAL.Al BR€1C O ROAD ARROYO GRANDE.CALIFORNIA,n420 2:558 rP_-. 15C. 17.3 E.BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE,CALIFORNIA 9545(1 5558 805-481-8112 City of Arroyo Grande 300 E.Branch St. Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of Arroyo Grande&staff: We are writing you to address the current study and proposed closure of the US 101 on-and off-ramps at Brisco Road. Brisco Mill&Lumber has been a family owned and operated business in Arroyo Grande since it's opening in 1909. We have always had"freeway access"to our business as El Camino Real was the original highway,before Highway 101 was even a thought, before any of the homes or businesses off of West Branch Street were even a twinkle in a developer's eye. Our family has been a part of this community going on six generations. Our businesses as well as the businesses and individuals who rent/lease from us along El Camino Real benefit greatly from the support of the people of the City of Arroyo Grande,as well as the surrounding communities and we hope that a solution to this proposal will be one that will continue to bring people to the West Side of Highway 101 between Grand Avenue and Oak Park Boulevard. As the Brisco-Halcyon road interchange modifications project moves forward and reviews its options, alternative 4C allows for future growth of community traffic and continues the North Bound off ramp allowing the flow of traffic to still move to the west side of Highway 101 and at the same time alleviating the congestion that we have all come to know at the Brisco underpass. We greatly feel that the complete closure of the North Bound on-and off-ramps would negatively impact the businesses along EL Camino Real which generate sales tax revenue for the City of Arroyo Grande. However we feel the option of alternative 4C would mitigate the closure of the current US 101 10.1 on-and off-ramps at Brisco Road and 4C would continue to allow North bound 101 traffic to reach the business of the West side of the freeway. Again,we want to stress that we want to work with Cal Trans and the City of Arroyo Grande to come up with a solution that will benefit ALL parties impacted,alleviating any negative impact or devaluing of person's property. We would look forward to working with the City of Arroyo Grande to come up with a goal that will not only benefit our generation but tthphefuture generations to come. Sincer Mar Mankins Blair Mankins "Get It at Briscos' Page 45 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 10. Response to:Brisco Mill&Lumber(Letter Dated May 8,2018) 10.1 The comment describes the presence of Brisco Mil & Lumber in Arroyo Grande since 1909 and how the business and others along El Camino Real have always benefited from freeway access. The comment expresses support for Alternative 4C and raises a concern about the negative impacts to businesses along El Camino Real west of U.S. 101 if the northbound on/off-ramps are permanently closed. While economic impacts must be discussed under NEPA,they are not considered environmental impacts under CEQA and only require discussion if the economic impacts would have a negative impact on the physical environment, or if the economic impacts would result in growth-inducing impacts.The EA identified potential adverse impacts to businesses related to necessary right-of-way acquisitions resulting from the proposed project. The EA concluded that only partial acquisitions would be necessary, and that the acquisitions would not alter the existing land uses or land use patterns, or long-range development concepts. Furthermore,the EA did not identify any negative impacts on the physical environment due to these economic impacts. In addition, Mitigation Measure PS/mm-2 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-5 in the EA require the City to prepare a Construction Timing,Access, and Circulation Plan,which includes provisions for signage to alert travelers that businesses will remain open during construction.The comment does not identify any deficiency in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 46 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#11 •ri ■■ IfIVESTEC REAL ESTATE COMPANIES May 10,2018 Via electronic mail(tmcclish(w,arroyo'rande.or2) Teresa McClish,AICP Director of Community Development City of Arroyo Grande 300 E.Branch Street Arroyo Grande,CA 93421 RE: FIVE CITIES CENTER SUPPORT FOR THE BRISCO ROAD-HALCYON ROAD/ HIGHWAY 101 PROJECT OFF-RAMPS Dear Ms.McClish: We represent the Five Cities Shopping Center. Residents and customers desiring to access the Center often used the Brisco Road on-and off-ramps from Highway 101. The elimination of those on-and off- ramps without an acceptable substitute has caused significantly inconvenience to our tenants and their 11.1 customers,many of whom are residents of the City of Arroyo Grande. It has also had the predictable consequence of overloading other adjacent intersections,Highway 101 on-and off-ramps,and adversely affected local traffic circulation in a manner that negatively impacts City residents. We appreciate the extensive staff and consultant analysis that has gone into the proposed Caltrans plan to eliminate the Brisco Road on-and off-ramps to Highway 101. There has obviously been a substantial amount of thought and effort put into addressing these consequences of the on-and off-ramp elimination. We understand removal of the Brisco Road on and off-ramps as they existed prior to this project is a foregone conclusion. We also understand the only alternatives currently under consideration are 11.2 Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C. Of these two considerations,we would support the City's Alternative 4C. It appears this roundabout alternative would have the least practical amount of impact to the City from the Caltrans actions. We,therefore,urge the City to support the implementation of Alternative 4C with both intersection treatments in the project report and environmental documents. We believe that without a solution similar to Alternative 4C,on-and off-ramp closure at Brisco Road will have a significant detrimental effect on the City,our shopping center,its tenants and its customers. Best regards, 6)—1 k Gregory J.Parker for the Five Cities Center GJPlcr 200 Fast Carrillo Street.SVIie zoo,SPn1p Bargoru,CA 93101-2144 • 805.9628989 • 805.962.1938 FAX • www.investecre.COM Page 47 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 11. Response to:Investec Real Estate Companies,representing Five Cities Shopping Center (Letter Dated May 10,2018) 11.1 This comment raises a concern over the elimination of the on/off-ramps and the adverse impact and inconvenience to affected businesses at the Five Cities Shopping Center.The comment also asserts that the temporary closure of Brisco Road ramps caused traffic congestion at adjacent intersections and ramps.The IS/MND and EA both recognize that Alternative 4C would preserve direct access to the Five Cities Shopping Center and other commercial/retail areas in the project vicinity,further meeting the project objectives. However,the improvements proposed under Alternative 1 would resolve any increased trips and congestion at adjacent intersections in the event the ramps at Brisco Road are permanently closed. 11.2 The comment states a preference for Alternative 4C as being the least impactful to the Five Cities Shopping Center and affected businesses. However, PS/mm-2 of the IS/MND and TRA/mm-5 of the EA require the City to prepare a plan that would alter travelers that businesses will remain open during construction.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 48 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#1 -- FkRA4 supply [bMPANY+.. May 11,2.018 City of Arroyo Grande l 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 Re_ Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Dear Mayor Hill,Members of the City Council and Staff: On behalf of Farm Supply Company,I am writing regarding the current study and proposed closure of the US 101 on-and-off ramps at Brisco Road in Arroyo Grande. Farm supply company opened its doors in 1950. As a local farm-owned cooperative,we provide farm and ranch needs to over 2,600 agriculturists who work and live in the Central Coast, We also provide products and services to landscapers,contractors,municipalities,and our general retail communities, For many years,Farm Supply Company actively searched for property in the City of Arroyo Grande. In 2004,we had the opportunity to enter into a lease agreement with the Markin family fur the property located at 1079 El Camino Real_ Fourteen years later,we continue to be grateful for the business, f9 relationships and support that we have fostered with the Arroyo Grande and surrounding Five Cities Comm unity. As you are aware,easy traffic access and visibility are vital to the success of any business. As such,Farm Supply Company supports the alternative 4C for the Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications i Project. We believe this option would allow for future growth and alleviate the current congestion at 1 .1 the Brisco underpass. By maintaining the North bound off-ramp,this option would also allow the flow of traffic to move to the West side of US 101,therefore supporting the established businesses that depend on this accessibility. Farm Supply Company feels strongly that the complete closure of the North bound on-and-off ramps at Briscn Road would negatively impact the businesses along El Camino Real. This would in turn impact 1 .2 sales tax revenues collected by the City of Arroyo Grande. Thank you fartaking the time to considerour position Farm Supply Company is committed to working with the City of Arroyo Grande and Cal Trans to come up with a solution that will benefit all parties. I can be reached at(805)540-6109 or ccrve4afarmsutnlycompany.com. Regards, 62'41°777 efV-42----. Cara M.Crye President/CEO Farm Supply Company PO Box 111,Sen Luis Obispo CIA 93406-Of I I Ph 805-511-375I,l x 805-543-0613 Page 49 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 12. Response to:Farm Supply Company(Letter Dated May 11,2018) 12.1 The comment summarizes the business operations of the Farm Supply Company, which has been in operation in Arroyo Grande since 1950 and states a preference for Alternative 4C, as it would allow for future growth, alleviate the current congestion at the Brisco Road undercrossing, and allow the flow of traffic to move to the west side of U.S. 101.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 12.2 This comment raises a concern over the elimination of the on/off-ramps under Alternative 1 and the adverse impacts ramp closure would have on affected businesses and local tax revenue. While economic impacts must be discussed under NEPA,they are not considered environmental impacts under CEQA and only require discussion if the economic impacts would have a negative impact on the physical environment, or if the economic impacts would result in growth-inducing impacts.The EA identified potential adverse impacts to businesses related to necessary right-of- way acquisitions, including the Shell Station, resulting from the proposed project.The EA concluded that only partial acquisitions would be necessary, and that the acquisitions would not alter the existing land uses or land use patterns, or long-range development concepts. Furthermore,the EA did not identify any negative impacts on the physical environment due to these economic impacts. In addition, Mitigation Measure PS/mm-2 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm- 5 in the EA require the City to prepare a Construction Timing,Access, and Circulation Plan, which includes provisions for signage to alert travelers that businesses will remain open during construction.The comment does not identify any deficiency in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 50 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#13 MIERBROS. LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS May 11,2018 City of Arroyo Grande 300 E.Branch St. Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of Arroyo Grande: This letter is intended to address the proposed closure of the Brisco&US 101 on-and-off ramps. My business,Mier Bros.Landscape Products opened in Arroyo Grande in 1987. We are located at 1049 El Camino Real, 150 yards from Brisco Road. We are a local family business that has served homeowners,contractors,and municipalities of the Five Cities area since its inception. Having convenient access to our business is critical for our success. We provide a service that is beneficial to all residents of this great community. I personally have used the Brisco Road on-and-off ramps for 30 years. I realize like anyone that uses this interchange,the traffic problem has become increasingly congested over the years. There has been a considerable amount of time and money spent on studies to determine the best resolution for this problem. Closing the Northbound on-and-off ramps would have a tremendous impact on my business as well as 13.1 the neighboring businesses. As you all are aware,this would just shift the problem to Grand Avenue and Oak Park Blvd. Of the three options under consideration,Alternative 4C is the only option that would not have a negative impact. This option would allow our customers convenient access to the west side of Highway 101. Please allow our input to be valued as you proceed with a viable solution. Sincerely, Michael J.Mier Mier Bros.Landscape Products Page 51 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 13. Response to:Mier Bros.Landscape Products(Letter Dated May 11,2018) 13.1 The comment describes the history of business operations at Mier Bros. Landscape Projects, which has been operating in Arroyo Grande since 1987, and expresses a preference for Alternative 4C because it would retain convenient access for customers to the west side of U.S. 101.The comment raises a concern about the negative impacts to affected businesses if the northbound on/off-ramps are closed and increased congestion at adjacent ramp interchanges (Grand Avenue and Oak Park Boulevard).The traffic analysis conducted for the project determined that any increase in traffic at adjacent ramp intersections, including Grand Avenue and Oak Park Boulevard, would be adequately accommodated by the improvements proposed under Alternative 1; therefore, no significant impacts at adjacent intersections would result from the closure of Brisco Road ramps once those improvements are constructed. While economic impacts must be discussed under NEPA, they are not considered environmental impacts under CEQA and only require discussion if the economic impacts would have a negative impact on the physical environment, or if the economic impacts would result in growth-inducing impacts.The EA identified potential adverse impacts to businesses related to necessary right-of- way acquisitions, including the Shell Station, resulting from the proposed project.The EA concluded that only partial acquisitions would be necessary, and that the acquisitions would not alter the existing land uses or land use patterns, or long-range development concepts. Furthermore,the EA did not identify any negative impacts on the physical environment due to these economic impacts. In addition, Mitigation Measure PS/mm-2 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm- 5 in the EA require the City to prepare a Construction Timing,Access, and Circulation Plan, which includes provisions for signage to alert travelers that businesses will remain open during construction. The comment does not identify any deficiency in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 52 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#14 101111141 -11A11 10.4 , e" _�b _ CONSTRUCTION City of Arroyo Grande May 12,2018 300 E.Branch St Arroyo Grande,Ca.93420 Re:Brisco Rd Ramp on/off ramps Our business occupies 1107 EI Camino Real. We have been at this location since 1980 starting as DAY Construction then adding Patio Outlet retailing outdoor Furniture and currently as Home Star Construction with Sunrooms,Patio Enclosures and Covers. After reviewing the two proposals,Alternative 1&4C I have the following comments: "Alternative 1"will create some issues that I see negative. Northbound traffic will have a difficult time accessing the west side businesses,causing an increase in traffic on Branch St.by requiring drivers to head south to the Brisco bridge in order to access the business on the west side or getting to Grand Avenue. To circumvent this,North bound drivers will exit on the new Grand Avenue off-ramp and be forced onto 14.1 surface streets and would need to travel on Grand Ave.or to Halcyon or Brisco Rd.to reach El Camino Real. I noticed that during the recent closure of the Brisco North off ramp,I personally was getting off on the Grand Ave.off-ramp and heading north towards Halcyon Rd. I was turning East onto Alpine or Rena to access El Camino Rd to avoiding the traffic light and congestion at Halcyon and Grand. Has the impact of the additional traffic within that area and the long term cost of street maintenance caused by Alternative 1 been considered? I would recommend 4C as a preferred solution.It would allow a better access to the West side of the freeway,while eliminating the impact of additional traffic on Grand Ave and Halcyon Rd.and related 14.2 residential side streets. Sincerely, Dave Yatsko HomeStar Construction 1107 El Camino Real,Arroyo Grande,Ca.93420 Page 53 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 14. Response to:HomeStar Construction (Letter Dated May 12,2018) 14.1 The commenter raises several traffic-related concerns with Alternative 1.Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA.The IS/MND and EA concluded that under Alternative 1,traffic levels would generally be improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan.The traffic analysis conducted for the project determined that any increase in traffic at adjacent ramp intersections due to the closure of ramps at Brisco Road would be adequately accommodated by the improvements proposed under Alternative 1 at the Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado ramp intersections;therefore, no significant congestion at adjacent intersections would result from the closure of Brisco Road ramps once those improvements are constructed. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. Both build alternatives would improve traffic in the project area; however, only Alternative 4C would retain direct access from U.S. 101 at Brisco Road. 14.2 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 4C because it would preserve direct access to the west side of U.S. 101 and eliminate additional trips to Grand Avenue, Halcyon Road, and adjacent streets.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 54 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#15 Brisco Subject: FW:Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project From:John Sinner[mailto:iohn.sinner@sunrun.com] Sent:Monday,April 23,2018 3:34 PM To:Wilkinson,Jason J@DOT<iason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov>;Kari Sinner<ksinner@tricorbraun.com>; jsinner@charter.net;Kit Sinner<ksinner@charter.net> Subject:Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Hi Jason I'm reaching out to give feedback on the Brisco-Halcyon Road interchange alternatives. John and Kari Sinner 216 Grace Lane Arroyo Grande Kari and I have 3 kids at Ocean View elementary and have lived in Arroyo Grande for 15 years.From our home on Grace Lane we are back and forth between Ocean View 2 to 3 times a day,besides trips shopping,beach etc over to Grand Ave. During the months of study when the north bond on and off ramps where closed,the traffic change at the Brisco-Halcyon interchange was night and day.None of the back ups,none of the multiple lights to get through the intersection.Again we use this interchange 5 or more times a day at all different times of the day. Alternative 1 is the right choice. 15.1 After studying the other option,Alternative 4c,it is not only the wrong choice,it would have a terrible effect on the whole neighbor,St.Pats school,Grace,Rodeo,AG Library,Branch street frontage road,on and on.This would create the largest on and off ramp in AG,and a freeway on and off ramps leading to a traffic circle,next to a school,library and residential neighbor with zero streets that were designed to handle this kind of traffic. Grace Lane is a very narrow two lane road,when cars are packed along the west side of the street it becomes 15.2 very narrow,cars are already driving way to fast,this street was not designed to handle this kind of traffic. This on and off ramp,traffic circle would be like nothing up and down the 101 in SLO county,the change to the neighborhood would be drastic,negative is not a strong enough word. Alternative 1 is the right choice,fixes congestion at the interchange and keeps the surrounding neighborhood 115.3 intact. Please let me know how I can help,I am available for input or feedback anytime. Page 55 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project John Sinner N. Sunrun Inc. I is Sr.Regional Sales Consultant m 805.235.2798 sunrun john.sinnert sunrun.com © © 0 `1 The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.if the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error,please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message.Please note that email correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande,along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act,and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law. 2 Page 56 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 15. Response to:John and Kari Sinner(Letter Dated April 23,2018) 15.1 The commenter expresses a preference for Alternative 1 and notes the improved traffic conditions during temporary ramp closures.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. This comment raises a concern regarding traffic-related impacts to the surrounding community under Alternative 4C.Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA.The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane/West Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project area. In addition,the IS-MND and EA concluded that under Alternative 4C,traffic levels would generally be improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Roadway operations in the project area under this alternative would be slightly better than under Alternative 1.Additional mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND and EA were included to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible.The new intersection proposed under Alternative 4C would not be substantially different than the existing intersection and the proposed roundabout is not substantially larger than the existing U.S. 101 northbound ramps/Brisco Road/West Branch Street intersections.The IS/MND and EA identified potential effects on St. Patrick's School,the Arroyo Grande Library, and South County Regional Center, including right- of-way acquisitions, loss of parking, addition of retaining walls, and marginal increases in noise, consistent with this comment. The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives.The LOS and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval& Environmental Determination Phase(PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,June 7, 2017). 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative Intersection LOS No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps-Grace Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street B (Roundabout) Page 57 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing NBL Exceeds Storage by 100' No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps NBT Exceeds Storage by 100' SBT Exceeds Storage by 800' Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps Grace All Queues Within Storage Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street (Queues would be even shorter (Roundabout) than with a signalized intersection) Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street near Brisco Road.Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be affected. Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected decreased trips (-0.09%and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during the mid-day peak(+0.34%).The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very minor. Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after construction of Alternative 4C.This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with construction of Alternative 4C.Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C. 15.2 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 58 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#16 COMMENTS ON THE BRISCO-HALCYON ROAD 4=:VINTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS PROJECT ,. the City welcomes public Input on this important project. In particular,we are seeking • comment in the following categories;however,please feel free to comment on any project -------- • component: • Content of the;Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Preference for Alternative 1 or 4C for the project; • Preference for sound walls on either alternative. Comments they be provided to briscvrterrovoerande.oro ar to the mailing address on the reverse side of this comment card prior to the close of the public comment period on May 12,201 B.Additionally,the City will hold a public hearing on the project in the coming months to provide further opportunities for public testimony.Information regarding the public hearing will be posted on the City's website at www.arrovorrende.orp and at City Hall. T1.1, - 1 1'-tieet t:tkea__-1.-40-kt $e•••• w...l.! l,.ro..AQ 1- .L. Li;rELrw�rw. tis 116.1 as. 4,e,Acree, Glto. obctu 4 116.2 ofi Q c!•a Be.n dt.-. v -- — — -- 'id ,n rah., ,-w.r — kifi-Le eta ti r IT 1 - - - 1 16.3 NAME: (1.Q.N4C `1q.04011h EMAIL: ear rcuvickie- 1. ADDRESS: rlica ¶atgry-A 1, - PHONE: $p5--71:1-9.354- CITY. Yi,(e. C } e 3420 STATE: CA ZIP: 51 y71� Page 59 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 16. Response to:Carie Randolph (Letter Dated Apri126,2018) 16.1 This comment expresses support for the tallest evaluated soundwall and their ability to reduce impacts from traffic noise.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 16.2 This comment states a preference for continued northbound ramp closure at Brisco Road until the selected alternative is constructed.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 16.3 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 4C as a better long-term solution.The comment does not directly relate to any other environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 60 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#17 COMMENTS ON THE BRISCO-HALCYON ROAD "1=11INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS PROJECT The City welcomes public input on this important project- In particular,we are seeking - - comment in the following categories;however,please fee!free to comment on any project component: • Content of the Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Preference for Alternative 1 or 4C for the project • Preference for sound walls or either alternative. Comments may be provided to brisco(dvarroyogrande.org or to the mating address on the reverse side of this comment card prior to the close of the public comment period on May 12,MS Additionally,the City will hold a public hearing or the project in the coming months to provide further opportunities for public testimony.information regerding the public hearing will be posted on the Clips website at www.arruvonrando.aro and at City Hall. r-rrip a,1-rR rr 5C 7_ . J 14.2 A•_.� /• • .�! 071 er_v/I_F L . 17.1 ?? .;._•— r.L I� 21.& ti/ 3 SCR NAME: I'/ • _ 1i,:• r4/ EMAJL. (.Sa ��_C6+v1•.• Ar)DREss:— i 0,Of !',12 l Q��y�, PHONE: .OS ' 3:1-7 CITY: - ' 0 //345' STATE: .._C —ZIP: Page 61 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 17. Response to:Gay Spencer(Letter Dated April 26,2018) 17.1 This comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 because it would address traffic congestion at three U.S. ramp interchanges within the project area without impacting the nearby school and residential areas.The comment also states a concern with the costs of Alternative 4C.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi- year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's constrained 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 62 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#18 COMNS PROJECT MENTS ON THE T4 _ BRlSCO-HAI-CYON ROAD IINTERCHANGE t MOD m�portantOpro e t In particular we ate seeking The City welcomes P pries;however,please n t seat free to comment art any prof his �- comment in the following categ component: • centem ai the Etnronsaertta,rts5essni2':t and Ritti�xed t eyallue u@rldCdl 3"' • Preference for Alternative i or 4(;for 12 project; • Preference for sound walls on either alternative. Comments may be provided to brisco(rDarroyoorande.orq or to the mailing address on the reverse side of this comment card prior to the close of the public comment period on May 12,2018. Additionally,the City will hold a public hearing on the project in the coming months to provide further opportunities for public testimony.Information regarding the public hearing will be posted on the City's website atwNnnr.arrovoorande.oro and at Ctty Hal!. • — •�►� �ii•� Iii `1 \, ('Or l�{ � NipW8 i 18.1 NAME: S: PHONE: tr,lk► go ADDRESP,ComZvQ CITY; STAT!: ZIP: Page 63 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 18. Response to: Toni(Letter Dated April 26,2018) 18.1 The comment expresses concern about users' ability to navigate a roundabout. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive,think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users)with the low-speed roundabout designs.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 64 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#19 Brisco From: Danny Gresser<danny@cwproduce.com> Sent: Tuesday,May 1,2018 12:16 PM To: brisco Subject: Brisco project Good morning, I'm wondering what the professional opinion is from the cal trans team as to what option is the best for the future?4c 1 19.1 looks to me like it won't actually make anything better,and will cost$10MM more than option 1. 19.2 Are we actually seriously considering 4C with the budget issues the state has? I Danny Gresser Page 65 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 19. Response to:Danny Gresser(Letter Dated May 1,2018) 19.1 This comment asks what Caltrans believes is the best alternative for the future. Caltrans is the NEPA lead agency for the project and was responsible for preparation of the EA.As described in the EA, both project alternatives would meet the project's purpose and need and would alleviate the current and projected future congestion within the project area. Long-term traffic benefits under Alternative 4C would be slightly better than under Alternative 1.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 19.2 The comment points to the increased cost of Alternative 4C and raises a concern about the expense of the project considering the State's current budget.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is"reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 66 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#20 Brisco From: LeAnna Gresser<Imaegresser@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday,May 1,2018 11:18 AM To: brisco Subject: Brisco Plan As residents of Grace Ln&parents of children attending St Pats I am vehemently opposed to the proposed 4C Brisco project.4C will direct traffic into neighborhoods.It will have a park&ride in front of a school,that is a terrifying ideal 20.1 Housing value will go down.It would be a nightmare and confusing traffic during peak traffic times. Aside from that I am appalled that the city would even consider spending 10 million more dollars on this project.If the project at 9-10 million dollars already has a gap in funds it is irresponsible&ludicrous to go ahead with a 20 million dollar project.It would be a prime example of glutenous detached government wasting money.We were at the city 20.2 counsel meeting&at no time did anyone say there was a significant reason to choose one option over another.So there is no justification for that spending on bad project. Concerned citizen,LeAnna Gresser Sent from my iPhone Page 67 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 20. Response to:LeAnn Gresser(Letter Dated May 1,2018) 20.1 The comment expresses opposition to Alternative 4C because it would direct traffic into neighborhoods, place a Park and Ride lot next to a school, and negatively affect housing prices. Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA.The IS/MND and EA concluded that under Alternative 4C,traffic levels would generally be improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including improvements at St. Patrick's school, and measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible.The proposed roundabout intersection would replace an existing intersection and would not substantially change traffic patterns or direct traffic into neighborhoods. SLOCOG plans to conduct a regionwide Park and Ride Lot Study in fiscal year 2020/2021.This more in-depth study will analyze the priorities for park and ride lot locations, in collaboration with SLO RTA, as well as identify funding opportunities. Mitigation Measures LU/mm-2 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1 EA have been modified to require the City to coordinate with St. Patrick's School in developing the Park and Ride lot. 20.2 The comment expresses concern over the potential fiscal impacts of Alternative 4C.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds).Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date,when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1) the possible installation of noise walls,which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp,which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000.The comment does not directly relate Page 68 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 69 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#21 Brisco From: Megan Rice<rice.megank@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday,May 1,2018 11:47 AM To: brisco Subject: 4C am a resident of Arroyo Grande,I live on Village Glen Drive,just up Rodeo. The proposed roundabout and park and 121.1 ride would be a tremendous disruptor to the residential areas and the St.Patrick School families. Sent from my iPhone Page 70 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 21. Response to:Megan Rice(Letter Dated May 1,2018) 21.1 The comment expresses concern over the proposed roundabout and Park and Ride lot under Alternative 4C and potential impacts to residential areas and St. Patrick's School.Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA.The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane/West Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project area. In addition,the IS/MND and EA concluded that Alternative 4C would improve traffic congestion throughout the project area and would be consistent the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible.Additional mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND and EA were included to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible.The extensive evaluation of traffic-related effects of the project have did not identified any disruption to adjacent residential areas. Future traffic conditions would be slightly better under Alternative 4C than Alternative 1. The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives.The LOS and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval& Environmental Determination Phase(PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,June 7, 2017). 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative Intersection LOS No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps-Grace Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street B (Roundabout) Page 71 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing NBL Exceeds Storage by 100' No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps NBT Exceeds Storage by 100' SBT Exceeds Storage by 800' Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps Grace All Queues Within Storage Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street (Queues would be even shorter (Roundabout) than with a signalized intersection) Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street near Brisco Road.Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be affected. Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected decreased trips (-0.09%and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during the mid-day peak(+0.34%).The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very minor. Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after construction of Alternative 4C.This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with construction of Alternative 4C.Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 72 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#22 Brisco From: rdickerson@arroyogrande.org Sent: Thursday,May 10,2018 5:15 PM To: brisco Subject: FW:Brisco-101 interchange From:Stephen J.Russ[mailto:russ.sj@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday,May 01,2018 5:34 PM To:jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov;Jim Hill;Caren Ray;Tim Brown; Kristen Barneich;Barbara Harmon;Robin Dickerson; brisco Subject: Brisco-101 interchange Hello Mr.Wilkinson and the Arroyo Grande City Council and staff, Regarding the Brisco Rd- 101 interchange,I reviewed much of the recent project report and I attended what I could of the workshop last week. I strongly oppose both build options,and so I have to support the 22.1 no-build option.Let me explain why. Option 4C is too expensive and much more than is needed to correct this situation.It also has a lot of fluff and pork like soundwalls and a park-and-ride that have nothing to do with this Brisco problem.Even if we got most 22.2 of this cost covered by grants,it's still not good use of taxpayer money. Option 1 is unacceptable.To anybody living off the Elm St corridor,as I used to,the closure of the ramps adds several minutes to a commute from the south or toward the north.Grand and Oak Park are far away from Elm 22.3 St.If anything was learned from the ramp closures a couple years ago,this should have been. I need to emphasize,however,that No Build doesn't mean No Problem.It just means we need to keep looking. Brisco needs the ramps,but the intersection can be improved.I know now is not the time to list more alternatives,so I must simply support the no-build option,but I can think of several less-elaborate solutions that are more effective than the status quo.Look,it's just a four-way intersection really,except it's laid out in a funny way.(Yes,it happens to have a 5th way which is the onramp,but that's one-way and doesn't have waiting traffic so it really doesn't count...it's just 4 directions of waiting traffic,arranged in an unusual layout.) I wasn't going to suggest new ideas,but here's a quick one to illustrate the options with a no-build alternative. 22.4 Eliminate the lanes in the middle area between the ramps and Branch,keep it clear.Treat it like a four way intersection,and give each one a green light right of way everywhere,one at a time.Each direction has a bit of time to go anywhere in the intersection,full right of way on green.Then a hard stop--no right on red,keep intersection clear.That's just one example of a much simpler and cost effective improvement to this intersection. Now.I did notice that that both build options have improvements to the Grand interchange.We should still look at doing these improvements anyway.Grand-I 01 needs improvement too,but 1 don't think it helps much with the Brisco situation.So I suggest the we get a cost quote on just the Grand improvements. Sincerely, Stephen J.Russ Page 73 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 22. Response to:Stephen J.Russ(Letter Dated May 1,2018) 22.1 The comment expresses opposition to Alternative 1 and 4C and a preference for the No Build Alternative.The No Build Alternative was evaluated in the EA; the No Build Alternative would not provide any transportation improvements and would not meet the project's purpose and need.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 22.2 The comment expresses opposition to Alternative 4C based on the expense and extra project components that are not needed to correct the congestion at Brisco Road (like soundwalls and Park and Ride lot).The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 22.3 This comment expresses opposition to Alternative 1 because of potential impacts to commute times and levels of service.Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. The IS/MND and EA concluded that both alternatives would improve or maintain traffic conditions at all study area intersections and impacts to traffic and level of service standards would ultimately be less than significant. Although previous temporary ramp closures created additional diverted traffic trips to adjacent Page 74 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project intersection detours and delays,the improvements proposed under Alternative 1 are designed to address the increased trips to adjacent intersections.Therefore,Alternative 1 would also improve traffic conditions at all project area intersections.The closure of Brisco Road ramps would require detours to adjacent ramp intersections and freeway crossings, adding time to commutes and increased trips and air emissions. However, when compared to existing conditions, the effects of Alternative 1 were also found to result in an overall benefit. 22.4 The comment reiterates support for a No Build Alternative and suggests operating the two intersections as one and letting each leg have its own green time (i.e. split phasing). Split phasing in signal operations is the least desirable due to the inefficiencies associated with this type of signal timing.The intersections are controlled by one signal controller with split phases and the source of the issues at the intersections.While one leg has the green,the other three must wait while the vehicle queues would build up during a red. It's more acute on the northbound Brisco Road approach to the southbound ramps and W. Branch St.The signal at El Camino Real/Brisco Road is rendered ineffective once the queue at Brisco Road/southbound ramps spill back to El Camino Real. Alternatives 1 and 4C have been evaluated extensively and determined to be feasible alternatives that would meet the project's purpose and need.The comment does not directly relate to any other environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 75 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#23 May 2,2018 Robin Dickerson, City Engineer City of Arroyo Grande 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande,CA,93420 Dear Robin, We are residents of Arroyo Grande,living on Rodeo Dr,and we would like to provide our input on the Alternatives under consideration for the Brisco/Halcyon area. We have sent our input to James Wilkinson of Caltrans,but wish to provide input also directly to the City of Arroyo Grande. We have attached a copy of our letter to Caltrans for your consideration. Thanks for considering our input. 1 Ma and Maryy Web Webst 207 Rodeo Dr Arroyo Grande (805-481-4384) t Page 76 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project May 2, 2018 Jason Wilkinson,Sr. Environmental Planner Caltrans Dear Sir: We live in Arroyo Grande,on Rodeo Drive and are frequent users of the Brisco/Halcyon Underpass and associated on/off ramps to 101. We would like to provide some input and our assessment of the two alternatives proposed for improvement to the current situation. We are strongly in favor of Alt 1 for the following reasons: *The temporary closure of the on/off ramps for 101 was a successful test.The traffic flow through the underpass was improved substantially. *We found that the use of adjacent on/off ramps for 101 were satisfactory alternatives to the closed ramps and contributed greatly to the 23.1 lessoning taffic at the congested area.The improvements to these areas in Alt 1 will only improve this situation more.These improvements have merit independantly,especially realinernent of the Grand Ave Southbound on ramp to be opposite the off ramp and the additional lanes for the Mercado on ramp. *Alt 1 will clearly be less expensive and the disruption to normal use will be impacted less and for a shorter period of time than Alternate 4c. 23.2 We are strongly opposed to Alt 4c for the following reasons: *The proposed on/off ramps and associated roundabout will bring the 23.3 look and feel of 101 and associated traffic into a "local section"of Arroyo 1 Page 77 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Grande.This area contains residences,pedestrians,a school and local services such as the library and community center.The overall area will be impacted by the appearance and traffic flow of 101 with cement walls and 23.3 cont'd the feeling of encroachment by the Highway.The rideshare parking lot only adds to these concerns. *Alt 4c will certainly be more expensive and the temporary impact on use will be far greater and for a longer period of time especially in the 23.4 crucial area,where the roundabout will be constructed. Thank you for giving consideration to these inputs. James and Mary We ster 207 Rodeo Drive Arroyo Grande,CA (805-481-4384) 2 Page 78 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 23. Response to:Jim and Mary Webster(Letter Dated May 2,2018) 23.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on previous temporary on-and off-ramp closures.The comment states that previous closures clarified that use of the adjacent ramp intersections were a satisfactory alternative to Brisco Road ramps and that the improvements proposed under Alternative 1 would further improve these routes.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 23.2 The comment expresses further support for Alternative 1 because it is more cost effective and would create less of a disruption than Alternative 4C.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 23.3 This comment raises concerns about the appearance of the local area being impacted by the improvements proposed as part of Alternative 4C.Section I.Aesthetics in the IS/MND and Section 2.1.7 Visual/Aesthetics in the EA evaluated whether the project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and determined the features proposed under Alternative 4C would generally be consistent with the level and types of development in surrounding areas. Consistency with local planning documents and policies was further evaluated under Section X. Land Use and Planning of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.3 Community Character and Cohesion in the EA. Both environmental documents determined that the proposed project alternatives Page 79 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project would potentially conflict with some applicable policies related to circulation interconnection, promotion of nonmotorized and pedestrian facilities, installation of solid walls, and/or convenient and well-designed parking facilities. Mitigation measures LU/mm-3, 5, and 6 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1 and TRA/mm-3 were identified to ensure appropriate design elements would be incorporated to ensure the interconnection of transportation systems, encouragement of non-motorized transportation alternatives, design of convenient, well- designed aesthetic parking facilities, landscaping and retaining wall design, and consistency with transportation and land use policies and goals. Although the proposed roundabout intersection would be further away from the U.S. 101 mainline and extend into a currently undeveloped City owned parcel,the project includes requirements for project design and style consistent with City policies and other recent improvements along U.S. 101 in Arroyo Grande and surrounding areas. With implementation of these measures, potential impacts would be less than significant. No changes in the IS/MND or EA are necessary. 23.4 The comment explains that Alternative 4C would result in higher costs and temporary impacts. Refer to the Response to 23.2 for comments related to project cost.The comment does not directly relate to any additional environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 80 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#24 Brisco From: Gary Thies<geta356@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday,May 5,2018 11:17 AM To: jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov Cc: kassmanagement@sbcglobal.net;ailara13@hotmail.corn;brisco;Jim Hill;Caren Ray;Tim Brown; Kristen Barneich;Barbara Harmon Subject: Brisco Road Project Dear Mr.Wilkinson; We are residents on 199 Rodeo Dr. in Arroyo Grande,and are voicing our preference of the two alternatives to resolve the traffic conditions at the Brisco Road exchange.We support: Alternative 1—Alternative 1 proposes closure of the NB US 101 on/off-ramps at Brisco Road,modifications to the adjacent interchanges at Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado and install sounds walls along El Camino 24.1 Real. Reason;it was a tried,successful and cost effective method of addressing the traffic at the Brisco Road intersection. Thank you, Gary and Mary Thies Page 81 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 24. Response to:Gary Thies(Letter Dated May 5,2018) 24.1 This comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on the previous off-ramp closures at Brisco Road that proved to be successful and cost-effective method of addressing traffic at the Brisco Road intersection.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds).Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10- year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 82 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#25 May 6,2018 To: Jason Wilkinson Senior Environmental Planner California Department of Transportation jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov And Robin Dickerson City Engineer City of Arroyo Grande brisco@arroyogrande.org From: Susan Henslin Subject: BRISCO-HALCYON ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS PROJECT COMMENTS Attached please find some general comments I have made regarding the above mentioned project which are offered in the form of personal evaluations,general questions and hopefully helpful insights.Thank you for your consideration. //s Susan Henslin P.S.Please keep my email confidential. Thank you. **PROJECT PREFERENCE: 25.1 *Alternative 1 1 Page 83 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project WHY:: *Cost $12.3 million(total)completion year 2020/2021 (Caltrans EA,pg.vi) It is acknowledged that this is an estimate that it may be lacking the following at this time: *signed bids and contracts 25.1 *includes a contingency reserve? coned *prevailing wage costs *impacts of delays(City,County,State,US Fish and Wildlife,Army Corps of Engineers,Native American,etc.)due to updating assessments *cost accommodation for a longer construction period(existing is 9 mo) NOT Alternative 4C: WHY NOT: *Not generally in favor of roundabouts. If you have ever traversed the Mipas St. 25.2 roundabout in Santa Barbara where surface streets meet freeway on-ramps and off-ramps with an overpass(during any time of the day with heavy use),you will understand why this might be a difficult option to support. QUICK REVIEW: COMMENTS: **SOUND WALLS: *I could not really tell from the narrative nor the exhibits whether or not Alternative 1 was to include sound walls,however,I don't have an objection to them as needed as long as they are attractive,easy to maintain and durable. NOTED: Alternative 1: (Caltrans EA,pg. 138,Chapter 2) "Noise impacts under Alternative I were generally the same as predicted future noise levels area without the project." *So,I assume that sound walls do not pertain to Alternative 1. 25.3 However, NOTED: AG-Caltrans EA,NOISE,XII(pg.2) "...project development would not increase the ambient noise levels above levels without the current project,current exceedances of the City and Caltrans standards currently exist..." "...therefore,though not required under CEQA,the installation of noise walls is being considered as part of the project per Caltrans'federal protocol." *Which Alternative? **RELOCATIONS AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS: (Caltrans EA, Summary,pg.iv)2.1.4(Caltrans EA,pg.49.Chapter 2)and 3.1 (Caltrans EA.pg. 169, 25.4 Chapter 3) 2 Page 84 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Alt 1: Partial acquisitions at 6 businesses and 2 vacant parcels *QUESTIONS: 25.4 a. Were the business owners and landowners part of the discussions over the years as conrd Stakeholders? b. Were they in favor of their land(s)being acquired as right-of-ways? 125.5 c. Will the acquisitions be cost effective for them and will their business activities 125.6 remain viable? **TRAFFIC: *I was disappointed to see that in the traffic analysis,an important and impacted near-by off ramp and intersection were not included: Fair Oaks off ramp[within yards of the Grand on ramp(South)]and the subsequent intersection with Fair Oaks Avenue/Orchard St. *Not only is that intersection an ongoing issue,but also when vehicles are trying to exit 25.7 101 using the Fair Oaks off ramp they are side by side with vehicles trying to merge onto 101 via the Grand on ramp(South). How do the proposed improvements/realignment of the Grand on ramp impact this overall traffic situation and the Fair Oaks intersection? Or,do they? **ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: AG-Caltrans EA/#4,II.Agriculture and Forestry Resources/pg.28 It is stated that based on the USDA rating system,the agricultural impacts are not subject to the provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act. *That being said,is the 25.8 landowner in agreement with the stated average value of the land($7,269 p/acre pg.29) and/or the loss of revenue from the crop(s)of approx.$2,286.48 p/year(Caltrans EA,pg. 37,2.1.2 Farmland)? *Plus the fact that although the right of way may not bisect the remaining acreage (AG/Caltrans EA,`e',pg,33 and Map Figure 4,pg.31),it does seem to necessitate providing new access on the East side of the land to accommodate equipment,tractors, 25'9 harvesting,etc. AG-Caltrans EA/#4,III/Air Quality/AO/mm-1(h).pg.38 JUST WONDERING: Staging and queuing areas"...shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors 25.10 to the maximum extent possible." *Where will construction activities and support be staged in this very crowded project area? **BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: AG-Caltrans EA/#4,IV/pg.40 DRAINAGE DITCHES,CULVERTS,ARROYO GRANDE CREEK,HABITAT,ETC: "...three drainage ditches were identified as having significant nexus with Arroyo Grande 25.11 creek." "...certain existing culverts will require extensions,realignment or replacements..." "Culvert extensions can exacerbate scouring of drainage beds at the downstream and upstream ends. Changes to a stream's geomorphology caused by scouring could cause sedimentation and damage vegetation..." "...some of the drainage 3 Page 85 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project ditches within the BSA are tributaries to the Arroyo Grande Creek...""...Based on surveys taken in March 2006 and between March 2007 and August 2007 within the project area,it is determined that the project site does not contain the constituent elements of critical habitat..." "...migration corridors,...were not observed within the 25.11 area." AG-Caltrans EAI#4,(d), cony's project pg.43 concludes that the"...project site does not contain wildlife corridors due to the extent of urban development." And"...the project would not interfere with the movement of species." *REALLY? These studies were done eleven(11)years ago. I have heard that coyotes, beaver,etc.are using the creek and surrounding areas as corridors. What about the small fox that roamed the Village not long ago? We should be careful here. AG-Caltrans EA/#4,(a),pg. 42. 25.12 SAME FOR HABITAT FOR NESTING BIRDS: "...no nesting birds were observed during field surveys in 2005,2006,2011 and 2014." *What was the protocol for these surveys? What time of the year were these surveys done? 1 have heard a peacock in the creek near this project area,so I would guess that he is not alone here. AG-Caltrans EAI#4,IV/pg.42 RED-LEGGED FROG: "...Therefore,the proposed project would have no effect on California red-legged frog." *Maybe not documented,but we should be careful here. On a construction project in 25,13 Guadalupe a few years ago,it rained,some ponds were formed,and voila! Suddenly,a red-legged frog was observed,or a neighbor thought they saw one. That was enough to delay the project until all of the agencies could confirm that no frog existed,which not only delayed the project,but also resulted in cost overruns,not to mention time delays. *** 4 Page 86 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 25. Response to:Susan Henslin (Letter Dated May 6,2018) 25.1 This comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on the lower cost.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is"reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 25.2 The comment expresses opposition to Alternative 4C and roundabouts in general. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive,think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users)with the low-speed roundabout designs.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 25.3 The comment requests clarification on whether soundwalls would be required under Alternative 1. Although the project would not increase ambient noise levels above levels without the project, current exceedances of City and Caltrans standards currently exist. Alternative 1 proposes the types of improvements that require consideration of soundwalls in order to address the current noise threshold exceedances per Caltrans regulations and standards. Therefore, soundwalls will be considered under both build alternatives.The relative cost and benefit of the walls is described in Section 2.2.7 Noise of the EA(pages 139-143). Page 87 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 25.4 This comment questions whether business owners and landowners were included in discussions regarding the project.Adjacent property owners that would be affected by the project have been provided opportunities to participate in the project, including through community meetings, public hearings, and the environmental process. Further coordination will be required after selection of an alternative and finalization of project design. 25.5 This comment questions relates to land acquisition and the affected landowner's input. Land acquisitions are handled through a process that includes coordination with the landowners. Right-of-way acquisitions are subject to Caltrans' Relocation Assistance Program and the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, which are intended to ensure that persons displaced as a result of a transportation project are treated fairly, consistency, and equitably so that such persons will not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of projects designed to benefit the public as a whole.The Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act requires certain relocation services and payments be made to eligible landowners and residents who are affected by land acquisition. 25.6 This comment relates to land acquisition and the affected landowner's input. Refer to Response 25.5. Based on preliminary design engineering and an evaluation of all anticipated necessary acquisitions, structures and facilities would be relocated within existing sites and businesses could continue to operate in a similar manner at the same location. 25.7 This comment relates to a nearby off-ramp not included as part of the project or the traffic analysis (Fair Oaks) and asks how the proposed improvements would affect impacted traffic conditions at this intersection. Closing the northbound Brisco ramps affects the traffic using the northbound U.S. 101 and has no impact on southbound U.S. 101 traffic patterns at Fair Oaks. The substandard southbound weaving segment between the Grand Ave on-ramp and the Fair Oaks Avenue off-ramp, and the off-ramp/Fair Oaks Avenue intersection operations are separate issues. Addressing those issue would not satisfy the project purpose and need. All intersections which would be directly modified by the Project or which could potentially experience a change in operations due to the Project were selected for analysis, per typical industry practices.The list of intersections to be included in the analysis was shared with and approved by the Project Development Team. The Project would potentially modify facilities along El Camino Real and West Branch Street between the US 101 south ramps just west of Oak Park Boulevard and Grand Avenue.Therefore, all major intersections within these limits were selected for evaluation. Any facilities outside these limits would not likely see a significant change in traffic operations due to the Project, and therefore were not included in the analysis. Fair Oaks Avenue is outside the limits of the Project improvements and has no direct local street connection to West Branch Street or El Camino Real, and therefore was not included in the analysis. 25.8 This comment is in regard to a landowner's opinion on the conversion of agricultural land.The referenced calculations are intended to reflect an approximate cost associated with the loss of productive agriculture, not land value. Refer to Responses 25.5 and 25.6. 25.9 This comment asserts that new access on the east side of the referenced parcel would be required to accommodate equipment,tractors, and other agricultural operations.This and other potentially indirect effects on agricultural operations would be taken into consideration during the right-of-way acquisition process. Page 88 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 25.10 This comment questions a mitigation measure related to staging and queueing areas.This requirement is included in standard diesel emission reduction mitigation measures of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and have been included per APCD regulations and guidance. It is possible that no staging locations can be located at least 1,000 feet from any sensitive receptor; however,the City will identify staging areas that avoid sensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible. 25.11 This comment questions the age of biological surveys and the conclusion that the project area is not a wildlife corridor.The comment further references anectodical information to imply potential biological resources along Arroyo Grande Creek. Updated biological surveys were conducted in 2011 and 2014. Arroyo Grande Creek would likely be considered a wildlife corridor, as many wildlife species commonly travel along surface water bodies and/or riparian habitat. However,the project site and proposed areas of disturbance do not include any portion of Arroyo Grande Creek.The highly disturbed and urbanized areas of the proposed project are not considered wildlife corridors,though some wildlife may occur within the area. 25.12 This comment questions the methodology used for nesting bird surveys and refences anecdotal information to imply potential biological resources near Arroyo Grande Creek.The project area does not include any portion of Arroyo Grande Creek. Mitigation Measures identified in the IS/MND (BIO/mm-10 through BIO/mm-12) and the EA(BIO/mm-10 through BIO/mm-12) require avoidance of tree removal during the nesting bird season if feasible, pre-construction nesting bird surveys in the event the nesting season cannot be avoided, and measures to avoid adverse effects on active nests in the event they are encountered. 25.13 The comment questions whether the project area could support potential habitat for California red-legged frog.As described in the IS/MND and EA, only two California red-legged frog occurrences have been recorded within 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project site (CNDDB 2006). To determine the potential for occurrence of the California red-legged frog within the project area, an assessment of the habitat was conducted following the USFWS Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs (USFWS 2005).A California Red-legged Frog Site Assessment Report was submitted to the Ventura USFWS office on April 4, 2006 (Morro Group 2006).As recommended by USFWS Fish and Wildlife Biologist Mark Elvin (2006), surveys for California red-legged frog were conducted within the project area with a focus on Excavated Ditch 3, beginning on March 7, 2007, and ending on August 7, 2007. Eight surveys were conducted, and no California red-legged frogs were observed during any of the survey efforts. Habitats within the project area and within 1 mile of the BSA are highly fragmented due to urban development, US 101, and other roads. While California red-legged frogs have the potential to occur within large areas of good to excellent quality habitat with riparian and emergent vegetative cover, suitable water quality, and minimal disturbance,these conditions do not occur within the project area. It is extremely unlikely that California red-legged frogs inhabit the drainage ditches within the project area,which are minimally vegetated to non-vegetated, typically convey only seasonal stormwater flows, and are subjected to considerable disturbance (e.g., right next to road edges). Dispersal to these areas from habitats outside of the project area would be difficult due to the extensive network of roads and urban development existing in and near project area. Page 89 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#26 From: Franklin Bayliss To: iason.wilkinson@dot.ca.aov;brisco'Jim Hill;Caren Ray Tim Brown;Kristen Barneich;Barbara Harmon Cc: Alicia Lara:Chuck Kass Subject: brisco interchange Date: Monday,May 07,2016 1:42:56 PM As a resident of Arroyo Grande I am in favor of option 1 and strongly opposed to option 4c. 126.1 Thank you Frank Bayliss Page 90 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 26. Response to:Franklin Bayliss(Letter Dated May 7,2018) 26.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 91 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#27 Brisco From: Laura Kass<lauranature@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday,May 7,2018 4:46 PM To: jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov Cc: brisco;Jim Hill;Caren Ray;Tim Brown;Kristen Barneich;Barbara Harmon; kassmanagement@sbcglobal.net;ailara13@hotmail.com Subject: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project My comments on the above subject are as follows,,, I was present at the City's public workshop and have given it quite a lot of thought. The renditions were well done,by the way. There seems to be only one right option,which is to choose Alternative 27.1 #1. I cannot see why we would want to spend so much more of our(presently nonexistent)funds on Alternative#4C as it truly does not change the traffic using the Brisco underpass significantly. It is really a waste of taxpayers money. Sincerely, Laura C.Kass Page 92 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 27. Response to:Laura Kass(Letter Dated May 7,2018) 27.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 and opposes Alternative 4C, raising concerns about the expense of Alternative 4C while not substantially changing traffic using the Brisco Road undercrossing.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10- year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 93 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#28 Brisco From: tmcclish@arroyogrande.org Sent: Tuesday,May 8,2018 8:37 AM To: rdickerson@arroyogrande.org;Patrick Holub Subject: FW:THE BRISCO INTERCHANGE PROJECT For Caltrans and file. Teresa McGbsh,AICP Director of Community Development City of Arroyo Grande 300 E.Branch Street Arroyo Grande,CA 93421 (805)473-5420 fax(805)473-0386 tmcclish @arrovogrande.org From: Bob Perez[mailto:perez5855@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday,May 07,2018 10:25 PM To:jhill@arroygrande.org; Kristen Barneich; Barbara Harmon;Tim Brown;Jim Bergman;Caren Ray; Bill Robeson;Teresa McClish Subject:THE BRISCO INTERCHANGE PROJECT On December 9,2017,sometime during the night,a car lost control and hit our 3,000+pound rock that was put in our front yard by the developer,Mangano Homes. This rock was moved completely out of it's holding space after this car had hit it. Of course,the driver fled,BUT,can you imagine a child riding their bike or a jogger jogging on the trail or sidewalk getting hit by a speeding car down our street? Does it actually take losing a life before anyone does something about the speed and congestion that Grace Lane has shown? Our street is"constantly"plagued with streaming cars going to and from Grace Bible Church,speeding soccer moms rushing their children to St.Patrick's School,in the mornings,because they are late,students driving 60 miles per hour to get to their 11:00 AM class with Allan Hancock College being held at Grace Bible Church during the week or teenagers racing down the street to see how fast they can go. Even the UPS and Fed Ex drivers speed,constantly,because they are on a time limit to get the merchandise delivered. We live pretty close to the radar speed display and MOST cars are travelling 45-60 mph up and down our street. Since Rodeo has speed bumps,that street is completely avoided,therefore,our street is the main street to travel,thus,our congestion is constant,morning,noon and night! We are against having the freeway exit at the intersection where there is St.Patrick's School. With the parents parking up and down Rodeo,on both sides of the streets,during school and after school(ie:baseball 28.1 games,soccer games,track meets,etc),additional traffic from building a new on/off ramps at West Branch and Rodeo will further congest Rodeo and Grace streets. Back in November,2012,when we bought our house on Grace Lane,there was nothing in the disclosures about the Brisco Interchange Project. We are"strongly"in favor of the Alternative 1 Project since it is half the cost and would not have much impact on Grace Lane or St.Patrick's School. It is the most fiscally responsible 28.2 thing to do! Page 94 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Sincerely, Mardell and Robert Perez 264 Grace Lane Arroyo Grande,California 93420 (805)704-9665 (805)704-9758 The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.if the reader of-this message is not an intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error,please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message.Please note that email correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande,along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act,and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law. 2 Page 95 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 28. Response to:Mardell and Robert Perez(Letter Dated May 7,2018) 28.1 The comment describes excessive speed and congestion issues along Grace Lane and opposes developing a freeway exit near St. Patrick's School that would lead to additional localized traffic congestion along Rodeo Drive and Grace Lane. Excess speed is an enforcement issue or a side effect of implementing an arbitrary speed limit without a traffic engineering survey. Otherwise the City can implement traffic calming measures to achieve the desired operating speed. A City- wide speed study was approved by City Council November 27, 2018.The speed study determined that the posted speed limit on Grace Lane remained unchanged at 35 miles per hour, which represents the 85th percentile.The Arroyo Grande Police Department is providing enforcement and is prepared to cite speed violators as allowed by the vehicle code.According to the City Police Department, observed speeds are definitely lower than the perceived 50 mph plus speeds being reported by residents.The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane/West Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project area. Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA.The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives.The LOS and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval& Environmental Determination Phase(PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,June 7, 2017). 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative Intersection LOS No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps-Grace Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street B (Roundabout) 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing NBL Exceeds Storage by 100' No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps NBT Exceeds Storage by 100' SBT Exceeds Storage by 800' Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps Grace All Queues Within Storage Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street (Queues would be even shorter (Roundabout) than with a signalized intersection) Page 96 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street near Brisco Road.Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be affected. Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected decreased trips (-0.09%and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during the mid-day peak(+0.34%).The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very minor. Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after construction of Alternative 4C.This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with construction of Alternative 4C.Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C. 28.2 The IS/MND and EA discuss incompatible uses, and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan, and would result in less than significant impacts to adjacent land uses.The proposed roundabout intersection under Alternative 4C would not be substantially different from the existing intersection that it would replace. Additionally,the IS/MND and EA concluded that under Alternative 4C, traffic levels would be improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan.Traffic benefits under Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly at the Brisco Road/EI Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street intersections. Additional mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND and EA were included to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with St. Patrick's School and existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on cost and impacts to the school and nearby community.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10- Page 97 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 98 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#29 Brisco From: Chuck Kass<kassmanagement@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday,May 8,2018 6:13 PM To: jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov Cc: Tim Brown;Kristen Barneich;Barbara Harmon;kassmanagement@sbcglobal.net;ailaral3 @hotmail.com;brisco;Jim Hill;Caren Ray Subject: BRISCO-HALCYON ROAD COMMENTS Dear Mr.Wilkinson, It has been nearly 20 years since"the survey requesting input on our needs in Arroyo Grande"noted:"Arroyo Grande has a growing traffic problem-and the access/egress for 101 at Brisco/Halcyon should be upgraded." Our financial condition then was very different from today's picture. When the shopping center was built,the City was giddy over the anticipated sales tax revenue and neglected to get the developer or the anchors to contribute towards the mitigation of the congestion that would occur at the Brisco/Halcyon interchange. Today,the City of Arroyo Grande's financial prognosis,currently as well as into the next decade,is precarious. Our City Council is faced with cuts,reductions in costs as well as services. The need to raise fees and eliminate viable and honorable commitments to the community will not occur as a result of our deficit-which,under the current 10+year budget(s),worsens. A complete answer(if we could afford it)would be to completely replace this interchange...including a 4-5 lane 'exchange'under the 101 underpass. With(depending on how you define them)we have 5 interchanges on and of in one or both directions in roughly a 2 mile stretch of Arroyo Grande and adjoining cities. With a nine-figure budget,we could do it right! ...Review the 2 mile stretch of 101 and make new interchanges that meet the needs of the area for the next decades. But,that's a pipe dream. So,getting to the decision at hand,Option#4C provides only a marginal(debatable)benefit over Option #1 and 29.1 creates pedestrian,child safety and "feeder'street concerns. Option #1 provides Arroyo Grande and its neighboring communities with the best solution for the cost. ...suggest that be the City Council's decision! Regarding the inclusion of sound barriers,the real sound question(s)are whether they will be effective and really benefit the citizens living on or adjacent to El Camino Real. The City may have complaint records that justify their construction- 29.2 otherwise,its another addition that we can't afford. Let's not forget:whether the funds originate from the Arroyo Grande City budget,SLOCOG,County of SLO,State of California or the Federal Government-they are all taxpayer dollars. I sincerely thank you for your consideration. Chuck Kass 405 Emerald Bay Drive Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 (805)704-5555 kassmanagement@sbeglobal.netjasonwilkinson@caltrans. Page 99 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 29. Response to:Chuck Kass(Letter Dated May 8,2018) 29.1 The comment relates to the history of growing traffic problems in the city and the City's current finances and suggests that Alternative 4C would provide only marginal benefits over Alternative 1.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 29.2 This comment raises concerns over the cost of sound barriers and the benefit to nearby residences.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi- year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds).Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. Potential benefits and feasibility of noise barriers along the U.S. 101 to minimize noise were analyzed in a Noise Study Report(NSR) prepared for the project and further discussed in both Section X. Land Use and Planning and XII. Noise of the IS-MND and Section 2.2.7 Noise of the EA. A preliminary noise abatement analysis was performed as part of the NSR to evaluate the feasibility for each potential noise barrier to achieve noise reduction (results are further discussed in the NSR).The relative cost and benefit of the walls is described in Section 2.2.7 Noise of the EA(pages 139-143).The cost of the sound barrier in comparison to the benefit it would provide is considered in the determination of whether a soundwall should be required. Page 100 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#30 May 8,2018 Ronald Nishida 122 Avenida de Diamante Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 805-474-9288 Robin Dickerson City of Arroyo Grande 300 East Branch Street Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 Dear Robin Dickerson, I attended the April 26,2018 Brisco Interchange Project Public Workshop. I listened carefully to all the options, but believe l have come up with another solution which might serve the community better while saving the city a considerable amount of money. Simply put, if we do not allow left turns from the north bound off ramp onto Brisco, and not allow left turns onto the north bound on ram,this should result in a smoother flow of traffic and possibly eliminating several traffic signals. This would have a similar effect as the full closure of the ramps,with the exception of allowing flow of traffic heading towards the shopping centers. When the ramps were closed as a test last year,traffic moved very nicely,and the only complaints were from owners of the businesses in the Walmart and Trader Joe centers,who saw a downturn of customer volume. Allowing right turns off and onto Hwy 101 would, I believe, adequately address this. 30.1 Below is a more detailed description of my idea: 1. North bound 101 off ramp. Place a curved barrier to prevent left turns onto Brisco,allowing traffic to make a right turn only. Controlled by a stop sign or by the traffic signal at the end of the ramp. 2. Traffic on Brisco heading from El Camino Real toward West Branch Street. Place a barrier preventing traffic from turning left onto north bound on ramp. Allow two lanes of traffic to West Branch Street.Left lane to turn left only and right lane to turn left or right. Page 101 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 3. North bound 101 on-ramp Place a curved barrier at the entrance of the 101 north bound on-ramp to help prevent the left turn onto the north bound on ramp. This may not be necessary if the above-mentioned barriers are sufficient. Traffic from West Branch Street right lane are allowed to turn right on to Brisco and either continue to El Camino Real or onto north bound on ramp. Traffic from West Branch Street left lane allowed to turn left on to Brisco and either continuing to El Camino Real or on to north bound on-ramp. 4. The following needs to be done: 30.1 A. Barriers installed CO°t'd B. Traffic lights reprogrammed C. Re-striping of Brisco and ramps. D. Stop sign erected at bottom of off ramp 5. From the traffic date that has been collected over the years a computer simulation of the traffic flow should be possible to determine its feasibility without doing a real test. Attached is a drawing depicting the above. I do understand that these changes may be only temporary, but it should get out of the immediate traffic problems and possibly a few years down the road until funds become available to finally fix the problem. Sincerely, Ronald Nishida Page 102 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/ AND EA April 2020 Brisco Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project ., ,,. �4,�`�I. _ ". ars. -:::-7„..;;;;;,...„ f '�sa��'+ 331 � .z--.,,,'.' � � C �l�c^} j '-�, "� �� r'.1..4.,,;:. M; 3 tr ma:11I,',..;•,,•,..,-,.---1,-,47- ,a,' `a''''''''; ','.:-`9\1',,z,.,:' -r., Ira? ' '3. t t .`� `i�_ '' �' � � � � '�� '° 30.1 x: r�,- ,JI � u` 1 cont'd F ,/24,'-'..,- _ 's:,. .tee' £ .c%.."7:"'"4,-. ..--- •;"'". a K+4 >'y� li t .I, VAP y � . j'''''''' 'G, ,t,..-::,,:' 1 - � Py, Lel' �' t� Imagery®20'{8 Google,Map data 020 0 Google 2p h - Page 103 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 30. Response to:Ronald Nishida(Letter Dated May 8,2018) 30.1 The comment presents an alternative that was not previously discussed or analyzed in the IS/MND or EA.The City and Caltrans have discussed numerous project design alternatives over the last decade, many of which were determined to be infeasible due to geographical limitations or traffic conditions. Restricting left-turns at the Brisco Road/southbound ramp intersection could work, but it's just a temporary solution.The proposed project improvements would provide a 20-yearr+design life. Alternatives 1 and 4C have been evaluated extensively and determined to be feasible alternatives that would meet the project's purpose and need.The build alternatives have been designed to not only address current congestion, but also congestion related to projected build- out of the City by 2035.The comment does not directly relate to any other environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 104 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#31 Brisco From: Diego Bernal<DieGo2SHAE@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday,May 10,2018 6:01 PM To: brisco Cc: Diego Bernal Subject: Brisco Road NB 101 Ramp Comments Hello, If the Brisco Road NB 101 Off/On ramps must be removed,then I would like to state my support for Alternative 4C to build a new ramp at the Grace Ln/Branch St area.The Brisco Road ramps get very heavy usage from us locals that live between the two nearest exits and into the city,so there is clearly a need and shutting the existing ramps down without a replacement would be counterproductive to the goal of alleviating 31.1 traffic and congestion.In addition,the Brisco NB exit ramp is by far the most convenient for those looking to exit to access the businesses on Camino Mercado.The Grand exit requires a lot of maneuvering and left turns around busy gas stations and residential neighborhoods,while the exit leading into the access point to In N Out is always backed up by people waiting to get into the In N Out drive-through. Thank you, -Diego Bernal Page 105 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 31. Response to:Diego Bernal(Letter Dated May 10,2018) 31.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 4C based on the heavy local usage and localized traffic congestion at the Brisco on/off-ramps.The comment also states that the Brisco Road ramps are the most convenient for accessing the businesses on Camino Mercado, and that the Grand Avenue exist requires a lot more maneuvering around gas stations, residential areas, and traffic backed up from the In-N-Out drive through.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 106 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#32 Original Message From:Jim Broz rmai[to:ibroz805@gmaiLcom] Sent:Thursday,May 10,2018 4:59 PM To:Wilkinson,Jason J@DOT<jason.wilkinsorjdot.ca.gpv>;Alicia Lara<ailaral3@hotmail.com>;Chuck Kass<kassmanagement@sbcglobal.net> Subject:Brisco project I would prefer the third option-do nothing-until the City can afford it. 132.1 Please feel free to contact me about my concerns. Thank you Jim Broz Page 107 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 32. Response to:Jim Broz(Letter Dated May 10,2018) 32.1 The comment expresses a preference for the No Build Alternative, until the City can afford a build alternative.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi- year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds).Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 108 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#33 Brisco From: Christiane 1 Dubrulle<CJDubrulle@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Thursday,May 10,2018 5:21 PM To: jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov;brisco Cc: Chuck Cass;Alicia Lara Subject: About Brisco Freeway Interchange To:Jason Wilkinson,Sr.Environmental Planner,Caltrans To:Arroyo Grande City Council, Dear Sir and Dear members of the Arroyo Grande City Council, I live in Arroyo Grande on Rodeo Drive and use the Brisco freeway interchange or the Brisco-Halcyon underpass almost daily. I read the two alternatives for the improvement of traffic at the Brisco interchange and I am strongly in favor of Alt 1 for these reasons: I found that the temporary closure of the on/off ramps for 101 showed that he did not create a traffic problem. Going 33.1 to the Mercado entrance to 101 N instead of Brisco was not a big deal.We don't need an interchange at Rodeo,so close to the interchange at Grand Avenue. The planned changes in AIt1 would improve the situation without being too disruptive. The work involved in Alt 1 is also much less expensive am strongly against Alt 4 C. It is too complicated and too disturbing for our quiet residential area. I am against Rodeo Drive and Grace Lane becoming an access to and from the freeway.The construction of a roundabout next to St Patrick's 33.2 school would also create a dangerous situation for young children that are dropped and picked up by their parents at the curb everyday. Alt 4C is also too expensive. Thank you for considering my input when making a final decision. Christiane Dubrulle 211 Rodeo Drive Arroyo Grande,CA Page 109 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 33. Response to:Christiane Dubrulle(Letter Dated May 10,2018) 33.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 due to the successful temporary closure, the available northbound access at Camino Mercado,the lack of a need for a new interchange at Rodeo so close to the Grand Avenue interchange, and the minimal disruption it would require. Consistent with this comment, the IS/MND and EA determined that closure of the ramps at Brisco Road would not worsen traffic congestion after implementation of the improvements proposed under Alternative 1 due to the availability of alternative access at Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 33.2 This comment expresses opposition to Alternative 4C based on a complicated design,the potential for disruptions to quiet residential areas, safety concerns from putting a roundabout next to St. Patrick's School, high costs, and because it would create access to and from the freeway along Rodeo Drive and Grace Lane.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls,which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp,which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Regarding access,traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities of the EA.The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane/West Page 110 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project area. The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives.The LOS and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval& Environmental Determination Phase(PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,June 7, 2017). 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative Intersection LOS No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps-Grace Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street B (Roundabout) 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing NBL Exceeds Storage by 100' No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps NBT Exceeds Storage by 100' SBT Exceeds Storage by 800' Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps Grace All Queues Within Storage Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street (Queues would be even shorter (Roundabout) than with a signalized intersection) Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street near Brisco Road.Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be affected. Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected decreased trips (-0.09%and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during the mid-day peak(+0.34%).The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very minor. Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after construction of Alternative 4C.This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with construction of Alternative 4C.Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C. Page 111 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses, and uses and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan, and would result in less than significant impacts. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive,think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users)with the low- speed roundabout designs.The new interchange is not expected to operate substantially different than the existing intersection and traffic patterns along Rodeo Drive and Grace Lane would continue to access the freeway at/near Brisco Road similar to current conditions. Under Alternative 4C,traffic levels would be improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. In addition,Alternative 4C meets the stated project purpose of maintaining direct access from U.S. 101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including improvements at St. Patrick's School, and measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. Additional mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND and EA were included to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with St. Patrick's School and existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. Page 112 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#34 Front: Teresa McDish To: Robin Dickerson;Patrick Holub Subject: FM Bristol Interchange Options Date: Friday,May 11,2018 2;40:21 PM For file Teresa McClish,AICP Director of Community Development City of Arroyo Grande 300 E.Branch Street Arroyo Grande,CA 93421 (805)473-5420 fax(805)473-0386 tmcclis h@nrrovograndtors From:Kristen Barneich Sent: Friday,May 11,2018 2:36 PM To:jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov;Teresa McClish;Jim Bergman;Matt Downing Subject:Fwd: Bristol Interchange Options See letter below regarding Brisco... Kristen Bameich,Council Member Begin forwarded message: From:Jarratt Trudy<ftjarratt@charter.net> Date:May 10,2018 at 12:35:33 PM PDT To:<kharneich@arroyogrande.org> Subject:Bristol Interchange Options Councilwoman Barneich, I like the round about option.It will take a little adjustment but they are found along the east coast and throughout Europe and are very efficient.I think this is 34.1 the best option. Trudy Jarratt Arroyo Grande,CA The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom It is addressed.If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error,please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message.Please note that email correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande,along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act,and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law. Page 113 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 34. Response to: Trudy Jarratt(Letter Dated May 10,2018) 34.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 4C because of the efficiency of roundabouts along the coast and throughout Europe.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 114 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#35 From: Katie Merlo To: jason.wilkinson t2dot.ca.aov Cc: brisco;Jim Hill;Caren Rae;Tim Brown;IVisten Barneicit;Barbara Harmon Subject: Brace Project Date: Thursday,May 10,2018 4:46:40 PM Greetings Mr.Wilkinson, I am writing to you as a citizen of Arroyo Grande as well as a concerned parent of St.Patrick School located at 900 W.Branch St. I feel that the implementation of option 4C is not only fiscally irresponsible as a tax paying citizen, but also strongly feel that it will have a negative impact on both the surrounding neighborhoods as well as the families and children that attend St.Patrick School. The school holds various events throughout the entire year,not just the school year.These events include,but are not limited to,school-related functions and sporting events,Arroyo Grande Little League baseball games and weekly Grace Five Cities Sunday services.In addition,the gym is rented out throughout the week to other outside groups.Let's not forget the various events and outside activities also being held at Grace Bible Church on the corner 35.1 of Rodeo Drive and Grace Lane.That being said,the area surrounding the school and Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane already see an increased flow of traffic!I fear the implementation of option 4C would make the congestion in these neighborhoods even worse.I also feel that the increased traffic could put students and families crossing Rodeo Drive in harms way.It is a school zone and should remain that way.It is not a freeway exit! I urge you to put the safety of your citizens first and make the fiscally responsible decision to further explore option I. Regards, Katie Merlo Page 115 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 35. Response to:Katie Merlo(Letter Dated May 10,2018) 35.1 The comment raises concerns under Alternative 4C including fiscal impacts, traffic congestion, and safety of students and families crossing Rodeo Drive. The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Regarding traffic concerns,traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA.The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane/West Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project area. The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives.The LOS and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval& Environmental Determination Phase(PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,June 7, 2017). Page 116 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative Intersection LOS No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps-Grace Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street B (Roundabout) 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing NBL Exceeds Storage by 100' No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps NBT Exceeds Storage by 100' SBT Exceeds Storage by 800' Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps Grace All Queues Within Storage Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street (Queues would be even shorter (Roundabout) than with a signalized intersection) Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street near Brisco Road.Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be affected. Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected decreased trips (-0.09%and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during the mid-day peak(+0.34%).The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very minor. Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after construction of Alternative 4C.This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with construction of Alternative 4C.Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C. The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses, and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan, and would result in less than significant impacts. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive,think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users)with the low- Page 117 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project speed roundabout designs.Alternative 4C would also improve pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the new interchange, providing safer connections for pedestrians.The new interchange is not expected to operate substantially different than the existing intersection. Under Alternative 4C, traffic levels would be improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Long-term traffic benefits under Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly at the Brisco Road/EI Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street intersections. In addition,Alternative 4C meets the stated project's purpose of maintaining direct access from U.S. 101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area. Page 118 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#36 From: Will Reichardt To: brisco•Jim Hill'Caren Ray;Tim Brown')(risten Barneich;Barbara Harmon Subject: BRISCO ROAD PROJECT Date: Thursday,May 10,2018 8:59:43 PM Dear Mayor and Council Members, My name is Will Reichardt,I have been a resident of our City since 1994. Regarding BRISCO ROAD,I urge you to vote for ALTERNATIVE#1 I base my decision on the dire fiscal economic impact,and dire prospects of our beloved City. 36.1 We simply can NOT afford Alternative 44 without making even more draconian cuts to our city departments programs,employments,even viabilities] Thank you for your consideration,hard work invested. May your final decision he guided by what is best to sustain best our beloved town. Sincerely yours Will Reichardt 352 Rodeo Drive Sent from my iPhone Page 119 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 36. Response to: Will Reichardt(Letter Dated May 10,2018) 36.1 The commenter expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on cost and the fiscal impacts of Alternative 4C to the City.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds).Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10- year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 120 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#37 Brisco From: Hsi mom <Ilslmom@aol.com> Sent: Thursday,May 10,2018 10:54 PM To: brisco;Jim Hill;Caren Ray;Tim Brown;Kristen Barneich;Barbara Harmon Subject: Brisco 101 Interchange Please be advised that as a resident of AG, I am in favor of the fiscally wise option#1.The only other 137.1 option is to do nothingl The costliest option 4C is ludicrous. It is not an option. Linda L. Smith linda Page 121 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 37. Response to:Linda L.Smith (Letter Dated May 10,2018) 37.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 (or alternatively the No Build Alternative) because of cost.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi- year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 122 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#38 Jason Wilkinson Subject: FW:Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Project From: Kristen Barneich Sent:Friday,May 11,2018 1:47 PM To:jason.wilkinsondot.ca.gov Cc:Teresa McClish;Jim Bergman;Matt Downing;Bill Robeson Subject: Fwd: Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Project Hi Jason&Teresa- I've asked for feedback regarding Brisco via social media,so I'll be sending some comments your way.Please see below. Thank you— Kristen Barneich,Council Member Begin forwarded message: From:JeffTechau<jtechauna,gmail.com> Date:May 10,2018 at 7:59:50 PM PDT To:<kbarneich@arroyogrande.org> Subject:Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Project Regarding Alternatives 1 and 4c for the Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Project: I like roundabouts.However: Roundabouts work well if (a)they're well designed,and 38.1 (b)people know how to use them properly. Unfortunately, (a)this one looks undersized for the considerable amount of traffic it would see;and (b)where we live people have a hard enough time using a 4-way stop properly,let alone a roundabout. Thanks for taking the time to hear my opinion. -Jeff Techau Arroyo Grande The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error,please advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message.Please note that email correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande,along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act,and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law. Page 123 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 38. Response to:Jeff Techau(Letter Dated May 10,2018) 38.1 The comment expresses a preference for roundabouts but raises concerns about how the roundabout is potentially undersized and drivers may have a difficult time using them.Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA.The proposed roundabout, as designed, would be adequately sized to meet the traffic needs of the project area.Traffic throughout the project area would be substantially improved over No Build (existing) conditions, and slightly better than traffic conditions under Alternative 1.The project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan;therefore, impacts related to roundabout design and size would be less than significant. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive,think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users)with the low-speed roundabout designs.They are becoming more and more frequently used in the project vicinity and other areas. Page 124 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#39 Brisco From: Carolyn<carolynbayliss@charter.net> Sent: Friday,May 11,2018 11:41 AM To: jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov Cc: brisco;Jim Hill;Caren Ray;Tim Brown;Kristen Barneich;Barbara Harmon Subject: Options addressing traffic at Brisco/101 Interchange Hi Jason and City Council Members, I am a resident of the City of Arroyo Grande. From my understanding you are down to three options concerning the traffic at the Brisco/101 Interchange. I am in favor of Alternative 1. I am strongly opposed to Alternative 4C. 39.1 In fact,I would choose the"do nothing"option before Alternative 4C. Briefly, a couple of my main reasons are as follows: 1) I personally use that interchange daily. During the temporary closure of Brisco last year the traffic flow was 39.2 immensely improved. From experience I believe Alternative 1 will be very effective in addressing the traffic congestion at that intersection. 2) Alternative 4C is approximately twice the cost of Alternative 1. I think it would be fiscally irresponsible to choose Alternative 4C. From a cost/benefit analysis I see no justification for it especially since the City of Arroyo 39.3 Grande already has budget issues. Thank you, Carolyn Bayliss Page 125 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 39. Response to:Carolyn Bayliss(Letter Dated May 11,2018) 39.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1, strong opposition to Alternative 4c, and a preference for the No Build Alternative over Alternative 4C.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 39.2 This comment further supports Alternative 1 because it would be an effective means of addressing traffic congestion as evidenced by the substantial improvements during temporary ramp closures.Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA discuss impacts to traffic and conclude that under Alternative 1,traffic levels would be substantially improved throughout the project area in comparison to the No Build Alternative.The improvements proposed under Alternative 1 would be necessary to maintain improved traffic conditions in the future, in the event the Brisco Road ramps are closed. 39.3 This comment raises concerns about the fiscal impacts of Alternative 4C.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is"reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 126 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#40 From: Teresa McClish To: Robin Dickerson;potrirk Holub Subject: FW:Response to Brise°Alternatives Date: Friday,May 11,2015 4,33:31 PM For file. Teresa McClish,AICP Director of Community Development City of Arroyo Grande 300 E.Branch Street Arroyo Grande,CA 93421 (805)473-5420 fax(805)473-0386 rmcdishSf arrnyograndr.nry From:Kristen Barneich Sent:Friday,May 11,2018 3:13 PM To:Sam Cotton Cc:Teresa McClish;jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov Subject:Re:Response to Brisco Alternatives Hi Sam— Thank you for your input on Brisco.It has been noted.And I'm cc'ing Director McClish on this email so that she can make note of it. Also regarding Flora,it is on the PC agenda I believe for Tuesday night.Please feel free to attend and let them know your thoughts.Currently the ADU's are allowed for that size.And it is AG land,but is not prime AG soil.I have been told that these folks are building the ADU for their parents. Thank you for commenting! Kristen Barneich,Council Member On May 11,2018,at 2:59 PM,Sam Cotton<cotton_sam@hotmail.com>wrote: Just close the on/off ramps.Least expensive,and it worked great last year. 140.1 Also Vivian and I are not in favor of a conditional used permit for 1212 Flora. Allowing a 1776 Sq Ft Accessory Dwelling Unit to be built on AG land.ADU's should be 1200 Sq Ft or smaller and besides this is a dangerous precedent. Thank you. Sam Cotton The information contained in this email pertains to City business and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed if the reader of this message is not an intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient and you have received this message in error,please Page 127 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project advise the sender by reply email or phone and delete the message.Please note that email correspondence with the City of Arroyo Grande,along with attachments,may be subject to the California Public Records Act,and therefore may be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt by law. Page 128 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 40. Response to:Sam Cotton (Letter Dated May 11,2018) 40.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on the previous successful temporary ramp closure and cost.Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA discuss impacts to traffic and conclude that under Alternative 1,traffic levels would be substantially improved throughout the project area in comparison to the No Build Alternative.The improvements proposed under Alternative 1 would be necessary to maintain improved traffic conditions in the future, in the event the Brisco Road ramps are closed. Regarding cost,the estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi- year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds).Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any other environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 129 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#41 Brisco From: Margie Gayley<msgayley@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,May 11,2018 10:22 AM To: jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov Cc: brisco;Jim Hill;Caren Ray;Tim Brown;Kristen Barneich;Barbara Harmon;Chuck Kass;Alicia Lara Subject: Briscoe Interchange My husband and I attended the City's public workshop on April 26'"concerning the Briscoe Interchange,during which the two existing alternatives were discussed..City officials requested feedback from Arroyo Grande residents concerning these alternatives. We are relatively new residents in Arroyo Grande(2 years);even in that short time,however,we have seen a striking change in the patterns and a corresponding increase in volume--and speed--of traffic going through the Briscoe interchange area,as well as surrounding neighborhoods. In considering the two alternatives,we placed them in context of the original goals and objectives and weighed both the relative benefits and the downsides.We firmly believe Alternative 1 would be preferable and alternative 4a should be rejected. Our main considerations are outlined below. 41.1 --Expense--Alternative 4c is twice as expensive as alternative 1,but the two alternatives are roughly comparable in meeting the original stated goals.The city will entail significant financial burden under either scenario,and its questionable that we can afford either.As such,(for comparable benefit)the cost alone should point us toward the less expensive alternative(i.e.,#1). --Neighborhood disruption--The roundabout proposed under alternative 4a will substantially increase the amount of disruption to the adjoining neighborhood --The overall footprint of the proposed roundabout is surprisingly large,making the adjoining area less safe 41.2 --The immediate neighborhood continues to grow.For example,earlier studies did not take into account the new housing development slated for the corner of Grace and Rodeo,which will complicate traffic patterns further --Proximity of St.Patrick's school—St.Patrick's is immediately adjacent to the proposed roundabout footprint under 4a.Currently,there is substantial traffic around the school twice per day as students are dropped off and picked up. This traffic volume has grown even since we've been in town,and contributes to the general congestion immediately 41.3 adjacent to any planned roundabout.Insertion of a roundabout will likely increase the dangers to the St.Patrick's community as well as to other motorists --Evolving Grace/James"throughway"--The traffic patterns on Rodeo and Grace continue to evolve,and traffic is increasing—both in volume and speed;a roundabout and its attendant traffic"flow"will add to the general congestion, not improve it. --More vehicles are now using James Way and Grace as throughways,with attendant increases in traffic load, 41.4 speed and road wear --There already are significant safety concerns with the Rodeo/Grace intersection,which will be exacerbated by the design proposed under 4a --Pedestrian traffic--We have a larger volume of pedestrians in the area than most realize.Many residents walk to the businesses off Branch in order to avoid driving amidst the current congestion.Its questionable whether a 41.5 roundabout will increase pedestrian safety in the area,unless substantial additional features are added,thereby increasing the cost even further. --Questionable benefits of(single)roundabouts—single Roundabouts can cause as many problems as they solve; their effectiveness is highly dependent on their design and size --It is highly questionable that a roundabout(by itself)will sufficiently retard traffic velocity and volume to ease the 41.6 traffic burden at the Briscoe underpass --In fact,a roundabout may make matters worse and more dangerous Page 130 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project --They often cause confusion among drivers,which can engender further dangers --We have experienced a number of roundabout introductions in other parts of the country.The introductory phase can result in substantial increases in vehicle dangers as motorists"learn"roundabout traffic patterns and adjust upon entering and upon leaving.How long would this"phase'last?Uncertain. 41.6 --Our experiences thus suggest that the impact of a roundabout on traffic speed and flow around the cont'd Briscoe interchange is not predictable,thereby causing other issues as traffic approaches the Briscoe interchange For these reasons,we strongly encourage the City to approve and implement alternative 1. John and Margie Gayley 443 Rodeo Drive Arroyo Grande 2 Page 131 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 41. Response to:John and Margie Gayley(Letter Dated May 11,2018) 41.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 and opposes Alternative 4C based on the expense and fiscal impact to the City.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds).Approximately $2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10- year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 41.2 This comment raises concerns regarding neighborhood disruption, the size of the proposed roundabout footprint, and the growth of adjacent residential areas further complicating traffic patterns.The IS/MND and EA considered cumulative growth and development within the City in analyzing potential impacts, including residential growth at Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive.Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane/West Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project area. The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives.The LOS and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval& Environmental Determination Phase(PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Page 132 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,June 7, 2017). 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative Intersection LOS No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps-Grace Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street B (Roundabout) 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing NBL Exceeds Storage by 100' No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps NBT Exceeds Storage by 100' SBT Exceeds Storage by 800' Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps Grace All Queues Within Storage Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street (Queues would be even shorter (Roundabout) than with a signalized intersection) Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street near Brisco Road.Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be affected. Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected decreased trips (-0.09%and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during the mid-day peak(+0.34%).The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very minor. Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after construction of Alternative 4C.This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with construction of Alternative 4C.Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C. The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses, and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan, and would result in less than significant impacts. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce Page 133 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive,think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users)with the low- speed roundabout designs.Alternative 4C would also improve pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the new interchange, providing safer connections for pedestrians through the project area. The new interchange is not expected to operate substantially different than the existing intersection. Under Alternative 4C,traffic levels would be improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Long-term traffic benefits under Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly at the Brisco Road/EI Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street intersections. In addition,Alternative 4C meets the stated project purpose of maintaining direct access from U.S. 101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. .Additional mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND and EA were included to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with St. Patrick's School and existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. With incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to St. Patrick's School and the surrounding neighborhoods would be less than significant. 41.3 This comment raises concerns about the project's proximity and safety implications to St. Patrick's School. See Response 41.2. This comment raises concerns about increased traffic speeds along Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive, the use of these streets as a "throughway", and safety concerns at the Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane intersection. See Response 41.2. Excess speed is an enforcement issue or a side effect of implementing an arbitrary speed limit without a traffic engineering survey. Otherwise the City can implement traffic calming measures to achieve the desired operating speed. A City-wide speed study was approved by City Council November 27, 2018. The speed study determined that the posted speed limit on Grace Lane remained unchanged at 35 miles per hour, which represents the 85th percentile.The Arroyo Grande Police Department is providing enforcement and is prepared to cite speed violators as allowed by the vehicle code.According to the City Police Department, observed speeds are definitely lower than the perceived 50 mph plus speeds being reported by residents. Regarding safety concerns,the US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane/West Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project area. The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives.The LOS and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval& Environmental Determination Phase(PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Page 134 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,June 7, 2017). 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative Intersection LOS No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps-Grace Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street B (Roundabout) 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing NBL Exceeds Storage by 100' No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps NBT Exceeds Storage by 100' SBT Exceeds Storage by 800' Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps Grace All Queues Within Storage Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street (Queues would be even shorter (Roundabout) than with a signalized intersection) Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street near Brisco Road.Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be affected. Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected decreased trips (-0.09%and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during the mid-day peak(+0.34%).The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very minor. Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after construction of Alternative 4C.This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with construction of Alternative 4C.Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C. 41.4 This comment raises a concern about pedestrian traffic. See Response 41.2.The cost of pedestrian improvements and implementation of all other mitigation requirements are included in the estimated project costs for both alternatives.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local Page 135 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 41.5 This comment raises concerns about the benefits of roundabouts.Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. The proposed roundabout, as designed,would be adequately sized to meet the traffic needs of the project area.Traffic throughout the project area would be substantially improved over No Build conditions, and slightly better than traffic conditions under Alternative 1.The project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan; therefore, impacts related to roundabout design and size would be less than significant. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive,think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users)with the low- speed roundabout designs.They are becoming more and more frequently used in the project vicinity and other areas. Page 136 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#42 Brisco From: Rod Hatch<rodhatch27@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,May 11,2018 5:07 PM To: brisco Subject: Interchange Modifications Project After reading the draft perhaps I missed another option,leaving the present on and off ramps alone except closing the n/b on ramp and keep the n/b off ramp open at Brisco.Was this option ever considered,and if so,why wasn't it 42.1 considered? I can't support 4c as I believe a roundabout would be too confusing to most drivers.I further believe alternative 1 has a major flaw by not having a off ramp between Grand Ave and Camino Mercado as was tried a few months ago. 42'2 Respectively, Rod Hatch 1321 Sierra Dr, Arroyo Grande 489 9264 Page 137 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 42. Response to:Rod Hatch (Letter Dated May 11,2018) 42.1 This comment suggests an additional alternative that would keep the northbound off-ramp open at Brisco Road while closing the northbound on-ramp. Caltrans policy prohibits isolated off-ramps. The City and Caltrans have discussed numerous project design alternatives over the last decade, many of which were determined to be infeasible due to geographical limitations or traffic conditions.Alternatives 1 and 4C have been evaluated extensively and determined to be feasible alternatives that would meet the project's purpose and need. As a result,these two build alternatives are being considered in this analysis to address the project objective of correcting existing operational deficiencies in the area. Closure of the northbound on-ramp at Brisco Road would not solve current or projected traffic issues in the project area. All intersections which would be directly modified by the Project or which could potentially experience a change in operations due to the Project were selected for analysis, per typical industry practices. The list of intersections to be included in the analysis was shared with and approved by the Project Development Team. The Project would potentially modify facilities along El Camino Real and West Branch Street between the US 101 south ramps just west of Oak Park Boulevard and Grand Avenue.Therefore, all major intersections within these limits were selected for evaluation.Any facilities outside these limits would not likely see a significant change in traffic operations due to the Project, and therefore were not included in the analysis. Fair Oaks Avenue is outside the limits of the Project improvements and has no direct local street connection to West Branch Street or El Camino Real, and therefore was not included in the analysis. 42.2 The commenter expresses opposition to Alternative 4C because the roundabout may be confusing to drivers and opposition to Alternative 1 because of the lack of access from U.S. 101. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive,think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users)with the low-speed roundabout designs. The IS/MND and EA recognize the benefit of Alternative 4C in maintaining direct access from U.S. 101 to the commercial/retail centers throughout the project area. Alternative 1 would not meet this project purpose, but the was determined that alternate routes were available to accommodate trips through the project area, particularly given the improvements in traffic flow that would occur under either alternative. Page 138 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#43 Brisco From: jandaport@aol.com Sent: Friday,May 11,2018 10:52 PM To: jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov;brisco;Jim Hill;Caren Ray;Tim Brown;Kristen Barneich;Barbara Harmon Cc: kassmanagement@sbcglobaLnet;ailara13@hotmail.com Subject: CONCERNED RESIDENT RE:BRISCO FREEWAY INTERCHANGE Dear Mr. Wilkinson and AG City Council: I have been a resident of AG for 28 years. I live in the Royal Oak neighborhood, off of Rodeo Drive. I am very concerned about the traffic congestion at Brisco Road and US 101. Last year's temporary closure of the north bound on and off ramps facilitated traffic flow that I haven't seen in all the years I have lived here. I was disappointed when the experiment was discontinued. Please give the Brisco freeway interchange careful consideration. The decisions you make regarding 43.1 this project will forever impact our neighborhood, nearby neighborhoods and the community at-large. Of the two alternatives approved by Caltrans, I encourage you to approve Alternative 1. I 43.2 Alternative 4C,with its new auxiliary lanes, roundabout, reconfigured intersections, Park and Ride Lot,will bring more traffic and congestion to the Royal Oak area and into my neighborhood-Rodeo 43.3 Drive, Grace Lane, Mercedes Lane and Emerald Bay Drive.A residential neighborhood is not an acceptable location for a roundabout and/or a Park and Ride Lot. Alternative 4C is projected to be more than twice the cost of Alternative 1. Knowing that the City of Arroyo Grande faces serious budget challenges over the coming years,Alternative 1 is the most cost 43.4 effective solution and it may be possible for the project to be completed in phases that will fit within our city's revenue and budget constraints. • Alternative 1 addresses the traffic congestion at Brisco Road. • Alternative 1 provides upgrades to Grand Avenue. • Alternative 1 provides upgrades to Calle Mercado. • Alternative 1 includes much needed sound walls along El Camino Real. 43.5 • Alternative 1 will decrease the traffic through the Royal Oak area and surrounding neighborhoods. Please approve Alternative 1. Respectfully, Andrea Portney 425 Emerald Bay Drive Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Page 139 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 43. Response to:Andrea Portney(Letter Dated May 11,2018) 43.1 The comment requests that careful consideration be given in choosing an alternative for the Brisco Road interchange, citing to the long-term effects the decision will have to surrounding neighborhoods.The comment does not directly relate to any other environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 43.2 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1.The comment does not directly relate to any other environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. This comment raises concerns over additional traffic related impacts resulting from Alternative 4C and states that a residential neighborhood is not an appropriate location for a roundabout or Park and Ride lot.Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane/West Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project area. The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives.The LOS and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval& Environmental Determination Phase(PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,June 7, 2017). 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative Intersection LOS No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps-Grace Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street B (Roundabout) Page 140 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing NBL Exceeds Storage by 100' No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps NBT Exceeds Storage by 100' SBT Exceeds Storage by 800' Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps Grace All Queues Within Storage Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street (Queues would be even shorter (Roundabout) than with a signalized intersection) Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street near Brisco Road.Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be affected. Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected decreased trips (-0.09%and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during the mid-day peak(+0.34%).The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very minor. Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after construction of Alternative 4C.This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with construction of Alternative 4C.Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C. The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan and would result in less than significant impacts. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive,think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users)with the low- speed roundabout designs.Alternative 4C would also improve pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the new interchange, providing safer connections for pedestrians through the project area. The new interchange is not expected to operate substantially different than the existing intersection. Under Alternative 4C,traffic levels would be improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Long-term traffic benefits under Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly at the Brisco Road/EI Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street intersections. In addition, Alternative 4C meets the stated project purpose of maintaining direct access from U.S. 101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area. In addition, Mitigation Page 141 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. With incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to St. Patrick's School and the surrounding neighborhoods would be less than significant.The proposed roundabout and Park and Ride lot would not be located in a neighborhood; they are proposed in a Public Facility zoned area adjacent to substantial commercial/retail uses along West Branch Street. 43.3 This comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on project cost.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is"reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any other environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. The commenter reiterates their preference for Alternative 1 citing several improvements proposed under that alternative (upgrades to Grand Avenue, upgrades to Camino Mercado, noise walls).The comment also states that Alternative 1 would reduce traffic trips through the Royal Oak Area off Rodeo Drive and surrounding neighborhoods. Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected decreased trips (-0.09%and - 0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during the mid-day peak (+0.34%). The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very minor. Page 142 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after construction of Alternative 4C.This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with construction of Alternative 4C.Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C. 43.4 Since Alternative 1 would eliminate the existing US 101 northbound ramps on Brisco Road, travel time between James Way and US 101 along Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane is projected to increase with construction of Alternative 1.Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 1. Page 143 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#44 Brisco From: Jeffrey Portney<jandaport4@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,May 11,2018 10:52 PM To: brisco;Jim Hill;Caren Ray;Tim Brown;Kristen Barneich;Barbara Harmon Cc: kassmanagement@sbcglobal.net;ailara13@hotmail.com;Jeffrey Portney Subject: Brisco Road interchange-Arroyo Grande resident input I have lived in the Royal Oaks neighborhood since 1990. The proposed changes to the Brisco Road interchange have a direct impact on my ability to commute to and from work, and to get around town on a daily basis. The number of inbound roads to this intercahnge,and limited access under the freeway have been a problem for many years.The ultimate solution to this interchange should be more lanes of Brisco Road in the freeway underpass. I appreciate the hard work of CalTrans and the Arroyo Grande City Council and staff in working to improve this bottleneck. Here is what I would prefer,as a local resident using the Brisco Road underpass every day. Of the options still under consideration,I prefer the Alternative 1 approach.During the test closure of the northbound on and off ramp at Brisco Road,the traffic flowed much more freely in the Brisco Road underpass.The 101 southbound Brisco Road offramp was less impacted and there was a much shorter wait time and transit time from the 101 44.1 southbound offramp to Rodeo Drive.The changes to the Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado on and off ramps should improve the traffic flow in the whole area. However,given the financial situation of Arroyo Grande,I do not think that commencing a large capital project to improve this roadway is prudent at this time.Therfore until the Arroyo Grande's finances are stabilized and can support 44.2 a large capital project,I recommend a No Build alternatie. I do not belive that the proposed roundabout will be benefical to area residents and others using the roadway.This alternative will take a large amount of land to build.Much of the traffic flowing through the West Branch-Rodeo Drive/ Grace Lane intersection is bound for the Village of Arroyo Grande.The Alternative 4C does nothing to improve the access to the Village of Arroyo Grande,and will put more stress on the West Branch-Grand Avenue-Larchmont 44.3 intersections.Having an on and off ramp at the Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane will increase the traffic though our residential area.I don't think that this proposed modification will provide any corresponding improvement to the Brisco Road underpass traffic.Certainly the benefits do not warrant the financial cost and envionmental impact of this option. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to this proposed improvement plan. Jeff Portney 425 Emerald Bay Dr. Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 Page 144 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 44. Response to:Jeff Portney(Letter Dated May 11,2018) 44.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on the temporary test closure of the northbound ramps at Brisco Road and traffic benefits that would result from the improvements at Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado proposed under Alternative 1.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 44.2 This comment expresses a preference for the No Build Alternative due to project costs.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 44.3 The comment expresses opposition to Alternative 4C based on the large roundabout footprint, lack of access improvements to the Village of Arroyo Grande, and increased traffic through Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive.Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA. The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane/West Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project area. Page 145 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan, and would result in less than significant impacts. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive,think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users)with the low- speed roundabout designs.Alternative 4C would also improve pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the new interchange, providing safer connections for pedestrians through the project area. The new interchange is not expected to operate substantially different than the existing intersection. Under Alternative 4C,traffic levels would be improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Long-term traffic benefits under Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly at the Brisco Road/EI Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street intersections. In addition,Alternative 4C meets the stated project purpose of maintaining direct access from U.S. 101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. With incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to St. Patrick's School and the surrounding neighborhoods would be less than significant. The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives.The LOS and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval& Environmental Determination Phase(PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,June 7, 2017). 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative Intersection LOS No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps-Grace Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street B (Roundabout) Page 146 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing NBL Exceeds Storage by 100' No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps NBT Exceeds Storage by 100' SBT Exceeds Storage by 800' Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps Grace All Queues Within Storage Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street (Queues would be even shorter (Roundabout) than with a signalized intersection) Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street near Brisco Road.Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be affected. Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected decreased trips (-0.09%and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during the mid-day peak(+0.34%).The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very minor. Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after construction of Alternative 4C.This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with construction of Alternative 4C.Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C. Page 147 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#45 Brisco From: Virginia Roof<vlr2@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday,May 12,2018 8:53 AM To: jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov;brisco Subject: Brisco projects comments Greetings&Thanks for your consideration. I live in the Village of Arroyo Grande. I drive through the Brisco tunnel 4 times/day for school drop-off and pick- up and I frequent the businesses in the WalMart shopping center. I absolutely support the closure of the Brisco off/on ramps to 101. Traffic flowed SO much better when the study was being conducted. I also DO NOT support the construction of a roundabout in that area. Please do not make my daily driving experience 45.1 more chaotic than it already is! The better of the two options is Alternative 1. As a follow-up, I would also urge you to consider extending the new proposed sidewalk further southwest up Brisco in front of Brisco Hardware in order to provide a safe walking route to Ocean View Elementary School for children.There are no sidewalks on either side of the street on Brisco in this location,making it a 45.2 dangerous place for children walking to Ocean View Elementary_ I understand there may be funding available from the Safe Routes to School Program to help improve the walking access to schools to encourage children to walk to school. Sincerely, Virginia Roof Get Outlook for Android Page 148 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 45. Response to: Virginia Roof(Letter Dated May 12,2018) The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 and closing of the Brisco Road ramps based on the traffic benefits during the temporary test ramp closure.The comment also states opposition to the proposed roundabout because it would make trips through the project area more chaotic.Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA.The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane/West Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project area. The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan, and would result in less than significant impacts. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive,think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users)with the low- speed roundabout designs.Alternative 4C would also improve pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the new interchange, providing safer connections for pedestrians through the project area. The new interchange is not expected to operate substantially different than the existing intersection. Under Alternative 4C,traffic levels would be improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Long-term traffic benefits under Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly at the Brisco Road/EI Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street intersections. In addition,Alternative 4C meets the stated project purpose of maintaining direct access from U.S. 101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. With incorporation of these measures, potential traffic and transportation-related effects would be less than significant. The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives.The LOS and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval& Environmental Determination Phase(PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,June 7, 2017). Page 149 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative Intersection LOS No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps-Grace Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street B (Roundabout) 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing NBL Exceeds Storage by 100' No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps NBT Exceeds Storage by 100' SBT Exceeds Storage by 800' Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps Grace All Queues Within Storage Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street (Queues would be even shorter (Roundabout) than with a signalized intersection) Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street near Brisco Road.Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be affected. Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected decreased trips (-0.09%and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during the mid-day peak(+0.34%).The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very minor. Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after construction of Alternative 4C.This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with construction of Alternative 4C.Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C. 45.1 The comment suggests additional sidewalk improvements to provide a safe walking route to Ocean View Elementary School.The purpose of the project is to correct exiting operational deficiencies at the northbound U.S. 101 northbound on-and off-ramps/Brisco Road intersection and nearby intersections by providing congestion relief, alleviating queuing, and improving the traffic operations of the regional and local street system. While the project is not intended to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities, the potential for project-related impacts to these facilities have been addressed. Mitigation Measures in the IS/MND (LU/mm-1 through LU/mm- 3) and the EA(TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8) incorporate various measures to improve multimodal connectivity and upgrade facilities for both bicyclist and pedestrians, including requirements Page 150 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project that the City improve connectivity to bike paths or lanes, and ensure bike and pedestrian circulation to serve schools and public facilities are made a priority consistent with policies in the City's Circulation Element. With incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to pedestrian and bike facilities, including those near Ocean View Elementary School, would be less than significant. Page 151 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#46 Mayor Jim Hill Mayor Pro Tern Caren Ray Council Member Tim Brown Council Member Kristen Barneich Council Member Barbara Harmon 215 East Branch Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 RE:Brisco Interchange Dear Members of the Arroyo Grande City Council, My husband and I have been residents of Arroyo Grande for 32 years.Over that time,our family has lived in three homes,on each side of the freeway,within a one-mile distance of the Brisco/Highway 101 interchange.Through the years,we have seen traffic congestion increase steadily along the Brisco/101 corridor and have had to deal with the infrastructure challenges of the Brisco Road underpass and surrounding streets. We are very concerned with the potential decision,regarding the Brisco interchange,which Caltrans and the City of Arroyo Grande will make in deciding the best option for our community.For that reason we feel it important that we provide you with our observations and opinion regarding the design alternatives being considered for the interchange.A solution to the traffic congestion should one that will have a positive effect on our neighborhoods and the community as a whole. We are in favor of design Alternative 1 for the following reasons: • The costs associated with Alternative 1 are significantly lower than Alternative 4C. • According to Arroyo Grande's website,the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$14 million,and the estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$23 million.It is very likely these 46.1 costs will be even higher as the project proceeds. • Based on the City of Arroyo Grande's 10-year fiscal forecast,there are serious budgetary challenges in the coming years and for that reason City Council should not consider Alternative 4C as a sound fiscal decision. • Alternative 4C will build closely spaced ramps on Highway 101 that will prove to be 146.2 problematic. Page 152 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project • Alternative 1 will have less impact on the neighborhoods associated with Rodeo Drive and Grace Lane. • Alternative 4C's creation of an on ramp and off ramp at Rodeo Drive will increase cars traveling along residential Grace Lane,which is already a speedway due to its quick access to James Way and Grace Bible Church. • A€ternative l's closure of the on ramp and off ramp at Brisco will route cars away from the Brisco underpass which proved successful in reducing traffic congestion when the 46.2 ramps were temporarily closed. conrd For these reasons we ask that Caltrans and the City of Arroyo Grande consider Alternative 1 as the best solution to address and alleviate the traffic congestion at Brisco Road and Highway 101.We feel strongly that Alternative 1 will improve the quality of life for all the residents of the associated neighborhoods on both sides of Highway 101,as well as all commuters traveling along the Highway 101 corridor. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, Theresa Schultz 417 Emerald Bay Drive Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 familyschultz417@gmail.com 805-714-5541 Page 153 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 46. Response to: Theresa Schultz(Letter Dated May 12,2018) 46.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on project costs.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is"reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 46.2 The comment also raises several traffic and safety concerns under Alternative 4C, including ramp spacing, neighborhood impacts along Rodeo Drive and Grace Lane, increased traffic through Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive, and the benefits ramp closure would have on the Brisco Road undercrossing.Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA.The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane/West Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project area. The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan, and would result in less than significant impacts. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce Page 154 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive,think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users)with the low- speed roundabout designs.Alternative 4C would also improve pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the new interchange, providing safer connections for pedestrians through the project area. The new interchange is not expected to operate substantially different than the existing intersection. Under Alternative 4C,traffic levels would be substantially improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Long-term traffic benefits under Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly at the Brisco Road/EI Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street intersections. Studies did not find that Alternative 1 would be more efficient in alleviating traffic through the Brisco Road undercrossing than Alternative 4C. In addition,Alternative 4C meets the stated project purpose of maintaining direct access from U.S. 101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. With incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to St. Patrick's School and the surrounding neighborhoods would be less than significant. The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives.The LOS and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval& Environmental Determination Phase(PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,June 7, 2017). 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative Intersection LOS No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps-Grace Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street B (Roundabout) 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing NBL Exceeds Storage by 100' No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps NBT Exceeds Storage by 100' SBT Exceeds Storage by 800' Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a Page 155 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project US 101 NB Ramps Grace All Queues Within Storage Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street (Queues would be even shorter (Roundabout) than with a signalized intersection) Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street near Brisco Road.Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be affected. Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected decreased trips (-0.09%and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during the mid-day peak(+0.34%).The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very minor. Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101,to anticipate future travel times within the project area both before and after proposed construction of Alternative 4C. This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 would not improve with construction of Alternative 4C.Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C. Page 156 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#47 Brisco From: Sue Stanton<vsstanton@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday,May 12,2018 8:33 AM To: brisco Subject: comment on Brisco interchange Brisco/Branch/EI Camino is a horrible intersection.A very busy traffic area.Congestion and bad signs make it difficult. People are still going straight in the left lane to Branch Street instead of turning left to highway 101.Drivers don't read the signs and they are not routed properly by the signs that aren't working.Drivers are turning right on the no turn on a red arrow fight on Brisco and El Camino.The Brisco traffic headed to Branch or the 101 are running the light.I'm surprised no one has been killed there.I am very careful,but see way too many near accidents.This is my main route to 47.1 Walmart,movie theatre,or any of the shopping on Branch Street from Halcyon,the area I drive from.I don't see police patrolling that area ever. You have a huge problem to solve and I don't know how you can fix it.Force a left turn onto highway 101 somehow or close it.Seemed better when you did close off some of the ramps. Thank you, Sue Stanton Arroyo Grande Page 157 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 47. Response to:Sue Stanton (Letter Dated May 12,2018) 47.1 This comment summarizes the current deficient and dangerous conditions at the U.S. 101 ramps/Brisco Road/West Branch Street and Brisco Road/EI Camino Real intersections and suggests the temporary ramp closures seemed to help the issues to some degree.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 158 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#48 Brisco From: Bob Hess<bhess3420@aol.com> Sent: Monday,May 14,20184:22 PM To: jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov Cc: brisco;Jim Hill;Caren Ray;Tim Brown;Kristen Barneich;Barbara Harmon Subject: Brisco Freeway Interchange Dear Mr.Wilkinson, My wife and I have lived in Arroyo Grande since 1989 and have seen development and traffic steadily increase.The traffic at the Rt. 101 north bound on and off ramps at Brisco Road has been an issue for the city and its residents for many of those years with many proposed fixes.The real problem is that there are only three(3)lanes under the freeway and four (4)would be required to really alleviate the problem.This would be extremely difficult and expensive to accomplish.There are currently three alternatives being considered:Alternative 1,Alternative 4C and no build.We are in favor of Alternative 48.1 1 for the following reasons. *The cost of Alternative 4C is currently estimated to be almost twice as much as Alternative 1 and the cost will certainly rise in the future.The city really can't afford to spend more money than necessary to solve this issue considering all the other budget demands. .If the city is depending on the gas tax to fund Alternative 4C,it would be prudent to wait until after the November election 48.2 to see if the tax is repealed by the voters. Alternative 4C will move the on/off ramps closer to the Grand Avenue on ramp and cause merging issues on the48.3 freeway. *Alternative 4C places a roundabout at the end of Rodeo Drive. Roundabouts have proven to be problematic for drivers in48.4 other locations and especially when combined with a freeway on/off ramp. *Traffic congestion in this area was significantly reduced when the on/off ramps were closed for a year as a test.Traffic on Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive,two residential streets,was also reduced during this period. Drivers used other available 48.3 on/off ramps with no indication of additional or unforeseen problems. We therefore request that Caltrans and the city of Arroyo Grande endorse Alternative 1 as the best and most cost48.6 effective solution to the traffic congestion at the Brisco Road under-crossing. Respectfully, Robert and Julia Hess Page 159 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 48. Response to:Robert and Julia Hess(Letter Dated May 14,2018) 48.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 and opposition to Alternative 4C based on the expense and fiscal impact to the City.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is $22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is$12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 48.2 This comment asks whether the gas tax will be relied on to fund Alternative 4C. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande.The City recognizes repeal of the gas tax was voted on in the November elections and failed.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 48.3 This comment raises concerns about moving the on/off-ramps closer to Grand Avenue under Alternative 4C and creating possible merging issues.Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA.These analyses included an evaluation of freeway mainline operations and mainline weaving (merging with on-and off-ramps). Under both build alternatives mainline weaving operations would be Page 160 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project improved over No Build conditions. No change to mainline operations would occur under either alternative. 48.4 This comment raises concerns about roundabouts and potential safety hazard. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive,think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users)with the low-speed roundabout designs.They are becoming more and more frequently used in the project vicinity and other areas, including in combination with a freeway on-and/or off-ramp. 48.5 This comment refers to traffic benefits realized during temporary ramp closures and reduced trips on Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive.Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA discuss impacts to traffic and conclude that under Alternative 1,traffic levels would be substantially improved throughout the project area in comparison to the No Build Alternative.The improvements proposed under Alternative 1 would be necessary to maintain improved traffic conditions in the future, in the event the Brisco Road ramps are closed. Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected decreased trips (-0.09%and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during the mid-day peak(+0.34%).The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very minor. Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after construction of Alternative 4C.This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with construction of Alternative 4C.Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C. Since Alternative 1 would eliminate the existing US 101 northbound ramps on Brisco Road, travel time between James Way and US 101 along Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane is projected to increase with construction of Alternative 1. Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 1. 48.6 The comment reiterates a preference for Alternative 1. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 161 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#49 From:Danny Gresser(mailto:danny@cwproduce.com] Sent:Monday,May 07,2018 11:47 AM To:brisco@arroyogrande,org;Wilkinson,Jason J@DOT<iason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov> Cc:cray@arroyogrande.org;tbrown@arroyogrande.org;kbarneich@arroyogrande.org;bharmon@arroyogrande.org Subject:brisco interchange Good morning, My name is Danny Gresser I live at 280 Grace Ln. I have voiced my opinion very much against 4C,I have requested and still have yet to see the upside to even considering 4c. Nobody has provided any positive points as to why 4c would be an option other than it's just"an option" I just came across this diagram stating that 4C is$15MM more than option 1. I can't believe that 4c is even on the table with this gap in money considering the fiscal issues our community is in 49.1 currently and getting worse over the next 5 years. • 4C looks to be a nightmare for my community and street where I live,it only makes sense to"beef"up the existing on and offs as stated in option 1 vs making a whole new set of issues with option 4C including but not limited to: • New congestion near an elementary school and all the scary things that come about with a public bus stop in front of an elementary school. 49'2 • The Speeding of cars in front of an already congested elementary school and the amount of fast traffic that will49.3 now use Grace Ln as a throughway up to James way. • Grace In is already dangerous for the houses there with traffic continuously passing in the 40+MPH range. I have a speedo in front of my house and I watch it when they pass...very rarely is anyone under the speed 49.4 limit. I'm not the only house on the street with little kids. We all have voiced our concerns about the fast driving. • The pure costs alone and the fiduciary duty to the taxpayers.Tthe city council and all people making the49.5 ultimate decision on this project should clearly be option 1 or no change at all. • I invite any and all replies for anyone that can explain as to why option 4C is really an option at at. 149.6 Thank you Dg IBRISCO INTERCHANGE Estimated COSTS Estimated _____."Stated"IOBUILD cost Previous "SUNK"Estimated Engineering cost Land acquisition cost Estimated TOTAL (from last meeting) cost (indirect and COST direct) 1 $ 9,000,000.00 S 5,000,000.00 $ 1,300,000.00 $ 1,500,000.00 $ 17,000,000.00 4C $ 21,000,000.00 $ 5,000,000.00 $ 3,500,000.00 $ 3,000,000.00 5 32,500,000.00 No $ -$ _ $ -$ -$ - Build Dann Gresser CENTRAL NS DUCE Office:(805)925-2481 Cell:(813)541-1879 Fax:(805)928-8269 www.centralwestproduce.com Page 162 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 49. Response to:Danny Gresser(Letter Dated May 7,2018) 49.1 The comment questions what the benefits of Alternative 4C are and expresses opposition to Alternative 4C based on project costs and neighborhood impacts along Grace Lane.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 49.2 This comment raises a concern about neighborhood impacts along Grace Lane and new congestion near the school.Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA.The US 101 Ramps-Grace Lane/West Branch Street roundabout intersection proposed as part of Alternative 4C would substantially improve traffic and circulation at all project area intersections over No Build conditions and provide the best level of service (LOS) and queueing operations of the alternatives analyzed while not resulting in a large change in travel routes through the project area.Alternative 4C would also improve pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the new interchange, providing safer connections for pedestrians through the project area.The new interchange is not expected to operate substantially different than the existing intersection. Under Alternative 4C,traffic levels would be consistent the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Long-term traffic benefits under Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly at the Brisco Road/EI Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street Page 163 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project intersections. In addition,Alternative 4C meets the stated project purpose of maintaining direct access from U.S. 101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. The following tables compare LOS and Queueing results for the US 101 Ramps intersection near Brisco Road/Rodeo Drive under 2035 design year conditions for all Project Alternatives.The LOS and queueing values below were obtained from the Project Approval& Environmental Determination Phase(PA&ED) Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers, September 7, 2012) and the Roundabout Traffic Operations Analysis Memorandum (Wood Rodgers,June 7, 2017). 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour Level of Service Alternative Intersection LOS No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps D Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps-Grace Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street B (Roundabout) 2035 (Design Year) Peak Hour 95th Percentile Queuing Alternative Intersection 95th Percentile Queuing NBL Exceeds Storage by 100' No Build Brisco Road/US 101 NB Ramps NBT Exceeds Storage by 100' SBT Exceeds Storage by 800' Alternative 1 Does Not Exist n/a US 101 NB Ramps Grace All Queues Within Storage Alternative 4C Lane/West Branch Street (Queues would be even shorter (Roundabout) than with a signalized intersection) Alternative 4C would maintain a connection between US 101 northbound and West Branch Street near Brisco Road.Therefore, regional travel routes to/from the Brisco Road area would not be affected. Omni-Means completed a before/after traffic study for the ramp closure. Peak hour turning movement counts collected at the intersection of West Branch Street/Rodeo Drive reflected decreased trips (-0.09%and -0.03%) during the AM and PM peak hours, but increased trips during the mid-day peak(+0.34%).The changes in trip counts before and after the traffic study are very minor. Page 164 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Travel time analysis was performed as part of the PA&ED Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis Memorandum for several routes between James Way and US 101, before and after construction of Alternative 4C.This analysis determined that the travel times of routes which took Rodeo Drive/Grace Lane to travel between James Way and US 101 did not improve with construction of Alternative 4C.Therefore, Rodeo Drive is not projected to experience a noticeable increase in cut-through traffic due to Alternative 4C. 49.3 This comment raises a concern about speeding along Grace Lane and use of Grace Lane and Rodeo Drive as a "throughway" to James Way. Excess speed is an enforcement issue or a side effect of implementing an arbitrary speed limit without a traffic engineering survey. Otherwise the City can implement traffic calming measures to achieve the desired operating speed. A City- wide speed study was approved by City Council November 27, 2018.The speed study determined that the posted speed limit on Grace Lane remained unchanged at 35 miles per hour, which represents the 85th percentile.The Arroyo Grande Police Department is providing enforcement and is prepared to cite speed violators as allowed by the vehicle code.According to the City Police Department, observed speeds are definitely lower than the perceived 50 mph plus speeds being reported by residents. 49.4 This comment raises a concern about speeding traffic in nearby neighborhoods. See Response 49.2 and 49.3. 49.5 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 based on project costs. Refer to Response to 49.1 for comments related to project cost.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 49.6 The comment asks why Alternative 4C is still being considered as an option. Refer to Response 49.1. Page 165 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#50 COMMENTS ON THE CFTV OF BRISCO-HALCYON ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS PROJECT The City welcomes public input on this important project. In particular,we are seeking t`^ comment in the following categories;however,please feel free to comment on any project component: • Content of the Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration; • Preference for Alternative 1 or 4C for the project; • Preference for sound wallsoneither alternative. Comments may be provided to brlsco(r�arrovoorande.orq or to the mailing address on the reverse side of this comment card prior to the close of the public comment period on May-12,2018. Additionally,the City will hold a public hearing on the project in the coming months to provide further opportunities for public testimony.Information regarding the public hearing will be posted on the City's website at www.arrovoarande.orq and at City Hall. - ce_ it , - err) tv'-e- eqv th IVdr rp r t7 150.1 . jtaevIP orev1 For rVein/ - hnun.� a - �-r- s 1 �'i�tdtV_y . rr✓t rl 0 e, v cc a r'a i c C rr4I , red/6..103 -b S t'I Pt.5 P n r trr- &tea r,r 50.2 e. f 1 ' fn, ivtSrA bYk � NAME: ! G I S,'7QQ r� EMAIL: 5✓J47uFc•4wg- .1 1>D: tv✓!'J ADDRESS: Z fMEM PHONE: C5o5) 7VO'"9y ei CITY: is — STATE: --- ZIP: Page 166 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 50. Response to:Brad Snook(Letter Dated April 26,2018) 50.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 50.2 The comment expresses a preference for new Northbound off-ramps.The comment questions the necessity of a roundabout suggests utilizing stop signs at West Branch Street instead.The City and Caltrans have discussed numerous project design alternatives over the last decade, many of which were determined to be infeasible due to geographical limitations or traffic conditions.Alternatives 1 and 4C have been evaluated extensively and determined to be feasible alternatives that would meet the project's purpose and need. As a result,these two build alternatives are being considered in this analysis to address the project objective of correcting existing operational deficiencies in the area.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 167 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#51 From:Ashley B<ashleybeene cr gmail.com> Date:April 26,2018 at 2:46:49 PM PDT To:<jhill r arroyogrande.ore>,<kbarneich cr,arroyogrande.org>,<bharmon(alarroyogrande.org> Subject:Brisco Road Interchange Dear Arroyo Grande City Council, Please,keep some on-and off-ramps in our neighborhood. We live on Brisco Road and we can see the Brisco overpass from our home. When we purchased our home nine years ago we were aware that there would be vehicles traveling on our street to get to and under the highway. We are comfortable and welcoming of that fact since we too benefit from the easy access to the highway. All of Arroyo Grande benefits from the Brisco ramps. Many Five Cities residents must drive miles before they reach the highway. There are too few on-and off-ramps and removing access at Brisco/Halcyon will only make congestion at Oak Park,Camino Mercado and Grand worse. I have attended every traffic commission meeting regarding Brisco Road and the 101. When the Brisco ramps were closed,the rating for Brisco improved;however,everywhere else took 51.1 a nose dive. Traffic backed up on weekday mornings at the Grand Ave off-ramp;travelers could wait through more that one light to get on at Camino Mercado and Oak Park was a mess during and after construction. The ratings of these three areas show how poorly they all did while Brisco had an increase. Should all of these areas take a hard hit so that Brisco can have a slight reprieve? We moved here knowing we would live along a traffic corridor. The traffic study did not take into account all of the increased traffic going through intersections like Courtland and Oak Park with Grand;only 51.2 intersections closer to the highway. Closing Brisco had ripple effects that stretched over a mile from here and its negative impacts were not fully documented. Also consider the amount of delayed traffic people will experience as they deal with the construction zones. The roundabout will have the least amount of traffic impact as it can be constructed without closing previously active traffic lanes,like ones on the 101,West Branch and Grand that will have to be 51.3 closed for periods during construction. If the decision is to abandon efforts to better Brisco and pour money in to Grand and Camino Mercado, than at least keep Brisco open until construction in the other areas is complete,please. 51.4 I truly hope you choose to keep Brisco as-is or opt for the roundabout alternative option on the other side of the highway. My husband and I both drive at ourjobs. We see the nuances of traffic light signal orders 151.5 and useful distinctions between straight,turn-only and combo lanes. Brisco at El Camino Real can be improved by making the two northbound lanes straight-turn combo lanes. While the number two turn right lane is generally empty,the number one left turn-straight lane 51.6 gets backed up. Dividing the straight traffic over two lanes will help alleviate traffic for drivers attempting to get through the light. Stop by any day to see the intersection at 3:00 when Oceanview is getting out. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kindly, Ashley Page 168 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project PS:The email links on the city webpage do not work for council members Ray and Brown. If you would share this with them,I would appreciate it. Thank you! Page 169 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 51. Response to:Ashley Beene(Letter Dated April 26,2018) 51.1 The comment states that ramp removal will worsen congestion at other intersections in the City. Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA.The IS/MND and EA concluded that under Alternative 1,traffic levels would generally be improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan.The traffic analysis conducted for the project determined that any increase in traffic at adjacent ramp intersections due to the closure of ramps at Brisco Road would be adequately accommodated by the improvements proposed under Alternative 1 at the Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado ramp intersections; therefore, no significant congestion at adjacent intersections would result from the closure of Brisco Road ramps once those improvements are constructed. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. Both build alternatives would improve traffic in the project area; however, only Alternative 4C would retain direct access from U.S. 101 at Brisco Road. 51.2 The comment states the traffic study should have taken into account increased traffic going through intersections like Courtland and Oak Park with Grand.Traffic related impacts were analyzed in a Technical Memorandum: Traffic Forecasting and Operations Analysis conducted by Wood Rodgers and further discussed in Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA.The study area intersections were identified through a preliminary assessment of area traffic conditions, and through coordination between Caltrans and The City of Arroyo Grande. All intersections which would be directly modified by the Project or which could potentially experience a change in operations due to the project were selected for analysis, per typical industry practices.The list of intersections to be included in the analysis was shared with and approved by the Project Development Team. Study area intersections were selected based on the potential for the project to result in measurable changes in traffic conditions at a specific intersection.The intersections closest to the proposed freeway/roadway improvements would experience the greatest change in traffic conditions and were identified for further study. Intersections located further away from the project improvements would experience a less measurable change because the change in traffic conditions would disperse and normalize at intersections further from the project improvements. 51.3 The comment states that construction of a roundabout under Alternative 4C will have the least amount of traffic impact during project construction.The commenter's preference for the roundabout proposed under Alternative 4C is noted. Both the MND and EA consider the impacts of project construction on traffic congestion. While short-term construction activities would cause increased congestion throughout the area,these impacts would be short-term and minimized to the extent feasible through identified avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and compliance with standard City and Caltrans policies (MND, pg. 93; EA, pg. 163) Page 170 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 51.4 The comment requests that, if Alternative 1 is approved,the ramps at Brisco Road should be kept open until construction at adjacent intersections is complete. Mitigation Measure PS/mm-2 requires preparation of a Construction Timing, Access, and Circulation Plan that includes methods for ensuring permanent access to the commercial/retail centers north of the Brisco Road/US 101 interchange is preserved and/or improved to the maximum extent feasible through implementation of the proposed project.The comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 51.5 The comment states a preference for Alternative 4C (the roundabout alternative).The commenter's preference for Alternative 4C is noted.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 51.6 The comment suggests making the two northbound lanes at Brisco Road/EI Camino Real straight-turn combo lanes.As part of the project development process, representatives from the City of Arroyo Grande and the California Department of Transportation Caltrans followed a process of screening alternatives to identify alternatives to be carried forward for further study in the environmental document(EA, pg. 18). Numerous variations of different build alternatives have been developed for the project over the 15-year planning phase of the project. The project has undergone an extensive planning process and many design alternatives have been considered. Many variations of five different project alternatives have been previously evaluated through a preliminary comparison of each alternative against several major project criteria. Major project features used for alternative evaluation include projected traffic effects, project cost,feasibility of project design, and potential environmental impacts. Most build alternatives were found to be infeasible due to geographical limitations at the site (i.e., not enough space to design required road improvements) or unresolved traffic issues (i.e.,the alternatives either created conditions that caused additional congestion or failed to ease the existing and projected future congestion levels that necessitated this project). During this extensive planning process and development of the Project Study Report, several designs were developed to provide comprehensive improvements to the regional and local street system in the vicinity of U.S. 101 in the City of Arroyo Grande. Both alternatives carried forward for further study (Alternatives 1 and 4C) would restripe the Brisco Road/EI Camino Road intersection as part of the comprehensive improvements to the regional and local street system. Although neither alternative would restripe the northbound lanes of Brisco Road, both alternatives would substantially improve traffic conditions at project area intersections (EA, pg. 69). Page 171 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#52 From:''Wilkinson,Jason J@DOT"<jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov> Date:May 3,2018 at 10:07:30 AM PDT To:Trisha<tcoffey@hotmail.com> Subject:Re:Public Comment for the Brisco-Halcyon Road Hello Trish, Thank you for your comment and we will note your preference for Alternative 1.We will include your comment as part of the public record with a response in the Final Environmental Document. If you have any further comments please feel free to contact me. Regards, Jason Wilkinson Sent from my iPhone On May 3,2018,at 9:10 AM,Trisha<tcoffey@hotmail.com>wrote: All- The better of the two options is Alternative 1. 152.1 Please extend the new proposed sidewalk further southwest up Brisco in front of Brisco Hardware in order to provide a safe walking route to Ocean View Elementary School for children.There are no sidewalks on either side of the street on Brisco in this location making it 52.2 a dangerous place for children walking to Ocean View Elementary. I understand there may be funding available from the Safe Routes to School Program to help improve the walking access to schools to encourage children to walk to school. Sincerely, Trisha Coffey 360 Miller Way 805-474-4008 Page 172 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 52. Response to: Trisha Coffey(Letter Dated May 3,2018) 52.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 52.2 The comment requests that the proposed sidewalk be extended further southwest up Brisco Road to provide a safe walking route to Ocean View Elementary School.The purpose of the project is to correct exiting operational deficiencies at the northbound U.S. 101 northbound on- and off-ramps/Brisco Road intersection and nearby intersections by providing congestion relief, alleviating queuing, and improving the traffic operations of the regional and local street system. While the project is not intended to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities,the potential for project-related impacts to these facilities have been addressed. Mitigation Measures in the IS/MND (LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3) and the EA(TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8) incorporate various measures to improve multimodal connectivity and upgrade facilities for both bicyclist and pedestrians, including requirements that the City improve connectivity to bike paths or lanes, and ensure bike and pedestrian circulation to serve schools and public facilities are made a priority consistent with policies in the City's Circulation Element. With incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to pedestrian and bike facilities, including those near Ocean View Elementary School, would be less than significant. The City may elect to consider pedestrian improvements at this location as part of a different project. Page 173 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#53 From:Judith Hughes[mailto:lmmh38@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,May 10,2018 4:03 PM To:Wilkinson,Jason J@DDT<jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov> Cc:Judith hughes<jmmh38@gmail.com>;ailara13@hotmail.com Subject:The Brisco ramp etc Jason, I have gone over and over in my mind about this. Why would anyone think of having a freeway entrance so close to a school.? Has this not been considered because it is a private school? I live on 53.1 this street and I know how many times there are cars parked up and down the street because of games and other events and often one sees kids coming out between the cars. We are all careful because we are aware. I doubt that would be the case if it were a ramp in that vicinity. Second, why the necessity I to have ramps so close together. I noticed little impact when the ramp was closed(no matter what the 53.2 stores said). Third,why would you consider impacting a nice neighborhood of our city. Option 1 impacts no neighborhood,no school and hurts no one. Royal Oaks neighborhood has already had to put in speed bumps,which are undesirable enough,to protect the children of the neighborhood. Can't we count on our officials who represent us to do the RIGHT thing? People are the consideration here,not 53.3 money,not stores, just nice people. Thank you, Judith Hughes. Just in case you missed it, option one (1)is the answer. Sent from my iPad Page 174 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 53. Response to:Judith Hughes(Letter Dated May 10,2018) 53.1 The comment expresses concern over the proposed roundabout intersection being so close to St. Patrick's School under Alternative 4C and expresses a preference for Alternative 1.The City coordinated with St. Patrick's School during the planning process and the IS/MND and EA evaluated the potential for project-related impacts on St. Patrick's School.Additional mitigation measures were identified in the IS/MND and EA were included to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with St. Patrick's School and existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible. With incorporation of these measures, potential impacts related to circulation and connection to St. Patrick's School would be less than significant. 53.2 The comment expresses concern that the proximity of the proposed ramps on Grace Lane to the on-and off-bound ramps at Grand Avenue provides no benefit and may impact neighborhoods and schools. As part of the project development process, representatives from the City of Arroyo Grande and the California Department of Transportation Caltrans followed a process of screening alternatives to identify alternatives to be carried forward for further study in the environmental document. Numerous variations of different build alternatives have been developed for the project over the 15-year planning phase of the project. Based on a lengthy analysis of the project alternatives under the identified criteria,Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C are being carried forward for review because they best meet the project's purpose and need through the 2035 design year, including the identified project purpose of"providing direct access from U.S. 101 to and from the commercial, governmental, and recreational facilities along West Branch Street". Alternatives 1 and 4C were also found to be feasible within the geographical limitations at the site (i.e.,there is enough space to design the required road improvements) and would successfully resolve identified traffic issues (i.e., the alternatives did not create conditions that caused additional congestion or fail to ease the existing and projected future congestion levels that necessitated this project). Mitigation Measures in the IS/MND (LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3) and the EA(TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8) incorporate various measures to improve multimodal connectivity and upgrade facilities for both bicyclist and pedestrians, including requirements that the City improve connectivity to bike paths or lanes, and ensure bike and pedestrian circulation to serve schools and public facilities are made a priority consistent with policies in the City's Circulation Element. 53.3 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 175 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#54 From:Hull,Robert F@DOT Sent:Tuesday,May 08,2018 2:47 PM To:Wilkinson,Jason J@DOT<jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov> Subject:Public Comments on Briscoe Road Interchange Project I am Bob Hull.I am a resident of Arroyo Grande and would like to submit the following comments on the Briscoe Road Interchange Project: 1. I favor the No-Build Alternative. 154.1 2. The traffic analysis uses the year 2035.The construction year is 2022.Therefore,the Design Year is 2042.This year discrepancy needs to be addressed. 54.2 3. Purpose and Need states that the"interchanges are forecast to deteriorate to unacceptable levels of service by the year 2020."This is only two years away.The Design Year should be 2042, 54.3 not 2020. 4. Funding.This project is only partially funded.Need to identify the funding required for the 154.4 whole project,including the source of funds. 5. Cost:page 17 of the EA has only the capital cost of each alternative.The total cost,including 154.5 support needs to be shown,as shown in the Project Report. 6. Public Comment Period.At the May 12,2018 Public Workshop,a city official or city staff member stated that there would be"Public Hearings"after May 12.This is not correct.Input 54.6 cannot be received after the close of the public comment period. 7. Farmland Impacts:In the IS/MND page 97,it states the mitigation of the farmland take will be mitigated by either the acquisition of an agricultural or conservation easement or the payment of fees.Should identify which mitigation alternative is selected.The acquisition of an agricultural 54.7 or conservation easement could have impacts that should be reported in the final document. The payment of fees should be in the cost of the project. 8. Risk Management Plan(DPR),Risk#6 states that an ISA will be performed during PS&E.An ISA 154.8 should have already been performed. 9. Alternative 4C:It appears that the reconstructed entrance to the Library from the realigned Branch is too short to accommodate the difference in elevation.In other words,the driveway I 54.9 would be too steep.Has the profile been evaluated? 10. Soundwalls: a) I do not want soundwalls. 54.10 b) The document is unclear if soundwalls are warranted. c) Soundwalls will create a visual impact.It appears that this visual impact was not considered in the document.Soundwalls are also a magnet for graffiti.The freeway side will not have a 154.11 landscape screen,so this creates an impact also. d) In the EA,it states that three noise barriers were evaluated.(page 139)The figures label only Noise Barrier 1 and 2.Need to label Noise Barrier 3.The reference in text should be to a noise 54.12 barrier number to be consistent with the Figures. e) In the EA,it states that the feasibility of noise abatement has been analyzed from a cost perspective,but the results of that analysis is not given.(page 139) 154.13 f) First paragraph on page 143,states there was a wall evaluated in front of St.Patrick's.Where is this wall?(not shown)Same paragraph states the city will incorporate soundwalls,when the first 154.14 sentence states they are not warranted. g) It appears that soundwalls are not fully required by the project.Either the document or at the May 12,2018 Public Workshop,it states that"input could require soundwalls".Is this the 54.15 Page 176 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project criteria?If so,what efforts have taken to receive input from the entire community,not just from I 54.15 adjacent residents? I cont'd h) Page 33 Table 2.1-4,LU12-3.2 states that noise barriers are"Not consistent"with LU policy. 154.16 Should this be"Consistent"?If not,then why are they being considered? Bob Hull 950 Huasna Rd.,#13 Arroyo Grande,CA 90420 Page 177 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 54. Response to:Robert Hull(Letter Dated May 8,2018) 54.1 The comment expresses a preference for the No Build Alternative.The No Build Alternative was evaluated in the EA;the No Build Alternative would not provide any transportation improvements and would not meet the project's purpose and need.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 54.2 The comment inquires if 2035 is the appropriate study year for the traffic analysis and suggests that 2042 would be the appropriate Design Year.The Year 2035 was selected as the appropriate design year for analysis of potential traffic impacts because it represents the yeas that the City anticipates reaching build out under the City's General Plan. After reaching build-out, growth and development would slow to a rate that offers limited additional information for the modeling of traffic impacts. Further, any growth assumptions beyond 2035 would be highly speculative as there would be no planning guidelines on which to generate accurate model assumptions. 54.3 The comment suggests that the design year should be 2042 because we are rapidly approaching the year 2020.As discussed above, the design year of 2035 was selected because the projections in the General Plan allow for the development of reasonable assumptions on which to model project impacts.Any assumptions used to model project impacts beyond the build-out identifies in the City's General Plan would be speculative, which would require the development of unsound assumptions that could result in highly inaccurate impact findings. 54.4 The comment requests that all funding to complete the whole project be identified.The discussion in the MND and EA evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project as a whole. Both the MND and EA have been revised to clearly identify project components that would need to be deferred until additional funding could be programmed.These components include the physical improvements to the US 101/Grand Avenue interchange under both alternatives, and the soundwalls proposed under Alternative 4C. Further, the MND and EA have been revised to provide independent utility analyses which confirm the independent utility of the improvements to be phased and evaluate potential impacts that may occur during interim period before the phased improvements can be completed. The City has also confirmed funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi- year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds).Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local Page 178 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. 54.5 The comment requests that the EA disclose the total project cost, not just the capital cost of each alternative. Neither CEQA or NEPA require a project's cost to be considered in the evaluation of potential environmental impacts, although the Caltrans PA& ED process requires the identification of funding required for the whole project (see response to Comment 54.5 above).The estimated project costs can be located in the publicly available Project Report.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 54.6 The comment expresses concern that public hearings would not be held and that public comments cannot be provided after May 12, 2018.The Draft MND and EA were made available for public comment for a 30-day period between April 12, 2018 and May 11, 2018. Written comments received during this period have been formally responded to in writing in the Final MND and EA. In addition, several public hearings have been held subsequent to the public comment periods for the MND and EA;these public hearings have provided additional opportunity for public comment on the project and the findings of the MND and EA.The most recent of these public hearing was a City Council meeting on March 26, 2019, at which time public comments were received and the City Council selected Alternative 4C as the Locally Preferred Alternative. Additional public hearings (e.g., City Council meetings)will be held to certify the Final MND, per the requirements of CEQA.At these public hearings, additional opportunity will be provided to comment on the project and its potential environmental impacts. 54.7 The comment requests that the specific Farmland mitigation be selected and evaluated in the MND and EA, and the environmental impacts of the mitigation should be evaluated.The comment further requests that the payment of fee be included in the cost of the project.The cost of environmental mitigation (including mitigation for farmland impacts) is included in the project costs identified in the Project Report.As allowed by Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B), CEQA permits the lead agency to develop the specific details of a mitigation measure after project approval provided that specific performance standards are identified and the types of actions that can feasibly achieve the performance standards. Since Mitigation Measure AG/mm-1 identifies specific performance standards and the types of actions that can achieve the standards, the City as the lead agency, has the discretion to develop the specific details following project approval. Section 15126.4(a)(1)(D) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the effects of a mitigation measure be evaluated if it would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be cause by the project.Typically,the physical implementation of a project results in potentially significant impacts.The dedication of a conservation easement on already existing agricultural lands would not be expected to result in potentially significant Page 179 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project impacts on the environment. Similarly,the payment of in-lieu fees would result in no physical impact on the environment. 54.8 The comment says that an ISA should have already been prepared during the PS&E.As identified in Draft MND Section VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, a Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment was prepared by Haro Environmental in 2017 for the project. Please refer to the Draft MND for the findings of the Initial Site Assessment. 54.9 The comment expresses concern that the entrance to library is too short to accommodate the difference in elevation, resulting in an overly steep driveway.This has been evaluated as part of the project and it is estimated that the driveway slope would be increased from 10%to approximately 12%to 14%and would extend to the end of the existing driveway.The driveway would be reconstructed at the new profile grade. In final design there is potential for minor reconstruction at the library's circulating roadway although realignment of the circulating roadway is not anticipated.As stated in Draft MND Section XVI. Transportation/Traffic, project design would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan.Therefore, no dangerous design components would occur. Further, Alternative 4C proposed the construction of a left-turn lane for the eastbound West Branch Street approach to the Arroyo Grande Library/South County Regional Center driveway,thus improving access to the library. 54.10 The comment expresses opposition to soundwalls and states that the document is unclear if soundwalls are warranted.The commenters opposition is noted and will be provided to decision-makers for their consideration in project approval. On March 26, 2019, the City Council selected Alternative 4C as the Locally Preferred Alternative. As discussed in Draft MND Section 2. Project Description,Alternative 4C proposes the construction of soundwalls on the southbound side of US 101 between the Oak Park Boulevard Interchange and Stonecrest Drive and between the Halcyon Road on-ramp and the Grand Avenue off-ramp. Soundwalls are no longer being considered under Alternative 1. Per Caltrans standard procedures,the majority of polled community members indicated that they wanted the soundwalls to be constructed; this improvement would be phased to a later date as funding becomes available. Please refer to the redline revisions of the MND and EA for a more detailed description of proposed soundwalls. 54.11 The comment expresses concern that the soundwalls will result in a visual impact that was not evaluated in the environmental document and that the soundwalls will result in a negative visual impact through graffiti and a lack of landscaping. As discussed in Draft EA, Section 2.1.7, Visual/Aesthetics,three key viewing area (KVA) locations were identified to evaluate the aesthetic impacts of the project alternatives, including the proposed soundwalls. As concluded therein,the soundwalls would not result in a significant impact to visual resources. Soundwalls would only be constructed on the south side of U.S. 101 and would be located at an elevation of approximately 12-17 feet higher than the elevation of U.S. 101, so views to the north would be unaffected by the soundwalls and views to the south would only be minimally impacted from U.S. 101. To address the potential for graffiti and improve the appearance of the proposed soundwalls, Draft MND Mitigation Measure LU/mm-6 requires the preparation of a solid wall design and landscape plan,that requires among other items, an aesthetic and graffiti proof treatment consistent with the surrounding visual character and setting, and various requirements for the provision of landscaping and plant materials. Page 180 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 54.12 The comment requests that Noise Barrier 3 be labeled in EA.As shown in Draft EA Figures 2.2-8 to 2.2-10,the potential noise abatement of all three noise barrier locations are depicted and evaluated in the Draft EA. However, it is important to note that soundwalls were evaluated at these three locations to provide a hypothetical analysis of their effectiveness if implemented. On March 26, 2019,the City Council selected Alternative 4C as the Locally Preferred Alternative. Alternative 4C proposes the construction of soundwalls on the southbound side of US 101 between the Oak Park Boulevard Interchange and Stonecrest Drive and between the Halcyon Road on-ramp and the Grand Avenue off-ramp.The proposed location the soundwalls under Alternative 4C are depicted in Draft EA Figures 2.2-8 to 2.2-10, except that Noise Barrier 1 depicted in Figure 2.2-8 is no longer proposed. 54.13 The comment notes that results of cost analysis of noise abatement are not provided.The 2011 Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects (Protocol) requires the preparation of a Noise Abatement Decision Report(NADR) to determine the feasibility of a noise barrier. Although not an environmental issue, feasibility from a cost perspective is determined by comparing construction cost estimates to the reasonable allowance calculated in the NADR to identify which wall configurations are reasonable. Per the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidance document, for each noise barrier found to be acoustically feasible, reasonable cost allowances are calculated by multiplying the number of benefited receptors by$80,000. For any noise barrier to be considered reasonable from a cost perspective,the estimated cost of the noise barrier should be equal to or less than the total cost allowance calculated for the barrier. If the engineer's cost estimate is less than the allowance and the abatement will provide at least 7 dB of noise reduction at one or more benefited receptors,then the preliminary determination is that the abatement is reasonable. If the cost estimate is higher than the allowance or if the design goal cannot be achieved,the preliminary determination is that abatement is not reasonable.The NADR prepared by Caltrans in October 2016 determined that the two soundwalls proposed under Alternative 4C would be considered to be financially feasible at all heights because the construction cost is less than the allowance. 54.14 The comment notes that the effectiveness of noise barriers on the north side of U.S. 101 are mentioned but not shown or evaluated.The soundwalls in front of St. Patrick's School is depicted in Draft EA Figure 2.2-8, Noise Sensitive Receptor and Barrier Locations(1 of 3). As concluded in in the Draft EA, modeling indicated that a noise barrier in front of St. Patrick's school and the Hampton Inn would only result in a less than 5-decible reduction in noise levels under either build alternative. As noted in the Draft EA, a minimum 7 dBA reduction in the future noise level must be achieved for an abatement measure to be considered feasible, regardless of cost.Thus,the soundwall in front of St. Patrick's school was not considered a feasible noise abatement measure and was not further evaluated.As concluded in the Draft EA, predicted future noise levels with the project will not substantially increase compared to the existing noise level (defined as a 12 dbA or more increase). Rather, as concluded in the Noise Study Report, even without soundwalls, no sensitive receptor would experience an increase in noise levels of over 2 decibels. 54.15 The comment notes that soundwalls are not fully required by the project, but that the decision to provide soundwalls may be prompted by community input. As discussed in the response to Comment 54.10 and 54.13, Caltrans has a process in place to evaluate the feasibility and noise attenuating benefit from the development of soundwalls.Although the project would not significantly increase ambient noise levels, exceedances of City and Caltrans standards currently Page 181 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project exist.Therefore,though not required by CEQA, and only required to be considered by NEPA 23 CFR 772,the installation of noise walls is proposed under Alternative 4C, per Caltrans' Protocol described in the response to Comment 54.13 above. Per Caltrans'Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol,the ultimate decision on whether or not the soundwalls will be built is based on a poll of benefited receptors that would experience a change in ambient noise levels as a result of soundwall installation. Per Caltrans standard procedures,the majority of polled community members indicated that they wanted the soundwalls to be constructed; this improvement would be phased to a later date as funding becomes available.The public was also provided an opportunity to comment on the project design at several points in the process, including the August 12, 2008 City Council meeting, the 30-day public comment period from April 12, 2018 to May 11, 2018, and most recently, at the March 26, 2019 City Council meeting. Future opportunities for public comment will be available during the City Council meetings to approve the Project and adopt the MND. 54.16 The comment notes that noise barriers are identified as "not consistent" with LU Policy LU12-3.2 and questions why they are being considered regardless.This land use policy seeks to "Minimize the installation of solid walls along area roadways unless they are needed for... noise attenuation purposes."Although the project would not significantly increase ambient noise levels, the current and projected noise levels even without the project exceed City and Caltrans standards.Thus, soundwalls are being proposed under Alternative 4C to reduce noise levels at adjacent receptors.Table 2.1-4 of the EA, Project Consistency with Regional and Local Plans and Policies, has been revised to reflect that the project is consistent with this land use policy. Page 182 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#55 From:R G Kelly[mailto:rgkellyl@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,April 26,2018 11:08 AM To:Wilkinson,Jason J@DOT<jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov> Cc:mel cottrell<mel@mjandg.com>;Jon A.Hoffmann<ihoffman@calpoly.edu>;Sunanda Dandillaya <sunu7274@yahoo.com>;joe and maria<joma59@aol.com> Subject:Briscoe Rd/Hwy 101 Project I live within 1 mile from this project and use this intersection frequently.I have reviewed the two proposed alternatives and prefer Alternative 1,and vigorously oppose Alternative 4C. 55.1 The closure of the northbound on ramp at Briscoe/Hwy 101 was successful and alleviated a lot of the congestion at this intersection.I am vehemently opposed to the traffic circle proposal,as I was involved in an accident in one of these a long time ago in New Jersey,and still hate encountering them.I believe it is also the more expensive of the alternatives by far. 55.2 Entering Hwy 101 at Camino Mercado is perfectly fine and works well. Please take my feedback into consideration.Thank you. Rob Kelly 344 Via Bandolero Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 rgkellyl@gmail.com Page 183 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 55. Response to:Rob Kelly(Letter Dated April 26,2018) 55.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 55.2 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 and indicates concern over the safety and cost of the roundabout at the Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive,think, react, and correct for errors(as may all users) with the low-speed roundabout designs.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. For additional information related to project costs, refer to the response to comment 49.1.The MND and EA determined that, under Alternative 1, adjacent U.S. 101 ramp intersections were adequate to accommodate diverted traffic, consistent with this comment. Page 184 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#56 From:Peggy Ketelsen[mailto:peggy.ket@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,May 10,201810:48 AM To:Wilkinson,Jason J@DOT<jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov> Subject:Brisco interchange As a resident on Rodeo Drive I vote for no change.I think the money it would cost is not worth the investment. 56.1 That money could be more well spent on road maintenance than on a change of the Brisco interchange. Margaret Ketelsen 282 Rodeo Drive Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 Page 185 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 56. Response to:Margaret Ketelsen (Letter Dated May 10,2018) 56.1 The comment expresses a preference for the No Build Alternative.The No Build Alternative was evaluated in the EA (and as the existing conditions in the IS/MND);the No Build Alternative would not provide any transportation improvements and would not meet the project's purpose and need.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 186 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#57 From:Alicia Lara[mailto:ailaral3@hotmail.com] Sent:Thursday,May 10,2018 5:47 PM To:Wilkinson,Jason J@DOT<jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov>;jhill@a rroyogrande.org; tray@arroyogrande.org;tbrown@arroyogrande.org;kbarneich arro o:rande.or:; bharmon@arroyogrande.org Cc:Chuck Kass<kassmanagement@sbcglobal.net> Subject:Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Comments Arroyo Grande City Council and Mr.Wilkinson: First and foremost to any decision the City Council has to make,is their current and long term fiduciary responsibility to the residents of the city.The General Fund 10-Year Fiscal Forecast cast a very big long-term shadow on this entire project-because there are already existing services,such as CaIPERS,health insurance,Workers'Compensation insurance,animal services,liability insurance,and the closure of Diablo power plant-the costs of which the City 57.1 has no control over,that may very well bring the City's reserve to zero in 5 years.If the economy turns,or we have continued drought conditions,it will get real serious in what will seem to be a heartbeat.And the current talk of layoffs,means reduced services to the entire community.Given that-City Manger stated"We are getting to the point where every$1,000 matters." Thus it is with trepidation that I support Alternative 1-provided the Council deems it is within the City's ability to address and maintain a healthy general fund financial state for the City overall.The Brisco underpass has been identified as a city issue for a long time;and there are offsetting funds available to the City now.Although I'm not as familiar as the Council is with 57.2 the City's Budget,it seems that the excessive cost of Alt 4C will not be sustainable along with other City priorities,given the limited areas it addresses when compared to Alternative 1 at double the cost. Alternative 4C does not address the varied improvements Alternative 1 does such as Camino Mercado improvements,identified in Table 11 of the Draft Project Report,as having the highest 57.3 Collision Rates for US 101 Ramps within the scope of the report.Nor does alt 4C address widening Grand Avenue with pedestrian sidewalks,and bicycle lanes,or improvements to the NB onramps to 101 at Grand.In addition,Alt 4C shortens the weaving distance(cross traffic)on SB 101 at Brisco from 1,580 feet,to 940 feet;and although that has been approved by 57.4 Caltrans,my experience has been it can be precarious trying to exit at Brisco as cars merge from Grand.As to Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities,Alt 4C only noted improves associated with a new Park and Ride-which does not appear to address pedestrian/bicycle access across Rodeo at 57.5 W.Branch. Having only a short time to review both lengthy reports, did not note if the 101 SB onramp at Grand,which requires acquisition of farm land,addresses major traffic/pedestrian/bicycle issues. So other than aligning it with 101 SB offramp at Grand,I'm wondering if it is necessary-given 57.6 the stretched budget dollars. Page 187 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project As to sound walls,again,not sure if those are necessary-it appears the proposed walls would only provide minimal relief;in addition they would impact existing landscape and be a magnet I 57.7 for graffiti-and who will pay to address that timely? I don't envy the heavy decisions you must make to fulfill your fiduciary responsibility to this community;thus if you deem that No Build is the option that you must go with,I can support 57.8 that-however,know that Grand Avenue and Camino Mercado will still be impacted,as folks avoid Brisco to commute from point A to B. Thank you for your consideration. Alicia Lara Page 188 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 57. Response to:Alicia Lara(Letter Dated May 10,2018) 57.1 The comment expresses concerns about the cost of the project.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is"reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans.The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing (I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately $13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C.The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 57.2 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 over Alternative 4C due to its reduced cost. Refer to the response to comment 57.1, above.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 57.3 The comment expresses concern that Alternative 4C does not address the improvements that Alternative 1 proposes at Camino Mercado, identified in Table 11 of the Draft Project Report as having the highest collision rates for US 101 ramps within the scope of the report.The comment also notes that Alternative 4C does not address the widening of Grand Avenue with pedestrian sidewalks, bicycle lanes, or improvements to the northbound on-ramps to Grand Avenue. As stated on page 13 of the Draft Project Report, data for the US 101 northbound off ramp to Camino Mercado shows a total of four collisions, only one of which resulted in an injury.Two of the collisions were listed as occurring on a local street near the ramp intersection. Numerous variations of different build alternatives have been developed for the project over the 15-year planning phase of the project.The project has undergone an extensive planning process and many design alternatives have been considered. Many variations of five different project alternatives have been previously evaluated through a preliminary comparison of each Page 189 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project alternative against several major project criteria. While Alternative 4C does not propose improvements to the US 101 ramps at Camino Mercado or Grand Avenue,the project's traffic analysis does indicate the need for operational improvements at these ramps, as access at the Brisco-Halcyon Road/US 101 ramps would be retained and trips would not be diverted to adjacent intersections. While the project is not intended to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities,the potential for project-related impacts to these facilities have been addressed. Mitigation Measures in the IS/MND (LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3) and the EA(TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8) incorporate various measures to improve multimodal connectivity and upgrade facilities for both bicyclist and pedestrians, including requirements that the City improve connectivity to bike paths or lanes, and ensure bike and pedestrian circulation to serve schools and public facilities are made a priority consistent with policies in the City's Circulation Element. With incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to pedestrian and bike facilities, including those along Grand Avenue, would be less than significant. 57.4 The comment states that Alternative 4C would shorten the weaving distance on northbound US 101 between the northbound Brisco Road on-ramp and the northbound Camino Mercado off- ramp. Specifically, Alternative 4C proposes to close and remove the U.S. 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and the associated traffic signal equipment.Alternative 4C would then construct new U.S. 101 northbound on-and off-ramps that would connect to the new single-lane roundabout at the Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection. As shown in Table 22, Year 2035 "Alternative 4C"US 101 Weaving Segment Operations, Alternative 4C would increase the weaving distance between the two northbound ramps to 1,660 feet.Alternative 4C would also construct auxiliary lanes between the northbound on-ramp at Grace Lane to the northbound off-ramp at Camino Mercado, which would help to improve weaving conditions between the two interchanges. 57.5 The comment notes that Alternative 4C would development of a new Park and Ride lot adjacent to the proposed roundabout intersection, but does not include physical improvements to improve pedestrian and bicycle access across Rodeo Drive at West Branch Drive.While the project is not intended to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities, the new single-lane roundabout at the Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection would include standard sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks. Further, the potential for project-related impacts to pedestrian and bicycle facilities have been addressed in the IS/MND and the EA. Mitigation Measures in the IS/MND (LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3) and the EA(TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8) incorporate various measures to improve multimodal connectivity and upgrade facilities for both bicyclist and pedestrians, including requirements that the City improve connectivity to bike paths or lanes, and ensure bike and pedestrian circulation to serve schools and public facilities are made a priority consistent with policies in the City's Circulation Element. With incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to pedestrian and bike facilities, including those along Grace Lane (formerly Rodeo Drive), would be less than significant. 57.6 The comment questions the need for the US 101/Grand Avenue interchange improvements and questions the value of these improvements in light of budget constraints. On March 26, 2019, subsequent to the public comment period for the Draft MND and EA,the City Council selected Alternative 4C as the Locally Preferred Alternative and decided to phase/defer certain improvements until additional funding could be programmed. Under both alternatives, the physical improvements to the US 101/Grand Avenue interchange, including the realignment of Page 190 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project the US 101 southbound ramps,would be deferred until additional funding is available. However, although the physical improvements to this interchange would be deferred,the signal timing improvements at the U.S. 101 southbound ramps/Grand Avenue intersection would be implemented during the initial project phase in order to improve operational efficiency at the interchange during the interim period before the physical improvements are completed. Please refer to the revised MND and EA for a detailed description of the project's revised phasing. 57.7 This comment questions the value of the soundwalls given their cost and potential to attract graffiti and degrade the visual landscape.Although not an environmental issue,the feasibility of noise abatement from a cost perspective is determined by comparing construction cost estimates to the reasonable allowance calculated in the NADR to identify which wall configurations are reasonable. Per the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidance document, reasonable cost allowances are calculated by multiplying the number of benefited receptors by$80,000. For any noise barrier to be considered reasonable,the estimated cost should be equal to or less than the total cost allowance calculated for the barrier. If the engineer's cost estimate is less than the allowance and the abatement will provide at least 7 dB of noise reduction at one or more benefited receptors,then that abatement is determined to be reasonable.The NADR prepared by Caltrans in October 2016 determined that the two soundwalls proposed under Alternative 4C would be considered to be financially feasible at all heights because the construction cost is less than the allowance. Members of the public residing in the areas that would be affected/benefitted by the noise walls were polled and the majority of polled community members stated a desire to have the noise walls constructed.Therefore, per Caltrans'Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol,they have been made part of the project. On March 26, 2019, subsequent to the public comment period for the Draft MND and EA,the City Council selected Alternative 4C as the Locally Preferred Alternative and decided to phase/defer certain improvements until additional funding could be programmed. Under Alternative 4C, construction of the soundwalls would also be deferred until additional funding is available. As discussed in Draft EA, Section 2.1.7, Visual/Aesthetics, three key viewing area (KVA) locations were identified to evaluate the aesthetic impacts of the project alternatives, including the proposed soundwalls.As concluded therein, the soundwalls would not result in a significant impact to visual resources.Soundwalls would only be constructed on the south side of U.S. 101 and would be located at an elevation of approximately 12-17 feet higher than the elevation of U.S. 101, so views to the north would be unaffected by the soundwalls and views to the south would only be minimally impacted from U.S. 101.To address the potential for graffiti and improve the appearance of the proposed soundwalls, Draft MND Mitigation Measure LU/mm-6 requires the preparation of a solid wall design and landscape plan,that requires among other items, an aesthetic and graffiti proof treatment consistent with the surrounding visual character and setting, and various requirements for the provision of landscaping and plant materials. As a result,the potential for the proposed soundwalls to result in a significant impact to aesthetics was determined to be less than significant. 57.8 The comment expresses support for No Build Alternative if adequate funding cannot be programmed to implement either of the two build alternatives.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 191 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#58 From:Travis McCarty<travis@ahsirt.com> Sent:Thursday,May 3,2018 5:16 PM To:Wilkinson,Jason J@DOT Subject:Brisco interchange prefer alternative it1 but would like to a new sidewalk from the Brisco intersection to the west of the ! 58.1 Brisco hardware store. 1 Thanks Travis McCarty Arroyo Grande resident Page 192 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 58. Response to: Travis McCarty(Letter Dated May 3,2018) 58.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 and a desire to see a sidewalk added from the Brisco Road intersection to the west of the Brisco hardware store. Regarding the lack of pedestrian and bicycle improvements,while the project is not intended to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities,the new single-lane roundabout at the Grace Lane/West Branch Street intersection would include standard sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks. Further,the potential for project-related impacts to pedestrian and bicycle facilities have been addressed in the IS/MND and the EA. Mitigation Measures in the IS/MND (LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3) and the EA(TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8) incorporate various measures to improve multimodal connectivity and upgrade facilities for both bicyclist and pedestrians, including requirements that the City improve connectivity to bike paths or lanes, and ensure bike and pedestrian circulation to serve schools and public facilities are made a priority consistent with policies in the City's Circulation Element. With incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to pedestrian and bike facilities would be less than significant. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 193 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#59 From:Kit Sinner[mailto:ksinner@charter.net] Sent:Friday,May 11,2018 8:11 AM To:Wilkinson,Jason J@DDT<jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov> Subject:Grace Lane/Branch Street Interchange l am in favor of Alternative 1!!!It will fix the traffic issue at Bristol underpass by stopping the traffic 159.1 coming off 101 North.It will also fix the problem of the Grand Ave.overpass at the 101 and Camino Mercado on/off ramps.Also one must consider the fact it is half the cost! 159.2 4C does not stop the traffic from Halcyon to get on the 101.The traffic circle is contrived and does not solve the problem.And is twice the cost.Noise and increased traffic in our neighborhood would have 59.3 untenable effects on quality of life. John and Kit Sinner Sent from my iPhone Page 194 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 59. Response to:John and Kit Sinner(Letter Dated May 11,2018) 59.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 59.2 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 because it is half the cost of Alternative 4C. Refer to the response to comment 49.1 for additional information related to project costs and funding.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 59.3 The comment expresses concern that Alternative 4C would increase noise and traffic within the study area.The Arroyo Grande Library and the St. Patrick's is the closest noise sensitive receptor to the proposed traffic circle.Section XII. Noise of the IS/MND and Section 2.2.7 Noise of the EA discuss noise related impacts and determined that projected noise levels would be the same at the library with or without the project. Noise levels would also be the same under Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C. Relocation of the intersection under Alternative 4C would result in a marginal increase in exterior noise at the library, but the change would not be perceptible, and the noise environment would continue to be dominated by traffic noise along U.S. 101. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected to occur and no mitigation was determined to be necessary. Page 195 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#60 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Project Social Media Comments City of Arroyo Grande April 12 at 4:53pm The public is invited to attend a public workshop on April 26th regarding the Brisco Interchange Project.More information below.#Arro oGrande#Brisco#BriseolnterehangeProject 11114111111 --\ (sr Brisco Interchange Project Public Workshop The public is invited to a Public Workshop on Thursday,April 26,2018 at 6 PM in the City Council Chambers at 215 E Branch Street,Arroyo Grande.Come review and provide input on the environmental assessment,initial study/mitigated... ARROYOGRANDE.ORO 1,446 people reached Sue Stanton Wow!a lot of notice on FB for this meeting!Can't be there,but the signs for left turns to the 101 and to Branch St.are very confusing to people.They are still going straight to Branch when they are in the 101 left turn lane,Approaching the underpass is also a 60.1 problem...people running lights,changing lanes when in the wrong lane,and speeding to get in front of other cars turning right.It's a mess to say the least. Steve Medina Lived on Brisco in the 70's and it is a hell hole now.Of course no shopping 160.2 center. Sue Stanton And turning right on the no red turn light added. 60.3 Claudia Gilbert It is an intersection I go out of my way to avoid if I can. 160.4 4/27/18 Page 196 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Project Social Media Comments City of Arroyo Grande April 26 at 5:18pm Don't forget#ArroyoGrande,the Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Project Public Workshop is tonight at 6 PM in the City Council Chambers at 215 E Branch Street. - rte .� arm% ', ;.•�:-, . .__,. Sue Stanton Can't be there,but that left lane that turns onto the 101 from Briscoe needs to change.People are still going straight on it to Branch Street.Signs are confusing and not helpful. 60.5 I've lived in AG for 7 years and never see any police there. Ruthie Osborn I can't either.I really liked it when the 101 was blocked there.Made it much 160.6 safer when utilizing the crossover to branch from el Camino 4/27/18 Page 197 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 60. Response to:Social Media Comments(Letter Dated April 27,2018) 60.1 The comment expresses a number of concerns with the current configuration of the interchange.The purpose of the project is to correct exiting operational deficiencies at the northbound U.S. 101 northbound on- and off-ramps/Brisco Road intersection, Brisco Road undercrossing, and nearby intersections by providing congestion relief, alleviating queuing, and improving the traffic operations of the regional and local street system.The build alternatives have been designed to not only address current congestion, but also congestion related to projected build-out of the City by 2035.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 60.2 The comment expresses a concern that the neighborhood character has degraded since the 1970s, including the addition of a shopping center.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 60.3 The comment requests a no-right turn on red light sign be added.The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan and would result in less than significant impacts. 60.4 The comment discusses avoidance of the Brisco-Halcyon road/U.S. 101 ramps interchange due to its current function and design.The purpose of the project is to correct exiting operational deficiencies at the northbound U.S. 101 northbound on-and off-ramps/Brisco Road intersection and nearby intersections by providing congestion relief, alleviating queuing, and improving the traffic operations of the regional and local street system.The build alternatives have been designed to not only address current congestion, but also congestion related to projected build- out of the City by 2035.The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan, and would result in less than significant impacts.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 60.5 The comment expresses that the left-turn lane on Brisco Road to U.S. 101 needs to be improved. The purpose of the project is to correct exiting operational deficiencies at the northbound U.S. 101 northbound on-and off-ramps/Brisco Road intersection and nearby intersections by providing congestion relief, alleviating queuing, and improving the traffic operations of the regional and local street system.The build alternatives have been designed to not only address current congestion, but also congestion related to projected build-out of the City by 2035. Both alternatives proposed the closure and removal of U.S. 101 northbound on-and off-ramps at Brisco Road and removal of the associated traffic signal equipment.The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan and would result in less than significant impacts. Both Page 198 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project alternatives would eliminate the current Brisco Road/U.S. 101 northbound ramp intersection. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 60.6 The comment recalls the Brisco Road undercrossing being safer when the northbound U.S. 101 ramps were closed. Both alternatives proposed the closure and removal of U.S. 101 northbound on- and off-ramps at Brisco Road and removal of the associated traffic signal equipment.The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan, and would result in less than significant impacts.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 199 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#61 May 7,2018 Jason Wilkinson,Sr.Environmental Planner Caltrans Dear Mr.Wilkinson: We live in Arroyo Grande, on Rodeo Drive and are frequent users of the Brisco/Halcyon Underpass and associated on/off ramps to 101. We would like to provide some input and our assessment of the two alternatives proposed for improvement to the current situation. We are strongly in favor of Alt 1 for the following reasons: * The temporary closure of the on/off ramps for 101 was a successful test. 61.1 The traffic flow through the underpass was improved substantially. *We found that the use of adjacent on/off ramps for 101 were satisfactory alternatives to the closed ramps and contributed greatly to the lessoning traffic at the congested area. The improvements to these areas in Alt 1 will only improve this situation more. These improvements have merit independently, especially 61.2 realignment of the Grand Ave Southbound on ramp to be opposite the off ramp and the additional lanes for the Mercado on ramp. * Alt 1 will clearly be less expensive and the disruption to normal use will be impacted less and for a shorter period of time than Alternate 4c. 61.3 We are strongly opposed to Alt 4c for the following reasons: *The proposed on/off ramps and associated roundabout will bring the look and feel of 101 and associated traffic into a "local section"of Arroyo Grande.This 61.4 area contains residences, pedestrians, a school and local services such as the library and community center. The overall area will be impacted by the Page 200 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project appearance and traffic flow of 101 with cement walls and the feeling of encroachment by the Highway. The ride-share parking lot only adds to these concerns. 61.4 cont'd * Alt 4c will certainly be more expensive and the temporary impact on use will be far greater and for a longer period of time especially in the crucial area, where the roundabout will be constructed. Thank you for giving consideration to these inputs. Colin&Kathleen Wigglesworth 200 Rodeo Drive Arroyo Grande,CA 93420 (805-473-1341) Page 201 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 61. Response to:Cohn and Kathleen Wigglesworth (Letter Dated May 7,2018) 61.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1 because the commenter viewed the temporary closure of the on/off-ramps at Brisco road to be a success. Both alternatives proposed the closure and removal of U.S. 101 northbound on-and off-ramps at Brisco Road and removal of the associated traffic signal equipment. The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan and would result in less than significant impacts.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 61.2 The comment expresses a desire to see the improvements of Alternative 1 implemented because adjacent U.S. 101 ramp intersections provided adequate alternate access during the previous temporary closure of the northbound ramps at Brisco Road. Both alternatives proposed the closure and removal of U.S. 101 northbound on-and off-ramps at Brisco Road and removal of the associated traffic signal equipment.The IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan and would result in less than significant impacts.The IS/MND and EA found that access to U.S. 101 at adjacent intersections would provide adequate access through the project area under Alternative 1, consistent with this comment. The comment also notes the potential independent utility of aligning the US 101 southbound ramps at the Grand Avenue interchange and adding lanes at the Camino Mercado on-ramp. On March 26, 2019, subsequent to the public comment period for the Draft MND and EA,the City Council selected Alternative 4C as the Locally Preferred Alternative and decided to phase/defer certain improvements until additional funding could be programmed. Under both alternatives, the physical improvements to the US 101/Grand Avenue interchange, including the realignment of the US 101 southbound ramps,would be deferred until additional funding is available. However, although the physical improvements to this interchange would be deferred,the signal timing improvements at the U.S. 101 southbound ramps/Grand Avenue intersection would be implemented during the initial project phase in order to improve operational efficiency at the intersection during the interim period before the physical improvements are completed. Accordingly,the MND and EA have been revised to provide independent utility analyses which evaluate potential impacts that may occur during interim period before the phased improvements can be completed. Interim traffic impacts were evaluated in a Technical Memorandum:Independent Utility of Relocating the US 101 Southbound On-Ramp at Grand Avenue; US 101/Brisco Road-Halcyon Road and US 101/Grand Avenue Interchange Improvements Project,Arroyo Grande, CA prepared by Wood Rogers in April 2019.This Technical Memorandum found that traffic impacts would be less than significant during the interim period before all project improvements can be completed. 61.3 The comment notes that Alternative 1 would be less expensive than Alternative 4C.The estimated cost for Alternative 4C is$22.7 million while the estimated cost for Alternative 1 is $12.3 million. Funding of the project is proposed to come from two different sources: (1) $6.6 million from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects funded by the Federal Transportation Page 202 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Investment Fund and other sources; and (2) local transportation funding secured by the City of Arroyo Grande. SLOCOG is acting as the regional funding agency for the STIP, and the project is included in SLOCOG's 2019 Regional Transportation Plan ($14 million). Pursuant to NEPA requirements,the City of Arroyo Grande is required to demonstrate that full funding for the proposed project is "reasonably available" prior to final approval of the EA by Caltrans. The City proposes to partially fund either project alternative through use of available local funds as well as financing(I Bank or Bonds). Approximately$2 million would need to be financed under Alternative 1 and approximately$13.6 million would need to be financed under Alternative 4C. The City's 10 Year Local Sales Tax Fund Plan anticipates an increasing commitment of funding for the debt service of the project over the 10-year planning horizon. In addition, local transportation impact fees from future projects will also be generated in future years and collected to support funding for the project. The City would also phase portions of the project to a later date, when funding becomes available. Components that could be phased to a later date include: (1)the possible installation of noise walls, which would reduce Alternative 1 costs by approximately$950,000 and Alternative 4C costs by approximately$1,075,000; and (2)the proposed realignment of the southbound Grand Avenue on-ramp to line up with the existing off-ramp, which would reduce costs of either alternative by approximately$2,100,000. The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 61.4 The comment identities several reasons why Alternative 4C is opposed, including a change in the aesthetic character of the intersection and potential impacts to the school and government services located at the intersection. Financial reasons and long-term traffic impacts are also included as reasons for opposing Alterative 4C. Section I.Aesthetics in the IS/MND and Section 2.1.7 Visual/Aesthetics in the EA evaluated whether the project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and determined the features proposed under Alternative 4C would generally be consistent with the level and types of development in surrounding areas. Consistency with local planning documents and policies was further evaluated under Section X. Land Use and Planning of the IS/MND and Section 2.1.3 Community Character and Cohesion in the EA. Both environmental documents determined that the proposed project alternatives would potentially conflict with some applicable policies related to circulation interconnection, promotion of nonmotorized and pedestrian facilities,and/or convenient and well-designed parking facilities. Mitigation measures LU/mm-3, 5, and 6 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1 and TRA/mm-3 were identified to ensure appropriate design elements would be incorporated to ensure the interconnection of transportation systems, encouragement of non-motorized transportation alternatives, design of convenient,well-designed aesthetic parking facilities, landscaping and retaining wall design, and consistency with transportation and land use policies and goals. Although the proposed roundabout intersection would be further away from the U.S. 101 mainline and extend into a currently undeveloped City owned parcel,the project includes requirements for project design and style consistent with City policies and other recent improvements along U.S. 101 in Arroyo Grande and surrounding areas. With implementation of Page 203 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project these measures, potential impacts would be less than significant.The IS/MND and EA identify a longer construction schedule and associated construction-related impacts under Alternative 4C, consistent with this comment. No changes in the IS/MND or EA are necessary. The commenter's opposition to Alternative 4c based on cost is addressed in the response to comment 61.3 immediately above. Page 204 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#62 From:Jim Alquist[mailto:limalquist@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday,May 08,2018 2:07 PM To:Wilkinson,Jason J@DOT<jason.wilkinson@dot.ca.gov> Subject:Brisco-Halcyon Interchange Please NO roundabout. When the NB Off&On ramps were closed for testing,everything worked just fine. The Camino Mercado off ramp allows easy access to both Wal-Mart and Trader Joe's,while the closure of the Brisco ramps allowed local traffic to easily cross under the freeway. Installing a roundabout will not help the local traffic cross the freeway,but it will cause an increase in traffic on Rodeo,which already had to have speed bumps added to cut 62 down on speeders quite some time ago. Just close the ramps,and be done with i1,I don't think anything else needs to be done, But if you have to do something,do Alternative 1_ Its cheaper,and it gives local traffic a chance. Thank You, Jim Alquist 424 Vista Drive Arroyo Grande 805-305-0905 Page 205 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 62. Response to:Jim Alquist(Letter Dated May 8,2018) 62.1 The comment expresses a desire to see the improvements to of Alternative 1 implemented because the previous temporary closure of these ramps reduced congestion and lessened traffic. Both alternatives proposed the closure and removal of U.S. 101 northbound on-and off- ramps at Brisco Road and removal of the associated traffic signal equipment. Alternatives 1 and 4C have been evaluated extensively and determined to be feasible alternatives that would meet the project's purpose and need.The build alternatives have been designed to not only address current congestion, but also congestion related to projected build-out of the City by 2035. Section XVI. Transportation and Traffic of the IS-MND and Section 2.1.6 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in the EA discuss impacts to traffic and conclude that under Alternative 1,traffic levels would be substantially improved throughout the project area in comparison to the No Build Alternative. Further, the IS/MND and EA discuss potentially hazardous design features and incompatible uses and concluded that the project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan. In general, roundabouts have been found to generally be safer than other forms of intersection control (two-way stop and signal) in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Roundabouts are a proven safety strategy for improving intersection safety by eliminating or altering conflict types, reducing crash severity, and causing drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed into and through intersections. Older drivers may benefit from the additional time to perceive,think, react, and correct for errors (as may all users)with the low-speed roundabout designs.Alternative 4C would also improve pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the new interchange, providing safer connections for pedestrians through the project area.The new interchange is not expected to operate substantially different than the existing intersection. Under Alternative 4C, traffic levels would be substantially improved throughout the project area and would be consistent the City's General Plan Circulation Element policies and Transportation System Management Strategies of the Regional Transportation Plan. Long-term traffic benefits under Alternative 4C would be slightly greater than those realized under Alternative 1, particularly at the Brisco Road/EI Camino Real and Old Ranch Road/West Branch Street intersections. Studies did not find that Alternative 1 would be more efficient in alleviating traffic through the Brisco Road undercrossing than Alternative 4C. In addition, Alternative 4C meets the stated project purpose of maintaining direct access from U.S. 101 to commercial/retail areas in the project area. In addition, Mitigation Measures LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3 in the IS/MND and TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8 in the EA were identified to ensure that proposed circulation were identified to ensure that proposed circulation patterns incorporate and improve connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities, bike paths or lanes, and pedestrian access ways, including measures for incorporating and improving connectivity with existing and new public transit facilities to the greatest extent feasible.Therefore,the implementation of the roundabout under Alternative 4C would result in less than significant impacts. Page 206 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#63 T. co, f epresevt}i- 19341A B Ve SLO Cacm-ly Gnd kc,&cia, moor LA,lifiec COMMENTS ON THE pis 1ht Sc-Cc Rou)-rs Ca d vig)10 BRISCO-HALCYON ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS PROJECT The City welcomes public input on this important project. In particular,we are seeking (` comment in the following categories;however,please feel free to comment on any project /I I component: fG' f�1 refl�q�i U(' • Content of the Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration; • Preference for Alternative 1 or 4C for the project; • Preference for sound walls on either alternative. Comments may be provided to briscolaarroyoprande.or4 or to the mailing address on the reverse side of this comment card prior to the close of the public comment period on May 12,2018. Additionally,the City will hold a public hearing on the project in the coming months to provide further opportunities for public testimony.Information regarding the public hearing will be posted on the City's website at www.arrovoctrande.orq and at City Hall" c u /11c - / ones,Skou30{ he ((A4 ClCL.,) /I' lo c(As drill rs gha1 Moot) speeds ."TAere erre nj bye 1 arses Ned 11 /arxs c..};Ah a bu4IcCecil _17ik0 lane i- each r lrerk on ,r btk ir��r clrere= 'The s are 1nx c,z,de-l2 C,(4- -e J✓ tj'. Creases peed. 7) ovrd'ross .Sho(,)c ' 'f 63.1 �rrAvc.l lanes uo1-1Clams `� be,[ red h;ke 7ahes� his m�'ocCorriaforla �hc V)llck e and ,,1d col /hlddk 3c,hoo f)e f�r� 5frcc& ( piciA-C" h;Ke cs rc lrvc.-lure b IzdtAce Vehirit 44-90-)c. lv\ ,ithe CACea �r eel ni"-1e -Ori !`I Cc-., na from tial' ya-1 risco gcjn5 1oPIn 1S Q /� n t3/,•Emarc 4o c Cy c l is y-t I NAME: )lin �['1 CG�1n EMAIL: (-de(e.rcog}kGr/1tgl)o Cwt ADDRESS: /yG V i s I J f V av PHONE: SSS,-312.6 CITY: jI3✓1'i0 r� 4(h (A- q3(4e/Q STATE: ZIP: Page 207 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 63. Response to:Jim DeCecco (Letter not Dated) 63.1 The comment expresses concern over the width and location (or lack of) bike lanes on West Branch Street or Grand Avenue under Alternative 1.The purpose of the project is to correct exiting operational deficiencies at the northbound U.S. 101 northbound on-and off- ramps/Brisco Road intersection and nearby intersections by providing congestion relief, alleviating queuing, and improving the traffic operations of the regional and local street system. While the project is not intended to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities,the potential for project-related impacts to these facilities have been addressed. Mitigation Measures in the IS/MND (LU/mm-1 through LU/mm-3) and the EA(TRA/mm-1, 2, 7, and 8) incorporate various measures to improve multimodal connectivity and upgrade facilities for both bicyclist and pedestrians, including requirements that the City improve connectivity to bike paths or lanes, and ensure bike and pedestrian circulation to serve schools and public facilities are made a priority consistent with policies in the City's Circulation Element.With incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to pedestrian and bike facilities, including those near area schools, would be less than significant. Page 208 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#64 COMMENTS ON THE Ciry o- BRISCO-HALCYON ROAD . INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS PROJECT <- The City welcomes public input on this important project. in particular,we are seeking • 41; cot . comment in the following categories;however,please feel free to comment on any project component: • Content of the Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration; • Preference for Alternative 1 or 4C for the project; • Preference for sound walls on either alternative. Comments may be provided to briscoearrovoorande.orq or to the mailing address on the reverse side of this comment - card prior to the close of the public comment period on May 12,2058. Additionally,the City will hold a public hearing on the project in the coming months to provide further opportunities for public testimony.Information regarding the public hearing will be postepi on the Ctty;6 website at www.arro o rande.o and at City Hall. � e � /c7.- �� act •g ��s 164.1 l .e..b / 164.2 _ ��s.-/J�- -{- �a`�f-a „4 / fl A•24-ccs �r�,�,s .� , -p- , .Z-S-m 1T fir , 1. 164.3 NAME: r%.70 r „r,/2 r2,-4yj4 s(, a.:— ADDRESS: 1'7 bra 1�4� s 2 PHONE: 8057- CITY: 476- STATE: ZIP: 9'3 4/2.0 • • Page 209 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 64. Response to:Michael Furman (Letter not Dated) 64.1 The comment expresses a preference for Alternative 1.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 64.2 The comment expresses concern that the soundwalls would serve to "bounce" sound in a manner that increases noise levels away from the soundwalls.As discussed in Section 2.2.7, Noise, when sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content.The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on geometric spreading, ground absorption, atmospheric effects, and shielding by natural or human-made features. Geometric spreading is the attenuation (or decrease) in sound as it propagates uniformly outward from its source. Highways are considered a line source of noise, since noise sources (vehicles) occur along a defined path (i.e.,the highway). Sound levels generally attenuate (or decrease) at a rate of approximately 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. For example, noise levels 50 feet away from the highway would be 3 dB lower at 100 feet from the highway. A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver.The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency of the noise source. Natural terrain features (e.g., hills and dense woods) and human-made features (e.g., buildings and walls) can substantially reduce noise levels. Walls are often constructed between a source and a receiver specifically to reduce noise. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receiver will typically result in at least 5 dB of noise reduction.Taller barriers provide increased noise reduction.Vegetation between the highway and receiver is rarely effective in reducing noise because it does not create a solid barrier. Based on studies completed to date, noise abatement in the form of a barrier between Oak Park Boulevard and Stonecrest Drive would reduce noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA for up to 20 benefitted receivers under Alternative 4C (no soundwalls are proposed under Alternative 1). The barrier between Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue would reduce noise levels by 5 to 13 dBA for up to 16 total benefitted receivers under Alternative 4C(no soundwalls are proposed under Alternative 1). Quantified noise abatement information at each individual receptor is included in the Noise Study Report (June 2017). As discussed therein, no individual receptors would experience an increase in noise levels from implementation of the soundwalls.Therefore, noise impacts from implementation of the soundwalls would be less than significant. Further, on March 26, 2019, subsequent to the public comment period for the Draft MND and EA,the City Council selected Alternative 4C as the Locally Preferred Alternative and decided to phase/defer certain improvements until additional funding can be programmed. Under Alternative 4C, construction of the soundwalls would also be deferred until additional funding is available. 64.3 The comment discusses another option to the proposed alternatives. Specifically,the comment requests that the US 101 northbound ramps at Brisco Road be closed and that no further improvements be implemented. As part of the project development process, representatives from the City of Arroyo Grande and Caltrans followed a process of screening alternatives to identify alternatives to be carried forward for further study in the environmental document. Page 210 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project Numerous variations of different build alternatives have been developed for the project over the 15-year planning phase of the project. Based on a lengthy analysis of the project alternatives under the identified criteria, Alternative 1 and Alternative 4C are being carried forward for review because they best meet the project's purpose and need through the 2035 design year, and were not found to be infeasible due to geographical limitations at the site (i.e., not enough space to design required road improvements) or unresolved traffic issues (i.e.,the alternatives either created conditions that caused additional congestion or failed to ease the existing and projected future congestion levels that necessitated this project).The option proposed by the commenter would not meet the project's purpose and need. Page 211 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTE- #65 APRIL 26, 2018 TO: MAYOR HILL, COUNCIL PERSONS, CITY COUNSEL,AND CITY MANAGER FROM: CLAUDINE LINGO GRACE LANE RESIDENT COMMENTS ABOUT THE BRISCO INTERCHANGE PROJECT Page 13 of Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration states that Rodeo Drive currently acts as a"through" street. This is totally inaccurate. Rodeo has speed bumps! Since Grace Lane was constructed, people avoid using Rodeo as they prefer to drive between 40-50 mph on Grace Lane(aka, Grace Speedway) instead. With the radar speed display visible from many 65.1 Grace Lane front yards, it is easy to tell house fast people drive up and down the street. In spite of the driveway configuration on Grace Lane, Grace Lane was not properly designed for speed; it consists of a hill with several bends around which fast approaching vehicles are not visible. The traffic on Grace Lane is heaviest in the mornings, afternoons and'rush hour". It is not uncommon for trucks(for example, FedEx and other business trucks)to speed up and down Grace Lane. Parents dropping off/picking up their kids from St. Pats use Grace Lane to and from James Way& Rodeo by Grace Bible Church as do people commuting to and from work rather than Rodeo because of the speed bumps. I drove by St. Pat's 65.2 between 4:30-5:00 pm on Wednesday(April 25); there were cars parked all up and down Rodeo on both sides of the street between West Branch and up the hill from the school. Kids' baseball games were being played at St. Pats. Additional traffic as a result of building new on/off ramps at West Branch and Rodeo will further exacerbate the traffic around St, Pats and the speeding on Grace Lane. I indicated in my March 9, 2015 letter to Mayor Hill, the City Council, the Interim City Manager and the City Attorney expressing opposition to the increase in the speed limit from 25-35 mph and the proposal for the new 65.3 freeway offramp at West Branch and Rodeo, that I am adamantly opposed to diverting freeway traffic onto Grace Lane. Traffic should be diverted to Page 212 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project the business districts (East and West Branch)and Rancho Parkway which 65.3 should be the through street for traffic from James Way to West Branch. cont'a As I also mentioned in my March 9, 2015 fetter,when we were buying our house on Grace Lane, there was nothing in the disclosures about the Brisco Interchange project when we bought our house or about the • discussion to increase the speed limit! We closed escrow in December 65.4 2011 and didn't find out about the interchange project until late 2012 from a Rodeo Drive resident during discussions about raising the Grace Lane speed limit. I contacted the developer(Andy Mangano)to find out why he didn't disclose the Brisco Interchange Project when we bought the house. He indicated that the city didn't inform him/Chris Richardson (the realtor responsible for selling the Grace Lane houses) until May, 2012; he provided me the email Chris Richardson received from the city's Director of Community Development. So at least two of the current Grace Lane 65'5 owners (lot 3-the first house sold, and lot 6-the second house sold)were not provided with a disclosure about the interchange project since we bought our houses in 2011; it is likely that the people who bought the third house sold (lot 7)also did not receive the disclosure. In light of the safety issues, cost and lack of timely disclosure of the Brisco Interchange Project, I believe it is in the best interest of the city 65.6 to not support Alternative 4C. Page 213 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 65. Response to:Claudine Lingo(Letter Dated April 26,2018) 65.1 The comment states IS/MND incorrectly states that Rodeo Drive is a "through" street since there are speed bumps.The comment also states that vehicles routinely travel at excessive rates of speed on Grave Lane. Rodeo Drive is identified as the "through" street because there is no stop control when travelling along Rodeo Drive (as opposed to Grace Lane). Reconfiguration of the existing Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection is proposed to provide a larger radius curve on Grace Lane that would convert Grace Lane to a through street and Rodeo Drive to a stop- controlled side street.With the proposed reconfiguration, Grace Lane would extend south/west from the intersection to West Branch Street. Rodeo Drive would terminate at the reconfigured Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection (refer to Figure 1-4).This modification would result in a street name change from Rodeo Drive to Grace Lane between the Grace Lane/Rodeo Drive intersection and West Branch Street. A retaining wall or cut slope would be required at the reconfigured intersection.The project would also reconstruct Grace Lane (formerly Rodeo Drive) on a new alignment and profile to intersect West Branch Street opposite the proposed U.S. 101 northbound on-and off-ramps at Grace Lane. The project is intended to address the increase in traffic that would occur within the study area through the 2035 design year. Under year 2035 conditions,Alternative 4C would improve traffic levels at all project area intersections within the project area.The new U.S. 101 northbound ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street roundabout intersection are projected to operate at LOS A at completion of construction (estimated year 2015) and LOS B under year 2035 conditions. The project would improve the local transportation system by improving or replacing infrastructure currently operating at unacceptable levels. The project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan.Therefore, no dangerous design components would occur.As a result, the project would result in a less than significant impact. 65.2 The comment states additional traffic from building new on/off ramps will further exacerbate traffic at St. Patrick's school and on Grace Lane.The project is intended to address the increase in traffic that would occur within the study area through the 2035 design year. Under year 2035 conditions, Alternative 4C would improve traffic levels at all project area intersections within the project area.The AM and PM peak hour traffic periods, commonly known as "rush hour" are typically the most congested periods on area roadways. During both the AM and PM peak hour periods,the new U.S. 101 northbound ramps/Grace Lane/West Branch Street roundabout intersection are projected to operate at LOS A at completion of construction (estimated year 2015) and LOS B under year 2035 conditions.The project would improve the local transportation system by improving or replacing infrastructure currently operating at unacceptable levels.The project would be subject to all applicable Caltrans road design and construction standards and City measures contained in the General Plan.Therefore, no dangerous design components would occur. As a result, the project would result in a less than significant impact. 65.3 The comment expresses opposition to the proposed 25-35 mph and the construction of a freeway off-ramp and roundabout that would divert traffic onto Grace Lane instead of East and West Branch Road and Rancho Parkway. As part of the project development process, representatives from the City of Arroyo Grande and Caltrans followed a process of screening alternatives to identify alternatives to be carried forward for further study in the environmental Page 214 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project document (EA, pg. 18). Numerous variations of different build alternatives have been developed for the project over the 15-year planning phase of the project. The project has undergone an extensive planning process and many design alternatives have been considered. Many variations of five different project alternatives have been previously evaluated through a preliminary comparison of each alternative against several major project criteria. Major project features used for alternative evaluation include projected traffic effects, project cost,feasibility of project design, and potential environmental impacts. Most build alternatives were found to be infeasible due to geographical limitations at the site (i.e., not enough space to design required road improvements) or unresolved traffic issues (i.e., the alternatives either created conditions that caused additional congestion or failed to ease the existing and projected future congestion levels that necessitated this project).The potential for increased traffic along Grace Lane or Rodeo Drive was found to be less than significant under both alternatives. 65.4 The comment indicates that the homeowner was not notified about the project when purchasing the home.The public was provided an opportunity to comment on the project design at several points in the process, including the August 12, 2008 City Council meeting, the 30-day public comment period from April 12, 2018 to May 11, 2018, and most recently, at the March 26, 2019 City Council meeting. Future opportunities for public comment will be available during the City Council meetings to approve the Project and adopt the MND and EA.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. 65.5 The comment indicates that the homeowner was not notified about the project when purchasing the home. Please refer to the response to comment 65.4 immediately above. 65.6 The comment expresses opposition to Alternative 4C due to cost and lack of timely disclosure of the project.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA; therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However, the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 215 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#66 MAY 1, 2018 TO: JIM HILL,ARROYO GRANDE MAYOR CAREN RAY, ARROYO GRANDE MAYOR PRO TEM KRISTEN BARNEICH,ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL TIM BROWN, ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL BARBARA HARMON,ARROYO GRANDE CITY COUNCIL JIM BERGMAN, ARROYO GRANDE CITY MANAGER BILL ROBESON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TERESA MCCLISH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: CLAUDINE LINGO GRACE LANE RESIDENT 248 GRACE LANE (LOT 6) ARROYO GRANDE COMMENTS ABOUT THE BRISCO INTERCHANGE PROJECT Page 13 of Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration states that Rodeo Drive currently acts as a "through"street. This is totally inaccurate. Rodeo has speed bumps! Since Grace Lane was constructed, people avoid using Rodeo as they prefer to drive between 40-50 mph on Grace Lane (aka, Grace Speedway) instead. With the radar speed display visible from many 66.1 Grace Lane front yards, it is easy to tell house fast people drive up and down the street. In spite of the driveway configuration on Grace Lane, Grace Lane was not properly designed for speed; it consists of a hill with several bends around which fast approaching vehicles are not visible. The traffic on Grace Lane is heaviest in the mornings and afternoons when St. Pat students are arriving and leaving school. Parents dropping off/picking up their kids from St. Pat use Grace Lane to and from James Way& Rodeo by Grace Bible Church as do people commuting to and from work rather than Rodeo because Rodeo has speed bumps. However, it is 66.2 not uncommon for trucks (for example, FedEx and other business trucks)to speed up and down Grace Lane. I believe it is particularly reckless and irresponsible to have a freeway exit at the intersection where there is a school! I drove by St. Pat's between 4:30-5:00 pm on Wednesday (April 25); there were cars parked all up and down Rodeo on both sides of the Page 216 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project street between West Branch and up the hill from the school. Kids' baseball games were being played at St. Pats. Additional traffic as a result of building new on/off ramps at West Branch and Rodeo will further 66.2 exacerbate the traffic around St. Pats and the speeding up and down contd Grace Lane. I indicated in my March 9, 2015 letter to Mayor Hill, the City Council, the Interim City Manager and the City Attorney expressing opposition to the increase in the speed limit on Grace Lane from 25-35 mph and the proposal for the new freeway offramp at West Branch and Rodeo, that I am 66.3 adamantly opposed to diverting freeway traffic onto Grace Lane. Traffic should be diverted to the business district on West Branch Street and Rancho Parkway which should be the through street for traffic from James Way to West Branch. As I also mentioned in my March 9, 2015 letter, when we were buying our house on Grace Lane, there was nothing in the disclosures about the Brisco Interchange project when we bought our house or about the discussion to increase the speed limit! We closed escrow in December 66.4 2011 and didn't find out about the interchange project until late 2012 from a Rodeo Drive resident during discussions about raising the Grace Lane speed limit. I contacted the developer(Andy Mangano)to find out why he didn't disclose the Brisco Interchange Project when we bought the house. He indicated that the city didn't inform him/Chris Richardson (the realtor responsible for selling the Grace Lane houses) until May, 2012; he provided me the email Chris Richardson received from the city's Director of 66.5 Community Development. So at least two of the current Grace Lane owners(lot 3-the first house sold, and lot 6-the second house sold)were not provided with a disclosure about the interchange project since we bought our houses in 2011; it is likely that the people who bought the third house sold (lot 7)also did not receive the disclosure. In light of the safety issues, significant fiscal impact, and lack of timely disclosure of the Brisco Interchange Project when some of the Grace Lane houses were sold, I believe it is in the best interest of the 66.6 city to support Alternative 1 and strongly oppose Alternative 4C. I can't speak for others, but this is a very important issue for me and will be voting based on how the city proceeds on this issue. Page 217 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 66. Response to:Claudine Lingo(Letter Dated May 1,2018) 66.1 The comment is a duplicate of Comment 65-1. Please refer to Response 65-1 above. 66.2 The comment is a duplicate of Comment 65-2. Please refer to Response 65-2 above. 66.3 The comment is a duplicate of Comment 65-3. Please refer to Response 65-3 above. 66.4 The comment is a duplicate of Comment 65-4. Please refer to Response 65-4 above. 66.5 The comment is a duplicate of Comment 65-5. Please refer to Response 65-5 above. 66.6 The comment is a duplicate of Comment 65-6. Please refer to Response 65-6 above. Page 218 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project COMMENT LETTER#67 COMMENTS ON THE " Of BRISCO-HALCYON ROAD INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS PROJECT The City welcomes public input on this important project. In particular,we are seeking ." comment in the following categories;however,please feel free to comment on any project component: • Content of the Environmental Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration; • Preference for Alternative 1 or 4C for the project; • Preference for sound walls on either alternative: Comments may be provided to brisco(&arrovoorande.oro or to the mailing address on the reverse side of this comment card prior to the close of the public comment period on May 12,2018. Additionally,the City will hold a public hearing on the project in the coming months to provide further opportunities for public testimony.information regarding the public hearingvi ill be posted on the City's website at www.arrovodrande.org and at City Hall. Verb i SC U, wal) ' l ii-ve--- , 'f` -i-L� „Rcryi 67.1 f L_ nOtse I1 J& j 1-)Ls vfoivics�Vlo i,S o rf i , L lft,)!'l14 1U - `rho_ SSI t } NAME: Lk.ca- e]' OLt=it✓ EMAIL: 6i dpu.)a 4 ADDRESS: ,c } agjr e PHONE: l-1=0..—(?)'g CITY: CSI . STATE: C%.' ZIP: 95-/J..6 L Page 219 of 220 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE IS/MND AND EA April 2020 Brisco-Halcyon Road Interchange Modifications Project 67. Response to:Lisa Suddath (Letter not Dated) 67.1 The comment states support for the soundwall.The comment does not directly relate to any environmental issues in the IS/MND or EA;therefore, no changes in the environmental documents are needed. However,the comment will be made part of the administrative record and provided to local decision makers for their consideration. Page 220 of 220 OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION I, ANNAMARIE PORTER, Interim City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached Resolution No. 5060 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council/Successor Agency to the Dissolved Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 26th day of January, 2021. WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 28th day of January, 2021. AN AMARIE ORTER, INTERIM CITY CLERK