Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Resolution 2005-087
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-087 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2004-0036 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-0005, ZONE CHANGE 2003-0058, ZONE CHANGE 2003-0088, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-0108, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2003-0035 ON APN 056-131-015, 17, 018, 019 (8870 West Front Rd, 8760 Portola Rd/Richard Shannon: West Front Properties) WHEREAS, an application has been received from Richard Shannon — West Front Properties (5070 San Benito Road, Atascadero, CA 93422) Applicant, and Colony Associates (4100 West Alameda Avenue, Suite 103, Burbank, CA 91505), Property Owner, to consider a project consisting of: a general plan amendment from GC (General Commercial) to GC/MDR/SFR-X/HS(General Commercial/Medium Density Residential/Single-Family Residential-X); a zone change establishing PD-23 (Planned Development #23) zoning text; a zoning map change placing PD-23 over the project site; a zoning map change from CR (Commercial Retail) to CR/RMF-IO/RSF-X/PD23/HS (Commercial Retail/Residential Mutti- Family-1 O/Residential Single-Family Residential-X/Planned Development #23/Historic Overlay); a CUP (Condition Use Permit) placing a Master Plan of Development over the project site: and a vesting tentative tract map for a 46-lot subdivision on a 13.35-acre site located at 8870 %W West Front Rd and 8760 Portals.Road (APN 056-131-015, 17, 018, and 019); and, WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2005-0165 were prepared for the project and made available for public review in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Atascadero held a public hearing on September 6, 2005 to consider the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the project will have no significant impacts with project specific mitigation measures incorporated, and with the modification of mitigation measure AES.5 with the addition of condition CUP 81; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Atascadero held a public hearing on September 27, 2005, following the close of the review period, to consider the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration; and, NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Atascadero hereby resolves to certify Proposed Negative Declaration 2004-0036 based on the following Findings and as shown in Exhibit A: City of Atascadero Resolution No.2005-087 Page 2 of 4 *MW 1. The Proposed Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and, 2. The Proposed Negative Declaration was presented to the Planning Commission, and the information contained therein was considered by the Planning Commission, prior to recommending action on the project for which it was prepared; and, 3. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment when mitigation measures are incorporated into the project. 4. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 5. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 6. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. 7. The added mitigation measure is more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects, and it will not, in itself, cause any potentially significant effects on the environment. .i City of Ataseadero Resolution No.2005-087 Page 3 of 4 On motion by Council Member O'Malley and seconded by Council Member Clay, the foregoing Resolution is hereby adopted in its entirety on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Clay, O'Malley,Pacas and Mayor Scalise (4) NOES: Council Member Luna (1) ABSENT: None (0) ADOPTED: September 27, 2005 CITY OF ATAS ER By: - We dy S se, Mayor ATTEST: Uj 4yL< vaW Marcia McClure Torgerson, C.M.C., qyberk APPRO E AS TO FORM: J 7 Pa ,�rick L. ght, City Attorney *W City of Atascadero Resolution No.2005-087 Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A Proposed Negative Declaration 2005-0165 Large Document on File in City Clerk's Office r , RESOLUTION NO. 2005-087 EXHIBIT A Proposed Negative Declaration 2005-0165 FINAL WEST FRONT VILLAGE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Lead Agency: City of Atascadero Community Development Department Environmental Consultant: Padre Associates, Inc. 1012 Pacific Street, Suite A San Luis Obispo, California 93401 August 2005 Padre ssociates, Inc. ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS & El ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS Start Here Project Description Applicant: West Front Properties, LLC, 5070 San Benito Road, Atascadero, CA 93422; Phone: (805) 466-5736 Project Title: West Front Villages — General Plan Amendment 2003-0005, Zoning Change 2003-0088, Planned Development 2003-0108, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2003-0035 for Commercial Retail, 3 -Story, 79 -Room hotel, 5,000 s.f. retail building, 5,000 s.f, retail/gas lot (alternate plan proposes 9,400 s.f. retail building without restaurant) 12,700 s.f. retail/business park, 5 large -lot SFR, 14 courtyard homes, and 18 duplex homes, with an affordable housing component of 6 deed -restricted units. Project Southwest Corner Portola Road & West Front Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: (San Luis Obispo County) APN 056-131-015, -017, -018, -019. Project The project involves development of a residential/commercial project on 9.36 acres of Description: property located on the west side of West Front Road south of the intersection of Portola Road. Entitlement requests include a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Planned Development, and Vesting Tentative Map. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone are included for the adjacent, 3.99 acre Wilson property with a potential future 5 -lot single-family subdivision. 1�~�y CITY OF ATASCADERO FPQ; CEQA REFERRAL REQUEST FOR COMMENTS Community Development Department 6905 El Camino Real, Suite 6 Atascadero, CA 93422 (805) 461-5000 Date: August 26, 2005 State Clearinghouse Atascadero Mutual Water Company Address Management System California Dept. of Fish and Game + BR California Regional Water Quality Control Board + BR San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District Upper Salinas / Las Tablas Resources Conservation District + BR Atascadero Unified School District SLO County Sheriffs Dept. SLO County Assessor's Office US Postal Service Applicant, West Front Properties From: Warren Frace, Community Development Director The attached Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is referred for your Agency's review and comment. The public review period for this project runs from August 29, 2005 through September 27, 2005. Mitigated Negative Declaration 2004-0036 and Initial Study. CITY OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF ATASCADERO NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Atascadero Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing to consider the following project and environmental determination. The public is encouraged to attend. Applicant: West Front Properties, LLC, 5070 San Benito Road, Atascadero, CA 93422; Phone: (805) Review Dates: 466-5736 Project Title: (Nest Front Villages — General Plan Amendment 2003-0005, Zoning Change 2003-0088, Hearing Planned Development 2003-0108, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2003-0035 for Commercial Location: Retail, 3 -Story, 79 -room hotel, 5,000 s.f. retail building, 5,000 s.f. retail/gas lot (alternate plan proposes 9,400 s_f. retail building without restaurant), 12,700 s.f. retail/business park, 5 large -lot SFR, 14 courtyard homes and 18 duplex homes, with an affordable housing Proposed component of 6 deed -restricted units. Project Southwest Corner Portola Road & West Front Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: (San Luis Obispo County) APN 056-131-015, -017, -018, -019. Project The project involves development of a residential/commercial project on 9.36 acres of Description: property located on the west side of West Front Road south of the intersection of Portola Road. Entitlement requests include a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Planned Development, and Vesting Tentative Map. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone are included for the adjacent, 3.99 -acre Wilson property with a potential future 5 -lot single-family subdivision. Environmental Begins: August 29, 2005 Review Dates: Ends: September 27, 2005 Hearing Date: Planning Commission: 916/05, City Council: 9127/05 Hearing Pavilion on the Lake Location: 9315 Pismo Avenue Atascadero City Hall, 7:00 p.m. Atascadero, CA 93422 Proposed Based on the initial study prepared for the project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is Environmental proposed. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review from Determination: 8129/05 through 9127/05 at 6905 EI Camino Real, Suite 6, Community Development Department, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday -through Friday. Any interested person may review the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and project files. Questions should be directed to Steve McHarris, Department of Community Development Director at 461- 5000. Warren M. Frace, Community Development Director Date File: NO 2.1421 WFn VilbecRrirN ISM\D lehangc xcepiNl Print D—W26.'051:30 P.M 6905 EL CAIMINO REAL, SUITE 6• ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 • (805) 461-5000 • FAX 461-7612 CITY OF ATASCADERO CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION 6905 EI Camino Real, Suite 6 Atascadero, CA 93422 (805) 461-5000 De Minimis Impact Finding Applicant: West Front Properties, LLC, 5070 San Benito Road, Atascadero, CA 93422; Phone: (805) 466-5736 Project Title: West Front Villages — General Plan Amendment 2003-0005, Zoning Change 2003-0088, Planned Development 2003-0108, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2003-0035 for Commercial Retail, 3 -Story, 79 -room hotel, 5,000 s.f. retail building, 5,000 s.f. retail/gas lot (alternate plan proposes 9,400 s.f. retail building without restaurant), 12,700 s.f. retail/business park, 5 large -lot SFR, 14 courtyard homes, and 18 duplex homes, with an affordable housing component of 6 deed -restricted units. Project Southwest Corner Portola Road & West Front Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: (San Luis Obispo County) APN 056-131-015, -017, -018, -019. Project The project involves development of a residential/commercial project on 9.36 acres of Description: property located on the west side of West Front Road south of the intersection of Portola Road. Entitlement requests include a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Planned Development, and Vesting Tentative Map. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone are included for the adjacent, 3.99 -acre Wilson property with a potential future 5 -lot single-family subdivision. FINDINGS OF EXEMPTION: 1. An Initial Study has been prepared by the Lead Agency to evaluate the project's effects on wildlife resources, if any. 2. The Lead Agency hereby rinds that there is no evidence before the City that the project will have any potential for adverse effect on the environment. 3. The project []*will ® will not result in any changes to the following resources: (a) Riparian land, rivers, streams, watercourses and wetlands; (b) Native and non-native plant life and the soil required to sustain habitat for fish and wildlife; (c) Rare and unique plant life and ecological communities dependant on plant life; (d) Listed threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitat in which they are believed to reside; (e) All species listed as protected or identified for special management in the Fish and Game Code, the Public Resources Code, the Water Code or regulations adopted thereunder; (f) All marine and terrestrial species subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game and the ecological communities in which they reside; and (g) All air and water resources, the degradation of which will individually or cumulatively result in a loss of biological diversity among the plants and animals residing in that air and water. *If the project will result in changes to any of these resources, the City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, "rebutted" the presumption of adverse effect to these resources. A statement in support of this rebuttal is attached. RTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the Lead Agency has made the above finding(s) of fact and based upon the Initial Study and the hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Warren M. Frace, Community Development Director Date Fil,:0402.1421 W -Prone `.'ilbje RniW 1SMND(,hu o—cylN, Pew D-. 6905 EL CAIVIINO REAL, SUITE 6• ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 • (805) 461-5000 FAX 461-7612 6905 EI Camino Real, Suite 6 To: ® County Clerk, County of San Luis Obispo CITY OF ATASCADERO NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Atascadero, CA 93422 (805) 461-5000 From: Warren Frace, City of Atascadero Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination In Compllance with Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #_- Applicant: : Applicant: West Front Properties, LLC, 5070 San Benito Road, Atascadero, CA 93422; Phone: (805) 466-5736 West Front Villages — General Plan Amendment 2003-0005, Zoning Change 2003-0088, Planned Development 2003-0108, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2003-0035 for Commercial Project Title: Retail, 3 -Story, 79 -room hotel, 5,000 s.f. retail building, 5,000 s.f. retail/gas lot (alternate plan proposes 9,400 s.f. retail building without restaurant), 12,700 s.f. retail/business park, 5 large -lot SFR, 14 courtyard homes, and 18 duplex homes, with an affordable housing component of 6 deed -restricted units. Project Southwest Corner Portola Road & West Front Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: (San Luis Obispo County) APN 056-131-015, -017, -018, -019. The project involves development of a residential/commercial project on 9.36 acres of Project property located on the west side of West Front Road south of the intersection of Portola Description: Road. Entitlement requests include a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Planned Development, and Vesting Tentative Map. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone are included for the adjacent, 3.99 -acre Wilson property with a potential future 5 -lot single-family subdivision. This is to certify that the City of Alascadero, the ® leadla ❑ responsible agency approved the above-described project an ? 1. The project ❑ will ® will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. ❑ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. ® A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency, 3. Mitigation measures ® were ❑ were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations ❑ was ® was not adopted for this project. 5. Findings ® were ❑ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 6. The location and custodian of the documents which comprise the record of proceedings for the Final EIR (with comments and responses) or Mitigated Negative Declaration are specified as follows: Custodian: Warren M. Frace, Community Development Director Location: Community Development Department, 6905 El Camino Real, Suite 6, Atascadero, CA 93422 Warren M. Frace, Community Development Director Date File:w0:-147IN'�n FrogV Wer Rnunl IS\14D �chv,an acrrp�odl print Da ..01n6057:70F%1 6905 EL CAIMINO REAL, SUITE 6• ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 • (805) 461-5000 • FAX 461-7612 l' CITY OF ATASCADERO ,) PROPOSED MITIGATED J NEGATIVE DECLARATION #2003-0016 6905 EI Camino Real, Suite 6 Atascadero, CA 93422 (805) 461-5000 Applicant: West Front Properties, LLC, 5070 San Benito Road, Atascadero, CA 93422; Phone: (805) 466-5736 Project Title: West Front Villages — General Plan Amendment 2003-0005, Zoning Change 2003-0088, Planned Development 2003-0108, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2003-0035 for Commercial Retail, 3 -Story, 79 -room hotel, 5,000 s_f. retail building, 5,000 s.f. retail/gas lot (alternate plan proposes 9,400 s.f retail building without restaurant), 12,700 s.f. retail/business park, 5 large -lot SFR, 14 courtyard homes, and 18 duplex homes, with an affordable housing component of 6 deed -restricted units. Project Southwest Corner Portola Road & West Front Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 Location: (San Luis Obispo County) APN 056-131-015, -017, -018, -019. Project The project involves development of a residential/commercial project on 9.36 acres of Description: property located on the west side of West Front Road south of the intersection of Portola Road. Entitlement requests include a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Planned Development, and Vesting Tentative Map. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone are included for the adjacent, 3.99 -acre Wilson property with a potential future 5 -lot single-family subdivision. Findings: 1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment. 2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. 4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. Determination: Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the initial study 2003-0016 (made a part hereof by reference and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been determined that the above project will not have an adverse impact on the environment when the following proposed mitigation measures are incorporated into the project (see attachment). Prepared By: Date Posted: Public Review Ends Attachments: Steve Mc Harris, Department of Community Development Director August 29, 2005 September 27, 2005 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2004-0036 Filc W02-WlW-F-1 Vilh;c pc.l)N I Prins Dais Mf 0.05]:]0 PM 6905 EL CAAIINO REAL, SUITE 6• ATASCADERO, CALIFORNIA 93422 • (805) 461-5000 • FAX 461-7612 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Review 2003-0016 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Applicant: West Front Properties, LLC, 5070 San Benito Road, Atascadero, CA 93422; Phone: (805) 466-5736 Project Title: West Front Villages — General Plan Amendment 2003-0005, Zoning Change 2003-0088, Number: Planned Development 2003-0108, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2003-0035 for Commercial Retail, 3 -Story, 79 -room hotel, 5,000 s.f. retail building, 5,000 s.f. retail/gas lot (alternate plan proposes 9,400 s.f. retail building without restaurant), 12,700 s.f. retail/business park, 5 large -lot SFR, 14 courtyard homes and 18 duplex homes, with an affordable housing General Plan Designation: component of 6 deed -restricted units. Project Location: Southwest Corner Portola Road & West Front Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 (San Luis Obispo County) APN 056-131-015, -017, -018, -019. Project The project involves development of a residential/commercial project on 9.36 acres of Description: property located on the west side of West Front Road south of the intersection of Portola Road. Entitlement requests include a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Planned Development, and Vesting Tentative Map. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone are included for the adjacent, 3.99 -acre Wilson property with a potential future 5 -lot single-family Zoning: subdivision. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Atascadero 6905 EI Camino Real, Suite 6, Atascadero, CA 93422 Contact Person and Phone Steve McHarris, Department of Community Development Director Number: City of Atascadero 6905 EI Camino Real, Suite 6 Atascadero, CA 93422 805 461-5000 General Plan Designation: 0 The General Plan Amendment would allow for a change from General Commercial (GC) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) on the 4.43 acre residential portion of the project. • The remaining 4.93 acres along West Front adjacent to EI Camino Building Supply would remain GC to allow for the retail, business park and hotel/motel uses. • The adjacent 3.99 -acre Wilson property would be amended from GC to SFR -X to be consistent with existing residential properties. Zoning: a (CR) to RMF for the 4.43 +/- acre residential portion • Net density proposed for residential portion would be approx. 7.2 units per acre (32 units/4.43 acres, includes street right-of-way and detention basin). • The remaining frontage property would remain CR. • The 3.99 -acre Wilson property would be rezoned to SFR -X to allow for approximately five (5) half -acre lots. Surrounding Land Uses and North: Existing SFR designated CR-CT/GC Setting: South: Existing SFR and CR/GC (EI Camino Building Supply & Health Club West: Existing SFR and PUB Santa Rosa Elementary). East: West Front Road and Highway 101 Other public agencies whose Regional Water Quality Control Board approval is required (e.g., permits, San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District financing approval, or participation agreement) San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Department This page intentionally left blank CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY %fin CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 PURPOSE OF IS/MND.......................... .................. ............................................ 1-1 1.2 IS/MND FORMAT AND CONTENTS ................................................... I.............. 1-1 1.3 CEQA IS/MND REQUIREMENTS............................................................. .......... 1-1 1.4 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS............................................................. 1-2 1.5 CONTACT PERSON AND TELEPHONE NUMBER ........................................... 1-2 1.6 PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS ............................................... 1-2 1.7 PROPERTY OWNERS........................................................................................ 1-2 1.8 RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES................................................................................ 1-2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION..........................................................................................2-1 2.3 SITE FEATURES................................................................................................. 2-1 2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES..................................................................................... 2-1 2.5 PROJECT BACKGROUND................................................................................. 2-2 2.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................. 2-2 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ......................................... 3-1 3.1 AESTHETICS...................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................. ....... .................... 3-6 3.3 AIR QUALITY........................................................... ............................................. 3-8 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES............................................................................. 3-21 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................................3-31 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS..................................................................................... 3-38 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................... 3-41 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY............................................................. 3-43 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING............................................................................. 3-48 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES 3-50 ................................................................................... 3.11 NOISE................................................................................................................3-50 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING......................................................................... 3-55 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................ ............................................. ...3-57 3.14 RECREATION....................................................................................................3-60 3.15 TRANSPORATION/TRAFFIC........................................................................... 3-61 3.16 UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS.......................................................................3-68 3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................. 3-71 CITYOFATASINITIACAERO SDUDY LIST OF TABLES Table Title Paqe 2-1 Summary of Proposed Uses......................................................................................... 2-9 2-2 Summary of Entitlements............................................................................................ 2-11 2-3 Courtyard Homes (Lots 14-27)................................................................................... 2-12 2-4 Duplex Homes (Lots 29-46)........................................................................................2-12 2-5 List of Equipment........................................................................................................ 2-16 2-6 Construction Schedule ................................ ........................2-16 3.3-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards.................................................................................... 3-10 3.3-2 Summary of Air Quality Standard Exceedances........................................................ 3-13 3.3-3 Construction Emission Estimates............................................................................... 3-16 3.3-4 Estimated Long -Term Emissions (pounds/day)......................................................... 3-17 3.5-1 Chronology Sequence for the Central San Luis Obispo Area .................................... 3-32 3.11-1 Definitions of Acoustical Terms.................................................................................. 3-51 3.15-1 Roadway Classifications............................................................................................. 3-62 3.15-2 Existing Plus Approved/Pending Projects Plus Project Conditions ............................ 3-65 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page 2-1 Site Location Map............................................................................................................ 2-3 2-2 Site Plan ....................................... ..2-5 2-3 Wetland Plan....................................................................................................................2-7 APPENDICES A. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM B. AIR QUALITY C. ARBORIST'S REPORT D. ARCHAEOLOGY E. TRANSMITTAL OF CASE CLOSURE LETTER AND CLOSURE SUMMARY F. NOISE STUDY G. TRAFFIC STUDY CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The City of Atascadero (City) Community Development Department, serving as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to assess the impacts that may result from the development of the proposed project. The project is two -fold: (1) residential/commercial development and (2) general plan amendment/rezone with a potential 5 future lot single-family subdivision. This IS/MND is intended to inform the public, decision markers and other responsible or interested agencies and organizations of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process enables public agencies to evaluate a project in terms of its environmental consequences and to consider and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. 1.2 IS/MND FORMAT AND CONTENTS The IS/MND comprises the substantive portion of the environmental documentation for the project prepared to comply with CEQA requirements. This IS/MND has been prepared in conformance with the CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Code of Regulations, Title 14 (hereafter "CEQA Guidelines"). The IS/MND examines the following topic areas: • Aesthetics • Agricultural Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Land Use/Planning 1.3 CEQA IS/MND REQUIREMENTS • Hydrology/Water Quality • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities/Services Systems An IS/MND must be prepared in conformance with the CEQA of 1970, as amended. Public Resources Code Section 21064.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 state that an IS/MND may be prepared if the Initial Study identifies a potentially significant effect for which the project proponent has made or agrees to make project revisions that clearly mitigate the effects. Additionally, an IS/MND may not be used if any substantial evidence indicates that the revised project with mitigation may still have a significant effect on the environment. 1.4 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY CEQA applies to discretionary government actions that are defined as a project and have the potential to result in either a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. An activity is considered a project if it requires issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement by a public agency. The CEQA Lead Agency is the California government agency that has the principal responsibility of approving a project and preparing the appropriate CEQA documentation. CEQA applies to all California government agencies at all levels, including local agencies, regional agencies, and state agencies, boards, commissions, and special districts. The City is designated as the CEQA lead agency for approval of this project by virtue of its discretionary authority as a municipality. 1.5 CONTACT PERSON AND TELEPHONE NUMBER Mr. Steve McHarris, Deputy Director City of Atascadero Community Development Department 6905 EI Camino Real, Suite 6 Atascadero, CA 93422 Telephone (805) 461-5000, ext. 3482 1.6 PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS West Front Properties, LLC 5070 San Benito Road Atascadero, CA 93422 1.7 PROPERTY OWNERS West Front Properties, LLC 4100 W. Alameda Ave, Suite 103 Burbank, CA 91505 1.8 RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES A responsible agency is an agency other than the lead agency that has a legal responsibility for also carrying out or approving a project. The responsible agency must actively participate in the lead agency's CEQA process by reviewing the document and using it for the approval of the project. The responsible agency may also use this document to achieve CEQA compliance when issuing permits required authorizing the project. Responsible agencies pertaining to this project include: • Regional Water Quality Control Board • San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District • County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health Department 1-2- CHAPTER 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY The West Front Village Development Project has been proposed by West Front Properties, LLC to construct a residential/commercial development within the City. The proposed project includes a range of residential housing, commercial retail, and a hotel on a 13.35 -acre property. 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The West Front Village project site is located at the southwest corner of Portola Road and West Front Road, in the City of Atascadero. See Figure 2-1. It is a 13.35 -acre parcel that is bordered on the east by West Front Road; on the south by residences and commercial buildings; on the west by residences and Santa Rosa Elementary; and on the north by Portola Avenue. See Figure 2-2. 2.3 SITE FEATURES The site is a vacant undeveloped area with a swale the runs west to east through the northern portion of the site. The existing site topography generally slopes gently downhill from the west to the east. Comprised of grassland, there are a few mature trees consisting of blue oaks (Quercus douglassi), live oaks (Quercus agrifolia), and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) located on the northern portion of the site. Adjacent land uses include residential, commercial, and public services (Santa Rosa Elementary). 2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The purpose of the project is to allow construction of a residential/commercial development consisting of a variety of residential and commercial uses on 13.35 acres of property: • 3 -Story, 79 -Room Hotel. The hotel will help generate revenue through transient occupancy tax (TOT) that will go directly to the City; • Housing. The project will provide a variety of housing types to meet workforce - housing needs. A component of deed restricted affordable housing will also be provided; and, • Commercial Space. The project will help fulfill commercial space demand in the City as well as generate revenue for the City through tax dollars. 2-1 2.5 PROJECT BACKGROUND CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY The City encourages new development that would maintain and enhance its historic, neighborhood character. To guide and direct new growth, the City established Smart Growth Principles - these have been incorporated into the City's General Plan. The purpose of these principles is to encourage more compact, walkable communities and pedestrian -scale residential/commercial infill to provide the opportunity for a variety of transit opportunities and minimize dependence on the automobile. 2.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purpose of the request is to allow for the development of a residential/commercial project on a 9.36 -acre area located on the west side of West Front Road south of the intersection of Portola Road. Entitlement requests include a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Planned Development, and Vesting Tentative Map. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone are also included for the adjacent, 3.99 -acre Wilson property with a potential future 5 lot single family residence subdivision. The net commercial area totals 4.93 acres, or approximately 53% of the 9.36 -acre West Front parcel (incorporating an approximate 0.97 acre Retail/Business Park to be accessed separately via a current adjacent driveway). Applicants are requesting approval of a plan which includes a 5,000 square -foot building that may be used to accommodate a restaurant use, as well as an alternative design using a 9,400 square -foot retail space if no restaurant is included. A 3 -story, 79 -room Holiday Inn Express hotel is also included in the plan. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined that a jurisdictional wetland exists in the northern swale area of the project site; this wetland may be removed provided the loss be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio with incorporation of wetland -specific plantings in onsite detention basin areas. Please refer to the Wetlands Plan, Figure 2-3. The adjacent Wilson property is proposed to be rezoned RSF-X and would allow for five (5) lots a minimum of 0.50 acres each on the 3.99 -acre property. The Wilson property is not proposed for development at this time, however, it is included in order to prevent creating an isolated commercial parcel when the West Front parcel is rezoned. A summary of the proposed uses is shown in Table 2.1. 2.6.1 Affordable and Workforce Housing Affordable Housing A total of 32 Courtyard and Duplex Homes are proposed. In accordance with the City's 20% affordable housing requirement, the applicant will provide 6 deed -restricted affordable housing units. These units will be provided through a combination of for sale homes, rentals of the duplex units, and payment of in -lieu fees. Payment of in -lieu fees will be provided to cover the remaining two units. 2-2 August 2004 Project No. 0402-1421 A S C\1 D E R0 ak OR P51" PROJECT ------------- KEYMAP i : Con Car VfrA+so'omLgre�mgrk 1, i`- ���;/ ,(\ ` � ,`, j�//J!/i �, •,�1 .� �,�i ;gyp!/ �,f_ i ce` �.) \;• �� .`I p. r,J �-, 'V ...-��___� �' -"\ �. f /- . /:,.. �j � • . a � ice. • '• - v'� e' �-•• •Y- � �V ' (jr Pal I J z - - --------- .,. _fie ( NORTH i s*''�'' APPROXIMATE SCALE 1 �FI- 1 INCH = 2 MILES \ 4 source: I uNu! c zuu1 National Geographic Holdings (www.topo.com) repssoeiate ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS & 0 ENVIRONMENTAL SGENTI5T5 West Front Village SITE VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2-1 August 2005 Project No. 0402-1581 Retell Paridng Pd Wilson 5 Lots Retail - j 9,400 s.f. ?. en zv d sa ev 110 Altemate Retail Site Plan SCALE144U-0' Source: RRM Design Group P sadre ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS b ri ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS West Front Villages SITE PLAN FIGURE 2-2 Pmpwed Monumerd S'p Locallon 4'1*gh- n ,n� Sc mmn Wall �r 1r, � I! 1 A Pylon Sign - 50' Tall (� I J . Trash Enclosure Courtyard — ;°' j' Monument Sign -6'Tall 1 MsSonrySGmei See Sheet L-5 ; : Masonry (At Comer) ;�` Gumsf Pend Scmn Wall, ° Typical See Sheet L5 COROMAR �; ;' Retain Business , Park MasonryScmer 12,700 S.f. See Sheet L-5 Trash ,II Erxrosure Street Light - Residential and Parking Areas Retell Paridng Pd Wilson 5 Lots Retail - j 9,400 s.f. ?. en zv d sa ev 110 Altemate Retail Site Plan SCALE144U-0' Source: RRM Design Group P sadre ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS b ri ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS West Front Villages SITE PLAN FIGURE 2-2 August 2005 Project No. 0402-1581 SCNEMAT�: ` Symbd j r: I J. -I 1 Source: RRM Design Group padrs e ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS A Q E14VIROPIMENTAL SCIENTISTS West Front Villages WETLANDS PLAN FIGURE 2-3 Table 2-1. Summary of Proposed Uses CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Proposed Use ::. Lofs Net Building S,F Gode'Req Park1 Notes::. Homes Acres kil ng within each cluster or on 5pac street. Duplex Homes 18 1.73 .. 54 es Guest parking provided in Retail/Gas 2 1.43 5,000 s.f. Use not 45 Common parking Park/Detention/ 1 0.33 n/a specified n/a easements provided Retail 1 0.75 5,000 s.f. 17 45 Additional parking beyond Area (alt. plan — 9,400) (alt. — 31) (alt. — Code requirements is Street ROW & n/a 0.77 n/a n/a 34) provided to allow for the dedication possibility of a restaurant. Hotel 1 1.78 79 rooms 8980 Common parking easements provided Retail/Business 9 0.97 12,700 s.f. 32 27 Access provided via Park existing driveway to building material supply business. Courtyard 14 1.73 1.365 —1,500 s.f. 38 45 Guest parking provided Homes within each cluster or on street. Duplex Homes 18 1.73 1,218 — 1,366 s.f. 54 56 Guest parking provided in driveway or on street. Park/Detention/ 1 0.33 n/a n/a n/a Wetland Mit. Area Street ROW & n/a 0.77 n/a n/a n/a dedication Large Lot SFR 5 3.99 n/a n/a n/a Includes GPA, RZ, and (Wilson) PD but not a Tent. Map. Workforce Housing Statement Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant will enter into a legal agreement with the City to reserve half of the units for sale to residents or workers within the City of Atascadero, including the affordable units. The agreement shall include the following provisions: • The units shall be offered for sale to residents or workers within the City of Atascadero for a minimum of 60 days. During that time period, offers may only be accepted from Atascadero residents or workers; 2-9 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY • The applicant shall provide reasonable proof to the City that at least one of the qualified buyers is a resident or worker within the City limits of Atascadero; The Atascadero resident or worker restriction shall apply to the initial sale only; • The applicant shall identify which units will be reserved; and, • The City Attorney shall approve the final form of the agreement. 2.6.2 Project Entitlements Several entitlements are necessary to implement the Master Plan of Development (MPD). These are identified in Table 2-2. 2.6.3 Master Plan Components A Planned Development (PD) is requested for the 9.36 acre, residential/commercial portion of the property. The project will include: • Retail/Gas/Restaurant (5,000 s.f. building); • Retail Pad (5,00 s.f. building - 9,400 s.f. with alternate plan) • 3 -Story, 79 Room Hotel; • 14 Courtyard Homes; and • 18 Duplex Homes A total of 32 units are proposed. Recreation and open space will be provided for residents through joint use of the central detention basin as a pocket park. Landscaping, benches, paths and other passive recreational uses will be available in the park/detention facility. Common access for pedestrians will be provided between the residential and the commercial uses via a pedestrian pathway through the pocket park/detention basin. The basin is also being used as a wetland mitigation area where no public access will be allowed. Decorative paving will be provided at all project entrances and within the driveways to the Courtyard Cluster Homes. Decorative, masonry sound walls and landscape screening will be provided between the commercial and residential uses. Architectural elevations for the rear of the commercial buildings will be enhanced where they are visible from the residential homes. This is commonly referred to as "4 -sided architecture". Low impact, parking lot lighting will be provided in the commercial site using shielded, "shoe box" style lighting a maximum of 20' in height. Lighting within the residential area will be provided via lights on the individual homes, a standard City street light at the intersection of Portola Road, and low wattage landscape lighting in the pocket park area. WK Planned Development Standards CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY As part of the PD, the applicant is requesting that the following standards be applied to the project in accordance with the Site Plan and Vesting Tentative Map (see Table 2-3 and Table 2- 4). If not specifically identified, the standards of the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of approval shall be used. Table 2-2. Summary of Entitlements Entitlement , . _. 2-11 "File # Descrlgtion General Plan GPA 2003-0005 The General Plan Amendment would allow for a change Amendment from General Commercial (GC) to Medium Density (Land Use Residential (MDR) on the 4.43 -acre residential portion of the Diagram) project. The remaining 4.93 acres along West Front would remain GC to allow for the retail and hotel/motel uses. The adjacent Wilson property would be amended from GC to SFR -X to be consistent with the existing residential properties. Zone Change ZCH 2003-0058 The Rezone would allow for a change from Commercial (PD) Text Retail (CR) to RMF -10 for the 4.43 -acre residential portion. The proposed density for the residential portion would be approximately 7.2 units/acre (32 units/4.43 acres). The Zone Change ZCH 2004-0088 (Map) remaining frontage property would remain CR. The adjacent Wilson property would be rezoned to SFR -X to allow for approximately five (5) half -acre lots. Master Plan of CUP 2003-0108 A Planned Development (PD) is requested for the 9.36 -acre, Development residential/commercial portion of the property. The project will include: • Retail/Gas/Restaurant (5,000 s.f. building); • Retail Pad (5,000 s.f. building — 9,400 with alt. plan) • 3 -Story, 79 Room Hotel; • 14 Courtyard Homes; and, • 18 Duplex Homes (32 total residential lots) • A 0.33 acre pocket park (central detention basin) for recreation and open space • Street ROW and dedication Vesting TTM 2003-0035 A total of 46 lots are requested. These include twelve Tentative Map commercial lots, 14 Courtyard Home lots, and 18 Duplex Home lots. A total of 32 residential lots will be provided. A 34' street section with sidewalk on one side is requested as part of the map. Right-of-way dedications are proposed as art of the --- a 2-11 Table 2-3. Courtyard Homes (Lots 14-27) CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Minimum Lot Size 9-3.174 0.5 acres 3,600 square feet Maximum Density 9-3.175 10 units/acre 7.2 units/acre (note: this includes both residential projects) Coverage 9-3.176(a) 40%/50% 55% Enclosed Storage 9-3.176(b) Min. 100 s.f. Not required since all units have 2 - car garages Outdoor Recreation 9-3.176(c) 300 s.f. per unit Not required since all units have private yards Covered Parking 9-3.176(e) 1 per unit 2 per unit in a garage Parking 9-4.118 MF Dwelling 2 per unit plus 0.5 spaces per each bed over 2 bedrooms 2 per unit in a garage + 1 per unit guest parking. Setbacks 9.4.106 — 109 Various As shown on the Layout Plan Table 2-4. Duplex Homes (Lots 29-46) It Code'Sectlon Code:Requirement ProJecYl?roposal Minimum Lot Size 9-3.174 0.5 acres 2,900 square feet Maximum Density 9-3.175 10 units/acre 7.2 units/acre (note: this includes both residential projects) Coverage 9-3.176(a) 40%/50% 55% Enclosed Storage 9-3.176(b) Min. 100 s.f. Not required since all units have 2 - car garages Outdoor Recreation 9-3.176(c) 300 s.f. per unit Not required since all units have private yards Covered Parking 9-3.176(e) 1 per unit 2 per front unit in a garage Parking 9-4.118 MF Dwelling 1.5 spaces per unit 2.0 spaces per unit plus 1 per unit guest parking per unit. Setbacks 9.4.106 —109 Various As shown on the Layout Plan Parking Common parking and access easements will be provided for all the commercial areas along West Front Road. A total of 197 spaces are provided for the commercial uses. At 45 spaces, the retail building in the center is over -parked, while at 80 spaces, the motel is slightly under - parked. As a result of differing peak demands and common access/parking easements, both sites will be able to adequately provide parking for their uses. A total of 45 spaces are provided for the Retail/Gas use and 27 spaces for the Retail/Business Park. As part of the PD approval, the applicant requests that a parking count of 45 spaces be approved for the proposed Retail/Gas use on Lots 1 and 2. 2-12 i4kk Vesting Tentative Map CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY A total of 46 lots are requested. These include four commercial lots, 14 Courtyard Home lots, 18 Duplex Home lots, 9 Retail/Business Park lots and a lot for the detention basin. A 34' street section and right-of-way dedications are proposed as part of the map. Wilson Property Improvements Although not proposed for development at this time, the project proposes several improvements for the Wilson property. These include abandoning the existing septic tank, connecting the existing home to a public sewer, improving the driveway where it crosses the drainage, providing a new drainage culvert under the driveway, grading to accommodate the drainage inlets, and construction of a 6' to 8' masonry wall along the entire east property line. Phasing The project owners' proposed phasing of the overall development is as follows: • Rough grade the 9.36 -acre West Front portion of the site and install any interior retaining walls, detention basins, and drainage facilities; • Install all street frontage improvements, including landscaping, along West Front and Portola Roads; • Construct the 6' to 8' varying high perimeter wall adjacent to the Wilson property; • Install signals required at Santa Barbara Road overpass and other related street improvements along Santa Rosa Road. In addition, any stop signs required along West Front or Portola Roads shall be installed. The balance of the Commercial Development and the Residential Housing shall be completed as market demand dictates. The project applicant shall have the right to construct the above phases simultaneously. In lieu of installing any improvements that are subject to Caltrans approval, project owners may pay to the City, in cash, the amount to construct said improvements, as detailed in the existing Omni -Means Traffic Study. Amount shall be based on the engineers' estimate, as approved by the City. City agrees to form a reimbursement district for the costs of the signalization of Santa Rosa Road, above the percentage share indicated by the Omni -Means Traffic Study (Appendix G), as attributable to the West Front Village Project. Phasing Conditions The applicant agrees to voluntarily restrict the timing and various uses on Lots 4-12 (Hotel and Business Park). The condition would be as follows: 2-13 CI TY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY • Project owners agree to complete construction of the Hotel and Business Park buildings and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for same, prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for any of the Residential Units. • Project owners have the option of obtaining a Performance Guarantee, acceptable to the City, to ensure the completion of the Hotel and/or Business Park. Should project owners choose to do so, the requirement for obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the guarantee shall be deemed satisfied. • Lot number 3 shall be marketed by project owners as a restaurant use for a period of not less than 2 years from final occupancy of the hotel. • The applicant shall implement the approved restaurant marketing plan from project approval through 2 years from Final Certificate of Occupancy for the project hotel. The applicant shall submit quarterly progress reports to the Community Development Director demonstrating due diligence in marketing the restaurant site for development. If a restaurant use is not secured by the applicant at the end of the marketing period, a final report shall be submitted to the Community Development Director documenting the final results of the marketing plan and requesting that retail use be permitted on the restaurant site. The Community Development Director shall make a final determination within two weeks of the applicant's request. Public Services Prior to the recording of final maps and detailed improvement plans, funding mechanisms would be prepared and approved by the City. The applicant would design and install all needed infrastructure; impact fee credits and reimbursements would apply as appropriate. The City would assume maintenance responsibilities for all water, wastewater, and storm drainage facilities. Water System. The applicant would design and install all on-site water system improvements from the point of connections to each individual service location including mains, valves, blow - offs, service laterals and meter boxes. The City would assume maintenance responsibilities of the water system, which would be funded by user rates of property owners within the project area. Wastewater. The owner would be responsible for the construction of the on-site sewer system and the City would assume maintenance responsibilities of such system. Storm Drainage System/Wetland Detention Basins The applicant would design and install all on-site storm drainage facilities_ Maintenance of the storm drain system would be the responsibility of the adjacent commercial properties and the homeowners. The applicant is proposing to design, construct, and maintain the three stormwater detention basins as compensatory wetland areas to meet U.S Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetland mitigation requirements. The total area of the wetland detention basins is 29,603 square feet and is broken down as follows: 2-14 • Wetland Area A: 6,450 s.f. • Wetland Area B: 16,705 s.f. • Wetland Area C: 6,475 s.f. CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Wetland Area A is a combination detention basin and recreational pocket park. Please refer to Figure 2-3 Wetlands Plan for the layout of the wetland areas Solid Waste Disposal. Solid Waste would be disposed at the local Chicago Grade Landfill. Utilities. Electrical service would be provided by PG&E and The Natural Gas Company would provide natural gas service. 2.6.4 Construction The project would involve grading with excavated material balanced onsite. Detention basins would be constructed to facilitate drainage of stormwater runoff. Other site improvements would include access driveways and streets, parking areas, and landscaping. A total of about 14,000 cubic yards of material would be excavated at the site, with this material balanced onsite; excavated topsoil would be utilized onsite for landscaping purposes. An additional 100 cubic yards of topsoil may be added to the site from an offsite source. Approximately 5,600 tons of base material and asphalt would be added to the project site. Personnel Around 7 persons per day on average would be employed during the length of construction for site improvements and construction of the single-family residences and commercial buildings. Such personnel would be drawn from local sources. Personnel would include heavy equipment operators, general contractors, and tradespersons. Equipment Table 2-5 summarizes the equipment that would be used for the project. Approximately 1,360 truck trips would be required for the delivery of materials and equipment to the project site. Site Access and Staging Areas The primary staging area would be in the center of the project where the single-family homes are proposed. All construction and staging would be done on site. Project Schedule The total length of construction would be approximately 7.5 months, including mass grading. Seed would be broadcast over the graded areas before the onset of rain to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Table 2-6 provides a breakdown of the construction schedule. 2-15 2.6.6 Operations CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY The 3 -story hotel will have a capacity of 79 Rooms and will employ 1 to 2 persons full-time and 6 persons part time. Fourteen courtyard homes and 18 duplex home units will be constructed. An estimated 25 persons will be employed at the business occupying the commercial space. Table 2-5. List of Equipment ...quipmeri Quantity Cat D5 Dozer 1 Cat 623 Scraper 1 4000 gal. water truck 1 Cat 563 Compacter 1 Cat D6H Dozer 1 Cat 140G Grader 1 Cat 410 Backhoe 1 Cat 310 Backhoe 1 Cat 200 Excavator 1 Cat 960 Loader 1 John Deere 966G Loader 0 Case 570LXT Skip & Drag 3 Table 2-6. Construction Schedule Activity. Months Earthwork 1.5 Underground 2 Concrete 1 A.C. and Base 1 Finish Work 2 Total 7.5 2-16 ` CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY CHAPTER 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ® Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ® Air Quality ® Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ® Hazards & Hazardous ® Hydrology / Water ❑ Land Use / Planning Materials Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ® Noise ❑ Population / Housing ® Public Services ® Recreation ® Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service ® Mandatory Findings of Significance Systems On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant effect" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 3-1 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Steve McHarris Deputy Community Development Director 3-2 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take in account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 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 or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached. Other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 3-3 Initial Study 2004-0036 ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 West Front Village 3.1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation 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 that ® ❑ El adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? SOURCES: Project Description -Photos; Tentative Tract Map, Grading and Drainage Plan /Site Plan, Site Visit: Landscape Plans. Setting Atascadero is located near the southern end of the Salinas Valley adjacent to the Salinas River. The core of the City lies just west of the River along EI Camino Real, which supports the majority of the City's commerce and business activities. Further west, residential neighborhoods extend in ever -decreasing densities into the foothills of the coastal Santa Lucia Mountains. Seasonal streams that meander through the foothills and neighborhoods to the valley floor cot the slopes of the Santa Lucia's. The wooded foothills provide the visual backdrop and setting for the City. Oak trees are an important visual characteristic of the City, in forests, smaller groves, and as landmark individuals. Answers to Checklist Questions Questions A -C: The site is an undeveloped lot that gently slopes downward from west to east, adjacent to West Front Road. There are existing residences north, west, and south of the site. There are also a few commercial buildings to the south. There are a few trees on the site, including valley oak (Quercus lobafa) and blue oak (Quercus douglasir). The site does not provide a substantial scenic vista and construction of the proposed residential and commercial buildings would not result in a significant impact. Construction of the proposed residential and commercial buildings and related improvements will remove existing vegetation (including mature trees) and result in exposed soils during grading. Grading and removal of existing vegetation will represent a short-term change. Removal of vegetation, exposed soils, and the presence of construction equipment will result in short-term aesthetic impacts. 3-4 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 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 that ® ❑ El adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? SOURCES: Project Description -Photos; Tentative Tract Map, Grading and Drainage Plan /Site Plan, Site Visit: Landscape Plans. Setting Atascadero is located near the southern end of the Salinas Valley adjacent to the Salinas River. The core of the City lies just west of the River along EI Camino Real, which supports the majority of the City's commerce and business activities. Further west, residential neighborhoods extend in ever -decreasing densities into the foothills of the coastal Santa Lucia Mountains. Seasonal streams that meander through the foothills and neighborhoods to the valley floor cot the slopes of the Santa Lucia's. The wooded foothills provide the visual backdrop and setting for the City. Oak trees are an important visual characteristic of the City, in forests, smaller groves, and as landmark individuals. Answers to Checklist Questions Questions A -C: The site is an undeveloped lot that gently slopes downward from west to east, adjacent to West Front Road. There are existing residences north, west, and south of the site. There are also a few commercial buildings to the south. There are a few trees on the site, including valley oak (Quercus lobafa) and blue oak (Quercus douglasir). The site does not provide a substantial scenic vista and construction of the proposed residential and commercial buildings would not result in a significant impact. Construction of the proposed residential and commercial buildings and related improvements will remove existing vegetation (including mature trees) and result in exposed soils during grading. Grading and removal of existing vegetation will represent a short-term change. Removal of vegetation, exposed soils, and the presence of construction equipment will result in short-term aesthetic impacts. 3-4 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Creation of the 5 -lot subdivision and subsequent construction of houses would result in the removal of trees and vegetation, which would represent a long-term change. However, this change would most likely not be visible to motorists traveling on Highway 101 due to the residential/commercial development proposed for construction in front of (east) of the future 5 -lot subdivision. Project signage includes a 50 -foot tall pylon freestanding ground sign intended to advertise commercial shopping opportunities in West Front Village; the sign may be easily visable from Highway 101. A 6 -foot tall monument -style sign is also proposed for the site's south corner at West Front Road. Such signage may affect the existing visual character and quality of the site if not properly designed according to the City of Atascadero's Sign Ordinance. Questions D: The project also includes limited lighting of streets and pedestrian ways. The use of bollard -style pedestrian lighting has been incorporated into the project to reduce nighttime light and glare impacts. The project also includes landscaping of all front yards, open fencing on all slopes between proposed residential lots, and an informal landscape treatment with meandering sidewalks along Portola and West Front Road. Tree planter medians will be located at both project entries with special paving treatments. The project will also include landscaping of all common areas, including slopes, streetscapes, residential front yards, and street trees. The proposed architectural style, earth -tone building colors, and building materials have been selected to be compatible with the surrounding site and native vegetation. Mitigation The following mitigation measures have been identified to assure that all potential impacts are mitigated to a level of less -than -significant: Mitigation Measure AES -1: The following landscape mitigations shall apply: a) Landscaping of Caltrans ROW required; b) Development shall be buffered with an informal landscape theme, meandering pathway, and compatible project fencing; C) The project shall include landscaping of all common areas, including slopes, streetscapes, residential front yards, and street trees; d) All on-site retention basins shall be designed, constructed, and maintained as jurisdictional wetland while allowing the basins to function as engineered for storm water management. Mitigation Measure AES -2: The proposed homes shall include the use of earth -tone paint and roof colors designed to blend with the surrounding semi -rural environment and reduce the potential for reflected light and glare. Mitigation Measure AES -3: Only pedestrian pathway (bollard style) lighting is proposed. However, if exterior street lighting is proposed, it shall be limited to intersections only and 3-5 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY designed to eliminate any off-site glare. All exterior site lights shall utilize full cut-off, "hooded" lighting fixtures to prevent offsite light spillage and glare. Any luminaire pole height shall not exceed 20 -feet in height, limit intensity to 2.0 foot candles at ingress/egress, and otherwise 0.6 foot candle minimum to 1.0 maximum within the private street. Fixtures shall be shield cut-off type and compatible with neighborhood setting, subject to staff approval. In addition, individual exterior home -owner lighting shall be restricted through CC&R's and individual lot deed -restriction to prohibit high-intensity lighting in excess of one -foot candle, limited in fixture height to not exceed 10 feet, and utilize full cut-off, "hooded" lighting fixtures to prevent offsite light spillage and glare. Mitigation Measure AES -4: To prevent impacts to visual resources associated with the Wilson Property, Mitigation Measure BIO -8 shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure AES -5: Pylon and monument signs shall be constructed according to the City of Atascadero's Sign Ordinance. In commercial and industrial zones, pylon -style freeway signs shall be built as prescribed by Section 9-15.005(a)i-ii, with an area of not more than one (1) square foot of sign per lineal foot of freeway oriented building up to 150 square feet (whichever is less) and up to fifty (50) feet in height for uses including gas stations, restaurants and lodging. Where principle uses are shopping, offices or industrial complexes, freeway oriented signs are allowed a maximum of one (1) square foot of sign per lineal foot of building frontage, not to exceed sixty (60) feet, whichever is less (section 9-15.005ii). For gas station canopies, a maximum of twenty (20) square -foot signs with logos and color banding on no more than two (2) sides are allowed (Section 9-15.005iii). As per Section 9-15.005a(2), one (1) monument sign is allowed per 200 lineal feet of street frontage, not including street frontage adjacent to residential zones, up to sixty (60) square feet in size and up to ten (10) feet from the natural grade. Monument signs must be landscaped in a manner that incorporates the sign into the surroundings (section 9-15.004h). Finding With the incorporation of mitigation, the proposed project would result in less -than -significant impacts to aesthetics. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Initial Study 2004-0036 Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 Impact Mitigation Impact West Front Village Incorporation 3.2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland 3-6 J.. t r > J CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY 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) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ DKI due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? SOURCES: Land Use Element EIR. Setting There are currently about 44 acres of zoned agricultural lands within the City. There are over 100 acres of prime farmland along the Salinas River, Farmland of Local Potential along Graves Creek, and a large acreage that is classified as grazing land. The project site is not considered prime farmland. The California Lands Conservation Act (LCA) or Williamson Act contract program provides means to conserve important farmlands in the state. Under the provisions of the Act, landowners may voluntarily enter into a long-term contract with cities or counties to form agricultural preserves and maintain their property for tax reductions. The minimum term of land conservation contracts in San Luis Obispo County is 20 years. Properties located wholly or partially within one mile of an urban reserve line are eligible for a 10 -year term. Beginning in the eleventh year of a 20 -year contract, a year is automatically added for each year that elapses to maintain an ongoing 10 -year term unless a notice of non -renewal is served. No land within the Project Site is under a Williamson Act contract. Answers to Checklist Questions Questions A -C: The property is not shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency as prime farmland. The property is not under a Williamson Act contract. The project will not result in the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural uses. Finding No impact. 3-7 �J CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Less Than Initial Study 2004-0036 Potentially Significant Less Than No ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact West Front Village Incorporation 3.3. AIR QUALITY -- The significance criteria established by the Air Quality Control District in its CEQA Guidelines may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially D El 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 non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant El concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number El of people? SOURCES: Air Pollution Control District (APCD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Project Description -Photos; Tentative Tract Map/Grading Plan /Site Plan, Traffic Study. This section addresses the air emissions of the proposed project and the potential impacts to air quality. Impacts to air quality associated with the project were assessed based on emissions calculations and a comparison to the significance thresholds developed by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Climate and Meteorology The project site is located in the City of Atascadero, within the upper Salinas River Valley. This area supports about 25 percent of the County's population, and has historically experienced the highest ozone and particulate levels in the County. Transport of ozone precursors (oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons) from coastal regions and the San Joaquin Valley may contribute to the high pollutant levels. Although the project area is located about 13 miles from the coast, the Pacific Ocean plays a key role in moderating temperatures and affecting weather patterns. Summers are warm, but an early morning marine layer may occur. Winters are usually cool and wet with the rainy season extending from late November to early April. The nearest climatic data station to the project site is in the City of Atascadero. The coldest month is December, with an average minimum temperature of 31 degrees Fahrenheit. The warmest month is August, with an average maximum temperature of 92 degrees Fahrenheit. The average annual rainfall is 14.71 inches, with 91 percent falling from November through April. OR r�J CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Airflow plays an important role in the movement and dispersion of air pollutants in the San Luis Obispo region. The speed and direction of local winds are controlled by 1) the location and strength of the Pacific High pressure system and other global patterns, 2) topographical factors, and 3) circulation patterns resulting from temperature differences between the land and sea. During the spring and summer, when the Pacific High attains its greatest strength, onshore winds from the northwest generally prevail during the day. As evening approaches, onshore winds die down, and the wind direction reverses with weak winds flowing down the coastal mountains and valleys to form light easterly breezes. In the fall, onshore surface winds decline and the marine layer grows shallow, allowing an occasional reversal to a weak offshore flow. This, along with the diurnal alteration of land -sea breeze circulation, can sometimes produce a "sloshing" effect. Under such conditions, pollutants may accumulate over the Pacific Ocean and subsequently be carried back onshore with the return of sea breezes. In the atmosphere, air temperatures normally decrease as altitude increases. At varying distances above the earth's surface, however, a reversal of this temperature gradient can occur. Such a condition, which is called an inversion, is simply a warm layer of air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions can have the effect of limiting the vertical dispersion of air pollutants, trapping them near the earth's surface. Several types of inversions are common to the San Luis Obispo area. Weak surface inversions are caused by radiational cooling of air in contact with the cold surface of the earth at night. In valleys and low-lying areas, this condition is intensified by the addition of cold air flowing down from hills and pooling on valley floors. Surface inversions are common throughout the County during winter months, particularly on cold mornings. As the morning sun warms the earth and air near the ground, the inversion lifts, gradually dissipating throughout the day. During the summer, subsidence inversions can occur when the summertime presence of the Pacific high-pressure cell can cause the air mass aloft to sink. As the air descends, compressional heating warms the air to a higher temperature than the air below. This highly stable atmospheric conditioning can act as a nearly impenetrable lid to the vertical mixing of pollutants. Subsidence inversions can persist for one or more days, causing air stagnation and the buildup of pollutants. Air Pollution Control Air pollution control is administered on three governmental levels in the project area. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has jurisdiction under the Federal Clean Air Act to develop Federal air quality standards and to require individual states to prepare State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain these standards. The California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board (ARB) has jurisdiction under the California Health and Safety Code and the California Clean Air Act to develop California air quality standards, to require regional plans to attain these standards, and to coordinate the preparation by local air districts of plans required by both the Federal and State Me C17Y OF ATASCADERC INITIAL STUDY Clean Air Acts. ARB is also responsible for the development of state emission standards for mobile and stationary emission sources. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) shares responsibility with the ARB for ensuring that all State and Federal ambient air quality standards are attained within the County. The APCD has jurisdiction under the California Health and Safety Code to develop emission standards for the County, issue air pollution permits, and require emission controls for stationary sources in the County. The APCD is also responsible for the attainment of State and Federal air quality standards in the County. Table 3.3-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant < Averaging Time - State Standard Federal'Standard 1 -Hour 0.09 ppm - Ozone 8 -Hour — 0.08 ppm 1 -Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 -Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 -Hour 0.25 ppm -- Inhalable Particulate Matter 24 -Hour -- 65 ug/m3 (PM2.5) Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 ug/m3 15 ug/m3 Inhalable Particulate Matter 24 -Hour 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 (PM10) Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 1 -hour 0.25 ppm -- Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 24 -Hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm Air Quality Standards Air quality standards are specific concentrations of pollutants that are used as thresholds to protect public health and the public welfare. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed two sets of standards; one to provide an adequate margin of safety to protect human health and the second to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects. At this time, sulfur dioxide is the only pollutant for which the two standards differ. ARB has developed air quality standards for California, which are generally lower in concentration than the Federal standards. California standards exist for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, PM10, visibility, sulfates, lead, hydrogen sulfide and vinyl chloride. In July 1997, the EPA finalized new health -based ozone and particulate matter (PM) standards. However, due to several lawsuits the standards were not fully implemented until February 2001. The new Federal ozone standard is based on a longer averaging period (8 -hour vs. 1 -hour), recognizing that prolonged exposure is more damaging. The new Federal PM standard is based on finer particles (2.5 microns and smaller vs. 10 microns and smaller), recognizing that finer 3-10 CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY particles may have a higher residence time in the lungs and cause greater respiratory illness. In 2002, the ARB lowered the annual standards for PM10 and PM2.5 in response to the Children's Environmental Health Protection Act. Table 3.3-1 lists the applicable State and Federal air quality standards. Effects of Air Pollution The primary chemical compounds that are considered pollutants emitted into or formed in the atmosphere include ozone, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere through a complex series of chemical reactions generally requiring light as an energy source. Ozone is a pungent, colorless gas that is a strong irritant and attacks the respiratory system. Respiratory and cardiovascular diseases are aggravated by exposure to ozone. A healthy person exposed to high concentrations of ozone may experience nausea, dizziness, and burning in the chest. Ozone also damages crops and other vegetation. Oxides of nitrogen (NOX), which are considered pollutants, include nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). NO is colorless and odorless and is generally formed by combustion processes combining atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen. NO2 is a reddish -brown irritating gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen in the atmosphere or at the emission source. Both NO and NO2 are considered ozone precursors because they react with hydrocarbons and oxygen to produce ozone. Exposure to NO2 may increase the potential for respiratory infections in children and cause difficulty in breathing even among healthy persons and especially among asthmatics. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas which affects the upper respiratory tract. Sulfur dioxide may combine with particulate matter and settle in the lungs, causing damage to lung tissues. Sulfur dioxide may combine with water in the atmosphere to form sulfuric acid that may fall as acid rain, damaging vegetation. Hydrocarbons include a wide variety of compounds containing hydrogen and carbon. Many hydrocarbons (known as reactive organic gases [ROG]) react with NO and NO2 to form ozone_ Generally, ambient hydrocarbon concentrations do not cause adverse health effects directly, but result in ozone formation. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas generally formed by incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon -containing fuels. Carbon monoxide does not irritate the respiratory tract, but does interfere with the ability of blood to carry oxygen to vital tissues. Particulate matter consists of a wide variety of particle sizes and composition. Generally, particles less than 10 microns (PM,o) are considered to be pollutants because they accumulate in the lung tissues and may contain toxic materials which can be absorbed into the system. Baseline Air Quality San Luis Obispo County has been identified as a non -attainment area PM10 by the ARB. San Luis Obispo County has been designated a non -attainment area for the State 1 -hour ozone 3-11 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY standard since 1988. However, on December 5, 2003 the ARB proposed re -designating the County as attainment because no ozone violations had been recorded during 2000-2003, and that the County should be treated separately than the rest of the South Central Coast Air Basin due to minimal ozone transport associated with intervening mountain ranges. The proposed re- designation was finalized in January 2004. Maximum concentrations of other criteria pollutants are currently within Federal and State standards. Air quality in San Luis Obispo County is currently monitored at eight public agency and private sector monitoring stations located throughout the County. The nearest station is located in Atascadero (Lewis Avenue) approximately 0.7 miles west of the project site. The Atascadero station monitors ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, PM,o and PM2.5 levels. Table 3.3-2 presents the maximum pollutant concentrations that were recorded at this station from 2001 through 2003. Air Quality Management The Califomia Clean Air Act (CCAA), adopted in 1988, requires all air pollution control districts and air quality management districts in the state to adopt and enforce regulations to achieve and maintain air quality that is within the State air quality standards. San Luis Obispo County was declared a "moderate" nonattainment area for the State ozone standard. The County did not meet the December 31, 1997 deadline to attain the State 1 -hour ozone standard; therefore, should have been reclassified as a "serious" nonattainment area. However, the ARB determined that a change in classification would not result in a more expeditious attainment of the standard. The County is also considered a nonattainment area for the State PM,o standard. In response to the requirements of the CCAA, the San Luis Obispo County APCD prepared the 1991 Clean Air Plan (CAP) to provide a framework for the attainment of State air quality standards by the earliest practicable date. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document intended to facilitate attainment and maintenance of the State ozone standard. The 1995 CAP was developed as a comprehensive update to the 1991 CAP and was expected to bring the County into attainment of the State ozone standard by the end of 1997. The 1995 CAP described the pollutants that affect County air quality, the sources of those pollutants, and future year emissions that are anticipated under current growth trends. Based on this information, the 1995 CAP also provides a control strategy for reducing emissions of ozone precursors. Included in the 1995 CAP are a number of land use and circulation management policies and programs that have already been implemented to reduce vehicular air emissions. Additional measures recommended for adoption include trip reduction programs and telecommuting. 3-12 rt�'xyy77rr.,.a CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Table 3.3-2. Summary of Air Quality Standard Exceedances Ozone 1 -hour (ppm) Worst Hour 0.094 0.093 0.093 Number of State Exceedances (Days > 0.095 ppm) 0 0 0 Ozone 8 -hour (ppm) Worst 8 -hour Period 0.075 0.083 0.076 Number of State Exceedances (Periods > 0.085 ppm) 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide (ppm) Worst 8 -Hour Period 1.97 2.41 1.46 Number of State Exceedances (8 hours>9 ppm) 0 0 0 PM2.5 (micrograms/cubic meter) Worst Sample 57.7 28.0 29.2 Number of Federal Exceedances (Samples>65 ug/m3) 0 0 0 PM10 (micrograms/cubic meter) Worst Sample 61.0 40.0 58.0 Number of State Exceedances (Samples>50) 0 0 1 Source: Ualltornia Air Resources Board (www.arb.ca.gov) A second update to the 1991 CAP was developed in 1998, as a continuation of the 1995 CAP and proposes no new control measures for adoption. The 1998 CAP was expected to bring the County into attainment with the State 1 -hour ozone standard by 2003. The CAP was revised again in 2001, but did not include any new emissions control measures. However, emissions of ROG and NOx are expected to decline through the year 2015. Due to the lack of recorded violations of the State 1 -hour ozone standard, San Luis Obispo County was re -designated an attainment area in January 2004. San Luis Obispo County is in attainment of the Federal air quality standards and is not subject to the planning requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act. Thresholds of Significance Significance thresholds have been developed by the San Luis Obispo County APCD and are documented within the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (San Luis Obispo County APCD, 2003). Specifically, project emissions are considered potentially significant impacts if any of the following thresholds are exceeded: 1. Operational Impacts: Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), NO, S02i PM,o 10 lbs/day 3-13 ` Z, CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY CO 50 lbs/day The APCD considers impacts significant and requires more stringent environmental review for projects exceeding 25 lbs/day of ROG, NO,, SO2 and PM,o emissions, or 550 lbs/day CO emissions. 2. Construction Impacts: ROG and NO, PM,o 185 lbs/day or 2.5 tons/quarter 2.5 tons/quarter The APCD requires Best Available Control Technology for construction equipment (CBACT) for projects with ROG or NOx emissions between 2.5 and 6.0 tons per quarter and requires CBACT plus further mitigation for projects with emissions exceeding 6.0 tons per quarter. 3. Air Quality Standards: A project is considered to have a significant impact if its emissions are predicted to cause or contribute to a violation of any ambient air quality standard. 4. Consistency: Large projects must be found to be consistent with the District's Clean Air Plan (CAP). The APCD notes that a consistency analysis is required for the following types of projects: general plan updates and amendments, specific plans, area plans, large residential subdivisions and large commercial/industrial developments. The proposed project is not considered a large residential subdivision or large commercial development; therefore, a CAP consistency analysis is not required. 5. Odors:. APCD Rule 402 states "A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property." Violation of Rule 402 is considered a significant impact. Answers to Checklist Questions Question A: The proposed project would result in an increase in population, but a decrease in emissions as compared to the existing zoning. According to the APCD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, consistency is based on: • Consistency of the project -related population increase with the projections of the Clean Air Plan; • Rate of increase in vehicle miles traveled as compared to the rate of population increase must be less than or equal to the assumptions of the Clean Air Plan; and 3-14 lam" CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY • All land use and transportation control measures have been included in the project to the extent feasible. The Clean Air Plan is based on a 1999 projection that the population of Atascadero would increase from 25,516 in 2000 to 28,588 in 2005, and 31,150 by 2010. However, the 2000 Census indicates the population of Atascadero was 26,411 in 2000, larger than the Clean Air Plan projection. The project includes re -zoning 4.44 acres of the site from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential (7.2 units per acre). Therefore, the proposed project would provide housing and result in population growth not considered in the Clean Air Plan. However, trip generation rates associated with commercial zoning are generally greater than for residential, such that long-term emissions (primarily associated with motor vehicles) would be less than the current zoning would allow. Therefore, the proposed project appears consistent with the emission projections of the Clean Air Plan. The project area is somewhat isolated from the County's population center (San Luis Obispo), such that vehicle miles traveled may be higher than the County average. However, the commercial land uses provided by the project may result in a reduction in vehicle trips by on-site residents, and a reduction in trip length by local residents. Therefore, the proposed project is unlikely to generate excess vehicle miles per population. Land use and transportation control measures incorporated into the project include compact communities, mixed land use, pedestrian and bicycle friendly. designs. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan. Question B: Project construction emissions may result in exceedances of the State 1 -hour ozone standard. San Luis Obispo County was recently designated as an attainment area for the State 1 -hour ozone standard. However, as indicated in Table 5.3-2, ozone concentrations in the Atascadero area approach the State standard in most years. Therefore, project -related construction emissions have the potential to increase regional ozone concentrations over the State standard. Question C: San Luis Obispo County is currently designated an attainment area for the State and Federal ozone standards. However, ozone concentrations in the project area remain near the State standard, and the APCD has developed quantitative thresholds for emissions of ozone precursors. Construction activity would generate air emissions that would exceed thresholds of significance, resulting in significant air quality impacts. The emissions of construction equipment and vehicles would be short-term and consist of fugitive dust and exhaust emissions. Construction would generally consist of grading, building construction, painting, paving and landscaping. Construction equipment emissions were estimated using the construction emissions module of the California Air Resources Board URBEMIS2002 model (see Appendix B for documentation). Ton per year emissions values estimated by the URBEMIS2002 model were converted to ton per quarter values based on the 3-15 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY estimated length of the construction period (7.5 months). The emissions estimates assume implementation of standard dust control measures including soil stabilizers, replacing ground cover, watering of exposed soil and reduced speed on unpaved roads. Construction emissions would exceed the APCD's daily and quarterly significance thresholds for ROG and are considered a significant impact to regional air quality (see Table 3.3-3). ROG emissions are primarily a result of evaporation of solvents during painting. Calculations are based on default values of URBEMIS2002 including the use of water-based low-VOC (250 grams per liter) coatings and application using an air sprayer (25 percent transfer efficiency). Limiting paint usage (see Mitigation Measure AQ -1) would reduce construction -related ROG emissions to a level of less than significant. Table 3.3-3. Construction Emissions Estimates Parameter No ROG CO: PM10 Pounds Tons Pounds Pounds Pounds Units per Peak per per Peak Tons per per Peak Tons per per Peak Tons per Day Quarter Day Quarter Day Quarterp Day Quarter Emissions 109.6 1.64 353.3 1.33 122.0 2.64 31.7 0.86 Thresholds 185 2.5 185 2.5 - -- -- 2.5 The project would generate emissions from motor vehicles, natural gas combustion (space and water heating, cooking), landscape maintenance fuel combustion and consumer products (solvents, aerosol cans, etc.)Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2002 model, assuming 2006 as the analysis year. Inputs to the model are consistent with the APCD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Model output is documented in Appendix B. Trip reduction credit was included based on the mixed land use plan and land uses located within walking distance (primarily the Santa Rosa School). Long-term emissions estimates are provided in Table 3.3-4. Long-term air emissions would not exceed the 10 pounds per day NOx, PM10 and ROG threshold and are considered a less than significant impact to air quality. Questions D: Project -related emissions would increase existing pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. Due to low existing ambient concentrations of pollutants (NOx, CO, ROC) and relatively good wind -induced dispersion, project -related emissions are not expected to result in pollutant concentrations exceeding air quality standards at residences, parks, hospitals or schools in the project vicinity. 3-16 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY However, construction -related ozone precursor emissions may result in ozone formation in the upper Salinas River Valley and expose sensitive receptors (children, elderly, sick) to substantial pollutant concentrations. Table 3.3-4. Estimated Long -Term Emissions (pounds/day) Parameter NOx ROG GO PM..10 Vehicles 15.7 14.1 135.7 11.8 Other sources 1.1 2.8 3.1 0.0 Total 16.8 16.9 138.8 11.8 Threshold 10 10 550 10 Question E: Diesel exhaust odors may be considered objectionable to adjacent residents. Odor generation would be limited to diesel exhaust associated with construction equipment, primarily during a few weeks of site grading. These odors are not new to the project area, as these odors are generated by truck traffic on the adjacent U.S. 101. However, the project would result in a short- term increase in these odors. Due to the small number of residences in close proximity to the project site and short duration of odors, diesel exhaust odors are not expected to result in a nuisance, or otherwise affect a substantial number of people. Mitigation Mitigation Measure AQ -1: During construction, the applicant shall implement the following standard construction equipment mitigation measures for reducing nitrogen oxide (NOx) and combustion emissions (diesel particulate matter) shall (see section 6.3.1 of the Air Quality Handbook): a) Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications; b) Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non -taxed version suitable for use off-road); and, C) Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's 1996 and newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. Mitigation Measure AQ -2: This measure focuses on reducing ozone formation from project - related ozone precursors, NOx and ROC. The primary source of these emissions would be ROC released during application of paint to the proposed residential and commercial structures. The rate of ozone formation is greatest during periods of clear weather, low winds and high temperatures. Based on air quality monitoring at the Atascadero station, peak hourly ozone levels occur from May through September. During construction, the applicant shall implement 3-17 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY one of the following measures shall be implemented to prevent exceedances of the State 1 -hour ozone standard: a) Paint shall not be applied from May through September; OR b) Paint emissions shall not exceed the 185 pound per day significance threshold (88 gallons per day based on 2.08 pounds VOC per gallon); AND C) Paint emissions shall not exceed the 2.5 ton per quarter significance threshold (2,403 gallons per quarter based on 2.08 pounds VOC per gallon). The use of pre -coated materials, or naturally colored materials and high transfer efficiency painting methods (e.g., HVLP, brush/roller, etc.) to the maximum extent feasible would reduce the amount of paint used and facilitate compliance with the thresholds. Mitigation Measure AQ -3: Prior to the City issuing a Building Permit for the project, the applicant shall provide to the City project grading and buildings plans that contain the following required PM10 mitigation measures. In addition, the applicant shall designate a person or persons to monitor, during construction, the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance for map recordation and finished grading of the area. 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 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible; C) All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed; d) 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; 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 native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; f) 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; 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; 3-18 ` CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY 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) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site; and, k) 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. Mitigation Measure AQ -4: Prior to any grading activities at the site, the applicant shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Mitigation Measure AQ -5: The applicant shall only install APCD approved wood burning devices in the new dwelling units consistent with APCD Rule 504. These devices include: a) All EPA -Certified Phase II wood burning devices; b) Catalytic wood burning devices which emit less than or equal to 4.1 grams per hour of particulate matter which are not EPA -Certified but have been verified by a nationally -recognized testing lab; C) Non -catalytic wood burning devices which emit less than or equal to 7.5 grams per hour of particulate matter which are not EPA -Certified but have been verified by a nationally -recognized testing lab; d) Pellet -fueled woodheaters; and, e) Dedicated gas-fired fireplaces. Mitigation Measure AQ -6: The applicant shall comply with AB 3205 Requirements for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. Prior to construction, the applicant shall provide information to the APCD indicating whether hazardous materials or certain equipment or processes will be used in or at the facility. Such uses may require a permit from the APCD and/or a Hazardous Materials Business Plan. The City of Atascadero will not issue a final certificate of occupancy until the applicant or future building occupant has complied with the provisions of the law. The law may also impose certain public noticing requirements for a facility that handles hazardous materials and is located within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school (kindergarten through 12th grade). Mitigation Measure AQ -7: Prior to construction, the applicant shall obtain a Combined Authority to Construct/Operate, issued by the APCD and the San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Service (EHS). As part of this, the District will run a health -based screening level risk 3-19 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY assessment for the facility, following the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association (CAPCOA) guidelines. Depending on the District's screening risk determination, the applicant may be subject to throughput limitations or may be required to submit a more refined Health Risk Assessment, Mitigation Measure AQ -8: Prior to the City issuing a Building Permit, the applicant shall incorporate the following into the project design: a) Traffic calming modifications to project roads, such as narrower streets, speed platforms, bulb -outs and intersection modifications designed to reduce vehicle speeds, thus encouraging pedestrian and bicycle travel; b) Easements or land dedications for bikeways and pedestrian walkways; C) Continuous sidewalks separated from the roadway by landscaping and on -street parking. Adequate lighting for sidewalks must be provided, along with crosswalks at intersections; d) If the project is located on an established transit route, improve public transit accessibility by providing transit turnouts with direct pedestrian access to the project; e) Street shade tree planting; f) Outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools; g) On-site bicycle parking for multi -family residential developments; h) Cable to allow telecommuting, teleconferencing and telelearning to occur simultaneously in at least three locations throughout the home; i) Shade tree planting along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs; j) Roof material with a solar reflectance value meeting the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling needs; k) Building energy efficiency rating by 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements. This can be accomplished in a number of ways (increasing attic, wall, or floor insulation, installing double pane windows, using high efficiency home heating, cooling, water heaters, and appliances, using efficient interior lighting etc.); 1) Outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools; m) Walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements; n) High efficiency gas or solar water heaters; o) Built-in energy efficient appliances; P) Double -paned windows; q) Low energy street lights (i.e. sodium); r) Energy efficient interior lighting; 3-20 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY S) Low energy traffic signals (Le. light emitting diode); t) Door sweeps and weather stripping if more efficient doors and windows are not available; and, U) High efficiency or gas space heating. Finding With the incorporation of mitigations, the proposed project would result in less -than -significant impacts to air quality. 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? SOURCES: Project Description; Project Plans; Arborist Report— Alvarez and Tamagni Arborists and Vegetation Management (3/28/04 & 8/23/04); Atascadero Tree Ordinance, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 3-21 Less Than Initial Study 2004-0036 Potentially Significant Less Than No ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact West Front Village Incorporation 3.4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ®L1 ❑ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ® a wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc_) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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? SOURCES: Project Description; Project Plans; Arborist Report— Alvarez and Tamagni Arborists and Vegetation Management (3/28/04 & 8/23/04); Atascadero Tree Ordinance, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 3-21 lx*'A CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Setting The proposed project site is located within the City of Atascadero and is contiguous to urban development to the north, south, east, and west. Significant features within the entire project area include several scattered mature oak and native tree species (i.e., California black walnut, toyon), patches of willow scrub habitat within the Wilson Property and in the northwest comer of the proposed development area, and two swales that transect the property in a west to east direction. This section describes the botanical and wildlife resources that are known to occur or likely to occur within the project site. Biological resources discussed in this section include plants, wildlife and special -status species. Information is based on the sources listed above, and a reconnaissance -level field survey conducted by Padre on July 1, and August 24, 2004 Field Surveys Reconnaissance -level field surveys were conducted to assess the biological resources onsite and to determine the likelihood of occurrence for special -status species or sensitive/regulated habitats on the project site. Prior to conducting the field survey, a list of special -status species with the potential to occur on-site was compiled using the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). During the reconnaissance - level survey, Padre biologists focused on those species that had the greatest potential to occur within the project site, however low, based on the habitat requirements of the species and existing habitat conditions within the property. To ensure 100% visual coverage, transects were walked through the project site and observations recorded. Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitats The following is a brief description of those vegetative habitats present within the proposed project area and wildlife observed or typically associated with those habitats: Non-native Annual Grassland. Based on observation made during the field survey conducted by Padre, the project area is dominated by non-native annual grassland habitat. This habitat is primarily comprised of non-native species and is not a sensitive community. This habitat type is variable in species composition depending upon soils, aspect, slope, hydrology, disturbance regime, prior uses, and species recruitment opportunity. On the subject property this habitat type is heavily dominated by non-native species, including annual grasses such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), wild oats (Avena fatua), and forbs such as yellow star -thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), mustard (Brassica sp.), spring vetch (Vicia sativa), red -stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), sowthistle (Sonchus sp.), and pampas grass (Cortederia selloana). Grasslands often provide important habitat features for a variety of wildlife species. Raptors, such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), barn owl (Tyto alba), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius), commonly use open grassland areas for foraging purposes, while species such as western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) use open grassland areas for nesting. Other species that utilize grassland habitats include western fence lizard 3-22 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY (Sceloporus occidentalis), Pacific gopher snake (Pituophis melanoieucus catenifer), black -tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). During recent surveys, Padre biologists observed that the non-native annual grassland habitat within the proposed development area had been disturbed by mowing which was conducted for fire prevention purposes. In addition, the Wilson Property had also been recently mowed to reduce the potential for fire. Furthermore, it was observed that the habitat has been historically impacted by human (e.g., bicycles, foot traffic, and motor vehicles) and pet intrusion. The only species observed within this habitat during the survey period included western fence lizard and evidence of Botta's pocket gopher, domestic dog (Canis familiaris), western gray squirrel (Scirus griseus) and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi). Blue Oak — Coast Live Oak/Grassland. A mixed oak woodland remnant occurs within the northern portion of the property adjacent to Portola Road and consists primarily of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), blue oak (Quercus douglash) and toyon (i-leteromeles arbutifolia). In addition, several scattered coast live oaks are located within the Wilson Property in association with a cluster of California walnuts (Juglans californica). This habitat typically supports a wide diversity of wildlife due to the availability of important habitat features such as nesting sites, escape and thermal cover, food, and dispersal corridors. Common species of wildlife expected to occur within the vicinity of the habitat include, but are not limited to, western gray squirrel, acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorous), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), red -shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), white -breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) and yellow -billed magpie (Pica nuttallii). Common wildlife species observed within the vicinity of this habitat included American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), red -shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus) and house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus). Willow Scrub. Remnant stands of willow scrub habitat occurs within the northwest portion of the property and within the swale which transects the Wilson Property. Arroyo willows are typically associated with moist soils. However, within the northwest portion of the project area, the willow scrub habitat consists of only a few scattered mature arroyo willows (Salix lasiolepis) located within soil that is relatively dry and not near any waterways. In contrast, the willow scrub habitat within the Wilson Property is primarily confined to the existing swale area. Additionally, several mature Fremont cottonwoods (Populus fremonth) were observed in association with the willow scrub within this area. Willow scrub habitat is intermixed with blue oak — coast live oak/grassland habitat occurring in the northern portion of the property; in addition to oak habitat within the Wilson Property. Wildlife expected to occur within the willow scrub habitat includes several of the species which are also identified within the blue oak — coast live oak/grassland habitat due to the relatively small area of willow scrub and close proximity to adjacent oak habitat. Ornamental. Several ornamental species occur within the project area. Specifically, Peruvian peppertree (Schinus mol/e) and other non-native species occur within the portion of the project area proposed for development. Furthermore, several ornamental species such as persimmon (Diospyos sp.) are intermixed with native species located within the Wilson Property. This 3-23 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY vegetation type provides limited habitat for common species due to the sparse distribution and limited vegetative cover. Regional Special -status Species Regional special -status species are plants and wildlife species that are listed as either endangered or threatened under the Federal or California Endangered Species Act, considered rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act, or considered rare (but not legally listed) by resource agencies, professional organizations, and the scientific community. Based on information obtained by the CNDDB query, previously conducted surveys, and a literature review, a preliminary list was compiled of special -status species known to occur in the region. Each regional special -status species was evaluated in terms of its likelihood to occur within the proposed project site based on the species known distribution, habitat requirements, and the results of previously conducted surveys. Species which are known, or have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the project site are discussed in further detail below. Plants. Special -status plant species which were determined to have the potential to occur within the property were based on a query of the CNDDB and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. As a result of the of the database review, 13 plant species and one sensitive plant community (Northern Interior Cypress Forest) are known to occur within the project area. However, based on the existing habitat, elevation, nearest known occurrence locations, and soils within the project site, Padre determined that only the following species actually had the potential, however low, to occur within the project site: San Luis mariposa lily (Calochortus obispoensis) • San Luis Obispo mariposa lily (Calochortus simulans) • Round -leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum) Upon completion of the field survey conducted by Padre, it was determined that no regional plant special -status species or sensitive plant communities exist within property. Wildlife. Special -status wildlife species determined to have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the property were also based on a query of the CNDDB. As a result of the database review, 8 wildlife species are known to occur within the immediate vicinity of the property. However, based on the reconnaissance -level survey conducted by Padre, a review of other regional environmental documents, and the professional experience and previous biological surveys conducted by Padre in the area, it was determined that only the following wildlife species actually have the potential, however low, to occur within the project site: • White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 3-24 • San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Upon completion of the field survey conducted by Padre, no special -status wildlife species were observed within the property. The following is a brief description of those species listed above and the potential for each species to occur within the property. White tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). This species is considered a California fully protected species during its nesting period. The white-tailed kite typically nests in woodlands, and forages in grasslands, meadows, and marshes. Nests are typically constructed in treetops with dense foliage. White-tailed kites were not observed during the field survey conducted by Padre. Although suitable nesting habitat for this species does not occur over most of the project area, this species has the potential to occur as an infrequent forager within grassland habitat located in the project site. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). This species is considered a California special concern species during its nesting period. Loggerhead shrikes are found in open habitats with scattered trees or fence -posts and typically nest in dense shrubs or trees. Loggerhead shrikes were not identified within the project site during the survey conducted by Padre; however, suitable nesting and foraging habitat for,this species exists within the project site. The potential for this species to occur within the project site is considered moderate. San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). This species is a Federally Endangered species and a State Threatened species. The area of Atascadero south of Highway 41 has been designated by the CDFG as a non -suitable area for San Joaquin kit fox. In addition, no reports of kit fox have been made within the vicinity of the project site. The potential for San Joaquin kit fox to occur within the vicinity of the subject property is considered to be extremely low. Other protected bird species. A number of bird species potentially occurring on the project site, including those species discussed above, are protected under the provisions of the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). As previously discussed, existing oak and willow scrub habitat within the project site provides nesting opportunities for raptors and several migratory bird species. Several raptor nests were identified by Padre during field surveys and have been reported as active on a regular basis (Personal communication, Bobby Wilson, 8/24/04). Additionally, non-native annual grassland habitat provides suitable nesting habitat for a variety of ground -nesting migratory bird species. Therefore, the potential for nesting migratory bird species to occur within the proposed project site is considered to be high. Answers to Checklist Questions Question A: Development of the project site would potentially result in the mortality of terrestrial species, particularly less mobile species such as reptiles and small mammals. More mobile species are likely to be displaced to adjacent habitat areas, but may experience poor survival due to competition. However, due to the relatively small area affected and lack of any special -status 3-25 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY species on the project site, impacts to plants, amphibians, reptiles and mammals are considered less than significant. A number of migratory bird species could potentially nest in the various habitat areas of the project site. These include ground nesters, small tree/shrub nesters and several raptors, which have historically been identified utilizing large trees on-site for nesting purposes,,(Personal communication, Bobby Wilson, 8/24/04). Nest destruction from ground clearing activities and vegetation clearing could destroy nests, nestlings, or hatchlings, and result in a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) and CDFG Code (Section 3503). However, implementation of the proposed mitigation measures outlined within the following section will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Question B: Patches of willow scrub within the project area are sparsely scattered and appear to be remnants of riparian habitat. However, due to existing site conditions (i.e., pre -disturbed) and the discontinuity of the willow scrub habitat, this vegetation is not considered riparian habitat. Because no riparian habitat or sensitive natural community has been identified within the proposed project area, the proposed project would not 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 CDFG or USFWS. Question C: Jurisdictional (Federally protected) wetlands are identified based on evidence of three Federal criteria (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology). However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) wetland definition requires that only one of the wetland criteria be present to define a wetland. The predominance of hydrophytic vegetation was established by identifying dominant plant species and determining the hydrophytic class (i.e., facultative [FAC], facultative wetland [FACW], or obligate wetland species [OBL]) listed in National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: California (Region 0) (Reed, 1988). The FAC classification indicates that a plant species occurs in wetlands 34 to 66 percent of the time. The FACW classification indicates that a plant species occurs in wetlands 67 to 99 percent of the time. The OBL classification indicates that a plant species occurs in wetlands greater than 99 percent of the time. More than 50 percent of the dominant plant species must be considered FAC, FACW or OBL to meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The sample size recommended for herbs (as found at the project site) in the Corps Wetland delineation Manual is a 5 -foot radius circle. The northern swale on the project site has been reported to historically support water flow and/or standing water during heavy rain events (Personal communication, Bobby Wilson, 8/24/04). Based on observations made by Padre in July 2004, the swale supports hydrophytic plant species, including Italian ryegrass (Lolium mulfiflorum, FAC), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum, FAC), spikeweed (Hemizonia pungens, FAC), curly dock (Rumex crispus, FACW) and toad rush (Juncus bufonius, FACW). However, most of the swale is dominated by non -wetland species such as rip -gut brome and soft chess (Bromus hordaeceus). However, several small M. CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY patches were dominated by hydrophytic species listed above. Vegetation sampling was conducted in July, when wetland species in ephemeral drainages are typically out -competed by non -wetland species as soils dry. Based on extensive experience with similar wetlands in San Luis Obispo, these areas are dominated by hydrophytic vegetation in the spring (such as toad rush) and invaded by non -wetland annual grasses in the summer. Based on soil pits excavated within the swale on July 13, 2004, the soil color was very dark gray (Munsell soil color 10YR 3/1) and noticeably darker than surrounding soils (dark gray, Munsell soil color 10YR 4/1). Dark soil colors are evidence of hydric soils. Several oxidized rhizospheres (orange colored soil surrounding small roots) were found in a soil pit within the swale, indicating the area had been inundated. Based on vegetation observed on July 13, 2004, several small patches (a few hundred square feet) of hydrophytic vegetation occurs within the swale, which meets the CDFG wetland definition. In spring, the entire swale (about 0.2 acres) may be dominated by hydrophytic vegetation. Impacts to wetlands are considered potentially significant. Based upon available data, the northern drainage area of the swale on the project site has been determined to be a jurisdictional wetland by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers. This drainage runs to the Salinas River, and therefore is a tributary to a navigable waterway, and is subject to Corps jurisdiction. This does not apply to the southern drainage area. As described in Section 2.0, the applicant is proposing to design, construct and maintain three wetland detention basin areas as compensatory mitigation for removal of the northern swale. Approximately 0.2 acres of jurisdictional wetland area have been identified in field analysis. Approximately 0.6 acres of wetland detention basin area is being proposed (at a greater than 2:1 compensatory ratio). Please refer to Figure 2.3. Question D: The project site is surrounded by roadways (including U.S. 101) and residential areas, and does not include a topographic or habitat feature that would facilitate fish or wildlife movement through the site. In addition, the entire project area is periodically mowed and does not provide vegetative cover or habitat to support a wildlife corridor. Therefore, movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species will not be substantially affected by the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project will not interfere with any wildlife corridors or impede the use of any native wildlife nursery sites. Question E: The Atascadero Tree Ordinance is applicable to all native trees within the project area, as defined within the ordinance. The applicant has submitted a tree condition report prepared by a qualified arborist that documents those species located within the proposed development, except for the Wilson Property. Based on the arborist report prepared by Alvarez & Tamagni Arborists and Vegetation Management (A&T), on August 23, 2004, a total of 18 native trees (coast live oak, blue oak, toyon) exist within the proposed development area (excluding the Wilson Property). See Appendix C. Of the 18 native tree species identified, implementation of 3-27 CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY the proposed project would result in the removal of 14 native trees. A&T has provided measures to reduce impacts to those trees that would not be removed during the project; however,, the applicant has not proposed a native tree protection plan, including measures to ensure viability of native trees after construction. As such, the proposed project is in conflict with the City of Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance. Because there will be no removal and/or impact to any of the native trees within the Wilson property as part of this project, a formal tree condition report by a qualified arborist was not necessary. However, for the purposes of analyzing potential impacts associated with the General Plan Amendment and the Rezoning, Padre conducted a reconnaissance -level survey of native trees and habitat located within the Wilson Property. Padre identified approximately 21 mature coast live oaks, and 6 California black walnuts (Juglans califomica) onsite, both species are recognized as native trees under the Atascadero Tree Ordinance. In the event that buildout occurs (assuming worst-case scenario) within the Wilson Property based on the proposed Rezoning, all native trees located within this area have the potential to be affected by removal and/or impacts associated with potential future development activities. However, these potential impacts would be addressed during City review of any future Building Permit for the Wilson Property in this area and would be subject to the measures outlined within the Atascadero Tree Ordinance. At this time, no impacts to trees are proposed to occur within this portion of the property. Question F: No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional state habitat conservation plan is applicable for the subject property. Mitigation The following mitigation measures have been identified to ensure all potential impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance: Mitigation Measure BIO -1: Initial rough grading operations and vegetation removal shall be conducted prior to, or after, the typical migratory bird nesting season (March 1 — August 1) to avoid any potential impact to migratory bird nesting activity. Therefore, initial grading should be conducted between the months of August and February. Mitigation Measure BIO -2: If Measure BIO -1 is infeasible, pre -construction surveys shall be conducted prior to any initial grading activity and vegetation removal to identify any potential bird nesting activity, and: a) If any nest sites of bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are observed within the vicinity of the project site, then the project shall be modified and/or delayed as necessary to avoid direct take of the identified nests, eggs, and/or young; and, 3-28 CITY OFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY b) If active nest sites of raptors and/or birds species of special concern are observed within the vicinity of the project site, then CDFG shall be contacted to establish the appropriate buffer around the nest site. Construction activities in the buffer zone shall be prohibited until the young have fledged the nest and achieved independence. Mitigation Measure 1310-3: Prior to any earth disturbance, exclusionary fencing shall be erected at the boundaries of all construction areas to avoid equipment and human intrusion into adjacent habitats. The fencing shall remain in place and be maintained throughout construction. Mitigation Measure 1310-4: Several measures are included within the Arborist Report prepared by A&T that outline methods of minimizing potential impacts to existing oak trees that would remain within the property at completion of the proposed project. These measures include following, as stated within the Arborist Report: a) The proposed fencing shall be shown on the grading plan. It must be a minimum of 4' high chain link, snow, or safety fence staked at the edge of the drip -line or line of encroachment for each tree or group of trees. The fence shall be up before any construction or earth moving begins. The fencing shall be placed at the edge of the drip -line or further as measured from the actual trees. The owner shall be responsible for maintaining an erect fence throughout the construction period. The arborist(s), upon notification, will inspect the fence placement once it is erected. After this time, fencing shall not be moved without arborist inspection/approval. If the orange plastic fencing is used, a minimum of four zip ties shall be used on each stake to secure the fence along with tie wire or other suitable material intertwined through the top. b) Soils within the drip -line that have been compacted by heavy equipment and/or construction activities must be returned to their original state before all work is completed. Methods include water jetting, adding organic matter, and boring small holes with an auger (18" deep, 2-3' apart with a 2-4" auger) and the application of moderate amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. The arborist(s) shall advise. C) All areas within the dripline of the trees that cannot be fenced shall receive a 4-6" layer of chip mulch to retain moisture, soil structure and reduce the effects of soil compaction. d) All trenching within the drip -line of native trees shall be hand dug, augured or bored. Prior to any trenching, all utility paths under the drip lines shall be marked by the owner and subsequently air spade to expose all roots without damaging them. Conduit/piping shall then be placed over/under all roots greater than one inch in diameter. The trench can then be re -buried without the need to cut any large roots. e) Grading should not encroach within the drip -line unless authorized. If grading is necessary, construction of retaining walls or tree wells or other protection measures may be necessary to insure the survivability of the trees. Chip mulch 4-6" in depth may also be required in these areas. Grading should not disrupt the 3-29 ' CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY normal drainage pattern around the trees. Fills should not create a ponding condition and excavations should not leave the tree on a rapidly draining mound. f) Any exposed roots shall be re-covered the same day they were exposed. If they cannot, they must be covered with burlap or another suitable material and wetted down 2x per day until re -buried. g) Pervious surfacing is preferred within the drip -line of any oak tree. Permeable pavers shall be used for the sidewalk under the drip -line. Arborist(s) will advise. h) Vehicles and all heavy equipment shall not be driven under the trees, as this will contribute to soil compaction. In addition, there is to be no parking of equipment or personal vehicles in these areas. All areas behind fencing are off-limits unless pre -approved by the arborist. i) The existing ground surface within the drip -line of all oak trees shall not be cut, filled, compacted or paved, unless shown on the grading plans and approved by the arborist. j) No liquid or solid construction waste shall be dumped on the ground within the drip -line of any oak tree. k) An arborist shall be present for selected activities and pre -construction fence placement inspection. The monitoring does not necessarily have to be continuous, but observational at time during the above activities. It is the responsibility of the owner(s) or their designee to inform us prior to these events so A&T can make arrangements to be present. The following activities shall be monitored: 1) trenching within the drip -line; 2) curb footing excavation; and, 3) sidewalk grading. 1) An on-site preconstruction meeting with the Arborist(s), Owner(s), Planning Staff, and the earth -moving team shall be required for this project. Before final occupancy, a letter from the arborist(s) shall be required verifying the health/condition of all impacted trees and providing any recommendations for any additional mitigation. The letter shall verify that the arborist(s) were on site for all grading and/or trenching activity that encroached into the drip -line of the selected native trees, and that all work done in these areas was completed to the standards set forth above. m) Class 4 pruning includes — Crown reduction pruning shall consist of reduction of tops, sides, or individual limbs. A trained arborist shall perform all pruning. n) All landscape under the drip -line shall be drought tolerant or native varieties. Lawns shall be avoided. All irrigation trenching shall be routed around critical root zones, otherwise above ground drip -irrigation shall be used., o) All utilities shall be placed down the roads and driveways and when possible outside of the drip -line. The arborist shall supervise trenching within the drip -line. All trenching in these areas shall be hand dug. As stated above in the trenching mitigation, all paths shall be marked by the owner and air spade prior to any digging. 3-30 CITY OF A TA SCADERO INITIAL STUDY Mitigation Measure BI0-5: The applicant shall develop and submit a Native Tree Replacement Plan to the City of Atascadero to ensure that the project is in compliance with the City of Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance. As such, native trees removed during project implementation shall be replaced. For every 6" diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater of deciduous oak tree removed, two 5 -gallon, locally grown native oaks of the same species shall be planted. For every 6" dbh of other native tree (as listed in City Ordinance Number 350) that is removed, one 5 -gallon, locally grown tree of the same species shall be planted (Atascadero Native Tree Guidelines). Mitigation Measure BIO -6: Upon project completion, a final status report shall be prepared by the project arborist, and submitted to the City of Atascadero, certifying the project was in compliance with the mitigation measures included in the A&T arborist report and those measures which will be included within the proposed Native Tree Replacement Plan, as described above. Mitigation Measure 13I0-7: All existing native trees on the Wilson Property shall not be removed or significantly impacted as a result of project implementation. Mitigation Measure 13I0-8: The applicant shall ensure that the three wetland areas are designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the 404 Permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the project. Findings With the incorporation of mitigation, the proposed project would result in less -than -significant impacts to biological resources. Prehistoric Environmental Setting San Luis Obispo County has been home to the Northern Chumash, or Obispeno, for over 9,000 years. Archaeologists have established a detailed cultural chronology (Table 3.5-1) based upon 3-31 Less Than Initial Study 2004-0036 Potentially Significant Less Than No ZCM 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact West Front Village Incorporation 3.5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical '15064.5? a resource as defined in b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of '15064.5? ® ❑ an archaeological resource pursuant to c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ a outside of formal cemeteries? Prehistoric Environmental Setting San Luis Obispo County has been home to the Northern Chumash, or Obispeno, for over 9,000 years. Archaeologists have established a detailed cultural chronology (Table 3.5-1) based upon 3-31 CITY OF ATASCADER0 INITIAL STUDY excavations and site surveys across the County (Greenwood, 1972; Gibson, 1979, Jones and Waugh 1995, Joslin 2000). Over 1,500 archaeological sites have been recorded in San Luis Obispo County, although many of these heritage resources have been impacted by development. Table 3.5-1. Chronological Sequence for the Central San Luis Obispo Area. Date PeriodHolocene 700 B.P. — Historic Late Prehistoric Late 1,000-700 B.P. Middle/Late Transition Late 3,000-1,000 B.P. Middle Late (post 3300 B.P.) 5,500-3,000 B.P. Early Middle (6600-3300 B.P.) 8,500-5,500 B.P. Millingstone Early (10,000-6650 B.P.) 11,000-8,500 B.P. Paleoindian Early Central Coast prehistory is divided into four broadly defined periods — the Millingstone, Early, Middle and Late. There is little evidence of occupation during the Paleoindian period (11,000 — 8,5000 years before present (B.P.) on the central coast. The Cross Creek site (CA-SLO-1797) is the only known representation of the period in the region. The Millingstone Period (8,500-5,500 B.P.), according to Glassow (1996), is characterized along the Santa Barbara channel by thick rectangular Olivella beads, and a high density of handstones and millingstones. Two sites excavated by Greenwood (1972) at Diablo Canyon have been fundamental to our understanding of the Millingstone period on the central coast. The Early Period (5,500-3,000 B.P.) exhibits similar artifact assemblages to the Millingstone period, however major changes in subsistence technology occurred. Mammals and fish became increasingly important in the diet, while shellfish consumption became increasingly less important. The introduction of mortar and pestle technology also reflects a more intensive use of plant resources (Joslin 2000). The Middle Period (3,000-1,000 B.P.) is characterized by artifact assemblages that include contracting -stemmed projectile points, and a wide array of shell beads and ornaments. While many subsistence -settlement trends remained constant from pre - 3,000 B.P., there was an intensification in the use of small schooling fish and an even further decline in the reliance on shellfish (Joslin 2000). The Late Period (700 B.P.-Historic) settlements, according to Jones (1995), maintained a terrestrial orientation, focusing on the procurement of acorns and a variety of other interior plants and animal foods. At CA-SLO-1303, a site located at the original extent of the Morro Bay estuary, the artifact assemblage illustrates a high frequency of Franciscan 3-32 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY chert, a material more common inland. The prevalence of this material suggests that people were coming to the coast from an inland residential base (Joslin 2000). The Obispeno Chumash were organized into small, mobile bands, whose main subsistence pattern was hunting and gathering. Gathered plant foods such as acorns, pine nuts, and grass seeds, and hunted animals such as deer, rabbit, fish, and other small game were important to the survival of the groups. Trade was also an important element of survival. Because the northern boundaries of the Obispeno, and the southern boundaries of the Migueleno (a subset of the Salinan group) were so close, and most likely very fluid through time, extensive trade was practiced between the groups. The Mission Period in the area began with the arrival of Gaspar de Portola in September 1769. As a result of this expedition, the San Luis Obispo Mission was established in 1772, and the San Miguel Mission in 1797. These missions had a direct impact on the native people of the region, as they were forced to convert and live within the mission grounds. The combined effects of forced acculturation, disease, and outright conflict rapidly reduced the Obispeno population (Berg and Hildebrandt). Historic Environmental Setting The City of Atascadero today was originally made up of three Mexican Land Grants, consisting of the 4,348 acre Atascadero Rancho, the 39,225 acre Asuncion Rancho, and the 17,735 acre Santa Margarita Rancho. During the 1860's, these large Ranchos were beginning to be sold off into smaller portions, one of which became known as the Atascadero Colony. The Atascadero Colony consisted of a 23,000 acre ranch bought by Edward Gardner Lewis in 1913. Lewis bought this land in the hopes of building a "utopian society" that would offer the best of country and city life, while promoting orchards, parks, and public buildings. By mid 1917, the Colony consisted of approximately 300 homes and 1500 people (Lewis 1974). Historical/Phase One Archaeology Surface Survey An archival records search, historical background study, and a phase one archaeological surface survey were conducted on the project site. See Appendix D. The purpose of the archaeological survey was to determine whether any archaeological/cultural resources were present on or adjacent to the project site, and, if so, to map their extent based on surface examination, and also, on a preliminary level, to determine the nature and significance of any resources discovered. An archival records search for the project site and about'/2-mile buffer around it was made with the Central Coast Archaeological Information Center located at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The Central Coast Information Center is the official repository and clearinghouse for all archaeological information on San Luis Obispo County. The records check reported that nine cultural resource surveys and one prehistoric site were within the search area. The nearest prehistoric archaeological site is CA-SLO-617, which was first recorded by Charles Dills. It is about '/z -mile west, southwest of the project site. It is a village and cemetery site occupied 1,000 to 2,000 years ago and was trenched and damaged in 1971. The records 3-33 CITY OF A TASCADERO INITIAL STUDY search indicates no previous surveys have been done on or immediately adjacent to the property. No archaeological sites have been recorded on the project area. The archaeological surface survey consisted of one archaeologist zigzagging back and forth in meandering transects spaced at 10 to 30 meters, examining the surface for signs of prehistoric cultural materials (including seashell fragments, stone tools and fragments, stone flakes, bone, burnt rock, etc.) or significant historic cultural materials (including foundations, trash pits, square nails, purple glass, etc.) No evidence of any intact or displaced prehistoric or historic cultural resources was observed within or adjacent to the site. One large historic complex (Fransden/W ilson Colony Home) of the structures was identified on the western portion of the survey. To support the cultural inventory and address specific concerns for the identification .and protection of the Fransden/Wilson Colony home, an historical background study was performed by Betsy Bertrando of Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants. Archival sources consulted include historical literature, maps, interviews, directories, newspapers, unpublished manuscripts and photographs. The Colony home on the Wilson Property, situated on a slight knoll west of Highway 101 and south of Portola Road, was built by Frank and Maybell Frandsen in 1921. They came to the area from Seattle earlier that year, with their young son Eldon and Maybell's mother. Frank Frandsen was an electrical engineer, and later a teacher at the Acheson Polytechnic Academy in Atascadero. Both the interior and exterior of the four bedroom, two-story house features excellent examples of the arts and crafts movement that was promoted by the Colony and popular during the 1920's. On the exterior, the main east/west gable is broken by an extension that continues above the area of the original porch as a second story. On both sides, the second story shed dormer is framed by the sloping pitched roof. The original front of the house is most interesting with its two set backs and two roof styles that keep with the craftsman bungalow tradition. The interior of the house includes a pocket door and a paneled dining room that reflect the movement in the 1920's. Craftsman detailing is also evident in the front door and banister, and there is an original built-in ice box on the service porch. In addition to the main house, the grounds also included an adobe, a garage/workshop, a shed, and a greenhouse. The adobe was reportedly built by Frank Frandsen in the 1930's, and is located southwest of the house. It is one bedroom, and the brickwork over the doors have a "southwest" design, with stepped imprinted bricks radiating from an arch and continuing down each side and sill of the windows. The garage/workshop is a large building located south of the house, and was originally built of shiplap. The rear of the building contained a hen house which was enclosed and incorporated into the workshop in 2003. Bobby Wilson, the current landowner, is actively restoring this building. The shed is located immediately west of the garage/workshop. In the rear between these two structures are the remains of concrete foundations to support a green house. Behind this, is a water well that is no longer in use (Bertrando 2004). 3-34 Thresholds of Significance CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Based on the mandatory findings of significance criteria at Section 15065 and Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (Governor's Office of Planning and Research, 1999), an impact would be significant if any of the following conditions, or potential thereof, would result with implementation of the Proposed Project: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15065.5; 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5; or, 3. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Section 15064.5 defines a significant adverse effect to include any activity that would: (1) Create a substantially adverse change in the significance of a historical resource including physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings, such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired; and/or (2) alter or materially impair the significance of a historical resource. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines significant historic resources to include: A resource listed in, or determined eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et sec.). A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(8) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record including the following: (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in a historical resources survey 3-35 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(8) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.10) or 5024.1. Section 15064.5 of CEQA defines material alteration of a significant resource to include any activity that: Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion, in the California Register of Historical Resources; or Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or, Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, states that in the event human remains are discovered during excavation, work must stop immediately and the County Coroner must be contacted. Section 5097.94 and 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code require consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, protection of Native American remains, and notification of most likely descendants. SB 447 (Chapter 404, Statutes of 1987) also protects Native American remains or associated grave goods. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines significant historic resources to include: A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title CCR. Section 4850 et seq.). Answers to Checklist Answers Question A: As part of the current entitlement request, the Wilson Colony property will be converted from commercial zoning back to residential zoning for the future creation of a 5 -lot subdivision. As part of the current entitlement request, and any future requests, an effort should be made to preserve the historic house in its current configuration and character. Although the Frandsen/Wilson Colony home is one of the 80 -year old original 300 Colony homes, it is largely intact with few modern alterations and the cluster of structure and trees 3-36 i :... ,i. CITYOFATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY retains a good setting of the organization, vies, and tranquility of the Frandsen and Wilson households. It should be regarded as an important part of the early history of Atascadero and should be protected from any adverse impacts from the current and future projects. Construction of the residential/commercial project would not result in any significant impacts to the historic Wilson Colony House. The amendment, zoning change, and mitigation measures will preserve the historic house by allowing only residential development to occur adjacent to the property while maintaining the immediate historic site character, buildings, and landscaping. Question B: An archaeological records search and Phase I survey of the project site was conducted by Mr. Robert Gibson of Gibson's Archaeological Consulting. According to his report, no archaeological/cultural resources were identified anywhere on or adjacent to the project site. The records search and Phase I survey did not reveal the presence of any known archaeological resources; therefore no change is expected to occur. Question C: Although no paleontological surveys have been done, the project site has been previously disturbed, and therefore the likelihood of encountering such resources would be minimal. Question D: Because the records search and Phase 1 survey did not reveal any known archaeological resources, the project is not expected to disturb any known human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery. Mitigation Mitigation Measure CUL -1: Because the Colony house is largely intact with few modern alterations and the cluster of structure and trees retains a setting of the organization, vies, and tranquility of the Frandsen and Wilson households and is regarded as an important part of the early history of Atascadero, an Historic Overlay Zone shall be required on the Wilson Property to protect it from any adverse impacts from the current and future projects. Any construction and/or subdivision on the site shall be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation of historic structures. Mitigation Measure CUL -2: Should any cultural resources be unearthed during site development work, the provisions of CEQA -Section 15064.5, will be followed to reduce impacts to a non- significant level. Mitigation Measure CUL -3: Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the project cultural resource consultant, resulting from completion of Phase II testing or from on-site monitoring of earth disturbance activities shall be forwarded to the City in the form of a mitigation monitoring program for site development, and shall be incorporated into the proposed project prior to project approval. 1051 Finding CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY With the incorporation of mitigation, the proposed project would result in less -than -significant impacts to cultural resources. Initial Study 2004-0036 ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 West Front Village 3.6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: 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 wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact ❑ Less Than ❑ Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact ❑ Incorporation ❑ ❑ a No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ X ❑ El0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ x ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ FJ 1:1❑ ❑ SOURCES: Project Description -Photos; 5/02/03 Planning Staff Site Visit. Land Use Element EIR, Project Description -Photos; Tentative Tract Map/Grading Plan /Site Plan, R. Thompson Consulting, MCG Mid -Coast Geotechnical , Inc., 10/21102. Setting The site lies within the southern part of the Salinas River Valley, east of the Santa Lucia Mountain Range. The Salinas River is a few miles east of the site. The trend of the Salinas River is to the northwest; it is predominately controlled by the regional northwest trending MGT.] CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Rinconada and San Andreas Fault zones. The Rinconada and San Andreas faults are active northwest trending faults that lie within the general region of the site. These faults are situated east of the site. The Geologic Map of the Santa Margarita area by Hart (1976) indicates that sedimentary rock units, younger alluvium and older alluvium underlie the site. The rock units generally consist of sandstone and shale of the Santa Margarita formation and cherty shale of the Monterey formation. Except for the northern part of the site, the hillsides are capped by older alluvium. The older alluvium was probably deposited thousands of years ago by Paloma Creek when the elevation of the creek was much higher. The northernmost hillside is capped with a thin layer of topsoil overlying shale of the Santa Margarita formation. Younger alluvium lies within the drainage valleys. Faulting The site is situated among four active faults: The Hosgri-San Simeon, the San Andreas, the Los Osos and the Rinconada. Rinconada Fault. The Rinconada Fault is the closest mapped active fault to the site. Vertical displacements across the fault apparently were dominant in the Paleocene and Oligocene; however, the fault has accommodated approximately 11 miles of right -lateral offset from the Miocene to the present (Dibblee, 1976). Dibblee, Jr. has indicated that the youngest unit or formation offset by the fault system is the Pliocene -Pleistocene Paso Robles formation, and that the fault system probably has not offset older alluvium, which is estimated to be 50,000 to 500,000 years old. Major displacement of the Plio-Pleistocene Paso Robles formation, offset drainages, strong geomorphic expression, and apparent displacements of older alluvium further indicated a late Pleistocene and possible Holocene age for the most recent activity of the Fault (Dibblee, 1976; Hart, 1976). However, the age of the most recent displacement on the Rinconada fault is not known, and further extensive investigation would be required to determine its activity. Although no ground rupture has been mapped in Holocene time on the Rinconada fault, there have been small to moderate earthquakes (<5.9 magnitude) that have been recorded in the vicinity of the fault during the last 200 years, indicating that the fault is active. It is possible that the shock waves produced by these earthquakes did not have enough energy to break the ground surface or cause any ground surface displacement. Los Osos Fault. The Los Fault, located southwest, is considered to be a west -northwest - trending reverse fault on the south side of the Los Osos Valley. The Los Osos fault is divided into four segments. The most westerly segment of the fault is the Estero Bay segment, which lies mostly offshore. The Irish Hills segment starts in the vicinity of Los Osos and extends to just past San Luis Obispo Creek. A two-mile length of this segment west of Laguna Lake is considered to be active (Treiman, 1989) and is designated as an Earthquake Fault Zone (Hard, 1997. revised). The other two segments of the Los Osos fault are the Lopez Reservoir segment and the Newsome Ridge segment, located southeast of the Irish Hill segment. The Los Osos fault is capable of generating a maximum moment earthquake of magnitude 6.8; the recurrence interval for an earthquake of this magnitude is approximately 1,925 years (Peterson and et. al., 1996). 3-39 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Hosgri-San Simeon Fault. The Hosgri-San Simeon fault is also an active fault within a relatively close proximity to the site; it is located west of the site. This fault system extends from San Simeon to an ocean shelf 2 miles west of Point Buchon, and then trends toward the Point Sal area. The fault is a northwest trending strike slip fault. It is considered active by the U.S. Geological Survey based on Hall's claims of recent offset terrace deposits along San Simeon Cove and also by a relocation of the 1927 "Lompoc" earthquake onto the southern end of the fault (Hall, 1976, 1977). In addition, PG&E suggested that the Hosgri segment of the fault is active after reviewing seismic reflection survey data (PG&E, 1988). San Andreas Fault. The 1857 fault segment of the active San Andreas fault is located northeast of the site. The last major quake on the 1857 fault segment was the 1857 earthquake that had a magnitude of 7.8. The 1857 fault rupture included the Parkfield, Cholame, Carrizo, and Mojave fault segments. Answers to Checklist Questions Question A -D: The project is located near the Rinconada fault zone. The Rinconada fault is a "type B" fault, which refers to a 6.5 to 7.0 magnitude earthquake and a slip rate between 2 to 5 mm/year. Other active faults in the area, primarily the San Andreas Fault, may result in significant seismic events during the life of the proposed structure. The property contains no unusual geological formations. Question E: Project will not require septic. Mitigation Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The applicant will implement Mitigation Measure HWQ-1. Mitigation Measure GEO-2: A soils report and geotechnical investigation shall be submitted as part of the building permit process. Any measures identified in this report shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval. Finding With the incorporation of mitigation, the proposed project would result in less -than -significant impacts to geology and soils. 3-40 Initial Study 2004-0036 ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 West Front Village 3.7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials-- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) For a project located within in an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people living or working in the project area? f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safely hazard for people living 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 involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Less Than ❑ Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ El © ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E SOURCES: SOURCES: Project description, General Plan Land Use Element; Site Visit, Personal Communication with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (7113/04), Results of Groundwater Monitoring, June 2003, Portola and West Frontage Road Property, Atascadero, California, and Work Plan for Site Assessment Colony Associates Property, SWC Portola and West Frontage Roads, Atascadero, California. Environmental Setting The site is currently vacant and unimproved. Santa Rosa school is located approximately /. mile from the project site. A service station occupied a 1 -acre parcel located at the southwestern corner of Portola and West Front Road from the mid-1950s until around 1988, at which time the station and buildings and other surface improvements were removed_ The underground storage tanks (USTs) for the station were reportedly removed in the 1970s. 3-41 W �a CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY In 1989-90, Earth Systems Environmental conducted a remedial action at the site, which consisted of excavating approximately 900 cubic yards of gasoline -contaminated soil from the former UST pit and pump island areas. The excavation was dug to the groundwater surface, which at the time was approximately nine feet below ground surface (bgs). The excavation was backfilled with clean import soil, and the affected soil was spread and aerated on-site. After testing indicated that hydrocarbon concentrations were below regulatory thresholds, the soil was transported off-site as a non -hazardous material. Quarterly groundwater monitoring was conducted at the site from 1991 to 1994. In 1994, the monitoring frequency was changed from quarterly to annual, and only the most down -gradient well (MW -3) was sampled for analysis. On June 10 and June 17, 2003, Earth Systems Pacific personnel conducted groundwater gauging and sampling of the monitoring wells at the 1 -acre parcel. Results indicate that total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes and fuel oxygenates were not detected above laboratory detection limits in any of the monitoring wells. Temporary groundwater monitoring well sampling results conducted on April 29, 2004 indicated concentrations of up to 240 micrograms per liter of petroleum hydrocarbons and 78 micrograms per liter of benzene; however, RWQCB concurred that the sample results were caused due to suspended contaminated sediments in the sample, and were not representative of overall conditions at the site. Residual contamination remains at the site, posing an unacceptable risk under certain types of site development activities; therefore, the RWQCB directed that any excavation work shall manage contaminated soils excavated during construction activities. Answers to Checklist Questions Question A -C: The project involves construction and operation of a gas station that would involve the use of hazardous materials. Underground storage tanks (USTs) would be installed as part of the station. The operation of the station could result in the release of hazardous materials, which could contaminate soils and groundwater. Santa Rosa School. is located approximately'/4 mile from the project site. The historical indications of petroleum hydrocarbons in one of the groundwater wells suggest that a portion of the original contaminant mass may have remained after the 1989 remedial excavation, which was only excavated to the groundwater surface. Because confirmation samples were only collected from the sidewalls of the remedial exaction, the concentrations of hydrocarbons in the bottom of the pit, if any, are not known. Additionally, the excavated soils were spread on-site and aerated to reduce contaminant concentrations. Therefore, construction activities at the 1 -acre site may result in the disturbance and release of hazardous materials. This is considered a significant but mitigabie impact. Please refer to the RWQCB letter of transmittal of case closure contained in Appendix E. 3-42 J` sem:. Question D: CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY The project is not listed on the state Hazardous Waste and Substance Site list. Question E -F: The property is not near an airport. Question G -H: The site is within the Fire Department's seven -minute response area. The Fire Marshall will determine if the residences will have fire sprinklers during review of the building permit. Mitigation Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to the grading activities at the 1 -acre parcel of the former gas station, the applicant shall prepare a Contaminated Materials Management Plan (CMMP) to be implemented during excavation or grading activities. The CMMP shall include procedures for the proper and safe handling and disposal of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soils. Petroleum hydrocarbon -containing soil with Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations in excess of 100 milligrams per kilogram shall not be used for backfill material on-site and shall be transported to a properly licensed landfill or recycling facility. The CMMP shall be submitted to the City and the County of San Luis Obispo Division of Environmental Health for review and approval prior to initiation of grading activities. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: No water wells will be constructed at the project site without the express written approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: The gas station shall be constructed and operated in accordance with current state UST specifications including double -walled tanks, piping and dispenser catch pans. The applicant shall obtain appropriate UST permits from the County Environmental Health Division, the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the proposed UST installations. Finding With the incorporation of mitigation, the proposed project would result in less -than -significant impacts to hazards/hazardous materials. Initial Study 2004-0036 ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 West Front Village 3.8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 1:1 ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there 1-1 3-43 Z �f CITY OF ATASCADERO � "�m INITIAL STUDY Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Initial Study 2004-0036 Significant with Significant No ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 Impact Impact Mitigation Impact West Front Village Incorporation would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of previously -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 the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a F-1 F-1 F Z stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the Z El El capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1 X❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a.federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? F-1 F-1 F Z SOURCES: Project description, Flood Insurance Rate Map 060700 0003 B (1/20182); 5/02/03 Planning Staff Site Visit; Grading and Landscape Plans. Setting Natural drainage courses within the City include Atascadero, Graves and Paloma Creeks, and the Salinas River. Water quality in the creeks and groundwater basin is affected by surface drainage and pollution_ Construction in the areas that directly or indirectly drain to waterways results in disturbance of surface soils, which can be washed into area waterways. This can adversely affect turbidity, temperature, oxygen levels, and other important water quality indicators. Increased development also increases the amount of impermeable surfaces, potentially increasing runoff and decreasing groundwater recharge. 3-44 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Other water quality degradation includes wastewater seepage and stream dumping and spills. Improperly placed leachfields can cause similar types of pollution (e.g., coliform bacteria and nitrates) in groundwater and surface waters including streams and tributaries. Creeks and streams located near roads are vulnerable to illegal dumping of wastewater and spills from accidents. Streams and creeks intersect numerous roads in the planning area, greatly increasing the risks of contamination. Contamination may include pesticides, herbicides, gasoline, and other ecologically harmful chemicals. Water quality in the Salinas River Underflow meets State standards but tends to fluctuate in mineral content ("hardness"). The Atascadero Sub -Basin has consistently produced higher quality water with a lower percentage of minerals. The Salinas River is currently listed on the Federal 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for siltation and sedimentation. Listing requires the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to develop an action plan for recovery no later than 2015. All areas draining to the Salinas River would be required to abide by any such action plan. Atascadero Creek is currently being considered for listing on the 303(d) list for dissolved oxygen. Groundwater. Currently the City derives all of its domestic water from groundwater resources. Supply, All properties within the City are entitled to water from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC). AMWC obtains groundwater from a combination of shallow and deep wells that tap into the Paso Robles Formation, which extends from Atascadero northward to the county line and eastward toward Shandon. Estimates of safe annual yield have not been determined; therefore, "perennial yield" is used. According to the study, "the perennial yield is the rate at which water can be pumped from wells without decreasing storage to a level where there is adverse economic effects." The Paso Robles Formation is estimated to produce a perennial yield of 94,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) (Atascadero 2002). Total 2000 demand from the Paso Robles basin was about 82,600 acre- feet'. However, the apparent excess supply may be misleading; the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Study (Study) reports local depressions where pumping causes severe lowering of groundwater levels, and other areas, where water levels rise sharply. The Study shows a long- term disparity between total inflow to and total outflow from the basin, albeit minor, compared to the total storage of the basin. AMWC draws water from two portions of the Paso Robles formation, the Salinas River underflow and the Atascadero Sub -basin, which are hydrologically related and part of the same groundwater resource. Drainage/Flooding Problems. Portions of the City and outlying areas are within the 100 -year flood hazard, as defined by local Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The flood hazard area associated with the Salinas River extends to the east side of Hidalgo Avenue, Sycamore Road, and Capistrano Avenue, as well as a segment of Curbaril Avenue. The flood hazard area associated with Atascadero Creek is generally limited to its channel and immediately adjacent properties, 'An acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons 3-45 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY except where the creek crosses Highway 101. Flooding along Paloma and Graves Creek is generally contained to areas within and immediately adjacent to the channels. Flooding can also occur due to failure of dam structures. Sudden failure of the Salinas Dam at Santa Margarita Lake could inundate any area in the City within about 1,000 feet of the Salinas River. Failure of the Atascadero Lake Dam could produce flooding about two feet deep in the Morro Flats/Tecorida area and affect about 100 residents. The State conducts periodic reviews to evaluate dam safety. Storm Drainage Study An evaluation of the storm water drainage associated with the proposed project was completed by RRM Design Group on June 9, 2004 (RRM Design Group 2004). This study analyzed the on- site detention requirements for the project and discussed the proposed storm -water drainage system for the project. Three regional watersheds drain to three existing drainage facilities fronting the project site. Watershed "A" drains to a concrete curb -opening drainage inlet with a 24" corrugated metal pipe (cmp) culvert at the corner of Portola and West Front Roads. Watersheds "B" and "C" each drain to separate 24" reinforced concrete pipe (rcp) culverts with concrete headwalls fronting West Front Road. These regional watersheds were divided into sub -watersheds to allow the determination of the rate of runoff entering the project site from offsite watershed areas to the west. A peak rate of runoff for a 2 -year storm event from existing conditions was determined for the three existing drainage facilities. Per the City of Atascadero's design guidelines, three detention basins were designed for the project site so that discharge from the detention system to the three existing drainage facilities would be metered. This would ensure that the peak rates of outflow do not exceed the 2 -year storm event rate to that existing individual drainage feature. Answers to Checklist Questions: Question A: Implementation of the proposed project will not significantly affect water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The proposed project would .be implemented in an urban area and would not result in any substantial changes to existing drainage patterns or measurable changes in the rate and amount of surface runoff. In addition, proper erosion control techniques will be utilized to prevent sediment -laden runoff from entering the drainage system. Consequently, water quality impacts are considered to be less than significant. Questions B and F: Groundwater quantity and quality impacts are considered to be less than significant. C30 Ems:! Questions C, D, and E: CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY The proposed project will not substantially alter existing drainage patterns on the site or the surrounding area and will connect and use the drainage system that has been developed for the surrounding area. The project involves construction of three detention basins to control the flow of stormwater runoff so that the peak rates of outflow do not exceed the 2 -year storm event rate to that existing individual drainage feature. Consequently, the project would not significantly change absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff during project operations. However, stormwater runoff during grading may affect water quality. Questions G -J: According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the City of Atascadero, the project site is located outside the 100 -year flood plain. Consequently, flooding impacts are considered to be less than significant. The project site is not subject to inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Mitigation The following mitigation measures have been identified to assure all potential impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance: Mitigation Measure HWO-1: The applicant will prepare and implement a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan (SECP) for the proposed project. The SECP will include: a) Slope surface stabilization measures, such as temporary mulching, seeding, and other suitable stabilization measures to protect exposed erodible areas during construction, and installation of earthen or paved interceptors and diversion at the top of cut or fill slopes where there is a potential for erosive surface runoff; b) Erosion and sedimentation control devices, such as energy absorbing structures or devices, will be used, as necessary, to reduce the velocity of runoff water to prevent polluting sedimentation discharges; C) Installation of mechanical and/or vegetative final erosion control measures within 30 days after completion of grading; d) Confining land clearing and grading operations to the period between April 15 and October 15 to avoid the rainy season; and, e) Minimizing the land area disturbed and the period of exposure to the shortest feasible time. Prior to construction, the applicant will develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submit a Notice of Intent to comply with the NPDES "General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (99-08-DWQ). The SWPPP will include provisions for the installation and maintenance of Best Management Practices to reduce the potential for erosion of disturbed soils at the Project site. 3-47 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Mitigation Measure HWQ-2: The developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are implemented. Failure to comply with the approved construction Best Management Practices will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop orders. Finding With the incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in less -than - significant impacts to hydrology/water quality. Less Than Initial Study 2004-0036 Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 Impact Mitigation Impact West Front Village Incorporation 3.9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ El ❑ x ❑ SOURCES: Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Project Description, Land Use Element EIR: MPD. Setting U.S. Highway 101 provides the primary access to the City from points north and south. Highway 41 provides access east and west to the foothills and the coast, respectively. According to the 2000 U.S. census data, the current population is 26,411, making it the second most populous city in the County. The population is concentrated within the urban areas; outlying areas are more sparsely populated. According to the City's General Plan, this site is currently zoned General Commercial (GC). The proposed project involves a general plan amendment of a 4.43 -acre portion of the site to Medium Density Residential. The remaining 4.93 acres along West Front road would remain GC to allow for retail and hotel/motel uses. The project also involves rezoning the site from Commercial Retail (CR) to Residential Multiple Family (RMF) for the 4.43 -acre portion and keeping the remaining frontage property as CR. The proposed density for the residential portion of the site would be approximately 7.2 units/acre. Finally the adjacent Wilson property is proposed to be zoned RSF-X and would allow for five (5) lots a minimum of 0.50 acres each on the 3.99 -acre property. The City has adopted several policies and programs to oversee land use in the City, including the City's General Plan, which includes the Land Use Element, Circulation Element, and the 3-48 ems:. CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY City's Smart Growth Principles, which were incorporated into the General Plan. In addition, the City has adopted an interim Affordable Housing Policy and mixed-use zoning policies, as discussed below: City of Atascadero City Council Mixed -Use Zoning Policies. • Implement the Taussing Fiscal Impact Analysis on residential portion; • Require commercial to be constructed before or simultaneously with the residential portion. Commercial permit(s) must be obtained first and the first permit to be finaled in the project shall be the commercial permit(s); and, • Require at least 50% of the project to be commercial. The commercial component cannot include mini -storage or other non -sales tax producing uses, including offices (per the City Council, this requirement may be waived if the project includes a hotel). Answers to Checklist Questions Question A: Implementation of the proposed project will not physically divide an established community. Commercial use in the proposed location is consistent and compatible with the existing adjacent commercial uses. As proposed, the residential uses are consistent with the surrounding existing and future land uses. Question B: The site is currently zoned commercial and the proposed project involves rezoning a portion of the site to RMF. This zoning change for the Wilson property will allow for residential uses at these sites. The project involves 6 affordable housing units consistent with the City's 20% affordable housing requirement. There will be a deed restriction for rental only to persons meeting the moderate -income requirement. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant will enter into a legal agreement with the City to reserve half of the units for sale to residents or workers within the City of Atascadero, including the affordable units. As discussed in 3.13. Public Services, the City will require a Taussing Fiscal Impact Analysis to determine the development impact fees of the proposed project. The requirement that at least 50% of the project be commercial is waived because the project includes construction of a 3 - story, 79 -room hotel. Question C: The project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. 3-49 �tCITY OF ATASCADERO `� INITIAL STUDY Finding The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to land use. SOURCES: Project Description -Photos; 2124103 Planning staff site visit Answers to Checklist Questions: Question A and B: No mining is proposed as a part of this project. No known mineral resources have been identified in the area; therefore, there will be no impacts to mineral resources. Finding No impacts Less Than D Initial Study 2004-0036 Potentially Significant Less Than No c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels Significant with Significant Impact p ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 Impact Mitigation Impact Impact West Front Village Impact Incorporation Impact 3.10. MINERAL RESOURCES --Would the project: Incorporation El 0 a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? SOURCES: Project Description -Photos; 2124103 Planning staff site visit Answers to Checklist Questions: Question A and B: No mining is proposed as a part of this project. No known mineral resources have been identified in the area; therefore, there will be no impacts to mineral resources. Finding No impacts D ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels? Less Than c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels Potentially Significant Less Than No Initial Study 2004-0036 Significant with Significant Impact ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 Impact Mitigation Impact West Front Village Incorporation El 0 3.11. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive D ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels IX 7 in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient © El 0 noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, 3-50 n where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project El 1:1 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ❑ the project expose people living or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? SOURCES: Project description, Noise Element, Noise Ordinance, Acoustical Design Manual, Noise Study Report for the West Front Village, Tract 2621, Atascadero, California, Morro Group, March 10, 2004, General Information on Noise. Noise is generally defined as unwanted or objectionable sound. Decibels and other technical terms are defined in Table 3.11-1. Noise levels are measured on a logarithmic scale because of physical characteristics of sound transmission and reception. Noise energy is typically reported in units of decibels (dB). Noise levels diminish (or attenuate) as distance to the source increases according to the inverse square rule, but the rate constant varies with type of sound source. Sound attenuation from point sources, such as industrial facilities, is about 6 dB per doubling of distance. Heavily traveled roads with few gaps in traffic behave as continuous line sources and attenuate at 3 dB per doubling of distance. Noise from more lightly traveled roads is attenuated at 4.5 dB per doubling of distance. Table 3.11-1 Definitions of Acoustical Terms Term Deflnttons Decibel, DB A unit describing the amplitude of sound equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the sample sound pressure to the standard sound pressure, which is 20 micropascals 20 micronewtons per square meter Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure A -Weighted Sound Level, The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter dB using the A -weighting filter network. The A -weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear, and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this reports are A-wei hied Equivalent Noise Level, Le The average A -weighted noise level during the measurement period Community Noise The average A -weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after Equivalent Level, CNEL addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A. M. Day/Night Noise Level, Ld, The average A -weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise ata given location Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, time of occurrence, tonal or information content, as well as the prevailing ambient noise level Community noise levels are measured in terms of the A -weighted decibel (dBA). A -weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Equivalent noise level (LQ) is the average noise level on an energy basis for a specific time period. The duration of noise and the time of day at which it occurs are important 3-51 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY factors in determining the impact on communities. Noise is more disturbing at night and noise indices have been developed to account for the time of day and duration of noise generation. The Community Noise Equivalent (CNEL) and Day Night Average Level (DNL or Ldp) are such indices. These indices are time -weighted average values equal to the amount of acoustic energy equivalent to a time -varying sound over a 24-hour period. The CNEL index penalizes night-time noise (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) by adding 5 dB to account for increased sensitivity of the community after dark. The Ld, index penalizes night-time noise the same as the CNEL index, but does not penalize evening noise. Effects of Noise. People are subject to a multitude of sounds in the environment_ Excessive noise cannot only be undesirable but may also cause physical and/or psychological damage. The amount of annoyance or damage caused by noise is dependent primarily upon three factors: the amount and nature of the noise, the amount of ambient noise present before the intruding noise, and the activity of the person working or living in the noise source area. The difficulty in relating noise exposure to public health and welfare is one of the major obstacles in determining appropriate maximum noise levels. Although there has been some dispute in the scientific community regarding the detrimental effects of noise, a number of general conclusions have been reached: • Noise of sufficient intensity can cause irreversible hearing damage; • Noise can produce physiological changes in humans and animals; • Noise can interfere with speech and other communication; and, • Noise can be a major source of annoyance by disturbing sleep, rest, and relaxation, Existing Noise Environment A noise study was conducted for the project by the Morro Group (Morro Group, 2004). See Appendix E. Noise levels were measured on two separate occasions at eight different locations. The first set of measurements was taken during the evening of March 2,. 2004 from approximately 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. The second set of measurements was taken on the morning of March 3, 2004 from approximately 7:30 A.M. to 9:45 A.M. Noise levels were taken at multiple locations along the property line front West Front and Portola Roads, and several other locations through the project site. The results are summarized in Table 4 and 5 of the Noise Study. Future noise levels at the site were developed based on existing cumulative traffic counts and are presented in Table 6 of the Noise Study. The California Department of Transporation (Caltrans) Technical Noise Supplement provides some general guidelines for determining community noise impacts: • A three -dB change is barely perceptible and is the minimum most people will notice in most environments; • A five -dB change is a readily perceptible increase per decrease in sound level; and, 3-52 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY • A ten -dB increase in sound level is perceived as an approximate doubling of the loudness of the sound and represents a substantial change in loudness. Answers to Checklist Questions Question A -C: Transporation noise resulting from U.S. Highway 101 and West Front Road would be the main source of noise on the northern and eastern boundaries of the project site. U.S. Highway 101 and Portola Road would be the main sources of noise along the western portion of the development. The City's Noise Element defines outdoor activity areas as the rear yards of dwelling units and other areas that have been designated for outdoor activities and recreation, such as patios, decks, balconies, outdoor eating areas, and swimming pool areas. The future noise levels and the required reduction to bring the outdoor activity area noise levels to 60 dBA for each location shown in Figure 3 of Appendix E and is listed in Table 7 of Appendix B of the noise study. Currently, the outdoor activity areas for all areas of the proposed project are not in compliance with the City's Noise Element because noise levels would exceed 60 DB Ldn (see Table 7 of Appendix B of the noise study)_ However, upon completion of the project, most areas of the development would be in compliance with the City's Noise Element due to the shielding effect provided by the retail buildings and the hotel that would be located between the main source of noise (U.S. Highway 101) and the residential lots. The finished pad elevations of the hotel and retail buildings would be approximately 970 to 971 feet. The project plans show the height of the roof ridge of the hotel at 37 feet and the retail roof ridges at 20-22 feet. With an average building pad elevation of 978.5 feet for the residential lots, the outdoor activity areas would be provided approximately 5-8 dBA of sound attenuation because of the approximate 10-20 feet of hotel and retail -building height offset in relation to the outdoor activity areas of the residences. For most residences not shielded by the retail buildings and hotel facility, residential building orientation would be situated and positioned correctly to adequately absorb transportation noise resulting from U.S. Highway 101 and West Front Road (providing the same shielding effect for outdoor activity areas that would be provided to most of the development by the retail and hotel buildings). There are several residential lots; however, that would need some form of mitigation to bring the outdoor activity areas into compliance with the City's Noise Element. These would include Lots #3, #7, #8, #13, #14, #19, and #21. Because the project design plans have not been finalized, the footprint of the retail buildings could potentially be shifted and relocated. Depending on the final design plans; these residences may not be adequately shielded by the retail buildings (depending on their final design and footprint) to provide effective mitigation from traffic noise sources. The hotel would not need outdoor mitigation, even though it is above the outdoor noise threshold. The reason for this is that there are no outdoor activity areas associated with the hotel development that would require mitigation to achieve sound attenuation below the City's noise threshold. 3-53 vk. " CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Interior spaces provide persons with relief from the outside noise environment. The City's Noise Element defines the threshold for outside noise infiltrating a home at 45 dB. This low decibel level ensures people will have a peaceful and relaxing environment in which to live. The future noise levels and the required reduction to bring the interior noise levels to 45 dBA for each location are listed in Table 8 of Appendix B of the study. It has been determined through various studies that buildings (homes) will usually attenuate outside noise sources by 20 to 30 dB. Construction of homes pursuant to the State Noise Insulation Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) and Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code would provide the required noise reduction to bring the interior noise levels resulting from automobile sources into compliance with the City's Noise Element. No special acoustical treatment of the residences or hotel would be required and no mitigation would be warranted for interior noise reduction. Operation of the proposed service station and convenience market in the northern corner of the site would potentially subject Lots #3, #7, and #8 to higher noise levels than shown in Table 6 of Appendix B due to the combination of all the traffic sources plus the stop and go nature of vehicles at the service and convenience market. The other surrounding residences would be shielded from the noise by Lots #3, #4, #7, and #8. Fuel trucks would deliver gasoline presumably at any time day or night, and deliveries to the convenience market would likely occur similarly. Question D: Construction of the proposed project could result in short-term noise impacts to nearby residences due to land clearing operations and excavation to construct the residences, commercial center, parking lot, and associated improvements. Such activity could generate elevated noise levels that could impact nearby residences. Questions E -F: The project is not located within an airport land use plan or private airstrip. Mitigation Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The applicant will construct acoustic sound walls to mitigate elevated noise levels to the residences. The noise barrier will extend in height (minimum of 6 feet) so that it breaks the line of sight between the noise sources and the receivers. The sound wall shall have a continuous structure and extend in a linear fashion parallel to the property line interface with the service station/retail facility and hotel and the residences (townhomes and single family residences) along this boundary. The location of the sound wall is shown in Figure 2-2. Aesthetics treatment, including landscaping of various shrubs, will be applied to the sound wall to mitigate visual concerns. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: All construction activities shall comply with the City of Atascadero Noise Ordinance for hours of operation, and as follows: 3-54 Construction activities shall be limited to the following hours of operation: • 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday • 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday • No construction on Sunday CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Furthermore, particularly loud noises shall not occur before 8 a.m. on weekdays and not at all on weekends. The hours of construction may be modified by the Community Development Director upon a determination that unusually loud construction activities are having a significant impact on the neighbors. Failure to comply with the above-described hours of operation may result in withholding of inspections and possible construction prohibitions, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. A sign shall be posted on-site with the hours of operation and a telephone number of the person to be contacted in the event of any violations. The details of such a sign shall be approved by staff during the Grading Plan/Building Permit review process. Finding With the incorporation of mitigation, the proposed project would result in less -than -significant impacts to noise. Initial Study 2004-0036 ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 West Front Village 3.12. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: 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? Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 11construction of replacement housing elsewhere? SOURCES: Project description, General Plan Land Use Element. 3-55 a Setting CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY The population of Atascadero grew 14.1% during the 1990s, with the majority of that increase occurring in the second half of the decade. The City is expected to continue to grow at roughly the same rate until at least 2010. The City's General Plan projects that the City's population will increase to 28,588 by 2005, and 29,904 by 2010. The General Plan projected a needed increase in housing units by 1,500 from 2002-2008, with the need ranging from Very Low Income to Above Moderate Income. Article 10.6 of the California Government Code requires each City and County to analyze housing needs and establish goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives to meet the identified needs. The analysis must address all economic segments (very low, low, moderate and above moderate incomes) of the community, the City's share of the regional housing needs, and the housing needs of special groups such as the elderly, disabled, homeless, large families, and single parents. The City must either identify vacant or re -developable sites that can provide sufficient housing to meet these needs, or include programs in the housing element to identify additional sites or make additional land available for housing. State law requires every City and County to include a Housing Element in its General Plan. Information required for this element includes specific analyses of City housing needs and a set of programs designed to meet those needs. Housing Elements are subject to State review and certification. The City's Housing Element includes all of the information required by State law: 1. Analysis of Atascadero's housing needs; 2. Information on the existing housing stock, including the number, type, cost, tenure, and structural condition of the units; 3. Analysis of land available to accommodate unmet housing needs; 4. Analysis of potential barriers to housing development, including governmental and non-governmental constraints; 5. Information on existing subsidized or below market -rate housing units, and potential to convert them to market -rate units; 6. Information about energy conservation opportunities for new housing construction or rehabilitation; and, 7. Specific goals, measurable objectives, policies, and programs to address the housing production allocation, as required by the County Regional Housing Needs Plan. 3-56 Answers to Checklist Questions Question A: CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY The General Plan identifies this site as General Commercial (GC). The project would amend the general plan on 4.43 acres of the site to Medium Density Residential and the remaining acres would remain GC. The adjacent Wilson property is proposed to be zoned from GC RSF-X and would allow for five (5) lots a minimum of 0.50 acres each on the 3.99 -acre property. A total of 14 Courtyard Homes and 18 Duplex Homes are proposed for a total of 32 units In accordance with the City's 20% affordable housing requirement, the applicant will provide 6 affordable housing units. These units will be provided through a combination of for sale homes, rentals of the duplex units, and payment of in -lieu fees. The addition of 32 Courtyard and Duplex units will not result in substantial growth to the City. Questions B -C: No inhabited housing or persons will be displaced. Findings The proposed project would result in less -than -significant impacts to Population/Housing. Fire protection? Less Than Initial Study 2004-0036 Potentially Significant Less Than No ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact West Front Village Incorporation 3.13. PUBLIC SERVICES ❑ a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically ❑ altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically Parks? altered governmental facilities, the construction of which ❑ could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to ❑ maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Police protection? E] © ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Other public facilities? SOURCES: Project description, Land Use Element EIR. 3-57 Setting CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY The City provides police protection, fire protection, and numerous other general government functions. Schools are operated by the Atascadero Unified School District. Fire Protection The City of Atascadero Fire Department operates two fire stations located at 6005 Lewis Avenue and 9801 West Front Road. The fire department staffs 17 full-time and 24 reserve staff, who provide structural and wildland fire protection, emergency medical service and fire prevention to the public. The fire department currently has a reflex (or response) time of 6 minutes over 60% of the City, and 8 minutes over 82% of the City. The fire department's goal is to have a 6 -minute reflex time over 90% of the City, and an 8 -minute reflex time over 95% of the City for fire response and emergency medical care. The City has automatic aid agreements with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF)/County of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. They also have Mutual Aid Agreements with all fire departments in the County through the San Luis Obispo County Fire Services Mutual Aid Plan. Police Protection The Police Station is located at the corner of EI Camino Real and Rosario. Currently, the City employs approximately 30 sworn officers or about 1.2 officers per 1,000 people. The Police Chief has indicated that 1.4 officers per 1,000 people is preferred. In addition to sworn officers, a number of support staff including clerks and dispatchers is needed for the efficient operation of the department. These staff are collectively known as support services technicians (SST). Currently, the Police Department employs about 8 SST and 1 support services supervisor. mm••r; Public schools are governed by the Atascadero Unified School District, which covers a large area from the City eastward to the County line. The district has four elementary schools, one junior high school, one comprehensive high school and one continuation school. The junior and senior high schools also serve the unincorporated communities of Santa Margarita, Creston, and the Carrisa Plains. The Atascadero Fine Arts Academy, the Santa Rosa Academic Academy, and the West Mall Alternative school serve students interested in fine arts, accelerated learning, and home schooling, respectively. Libraries San Luis Obispo County operates the Atascadero-Martin Polin Branch Library. Standards for the provision of library space in incorporated areas of the County range from 0.5 to 0.8 square feet per resident (A Planning Framework for the Libraries of San Luis Obispo (1990)). The current size of the facility is 7,000 square feet and sufficient to serve a population of approximately 8,500 to 14,000 persons. The library administration has identified the need to increase the size of the facility to 18,000 square feet to address deficiencies. Using current standards, and existing population information, approximately 13,205 to 21,129 square feet are needed at present. 3-58 Answers to Checklist Questions: Question A: CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Development Impact Fees: Development Impact Fees are required of any new project in the City for which a building permit is issued. The concept of the impact fee program is to fund and sustain improvements which are needed as a result of new development as stated in the General Plan and other policy documents within the fee program. Development Impact Fees fall into the following categories: Drainage Fees (including the Amapoa Tecorida Drainage Area Fee); Streets, Roads, Bridge Fees; Sewer Fees; Public Safety Fees; Park Fees; and Miscellaneous Fees. In addition, school fees are collected by the Atascadero Unified School District. The amount of impact fees to be paid will be determined at the time of issuance of the building permit. Fire and Police: Impact fees are charged for new development to help pay the cost of providing new facilities to serve the expanding city. The Fire Department of the City of Atascadero has indicated that it will be able to adequately service the proposed project. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Fire Department. The City of Atascadero Police Department has also indicated that the proposed project poses no problems to the police to adequately service it. Schools: At buildout, the City's population will overburden the existing school system unless additional classroom space is added. The Atascadero Unified School District charges impact fees to fund additional schools as needed_ State law restricts mitigation of school impacts to the levying of these fees and other measures adopted by the school district. Provision of adequate facilities for the population is the responsibility of the school district. Fees will be required through construction permits for the residences. Parks: New residences will increase demand on parks and recreation facilities. The City's Parks & Recreation Commission is committed to finding ways to continue to provide parks and other recreational opportunities to city residents as the city expands, thereby addressing cumulative impacts. The project includes a tot -lot park, which will provide some recreational opportunities. Other public facilities: The construction of the project is not expected to have significant impacts on any other public facilities. Mitigation Mitigation Measure PUB -1: Applicant will pay all Development Impact Fees per City requirements. The emergency services and facility maintenance costs listed below shall be 100% funded by the project in perpetuity. The service and maintenance cost shall be funded through a community facilities district established by the developer subject to City approval. The funding mechanism must be in place prior to or concurrently with acceptance of any final maps. The funding mechanism shall be approved by the City Attorney, City Engineer and Administrative Services Director prior to acceptance of any final map. The administration of the above mentioned funds shall be by the City. 3-59 a) All Atascadero Police Department service costs to the project; CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY b) All Atascadero Fire Department service costs to the project; and, c) Off-site common City of Atascadero park facilities maintenance service costs related to the project Finding With the payment of Development Impact Fees, the proposed project would result in less -than - significant impacts to public services. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? SOURCES: Project description, Parks and Recreation Element. This section addresses the existing parks and recreation conditions of the project area. This section also addresses the impacts from the proposed project. Impacts to parks and recreation associated with the project were based on a review of existing literature and the proposed project. Environmental Setting The City of Atascadero currently has over 95 acres of parks available for public use. With a population of 26,400, there are 3.6 acres of parks for every 1,000 individuals. This includes the Atascadero Lake Park, the Atascadero Zoo, Heilmann Park, George C. Beatie Skate Park, Paloma Creek Park, and Traffic Way Park. These facilities offer a wide variety of activities from hiking trails and tennis courts, to fishing, swimming, and boating. There is an existing public recreational facility located in the near vicinity of the project site. Answers to Checklist Questions: Question A: Although residents are expected to use existing parks and recreational facilities, the development of a tot -lot park will provide some recreational opportunity. The proposed West 3-60 Less Than Initial Study 2004-0036 Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant with Significant impact ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 Impact Mitigation Impact West Front Village Incorporation 3.14. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑x neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? SOURCES: Project description, Parks and Recreation Element. This section addresses the existing parks and recreation conditions of the project area. This section also addresses the impacts from the proposed project. Impacts to parks and recreation associated with the project were based on a review of existing literature and the proposed project. Environmental Setting The City of Atascadero currently has over 95 acres of parks available for public use. With a population of 26,400, there are 3.6 acres of parks for every 1,000 individuals. This includes the Atascadero Lake Park, the Atascadero Zoo, Heilmann Park, George C. Beatie Skate Park, Paloma Creek Park, and Traffic Way Park. These facilities offer a wide variety of activities from hiking trails and tennis courts, to fishing, swimming, and boating. There is an existing public recreational facility located in the near vicinity of the project site. Answers to Checklist Questions: Question A: Although residents are expected to use existing parks and recreational facilities, the development of a tot -lot park will provide some recreational opportunity. The proposed West 3-60 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Front Village Development Project would increase the number of residences by 32 dwelling units, and the city's population by around 128 individuals. While the project does not include new recreational amenities, each unit has a private yard. Because of the small number of new homes, and the subsequent small increase in population, no substantial physical deterioration of new or existing facilities is expected" Question B: The construction of the tot -lot park will result in only minor impacts to the environment. See Section 3.4 Biological Resources for further discussion. Finding The proposed project will results in only minor impacts to recreation. Less Than Initial Study 2004.0036 Potentially Significant Less Than No ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact West Front Village Incorporation 3.15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation © E]❑ to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of. ® ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either El Z an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? F-1 ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? SOURCES: Land Use Element, Circulation Element; Project Plans, West Front Villages Traffic Impact Study in the City of Atascadero, Draft Report, July 2004. This section addresses the existing transportation/traffic conditions of the project area. This section also addresses the impacts from the proposed project. Impacts to transportation/traffic associated with the project were based on a review of existing literature, the MPD, and the "Draft 3-61 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY West Front Properties Traffic Impact Study prepared by OMNI -MEANS, LTD, May 2005 ". See Appendix F. Environmental Setting Laid out as part of the 1913 Atascadero Colony plan, the circulation system was designed for low -intensity uses. The existing network consists of radial routes emanating from the City Hall area supported by a series of arterial rings meant to convey traffic to outlying areas. A few blocks in the city center display the grid system common to most cities. Not all planned streets have been built, and many minor streets are privately maintained and not part of the City's adopted system. The radial street pattern was interrupted in 1954 with construction of Highway 101 and commercial development has since spread along EI Camino Real. The freeway has limited east -west travel to the eight crossings. It does not allow for access from Atascadero Mall to EI Camino Real and the downtown area. The Circulation Element classifies roadways based on their intended function and projected traffic levels, which determines the appropriate type of design and number of lanes for the route. Table 3.15-1 describes the different types of roads: Table 3.15-1 Roadway Classifications Type::: Description Freeway High speed: high capacity limited access facilities serving intercity and regional travel. Example: US 101 Arterials Provide for circulation between major activity centers and residential areas in the City and beyond; provide access to freeways Major arterials are high-capacity, moderately high-speed routes, typically two or four lanes wide Minor arterials interconnect with and augment the major arterial system, and serve trips of moderate length Collectors Channel traffic from residential or commercial areas to arterials. Further classified as urban, rural, or hillside, depending upon the area and type of topography and vegetation Local Streets Provide access to adjoining land uses Existing Roadway System Roadways that provide primary circulation in the vicinity of the project site include West Front Road, Portola Road, Santa Rosa Road, Atascadero Avenue, EI Camino Real, and US 101. West Front Road is a two lane roadway located adjacent to and west of US 101. This north - south oriented road extends from Santa Rosa Road south just past San Rafael Road where it terminates. West Front Road acts as the eastern boundary of the proposed project. Project access is proposed along West Front Road at four locations. These project driveways will provide access to a 5,000 square foot specialty retail pad, a 5,000 square foot retail pad and a 3 - story, 79 room hotel. 3-62 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Portola Road is a two lane roadway that generally has a north -south orientation. At its northern termini, Portola Road begins just north of Ardilla Road and travels in a south-easterly manner across State Route 41 to West Front Road just west of US 101. Portola Street acts as the northern boundary of the proposed project and would provide residential access to a new street called Coromar Court. Santa Rosa Road is currently a two-lane overcrossing with no shoulders or bikeways. A pedestrian sidewalk is provided on the southern side of the structure. This structure was constructed in 1956 and is 28' wide and 210' long, with a vertical clearance of 16.1' on the southbound side and 15.1' on the northbound side. Atascadero Avenue is also a two-lane north -south roadway that is adjacent to and west of US 101. Atascadero Avenue extends from its northern termini at Santa Lucia Avenue southward to Santa Barbara Road at the southern city limits. Although Atascadero Avenue does not provide direct access to the proposed project, it will provide for cross-town access to/from west Atascadero and Atascadero High School. El Camino Real constitutes the principal north -south arterial that serves the downtown and residences to the north and south of the downtown area. EI Camino Real is primarily a four -lane major arterial (from San Rafael Road to San Anselmo Road) that is east of and adjacent to US 101 _ Many of Atascadero's commercial and retail land uses are found along this corridor. US 101 is a major freeway facility that serves regional and inter -regional north -south travel within and throughout the City of Atascadero. US 101 is a four -lane divided freeway through the City. According to Caltrans Traffic Volumes on the State Highway System (2002), US 101 carries an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 40,500 vehicles within the vicinity of the project. Existing Levels of Service (LOS) The following eight intersections were identified as critical intersections for the traffic study performed by OMNI -MEANS: • Portola Road/Atascadero Avenue • Portola Road/Coromar Road • Portola RoadlWest Front Road/US 101 SB Off Ramp • Santa Rosa Road/Atascadero Avenue • Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road • Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/US 101 NB On Ramp • Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/US 101 SB On Ramp • Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real In addition, six project driveways on West f=ront Road and Portola Avenue were analyzed. At the study intersections, existing weekday AM and PM peak -hour traffic volume counts were conducted between March 9th and 11th, 2004. An additional AM and PM peak -hour traffic volume count was conducted on May 19, 2005, at Coromar Road/Portola Road. The AM peak 3-63 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY hour is defined as one-hour of peak traffic flow counted between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the PM peak hour is defined as one-hour of peak traffic flow counted between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Traffic operations were quantified through the determination of "Level of Service" (LOS). LOS is a quantitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade "A" through "F" is assigned to an intersection or roadway segment representing progressively worsening traffic conditions. LOS were calculated for different intersection control types using the methods documented in the Highway Capacity Manual -2000 (HCM-2000). The City of Atascadero General Circulation Element has designed LOS "C" as the minimum acceptable LOS standard on City facilities in general. In this report, a peak -hour of LOS "C" is taken as the threshold for acceptable traffic operations at all study intersections. All intersection turning movement volumes and level -of -service worksheets are contained in Appendix C of the Traffic Study. Although Caltrans has not designated an LOS standard, Caltrans' Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (April 2001) indicates that when the LOS of a State highway facility falls below the LOS "C/D" cusp in rural areas and the LOS "DIE" cusp in the Urban Areas, any additional traffic may have a significant impact. When existing State highway facilities are operating at higher levels of service than noted above, 20 -year forecasts or general plan build- out analysis for the facility should be considered to establish equitable project contributions to local development impact fee programs that address cumulative traffic impacts. To determine whether "significance" should be associated with unsignalized intersection level of service, a supplemental traffic signal warrant analysis was also performed. The signal warrant criteria employed for this study are presented in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. Specifically, this study utilized the Peak -Hour Volume Warrant 11 (Urban Areas). Though utilization of this warrant may indicate that signalization would be required, the final decision to provide this improvement should be based on further studies utilizing the additional warrants presented in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. It should be noted that the Peak -Hour -Volume Warrant 11 (Urban Areas) was only applied when LOS was "D" or worse. Therefore, there may be instances when the unsignalized intersection operates at an acceptable LOS "C" condition or better but still meets Warrant 11 (Urban Areas). Traffic studies generally provide a "planning level" evaluation of traffic operating conditions, which is considered sufficient for California Environmental Quality Act/National Environmental Policy Act (CEQA/NEPA) purposes. The evaluation performed by OMNI -MEANS (OMNI - MEANS 2004) has, however, incorporated actual heavy -vehicle adjustment factors, peak hour factors, and signal lost -time factors and reports the resulting intersection delays and LOS as estimated using HCM-2000 methodologies_ A general Peak Hour Factor (PHF) of 0.90 was applied in the analysis of all study intersections under all analysis scenarios. The HCM- recommended suburban traffic signal default cycle length of 100 seconds was used for analysis of signalized intersections, with 4 seconds of "lost time" per critical signal phase. The Traffix 7.5 integrated computer software program was utilized to implement the HCM-2000 analysis methodologies. 3-64 Existing Plus Approved/Pending Projects Plus Project Conditions CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project" peak -hour intersection operations were quantified under "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project' traffic and lane geometrics and control. Applying Traffrx 7.5 computer software, "Existing plus Approved Projects plus Project' peak hour traffic conditions were simulated by superimposing new trips generated by the approved projects over "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project' base traffic at the study intersections. Table 3.15-2 presents the resulting peak hour intersection levels of service. Table 3.15-2. Existing Pius Approved/Pending Plus Project Conditions: Intersection Levels -Of -Service Thresholds of Significance For purposes of this impact analysis, significant impacts to transportation and circulation would occur if project -related activities would result in any of the following: 1. A reduction of roadway levels of service to less than a level "C"; 2. Unsafe conditions on public roadways; 3-65 A MP..eak Hour _ ;,;: , '- PMPeakiHour Control: Delay Warrant Delay :` Warrant;' No.: Intersection >Type (sec/veh) l OS Met?' (sec/vehj ; LOS. _ Met:? 1 Portola Road/ Atascadero Avenue AWSC 8.7 A No 8.6 A No 2 Portola Road/Coromar Road TWSC 9.5 A No 10.2 B No 3 Portola Road/West Front Road/US 101 SB Off Ramp TWSC 12.7 B No 14.3 B No 4 Santa Rosa Road/Atascadero Road AWSC 9.7 A No 10.9 B No 5 Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road AWSC 9.9 A No 10.4 B No 6 Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/US 101 SB On Ramp AWSC 28.8 D Yes 53.6 F Yes 7 Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/US 101 NB On Ramp AWSC 39.4 E Yes 58.4 F Yes 8 Santa Rosa Road/EI Camino Real Signal 29.3 C - 29.5 C -- 9 Portola Road/Driveway #1 TWSC 8.7 A No 8.7 A No 10 West Front Road/Driveway 42 TWSC 12.3 B No 12.6 B No 11 West Front Road/Driveway #3 TWSC 12.1 B No 12.5 B No 12 West Front Road/Driveway #4 TWSC 12.2 B No 12.5 B No Thresholds of Significance For purposes of this impact analysis, significant impacts to transportation and circulation would occur if project -related activities would result in any of the following: 1. A reduction of roadway levels of service to less than a level "C"; 2. Unsafe conditions on public roadways; 3-65 3. Inadequate emergency access; or, CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY 4. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Answers to Checklist Questions Questions A -B: As shown in Table 3.15-2, all study intersections, except for the intersection at Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/US 101 SB On Ramp and Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/US 101 NB On Ramp, are projected to operate at a LOS "C" or better conditions during both AM and PM peak hour periods under "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project" scenario. In addition, both intersections are forecasted to meet the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant 11 Urban Areas) under "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project" PM peak hour conditions. This finding indicates that vehicles are forecasted to experience unacceptable delays under this scenario. Question C: No changes will occur to the air traffic patterns. Question D: The project will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. Question E: The project will have adequate emergency access from Santa Rosa Road and Portola Road. Question F: Adequate parking will be provided on-site for the future proposed residential lots. Question G: The project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Mitigation Mitigation Measures TRA -1: The following mitigation measures have been identified and/or the equitable share has been calculated: A. Santa Rosa Road/US 109 interchange: Install traffic signals and consider coordination with nearby and future traffic signals. As a result of cumulative traffic growth within the vicinity of this interchange and the existing substandard design of this tight diamond interchange, the existing all -way stop controlled intersections are i •• �:►- CI7Y OF ATASCADFRO ao'�J env INITIAL STUDY forecasted to degrade to unacceptable LOS "F" conditions during the PM peak. In addition, during the PM peak hour period meet Caltrans' Peak Hour Warrant 11 (Urban Areas) for both intersections. A queuing analysis was performed along Santa Rosa Road between the two future signalized ramp heads. It was determined that there is not adequate space between the two ramp intersections to accommodate traffic signals at this location. However, if these traffic signals were coordinated, traffic flow would be improved. A detailed analysis would be required. Ultimately, this substandard interchange needs to be improved to Caltrans' current standards. Therefore, it is recommended that the City and/or Caltrans conduct a Project Study Report (PSR) for this interchange to determine future improvements. These future improvements may include consideration of roundabouts and/or re -aligning surface streets in addition to the recommendations made by OMNI -MEANS. Based upon Caltrans' Guide for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (June 2001), the equitable share responsibility was calculated during the PM peak hour period. Based upon the project's contribution to the PM peak hour traffic growth at this intersection, the project's "fair -share" of improvements at the intersection of Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/US 101 SB On Ramp is projected to be 43.5% [259/(1,652-1,056)]. At the intersection of Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/US 101 NB Ramps, the project's "fair -share" of improvements is projected to be 31.4% [176/(2,011-1,451)]. With recommended improvements at these intersections, the AM and PM peak hour LOS are projected to operate acceptably. B. Project Driveways: It is recommended, and was assumed during this analysis, that the Portola Avenue/Driveway #1 operate as "right -turn -only" intersections. This is a result of the close proximity to the Portola Avenue/West Front Road intersection. It is further recommended that acceleration and deceleration lanes be installed that comply with the City's development standards. Based upon the forecasted traffic volumes at these locations, the acceleration and deceleration lanes should be a minimum of 50 feet for the eastbound right turn lane. For West Front Road/Driveway #2 and West Front Road/Driveway #3, the acceleration and deceleration should also be a minimum of 50 feet. C. Santa Rosa RoadlEl Camino Real Intersection: Provide for dual northbound left turning movements on EI Camino Real to accommodate the forecasted increase in traffic volume at this intersection. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measure is forecasted to result in acceptable LOS through Year 2025- Under Year 2025 Base plus Project Conditions, the project's "fair share" of improvements at the intersection is projected to be 8.9% [93/2,947-2,235)]. Finding With the incorporation of mitigation, the proposed project will result in less -than -significant impacts to transportation/circulation. 3-67 Initial Study 2004-0036 ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 West Front Village 3,16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements 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, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 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 serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation 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 related to solid waste? SOURCES: Project description, Land Use Element (LUE) EIR; Project Plans. No Impact ❑© Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x This section addresses the existing utilities/service systems of the project area. This section also addresses the impacts from the proposed project. Impacts to utilities/service systems associated with the project were based on a review of existing literature and the MPD. Setting Currently the City derives all of its domestic water from groundwater resources. All properties within the City are entitled to water from the Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC). AMWC obtains groundwater from a combination of shallow and deep wells that tap into the Paso Robles Formation, which extends from Atascadero northward to the county line and eastward toward Shandon. Estimates of safe annual yield have not been determined; therefore, "perennial yield" is used. According to the study, "the perennial yield is the rate at which water can be pumped from wells without decreasing storage to a level where there is adverse economic effects." The Paso Robles Formation is estimated to produce a perennial yield of 94,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) (Atascadero 2002). Total 2000 demand from the Paso Robles basin was about 82,600 acre - 3 -68 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY fee t2. However, the apparent excess supply may be misleading; the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Study (Study) reports local depressions where pumping causes severe lowering of groundwater levels, and other areas, where water levels rise sharply. The Study shows a long- term disparity between total inflow to and total outflow from the basin, albeit minor. AMWC draws water from two portions of the Paso Robles formation, the Salinas River under -flow and the Atascadero Sub -basin, which are hydrologically related and part of the same groundwater resource. Salinas River Underflow. Shallow wells located near the confluence of Atascadero Creek and the Salinas River extract water underflow of the Salinas River. Water in this shallow aquifer is extracted pursuant to rights granted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The AMWC has a right to pump 3,040 acre-feet per year from these resources (Atascadero 2002)_ The shallow aquifer receives immediate recharge from the Salinas River. It is not significantly affected by the main water basin to the northeast. However, the Salinas River underflow likely contributes to the recharge of the Atascadero Sub -basin. Atascadero Sub -Basin. Near the City, the Paso Robles formation is split by the Rinconada fault forming a sub -basin (the Atascadero Sub -Basin) that is estimated to contain a supply of about 513,000 AF. The Atascadero Sub -basin is a deep aquifer (600-1000 feet) that generally extends from the confluence of Santa Margarita Creek and the Salinas River northward towards Templeton and Paso Robles. The perennial yield of the Atascadero Sub -basin is estimated at 16,500 AFY (Atascadero 2002). Current (2000) demand from AMWC is approximately 6,422 AFY. Total pumping in the basin in 2000 was 11,100 AFY. Sewage Treatment The City collects, treats, and disposes of sewage from development within the Urban Services Line. In 2000, the City provided sewage service to 4,3223 connections. The treatment plant has an average capacity of about 2.39 million gallons per day (mgd) in dry weather and 4.3 mgd in wet weather. Currently, the average dry weather flow is about 1.2 mgd (50% capacity). The year average is 3.1 mgd, including wet weather flows. Over the past thirteen years, flows to the plant have increased by approximately 0.02 mgd/yr. At this rate, it would take approximately 54 years for the plant to reach capacity. Solid Waste Disposal A private vendor, Wil -Mar Disposal, collects solid waste under a franchise agreement with the City. Participation in garbage collection is mandatory citywide and rates are based on volume as part of a comprehensive effort to comply with current state law for waste reduction. The Chicago ZAn acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons 3-69 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Grade landfill serving Atascadero is also used by the unincorporated communities of Santa Margarita and Templeton, and has an expected remaining life of about 16 years (Source: Chicago Grade Landfill, Site Life Calculation, December 20, 2001). Additional landfill capacity would be required to extend beyond the current permitted disposal area. The proposed project includes the addition of 43 new dwelling units, a hotel with approximately 90 rooms, and a retail area and gas station. These improvements will increase the demand for solid waste disposal and sewage treatment. Wastewater. Impacts to wastewater service are considered significant if project implementation would exceed wastewater treatment plant capacity, resulting in a need to construct new facilities that would have a significant effect on the environment. Solid waste. Impacts to solid waste are considered significant if the amount of solid waste generated would deplete landfill capacity such that new disposal areas would -have to be constructed that may have a significant effect on the environment. Answers to Checklist Questions Questions A -B, E: The project will not require the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing ones, nor would it cause the exceedance of treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. Sewer discharge will be handled by a City sewer connection. Question C: The project will require the construction of new storm drainage facilities consisting of detention basis to collect flows for discharge into two existing culverts at the project site. The detention basins have been incorporated into the Site Plan and appropriate landscaping will be performed. Question D: The Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC) will provide water to the development. All property within the city limits is entitled to water from the AMWC. The project is not expected to require significant quantities of water for the proposed uses. Questions F -G: Solid Waste would be disposed at the local Chicago Grade Landfill, which is currently considering expansion. Disposal of solid waste would be in compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Mitigation No mitigation measures are necessary. 3-70 Finding CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY With the incorporation of detention basis into the site plan, the proposed project will result in less -than -significant impacts to utilities/service systems. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either L1 L1 directly or indirectly? Discussion The purpose of the project is to construct a residential/commercial development consisting of a variety of residential and commercial uses: • 3 -Story, 79 -Room Hotel. As a freeway commercial site, this can be considered an appropriate use for the site. It will help generate revenue through transient occupancy tax (TOT) that will go directly to the City; • Housing. Housing is in high demand by the City. The project will provide a variety of housing types to meet workforce housing needs. A component of deed restricted affordable housing will also be provided; and, • Commercial Space. Providing commercial space to fulfill commercial space demand in the City as well as generate revenue for the City through tax dollars. The adjacent Wilson property is proposed to be rezoned RSF-X and would allow for five (5) lots a minimum of 0.50 acres each on the 3.99 -acre property. The Wilson property is not proposed 3-71 Less Than Initial Study 2004-0036 Potentially Significant Less Than No ZCH 2003-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-D035 Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact West Front Village Incorporation 3.17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either L1 L1 directly or indirectly? Discussion The purpose of the project is to construct a residential/commercial development consisting of a variety of residential and commercial uses: • 3 -Story, 79 -Room Hotel. As a freeway commercial site, this can be considered an appropriate use for the site. It will help generate revenue through transient occupancy tax (TOT) that will go directly to the City; • Housing. Housing is in high demand by the City. The project will provide a variety of housing types to meet workforce housing needs. A component of deed restricted affordable housing will also be provided; and, • Commercial Space. Providing commercial space to fulfill commercial space demand in the City as well as generate revenue for the City through tax dollars. The adjacent Wilson property is proposed to be rezoned RSF-X and would allow for five (5) lots a minimum of 0.50 acres each on the 3.99 -acre property. The Wilson property is not proposed 3-71 `t CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY for development at this time, however, it is included in order to prevent creating an isolated commercial parcel when the West Front parcel is rezoned. Answers to Checklist Questions Questions A -C: The project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; however, mitigation measures have been proposed to minimize impacts to a level of less than significant. Finding With the incorporation of mitigation, the project will result in less -than -significant impacts. Sources • General Plan Land Use Element, City of Atascadero, 2002. • Zoning Ordinance, part of Municipal Code, City of Atascadero, as amended through 1999. • Land Use Element Environmental Impact Report, Crawford, Multari, & Clark, adopted 2002. • CEQA Handbook, Air Quality Control District, August 1995. • General Plan Safety Element, City of Atascadero, 2002. • General Plan Circulation Element, 2002. • General Plan Noise Element, adopted 2002. Acoustical Design Manual, Brown-Buntin Associates, 1991. • Noise Ordinance, City of Atascadero, 1992. • Guide for Developers, Atascadero Fire Department, 1998 draft. Project -Specific Sources • Preliminary Storm Water Drainage Summary, RRM Design Group • Tract 2621 Noise Study Report, West Front Village, the Morro Group, Inc., March 10, 2004. • Traffic Impact Study, West Front Properties in the City of Atascadero, OMNI -MEANS, LTD, May 2005. 3-72 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY • Arborist Report, West Front Village Project, Atascadero, CA, March 2004. • Site Plan, RRM Design Group. • Master Plan of Development, RRM Design Group. • Phase One Archaeology Survey Report, Gibson Archaeological Consulting, September 2004- 3-73 CITY OF A TASCADERO INITIAL STUDY THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3-74 APPENDIX A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Appendix A Timing Responsibility Mitigation Mitigation Monitoring Program Monitoring Measure ZCH 2002-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 GP: Grading Permil PS: Planning Services BP: Building Pemii TO: Temporary BS: Building Services FD: Fire Department West Front Villages Occupancy PD: Police Department CE: City Engineer Fl: Final inspection FO: Final Occupancy WW: Wastevraler CA: City Allomey AMWC: Water Comp. Mitigation Measure AES -1: The following landscape mitigations shall apply: BP PS, BS, CE AES -1 a) Landscaping of Caltrans ROW required; b) Development shall be buffered with an informal landscape theme, meandering pathway, and compatible project fencing; c) The project shall include landscaping of all common areas, including slopes, streelscapes, residential front yards, and street trees; and, d) All on-site retention basins shall be designed, constructed, and maintained as jurisdictional wetlands while allowing the basins to function as engineered for storm water management. Mitigation Measure AES -2: The proposed homes shall include the use of BP PS, BS, CE AES -2 earth -tone paint and roof colors designed to blend with the surrounding semi - rural environment and reduce the potential for reflected light and glare. Mitigation Measure AES -3: Only pedestrian pathway (bollard style) lighting is BP PS, BS, CE AES -3 proposed. However, if exterior street lighting is proposed, it shall be limited to intersections only and designed to eliminate any off-site glare. All exterior site lights shall utilize full cut-off, "hooded" lighting fixtures to prevent offsite light spillage and glare. Any luminaire pole height shall not exceed 20 -feet in height, limit intensity to 2.0 fool candles at ingress/egress. and otherwise 0.6 foot candle minimum to 1.0 maximum within the private street. Fixtures shall be shield cut-off type and compatible with neighborhood setting, subject to staff approval. In addition, individual exterior home -owner lighting shall be restricted through CC&R's and individual lot deed -restriction to prohibit high-intensity lighting in excess of one -foot candle, limited in fixture height to not exceed 10 feet, and utilize full cut-off, "hooded" lighting fixtures to prevent offsite light spillage and glare. Mitiqation Measure AES -4: To prevent impacts to visual resources BP PS, BS, CE AES -4 associated with the Wilson Property, Mitigation Measure 13I0-8 shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure AES -5: Pylon and monument signs shall be constructed BP, GP PS, BS, CE AES -5 according to the City of Atascadero's Sign Ordinance. In commercial and industrial zones, pylon -style freeway signs shall be built as prescribed by Section 9-15.005(a)i-ii, with an area of not more than one (1) square foot of sign per lineal foot of freeway oriented building up to 150 square feet (whichever is less) and up to fifty (50) feet in height for uses including gas stations, restaurants and lodging. Where principles uses are shopping, offices or industrial complexes, freeway oriented signs are allowed a maximum of one (1) square foot of sign per lineal foot of building frontage, not to exceed A-1 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY A endix A Timing Responsibility Mitigation pp /Monitoring Measure Mitigation Monitoring Program ZCH 2002-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 GP: Gradin Permit P5: Planning services BS: Building Services BP: Building Pennt TO: Temporary FD: Fire Department West Front Villages Occupancy FI: Final inspection PD: Police Department CE: City Engineer FO: Final Occupancy WW: wastewater CA: City Allomey AMWC: Wale, Comp. sixty (60) feet, whichever is less (section 9-15.005ii). For gas station canopies, a maximum of twenty (20) square -foot signs with logos and color banding on no more than two (2) sides are allowed (Section 9-15.005iii). As per Section 9-15.005a(2), one (1) monument sign is allowed per 200 lineal feet of street frontage, not including street frontage adjacent to residential zones, up to sixty (60) square feet in size and up to ten (10) feet from the natural grade. Monument signs must be landscaped in a manner that incorporates the sign into the surroundings (section 9-15.004h). BP, GP PS, BS, CE AQ -1 Mitigation Measure AQ -1: During Construction, the applicant shall implement the following standard construction equipment mitigation measures for reducing nitrogen oxide (NOx) and combustion emissions (diesel particulate matter) shall (see section 6.3.1 of the Air Quality Handbook): a) Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications; b) Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non -taxed version suitable for use off-road); and, C) Maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's 1996 and newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. BP PS, BS, CE AQ -2 Mitigation Measure AQ -2: This measure focuses on reducing ozone formation from project -related ozone precursors, NOx and ROC. The primary source of these emissions would be ROC released during application of paint to the proposed residential and commercial structures. The rate of ozone formation is greatest during periods of clear weather, low winds and high temperatures. Based on air quality monitoring at the Alascadero station, peak hourly ozone levels occur from May through September. One of the following measures shall be implemented to prevent exceedances of the Stale 1 -hour ozone standard: a) Paint shall not be applied from May through September; OR b) Paint emissions shall not exceed the 185 pound per day significance threshold (88 gallons per day based on 2.08 pounds VOC per gallon); AND C) Paint emissions shall not exceed the 2.5 ton per quarter significance threshold (2.403 gallons per quarter based on 2.08 pounds VOC per gallon). The use of pre -coated materials, or naturally colored materials and high A-2 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Appendix A Mitigation Monitoring Program ZCH 2002-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 West Front Villages Timing GP: Grading Penal BP: Building Peril TO: Temporary Occupancy FI: Final inspedion F0: Final Occupancy Responsibility /Monitoring PS: Planning Services BS: Building Services FD: Fire Department PD: Police Department CE: City Frigineer WW: Wastewater CA: City Attorney AriWC: Water Comp. Mitigation Measure transfer efficiency painting methods (e.g_, HVLP, brush/roller, etc.) to the maximum extent feasible would reduce the amount of paint used and facilitate compliance with the thresholds. Mili talion Measure AQ -3: Prior to the City issuing a Building Permit for the 8P, GP PS, BS, CE AQ -3 project, the applicant shall provide to the City project grading and buildings plans that contain the following required PM10 mitigation measures_ In addition, the applicant shall designate a person or persons to monitor, during construction, the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance,for map recordation and finished grading of the area, 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 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible; C) All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed: d) 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; 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 native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; f) 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; 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 feel of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and lop of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section A-3 C CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Appendix A Timing Responsibility Mitigation /Monitoring Measure Mitigation Monitoring Program ZCH 2002-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 GP: Grading Permit PS: Planning Services BS: Building Services BP: Building Perrin, T0; Temporary FD: Fire Department West Front Villages Occupancy Fl: Final inspection PD: Police Department CE: City Engineer FO: Final Occupancy WW: Waslovater CA: City Auorney AMWC: Water Comp. 23114; j) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site; and, k) 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. Mitigation Measure AQ -4: Prior to any grading activities at the site, the GP PS, BS, CE AQ -4 applicant shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at. the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safely Program for approval by the APCD. BP PS, BS, CE, AQ -5 Mitigation Measure AQ -5: The applicant shall only install APCD approved wood burning devices in the new dwelling units consistent with APCD Rule FD 504. These devices include: a) All EPA -Certified Phase II wood burning devices; b) Catalytic wood burning devices which emit less than or equal to 4.1 grams per hour of particulate matter which. are not EPA -Certified but have been verified by a nalionally-recognized testing lab; C) Non -catalytic wood burning devices which emit less than or equal to 7,5 grams per hour of particulate matter which are not EPA -Certified but have been verified by a nationally -recognized testing lab; d) Pellet -fueled woodhealers; and, e) Dedicated gas-fired fireplaces. BP PS, BS, CE AQ -6 Mitigation Measure AQ -6: The applicant shall comply with AS 3205 Requirements for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. Prior to construction, the applicant shall provide information to the APCD indicating whether hazardous materials or certain equipment or processes will be used in or at the facility. Such uses may require a permit from the APCD and/or a Hazardous Materials Business Plan. The City of Alascadero will not issue a final certificate of occupancy until the applicant or future building occupant has complied with A-4 CITY OF A TA SCADERO INITIAL STUDY Appendix A Timing Responsibility Mitigation Mitigation Monitoring Program /Monitoring Measure ZCH 2002-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 GP: GradingPemit PS: Planning Services 8P: Building Perrril BS: Building Services TO: Tenporary FD: Fire Department "Occupancy West Front Villages PD: Police Department CE: City Engineer FI: Final inspection FO: Final Occupancy WW: Wastewater CA: City Attorney AAIWC: Water Corrp. the provisions of the law. The law may also impose certain public noticing requirements for a facility that handles hazardous materials and is located within 1.000 feel of the outer boundary of a school (kindergarten through 121h grade). Mitigation Measure AQ -7: Prior to construction, the applicant, shall obtain a BP, GP PS, BS, CE AQ -7 Combined Authority to Construct/Operate, issued by the APCD and the San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Service (EHS). As part of this, the District will run a health -based screening level risk assessment for the facility, following the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association (CAPCOA) guidelines. Depending on the District's screening risk determination, the applicant may be subject to throughput limitations or may be required to submit a more refined Health Risk Assessment, Mitigation Measure AQ -8: Prior to the City issuing a Building Permit, the C''P' BP PS, BS, CE AQ -8 applicant shall incorporate the following into the project design: a) Traffic calming modifications to project roads, such as narrower streets, speed platforms, bulb -outs and intersection modifications designed to reduce vehicle speeds, thus encouraging pedestrian and bicycle travel; b) Easements or land dedications for bikeways and pedestrian walkways; C) Continuous sidewalks separated from the roadway by landscaping and on -street parking. Adequate lighting for sidewalks must be provided, along with crosswalks at intersections; J) if the project is located on an established transit route, improve public transit accessibility by providing transit turnouts with direct pedestrian access to the project; e) Street shade tree planting; f) Outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools; g) On-site bicycle, parking for multi -family residential developments; h) Cable to allow telecommuting, teleconferencing and telelearning to occur simultaneously in at least three locations throughout the home; i) Shade tree planting along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer cooling needs; j) Roof material with a solar reflectance value meeting the EPAIDOE Energy Stare rating to reduce summer cooling A-5 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Appendix A Timing Responsibility Mitigation Mitigation Monitoring Program !Monitoring Measure ZCH 2002-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 GP: Grading Peril PS: Planning Services BP: Building Perm BS: Building Services TO: Temporary FD: Fire Departrnent West Front Villages Occupancy FI: Final inspeclion PD: Police Department CE: City Engineer F0: Final Occupancy WW: Waslevater CA: Oly Allorney AMC: Water Comp. needs; k) Building energy efficiency rating by 10% above what is required by Title 24 requirements. This can be accomplished in a number of ways (increasing attic, wall, or floor insulation, installing double pane windows, using high efficiency home heating, cooling, water healers, and appliances, using efficient interior lighting elc.); 1) Outdoor electrical outlets to encourage the use of electric appliances and tools; M) Walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements: n) High efficiency gas or solar water healers; o) Built-in energy efficient appliances; P) Double -paned windows; q) Low energy street lights (i.e. sodium); r) Energy efficient interior lighting: s) Low energy traffic signals (i.e. light emitting diode); I) Door sweeps and weather stripping if more efficient doors and windows are not available: and, u) High efficiency or gas space healing. Mitigation Measure BIO -1: Initial rough grading operations and vegetation BP PS, BS, CE BI0-1 removal shall be conducted prior to, or after, the typical migratory bird nesting season (March 1 — August 1) to avoid any potential impact to migratory bird nesting activity. Therefore, initial grading should be conducted between the months of August and February. Mitigation Measure BIO -2: If Measure BIO -1 is infeasible, pre -construction BP PS, BS, CE B10-2 surveys shall be conducted prior to any initial grading activity and vegetation removal to identify any potential bird nesting activity, and: a) If any nest sites of bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are observed within the vicinity of the project site, then the project shall be modified and/or delayed as necessary to avoid direct lake of the identified nests, eggs, and/or young; and, b) If active nest sites of raptors andlor birds species of special concern are observed within the vicinity of the project site, then CDFG shall be contacted to establish the appropriate buffer around the nest site. Construction activities in the buffer zone shall be prohibited until the young have fledged A-6 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL .ST1Inv Appendix A Timing Responsibility Mitigation Mitigation Monitoring Program !Monitoring Measure ZCH 2002-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 GP: Grading Pemil PS: Planning Services BP: Building PenTit TO: Ternporary BS: Building Services FD: Fire Department West Front Villages occupancy inspecuon PD: Police Deporlmenl Fl: Final CE: City Engineer FO: Final Occupancy WW: Wastewater CA: Cdy Attorney AfJWC: Water Comp. the nest and achieved independence. Mitigation Measure BI0-3: Prior to any earth disturbance, exclusionary BP PS, BS, CE BI0-3 fencing shall be erected at the boundaries of all construction areas to avoid equipment and human intrusion into adjacent habitats. The fencing shall remain in place and be maintained throughout construction. Milioalion Measure 810 4: Several measures are included within the Arborist BP PS, BS, CE BIO 4 Report prepared by A&T which outline methods of minimizing potential impacts to existing oak trees which would remain within the property at completion of the proposed project. These measures include following, as stated within the Arborist Report: a) The proposed fencing shall be shown on the grading plan. It must be a minimum of 4' high chain link, snow, or safety fence staked at the edge of the drip -line or line of encroachment for each tree or group of trees. The fence shall be up before any construction or earth moving begins. The fencing shall be placed at the edge of the drip -line or further as measured from the actual trees. The owner shall be responsible for maintaining an erect fence throughout the construction period. The arborist(s), upon notification, will inspect the fence placement once it is erected. After this time, fencing shall not be moved without arborist inspection/approval. If the orange plastic fencing is used, a minimum of four zip lies shall be used on each stake to secure the fence along with tie wire or other suitable material intertwined through the lop. b) Soils within the drip -line that have been compacted by heavy equipment and/or construction activities must be returned to their original state before all work is completed. Methods include water jelling, adding organic matter, and boring small holes with an auger (18" deep, 2-3' apart with a 2-4" auger) and the application of moderate amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. The arborist(s) shall advise. C) All areas within the dripline of the trees that cannot be fenced shall receive a 4-6" layer of chip mulch to retain moisture, soil structure and reduce the effects of soil compaction. d) All trenching within the drip -line of native trees shall be hand dug, augured or bored. Prior to any trenching, all utility paths under the drip lines shall be marked by the owner and subsequently air spade to expose all roots without damaging them. Conduittpiping shall then be placed overlunder all roots greater than one inch in diameter. The trench can then be re -buried without the need to cut any large roots. e) Grading should not encroach within the drip -line unless A-7 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY A endlx A �p Mitigation Monitoring Program ZCH 2002-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 West Front Villages Timing GradPS: P:uddmgPemiig Perrtil BP: uiltlm BB TO: Temporary Occupancy FI: Final inspection FO: Final Occupancy Responsibility /Monitoring Planning Services BS: Building Services FD: Fire Department PD: Pdice Depanmenl CE: City Engineer WW: Wastewater CA: City Allomey AMWC: WaterCorrp. Miligation Measure authorized. If grading is necessary, construction of retaining walls or tree wells or other protection measures may be necessary to insure the survivability of the trees. Chip mulch 4-6" in depth may also be required in these areas. Grading should not disrupt the normal drainage pattern around the trees. Fills should not create a ponding condition and excavations should not leave the tree on a rapidly draining mound. f) Any exposed roots shall be re-covered the same day they were exposed. If they cannot, they must be covered with burlap or another suitable material and wetted down 2x per day until re -buried. g) Pervious surfacing is preferred within the drip -line of any oak tree. Permeable pavers shall be used for the sidewalk under the drip -line. Arborist(s) will advise. h) Vehicles and all heavy equipment shall not be driven under the trees, as this will contribute to soil compaction. Also there is to be no parking of equipment or personal vehicles in these areas. All areas behind fencing are off- limits unless pre -approved by the arborist. i) The existing ground surface within the drip -line of all oak trees shall not be cul, filled, compacted or paved, unless shown on the grading plans and approved by the arborist. j) No liquid or solid construction waste shall be dumped on the ground within the drip -line of any oak tree. k) An arborist shall be present for selected activities and pre -construction fence placement inspection. The monitoring does not necessarily, have to be continuous, but observational at time during the above activities. It is the responsibility of the owner(s) or their designee to inform us prior to these events so A&T can make arrangements to be present. The following activities shall be monitored: 1) trenching within the drip -line; 2) curb footing excavation; and, 3) sidewalk grading. 1) An on-site preconstruction meeting with the Arborist(s), Owner(s), Planning Staff, and the earth -moving team shall be required for this project. Prior to final occupancy, a letter from the arborist(s) shall be required verifying the health/condition of all impacted trees and providing any recommendations for any additional mitigation. The letter shall verify that the arborist(s) were on site for all grading andlor trenching activity that encroached into the drip -line of the selected native trees, and that all work done in these areas was completed to the standards set forth above. M) Class 4 pruning includes — Crown reduction pruning shall WN CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Appendix A Timing Responsibility Mitigation Mitigation Monitoring Program /Monitoring Measure ZCH 2002-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 GP: Grading Perrril PS: Planning Services BP:Building Permit BS: Buitding Services TO: Tenporary FD: Fire Department West Front Villages Occupancy FI: Final inspection PD: Police Department CE: City Engineer FO: Final Occupancy WM waslevrater CA: City Attorney AMWC: Water Corrp. consist of reduction of tops, sides, or individual limbs. A trained arborist shall perform all pruning. n) All landscape under the drip -line shall be drought tolerant or native varieties. Lawns shall be avoided. All irrigation trenching shall be routed around critical root zones, otherwise above ground drip -irrigation shall be used. o) All utilities shall be placed down the roads and driveways and when possible outside of the drip -line. The arborist shall supervise trenching within the drip -line. All trenching in these areas shall be hand dug. As stated above in the trenching mitigation, all paths shall be marked by the owner and air spade prior to any digging. Mitigation Measure BIO -5: The applicant shall develop and submit an oak BP PS, BS, CE BIO -5 tree replacement plan to the City of Alascadero to ensure that the project is in compliance with the City of Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance. As such, native trees removed during project implementation shall be replaced: For every 6" diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater of deciduous oak tree removed, two 5 -gallon, locally grown native oaks of the same species shall be planted. For every 6" dbh of other native tree (as listed in City Ordinance Number 350) that is removed, one 5 -gallon, locally grown tree of the same species shall be planted (Atascadero Native Tree Guidelines). Mitigation Measure 8I0-6: Upon project completion a final status report shall BP PS, BS, CE 1310-6 be prepared by the project arborist, and submitted to the City of Atascadero, certifying the project was in compliance with the mitigation measures included in the A&M arborist report and those measures which will be included within the proposed Oak Tree Replacement Plan, as described above. Mitigation Measure BIO -7: All existing native trees on the Wilson Property GP PS, BS, CE BIO -7 shall not be removed or significantly impacted as a result of project implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO -8• The applicant shall ensure that the three wetland BP,GP PS, BS, CE BIO -8 areas are designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the 404 Permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the project. Mitigation Measures CUL -1. Because the Colony house is largely intact with BP,GP PS, BS, CE CUL -1 few modern alterations and the cluster of structure and trees retains a setting of the organization, vies, and tranquility of the Frandsen and Wilson households and is regarded as an important part of the early history of Alascadero, an Historic Overlay Zone shall be required on the Wilson Property to protect it from any adverse impacts from the current and future projects. Any construction and/or subdivision on the site shall be consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation of historic structures. A-9 CI TY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY A endix A pp Timing Responsibility Mitigation Mitigation Monitoring Program /Monitoring Measure ZCH 2002-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 it P:Grdding Permt PS: Planning Services BS: BvilQing Services B BP: Building Perrri TO: Temporary FD: Fire Department West Front Villages Occupancy FI: Final inspection PD: Police Depagment CE: City Engineer FO: Final Occupancy WW: Was1ee mer CA' Gly Attorney AMC: Water Comp. BP,GP PS, BS, CE CUL -2 Mitigation Measure CUL -2: Should any cultural resources be unearthed during site development work, the provisions of CEQA -Section 15064.5, will be followed to reduce impacts to a non-significant level. BP,GP PS, BS, CE CUL -3 Mitiqation Measure CUL -3: Any additional mitigation measures recommended by the project cultural resource consultant, resulting from completion of Phase it testing or from on-site monitoring of earth disturbance activities shall be forwarded to the City in the form of a mitigation monitoring program for site development, and shall be incorporated into the proposed project prior to project approval. BP PS, BS, CE GEO-1 Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The applicant will implement Mitigation Measure HWQ-1. BP PS, BS, CE GEO-2 Mitigation Measure GEO-2: A soils report and geotechnical investigation shall be submitted as part of the building permit process. Any measures identified in this report shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval. BP, GP PS, BS, CE HAZ-1 Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to grading activities at the 1 -acre parcel of the former gasoline station, the applicant shall prepare a Contaminated Materials Management Plan (CMMP) to be implemented during excavation or grading activities. The CMMP shall include procedures for the proper and safe handling and disposal of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminated soils. Petroleum hydrocarbon -containing soil with Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations in excess of 100 milligrams per kilogram shall not be used for backfill material on-site and shall be transported to a properly licensed landfill or recycling facility. The CMMP shall be submitted to the City and the County of San Luis Obispo Division of Environmental Health for review and approval prior to initiation of grading activities. BP, GP PS, B5, CE HAZ-2 Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: No water wells will be constructed at the project site without the express written approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. BP, GP PS, BS, CE HAZ-3 Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: The gas station shall be constructed and operated in accordance with current stale UST specifications including double -walled tanks, piping and dispenser catch pans. The applicant shall obtain appropriate UST permits from the County Environmental Health S G CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Appendix A Timing Responsibility Mitigation Mitigation Monitoring Program !Monitoring Measure ZCH 2002-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 GP: Grading Perml Ps: Planning services BP: Building Pemil BS: Building Services TO: Temporary FD: Fire Department West Front Villages g Occupancy CE: CCity Enpice neerrnl FI: Final inspection FO: Final Occupancy %VW: Waslewater CA: City Attorney AMWC: Waler CDnp. Division, the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the proposed UST installations. Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: The applicant will prepare and implement a BP, GP PS, BS, CE HWQ-1 Sediment and Erosion Control Plan (SECP) for the proposed project. The SECP will include: a) Slope surface stabilization measures, such as temporary mulching, seeding, and other suitable stabilization measures to protect exposed erodible areas during construction, and installation of earthen or paved interceptors and diversion at the lop of cut of fill slopes where there is a potential for erosive surface runoff; b) Erosion and sedimentation control devices, such as energy absorbing structures or devices, will be used, as necessary, to reduce the velocity of runoff water to prevent polluting sedimentation discharges: c) Installation of mechanical and/or vegetative final erosion control measures within 30 days after completion of grading; d) Confining land clearing and grading operations to the period between April 15 and October 15 to avoid the rainy season; and, e) Minimizing the land area disturbed and the period of exposure to the shortest feasible time. Prior to construction, the applicant will develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submit a Notice of Intent to comply with the NPDES "General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (99-08-DWQ). The SWPPP will include provisions for the installation and maintenance of Best Management Practices to reduce the potential for erosion of disturbed soils at the Project site. Mitigation Measure HWQ-2: The developer is responsible for ensuring that BP, GP PS, BS, GE HWQ-2 all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are implemented. Failure to comply with the approved construction Best Management Practices will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop orders. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The applicant will construct acoustic sound walls BP, GP PS, BS, CE N0I-1 to mitigate elevated noise levels to the residences. The noise barrier will extend in height (minimum of 6 feet) so that it breaks the line of sight between A-11 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY A endix A PP Timing Responsibility Mitigation /Monitoring ri Measure Mitigation Monitoring Program ZCH 2002-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 GP: Grading Perrril PS: Planning rtes BS: Building Services BP: Budding Perm] TO: Temporary FD: Fire Department West Front Villages Occupancy FI: Final inspection PD: Po:ice Depanment CE: City Engineer FO: Final Occupancy W VJ: wastmvaler CA: City Allomey AfdWC: Waler Comp. the noise sources and the receivers. The sound wall shall have a continuous structure and extend in a linear fashion parallel to the property line interface with the service station/retail facility and hotel and the residences (townhomes and single family residences) along this boundary. The location of the sound wall is shown in Figure 2-2. Aesthetics treatment, including landscaping of various shrubs, will be applied to the sound wall to mitigate visual concerns. Mitigation Measure NO] -2: All construction activities shall comply with the BP, GP PS, BS, CE N0I-2 City of Alascadero Noise Ordinance for hours of operation, and as follows: Construction activities shall be limited to the following hours of operation: • 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday • 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday • No construction on Sunday Furthermore, particularly loud noises shall not occur before 8 a.m, on weekdays and not at all on weekends. The hours of construction may be modified by the Community Development Director upon a determination that unusually loud construction activities are having a significant impact on the neighbors. Failure to comply with the above-described hours of operation may result in withholding of inspections and possible construction prohibitions, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. A sign shall be posted on-site with the hours of operation and a telephone number of the person to be contacted in the event of any violations. The details of such a sign shall be approved by staff during the Grading PlanlBuilding Permit review process. BP, GP PS, BS, CE PUB -1 Mitigation Measure PUB -1: Applicant will pay all Development Impact Fees per City requirements. The emergency services and facility maintenance costs listed below shall be 100% funded by the project in perpetuity. The service and maintenance cost shall be funded through a community facilities district established by the developer subject to City approval. The funding mechanism must be in place prior to or concurrently with acceptance of any final maps. The funding mechanism shall be approved by the City Attorney, City Engineer and Administrative Services Director prior to acceptance of any Final map- The administration of the above mentioned funds shall be by the City. a) All Atascaderc Police Department service costs to the project; TANK ,ka '�``"°� C1 TY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Appendix A Timing Responsibility Mitigation Mitigation Monitoring Program /Monitoring Measure ZCH 2002-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 GP: Grading Permit PS: Planning SeNces BP: Buifdmg Penril BS: Building Services TO: Temporary FD: Fire Department West Front Villages Occupancy PD: Police Department FI: Final irupeclion CE: City Engineer F0: Final Occupancy WW: Waslevrdler CA: City Allomey At.1WC: Water Con -p. b) All Alascadero Fire Department service costs to the project: and, c) Off-site common City of Alascadero park facilities maintenance service costs related to the project. Mitigation Measures TRA -1: The following mitigation measures have been BP, GP P5, BS, CE TRA -1 identified and/or the equitable share has been calculated: A. Santa Rosa Road/US 101 interchange: Install traffic signals and consider coordination with nearby and future traffic signals. As a result of cumulative traffic growth within the vicinity of this interchange and the existing substandard design of this tight diamond interchange, the existing all -way stop controlled intersections are forecasted to degrade to unacceptable LOS "F" conditions during the PM peak In addition, the projected traffic volumes during the PM peak hour period meet Caltrans' Peak Hour Warrant 11 (Urban Areas) for both intersections. A queuing analysis was performed along Santa Rosa Road between the two future signalized ramp heads. It was determined that there is not adequate space between the two ramp intersections to accommodate traffic signals at this location. However, if these traffic signals were coordinated, traffic flow would be improved. A detailed analysis would be required. Ultimately, this substandard interchange needs to be improved to Caltrans' current standards. Therefore, it is recommended that the City and/or Caltrans conduct a Project Study Report (PSR) for this interchange to determine future improvements. These future improvements may include consideration of roundabouls and/or re -aligning surface streets in addition to the recommendations made by OMNI - MEANS. Based upon Caltrans' Guide for Preparation of Trak impact Studios (June 2001), the equitable share responsibility was calculated during the PM peak hour period. Based upon the Project's contribution to the PM peak hour traffic growth at this intersection, the project's "fair -share" of improvements at the intersection of Santa Rosa RoadfWest Front Road/US 101 SB On Ramp is projected to be 43.5% 1259/(1,652-1,056)]. At the intersection of Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/US 101 NB Ramps, the project's "fair -share" of improvements is projected to be 31.4% [176/(2,011-1.451)]. With recommended Improvements at these intersections, the AM and PM peak hour LOS are projected to operate acceptably. B. Project Driveways: It is recommended, and was assumed during this analysis, that the Portola Avenue/Driveway 41 A-13 CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY Appendix A Mitigation Monitoring Program ZCH 2002-0088, CUP 2003-0108, TTM 2003-0035 West Front Villages Timing BP: Grading Permit ng Penrit TP: Building T0: Te po ary Occupancy FI: Final inspection FO: Final Occupancy Responsibility IMonitoring PS: Planning Services BS; Building Services FD: Fire Department PD: Police Department CE: City Engineer WW: Wasieoruler CA: City Attorney AMINC: Water Cornp. Miligation Measure operate as "right -turn -only' intersections. This is a result of the close proximity to the Portola AvenueMest Front Road intersection. It is further recommended that acceleration and deceleration lanes be installed that comply with the City's development standards_ Based upon the forecasted traffic volumes at these locations, the acceleration and deceleration lanes should be a minimum of 50 feet for the eastbound right turn lane. For the West Front Road Driveway #2 and West Front Road/Driveway #3, the acceleration and deceleration lanes should also be a minimum of 50 feet. C. Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real Intersection: Provide for dual northbound left turning movements on El Camino Real to accommodate the forecasted increase in traffic volume at this intersection. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measure is forecasted to result in acceptable CS through Year 2025. Under Year 2025 Base plus Project Conditions, the project's "Fair share" of improvements at the intersection is projected to be 8.9% [9312,947-2,235)]. A-14 APPENDIX B Air Quality " J e . 1 ' URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.4.2 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS2002\Projects2k2\West Front Village.urb Project Name: West Front Village Project Location: San Luis Obispo County On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PM10 PM10 ••• 2005 '•• ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 14.77 109.61 116.18 0.13 122.92 4.66 118.26 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 14.77 109.61 116.18 0.13 31.72 4.66 27.06 PM10 PM10 PM10 ••• 2006 ••• ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 353.32 80.46 122.04 0.04 3.16 3.06 0.10 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 353.32 80.46 122.04 0.04 3.16 3.06 0.10 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 2.78 1.06 3.09 0.01 0.01 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 14.75 16.46 142.50 0.13 12.37 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 14.10 15.67 135.72 0.12 11.78 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 17.53 17.52 145.59 0.14 12.37 Both Area and Operational Mitigation must be turned on to get a combined mitigated total. Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions: Phase Turned OFF ROG NOx Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions PM10 CO Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Sep '05 EXHAUST Fugitive Dust - Phase 2 Duration: 0.8 months Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0-00 On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 316 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips Off -Road Equipment 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 2 Crawler Tractors 143 0.575 6.0 1 Excavators 180 0.580 8.0 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 2 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 1 Scrapers 313 0.660 8.0 2 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions 0.00 - Arch Coatings worker Trips Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Sep 105 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 Phase 3 Duration: 6.7 months Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Sep 105 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips SubPhase Building Duration: 6.7 months 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 7.26 Off -Road Equipment Max lbs/day all phases 14.77 109.61 No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 2 Cranes 190 0.430 8.0 1 Rough Terrain Forklifts 94 0.475 8-0 2 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Mar 106 0.05 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 0-7 months 31.72 4.66 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Apr 106 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0-3 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Pavers 132 0.590 6.0 1 Paving Equipment 111 0.530 6.0 2 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED {lbs/day Source ROG NOx +•• 2005••• PM10 CO Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions TOTAL EXHAUST Fugitive Dust - - Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0-00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions 0.00 0.00 Fugitive Dust - - Off -Road Diesel 14.14 100.71 on -Road Diesel 0.48 8.61 worker Trips 0.15 0.29 Maximum lbs/day 14.77 109.61 Phase 3 - Building Construction 4.43 0.00 Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 6.37 39.79 Bldg Const worker Trips 0.89 1.34 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 - Arch Coatings worker Trips 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 7.26 41.13 Max lbs/day all phases 14.77 109.61 ••• 2006• Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/da;., 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM10 PM10 PM10 CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - 27.02 - 27.02 110.57 - 4.43 4.43 0.00 1.78 0.13 0.25 0.22 0.03 3.83 0.00 002 0.01 0.01 116.18 0.13 31.72 4.66 27.06 54.15 - 1.65 1.65 0.00 19.03 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.17 0.01 1.73 1.66 0.05 116.18 0.13 31.72 4.66 27.06 ••• 2006• Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/da;., 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust Off -Road Diesel 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0-00 Worker Trips 0.00 Maximum lbs/dav 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction 0.00 Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 6.37 Bldg Const worker Trips 0.87 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 345.79 Arch Coatings worker Trips 0.28 Asphalt off -Gas 0.40 Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 5.90 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.11 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.04 Maximum lbs/da.- 353.32 Max lbs/day all phases 353.32 Construction -Related Mitigation Measures - - - 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.99 54.15 - 1.46 1.46 0.00 1.33 18.85 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.16 3.39 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 38.14 48.72 - 1.52 1-52 0.00 2.01 0.42 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.00 0-02 0.39 0.00 0.01 0.00 0-01 80.46 122.04 0.04 3.16 3.06 0.10 80.46 122.04 0.04 3.16 3.06 0.10 Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas Percent Reducrion(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.01 CO 0.0% SO2 0.0% PM10 30.0%) Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% SO2 0.0% PM10 15.0%) Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 2x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% SO2 0.0% PM10 34.0%) Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 2x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% SO2 0.0% PM10 3.0%) Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Reduce speed on unpaved roads to c 15 mph Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% SO2 0.0% PM10 40.0%) Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions: Phase Turned OFF Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Sep 105 Phase 2 Duration: 0.8 months 3n -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 316 off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 2 Crawler Tractors 143 0.575 8.0 1 Excavators 180 0.580 8.0 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 2 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 1 Scrapers 313 0.660 8.0 2 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Sep 105 Phase 3 Duration: 6.7 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Sep '05 SubPhase Building Duration: 6.7 months Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 2 Cranes 190 0.430 8.0 1 Rough Terrain Forklifts 94 0.475 8.0 2 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Mar 106 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 0.7 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Apr '06 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.3 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8-0 1 Pavers 132 0.590 8.0 1 Paving Equipment 111 0.530 8.0 2 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 r,iyr : :+ AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Natural Gas 0.08 1.03 0.42 - 0.00 Wood Stoves - No summer emissions Fireplaces - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.36 0.03 2.67 0.01 0.01 Consumer Prdcts 2.35 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 2.78 1.06 3.09 0.01 0.01 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Single family housing 2.67 3.46 30.19 0.03 2.84 tondo/townhouse general 1.65 2.07 18.07 0.02 1.70 sigh turnover (sit-down) 1.28. 1.28 11.33 0.01 0.86 Hotel 5.30 5.85 49.58 0.05 4.47 ';trip mall 1.60 1.79 15.38 0.01 1.29 ;asoline/service station 2.25 1.99 17.96 0.01 1.21 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 14,75 16.46 142.50 0.13 12.37 includes correction for passby trips. includes a double counting reduction for internal trips. )PEFtATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES analysis Year: 2006 Temperature (F): 7S Season: Summer :MFf,C version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) summary of Land Uses: Jnit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips ;ingle family housing 11.55 trips / dwelling units 26.00 300.30 rondo/townhouse general 8.17 trips / dwelling units 22.00 179.74 sigh turnover (sit-down) 130.34 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 2.00 260.68 lotel 8.82 trips / rooms 90.00 793.80 ;trip mall 40.00 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 7.50 300.00 ;asoline/service station 168.56 trips / Pumps 3.00 505.68 lehicle Assumptions: ,leet Mix: /ehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel ,fight Auto 55.60 2.20 97.30 0.50 ,fight Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60 ,ight Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.90 1.90 96.90 1.20 fed Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.00 1.40 95.70 2.90 Ate -Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 ,ite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 led -Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 leavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90 ,ine Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Irban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 lotorcycle 1.70 82.40 17.60 0.00 ;chool Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 lotcr Home 1.20 0.00 91.70 8.30 'ravel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Commute Non -work Customer Irban Trip Length (miles) 13.0 5.0 5.0 13.0 5.0 5.0 :ural Trip Length (miles) 13.0 5.0 S.0 13.0 5.0 5.0 'rip Speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0_ 35.0 of Trips - Residential 27.4 17.7 54.9 of Trips - Commercial (by land use) !igh turnover (sit-down) rest. 5.0 2.5 92.5 lotel 5.0 2.5 92.5 trip mall 2.0 1.0 97.0 ;asoline/service station 2.0 1.0 97.0 MITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 14.10 15.67 OPERATIONAL (vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES c0 ROG NOx Single family housing 2.57 3.32 Condo/townhouse general 1.59 1.99 High turnover (sit-down) 1.22. 1.22 Motel 5.07 5.55 Strip mall 1.52 1.70 Gasoline/service station 2.14 1.89 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 14.10 15.67 OPERATIONAL (vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES c0 SO2 PM10 28.96 0.03 2.72 17.33 0.02 1.63 10.75 0.01 0.82 47.06 0.04 4.24 14.59 0.01 1.23 17.03 0.01 1.14 135.72 0.12 11.78 Analysis Year: 2006 Temperature (F): 75 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Light Auto 55.60 Size Single family housing 11.55 trips / dwelling units 26.00 Condo/townhouse general B_17 trips / dwelling units 22.00 High turnover (sit-down) 130.34 trips / 1000 sq_ ft. 2.00 Motel 8.62 trips / rooms 1.00 90.00 Strip mall 40.00 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 7.50 Gasoline/service station 168.56 trips / Pumps 0.10 3.00 vehicle Assumptions Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Light Auto 55.60 5.0 2.20 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 35.0 4.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.90 2.5 1.90 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.00 92-5 1.40 Lite -Heavy B,501-10,000 1.10 2.0 0.00 Lite -Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 Motorcycle 1.70 82.40 School Bus 0.10 0.00 Motor Home 1.20 0.00 Travel Conditions Residential Home- Home- Home - Work Shop Other Urban Trip Length (miles) 13.0 5.0 5.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 13.0 5.0 5.0 Trip speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 B of Trips - Residential 27.4 17.7 54.9 8 of Trips - Commercial (by land use) High turnover (sit-down) rest. Motel Strip mall Gasoline/service station Catalyst 97.30 93.40 96.90 95.70 81.80 66.70 20.00 11.10 0.00 0.00 17.60 0.00 91.70 Total Trips Commercial 300.30 179.74 260.68 793.80 300.00 505.68 Diesel 0.50 2.60 1.20 2.90 18.20 33.30 70.00 86.90 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 8.30 Commute Non -Work Customer 13.0 5.0 5.0 13.0 5.0 5.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 5.0 2.5 92.5 5.0 2.5 92-5 2.0 1.0 97.0 2.0 1.0 97.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Pedestrian Environment 1.0 Side walks/Paths: Few Destinations Covered 0.5 Street Trees Provide.Shade: Some Coverage 1.0 Pedestrian Circulation Access: Few Destinations 1.0 Visually Interesting Uses: Some Uses within walking Distance 0.0 Street System Enhances Safety: No Streets 0.5 Pedestrian Safety from Crime: Some Degree of Safety 0.5 Visually Interesting Walking Routes: Minor Level 4.5 <- Pedestrian Environmental Credit 4.5 /19 = 0.2 <- Pedestrian Effectiveness Factor Transit Service 20.0 Transit Service: 15-30 Minute Bus within 1/4 Mile 20.0 <- Transit Effectiveness Credit 4.5 <- Pedestrian Factor 24.5 <-Total 24.5 /110 = 0.2 <-Transit Effectiveness Factor Bicycle Environment 1.0 Interconnected Bikeways: Low Coverage 1.0 Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: Few Routes 0.5 Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: Few Destinations 1.0 Safe School Routes: one School 1.0 Uses w/in Cycling Distance: Some Uses 0.0 Bike Parking Ordinance: No Ordinance or unenforceable 4.5 <- Bike Environmental Credit 4.5 /20 = 0.2 <- Bike Effectiveness Factor Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Construction Site Grading Fugitive Dust option changed from Level 1 to Level 2 Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: water exposed surfaces - 2x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 2x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Reduce speed on unpaved roads to < 15 mph has been changed from off to on. Changes made to the default values for Area The wood stove option switch changed from on to off. The landscape year changed from 2004 to 2006 - Changes made to the default values for Operations The pass by trips option switch changed from off to on. The operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2006. The operational winter selection item changed from 3 to 2. The operational summer temperature changed from 85 to 15. The operational summer selection item changed from 7 to 5. The home based work trip speed changed from 40 to 35. The home based work selection item changed from 9 to 7. The home based work rural trip length changed from 15.0 to 13.0. The home based shopping trip speed changed from 40 to 3S. The home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 7. The home based shopping rural trip length changed from 10.0 to S.O. The home based other trip speed changed from 40 to 35. The home based other selection item changed from 9 to 7. The home based other rural trip length changed from 10.0 to S.O. The commercial based commute trip speed changed from 40 to 35. The commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 7. The commercial based commute rural trip length changed from 15 to 13. The commercial based non -work trip speed changed from 40 to 35. The commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 7. The commercial based non -work rural trip length changed from 15 to S. The commercial based customer trip speed changed from 40 to 35. The commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 7. The commercial based customer rural trip length changed from 15 to 5. The double counting internal work trip limit changed from to 68.8376. The double counting work trip default changed from to 5. The double counting work trip factor 1 changed from 0 to 7.16998583451379E-03. The double counting work trip factor 2 changed from 0 to 1.85031395148804E-03. The double counting shopping trip limit changed from to 34.4188. The double counting shopping trip default percentage changed from to 5 - The double counting shopping trip factor 1 changed from 0 to 3.5849929172569E-03. The double counting shopping trip factor 2 changed from 0 to 9.25156975744022E-04. The double counting other trip limit changed from to 263.54196. The double counting other trip default changed from to 5. The double counting other trip factor 1 changed from 0 to 0.02745. The travel mode environment settings changed from both to: both The default/nodefault travel setting changed from nodefault to: nodefault Side Walks/Paths: No Sidewalks changed to: Side Walks/Paths: Few Destinations Covered Street Trees Provide Shade: No Coverage changed to:Street Trees Provide Shade: Some Coverage Pedestrian Circulation Access: No Destinations changed to:Pedestrian Circulation Access: Few Destinations visuall;• Interesting Uses: No Uses within Walking Distance changed to:'iisually Interesting Uses: Some Uses within Walking Distance Pedestrian Safety from Crime: No Degree of Safety changed to:Pedestrian Safety from Crime: Some Degree of Safety visuall,.. Interesting Walking Routes: No visual Interest changed to:visually Interesting Walking Routes: Minor Level Transit Service: Dial_A-Ride or No Transit Service changed co: Transit Service: 15-30 Minute Bus within 1/4 Mile Interconnected Bikeways; No Bikeway Coverage changed to: Interconnected Bikeways: Low Coverage Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: No Routes chanced to:3ike Rouces Provide Paved Shoulders. Few Routes afe Vehicle Speed Limits: No Routes Provided changed to:Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: Few Destinations Safe School Routes: No Schools changed to: Safe School Routes: One School ses w/in Cycling Distance: No Uses w/in Cycling Distance changed to:Uses w/in Cycling Distance: Some Uses itigation measure Mixed Use Project -(Residential Oriented):3 has been changed from off to on. itigation measure Provide Sidewalks and/or Pedestrian Paths:l has been changed from off to on. .itigation measure Provide Direct Pedestrian Connections -.1 has been changed from off to on. litigation measure Mixed Use Project (Commercial Oriented):l has been changed from off to on. litigation measure No Long Uninterrupted Walls Along Pedestrian Walkways:0.25 has been changed from off to on. URSEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.4-2 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS2002\Projects2k2\West Front Village-urb Project Name: West Front Village Project Location: San Luis Obispo County On -Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) Construction Start Month and Year: September, 2005 Construction Duration: 7.5 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 13 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 2 acres Single Family Units: 26 Mulci-Family Units: 22 Retail/Office/InsCitutional/Industrial Square Footage: 55500 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (tons/year). PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST ••• 200S... Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0-00 0.00 Worker Trips 0-00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 1.04 - 1.04 Off -Road Diesel 0.12 0.89 0.97 - 0.04 0.04 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.12 0.97 1.02 0.00 4.26 0.04 1.04 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0.22 1.41 1.92 - 0.06 0.06 0-00 Bldg Const worker Trips 0.03 0.03 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.25 1.44 2.58 0.00 0.48 0-06 0-00 Total all phases Cons/yr 0-37 2.41 3.60 0.00 4.76 0.10 1.04 ... 2006 ... Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0-00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ,DO 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0-00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0.25 1.50 2.10 - 0.07 0.07 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.03 0.04 0-73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 2.66 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.02 0.13 0.16 - 0.01 0.01 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 2-96 1.68 3.02 0.00 0.59 0.08 0.00 Total all phases tons/yr 2.96 1.68 3.02 0.00 0-59 0-08 0.00 Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions: Phase Turned OFF Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Sep 105 Phase 2 Duration: 0.8 months On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 318 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 2 Crawler Tractors 143 0-575 8.0 1 Excavators 180 0.580 8-0 1 Graders 174 0-575 8.0 2 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 1 Scrapers 313 0.660 8.0 2 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Sep 105 Phase 3 Duration: 6-7 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Sep 105 SubPhase Building Duration: 6.7 months Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 2 Cranes 190 0.430 8-0 1 Rough Terrain Forklifts 94 0.475 8.0 2 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Mar 106 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 0.7 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Apr '06--' SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.3 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 6.0 1 Pavers 132 0.590 6.0 1 Paving Equipment 111 0.530 8.0 2 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED (tons/year) PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST 2005'•' Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Jff-Road Diesel 0-00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Jn-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 corker Trips 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 Total tons/year 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions -ugitive Dust - - - - 0.24 - 0.24 Dff-Road Diesel 0.12 0.69 0.97 - 0-04 0.04 0.00 Jn-Road Diesel 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4orker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.12 0.97 1.02 0.00 1.08 0.04 0.24 ?hale 3 - Building Construction 3ldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0-22 1.41 1.92 - 0.06 0.06 0.00 31dg Const worker Trips 0.03 0-03 0.66 0-00 0.00 0-00 0.00 arch Coatings Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - lrch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0-00 asphalt Off -Gas 0-00 - - - - - - asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0..25 1.44 2.58 0-00 0.48 0.06 0-00 Total all phases tons/yr 0.37 2.41 3.60 0.00 1.56 0.10 0.24 ... 2006 - ?hase 1 - Demolition Emissions 'ugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 )ff-Road Diese' 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 )n -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4orker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tans/yea: 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0,00 .may,. 11, Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - 0.00 - 0-00 off -Road Diesel 0.00 0-00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 on -Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0-00 0:00 0.00 0.00 0-00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off -Road Diesel 0.25 1-50 2.10 - 0.07 0.07 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.03 0-04 0.73 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 2.66 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off -Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off -Road Diesel 0.02 0.13 0.16 - 0-01 0.01 0.00 Asphalt On -Road Diesel 0.00 0.01 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 2-96 1.68 3-02 0.00 0.59 0.08 0.00 Total all phases tons/yr 2.96 1.68 3.02 0.00 0.59 0.08 0.00 Construction -Related Mitigation Measures Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% SO2 0.0% PM10 30.0%) Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 15.0%) Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: water exposed surfaces - 2x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0-0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 34.0%) Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 2x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0-0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 3.0%) Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Reduce speed on unpaved roads to < 15 mph Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0-0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 40.0%) Phase.l - Demolition Assumptions: Phase Turned OFF Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Sep '05 Phase 2 Duration: 0.8 months On -Road Truck Travel (VMT): 318 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 2 Crawler Tractors 143 0.575 6.0 1 Excavators 180 0.580 8.0 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 2 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 1 Scrapers 313 0-660 8.0 2 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0.46.5 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Sep '05 Phase 3 Duration: 6.7 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Sep 105 SubPhase Building Duration: 6.7 months Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 2 Cranes 190 0.430 8.0 1 Rough Terrain Forklifts 94 0.475 8.0 2 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Mar 106 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 0.7 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Apr '06 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.3 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off -Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Pavers 132 0.590 B-0 1 Paving Equipment 111 0.530 8.0 2 Rollers 114 0-430 8.0 0.REA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Natural Gas 0.01 0.19 0.08 - 0.00 wood Stoves 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fireplaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscaping 0.03 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 0.43. - - - - TOTALS {tpy, unmitigated) 0.47 0.19 0.32 0.00 0.00 t�eyc: 1 i UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO Single family housing 0.51 0.69 5.76 Condo/townhouse general 0.31 0.42 3.45 High turnover (sit-down) 0.26. 0.26 2.25 Motel 1.00 1.17 9.67 Strip mall 0.32 0.36 3.03 Gasoline/service station 0.45 0.40 3.63 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 2.85 3.29 27.80 Includes correction for passby trips. Includes a double counting reduction for internal trips_ OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2006 Temperature (F): 75 Season: Annual EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Single family housing 11.55 trips / dwelling units Condo/townhouse general 8.17 trips / dwelling units High turnover (sit-down) 130.34 trips / 1000 sq. ft. Motel 8.82 trips / rooms Strip mall 40.00 trips / 1000 sq. ft. Gasoline/service station 168.56 trips / Pumps Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Light Auto 55.60 2.20 Light Truck c 3,750 lbs 15.10 4.00 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.90 1.90 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.00 1.40 Lite -Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 Lite -Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 Heavy -Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 Urban Sus 0.10 0.00 Motorcycle 1.70 82.40 School Bus 0.10 0.00 Motor Home 1.20 0.00 Travel Conditions SO2 PM10 0.01 0.52 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.16 0.01 0.82 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.22 0.02 2.26 Size Total Trips 26.00 300.30 Residential 179.74 2.00 Home- Home- Home - 7.50 Work Shop Other Urban Trip Length (miles) 13.0 5.0 5.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 13.0 5.0 5.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 35.0 35.0 of Trips - Residential 27.4 17.7 54.9 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) High turnover (sit-down) rest. Motel Strip mall Gasoline/service station SO2 PM10 0.01 0.52 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.16 0.01 0.82 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.22 0.02 2.26 Size Total Trips 26.00 300.30 22.00 179.74 2.00 260.68 90.00 793.80 7.50 300.00 3.00 505.68 Catalyst Diesel 97.30 0.50 93.40 2.60 96.90 1.20 95.70 2.90 81.80 18.20 66.70 33.30 20.00 70.00 11.10 8B.90 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 17.60 0.00 0.00 100.00 91.70 8.30 Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 13.0 5.0 5.0 13.0 5.0 S.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 5.0 2.5 92.5 5.0 2.5 92.5 2.0 1.0 97.0 2.0 1.0 97.0 MITIGATED I OPERATIONAL £MISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 ;ingle family housing 0.49 0.67 5.53 0.01 0.50 'ondo/townhouse general 0.30 0.40 3.31 0.00 0.30 ligh turnover (sit-down) 0.24. 0.24 2.14 0.00 0.15 lotel 0.95 1.11 9.18 0.01 0.77 ;trip mall 0.30 0.34 2.86 0.00 0.22 ;asoline/service station 0.43 0.38 3.44 0.00 0.21 "OTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 2.72 3.13 26.48 0.02 2.15 )PERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES knalysis Year: 2006 Temperature (F): 75 Season: Annual ;MFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) summary of Land Uses: ]nit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips ;ingle family housing 11.55 trips / dwelling units 26.00 300.30 :ondo/townhouse general 8.17 trips / dwelling units 22.00 179.74 ]igh turnover (sit-down) 130.34 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 2.00 260.68 9otel 8.62 trips / rooms 90.00 793.80 ;trip mall 40.00 trips / 1000 sq. ft. 7.50 300.00 ;asoline/service station 168.56 trips / Pumps 3.00 505.68 lehicle Assumptions: 'leet Mix: lehicle Type Percent Type Non -Catalyst Catalyst Diesel eight Auto 55.60 2.20 97.30 0.50 might Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60 L,ight Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.90 1.90 96.90 1.20 led Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.00 1.40 95.70 2.90 L,ite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 mite -Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 led -Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 geavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Jrban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Kotorcycle 1.70 82.40 17.60 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Rotor Home 1.20 0.00 91.70 8.30 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- work Shop Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 13.0 5.0 5.0 13.0 5-0 5.0 Rural Trip Length (miles) 13.0 5.0 5.0 13.0 5.0 5.0 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 3S.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 `4 of Trips - Residential 27.4 17.7 54.9 8 of Trips - Commercial (by land use) High turnover (sit-down) rest. 5.0 2.5 92.5 Motel 5.0 2.5 92_S Strip mall 2.0 1.0 97.0 Gasoline/service station 2.0 1.0 97.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT Pedestrian Environment 1.0 Side Walks/Paths: Few Destinations Covered 0.5 Street Trees Provide shade: Some Coverage 1.0 Pedestrian Circulation Access: Few Destinations 1.0 Visually Interesting Uses: Some Uses within Walking Distance 0.0 Street System Enhances Safety: No Streets 0.5 Pedestrian Safety from Crime: Some Degree of Safety 0.5 Visually Interesting walking Routes: Minor Level 4.5 <- Pedestrian Environmental Credit 4.5 /19 = 0.2 <- Pedestrian Effectiveness Factor Transit Service 20.0 Transit Service: 15-30 Minute Bus within 1/4 Mile 20.0 <- Transit Effectiveness Credit 4.5 <- Pedestrian Factor 24.5 <-Total 24.5 /110 = 0.2 <-Transit Effectiveness Factor Bicycle Environment 1.0 Interconnected Bikeways: Low Coverage 1.0 Bike Routes Provide Paved Shoulders: Few Routes 0.5 Safe vehicle Speed Limits: Few Destinations 1.0 Safe School Routes: One School 1.0 Uses w/in Cycling Distance: Some Uses 0.0 Bike Parking Ordinance: No Ordinance or Unenforceable 4.5 <- Bike Environmental Credit 4.5 /20 = 0.2 <- Bike Effectiveness Factor MITIGATION MEASURES SELECTED FOR THIS PROJECT (All mitigation measures are printed. even if the selected land uses do not constitute a mixed use.) Transit Infrastructure Measures % Trips Reduced Measure 15.0 Credit for Existing or Planned Community Transit Service 15.0 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Residential) i Trips Reduced Measure 2.0 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 3.0 Mixed Use Project (Residential Oriented) 1.0 Provide Sidewalks and/or Pedestrian Paths 1.0 Provide Direct Pedestrian Connections 7.0 <- Totals Pedestrian Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non -Residential) 5 Trips Reduced Measure 2.0 Credit for Surrounding Pedestrian Environment 1.0 Mixed Use Project (Commercial Oriented) 0.3 No Long Uninterrupted Walls Along Pedestrian Walkways 3.3 <- Totals Bicycle Enhancing Infratructure Measures (Residential) Trips Reduced Measure 7.0 Credit for Surrounding Bicycle Environment 7.0 <- Totals Bike Enhancing Infrastructure Measures (Non -Residential) W Trips Reduced Measure 5.0 Credit for Surrounding Area Bike Environment 5.0 <- Totals Dperational Measures (Applying to Commute Trips) i Trips Reduced Measure 0.0 <- Totals 3perational Measures (Applying to Employee Non -Commute Trips) E Trips Reduced Measure 0.0 <- Totals operational Measures (Applying to Customer Trips) k Trips Reduced Measure 0.0 <- Totals Measures Reducing VMT (Non -Residential) !MT Reduced Measure 0.0 Park and Ride Lots 0.0 <- Totals leasures Reducing VMT (Residential) !MT Reduced Measure 0.0 <- Totals Page= 21 Total Percentage Trip Reduction with Environmental Factors and Mitigation Measures Travel Mode Home -Work Trips Home -Shop Trips Home -Other Trips Pedestrian 0.18 0.73 0.73 Transit 3.34 0.74 0.90 Bicycle 1.57 1.57 1.57 Totals 0.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Mode work Trips Employee Trips Customer Trips Pedestrian 0.08 0.77 0.77 Transit 3.34 0.07 3.34 Bicycle 1.12 1.12 1.13 other 0.00 0.00 0.00 Totals 0.00 0.00 0.00 Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Construction Site Grading Fugitive Dust Option changed from Level 1 to Level 2 Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Distyrbance: Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: water exposed surfaces - 2x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads. Mater all haul roads 2x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Reduce speed on unpaved roads to < 15 mph has been changed from off to on. Charges made to the default values for Area -he rood stove option switch changed from on to off. -lie landscape year changed from 2004 to 2006 - .es, made to the default values for Operations rhe pass by trips option switch changed from off to on. rhe operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2006. rhe operational winter selection item changed from 3 to 2. rhe operational summer temperature changed from 85 to 75. rhe operational summer selection item changed from 7 to S. rhe home based work trip speed changed from 40 to 35. :he home based work selection item changed from 9 to 7. Che home based work rural trip length changed from 15.0 to 13.0. rhe home based shopping trip speed changed from 40 to 35. Che home based shopping selection item changed from 9 to 7. Che home based shopping rural trip length changed from 10.0 to 5.0. Che home based other trip speed changed from 40 to 35_ Che home based other selection item changed from 9 to 7. Che home based other rural trip length changed from 10.0 to 5.0_ Che commercial based commute trip speed changed from 40 to 3S. Che commercial based commute selection item changed from 9 to 1. Che commercial based commute rural trip length changed from 15 to 13. rhe commercial based non -work trip speed changed from 40 to 35_ rhe commercial based non -work selection item changed from 9 to 7. -he commercial based non -work rural trip length changed from 15 to S. "he commercial based customer trip speed changed from 40 to 35. 'he commercial based customer selection item changed from 9 to 7. 'he commercial based customer rural trip length changed from 15 to 5. 'he double counting internal work trip limit changed from to 68.8376. he double counting work trip default changed from to S. 'he double counting work trip factor 1 changed from 0 to 7.16998583451379E-03. 'he double counting work trip factor 2 changed from 0 to 1.85031395148804E-03. 'he double counting shopping trip limit changed from to 34.4188. 'he double counting shopping trip default percentage changed from to 5. 'he double counting shopping trip factor 1 changed from 0 to 3.5849929172569E-03. 'he double counting shopping trip factor 2 changed from 0 to 9.25156975744022E-04. 'he double counting other trip limit changed from to 263.54196_ 'he double counting other trip default changed from to 5. 'he double counting other trip factor 1 changed from 0 to 0.02745. 'he travel mode environment settings changed from both to: both 'he default/nodefault travel setting changed from nodefault to: nodefault Side Walks/Paths: No Sidewalks changed to: Side walks/Paths: Few Destinations Covered treet Trees Provide shade: No Coverage changed to:Street Trees Provide Shade: Some Coverage 'edestrian Circulation Access: No Destinations changed to:Pedestrian Circulation Access: Few Destinations 'isually Interesting Uses: No Uses within Walking Distance changed to:visually Interesting Uses: Some Uses within walking Distance edestrian Safety from Crime: No Degree of Safety changed ta:Pedestrian Safety from Crime: Some Degree of Safety isually Interesting 6.lalkinq Routes: No Visual Interest changed tc•:visually Interesting walking Routes: Minor Level Transi-, Serv_ce: Dial -A -Ride or No Transit Service changed t_: Transit Service: 15-30 Minute Bus within 1/4 Mile int'c:co ^.ecced Si�eways: No Bikeway Coverage Crl3rtge6 te: I::terconnected Bikeways: Low Coverage ike Roi-:-.es Provide Pared Shoulders: No Routes C:-:anq_d .G:i3iv.e Rcutee; Provide Paved Shoulders: Few Routes Safe Vehicle Speed Limits: No Routes Provided changed to:Safe vehicle Speed Limits: Few Destinations Safe School Routes: No Schools changed to: Safe School Routes: One School Uses w/in Cycling Distance: No Uses Win Cycling Distance changed to:Uses w/in Cycling Distance: Some Uses Mitigation measure Mixed Use Project.(Residential Oriented):3 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Sidewalks and/or Pedestrian Paths:l has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Provide Direct Pedestrian Connections:) has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure Mixed Use Project (Commercial Oriented):1 has been changed from off to on. Mitigation measure No Long Uninterrupted Walls Along Pedestrian Walkways:0.25 has been changed from off to on. APPENDIX C Arborist's Report Alvarez 8e'I�magnl � Arboriafs and [a3 Vegetation Management Lupine1615 • •California93465 8-23-04 Richard Shannon, Peabody and Plum Realty John Rossetti, Rossetti Company West Front Village Project, Atascadero, CA This report is in regards to the proposed development at the corner of West Front Street and Portola Road in Atascadero, California. The property consists of gently sloping grasslands with blue oaks (Quercus douglassi), white oaks (Quercus lobala) and one toyon (Heleronieles arbulifolia). There are 18 native trees on the site. Originally all but two were planned to be removed, however, with plan changes, two additional trees will be saved. Total number of removals is 14 with a total diameter of 220 inches. Three mature trees will need to be removed from the site. Tree #1 is a 31 -inch diameter live oak that is in very poor condition. There is severe tip die back and heavy infestation of scale. The tree is also in the middle of the planned convenience store. Tree #12 is a 24 -inch blue oak that is in fairly good condition. Its location is right next to Portola Road and any street improvements would be restricted by saving it. Tree #17 is a 35 -inch diameter live oak that has had a massive past failure on the South side. The tree has severe heart rot and would pose a severe hazard to any nearby construction. Trees #2-10 are -located near and within the proposed entrance off of Portola Road. There were discussions regarding saving some of these trees. Options included changing the entrance location to accommodate the trees. Problems arose due to the freeway off ramp location and site distance requirements. Therefore, these trees will need to be removed. It is the owners' (or designee) responsibility to inform us of any changes that will encroach into the drip -line of any oak tree so we may apply any necessary mitigation measures. Tree Rating System A rating system of 1-10 was used for visually establishing the overall condition of each tree on the spreadsheet. The rating system is defined as follows: Rahn Condition 0 Deceased 2 I Evidence of massive past failures, extreme disease and is in severe decline. 2 May be saved with attention to class 4 pruning, insect/pest eradication and future monitoring. 3 Some past failures, some pests or structural defects that may be mitigated by pruning. 4 May have had minor past failures, excessive deadwood or minor structural defects that can be mitigated with pruning. 5 Relatively healthy tree with little visual structural and or pest defects. 6 Healthy tree that probably can be Ieft in its natural state. 7-9 Have had proper arboricultural pruning and attention or have no apparent structural defects. 10 Specimen tree with perfect shape, structure and foliage in a protected setting (i.e. park, arboretum). The following mitigation measures/methods must be fully understood and followed by anyone working within the drip -line of any oak tree. Any necessary clarification will be provided by us (the arborists) upon request. 1. Fencing: The proposed fencing shall be shown on the grading plan. It must be a minimum of 4' high chain link, snow or safety fence staked at the edge of the drip - line or line of encroachment for each tree or group of trees. The fence shall be up before any construction or earth moving begins. The fencing should be placed at the edge of the drip -line or further as measured from the actual trees. The owner shall be responsible for maintaining an erect fence throughout the construction period. The arborist(s), upon notification, will inspect the fence placement once it is erected, After this time, fencing shall not be moved without arborist inspect] on/approval _ If the orange plastic fencing is used,.a minimum of four zip ties shall be used on each stake to secure the fence along with tie wire or other suitable material intertwined through the top. 2. Soil Aeration Methods: Soils within the drip -line that have been compacted by heavy equipment and/or construction activities must be returned to their original state before all work is completed. Methods include water jetting, adding organic matter, and boring small holes with an auger (18" deep, 2-3' apart with a 2-4" auger) and the application of moderate amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. The arborist(s) shall advise. 3. Chip Mulch: All areas within the drip -line of the trees that cannot be fenced shall receive a 4-6" layer of chip mulch to retain moisture, soil structure and reduce the effects of soil compaction. 4. Trenching Within Drip -line: All trenching within the drip -line of native trees shall be hand dug, augured or bored. Prior to any trenching, all utility paths under the drip lines shall be marked by the owner and subsequently air spade to expose all roots without damaging them. Conduit/piping shall then be placed over/under all roots greater than one inch in diameter. The trench can then be re -buried without the need to cut any large roots. 5. Grading Within The Drip -line: Grading should not encroach within the drip -line unless authorized. If grading is necessary, construction of retaining walls or tree wells or other protection measures may be necessary to insure the survivability of the trees. Chip mulch 4-6" in depth may also be required in these areas. Grading should not disrupt the nonnal drainage pattern around the trees. Fills should not create a ponding condition and excavations should not leave the tree on a rapidly draining mound. 6. Exposed Roots: Any exposed roots shall be re-covered the same day they were exposed. If they cannot, they must be covered with burlap or another suitable material and wetted down 2x per day until re -buried. 7. .Paving Within The Drip -line: Pervious Surfacing is preferred within the drip -line of any oak tree. Permeable pavers shall be used for the sidewalk under the drip - line. Pavers shall be of the interlocking variety and have a minimum of 10% void space. All areas within the drip line of tree #11 shall have pavers. 8. Equipment Operation: Vehicles and all heavy equipment shall not be driven under the trees, as this will contribute to soil compaction. Also there is to be no parking of equipment or personal vehicles in these areas. All areas behind fencing are off limits unless pre -approved by the arborist. 9. Existing Surfaces: The existing ground surface within the drip -line of all oak trees shall not be cut, filled, compacted or pared, unless shown on the grading plans and approved by the arborist. 10. Construction Materials And Waste: No liquid or solid construction waste shall be dumped on the ground within the drip -line of any oak tree. 11. Arborist Monitoring: An arborist shall be present for selected activities (trees identified on spreadsheet) and pre -construction fence placement inspection. The monitoring does not necessarily have to be continuous but observational at times during the above activities. It is the responsibility of the owner(s) or their designee to inform us prior to these events so we can make arrangements to be present. The following activities shall be monitored: • Any trenching within the drip -line • Curb footing excavation within the drip line • Sidewalk grading within the drip line • Paver installation 4 12. Pre -Construction Meeting: An on-site pre -construction meeting with the Arborist(s), Owner(s), Planning Staff, and the earth moving team shall be required for this project. Prior to final occupancy, a letter from the arborist(s) shall be required verifying the health/condition of all impacted trees and providing any recommendations for any additional mitigation. The letter shall verify that the arborist(s) were on site for all grading and/or trenching activity that encroached into the drip -line of the selected native trees, and that all work done in these areas was completed to the standards set forth above. 13. Pruning: Class 4 pruning includes -Crown reduction pruning shall consist of reduction of tops, sides or individual limbs. A trained arborist shall perform all pruning 14. Landscape: All landscape under the drip -line shall be drought tolerant or native varieties. Lawns shall be avoided. All irrigation trenching shall be routed around critical root zones, otherwise above ground drip -irrigation shall be used. 15. Utility Placement: All utilities shall be placed down the roads and driveways and when possible outside of the drip -line. The arborist shall supervise trenching within the drip -line. All trenching in these areas shall be hand dug. As stated above in the trenching mitigation, all paths shall be marked by the owner and air spade prior to any digging. All trees potentially impacted by this project are numbered and identified on both the grading plan and the spreadsheet. Trees are numbered on the grading plans. Tree protection fencing is shown on the grading plan. Trees to be removed have red flagging tape and trees to be saved have yellow tape. Trees are numbered on the North side with a 2x2 inch aluminum tag. The included spreadsheet includes trees listed by number, species and multiple stems if applicable, diameter and breast height (4.5'), condition (scale from poor to excellent), status (avoided, impacted, removed, exempt), percent of drip -line impacted, mitigation required (fencing, root pruning), construction impact (trenching, grading) and individual tree notes. If all the above mitigation measures are followed, we feel there will be no long-term significant impacts to the remaining trees. Please let us know if we can be of any future assistance to you for this project. Steven G. Alvarez Certified Arborist #WC 0511 Chip Tamagni Certified Arborist #WE 6436-A W LU Cn Q W w z O f— U W 0 ry a w LU LL r r m I- U to 0 M 0 z N LU } a Lu ccO a Z 0 0 r O f- 0 Q m T w z s 4 0 w xU W 0 0 0 a Z 0 ❑ O w cc r v w ❑ w U 0 O z U w z zid 0 0 O O N m w to U) (n w F— 2 .n U u Om z a U a � Q C s- CL (z -a C) (n 0 U) U •N 2O2il 1� lL CL.0 >1 co -°u) co U O = � CL 0) .E 0) cc6 C N {- M Cn o-, I Z:l >1 I Ol 01 d O � z � U d � W z U) O ❑ � C'1 w z� O :�i 2 2 - O Q H 0 � a LL: LL LL LL O) CD i) (n U C _C C C C C C_ C_ C C C C_ ` C� ! C C z a "O O D io -0 -0 "O '0 -0 -O �o _ -a U U 'a -O 0 Ll Cc4 m (LD (d (D (0 (13 (d w (6 M M M C C (`0 (`) w E- Z :J U a ° o ❑ O o o ° o ° ° o ° 0 ° 0 o 0 ° o o o ° ° ° ° 0 0- O O o O 0 O o O O O o O 0 O o O O O O° O O 0 O 0 N 0° O O O 0 O CD O _a v T r T T r ❑ 'O^^ ('J ,�/�^ VJ O 0 a �/ L.L �/ LL.. �y CL �/ LL /y I.A �/ CL /�/ LL /�/ LL / CL,- LL y a, - LL LL — LL LL LL U �— (n z O w�- w p` Z N LO Lf-) C7 c') CD (fl CY) N M co LO co Liz Ln Lf) N LO ~O U Y = z m r C�) LO r LO O N Lf) T Lf) I` Nt CD OD �— O LO LO ❑ r r T r r r N N Ch N r C7 r U) O x N N N cy') N (C) w(j O O O X O O X O X 0 0 0 0 x x p x � W _1 } J .J O .J J O J O m fS] J __j O O 'j O LU w �t r N M C Cfl t� CO O LO CO t-- CO [" P 0 z N LU } a Lu ccO a Z 0 0 r O f- 0 Q m T w z s 4 0 w xU W 0 0 0 a Z 0 ❑ O w cc r v w ❑ w U 0 O z U w z zid 0 0 O O N m APPENDIX D Archaeology RESULTS OF ARCHIVAL RECORDS SEARCH, HISTORICAL BACKGROUND STUDY AND PHASE ONE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURFACE SURVEY FOR THE WEST FRONT VILLAGE PROJECT, PORTOLA ROAD AND WEST FRONT ROAD, ATASCADERO, CA Prepared for Padre Associates, San Luis Obispo, CA August 31, 2004 GIBSON'S ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING Robert O. Gibson Principal Archaeologist P.O. Box 102 Paso Robles, CA 93447-0102 805/238-5411 1.00 SUMMARY Based on an archival records search and a phase one archaeological surface survey of about 13 acres located at the southwest corner of Portola Road and West Front Road, just west of Highway 101 in southwestern Atascadero, no prehistoric archaeological/cultural resources were identified anywhere on or adjacent to the 13 acre parcel. One historic resource, the Frandsen/Wilson Colony Home is located on the west edge of the parcel area but will remain undisturbed by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed West Front Village Project will not have an adverse impact on any known cultural resources. No archaeological monitoring is recommended. 2.00 INTRODUCTION On June 28 and 29, and August 13, 2004, at the request of Mr. Kris Vardas, Project Manager, PADRE ASSOCIATES, INC. 1012 Pacific Street, Suite A, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, an archival records search, historic background study and a phase one archaeological surface survey were conducted on about a 13 acre parcel located southwest of the corner of Portola Road and West Front Road, west of Highway 101, in the City of Atascadero in northern San Luis Obispo County, CA (see Maps 1 and 2). The purpose of the archaeological surface survey was to determine whether any archaeological/cultural resources were present on or adjacent to the 13 acre parcel and, if so, to map their extent based on surface examination and also, on a preliminary level, to determine the nature and significance of any resources discovered. Also, if necessary, recommendations will be made regarding the treatment of the cultural resources in the context of the proposed project. The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, establishment of a Planned Development Overlay Zone, a corresponding Master Plan of Development (CUP), and a vesting tentative tract map that would allow for a mixed-use commercial, office, and residential development of the 13 -acre site. The project site fronts both West Front Road and Portola Road and includes a 40 single-family residential subdivision, a 90 -unit maximum hotel, and 10,000 square feet of commercial retail and gas station/fast food restaurant building. The project includes on the western side, a future 5 -lot single-family residential subdivision with retention of an existing historic colony home with associated smaller buildings for a total of 45 residential units on the 13 acres. The site contains numerous native oak trees of which seven are proposed for removal. 2 This archaeological study is being requested by the City of Atascadero Planning department, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 which declares that the policy of the State of California is to: "... take all steps necessary to provide the people of this state with ... enjoyment of ... historic environmental qualities... " The CEQA definition of "environmental qualities" includes objects of historic, archaeological and aesthetic significance (Public Resources Code Section 21001)(Gammage, Jones and Jones 1975). In order to identify important cultural resources . in the city, certain projects in potentially sensitive areas are required to have archaeological surface surveys conducted as part of the permit application procedures. The Atascadero area is known to contain many archaeological sites including many historic original Colony homes. Based on 100 years of archaeological, ethnographical, and linguistic information, San Luis Obispo County at the time of the Spanish contact in A.D. 1769 was primarily occupied by the speakers of the Obispeno dialect of Chumash, the northernmost of the Chumashian speaking peoples of California (King 1984, Gibson 1990; Greenwood 1978). Pre -mission marriage patterns, linguistic and personal name analysis and post mission settlement patterns have also identified some Salinan, Yokuts and possibly Costanoan people living in the northern portions of San Luis Obispo County (Kroeber 1953, Gibson 1983). Archaeological evidence has revealed that the ancestors of the Chumash settled in San Luis Obispo County over 9,000 years ago (Gibson 1979, Greenwood 1972). During a recent State Water project, an archaeological site in the Edna area produced the earliest C-14 date in San Luis Obispo County, indicating occupation dating back about 10,000 years (Fitzgerald 1998) (see Graph 1 below) Following an annual cycle of hunting, fishing, fowling and harvesting, the Chumash peoples adapted to changing environmental and social conditions and grew into a large complex society that persists today. Aboriginal society underwent major changes soon after Spanish contact in A.D. 1769, primarily due to the introduction of epidemic European diseases and the consequent high mortality rate. Most of the Chumash from villages in the general area were baptized at San Luis Obispo Mission between 1772 and 1805 A.D. The nearest historic villages were Santa Margarita and probably Sososquiquia - near the Asuncion. A total of 26 people were baptized from this village between 1790 and 1804 A.D.. People from this village had many social ties with people from surrounding areas (see Figure 1). 3 M 25 M v 0 20 U 15 0 L 0 10 E Z 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo o Ln o m o Ln o un o ,n o in o in o un o vn '- r N N M M 'q, 'V' M In Q0 W 1� I� X CO 0') M Radiocarbon Years Before AD. 1950 Archaeological studies continue to contribute to our knowledge of past cultural patterns and add considerably to our store of information on ancient environments and climatic conditions. Archaeological sites are fragile time capsules and data generated by the systematic surface and subsurface testing of archaeological deposits contributes a significant element to the scientific history of California and to the history of San Luis Obispo County. Archaeological sites are also an integral part of the modern day Native American Chumash community. Their history is contained in the sites and they believe it is best left in its natural state. When unavoidable adverse impacts are proposed, most strongly support the best sensitive scientific study that will benefit their culture and the general community. 3.0 ARCHIVAL RECORDS SEARCH An archival records search for the 13 acres and about a 1/2 -mile buffer around it was made with the Central Coast Archaeological Information Center located at the University of California, Santa Barbara (see appendix 1). The Central Coast Information Center is the official repository and clearinghouse for all archaeological information on San Luis Obispo County. The archival search yielded information on: • Previously surveyed tracts within or near the project area • Intensity of previous survey efforts M • Previously recorded properties within or near the project area • Characteristics of previously recorded properties • Dates of previous survey and excavation programs, technical reports and authors. The records check reported that nine previous cultural resource surveys and one prehistoric site were within the search area. This search included the inventory for the State Historic Property Data Fines, Nation al Register of Historic Places, National Register of Determined Eligible Properties, California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historic interest, California Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility and the Caltrans State and Local Bridge Surveys, all of which yielded zero property evaluations within the half mile search radius. The nearest prehistoric archaeological site is CA-SLO-617 which was first recorded in 1971 by Charles Dills. It is about 1/2 miles west, southwest of the West Front Village Project. This site is a village and cemetery site occupied 1, 000 to 2,000 years ago and was trenched and damaged in 1971. The records search indicates no previous surveys have been done on or immediately adjacent to the 13 acre West Front Village property. No archaeological sites have been recorded on the project area. No archaeological sites will directly affected by the project. 4.00 RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURFACE SURVEY The irregularly rectangular shaped parcel is bounded on the north by Portola Road and on the east by West Front Road (see map 2). The El Camino Building Supply and a health club border the southern edge and a complex of building related to the Frandsen/Wilson Colony homestead is located in the center of the western area (see photos 1 and 2). The terrain is a rolling topography with several large swales draining to the east (towards the Salinas River). One large central drainage swale has been modified to channel runoff towards Highway 101. The entire surface of the 13 -acre parcel consists of mowed weeds, grasses and several large Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia), with some ornamental trees (olive, pepper and fruit trees). Soil varied from a light to dark gray color. Several trails were very compacted and revealed a white sand substratum. Only a few small chunks of weathered sandstone were noticed on the property. Also several large piles of recent debris (furniture, metal objects), concrete, and asphalt are located along West Front Street. Areas near the largest drainage swale contain occasional fragment of glass and one fragment of Pismo clam (Tivela stultori ni). S Overall surface visibility was good to moderate with abundant rodent activity, trails, and recreation vehicle paths removing vegetation from the surface of the parcel. The archaeological surface survey consisted of one archaeologist zig-zagging back and forth in meandering transects spaced at 10 to 30 meters, examining the surface for signs of prehistoric cultural materials (including seashell fragments, stone tools and fragments, stone flakes, bone, burnt rock, etc.) or significant historic cultural materials (including foundations, trash pits, square nails, purple glass, etc.). No evidence of any intact or displaced prehistoric or historic cultural resources was observed within or adjacent to the 13 acre parcel. No natural lithic resources (such as those used for stone tools), rock outcrops (used for mortars or carving) or concentrations of plant resources or springs of water were observed on or adjacent to the parcel. The parcel appears to be a fully exposed landform with no special geographical setting (like a knoll or terrace adjacent to creeks, etc). One large historic complex of structures was identfied on the western portion of the survey area (see Map 3). It was initially identified by the City of Atascadero as one of the original Colony homes and a historic background study was made to identify its nature and significace. 5.0 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND STUDY To support the cultural resources inventory and address specific concerns of the City of Atascadero for the identification and protection of the Frandsen/Wilson Colony home, a historical background study was preformed by Betsy Bertrando of Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants (see Appendix 2). Archival sources consulted included historical literature, maps, directories, newspapers, unpublished manuscripts and photographs. Built in the 1920's and 1930's by Frank Frandsen, the main house is a wooden two-story structure amidst several large Coast Live oaks trees and ornamental rock landscaping. A smaller one-story adobe, smaller out building and sheds surround the main house. Although it is one of the 80 year old original 300 Colony homes, it is largely intact with few modern alternations and the cluster of structures and trees retains a good setting of the organization, views and tranquility of the Frandsen and Wilson households. It should be regarded as an important part of the early history of Atascadero and should be protected from any adverse impacts from the current or future projects. A preliminary historic site record was submitted to the Central Coast Archaeological Information Center located at the University of California, Santa Barbara (see Appendix 3). 6 The Central Coast Information Center is the official repository and clearinghouse for all archaeological information in San Luis Obispo County. It was be assigned a permanent State trinomial which can be referred to by any future development projects. 6.00 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on an archival records search, a historic background study and a phase one archaeological surface survey conducted for a 13 acre parcel located southwest of the intersection of Portola Road and West Front Road in the City of Atascadero in northern San Luis Obispo County, no prehistoric cultural materials were identified. One historic site, the Frandsen/Wilson Colony complex was identified in the western portion of the survey area. The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, establishment of a Planned Development Overlay Zone, a corresponding Master Plan of Development (CUP), and a vesting tentative tract map that would The eastern 10 acres area of the project site fronts both West Front Road and Portola Road and includes a 40 single-family residential subdivision, a 90 -unit maximum hotel, and 10,000 square feet of commercial retail and gas station/fast food restaurant building. No historic and no prehistoric cultural resources were identified on thesel0 acres. No adverse impacts to any significant cultural resources are expected on these 10 acres from the proposed project. The project area also includes a future 5 -lot single-family residential subdivision that would consist of four proposed half acre new single family residential lots and the retention of the one acre existing historic Frandsen/Wilson Colony home with associated out buildings at the rear of the site. With the protection of the one acre lot and its structures and trees, no direct adverse impacts would occur from the other four lots and subsequent construction of four single family residences, driveways and utilities. No archaeological monitoring is recommended during construction on the 13 acres unless undiscovered cultural materials are accidentally unearthed. If during construction excavation any buried or isolated cultural materials or concentration of unidentified rocks are unearthed, work in that area should halt until they can be examined by a qualified archaeologist and appropriate recommendations made as outlined in California Environmental Equality Act of 1970. In such an event contact the City of Atascadero Planning Department, Atascadero, CA. 7 7.0 REFERENCES Bertrando, Betsy 2004 Historic Background Report for the Frandsen/Wilson Colony Home, 8780 Portola Road, Atascadero, CA. Report prepared for Gibson's Archaeological Consulting, Paso Robles, CA. Breschini, Gary, S. Trudy Haversat, and R. Paul Hampson 1983 A Cultural Resources Overview of the Coast and Coast -Valley Study Areas. Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management. On file with Archaeological Consulting, Salinas, CA. Breschini, Gary, S. , Trudy Haversat, and Jon Erlandson 1986 California Radiocarbon Dates. Fourth Edition. On file with Coyote Press, Salinas, CA Fitzgerald, Richard T. 1998 Archaeological Date Recovery at CA-SLO-1797, The Cross Creek Site, San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Branch Phase II Project. Prepared for the California Department of Water Resources, California State Water Project, Coastal Branch, Phase 11. Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, CA. Gammage, Grady, Philip N. Jones and Stephen Jones 1975 Historic Preservation in California: A Legal Handbook. Stanford Environmental Law Society: Stanford, CA. Gibson, Robert O. 1979 Preliminary Inventory and Assessment of Indian Cultural Resources at Lodge Hill, Cambria, CA. Manuscript on file with SLO County Engineering Department, CA 1983 Ethnogeography of the Salinan People: A Systems Approach. Masters Thesis on file with California State University at Hayward, CA. 1994 Results of Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey for Three Alternate Routes for Rocky Canyon Quarry Trucks, Near Atascadero, CA. Prepared for The Morro Group and on file with the Information Center, University of California at Santa Barbara, CA. July 5. Gibson, R. O. John Atwood and Clay Singer 1991 "Archaeological Testing at CA-SLO-993 in the City of Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, California [TPM PR89-005]". Report prepared for Woodland Plaza Associates, Pasadena. Greenwood, Roberta S. 1972 9,000 Years of Prehistory at Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County, CA. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No. 7. 1978 Obispeno and Purisimeno Chumash, in Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California Smithsonian Institution: Washington, D. C. Heizer, Robert F. (volume editor) 1978 Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8 - California. Smithsonian Institution, Washington Kroeber, A. L. 1953 Handbook of the Indians of California. California Book Co., Ltd., Berkeley. Munz, Phillip A. 1965 A California Flora. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Wollesen, Olive 1972 The Aboriginal Salinan Indians. Privately printed by Olive Wollesen Lockwood, California. Library of Congress Number A 370774. Mag 1. Project Location of the West Front Village Project, Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, CA 'k8 GN 1445' 258 MILS 23 MILS !RID AND IM MAGNETIC NORTH LwAT70N AT CENTER OF SHEET ATASCADERO QUADRANGLE CALIFORNIA—SAN LUIS OBISPO CO. 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) L_ . ewa� bid Osal -�_ e lA� SCALE 1:24 000 j D 3 RILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET I .5 0 1 1ULDHETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET SUPPLEMENTARY CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 Map 2. Survey Area Location of the Five Acre Wilson Property Atasacadero, CA 0 N ROAD POI, TOJ—A !7y H I I � I -• D� 1 v i I•• to � I I» N O I I I z5•M 5a OI i 1 I O,O 2°S 07 _ 100 100_ C D < Z F y 0 o A CO m m -TI 4*010 D R •• 1 t D M J � � �A A w •• z O 443.05 N 56 50 47C 8 O DD 11 m {D C w b Frandsen / Wilson Colony Home Complex �N ti D � A OZ r A m �o -c W %"'s,-'�Ls�.���' ?,�:�♦1 ty�t4?ty��Y�"�Ci�yiac_t�lrlt.�.i! �'a.a Figure 1. Chumash and Salinan Villages Northern San Luis Obispo County at A.D. 1772, San Luis Obispo County, CA (From Gibson 1983). ■ MOxJUELET _ • L'• r; Er � 0 TSETAC L••. -WpACHAC&'1Jf Q • CHOLAAM '• rte" M I S S i alit ,� ' ZAY 0 CAZZ SAN MIGUEL ♦ ttXJA ♦ ■TiSSIMASSU 0 LAS GALLINAS ♦ ♦TLAGUES ♦ ♦ General Location of STAJAH UAYO Suggested ® LHUEGUE Prehistoric Boundary Project IPU r SOSOSQUIQUTA ® SETJALA ■ CHMONIMO•. CHMIMU CHETPU CHOTNEGLE CHOTCAGUA . \ ■ 7 EZ AS� AN LUIS ODISPQ' MISSION C HAN O TSQUIEU ® SEPJATO N CHOJUALE Names of Chumash Villages ■PISM• CHMOLI Based on Spanish Mission ■ CH I LiQ U I N 1 Books AD. 1772-1800 (From Gibson 1983) 1STUE M E{: SNTt M N- 300 Baptisms ■ - 100 Baptisms ® - 50 Baptisms - 10 Baptisms 0 5 10 Miles Photo 1. Looking East at Frandsen/Wilson Colony Home, 8780 Portola Road, Atascadero, CA Photo 2. Looking North at Frandsen/Wilson Colony Home, 8780 Portola Road, Atascadero, CA Photo 3. Southeastern Portion of West Front Village Project, Looking Southeast, Atascadero, CA Photo 4. Northeastern Portion of West. Front Village Project, Looking Northeast, Atascadero, CA APPENDIX I ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD SEARCH OBTAINED FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA BARBARA ARCHAEOLOGICAL INFORMATION CENTER California Archaeological Inventory 6/22/2004 Robert Gibson Gibson's Archaeological Consulting P.O. Box 102 Paso Robles, CA 93447 Dear Mr_ Gibson, Department of Anthropology University of California, Santa Barbara SAN LUIS OBISPO AND Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3210 SANTA BARBARA COUNTIES (805) 893-2474 Enclosed are the results of the record search you requested for the Portola Road Project. Our records were searched for all known archaeological sites, historic resources, and previous cultural resource surveys within a radius of the project area. In this search, one archaeological site(s) and nine previous cultural resource survey(s) were found. The survey locations were mapped in colored pencil onto portions of the Atascadero quad(s). A bibliography of these surveys is included. A search of the inventories for the State Historic Property Data Files, National Register of Historic Places, National Register of Determined Eligible Properties, California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historic Interest, California OHP Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the Caltrans State and Local Bridge Surveys yielded zero property evaluation(s) within the search radius. According to our records, the project area has not been surveyed. Therefore a cultural resource survey is recommended. Please contact me if you have any questions about this search. Sincerely, �G Melsa Chatfield Assis ant Coordinat E Number 50 Date 1976 Author Hoover, R. Title Archaeological Evaluation of Chalk Mountain Regional Park, Atascadero Quad Atascadero Site Negative Area None given Units ReportType Comments E Number 623 Date 1985 Author Sawyer, W. Title Archaeological Subsurface Test Report, Atascadero Christan Home, Inc., 8455 Santa Rosa Road, Atascadero, CA Quad Atascadero Site SLO-617 Area Units ReportType Comments E Number 1517 Date 1985 Author Sawyer, W. Title Archaeological subsurface test report, Atascadero Christian Home, Inc., 8455 Santa Rosa Road, Atascadero, CA Quad Atascadero Site SLO-617 Area Units ReportType Comments E Number 1877 Date 1988 Author Gibson, R. Title Results of phase one archaeological surface survey for the Santa Rosa Center Quad Atascadero Site Negative Area Units ReportType Comments E Number 2011 Date 1987 Author Gibson, R. Title Results of Archaeological Surface Survey for the Gouff Parcel Atascadero, CA Quad Atascadero Site Negative Area Units ReportType Comments E Number 2575 Date 1985 Author Cagle, C. Title Cultural Resource Survey of United States Postal Faciltiy Site 3, Atascadero, California. I i Quad Atascadero Site Negative Area 22258.5 sq Units ReportType Comments E Number 3561 Date 1998 Author McLean, Deborah Title Archaeological Assessment for Pacific Bell Mobile Services Telecommunications Facility LA 526-14, on Chalk Mountain at the West End of Vista Bonita Avenue, City of Atascadero, County of San Luis Obispo, California Quad Atascadero Site negative Area 315 Units square feet ReportType Comments pp. 7 E Number 3587 Date 1999 Author Singer, Clay A. Title Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for a 3.5 Acre Property on EI Centro Road in the City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County, California Quad Atascadero Site negative Area 3.5 acres Units ReportType Comments pp. 5 E Number 4655 Date 2002 Author Parker and Associates Title Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed AT&T/Bechtel Wireless Site #12018 Quad Atascadero Site negative Area 5600 sq ft Units ReportType Comments 7 pp Atascadero 7.5" USGS quad - 06/22/04 712000m E, NAD27 Zone JOS 7 130oom E, 712000-E, NAD27 Zone JOS 713000-E, TN MN 0 .5 t MILE 000 FEET 0 1090 METERS Printed f}omTOPOI ®2001 Nation Geographic Holdings (www.lopa.com) Atascadero 7,5" USGS qua -06/22/04 712000mE. NAD27 Zone 10S 13000-E, Z �0•� i I: W$CpdeCo ! ! S�uui Ftgas Z C P 71 712000-E. RAD 27 Zone JOS 713000-E• Tlgt/ dlN 0 S I MILE Im }EE1 Q�—r—G7--,_ 1000 METERS �I Printed from TOPOI -2001 Natiorol Geoophk Holding (www.topo.eom) APPENDIX 2 Historic Background Report for the Frandsen / Wilson Colony Home, Atascadero, CA Prepared by Betsy Bertrando Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants San Luis Obispo, CA August 2004 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND FRANDSENIWILSON COLONY HOME 8780 PORTOLA ROAD, ATASCADERO, CA August 2004 INTRODUCTION Research for a property located at 8780 Portola Road, Atascadero was requested by Robert O. Gibson, archaeologist in August 2004. The work was conducted by Betsy Bertrando, researcher for Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants. METHODS Archival Research Background for the property at 8780 Portola Road (Block 10 Lot 10) was gathered by a search of the historical literature, maps, directories, newspapers, unpublished manuscripts and photographs as well as interviews were conducted at the following locations. Research Locations and Materials Agency Location Date Materials Reviewed Atascadero Historical Colony House Aug 18, 2004 Files for 8780 Portola Rd. Society Fast Mall SLO County Clerk- 1144 Monterey St. Aug 16, 2004 Colony Tract Maps Recorder San Luis Obispo SLO County Library 995 Palm St. Aug 23,2004 Atascadero Sanborn Maps Bertrando & Bertrando n/a Throughout All material including texts, maps Research Consultants August, 2004 and photographs not listed above (private) that are in the bibliography of this report. Interviewed Marjorie phone Aug 18, 2004 Colony background and Mackey, Atascadero personalities historian Interviewed Bobby phone Aug 17, 2004 Family history Wilson, current owner on-site Aug 19, 2004 Property description Frandsen/Wilson Colony Home, Atascadero, CA -1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Mexican Land Grants The City of Atascadero today includes all or parts of three Mexican Land Grants. The smallest was the 4,348.23 acre Atascadero Rancho (in Spanish, a bog or miry place) that was granted in 1845 to Trifon Garcia and patented to Henry Haight in 1860 (Hall -Patton 1994) (Robinson 1957). This rancho formed the core of the Atascadero Colony and later the City of Atascadero. Two other, much larger, ranchos contributed sections of land that eventually became a part of Atascadero as well; 1) Asunci6n - 39,224.81 acres granted in 1845 and patented in 1866 to Pedro Estrada, and 2) Santa Margarita - 17,734.94 acres granted in 1841 and patented in 1861 to Joaquin Estrada (Perez 1996). All or parts of the three ranchos were acquired by Martin Murphy in the early 1860s (Nicholson 1993). Pre-Atascadero Colony Development J. H. Henry Ranch During the 1860s, the large ranchos were beginning to be sold off into smaller portions and the original boundaries no longer were in effect. One of these parcels became known as the Atascadero Colony, the original name for the City of Atascadero. For thirty years, J. H. Henry was the owner of the 23,000 acre Henry Ranch that was formed primarily from the Atascadero Rancho and parts of the Asuncion Rancho at the time. It was called Rancho del Encinal (Rivers 2000). The ranch was a cattle operation with the ranch house built circa 1893 (Lewis n.d. - Vol 1, Travis 1960). The J. H. Henry family lived in San Jose and did not live on the ranch (Mackey pers. comm.). Later J. H. Henry built a grand house in 1912 that was sold to E. G. Lewis and served as headquarters for the developer of the Atascadero Colony (Travis 1960). Camp Atascadero I.n the early 1900s, the ranch was a part of the site used for the encampment of the California State Militia (Stanley 1976, Hall -Patton 1994). The maneuvers, held during the hot summer with troops dressed in the wool uniforms of the time, were one of the reasons that the California National Guard decided to locate in a more temperate climate. In the 1920s, the Guard acquired land in the Chorro Valley that became Camp San Luis Obispo. Approximately 20,000 acres of Rancho del Encinal, the area around and south of Atascadero Creek, was offered to the government for $500,000 for a training site. The maneuvers, under the direction of General Arthur MacArthur (father of General Douglas MacArthur of World War II fame), were described as follows: "When the division was ready to attack, Gena MacArthur stepped into his automobile and was taken to the firing line in thirly minutes. " "The temperature on this day stood at 110 degrees for three hours, and more than 200 men fell out of'1he ranks on account of exhaustion. The maneuver Frandsen/VVilson Colony Home, Atascadero, CA -2 the men learned nothing and were so worn out that they had to rest all the next day. " (Sawyer ii.d., pgs 334,335) The Ataseadero Colony E. G. Lewis Described as both a "visionary" and "promoter" Edward Gardner Lewis had previously tested his ideas for a utopian society in his development of University City, near St. Louis, Missouri. He also wrote many articles about his "dream city" that had national distribution. Traveling the country looking for an appropriate location to put his utopian ideas to work, he settled on a ranch that was selected for its location on the railroad line and highway, topography, access to the coast, climate and rainfall (Lewis 1974). In 1913, Edward Gardner Lewis purchased the 23,000 acre Jason H_ Henry Ranch for approximately $850,000 (Ohles 1997). The ranch house became known as Headquarters House and the home of E. G. Lewis until his death in 1950 (Lewis n.d. - Vol 1). Over the years it became a showcase for guests to the community. A concept that was considerably before its time was the idea of completing the infrastructure prior to construction of the homes, community buildings and businesses. Writing of a community that would offer the best of country and city life, he created a national promotional campaign that spoke of orchards, parks and public buildings. People came from all over the country to live in a temporary tent community while the infrastructure and amenities were being designed and constructed. For the rest of 1913 planning and survey work was completed by experts in their respective fields. One thousand men went to work in early 1914 at four different locations within the newly formed Colony. The first complex to be built was a construction complex. Soon after the subdivision of forty square miles was completed with twenty five percent of the area going to parks and public spaces. After two years of preparation, the first houses were allowed to proceed in 1915. Colony Construction Beginning in 1914, it took four years to construct the Atascadero Administration Building. Other important civic buildings and enterprises built to support the Colony were a printing plant ("The Printery"), shopping center, industrial center, hospital, schools, community center, lumber mill, brick plant, agricultural station, golf courses and a beach development on the north side of Morro Bay. The public buildings were of brick construction with columns and arches being common themes. By the mid 1917s, the Colony consisted of about 300 homes (considered the amount in the original Colony) and 1500 people (Lewis 1974). The predominately craftsman style homes were constructed with a variety of design elements to fit the price range of the builder. Colony Changes In 1924, Lewis declared bankruptcy when the Lewis Enterprises development plans were seriously over extended. Following World War I, the bankruptcy was partially caused by the .Frandsen/Wilson Colony Home, Atascadero, CA -3 cancellation of government contracts for produce. The Great Depression of the 1930s further eroded the assets of the Colony (Mackey n.d. - Vol 1). Running into problems with a persistent United States Post Office, Lewis spent two times away from the Colony in prison for using the mails to defraud. After his final release, Lewis spent the rest of his life in Atascadero and died there in 1950. Several Colony civic buildings were bought by other agencies. From 1926 until 1950, a succession of private schools inhabited the Administration, The Printery, and Hospital buildings beginning with the exclusive Moran School for Boys who also had a polo field at the location of the present Lewis Avenue School play ground (Mackey et al, n.d. - Vol 3). After the Moran School closed its Atascadero location and sold the buildings, other schools came in to replace it; Miramonte, Amerivet and lastly, the Acheson Polytechnic Academy. The latter two schools were run by Lieut. Col. B. M, Aldrich. After his death in 1950, the Masonic Lodge purchased The Printery (Adams and Mackey n.d. Vol 1) and the Administration Building was purchased by the County of San Luis Obispo. The Atascadero Administration Building is State Landmark 4958 and listed on the National Register of Historic Places (Mackey et al n.d. - Vol 3). Unfortunately, the earthquake of December 2003 closed the Administration Building that was being used as the Atascadero City Hall. THE FRANDSENIWILSON COLONY HOME Property and Structure Description The Frandsen/Wilson home is situated on small acreage and rests on a slight knoll west of Highway 101 and south of Portola Road. Clustered around the house and outbuilding are mature trees, several of which are oaks, and shrubs that define the patio areas. The outlying surroundings are bare grassland for the most part. The original structures consists of the house, large garage/workshop, large shed, small one bedroom adobe house and the foundations of a greenhouse. The Wilson additions include an aviary, two carports, and a former inclosed stable with a car port on either side. Two patio areas have been surfaced as well. House Changes that were made to the residence, prior to the 1968 purchase by the Wilsons, were the enclosing of a front porch that changed the entryway from the north side to the east side of the house. The original redwood shiplap sheathing was covered by asbestos shingles. The asbestos shingles were marketed as an economical choice for fireproofing Original Entrance Shown at Left Frandsen/Wilson Colony Home, Atascadero, CA -4 houses in the early 1920s (Carley 1997). The current owner Bobby Wilson stated that at one time there had been a fire in the large garage/workshop. Perhaps that was the impetus for the addition of the asbestos shingles. The exterior of the craftsman bungalow has decorative wood lentels that. extend slightly beyond the width of the sash windows. The main east/west gable is broken by an extension that continues above the area of the original porch as a second story. On both sides th Current Entrance on the East Side e second story shed dormer is framed by the sloping pitched roof. The gable roof has an additional decreased height and width gable at the west end. The original front of the house is most interesting with its two set backs and two roof styles that are in keeping with the craftsman bungalow tradition. Currently, the original cedar shake roof is being reroofed. The interior of the four bedroom two story house features excellent examples of the arts and crafts movement that was promoted by the Colony and popular during the 1920s. The pocket door and paneled dining room reflect that movement. Craftsmen detailing is evident in the front door and bannister. There is a built-in ice box in the service porch. Adobe The one bedroom adobe house is reported to have been built by Frank Frandsen in the 1930s (Wilson pers. comm.). There is a small addition to the south side of the adobe that is not adobe construction. The door and windows have a pleasant "southwest" look with stepped imprinted concrete blocks radiating from an arch and continuing down each side and sill of the windows. Other Original Structures Frandsen Adobe - c.1930s There is a large flat roof garage/workshop that originally was shiplap but is now covered with aluminum siding. This was the building that Bobby Wilson said had at one time suffered burn damage from a fire. Wilson is currently active in restoring the building and it is being used as a workshop. A small drawing board that belonged to Frank Frandsen occupies a comer in one Frandsentivilson Colony Home, Atascadero, CA -S of the rooms. The rear of the building contained a hen house that was enclosed and incorporated into the garage/workshop in 2003. West of the garage/workshop is an inclosed shed that also has aluminum siding. In the rear between the workshop and shed are the remains of concrete foundations that were placed by Frank Frandsen to support a green house. Later Additions The Wilson's added an aviary adjacent to the north side of the adobe. On the opposite side of the walk-in aviary they added a carport that is open on all sides. Across the driveway to the north of the aviary an open carport has been added. Behind the adobe is a structure where Bobby kept a horse. Carports are added on the north and south sides and the center enclosed unit no longer serves as a horse barn. To the north of the carport is an open carport that has lattice on three sides with corrugated roofing where Wayne Wilson kept an old car on display. There are two patio areas on the property. One is on the east side of the house. It formerly contained an above ground pool that was used by the Wilson sons while growing up. The main patio area was put in by Bobby Wilson in the former front of the house at the end of the long driveway from Portola Road_ It is comfortably shaded, tile terraced and semi inclosed with a low fence. Owner History Frandsen The Frandsens are mentioned in the Atascadero News under Personals for the first time in 1921. "Mrs. Frank Frandsen, with her little son and her mother, Mrs. Stevens, have arrived from Seattle and are occupying one of the Mills Apartments. The Frandsens own property in Atascadero and plan to spend a summer here before deciding whether or not they will build. " (Atascadero News June 10, 192 1) A second mention is made under Personals in October of the same year. "Little Eldon Frandsen, the only son of Mrs. Frank Frandsen of Atascadero Avenue, has been very ill but is now able to run about again. " (Atascadero News October 14, 192 1) Sadly, little Eldon died in his early years according to the Obituary for Maybell Frandsen. In November 4, 1921, Frank Frandsen has his first mention in the Atascadero News Personal Frandsen/Wilson Colony Home, Atascadero, CA -6 column that he is "contemplating building a bungalow". The official notice of which appears soon ager. "Mr. and Mrs. Frank 11'randsen, with their mother Mrs. Grace Stevens, and their little son, Eldon, have removed from the apartment at Dr. J. E. Lttlefield's to the first unit of the new home they are building on Portola Road. " (Atascadero News December 9, 192 1) Frank Frandsen is listed in the Atascadero City Directories as an electrical engineer in 1938 and in 1950 as a teacher at the Acheson Polytechnic Academy, the last school to be run in the Colony Administration Building by Lieut. Col B. M. Aldrich before he died in the early 1950s. Frank had other interests as well. He was an artist who has some of his work in the collection of the Atascadero Historical Society and one piece remaining on the property. He built the small one bedroom adobe that has pressed design detailing in the concrete blocks surrounding the windows and doonvay_ He was also interested in plants, building a greenhouse that trapped and recycled the water to reuse in the greenhouse. The current owner has found seed packets some dated in the mid 1930s. Along with two varieties of edible soy beans, onions and parsley were found unusual vegetables seeds such as Red Tampala and Celtuce (Bobby Wilson pers. comm.). Frank, in his later years, became an invalid causing the addition of an elevator to the second floor to be built within the house. It was removed when the property was sold. The Atascadero Historical Society has several photographs of MaybelI Frandsen spanning the years since her birth in December of 1891 until her death in 1967. No photographs were found of little. Eldon, Frank or the residenceon Portola Road. MaybelI was active in the community since the early 1920s with many interests. She retired in Maybell Frandsen 1958 after many years serving as the Atascadero Branch Librarian. Maybe]] was a founder and lifetime member of the Atascadero Art Club, active in the Womens Christian Temperance Union, her church and the Atascadero Historical Society. Bobby Wilson Wilson Wayne and Bobby Wilson purchased the property in 1968 after the Frandsens had sold off three lots fronting Portola Road from the original parcel. The Wilsons raised three sons now living in Spokane, Redding and Old Orcutt on the approximately 4.25 acre parcel. Both Wayne and Bobby are natives of the county. Wayne Wilson's family was from San Luis Obispo where they ran the Wilson's Grocery on Broad Street. The former Bobby Mill's grew up in Arroyo Grande where her father was a carpenter. She must have inherited his interest as she was employed by Pacific Home Improvement Center until she retired. Wayne retired from Frandsen/Wilson Colony Home, Atascadero, CA -7 many years as a correctional officer at the Mens Colony. Now widowed, Bobby has an interest in her C13 communication with the truckers heading along the stretch of Highway 101 in front of her house that has a clear view of the highway. Skilled in construction, she is also restoring the large former garage/workshop building on the property. REFERENCES Bibliography Adams, Mazie and Marjorie Mackey n. d. Historical Background of the Atascadero Area. In Recalling Atascadero, California Vol 2. Produced by the Atascadero Historical Society. Carley, Rachel 1997 The Visual Dictionary ofAmerican Domestic Architecture, An Owl Book, Henry Holt and Company, New York. Hall -Patton, Mark P. 1994 Memories of the Land. EZ Nature Books, San Luis Obispo, CA. Lewis, W. H. n. d. Headquarters House in Recalling Atascadero, California, Volume No. 1. Produced by the Atascadero Historical Society, CA. Lewis, William H. 1974 Atascadero Colony Days. Published by the Atascadero Historical Society, CA. Mackey, Marjorie and Mazie Adams, Lura Rawson and Jo Bissell n.d. State Historical Landmark # 958. In Recalling Atascadero Vol 3, produced by the Atascadero Historical Society. Nicholson, Loren 1993 Rails Across the Ranchos. California Heritage Publishing Associates, San Luis Obispo, CA. Ohles, Wallace V. 1997 The bands of Mission San Miguel. Word Dancer Press, Fresno, CA. Perez, Chrisostomo 1996 Land Grants in Alta California. Landmark Enterprises, Rancho Cordova, CA. Frandsen/Wilson Colony Home, Ataseadero, CA -8 Rivers, Betty 2000 A Line Through the Past. California State Water Project, Coastal Branch Series Paper Number 1, published by the San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society. Robinson, W.W. 1957 The Story of San Luis Obispo County. Produced by Title Insurance and Trust Company, Los Angeles, CA. Sawyer, Jr., E. O. n. d. Camp Atascadero. In Out West, publication on file at the Carnegie Museum Archive, San Luis Obispo, CA. Stanley, Dr. Leo L. 1976 San Miguel at the Turn of the Century. Valley Publishers, Fresno, CA. Travis, Marguerite A. 1960 The Birth ofAlascadero. Published by the Atascadero Historical Society, CA: Maps 1914 Colony Holding Corporation Boundary Map. Surveyed by Ralph Robson 1926 Atascadero - Sanborn Fire Insurance Map - no coverage 1931 Atascadero - Sanborn Fire Insurance Map - no coverage 1980 City of Atascadero Assessment Map Reviewed 1938 San Luis Obispo County Directory 1950 San Luis Obispo County Directory 1960 San Luis Obispo County Directory January 23, 1920 through December 30, 1921 - Atascadero News Interviews Marjorie Mackey, Atascadero historian - August 18, 2004 - phone Bobby Wilson, current owner - August 17, 2004 - phone, August 19, 2004 - on site Frandsen/Wilson Colony Home, Atascadero, CA -9 APPENDIX 3 Primary Archaeological Site Record for the Frandsen / Wilson Colony Home, Atascadero, CA Submitted to Information Center at University of California at Santa Barbara, CA August 2004 State of California—The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Paae Other Listings Review Code 'Resnurra Nama nr #- Primary # MRI # Trinomial NRNP Status Cod Reviewer Hlslnrir. Franrfcan M/ilann (.nlnnu W—A Pi. Other Identifier: 'P2. Location: ❑ Not for Publication ❑ Unrestricted 'a. County San Luis Obispo and (P2b and Plc or Ptd. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) Date 'b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Atascadero„ Calif. Date: 1965; T 28S LR 12EL_ _ of — _ of Sec_; MDM B.M. c. Address 8780 Portola Road. City: Atascadero Zip: 93423 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone 10; 711,900 m E/ 3,927,125 m N e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)) just southwest of Portola Road and West Front Road, SW part of Atascadero, west of Highway 101, On USGS Map, site is 158 mm South and 365 mm East from NW corner. 'P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, afteratlons, size, setting, and boundaries) A 1920's and 1930's construction of one of the early original Colony Homes in Atascadero, built by Frank Frandsen. Contains main two story home, adobe cottage, various sheds and barns and large Coast Live Oaks. "P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 2 mt of District ❑Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #) looking east at main house at Frandsen/wilson home. 'P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: ❑Historic ❑Prehistoric ❑Both 'P7. Owner and Address: Bobby Wilson, 8780 Portola Road, Atascadero, CA 'P8. Recorded by: Robert O. Gibson, Gibson's Archaeological Consulting, P. O. Bux 102, Paso Rubles, CA 93,447 "P9. Date Recorded: 6-21-2004_ 'P10. Survey Type: Phase One Surface Survey and Historic Background Study by Betsy Bertrando, SLO, CA *P11. Report Citation: Results of Archival Records Search, Hislurical Background Study and Phase One Surface Survey for the West Front Village Project, Portola Road and West Front Road, Atascadero, CA `Attachments: NONE ❑Location Map ❑Sketch Map ❑Continuation Sheet ❑Building, Structure, and Object Record ❑Archaeological Record ❑District Record ❑Linear Feature Record ❑Milling Station Record ❑Rock Art Record ❑Artifact Record ❑Photograph Record ❑ Other (List) D P R 523A(1195) 'Required Information State of California—The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial Page Z of -L--Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Frandsen/Wilson Colony Home Y 71l ATASCADERO QUADRANGLE 01` CALIFORNIA -SAN LUIS OBISPO CO. 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) Loi 1 210000 FEET 1 1713 * CN£sroro ro nu. 1714 1715 120.37'30" 35`30' bt "sc i e , vino tvl ' II`D;;-Izw ,1, _ � , 'r �hj�ii '1'_,.� �'� � F � •t� y . t iii`.= 3930 I t:r=� a7�3� the/- `,�<1 • •'�fStoregeYl ` .,/.____' --`/-- µ�, +�,,�`` -l+ it`. �`v1 ��,.� Jf�� i ,111: � r•`1,• :Q�..., `\-�,\C'9':�'' �/ 1� ,t. i 71. cl —7. ". wagB.D gosal r!•�, ': . .. to ••• �w � • �•. _.' •-� ^�. � 1, .y` N .'� `.% — I f_; << ::_'`=.7 - �'` \ ' I,\ 730 000 1 •,•ni \ . '� __ .•.� `'� \ .a/ 1P j ��,.. ,: �. FEET i•Qi - :: 413M 904 %«� _i..'\' `\\ ��-J ,.fit-6E=,�=Jc�� ��� ::-���• �t.•. ="9 GQR'A J%v� f �'°. ?) / Vi` 663 • � . \'y ; • .\ ..V; .880.—/' _ / 1:� �a / �O'o' , • t `. ►� �,���/fJ ' �-°I ' ,< (e 'agc.C)Ispos�. 'jl�, p a Well'.. �� .....• I Chalk Mountain `on ��o�aJ�-n ti� 01 n•;::. 4`: 1--001(Course :� - 'San �•.. 97E:%�'� ,r ��A00 �� ` :HeiRegi a] � 910 •'1 ''' •h•, , �._,c _VE�� \ �� ! )�� � , X\� �, �° �. 11 _ �'� 1 ,y05��:\'A�,iHCSOER ; X27 \ �+1 �`T 0 PIT AL \� rl \ i 2 (jl\� • .�% 965 1` 8M 879 SCALE 1:24 000 2 0 1 MILE 1000 0 7000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 27'30„ 1 1 5 0 1 KILOMETER slap Name: Atascadero. Calif USGS T000araohic 7.5" *Scale: 1 : 24.000 *Date of Man: 1965 DPR 523J (1195) •Required Information r"a t!C` 1 r�r.9sn �� '4•,jiGii��"�1F .w t r % wa ii ��+.`'S :J�i 4,— : �y.F Ort ' 1:.ti'i i'? r�"Fd� a f r• .. y 76 ` +�� r�� Cr � ,• ' .;:i it ' ' � '�;' � +'44�': ---SERVING THE TRI -COUNTY AREA SINCE 1973 --- ROBERT O. GIBSON, Principal Archaeologist P.O. Box 102 Paso Robles, CA 93447-0102 Telephone : (805) 238-5411 FAX : (805) 238-7029 E-mail : rogjog@tcsn.net EDUCATION: MA - California State University at Hayward in Anthropology - June of 1983 BA - University of California at Los Angeles in Anthropology - June of 1972 AA - Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo County in Social Science - June of 1968 California State Community College Teaching Credential - June of 1984 Certificate HAZ MAT Compliance 40 Hours - March of 1999, Current Most of the archaeological fieldwork has been done in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles and Monterey Counties. Some fieldwork has also been done on the Channel Islands, Mojave Desert, High Sierras and in Trinity and Santa Clara Counties. Since June of 1973, Mr. Gibson has been employed by Federal, State, County and City Agencies and private firms and developers and has completed hundreds of environmental impact studies, including both surface and subsurface investigations and many archaeological mitigation projects. He has been employed as a Principal Investigator by the United States Air Force, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Forest Service, CALTRANS, Department of Parks and Recreation and other governmental agencies. Since 1993 he has worked on a number of Unocal and Tosco Remediation Projects in San Luis Obispo County. As the project archaeologist, he has developed cultural resource monitoring programs, assisted in developing budgets, hiring of personnel, coordination with contractors, permit agencies and Native American Organizations. He conducted field monitoring, collaborated with other principal investigators in developing research designs, sampling strategies, and monitoring techniques tailored to protecting historic and prehistoric cultural resources in the context of large scale remediation projects. He has HAZMAT 40 hour compliance and D►SA certification. Mr. Gibson has been employed as a research consultant by other archaeologists relating to research on dating and interpretation of beads and ornaments and analysis of ethnohistoric data. An expert in both pre -industrial technology and' primitive economics, he has published specialized articles on prehistoric and historic beads and ornaments, stone tools and written numerous archaeological technical reports. He has taught at several community colleges and lectured on anthropology and archaeology at many schools and civic organizations throughout the Tri -Counties area. He is regarded as an expert in Chumash archaeology and has worked on Chumash sites from all time periods, Early, Middle, Late and Historic or Mission periods and has published a number of articles and a book on the archaeology and culture of the Chumash. He has also worked with many Chumash organizations throughout the Tri -Counties area for over 2S years and is in good standing with these groups. 5 APPENDIX E Transmittal of Case Closure Letter and Closure Summary California Regional Water Quality Control Board ` Central Coast Region Alan C. Lloyd Ph. D. AgencySecretary January 25, 2005 Internet Address_ hitp://www.watcrboards.ca.gov/centralconst 895 Acrovista Place, Suitc 101, San Luis Obispo. California 93401 Phone (805) 549-3147 • FAX (805) 543-0397 Mr. John Bell Colony Associates 4100 West Alameda Avenue Burbank, CA 91505 Dear Mr. Bell: Arnold Schwarteoegger Governor RECEIVED JAN 2 8 2005 COMMUNITY OEVELO MENT UST: PORTOLA & WEST FRONTAGE ROAD, ATASCADERO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY; COLONY ASSOCIATES PROPERTY; TRANSMITTAL OF CASE CLOSURE LETTER AND CLOSURE SUMMARY (RWQCB CASE NO. 2393) Regional Board staff has reviewed Earth Systems Pacific's, December 30, 2004 Report of Well Destruction for the subject site. Thank you for submitting this information. The requirements for case closure have been met. This case is now closed as certified by the enclosed Case Closure letter. This concludes the Regional Board's regulatory oversight for the investigation and cleanup of the former release. This letter does not relieve you of other agency's requirements, which may continue to have jurisdiction or require further work. As with any real property, additional or previously unidentified contamination at the site may require additional investigation and cleanup. Groundwater pollution concentrations continue to be greater than Regional Board cleanup goals for the site_ The April 29, 2004 temporary groundwater monitoring well sampling results indicate concentrations of up 240 micrograms per liter (µg[L) total petroleum hydrocarbons reported as gasoline (TPH-g), and 78 µg/L benzene, however these detections were likely the result of suspended contaminated sediments observed in the sample, and therefore, the one-time sample was not representative of overall site conditions. Three permanent groundwater monitoring wells have not detected contamination since March 2000. Residual contamination remains at the site that could pose an unacceptable risk under certain site development activities, therefore as a condition of case closure the property owner or occupants - of the property that conduct any excavation work including but not limited to grading, excavation, or trenching on the property, shall manage any contaminated soils brought to the surface by these activities in accordance with all applicable provisions of local, state and federal law. In addition, no drilling, boring,.or otherwise construction of a water well for the purpose of extracting water for any use, including but not limited to, domestic, potable, or industrial uses, shall be allowed unless expressly permitted in writing by the Regional Board. California Environmental Protection Agency �a Recycled Paper Mr. John Bell 2 January 25, 2005 Thank you for your diligence in addressing water quality issues and your continued commitment to the protection of water quality in the Central Coast Region. If you have any question regarding this matter, please contact Corey Walsh at (805) 542-4781 or via new e-mail address at cwalsh(a,waterboards_ca.gov. Fger ly, W. Briggs Executive Officer Enclosures: Site Closure Letter Case Closure Summary SAUS'C\Regulated Siles\San Luis Obispo CoWlascadcrolPorlola&FronlageNtansmittal case closure-ltr.doc cc: Mr_ Tim Conroy Earth Systems Pacific 4378 Santa Fe Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ms. Linnea Grossman San Luis Obispo County Division of Environmental Health Services P.O. Box 1489 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Mr. John Neil /Mr. Mike Stephens Atascadero Mutual Water Co P.O. Box 6075 Atascadero, CA 93423 Mr. Warren Frace Community Development Department 6905 El Camino Real, Ste. 6 Atascadero, CA 93422 Ms. Kerry Margason Atascadero City Planning 6905 El Camino Real, Ste. 6 Atascadero, CA 93422 Mr. Steve Kahn/ Mr. Ken Forman Atascadero City Building 6905 El Camino Real, Ste. 6 Atascadero, CA 93422 Without Enclosure: Mr. Mark Matranga S WRCB-DCWP UST Cleanup Fund P.O. Box 944212 Sacramento, CA 94244-2120 California Environmental Protection Agency co Recycled Paper APPENDIX F Noise Study Nest Front Village, Tract 2621 Atascadero, California Noise Study Report MORRO GROUP INC Environmental Services West Front Village, Tract 2621 Atascadero, California Noise Study Report Prepared for: RRM Design Group 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Prepared by: MORRO GRoup, INc Environmental Services March 10, 2004 1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • (805) 543-7095 • FAX 543-2367 Morro Group Project 1103-188 West Front Village, Tract 2621 Noise Study Report TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1 II. APPLICABLE NOISE STANDARDS.................................................................................1 Table 3: A. Noise Element Definitions.............................................................................................1 Table 4: B. Transportation Noise Sources............................................................_ ......1 Table 5: C. . Stationary Noise Sources...............................................................................................5 III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION......................................................................................5 IV. METHODS............................................................................................................................6 l Table 8: A. Stationary Sources.........................................................................................................6 B. Transportation Sources..................................................................................................6 V. MEASURED NOISE LEVELS...........:.................................................................................8 VI. FUTURE NOISE LEVELS AT THE SITE...........................................................................9 VII. NOISE IMPACTS...............................................................................................................11 A. Transportation Noise Sources......................................................................................11 1. Outdoor Activity Areas................................................................................................11 2. Interior Spaces .................. ...........................................................................................12 B. Stationary Noise Sources......................................................................... ..13 VIII. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES...............................................................13 A. Outdoor Mitigation......................................................................................................13 B. Indoor Mitigation.........................................................................................................14 IX. REFERENCES....................................................................................................................16 TABLES Table 1: Maximum AIlowable Noise Exposure -Transportation Noise Sources .................... 4 Table 2: Land Use Compatibility For New Development Near Transportation Sources ......4 Table 3: Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure -Stationary Noise Sources ...........................5 Table 4: Measured Noise Levels, Evening of 3-2-04............................................................8 Table 5: Measured Noise Levels, Morning of 3-3-04............................................................9 Table 6: Future Noise Levels ........................................... ....................................................10 Table 7: Required Exterior Noise Reduction.......................................................................1 l Table 8: Required Interior Noise Reduction............................:...........................................12 Morro Group, Inc. 1 West Front Village, Tract 2621 Noise Study Report FIGURES Figure1: Vicinity Map............................................................................................................2 Figure2: Location Map...........................................................................................................3 Figure 3: Tract Map/Noise Data Collection Locations...........................................................7 Figure 4: Sound Wall Location Map.....................................................................................15 APPENDICES Appendix A: Instrumentation and Technology for Noise Investigations Appendix B: Equations Used and Calculations Morro Group, Inc. ii West Front Village, Tract 2621 Noise Study Report I. INTRODUCTION A noise study has been conducted for The West Front Village Development (Project), Tentative Tract Map 2621, located west of the Salinas River, west and adjacent to U.S. Highway 101, and situated between Santa Rosa Road to the south and Portola Road to the north, in the City of Atascadero, California (refer to Figures 1 and 2)_ Karl Mikel, Environmental Engineer, with Morro Group, Inc. has prepared this noise study report at the request of John Knight of RRM Design Group. This report should be submitted to the City of Atascadero during the permitting phase of the Project. II. APPLICABLE NOISE STANDARDS The City of Atascadero Noise Element of the General Plan provides a policy framework by which potential noise impacts may be addressed during project review and long range planning. This Noise Element was adopted by the City of Atascadero in conformance with Section 65302 (f) of the California Government Code. The Noise Element consists of a Policy Document, Technical Reference Document and Acoustical Design Manual. Among the most significant polices of the Noise Element are numerical noise standards that limit noise exposure within noise -sensitive land uses, and performance standards for commercial and industrial stationary sources that might adversely impact noise -sensitive land uses. A. NOISE ELEMENT DEFINITIONS A -Weighted Sound Level (dB). The sound level obtained by using the A -weighting filter of a sound level meter, expressed in decibels (dB). A -weighting de-emphasizes the very Iow and very high frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the human ear. Most community noise standards utilize A -weighting, as it provides a high degree of correlation with human annoyance and health effects. Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). The sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Thus, the Leq is a single -valued level that expresses the time -averaged total energy of a fluctuating sound level (refer to Appendix A for further descriptions of terms). A -weighted, Leq sound measurements have been used in evaluation of the project site and preparation of this noise report. B. TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES Policy 2 of the Noise Element states that "new development of noise -sensitive land uses shall not be permitted in areas exposed to existing or projected future levels of noise from transportation noise sources which exceed 60 dB Ldn or CNEL for outdoor activity areas and 45 Ldn or CNEL for interior spaces unless the project includes effective mitigation measures to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas and interior spaces to or below the levels for the given land use" (refer to Table 1 for noise thresholds). Table 2 provides background information of land use compatibility for new development near transportation sources and documents mitigation warrants. Morro Group, Inc. West Front Village, Tract 2621 i Noise Study Report Rock, °; SM , .�_'-� - JY�-^'i+� i dd&iii ,J - �=t.�:'c ay �h ..t •1 tr !!! h 2• .r, � San ufi Ha arras! .MNLLUDi"70LCWJuuu© G :; i .. Loris HlxX'Xackr.•'.�G )! :ILI f. •\;• rear .. JK[WCKv1 :.((� ;f r-.'�L. % A1[rL - •T�tr. QK .' ?j ! gran me �. '% Gt�,�sarur i cc :^ l r !.CI{pA�. 'rs�J�� ;•` 8 _ f� " •� 1 .1 "'.moi rr � sY.[!a! —oma• .,. Y r �`• � r - 3•�_�'• � !-�•-i'. .- � L- C ��s . h .. t .rr.cwcG ir FORTH Not to Scale !!Morro Group, Ile. open L1 noDnvn VICINITY MAP FIGURE I 2 i AYILA 61 Pecho �POIIT Rock, °; SM , ! - ' h m ` LUIS.WA N 1 San ufi Ha arras! .MNLLUDi"70LCWJuuu© G G i .. Loris HlxX'Xackr.•'.�G f. _ h .. t .rr.cwcG ir FORTH Not to Scale !!Morro Group, Ile. open L1 noDnvn VICINITY MAP FIGURE I 2 Wast Front Village, Tract 3631 Studr• Report l NOR,rii Not to Scale Morro Groep, Inc. r �sev UOJ 41 PROJECT LOCATION INIAD FIGURE lVest f=ront Village, Tract 2621 Noise Study Report TABLE 1 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure -Transportation Noise Sources Land Use Outdoor Activity Areas' Interior Spaces FLdn/C1N_EL, Ld,,/CNEL, dB dB LFQ, dB' Residential (Except Temporary) 603 45 — Bed and Breakfast, Hotels, Motels 603 45 — Hospitals, Nursing and Personal Care 60 3 45 — Public Assembly and Entertainment . — — 35 Offices 60 3 — 45 Churches, Meeting Halls — — 45 Schools, Libraries, Museums — — 45 Outdoor Sports and Recreation 70 — — Notes: 1 Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. 2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use. 3 For other than residential uses, where an outdoor activity area is not proposed, the standard shall not apply. Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB Ld„/CNEL or less using a practical application of the best -available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB Ld„/CNEL may be allowed. Source: Noise Element, City ofAlascadero General Plan TABLE 2 Land Use Compatibility For New Development Near Transportation Sources Land Use Exterior Noise Exposure, Ldn or CNEL (dB) 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential, Public Assembly, Entertainment Bed and Breakfast, Hotel, Motel _ 77 Schools, Libraries, Museums, Hospitals Outdoor Sports and Recreation Offices Notes: Acceptable, no mitigation required ® Conditionally acceptable, Mitigation Required Unacceptable, mitigation may not be feasible Source: City of:trascadero Noise Element, Policy Document Morro Group, Inc. 4 West Frau Village, Tract 2621 C. STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES Noise Study Report Stationary noise sources are any fixed or mobile source not preempted from local control by existing federal or state regulations. Examples of such sources include industrial and commercial facilities and vehicle movements on private property, such as parking lots. Stationary noise emanating from operations occurring at El Camino Building Supply (e.g. truck movements, forklifts, etc.) is a source of noise resulting in a potential impact to certain portions the residential area and the proposed hotel included in the West Front Village development scenario, which would be the primary noise -sensitive land uses in the vicinity of El Camino Building Supply. Policy 4 of the Noise Element states "new development of noise -sensitive land uses shall not be permitted where the noise level due to existing stationary noise sources will exceed the noise level standards of unless effective noise mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the development to reduce noise exposure to or below the levels specified" (refer to Table 3). Policy 5 of the Noise Element states "noise created by new proposed stationary noise sources or existing stationary noise sources which undergo modifications that may increase noise levels shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the noise level standards on lands designated for noise sensitive uses". The Project development scenario proposes to construct retail facilities and a convenience market/service station, which would be considered stationary noise sources and may impact existing residential sensitive receivers in close proximity to the project site. The average and maximum stationary source dBA Leq thresholds apply to outdoor activity areas such as patios, decks, balconies, outdoor eating areas, swimming pool areas, yards of dwelling units, and other areas that have been designated for outdoor activities and recreation. TABLE 3 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure -Stationary Noise Sources' Level Daytime (7 a.m. to 9 .m.) T Nighttime (9 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Hourly Leq, dBA 50 45 Maximum Level, d13A2 70 60 Maximum Level, Impulsive Noise dBA 65 60 1 As determined at the property line of the of the receiving land use. 2 Sound level measurements shall be made with slow meter response. 3 Sound level measurements shall be made with fast meter response. III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The West Front Village Development (Tract 2621) is located on approximately 9.4 acres in the southern Atascadero area. The Project consists of developing 17 courtyard homes on 1.6 acres, 29 single family residential homes on 2.78 acres (21 total lots with 8 duplex units), a 90 room hotel on 2.I7 acres, and retail facilities including a convenience market and service station situated on approximately 1.95 acres. The rest of the project site includes stormwater retention basins, public streets, drainage easements, and right of way areas. The project area is bound to the north and east by West Front Road and U.S. Highway 101, to the southeast by existing Morro Group, Inc. 5 West Front Village, Tract 2621 Noise Study commercial development, northwest by Portola Road and existing residential development, to the west and southwest by existing residential development. The overall context of the area is suburban residential. EI Camino Building Supply is located adjacent to and south of the proposed Project (refer to Figure 3). U.S. Highway 101 is located to the north and east of the Project, at an approximate linear distance of 120 feet to 150 feet from the property line along the boundary with West Front Road. U.S. Highway 101 is constructed at a lower finished elevation in relation to the project site, the undulating highway cut varies between approximately 2, feet on the northern end, is essentially at grade in the middle section of the site, and approximately 20 feet near the Santa Rosa Road overpass on the southern end of the proposed Project. The existing topography of the area is a gently rolling ancient sandy floodplain with a slight degree of elevation variation. After project development, the site will be predominantly flat and level, with a general slope direction from west to east towards West Front Road at an approximate grade of 1.5 percent. Finished floor elevations along the southwest (lots 28 through 41) range from 978 feet to 980 feet. Finished elevation along West Front Road is approximately 970 feet. Existing vegetation consists of annual grassland, scattered herbaceous vegetation, and thick clumps of brush and oak woodland habitat. The existing area would be characterized as a "soft site", meaning that excess attenuation of sound pressure levels would be observed due to the ground cover and vegetation. After project development, most of the area would be hardscaped, decreasing the project areas natural noise attenuation capabilities. 1V. METHODS A. STATIONARY SOURCES The procedure for assessing a stationary noise source is to measure the noise level at select locations, and compare the noise readings measured to published threshold values in the City's Noise Element. Approximate five-minute duration measurements were taken at each location. The maximum and minimum one second noise levels are recorded by the noise meter, and they are included for informational purposes. Further analysis is based on integrated average noise levels (Leq). B. TRANSPORTATION SOURCES The procedure for assessing transportation noise is to measure the noise levels at select locations (refer to Figure 3 for measurement locations), and count the traffic for the period of measurement. The measured noise levels can then be adjusted to obtain the "future" noise levels as defined in the City's Noise Element. Approximate five-minute duration measurements were taken at each location. The maximum and minimum 1 -second noise levels are recorded by the noise meter, and they are included for informational purposes. Further analysis is based on the average noise levels (Leq) as discussed in this report. Morro Group, Inc. 6 N b N U a cz UQ r-1 0 0 U Cd Q F �n Gd a O " zz n West Front Yillaee, Tract 2621 V. MEASURED NOISE LEVELS Noise Study Report Noise levels at the project site were measured on two separate occasions at eight different locations (refer to Figure 3 for measurement locations). The first set of measurements was taken during the evening of March 2, 2004 from approximately 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. The second set of measurements was taken on the morning of March 3, 2004 from approximately 7:30 A -M. to 9:45 A.M. Noise levels were taken at multiple locations along the property line fronting West Front and Portola Roads, and several other locations throughout the project site. Noise levels from each survey effort are summarized in Tables 4 and 5. TABLE 4 Measured Noise Levels, Evening of 3-2-04 Location* Period of Measurement Noise Levels (dBA Traffic Volumes Leq Max Min Road Segment Number Veh/min Veh/hr I 4:15 pm - 4:20 pm 62.4 70.1 56.7 Highway 101 395 79 4740 West Front 32 6.4 384 2 4:30 pm - 4:35 pm 66.1 73.4 55.8 Highway 101 405 81 4860 West Front 35 7 420 3 4:45 pm - 4:50 pm 65.0 77.5 57.5 Highway 101 450 90 5400 Portola 22 4.4 264 4 4:52 pm - 4:57 pm 64.2 75.7 54.9 Highway 101 443 88.6 5316 Portola 24 4.8 288 5 5:05 pm - 5:10 pm 62.1 70.6 55.7 Hi hway 101 436 87.2 5232 Portola 31 6.2 372 6 5:13 pm - 5:18 pm 61.5 70.2 54.6 Highway 101 425 85 5100 West Front 28 5.6 336 7 5:23 pm - 5:28 pm 62.7 70.5 58.0 Highway 101 410 82 4920 West Front 26 5.2 312 8 5:32 pm - 5:37 pm 60.3 68.8 53.0 Hi hwa 101 405 81 4860 West Front 1 29 5.8 348 `Refer to Figure 3 for Measurement Locations Descriptions of each noise measurement location are as follows: ■ Location 1 - Eastern corner of development near proposed hotel footprint, approximately 75 feet from West Front Road and 125 feet west of Highway 101. IN Location 2 - Northeast portion of the development, approximately 50 feet from West Front Road, and 100 feet west of Highway 101 _ ■ Location 3 - Northern corner of development adjacent to proposed service station at Lot #3, approximately 200 feet from West Front Road, 10 feet from Portola Road, and 250 feet from Highway 101. ■ Location 4 - Westem corner of the development at the proposed intersection of Coromar Court and Portola Road at Lot #41, approximately 10 feet from Portola Road. Morro Group, Inc. 8 Fest Front Village, Traci 2621 Noise Study Report ■ Location 5 - Approximately 125 feet southeast of measurement location 3 at Lot #7, approximately 220 feet west of West Front Road and 280 feet west of Highway 101. ■ Location 6 - Western portion of the development at the boundary of Lots 32 and 33, approximate location of Coromar Court. ■ Location 7- Lot #19, approximately 200 feet west of West Front Road and 260 feet west of Highway 101 ■ Location 8 - Southern corner of the development near Lots 926 and #27, approximately 250 feet from West Front Road Road. TABLE 5 Measured Noise Levels, Morning of 3-3-04 Location* Period of Measurement Noise Levels (dBA) Traffic Volumes Leq Max Min Road Number Veh/min Veh/hr Segment 1 9:18 am - 9:23 am 59.9 70.2 49,4 Highway 101 280 56 3360 West Front 18 3.6 216 2' 8:43 am - 8:48 am 67.9 79.1 62.4 Highway 101 375 75 4500 West Front 25 5 300 3 8:00 am - 8:05 am 64.4 78.5 55.4 Hi hway 101 416 83.2 4992 42 8.4 504 4- 7:40 am- 7:45 am 59.4 69.6 51.2 -Portola Hi hwaY 101 404 80.8 4848portola 48 9.6 576 5' 8:22 am- 8:27 am 59.5 66.1 52.8 Highway 101 390 78 4680 Portola 33 6.6 396 6 9:00 am - 9:05 am 55.4 67.4 49.2 Highway 101 315 63 3780 West Front 38 7.6 456 7 9:10 am - 9:15 am 57.8 71.0 51.4 Highway 101 290 58 3480 West Front 31 6.2 372 8 9:30 am- 9:35 am 56.4 75.2 1 48.4 Highway 101 287 57.4 3444 West Front 29 5.8 348 reeler w r rgure .) lar measurement tocalrons VI. FUTURE NOISE LEVELS AT THE SITE Appendix A of the Noise Element Technical Reference Document was used to determine "future" noise levels resulting from traffic volumes along U.S. Highway 101, which is the most significant transportation noise source surrounding the project area. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) along U.S. Highway 101 (Segment 72) is estimated at 69,900. Assuming that the peak - hour volume is 10 percent of ADT (6,990 vehicles/hour for Hwy 101) the adjustment of the measured noise level resulting from existing traffic volumes to the future peak -hour traffic volume noise levels for each location can be determined. The City Noise Element has no future traffic prediction data for Portola and West Front Roads, which surround the project area. In the case where traffic data is not available, it can be estimated that future traffic volumes including Morro Group, Inc. 9 West Front Village. Tract 2621 Noise Study Report project -generated traffic would be approximately doubled. Since the project area is subject to multiple sources of transportation noise, and measurements recorded for each location were a combination from all nearby traffic noise sources, using the cumulative existing traffic counts is appropriate. The cumulative traffic counts can then be used to determine the future noise environment of the area. Typically, it takes one doubling of the traffic volume to obtain a 3 dB increase in the sound pressure level. From the data presented in Tables 4 and 5, it appears that noise levels from peak -hour traffic is worse during the evening commute hours in comparison to the morning peak -hour noise environment. Therefore, evening peak -hour traffic was used to determine a worst-case future noise environment. The adjustment of the measured noise levels based on existing traffic volumes to the future peak -hour traffic volume noise levels for each location is included in Table 6 (refer to Appendix B for calculations). TABLE 6 Future Noise Levels' IBased on evening Peak -four traffic volumes. Morro Group, Inc. 10 Measured Future Noise Level Adjusted Noise Location* Road Traffic Traffic Increase Levels Segment (Veh/hr) (Veh/hr) (dBA) (dBA) Highway 101 4740 6,990 1 3.2 65.6 West Front 384 432 Highway 101 4860 6,990 2 2.0 68.1 West Front 420 600 Highway 101 5400 6,990 3 1.6 66.6 Portola 264 1,008 Highway 101 5316 6,990 4 1.8 66.0 Portola 288 1,152 Highway 101 5232 6,990 5 1.9 64.0 Portola 372 792 Highway 101 5100 6,990 6 2.7 64.2 West Front 336 912 Highway 101 4920 6,990 7 3.0 65.7 West Front 312 744 Highway 101 4860 6,990 8 3.1 63.4 West Front 348 696 IBased on evening Peak -four traffic volumes. Morro Group, Inc. 10 West Front Village, Tract 2621 Noise Study Report VII. NOISE IMPACTS A. TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES Transportation noise resulting from U.S. Highway 101 and West Front Road would be the main source of noise on the northern and eastern boundaries of the project site. U.S. Highway 101 and Portola Road would be the main sources of noise along the western portion of the development. The Califomia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Technical Noise Supplement provides some general guidelines for determining community noise impacts: A three -dB change is barely perceptible, and is the minimum most people will notice in most environments. 0 A five -dB change is a readily perceptible increase or decrease in sound level. A ten -dB increase in sound level is perceived as an approximate doubling of the loudness of the sound and represents a substantial change in loudness. 1. Outdoor Activity Areas The Noise Element defines outdoor activity areas as the rear yards of dwelling units and other areas that have been designated for outdoor activities and recreation, such as patios, decks, balconies, outdoor eating areas, and swimming pool areas. The future noise levels and the required reduction to bring the outdoor activity area noise levels to 60 dBA for each location are listed in Table 7. TABLE 7 Required Exterior Noise Reduction Location Future Noise Levels (Ldn) Required Reduction (dB) 1 65.6 5.6 2 68.1 8.1 3 66.6 6.6 4 66.0 6.0 5 64.0 4.0 6 64.2 4.2 7 65.7 5.7 8 63.4 3.4 nc u c jor injormmiona purposes only Currently, the outdoor activity areas for all areas of the Project are not in compliance with the City's Noise Element because noise levels exceed 60 dB Ldn (refer to Table 7). However, upon completion of the Project, most areas of the development would be in compliance with City's noise element due to the shielding effect provided by the retail buildings and the hotel that would be located between the main source of noise (U.S. Highway 101) and the residential lots. The finished building pad elevations of the hotel and retail buildings would be approximately 970 - Morro Group. Inc. I l Pest From Village, Tract 2621 Noise Study R 971 feet. The project plans show the height of the roof ridge of the hotel at 37 feet and the retail roof rid=es at 20-22 feet. With an average building pad elevation of 978.5 feet for the residential lots, the outdoor activity areas would be provided approximately 5-8 dBA of sound attenuation because of the approximate 10-20 feet of hotel and retail -building height offset in relation to the outdoor activity areas of the residences. For most residences not shielded by the retail buildings and hotel facility, residential building orientation would be situated and positioned correctly to adequately absorb transportation noise resulting from U.S. Highway 101 and West Front Road (providing the same shielding effect for outdoor activity areas that would be provided to most of the development by the retail and hotel buildings). There are several residential lots however, that would need some form of mitigation to bring the outdoor activity areas into compliance with the City's Noise Element. These would include Lots #3, #7, #8, #13, #14, 419 and #21. Because the Project design plans have not yet been finalized, the footprint of the retail buildings could potentially be shifted and relocated. Depending on -final design plans; these residences may not be adequately .shielded by the retail buildings (depending on their final design and footprint) to provide effective mitigation from traffic noise sources. The hotel would not need outdoor mitigation even though it is above the outdoor noise threshold. The reason for this is. that there are no outdoor activity areas associated with the hotel development that would require mitigation to achieve sound attenuation below the City's noise threshold. 2. Interior Spaces Interior spaces provide people with relief from the outside noise environment. The Noise Element defines the threshold for outside noise infiltrating the home at 45 dB. This low decibel level ensures people will have a peaceful and relaxing environment in which to live. The future noise levels and the required reduction to bring the interior noise levels to 45 dBA for each location are listed in Table 8. TABLE 8 Required Interior Noise Reduction Location Future Noise Levels (Ldn) Required Reduction (M) 1 65.6 20.6 2 68.1 23.1 3 66.6 21.6 4 66.0 21.0 5 64.0 19.0 6 64.2 19.2 7 65.7 20.7 8 63.4 18.4 lncludedJorinformarional purposes only Morro Group. Ac. 12 West Front Village, Tract 2621 Norse Studs: Report It has been determined through various studies that buildings (homes) will usually attenuate outside noise sources by 20 to 30 dB. Construction of homes pursuant to the State Noise hisulation Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) and Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code would provide the required noise reduction to bring the interior noise levels resulting from automobile sources into compliance with the City's Noise Element. No special acoustical treatment of the residences or hotel would be required and no mitigation � ould be warranted for interior noise reduction. B. STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES Potential stationary noise sources would originate from two areas in and around the project site. El Camino Building Supply is located along the southern boundary of Lots #25 through #28. The retail building is located approximately 75 feet from the closest edge of the property line along this boundary. The "yard" area is located approximately 180 feet from the property line of Lots #27 and #28, which would be the two residences most affected by loading/unloading operations in the yard. Lots #25 and #26 would be shielded from noise originating in the yard by the retail building. According to El Camino Building Supply staff, the facility is open Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily, and on Saturday from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. All material loading and unloading occurs in the interior of the yard and in the rear of the building, and does not occur in the parking lot adjacent to the property line of Lots #25 through #28. The measured noise level on the Morning of March 3, 2004, taken from the edge of the property line along Lots #27 and #28 was 54.9 dBA Leq. The noise meter was pointed at the yard and not directly at U.S. Highway 101 like measurement location #8 shown in Table 5. (This measurement was still heavily influenced by the traffic noise environment and presumably would be well under the City noise threshold for stationary sources if the influence from U.S. Highway 101 were removed). Therefore, El Camino Building Supply is not expected to be a significant source of stationary noise that would impact the proposed development. No mitigation would be warranted for this source of noise. The second source of stationary noise would occur due to construction of the proposed service station and convenience market in the northern corner of the site as part of the Project development scenario. This source of stationary noise would potentially subject Lots #3, #7, and #8 to higher noise levels than shown in Table 6 due to the combination of all the traffic sources combined with the stop and go nature of the service station and convenience market (the other surrounding residences would be shielded from the noise by Lots #3, #4, 47 and #8). Fuel trucks would deliver gasoline presumably at any time day or night, and deliveries to the convenience market would likely do the same. Mitigation is recommenced for Lots #3, #7 and #8. Vill. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES A. OUTDOOR MITIGATION Outdoor noise mitigation would need to be implemented to reduce noise levels caused by traffic sources in the project area. When mitigation must be applied to satisfy the policies contained in the City of Atascadero the Noise Element, the following mitigation measures shall be considered and preference shall be given where feasible in the following order: Morro Group, Inc. 13 West Front Village, Tract 1621 Noise Study Report a) Site layout, including setbacks, open space separation and shielding of noise -sensitive uses with non noise -sensitive uses. b) Acoustic treatment of buildings. c) Structural measures: construction of earthen berms or noise barriers. Due to the parcel configuration, layout of the units, and estimated future noise levels shown in Table 6, requiring setbacks or using open space separation would not be an effective form of mitigation because of the dense nature of the development and the large distance that would be required to achieve effective noise reduction. Changing the site layout for Lots #3, 47, #8, #13, #14, and #19 would provide effective mitigation if the residences were rotated and oriented so that the front of the houses were facing the noise source, the backyards (outdoor activity areas) would then be shielded by the residence and located behind the house (the residences would then be located between the noise source and the outdoor activity area). If it is not feasible to re -position the houses on Lots 43, #7, #8, #13, #14, and #19, or if the layout of the site changes and the retail buildings footprint is shifted and/or moved, it is recommended that construction of an acoustic soundwall be implemented as part of the Project plans to mitigate noise levels in the northwestern portion of the project area around Lots #3, #7, #8, #13, #14, and #19. The noise barrier should extend in height so that it breaks the line of sight between the noise source and the receiver, this would require a wall height of b feet. The proposed soundwall should be a continuous structure and extend in a linear fashion parallel to the property line interface with the service station/retail facility and the residences along this boundary_ The proposed soundwall should start just inside the sidewalk on Portola Road and extend to the easternmost property line of Lot #19 (refer to Figure 4). The Noise Element states "the use of wood is generally not recommended due to the problems with warpage, shrinkage, and deterioration over time." It is recommended that this wall be constructed of grouted, masonry block. Aesthetic treatments can be applied to the soundwall to mitigate visual concerns if this noise mitigation option is implemented. For the outdoor activity area of Lot #21 to be in compliance with the City's noise element, changing the layout of the site would be the most effective mitigation strategy avoiding the construction of a soundwall. It is recommended that the layout of the garage/apartment and driveway be located on the northwest side of the lot as opposed to the northeast side. The garage/apartment would then be located in the northwest corner of the lot, providing a shielding effect for the outdoor activity area not provided in the current configuration of the parcel (refer to Figure 4 for the recommended change in site layout). B. INDOOR MITIGATION No interior mitigation would be necessary for this project to be in compliance with the City's Noise Element. Morro Group, hic. 14 West Fran Village, Tract 2621 ------------------------------------------------- _ ----------------- U-& 101 FREEWAY —77 WEST FRONT ROAD` 1� NORTH Not to Scale Morro Group, Inc. � f~ 7.3•. •i Noise Studv R _ favor Cobt,la. Typ, z � '---�• Switch Footprint of Driveway/ Garage and Residence L- egend: Soundwall Location E rr {` i till 1 _ r _ T �`- C ]T 4 Q tl LZI 3CAM MPP SOUNDWALL LOCATION MAP FIGURE 4 Is Soundwall Location Wd 1� NORTH Not to Scale Morro Group, Inc. � f~ 7.3•. •i Noise Studv R _ favor Cobt,la. Typ, z � '---�• Switch Footprint of Driveway/ Garage and Residence L- egend: Soundwall Location E rr {` i till 1 _ r _ T �`- C ]T 4 Q tl LZI 3CAM MPP SOUNDWALL LOCATION MAP FIGURE 4 Is West Front Village, Tract 2621 Noise Study Report 1X, REFERENCES Bruel & Kajer. Environmental Noise. 2000. City of Atascadero General Plan. Noise Element. 2002. Environmental Program: Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management Office Technical Noise Supplement. 1998b_ Sacramento, CA Federal Transit Administration 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. (DOT -T-9516.) Federal Highway Administration. 1995. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. Office of Environment and Planning. Noise and Air Quality Branch. Washington, DC. Morro Group, Inc. 16 West Front Village, Tract 2621 Noise Study Report Appendix A • Instrumentation and Terminology for Noise Investigations Uorro Group, Inc. INSTRUMENTATION AND TERMINOLOGY FOR NOISE INVESTIGATIONS INSTRUMENTATION 3 f The subject noise investigation has been conducted using a BrueI and Kjaer (B & K) Model 2230 precision integrating sound level meter calibrated externally at the beginning and end of each period of measurement using a B & K Model 4230 acoustic calibrator. In combination, these instruments yield sound level measurements accurate to within 0.1 decibel (dB). The Model 2230 fulfills standards of relevant sections of IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) 651 and ANSI (American National Standard) S1.4.1971 for Type 1 (precision) integrating sound level meters. The microprocessor - of the Model 2230 computes and stores/displays the following measurements: The sound pressure level (SPL) is updated once each second on the digital display at a resolution of 0.1 dB, and 64 times per second on the analog display at a resolution of 2 dB. The mechanism of averaging levels during the display interval may be "fast" or"slow". The setting is normally "fast", as this is required for Leq and SEL discussed below. The sound equivalent level (Leq) is the average sound pressure Ievel for the period of measurement based on equal energy. The meter internally computes a new Leq from the SPL (RMS) and updates the digital display once each second. The measurement period is limited only by battery life, which is approximately 8 hours. This parameter is used primarily to describe environmental noise. The sound exposure level (SEL) is the constant level which if maintained for one second would have the same acoustic energy as the total noise for the period of measurement. This parameter is used primarily in determining the noise exposure in unusually noisy working environrnents or for measuring specific events such as an individual aircraft flyover or a train passage. The maximum (Max.) and minimum (Min.) sound pressure levels during the period of measurement are updated once each second from the RMS average sound pressure level. For periods of measurement in the range of 1 to 10 minutes, these values are reasonable approximations of the sound pressure level exceeded 1% of the time and 99% of the time, respectively. All of the above can be measured using frequency weightings of the "A" or "C" scales in accordance with IEC 651, or a "linear" (20 Hz to 20 kHz) or "all pass" (10 Hz to 50 kHz) filter settings. The "A" scale is weighted to most closely approximate the response of an average human ear, and is the setting most used in conducting measurements of environmental noise. TERMINOLOGY Noise, as used herein, is defined as unwanted sound. However, because the instruments that detect the small changes in atmospheric pressure that are perceived as sound cannot distinguish between that which is wanted (e.g., birds singing, waves on a beach, etc.) and that which is not (e.g., traffic noise), measurements of "noise" are more accurately described as measurements of sound pressure. Changes in sound pressure normally experienced in the human environment extend across a very large range. The sound pressures in an average room are in the range 1,000 times the sound pressure at the threshold of hearing, and the sound pressure of a large truck is about 100,000 times that threshold. Because of this large range, it is convenient to describe sound in terms of its energy level with respect to that of the threshold of hearing. This method of description is called the decibel scale (dB). In mathematical terms, the sound pressure level, SPL = 10 Log (p/p,)' dB, where po is the sound pressure at the threshold of hearing .(20 microPascals). In practical terms, it is adequate to note that the decibel scale is logarithmic (like the Richter scale for earthquakes), that it conveniently compresses the numbers involved from a range of 20- 200,000,000 to a range of 0-130, and that it is oriented to human response in that an increase of about 10 dB is normally perceived as a doubling of the sound level. In recent years, various methods and "scales" have been devised to describe noise in the human environment. These methods have had two basic objectives: 1) to represent a physical condition that is constantly changing over a wide range of values by a single numerical descriptor; and 2), to adjust that descriptor in a sway that most reasonably reflects the degree of annoyance of the varying noise levels. 1. Statistical Descriptors Statistical descriptors most often used to describe variations in noise level include: L90 The level exceeded 90% of the time during a specified period, usually i hour, 24 hours, or during the day or the night. In some instances, this value may be considered the background level. L50 The level exceeded 50% of the time during a specified period as noted above_ This value has sometimes been considered the average or median noise level. Lio The level exceeded 10% of the time during a specified period as noted above. For traffic noise, this value has been considered the peak period level_ L, The level exceeded 1% of the time during a specified period as noted above. This value may be considered the peak noise level. The most significant drawback to the use of these descriptors, particularly 1-50 as representing an average, is that they do not take into account the logarithmic nature of the decibel scale and the relatively higher energy content of higher decibel levels. That is, the average energy content of 50 dB and 60 dB for equal periods of time is not 55 dB, but rather 57.4 dB (i.e., the log of the average of the antilogs). A parameter that more acurately describes average noise is the Equivalent Continuous Sound Level (Leq), which is the continuous sound level having the same energy content as the varying level for the period of measurement. Prior to the availablity of microprocessors at reasonable cost, the hand -computation of Leq from a series of individual measurements was a tedious task. However, meters are now available that internally compute Leq, continuously as with the Model 2230 discussed above, or for a specified period usually one minute. Because of this technical advance, measurements of Leq for various periods of time have become the basic parameter in evaluating environmental noise. 2. Weighted Noise Levels -Because the same level of noise is more annoying to people if it occurs at night, scales have been devised that weight nighttime noise at a higher level than daytime noise. The scales most commonly in use are: CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level weights evening noise (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) by a factor of 5, and nighttime levels (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) by a factor of 10. Mathematically, evening levels are increased by 5 dB, and nightime levels are increased by 10 dB in computing a 24-hour geometric average. Ldn Day -Night Equivalent Level is similar to CNEL but it does not include a weighting factor for evening noise levels. Of the above, CNEL carne into use first, and it is the standard in regulating noise levels in the vicinity of airports. Ldn is a simplification of CNEL, and is more commonly used in regulating land use where traffic noise is a potential problem. These levels apply for a minimum period of 24 hours, but may be applied for periods as long as one year. The difference may be significant where noise levels are near regulatory limits, and where there are seasonal or weekly variations in a noise source of concern. 3. Practical Applications From a practical standpoint, the Ldn noise level is essentially equivalent to the peak -hour noise level for most situations involving noise from vehicular traffic, and the peak -hour Leq can be used as the Ldn level, avoiding the costs of 24 hours of measurement. West Fran Village, Tract 2621 Noise Study Report W f!" 0 i • Noise Calculations and Equations Used Morro Group, Inc. .O H rMM� W \0 O O N r- cy Ln 00 %.o 110 Qa r. 00 rn r O N M M L Z u C m > C J O N N X N O W.6 U z 4�r - V Gl L H d R b -0 )- N � cc O% V' N OO O rn 0000 � �Y v1 O\ r, r- C� t� \D u O 7 (� [� l- 00 C-- [- [- [- w L. u W CC WV 7 � O O\ N O O> O O00 a\ O O rn N in O ON N O O\ N O a% O O� � :. w R O\ `D mU "4- O O\ O t� Ow rn U v n Q: Q, C, LL F- Y+ � 0 O \D a R V) 00 O N 00 r- O O -F O ( 1 V kr tl- to ,.a � cu L) Q. � Cr cq t w II U 17 C .V O O N 00 O 00 O OC:)C14 00 v 00 Ca U CQ a N_ •X i N O O M D, O in Oho t� to Q\ Cl) 00 v1 V M rn 1.. � •L1 Ss1 W ;- M M M M S n a o O o 0 o a o a cc0 cs cc— o R—cc � u`. c w w o N 3 3 3 3 N rz 3 x APPENDIX G Traffic Study WEST FRONT PROPERTIES TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IN THE CITY OF ATASCADERO DRAFT REPORT Prepared For: RRM DESIGN GROUP Prepared By ONI I -MEANS, LTD. ENGINEERS & PLANNERS 3530 West Mineral King Avenue, Suite A Visalia, California 93291 . (559) 734-5895 May 2005 55-5625-02 (R752TS005.DOC) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.........................•---.._...............................................................-----..........._..........._...._._....................1 EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM....................................................................... .....1 ................................................. EXISTINGTRAFFIC VOLUMES. .................................................................................................................. ..........3 LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY .................................................. ................................. . ................... .1111......3 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS........................................................................................................................8 APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................8 Approved/Pending Projects Trip Generation.................................................................................................. 9 Approved/Pending Projects Trip Nature, Distribution, and Assignment........................................................ 9 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS CONDITIONS...................................................................9 ProjectDescription................•---•--..._........_...._............_._...._._._._..................._............................................_... I 1 ProjectTrip Generation.........................................................._.._..._....._........................._._.............._............. 11 InternalCapture Rates ........................................ ....•---••----------•---................................................................... 12 Pass-by/Diverted Linked Trips .......................................................• -•--................................------...._..............12 Project Trip Nature, Distribution, and Assignment.......................................................................................13 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS .........................1111.......16 General....................................................•-•--•---............_._............................--...._._..._..................................... 20 Year2025 Base Conditions......................................................................................................................... 20 Year 2025 Base plus Project Conditions ...................... RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES..................................................................................................... 25 Existing Conditions ...................... Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects Conditions.................................................................................. 25 Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project Conditions............................................................... 25 Year2025 Base Conditions..........................................................•-------------._................................................ 26 Year 2025 Base plus Project Conditions....................................................................................................... 26 Roundabout/Synchro Analysis ............... FIGURES Figure1 —Project Vicinity Map...................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 — Existing Traffic Volumes........................................................................•----...----......_........._.............._.........4 Figure 3 — Existing Lane Geometries and Control........................................................................................................5 Figure 4 — Existing+ Approved/Pending Projects Traffic Volumes...........................................................................10 Figure 5 — Project Trip Distribution............................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 6 — Existing + Approved/Pending Projects + Project Traffic Volumes ........................ _...17 Figure 7 — Existing + Approved/Pending Projects + Project Lane Geometries and Control.......................................18 Figure 8 — Year 2025 Base Traffic Volumes............................................................................................................... 21 Figure 9 — Year 2025 Base + Project Traffic Volumes............................................................................................... 23 TABLES Table I Level Of Service Criteria For Intersections ............................................... ....... ................................................ 7 Table 2 Existing Conditions: Intersection Levels-Of-Service....................................................................................... 8 Table 3 Approved/Pending Project Trip Generation..........................................................................................._.........9 Table 4 Existing Plus Approved/Pending Projects Conditions: Intersection Levels -Of -Service ................................. 11 Table5 Project Trip Generation....................................................................••-----•-•-•-••-----.......................................... 13 Table 6 Existing Plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project Conditions: Intersection Levels -Of -Service ............. I6 Table 7 Year 2025 Base Conditions: Intersection Levels-Of-Service.........................................................................20 Table 8 Year 2025 Base Plus Project Conditions: Intersection Levels-Of-Service.....................................................22 West Front Properties Traffic Impact Study Page i May 29. 2005 _. RRM Design Group R752TSOOS.DOC (55-5625-02) INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared to present the results of a traffic study prepared by OMNI -MEANS for a proposed mixed use development in the City of Atascadero. The West Front Properties development, herein called project, is located at the southwest corner of Portola Road and West Front Road in the City of Atascadero (reference Figure 1). According to the site plan dated May 5, 2005, and contained in the Appendix, this proposed 13.35 acre project contains a 5,000 square foot gas/retail center pad, a 5,000 square foot restaurant/retaiI pad, a 79 room hotel, and a 13,000 square foot retail/business park. In addition to the commercial land uses, this project includes residential development of 14 courtyard homes, 18 duplex homes, and five estate lots_ EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM Roadways that provide primary circulation in the vicinity of the project site include West Front Road, Portola Road, Santa Rosa Road, Atascadero Avenue, EI Camino Real, and US 101. West Front Road is a two lane roadway located adjacent to and west of US 101. This north -south oriented road extends for Santa Rosa Road south just past San Rafael Road where it terminates. West Front Road acts as the eastern boundary of the proposed project. Project access is proposed along West Front Road at four locations. These project driveways will provide access to a 5,000 square foot specialty retail pad, a 5,000 square foot retail pad and an 80 room hotel. Portola Road is a two-lane roadway that generally has a north -south orientation. At its northern termini, Portola Road begins just north of Ardilla Road and travels in a south-easterly manner across State Route 41 to West Front Road just west of US 101. Portola Street acts as the northern boundary of the proposed project and would provide residential access to a new street called Coromar Court. Coromar Road is a two-lane north -south roadway that parallels US 101. Currently, this roadway extends from Portola Road to Merchant Avenue and serves single family residential dwellings. Santa Rosa Road is currently a two-lane overcrossing with no shoulders or bikeways. A pedestrian sidewalk is provided on the southern side of the structure. This structure was constructed in 1956 and is 28' wide and 210' long, with a vertical clearance of 16.1' on the southbound side and 15.1' on the northbound side. Atascadero Avenue is also a two-lane north -south roadway that is adjacent to and west of US 101. Atascadero Avenue extends from its northern termini at Santa Lucia Avenue southward to Santa Barbara Road at the southern city limits. Although Atascadero Avenue does not provide direct access to the proposed project, it will provide for cross-town access to/from west Atascadero and Atascadero High School. EI Camino Real constitutes the principal north -south arterial that serves the downtown and residences to the north and south of the downtown area. El Camino Real is primarily a four -lane major arterial (from San Rafael Road to San Anselmo Road) that is east of and adjacent to US 101. Many of Atascadero's commercial and retail land uses are found along this corridor. Although El Camino Real is located on the east side of US 101, this roadway will be used by local residents to access the proposed project. iYest Front Properties Traffic Impact Study Page I May 24, 2005 RRMDesign Group R752TS005.DOC (55-5625-02) 0 u NPq �0 � OEl k0 kir 101 z 7 h ATASCADERO T 9 o- r� PROJECT LOCATION PORT OIA RD 41s �l7 7 n� Ro O za 101 i P9 i s` D �r pRtEW RD- i ^ SANTP F� AR A Sit P West Front Properties TIS Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map U52tg0i •d"9/l�2ea)/�s-362 US 101 is a major freeway facility that serves regional and inter -regional north -south travel within and throughout the City of Atascadero. US 101 is a four -lane divided freeway through the City. According to Caltrans Traffic Volumes on the State Highway System (2002), US 101 carries an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 40,500 vehicles within the vicinity of the project. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Based upon OMNI -MEANS' understanding of the project, the following eight (8) existing intersections were identified as critical intersections for this study. • Portola Road/Atascadero Avenue • Portola Road/Coromar Road • Portola Road/West Front Road/US 101 Southbound Off Ramp • Santa Rosa Road/Atascadero Avenue • Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road • Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/US 101 SB On Ramp • Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/US 101 NB On Ramp • Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real In addition, OMNI -MEANS analyzed three project driveways on West Front Road and Portola Road. At the study intersections, existing weekday AM and PM peak -hour traffic volume counts were conducted by OMNI -MEANS between March 9h and 11 a', 2004. An additional AM and PM peak -hour traffic volume count was conducted on May 19, 2005, at Coromar Road/Portola Road. The AM peak hour is defined as one- hour of peak traffic flow counted between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and the PM peak hour is defined as one-hour of peak traffic flow counted between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. Figure 2 shows the existing AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes and Figure 3 identifies existing lane geometrics and control at the study intersections. LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY Traffic operations have been quantified through the determination of "Level of Service" (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade "A" through "F" is assigned to an intersection or roadway segment representing progressively worsening traffic conditions. Levels of Service were calculated for different intersection control types using the methods documented in the Highway Capacity Manual -2000 (HCM-2000). LOS definitions for different types of intersection controls are outlined in Table 1. West Front Properties Traffic Impact Study Page 3 May 24, 2005 RRNI Design Group R752TS005_DOC (55-5625-02) 71 PORTOLA ROAD/ •J COROAIAR ROAD m � Y k—4i(24) (9)11 (31),9—► SANTA ROSA ROAD/ ` j EASTFRONTROAD/ U.& 101 N ON RA31P }--255(340) X196(274) 4(9) (90)98- F (363)352—► m m N •� PURI ULA RUAD/ )VEST FRONT ROAD/ u5101 SB OFFRAAIP n m m Jh (42)30 -i x m est\ SANTA ROSA ROAD/ PORTOLA ROAD/ ATASCADERO AVENUE m 0 O k-23(40) J l 1. X4(5) (180)68--f • (9)15—� (28)9--• a v n n r X. m v v v � ^ v, m n SANTA ROSA ROAD/ / IYESTFRONTROAD/ U.S. 101 SB ON RIL%IP f0 tD L32(91) o n N N J 1 � X176(279) X52(62) (252)289—► (26)6b-7 71 PORTOLA ROAD/ •J COROAIAR ROAD m � Y k—4i(24) (9)11 (31),9—► SANTA ROSA ROAD/ ` j EASTFRONTROAD/ U.& 101 N ON RA31P }--255(340) X196(274) 4(9) (90)98- F (363)352—► m m N •� PURI ULA RUAD/ )VEST FRONT ROAD/ u5101 SB OFFRAAIP n m m Jh (42)30 -i x m est\ SANTA ROSA ROAD/ EL C4,111NOREAL N m �O N N n k-5(11) m v n J l 1. X4(5) (180)68--f �1 t (5)30—► (245)278 —� v n n r (10)7—i v v v, m n /wl SANTA ROSA ROAD/ ATASCADERO AVENUE O N 0 t-59(36) J l 1. f --t45(46, (9)8 (156)138 I a (10)7—i v v SANTA ROSA ROAD. ,YEST FRONT ROAD - 59(89) _m v n LEGEND roc AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (xx) PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES West Front Properties TIS Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 2 1PORL"OLAROAD/ DROAVENUE RTAS _E dZlS U.S 101 N ON RAAfP aIQ JSANTA ROSA ROAD/ IYEST FRONT ROAD/ U S 101 IB ON RAAfP a� Z PORTOLAROAD/ 3 PORTOLAROAD/ COROALAR ROAD )VEST FRONT ROAD/ US 101 SB OFF RAALP SANTA ROSH ROAD/ EASTFRONTROAD/ U.S 101 N ON RAAfP m • STO _\ SANTA ROSA ROAD/ �J EL CAMINO REAL D 01 1 9L -pd 2 PORTOLA RD. 4 SANTA ROSA ROAD/ ATASGDERO AVENUE dOTS GAERIEL RD. W3 $, SANTA ROSH ROAD / FYEST FRONT ROAD J 6A ,If - LAS LOMAS AVE. O � OR �Q CJS West Front Properties TIS Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometrics and Control ,nz,y,ad,q/cos,eas)/s�xz.-oz The City of Atascadero General Plan Circulation Element has designated LOS "C" as the minimum acceptable LOS standard on City facilities in general. in this report, a peak -hour of LOS "C" is taken as the threshold for acceptable traffic operations at all study intersections. All intersection turning movement volumes and level - of -service worksheets are contained in the Appendix. Although Caltrans has not designated a LOS standard, Caltrans' Guide for the Preparation of TraJfzclmpact Studies (June 2001) indicates that when the LOS of a State highway facilityfalls below the LOS "C/D" cusp in rural areas and the LOS "D/E" cusp in the Urban Areas, any additional traffic may have a significant impact. When existing State highway facilities are operating at higher levels of service than noted above, 20 -year forecasts or general plan build -out analysis for the facility should be considered to establish equitable project contributions to local development impact fee programs that address cumulative traffic impacts. To determine whether "significance" should be associated with unsignalized intersection level of service, a supplemental traffic signal warrant analysis was also performed. The signal warrant criteria employed for this study are presented in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. Specifically, this study utilized the Peak -Hour -Volume Warrant I1 (Urban Areas). Though utilization of this warrant may indicate that signalization would be required, the final decision to provide this improvement should be based on further studies utilizing the additional warrants presented in Caltrans Traffic Manual. It should be noted that the Peak -Hour -Volume Warrant 11 (Urban Areas) was only applied when the LOS was "D" or worse. Therefore, there may be instances when the unsignalized intersection operates at an acceptable LOS "C" conditions or better but still meets Warrant I 1 (Urban Areas). This traffic study generally provides a "planning level" evaluation of traffic operating conditions, which is considered sufficient for California Environmental Quality Act/National Environmental Policy Act (CEQA/NEPA) purposes. This planning level evaluation has, however, incorporated actual heavy -vehicle adjustment factors, peak hour factors, and signal lost -time factors and reports the resulting intersection delays and LOS as estimated using HCM-2000 methodologies. In this study, a general Peak Hour Factor (PHF) of 0.92 has been applied to the analysis of all study intersections under all analysis scenarios. The HCM- recommended suburban traffic signal default cycle length of 100 seconds has been used for analysis of signalized intersections, with 4 seconds of "lost time" per critical signal phase. The Traffix 7.6 integrated computer software program has been utilized to implement the. HCM-2000 analysis methodologies. West Front Properties Traffic Impact Study Page 6 May 24, 2005 RRM Design Group R752TS005.DOC(55-5625-02) cn,vl,':::� O 0 A N C O n E 7 U to ca U E c L) C a 10 ., cd � �3j 3 C O C U O 18 E b U C C > -� O O � O ?. O o E Z C_ U O C> 0. 7 E o v m .= v —% c E c p U C Z� U. C F roLr, .: N N:. .. kn M • A VI c3 "B W O i L7 C .; ::. G_., cu, o:.. ro .5 ami y d M. to VI.'"" VI N A VI E o O O' U • a a3 3 U � - n �E.' i •= 12" > s y n � `na 47 tLo O j > ba U 'n U T 7 til A {n C V7 . o L o... to _ n cn,vl,':::� O 0 A N C O n E 7 U to ca U E c L) C a 10 ., cd � �3j 3 C O C U O 18 E b U C C > -� O O � O ?. O o E Z C_ U O C> 0. 7 E o v m .= v —% c E c p U C Z� U. C F roLr, .: N N:. .. kn M • A VI c3 "B W O i L7 C .; ::. G_., cu, o:.. ro .5 ami y N M. to VI.'"" VI N A mejc E o O O' U • a a3 3 U o � .70 U . �E.' i •= 12" > s y n � `na tLo O j > ba U 'n U T 7 til A {n C '- E co o L o... to `a O ii G L H 0 N, t0..- w. •: a F C tjo o •Q U �- - O ej 6. v U 0 c43 U. U •� O U t� o. �:a ❑ u r w > E o . �:'.taa,•� v o e,%, ? C•" 00.•^ r7: OD' n ] O >O C U U- O � L _ O V cn,vl,':::� O 0 A N C O n E 7 U to ca U E c L) C a 10 ., cd � �3j 3 C O C U O 18 E b U C C > -� O O � O ?. O o E Z C_ U O C> 0. 7 E o v m .= v —% c E c p U C Z� nvi roLr, .: N N:. .. kn M • A VI " VI CD .... o vl - vi N M. to VI.'"" VI N A O O' U • v 0. 0. a3 '.V. �._.. h _ �E.' i •= �. '' ro tLo O j � C 0. :3 > E o c = u OL C.1 P. c>i c E co o L Co r O U O> U L C O ii G L H 0 N, t0..- w. •: a F C tjo o •Q U �- - O ej 6. v U 0 c43 U. U •� O U T G g W h o. �:a ❑ u r w > E o . �:'.taa,•� v o e,%, ? C•" 00.•^ r7: OD' n ] O >O C U o � cn,vl,':::� O 0 A N C O n E 7 U to ca U E c L) C a 10 ., cd � �3j 3 C O C U O 18 E b U C C > -� O O � O ?. O o E Z C_ U O C> 0. 7 E o v m .= v —% c E c p U C Z� EMSTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS "Existing" peak -hour intersection traffic operations were quantified applying existing traffic volumes (shown on Figure 2) and existing intersection lane geometries and control (shown on Figure 3). Table 2 presents the "Existing" peak hour intersection levels of service. TABLE 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LEVELS -OF -SERVICE 6 e our wj. a M; . Delay Control W6nt No660�� Type .:: I Portola Road/Atascadero Avenue AWSC 8.3 A No 8.1 A No 2 Portola Road/Coromar Road TWSC 8.9 A No 9.3 A No 3 Portola Road/West Front Road/ TWSC 10.6 B No 11-5 B No US 101 SB Off Ramp 4 Santa Rosa Road/Alascadero AWSC 9.5 A No 10.7 B No Avenue 5 Santa Rosa RoadAVest Front Road AWSC 9.8 A No 102 B No 6 Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/ AWSC 14.8 B No 18.7 C No US 101 SB On Ramp 7 Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/ AWSC 19-8 C Yes 29-2 D Yes US 101 NB On Ramp 8 Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real Signal 28-1 C 27.7 C Legend: TJYSC = Two-;Yay-Slop Control. AWSC = All -May Stop Control. Average Delay = Average Intersection Delay for Signalized intersections. Average Delay = Worst -Case intersection Movement Delay for DYSC Intersections. LOS = Average Intersection Level -of -Service for Signalized Intersections. LOS = Worst -Case Movement's Level-of-Servicefor TWSC Intersections. Warrant = Caltrans Peak -Hour Volume Warrant -11 (Urban Areas)_ As indicated in Table 2, all study intersections, except for the intersection at Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/US 101 NB On Ramp, are currently operating at a LOS "C" or better condition during both AM and PM peak hour periods under the "Existing" conditions scenario. However, as mentioned earlier in this report, Caltrans allows LOS C/D on their facilities, which would include this intersection. It should be noted that the intersections at Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/US 101 NB On Ramp and Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/US 101 NB On Ramp are forecasted to meet the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume War -rant 11 (Urban Areas) under "Existing" PM peak hour conditions. APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS DESCRIPTION One project is Approved/Pending within the study area. A 16 -unit single-family residential development will be constructed north of Portola Road and west of West Front Road, which is immediately north and across the street from the West Front Properties development. This project has been approved by the City Council and is pending construction. 0 West Front Properties Traffic Impact Study Page 8 May 24, 2005 RRM Design Group R752TS005.DOCI(55-5625-02) APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION Table 3 provides project trip generation for Approved/Pending land -uses based upon data presented in ITE Trip Generation (7`s Edition). As indicated in Table 3, these developments are estimated to generate 153 daily trips, including 12 AM peak hour trips and 16 PM peak hour trips. TABLE 3 APPRUVED/PENDING PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Land Use Category Unit: Dail .y._ Trip.. RatelUnit Weekda AtM Peak:Hour ,..., t ';Weekdii PM eak=Hoar x. y _ R.9 nit Rat`elUnit, "- Out % - ,:: Total tln Single Family DU ITE Code: 210 per DU 9.57 0.75 25% 75% 1.01 64% 36% Descri tion. Quantity. Trtps .:: Weekday.AN PenkAour Weekday EM"PeakHour _ Tn s Total In =: Out-•:: Total ;In Out Single Family DU 16 units 153 12 3 1 9 16 10 6 Total A roved Project Tris 153 12 3 1 9 16 10 6 APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS TRIP NATURE, DISTRIBUTION, AND ASSIGNMENT The Approved/Pending projects are expected to "generate" trips within the City or from other locations within the County. Directional trip distribution for Approved/Pending projects generated trips was estimated based upon the discussions with Caltrans, use of the Citywide Travel Demand Forecast Model, existing traffic flow patterns, geographical Iocation of the project site, location of other similar destinations, etc. The following identifies Approved/Pending projects trip distribution for residential land uses: • 29% to/from US 101 south of Santa Rosa Road • 23% to/from US 101 north of Santa Rosa Road • 13% to/from Atascadero Avenue north of Portola Road • 2% to/from Atascadero Avenue south of Portola Road • 11 % to/from Portola Road west of Atascadero Avenue • 1% to/from Santa Rosa Road west of Atascadero Avenue • 9% to/from El Camino Real north of Santa Rosa Road • 10% to/from El Camino Real south of Santa Rosa Road • 1% to/from West Front Road south of Santa Rosa Road • 1 % to/from Coromar Road north of Portola Road Trip path assignments were developed based upon origin and destination of trips, location of intersections and driveways, access restrictions at the study intersections and driveways, and on-site circulation patterns. EXISTING PLUS APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS CONDITIONS "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects" peak -hour intersection operations were quantified under existing lane geometries and control identified in Figure 3. Applying TRAFFIX 7.6 computer software, "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects" peak hour traffic conditions were simulated by superimposing new trips generated by the "Approved/Pending Projects", as identified in Table 3, over "Existing" base traffic volumes at the study intersections. The resulting "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects" peak hour intersection traffic volumes are shown on Figure 4. Table 4 presents the resulting peak hour intersection LOS. Rest Front Properties Traffic Impact Study Page 9 May 24, 2005 ARM Design Group R752TS005.DOC/(55-5625-02) PORTOLI ROAD) �J ATASCADERO AYENUE m X5(11) O Y nI —20(46) 1 � ,-41(28) (9)15 1 (29)9 d+ (33)'6-1 = n v �} SANTA ROSA ROAD) `f WEST FRONT ROAD/ U.S. IN S6 ONRAAIP m N ui k-33(96) n N N x-176(279) J + 1---52(62) (2)1� (252)289—► (2b)b6� PORTOLI ROADJ COROUAR ROAD G R---6(24) 1 4(110) (34)20 (34)20- �sl SANTA ROSA ROAD) `J EAST FROM ROAD / US. 101 NB ON RAMP X255(340) X197(276) (364)354— r o + J?OR TOLIROAD/ WEST FRONT ROAD/ US 101 SB OFF RA31P 1 h (46)37 V m .N. J 8 SANTA ROSA ROAD/ EL CAMINO REAL n m m N n N ci n X5(11) O Y nI 1 � t-156(79) (2445)279 O v.ni n m /4 SANTA ROSA ROAD/ ATASCIDERO AVENUE N r N k-59(35) 1 � t-156(79) (156)138 O v.ni 'Al SANTA ROSA ROAD) �J IYEST FRONT ROAD �-- 166(255) 59(69) (15)27" m .. - m ;- LEGEND LEGEND xx AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (xx) PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES JSP 101 Y�; Q g`rC' J1P �p0 N/ ra 9b� v < �O P rl 019E �lJ F 3 LAS LOMAS AVE. 2 PORTOLA RD. 'J 8 7 4 Q 093JyO SOO P 9� -P GABRIEL RD. 'p, ... tom• • r • !� •• _ T•A Figure 4 CExisting plus Approved/Pending Project Traffic Volumes TABLE 4 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LEVELS -OF -SERVICE nt 1 Portola Road/Atascadero Avenue AWSC 8.3 A . No 8.2 A No 2 Portola Road/Coromar Road TWSC 8.9 A No 9.4 A No 3 Portola Road/West Front Road/ TWSC 10.7 B No 11.6 B No US 101 SB Off Ramp 4 Santa Rosa Road/Atascadero AWSC 9.5 A No 10.7 B No Avenue 5 Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road AWSC 9.8 A No 10-2 B No 6 Santa Rosa RoadfWest Front Road/ AWSC 15.0 B No 19.2 C No US 101 SB On Ramp .7 Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/ AWSC 203 C Yes 29.8 D Yes US 101 NB On Ramp 8 Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real Signal 28.1 C - 27.7 C - Legend: TIVSC = Two -Way -Stop Control. AIYSC= All-IVay-Slop Control. Average Delay = Average Intersection Delay for Signalized Intersections. Average Delay = Worst -Case Intersection Movement Delay for TWSC Intersections. LOS = Average Intersection Level -of -Service for Signaled Intersections. LOS = Worst -Case ,tlovement's Level -of -Service for TWSC Intersections. Warrant = Caltrans Peak -Hour Volume IYarrant-11 (Urb6n Areas). As shown in Table 4, all study intersections, with the exception of the Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/US 101 NB On Ramp, are projected to operate at a LOS "C" or better conditions during both AM and PILI peak hour periods under "Existing plus ApprovedfPending Projects" scenario. It should be noted, however, that the intersections at Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/US f01 NB On Ramp and Santa Rosa Road/East Front RoadfUS 101 ND On Ramp are forecasted to meet the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant 11 (Urban Areas) under "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects" PM peak hour conditions. Again, Santa Rosa Road/East Front RoadfUS 101 NB On Ramp is forecasted to operate at LOS "D" conditions during the peak, which is acceptable for Caltrans facilities. Therefore, under "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects" PM peak hour conditions, no mitigation measures are found necessary. PROJECT DESCRIPTION As identified in the introduction, the West Front Properties development is located at the southwest corner of Portola Road and West Front Road in the City of Atascadero. According to the site plan dated May 5, 2005, this proposed 13.35 acre project contains a 5,000 square foot gas/retail pad, a 5,000 square foot restaurant/retail pad, a 79 room hotel, a 13,000 square foot retail/business park, 18 duplex homes, 14 courtyard homes, and 5 estate lots. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Table 5 identifies trip generation of the project's land -uses based upon data presented in ITE Trip Generalion (7a' Edition). As indicated in Table 5 on the following page, the 18 duplex homes are estimated to generate 105 daily trips, including eight AM peak hour trips and nine PM peak hour trips. The 14 courtyard homes and five estate lots are estimated to generate 182 daily trips, including 14 AM peak hour trips and 19 PM peak hour trips; the 79 room hotel is estimated to generate 645 daily trips, including 41 AM peak hour trips and 48 PM West Front Properties Traffic Impact Study Page 11 May 24, 2005 RRM Design Group R752TS005.DOC/(55-5625-02) peak hour trips; and the 5,000 square foot restaurant/retaiI development is estimated to generate 636 daily trips, including 68 AM peak hour trips and 94 PM peak hour trips. The 5,000 square foot gas/retail development is proposed to be a combination gas station/fast food restaurant with drive through/convenience store. This type of land use is not included in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (7`h Edition)_ In order to establish the peak hour trip generation for this type of land use a traffic count was conducted on May 25, 2004, at two driveways that serve a similar facility in the Community of Nipomo, located on the east side of U.S. 101/Tefft Street interchange in San Luis Obispo County. This particular McDonald's/Chevron consists of 12 gasoline pumps, a convenience market, and a fast food restaurant with drive through window, with a total gross floor area of approximately 6,500 square feet. Because this project is approximately 1,500 square feet less than the one that was observed, adjustments were made. Based upon the collected data, the 5,000 square foot development was estimated to generate 4,606 daily trips, including 322 ANI Deli hour Im god 301 PM "k hour qlp INTERNAL CAPTURE RATES A basic premise behind the data presented in the Trip Generation Manual is that they were collected at single - use, free-standing sites. However, the development of mixed-use or multi -use sites is increasingly popular. While the trip generation rates for individual uses on such sites may be the same or similar to what they are for free standing sites, there is potential for interaction among those uses within the multi -use site, particularly where the trip can be made by walking. A common example of this internal trip -making occurs at a multi -use development containing two or more ITE use classifications between which trips can be made without using the off-site road system. As outlined in the Trip Generation Handbook, an internal capture rate can generally be defined as a percentage reduction that can be applied to the trip generation estimates for individual land uses to account for trips internal to the site. An internal capture rate of 10% was applied to both the gas/retail and rest au rant/retai I land uses. PASS-BY/DIVERTED LINKED TRIPS According to the Trip Generation Handbook, pass -by trips are made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination without a route diversion. Pass -by trips are attracted from traffic passing the site on an adjacent street or roadway that offers direct access to the generator. Further, pass -by trips do not involve a route diversion to enter the site driveway. Diverted linked trips are trips that are attracted from the traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator but require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway to gain access to the site. According to the Guide for the Preparation of Trak Impact Studies (Caltrans, June 2001), "Pass -by trips are only considered for retail oriented development. Reductions greater than 15% require consultation and acceptance by Caltrans. The justification for exceeding a 15% reduction should be discussed in the TIS." For this project a diverted linked trip factor of 15% is assumed for trips utilizing US 101 for the restaurant/retail land use. For the gas/retail land use, a 35% diverted linked factor was applied for trips on US 101 and a 15% pass -by factor was applied for West Front Road. Typically, gas stations and fast-food restaurants are known to attract larger portions of existing trips from nearby roadways rather than generate new trips. Pass -by and diverted linked trips -have been incorporated into Figure A-1 and is included in the Appendix of this report. After applying the aforementioned internal capture and diverted linked/pass-by trip rates, the entire development is estimated to generate 3,418 daily trips, including 261 AM peak hour trips and 285 PM peak hour trips. West Front Properties Trak Impact Study Page 12 May 24, 2005 R1LNDesign Group R752TS005.DOC/(55-5625-02) TABLES PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ..... Daily �l'eekday,AM Peak Hour WeekdayPM Peak Flour Trip '.RatdU.nit. Rate/Unit I:and Use Category ` Unit Rate[Unit = `Total Im% Out % Total In %'' Out% Residential Condominium/Townhouse Per DU 5.86 0.44 18% 82% 0.52 64% 36% ITE Code: 230 Single Family DU [ITE Code: 210 per DU 9.57 0.75 25% 75% 1.01 63% 37% Hotel ITE Code: 310 Per Room 8.17 0.52 55% 45% 0.61 58% 42% Fast Food w/Drive Through and Gasoline — -- — -- _ _ pumps ' High Turnover Restaurant Per 1,000 ITE Code: 932 sq. h. 127.15 13.53 52% 48% 18.8 55% 45% Business Park [ITE Code: Per 1,000 7701 s . ft. 12.76 1.43 84% 16% 1.29 23% 77% Weekday AM Peak.Hour Weekday.Pl4h Peak ilodr :: Da Trips:'- Tris . Description ;.Quantity: Trips Total :: In =Out: Tbfa1'.'. .:: In :Out.=: Duplex Homes 18 units 105 8 1 6 9 6 3 Single Family DU 19 units 182 14 4 11 19 12 7 Hotel 79 rooms 645 41 23 18 48 28 20 Fast Food Nv/Drive Through S,OOOsq. ft. 4,606 322 158 164 302 148 154 and Gasoline pumps Restaurant 5,000 sq. ft. 636 68 35 32 94 52 42 Business Park 13,000 sq. R. 166 19 16 3 17 4 13 Pass-by/Diverted Linked Trips Gas/Retai{ (2,303) (161) (79) (82) (151) (74) (77) Diverted Linked Trips (Restaurant/Re(nil) (95) (10) (5) (5) {14) (8) (6) Internal Capture Rate 524 39 19 20 (40) (20 20 Total Project Tris 3,418 261 1331 I29 285 148 137 `Trip generation ivas determined by traffic counts conducted at McDonald's/Chevron in the Community ojNipomo. Note: Errors due to rounding may occur. PROJECT TRIP NATURE, DISTRIBUTION, AND ASSIGNMENT The project is expected to "generate" and "attract" trips throughout the City and from other locations throughout the region. Directional trip distribution for project generated trips was estimated based upon the Citywide travel demand model, existing traffic flow patterns, geographical location of the project site, location of other similar destinations, and input from Caltrans related to similar mixed land use projects in southern Atascadero. Conditions with and without the project were run in the traffic model. This resulted in a distribution of all project trips throughout the study area as shown on Figure 5. The following identifies project trip distribution (residential uses only) for the proposed project: • 29% to/from US 101 south of Santa Rosa Road 0 23% to/from US 101 north of Santa Rosa Road 13% to/from Atascadero Avenue north of Portola Road • 2% to/from Atascadero Avenue south of Portola Road • 11 % to/from Portola Road west of Atascadero Avenue • I % to/from Santa Rosa Road west of Atascadero Avenue • 9% to/from El Camino Real north of Santa Rosa Road • 10% to/from El Camino Real south of Santa Rosa Road West Front Properties Traffic Impact Study Page 13 Mai, 24, 2005 RAM Design Group R752TSOOS.DOC/(55-5625-02) • I% to/from West Front Road south of Santa Rosa Road • 1% to/from Coromar Road north of Portola Road . Commercial trips are anticipated to be attracted from local neighbors, as opposed to residential trips that are generated and distributed over a larger area. For commercial trip distribution, the following assumptions were made: • 19% to/from US 101 south of Santa Rosa Road • 19% to/from US 101 north of Santa Rosa Road • 14% to/from Atascadero Avenue north of Portola Road • 4% to/from Atascadero Avenue south of Portola Road • 14% to/from Portola Road west of Atascadero Avenue • 3% to/from Santa Rosa Road west of Atascadero Avenue • 8% to/from El Camino Real north of Santa Rosa Road • 17% to/from El Camino Real south of Santa Rosa Road • 1% to/from West Front Road south of Santa Rosa Road • 1 % to/from Coromar Road north of Portola Road West Front Properties Traffic Impact Snrdy Page 14 RRM Design Group May 24. 2005 R 752TSOOS.DOC/(SS-56 25-02) OVP ORS J1P 3°I° PURTOLA RD. 14 % �•�.� (11 %) CIO IO01 °1° z l9 °1°l Pte' o ti Iv < / PROJECT LOCATION F OSP R sPNA °1° CIO\o�o GABRIEL RD. LEGEND XX % COMMERCIAL (XX %) RESIDENTIAL West Front Properties TIS Project Trip Distribution LAS L Figure 5 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project" peak -hour intersection operations were quantified utilizing the proposed lane geometries and control identified in Figure 7. Applying TRAFFIX 7.6 computer software, "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project" peak hour traffic conditions were simulated by superimposing new trips generated over "Existing" base traffic at the study intersections. The resulting "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project" peak hour intersection traffic volumes are shown on Figure 6. Table 6 presents the resulting peak hour intersection LOS. TABLE 6 EXISTING PLUS APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LEVELS -OF -SERVICE AIYI Pcak'Hour 'PI4fPeak Hour' , - .'Control Delay � ` t' Warrant Delay � Warrnnf. i No 1 Portola Road/Atascadero Avenue AWSC 8.7 A No 8.6 A No 2 Portola Road/Coromar Road TWSC 9.5 A No 10.2 B No 3 Portola Road(West Front Road/ TWSC 12.7 B No 14-3 B No US 101 SB Off Ramp 4 Santa Rosa Road/Atascadero AWSC 9-7 A No 10.9 B No Avenue 5 Santa Rosa Road/ West Front Road AWSC 9.9 A No 10-4 B No Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/ AWSC 28.8 D Yes 53.6 F Yes US 101 SB On Ramp Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road! AWSC 39.4 E Yes 58.4 F Yes US 101 NB On Ramp 8 Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real Signal 29.3 C — 29.5 C -- 9 Portola Road/Driveway #1 TVSC 8.7 A No 8.7 A No 10 West Front Road/Driveway#2 TWSC 12.3 B No 12.6 B No I 1 West Front Road/Driveway 43 TWSC 12.1 B No 12.5 B No 12 West Front Road/Driveway #4 TVSC 12.2 B No 12.5 B No Legend: 77YSC = Two -Way -Stop Control. AWSC = All-IYay Siop Control. Average Delay = Average Intersection Delay for Signalized Intersections. Average Delay = 3Yorst-Care Intersecilon Movement Delay for M'SC Intersections. LOS= Average Intersection Level -of -Service jar Signalized lntersections. LOS = Worst -Case Alovemeni's Level -of -Service for DYSC Intersections- Worranr = Caltrans Peak -Hour Volume Warrant -]I (Urban Areas). West From Properties Trac Impact Study Page 16 May 24, 2005 RRM Design Group R752TS005.DOC/(55-5625-02) PURTOLA ROAD/ ATASCADERO AVENUE m ry m N Li2(60) V a n ± { � -38(65) (14)13 41(29) (5}30-► v (49)28 v (33)46-y %� o v v l .5AfVIA xWA xUAD/ / WESTFRONTROAD/ U.S. 101 SB ON R.•Lt/P n ny n k-120(188) O m N !' -176(279) X52(62) (12)10-4 (252)269-► (26)66 '11 WEST FRONT ROAD/ DRIVEWAY N3 m ry Jl X4(6) Ji } (14)13 N no (5}30-► v PORTOLAROAD/ COROMAR ROAD � n k--7(25) I II •--96(145) 1 JAIY/A xVJA xVAU/ I EASTFRONTROAD/ U.S. 101 NB ONRAMP k-255(340) -230(312) (142)150 1 (398)385--► 00 O t0 N Nv y2 mt.5i rxuiv/ xu, DRI VEIYAY 44 m n N n Y J i X4(6) Ji } (192)79-0 I f (5}30-► v N (268)300 v JPUR7UL.I RUAD/ IYEST FRONT ROAD/ US 101 SB OFF RAMP "�\ T (87}84-7 .`i m p j SAMA RUSH ROAD EL GIMINO REAL n n Y h X4(6) Ji (192)79-0 I f (5}30-► N n n (268)300 N v � ^C N v m m n JAJY/A xuJA xUAU / ATASCADEROAVENUE v x X161(83) (10)8 (160)142- ► �_ (10)7---,n N v � Y J PURI ULA RUAD/ DRIYEIYAY NI X106(189) (80)77-► (72,11 n n SANTA ROSA ROAD/ WEST FRONT ROAD �176(264) (217)280 -s �1 - m n 10 IYESTFRONT ROAD/ DRIVEWAYN2 n n Ji (-�--0 1 (134)135 ry N v � LEGEND xx AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (xx) PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES West Front Properties TIS Figure 6 Existing plus Approved/Pending Project plus Project Traffic Volumes 101 Pte. a IL ��� O � 3 LAS LOMAS AVE. 10 2 PORTOLA RD, 1 11 8 12 7 PROJECT F� LOCATION PJB 4 P GABRIEL RD, PO SSEY� West Front Properties TIS Figure 6 Existing plus Approved/Pending Project plus Project Traffic Volumes PORTOLA ROAD/ ATASCADERO AVENUE dimSTO �4- d2sis' SANTA ROSA ROAD/ WEST FRONT ROAD/ US. 1y0�1� R ONRAMP d-S 0� ~ T1 IV£ST FRONT ROAD/ DRIVEWAY A3 J1 'j PORTOLA ROADY COROMAR ROAD �4- d2sis' STOP 71 SANTA ROSA ROAD/ •J EASTFRONTROADI U.S. 101 N ON "Vp 4 J DRIVEWAY 941 WESTFRONTROAD .J 1 0 <RD.1 �PORTDLA PORTOLAROADI )VEST )VEST FRONT ROADI US 101 SR OFF RAMP .J d g� SANTA ROSA ROAD/ ✓✓ EL CAMINO REAL t 4 SANTA ROSA ROAD I ATASCADERO AVENUE dOTS g� PORTOLAROADI .•JJ DRIVEIVAYkl (- PROJECT LOCATION GABRIEL RD. West Front Properties TIS Project Lane Geometrics and Control Jl SANTA ROSA ROAD I )VEST FRONT ROAD IVESTFRONTROADI DRIVEWAY #2 J1 LAS LOMAS AVE. C,q�lZO �O��J P cv CJS Figure 7 As shown in Table 6, all study intersections, except for the intersections at Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/US 101 SB On Ramp and Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/US 101 NB On Ramp, are projected to operate at a LOS "C" or better conditions during both AM and PM peak hour periods under "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project" scenario. In addition, the intersections located at Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/US 101 SB On Ramp and Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/US 101 NB On Ramp are forecasted to meet the Caltrans Peak Hour Volume Warrant 11 (Urban Areas) under "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project" PM peak hour conditions. This finding indicates that vehicles are forecasted to experience unacceptable delays under this scenario. All mitigation measures are discussed in a subsequent section of this report. West Front Properties Traffic Impact Study Page 19 May 24, 2005 RRM Design Group R752TS005_DOCI(55-5625-02) FUTURE CONDITIONS GENERAL Under Year 2025 conditions, two scenarios were analyzed. Under the fust scenario, herein called the "Year 2025 Base" scenario, it is assumed that the City will continue to develop but West Front Properties will not occur. The second scenario, identified as "Year 2025 Base plus Project," assumes that development of project will occur. Both scenarios assume that no improvements have been made to the study intersections or roadways; therefore, "Existing" lane geometrics and control are used in the analysis under conditions with and without project. This enables the City and Caltrans to identify future project impacts to the study intersections. "Year 2025 Base" AM and PM daily traffic forecasts were provided by utilizing the daily Citywide Travel Demand Forecast Model, which uses Viper/TP+ software and was developed by OMNI -MEANS during completion of the City's most recent Circulation Element Update. OMNI -MEANS used the daily directional traffic counts at each leg of the intersection to balance the turning movement counts. The turning movement counts were computed using techniques provided in National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP 255) through the use of TurnsW32 computer application. Based upon future trip "ins" and "outs" for each leg of the intersection, TurnsW32 runs several iterations to calculate future daily traffic volumes by turning movement. Following this process, OMNI -MEANS checked the forecasted turning movements for reasonableness and made adjustments, if necessary. YEAR 2025 BASE CONDITIONS "Year 2025 Base" peak -hour intersection traffic operations were quantified applying "Year 2025 Base" traffic volumes shown on Figure 8 and "Existing" or intersection lane geometrics and control identified previously on Figure 3. Table 7 presents the "Year 2025 Base" peak hour intersection LOS. TABLE 7 YEAR 2425 BASE CONDITIONS: - INTERSECTION LEVELS -OF -SERVICE A -NJ Peak Llour, .. ;; pIVL Peak Aoui. Control Delay Warrant Delay WnrranC'k No Intersection Type (seclveh):..`I OS :. Me'f� -. (seclveh). :.,lOS Met? . 1 Portola Road/Atascadero Avenue AWSC 9.3 A No 8.8 A No 2 Portola Road/Coromar Road T`WSC 9.2 A No 9.8 A No 3 Portola Road/West Front Road/ T WSC 11-4 B No 13.2 B No US 101 SB Off Ramp 4 Santa Rosa Road/Atascadero AWSC 11-3 B No 16.4 C No Avenue 5 Santa Rosa Road/ West Front Road AWSC 11.8 B No 13.4 B No 6 Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/ AWSC 27.2 D Yes 55.9 F Yes US 101 SB On Ramp 7 Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/ AWSC 52.6 F Yes 94.7 F Yes US 101 NB On Ramp 8 Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real Signal 33.4 C -- 39.8 D -- Legend: DSC = Tivo-Wav-Slop Control. A1VSC = All-1Vay Stop Control. Average Delav = Average Intersection Delay for Signalized Intersections. Average Delay = lVorst-Case Intersection Movement Delay for M'SC Intersections. LOS =Average Intersection Leiel-of-Service for Signalized lruersections. _ LOS = lVorst-Case Movement's Level -of -Service for 7111SC Intersections. lYarranr = Caltrans Peak -Hour Volume JFarrant-ll (Urban Areas). West Front Properties Traffic Impact Study Page 20 May 24, 2005 RRM Design Group R752TS005.D0C/(55-5625-02) ' PORTOLI ROAD/ ATASCADERO AVENUE t--37(53) N V vl 1 i.53(37) 1 60) .1 (244)8+ } (12)23--�' I^ (38)39 n (44)5 _ X. V O c � n m V . J SANTA ROSA ROAD/ •J JPEST FRONT ROAD/ U.S.I0j, ONRA.If1' n m �n k-39(122) m o -217(346) X69(82) (1J)72� (375)366- (39}86-� 2 PORTOLI ROAD/ COROMAR COURT m m Nim >-16(32) +--64(147) (17)1 s --J (37)26—a �7l SANTA ROSA ROAD/ EAST FRONT ROAD / U.S. 101 NB ONRA.IIP k-315(384) •-248(346) 15(22) (116)136 (82)97 r m n N v uPORTOLI ROAD/ �J IYEST FRONT ROAD/ US 101 SB_qFF RAW p n r) � r ' SANTA ROSA ROAD/ A) EL C MINO RF -14 n , n is e 200(170) {-57(63) (14)15 (205)170-+ 11(16) (244)8+ } n h m n (16)37—► J (319)347 n o c � n m V �4 SANTA ROSA ROAD/ ATASCADERO AVENUE e 200(170) {-57(63) (14)15 (205)170-+ (15)16--, n h m n J 'ql SANTA ROSH ROAD/ �j {VEST FRONT ROAD + 200(312) 82(116) (329)349 1 f n LEGEND xx AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (xx) PM PEAK }-LOUR VOLUMES 101 P�. H 9] 411- q`�C} J%t" D O r_<*1 9� -p.D F` 3 LAS LOMAS AVE. 2 PORTOLA RD. 6 5 n P 4 SPN� OT AA P GABRIEL RD. West Front Properties TIS Figure 8 Year 2025 Base Traffic Volumes 1 As shown in Table 7, three of the seven study intersections are projected to operate at peak hour LOS "D" conditions or worse under AM and PM peak hour periods for "Year 2025 Base" conditions. The intersections on Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/US 101 SB On Ramp and East Front Road/US 101 NB On Ramp and the intersection at Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real are projected to operate at LOS "D" or worse conditions under "Year 2025 Base" scenario. In addition, two of these intersections on Santa Rosa Road — at the West Front Road/US 101 SB On Ramp and East Front Road/US 101 NB On Ramp — are projected to meet the Caltrans Peak -Hour Volume Warrant 11 (Urban Areas) under projected "Year 2025 Base" AM and PM peak hour volume conditions. This is a result of increased traffic volumes and no improvements at the study intersections beyond "Existing" conditions. All mitigation measures are discussed in a subsequent section of this report. YEAR 2025 BASE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS "Year 2025 Base plus Project" peak -hour intersection traffic operations were quantified applying "Year 2025 Base plus Project" traffic volumes shown on Figure 9 and "Existing" intersection lane geometrics and control identified previously on Figure 6. This scenario assumes development of the project and no roadway or intersection improvements. Table 8 presents the "Year 2025 Base plus Project" peak hour intersection LOS. TABLES YEAR 2025 BASE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LEVELS -OF -SERVICE Peak Hour': :. PM PeSk our M. Control peiay Warrant Aclay Warranf =No Intersection Type : (sec/veh)., :' LOS )4lct? (sec/veh) LOS _.>Meto., 1 Portola Road/Atascadero Avenue AWSC 9.8 A No 9.4 A No 2 PortolaRoad/CoromarRoad TWSC 9.8 A No 10.7 B No 3 Portola Road/West Front Road/ TWSC 14.1 B No I7.9 C No US 101 SB Off Ramp 4 Santa Rosa Road/Atascadero AWSC 11.5 B No 16.9 C No Avenue 5 Santa Rosa Road/ West Front Road AWSC 12.1 B No 13.8 B No 6 Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/ AWSC 69.0 F Yes OVRFL F Yes US 101 SB On Ramp 7 Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/ AWSC 91.8 F Yes OVRFL F Yes US 101 NB On Ramp 8 Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real Signal 35.8 D — 45.7 D — 9 Portola Road/Driveway #1 TWSC 8.8 A No 8.8 A No 10 West Front Road/Driveway #2 TWSC 13-1 B No 13.8 B No 1 I West Front Road/Driveway #3 TWSC 12.8 B No 13.5 B No 12 West Front Road/Driveway #4 TWSC 12.9 B No 13.5 B No Legend: TIYSC = Two-iVay-Stop Control. AIYSC = A11-IY'ov Stop Control. Average Delay =Average Intersection Delay for Signalized Intersections. Average Delay = IYorst-Case intersection Movement Delayfor TIYSCIntersections. LOS =Average Intersection Level-of-Servicefor Signalized Intersections. LOS = IYorst-Case,blovement's Level -of -Service for TIYSCInterseuions. ;Varront = Caltrans Peak -Hour Volume IVarrant-il (Urban Areas). OVRFL = Overflow conditions (> 100seconds delay). West Front Properties Trak Impact Study Page 22 Mav 24, 2005 RRd9Design Group R752TS005.DOC/(55-5625-02) j PORTOLA ROAD/ ATASCADERO AVENUE t2 `r n I",k N Y "' —6X72) Y+ X16(15) Ji X115(,83) (12)23 f (17)1 B --J' Z n 'pl SANTA ROSA ROAD/ �f WEST FRONT ROAD / U.S. J01 SB ON RAMP Q Q m L125(214) r h � r a n 4-217(348) J1 {-69(82) (23)21—} (375)366—i (39)BG—� �� WEST FRONT ROAD/ DRIVEIVAY #J h + n � v N k-17(37) J! X16(15) Ji X115(,83) 203(174) f (17)1 B --J' (14)15---4 (14)15-4 (74)63- o N v '1 PORTOLAROAD/ COROMARROAD aZ. k-17(37) M a X16(15) Ji X115(,83) 203(174) f (17)1 B --J' (14)15---4 (14)15-4 (74)63- N rn� n '7l SAMA ROSA ROAD/ �f EAST FRONT ROAD/ U.S. 101 NB ON RAMP k-315(384) —279(382) {—,5((222) (166)T86� � j (525)465— (82)97---4 525)465--►(82)97--4 n Q n ^ N m - m N v WEST FRONT ROAD/ DRI YEIYAY #4 n r Vh N ~ � n Jl r N UPORTOLAROAD/ (FEST FRONT ROAD/ US 101 SB OFF RAMP 0 + (96)91 n m n 'nl SANTA ROSA ROAD/ �J EL CA,l INO REAL N Y 0 n n o X16(15) Ji —12(18) 203(174) f (255)95---t (14)15---4 (14)15-4 (16)37, (342)368 (209)174—+ N rn� n chi n ,•, o n v m 4 SANTA ROSA ROAD / ATASCADERO AVENUE 0 m Y o m Ji _N 203(174) f (134)135 (14)15---4 (14)15-4 �1 f (209)174—+ N ,•, o n J PORTOLA ROADI DRJVEIVAY #1 (� 136(229) (69)84—► (12)11 ^ SANTA ROSA ROAD / NEST FRONT ROAD �— 20B(321) j--^ 83(119) (337)x57-_► (21�73i n n o �4 WESTFRONTRO.AD/ DRI YEIVAY N2 n N n + m Y o v Ji 9���0 (36)34---4I f (134)135 m Y N AVE. LEGEND xe AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (xx) PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES J P 101 ��; o --I4iL v 9���0 39A v m AVE. LAS LOMAS 2 PORTOLA RD, I 8 12 7 6 PROJECT LOCATION P GABRIEL RD. •AD West Front Properties TIS Figure 9 Year 2025 Base plus Project Traffic i Volumes As shown in Table 8, the intersections at Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/US 101 SB On Ramp, Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/US 101 NB On Ramp, and Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real are projected to operate at LOS "D" or worse conditions under AM and PM peak hour periods for "Year 2025 Base plus Project" conditions. In addition, two of these intersections on Santa Rosa Road — at the US 101 NB and SB Ramps — are projected to meet the Caltrans Peak -Hour Volume Warrant 11 (Urban Areas) under projected "Year 2025 Base plus Project" AM and PM peak hour volume conditions. This is a result of increased traffic volumes and no improvements at the study intersections beyond "Existing" conditions. All mitigation measures are discussed in the following section of this report. West Front Properties Traffic Impact Study Page 24 May 24, 2005 RRM Design Group R752TS005.DOCI(55-5625-02) RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES This section presents a list of recommended mitigation measures at the study intersections and roadways based upon the results of the analysis presented in this report. All of the study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable LOS "C" conditions or better through 2025 with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures identified below. Because the mitigation measures are recommended for buildout in Year 2025 and generally do not provide an implementation year, the study intersections requiring mitigation to achieve acceptable levels of services should be monitored on a regular basis by the City of Atascadero and/or Caltrans. It should also be noted that the City of Atascadero collects developer impact fees, of which improvements to the Santa Rosa Road/US 101 interchange are included in this program. EXISTING CONDITIONS Under "Existing" conditions, no deficiencies were identified. Therefore, mitigation measures are not recommended under "Existing" conditions. EXISTING PLUS APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS CONDITIONS Under "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects" conditions, no deficiencies were identified_ Therefore, mitigation measures are not recommended under "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects" conditions. EXISTING PLUS APPROVED/PENDING PROJECTS PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Under "Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects plus Project" conditions, the following mitigation measures have been identified and/or the equitable share has been calculated: Santa Rosa Road/US 101 interchange: Install traffic signals and consider coordination with nearby and future traffic signals. As a result of cumulative traffic growth within the vicinity of this interchange and the existing substandard design of this tight diamond interchange, the existing all -way stop controlled intersections are forecasted to degrade to unacceptable LOS "F" conditions during the PM peak_ In addition, the projected traffic volumes during the PM peak hour period meet the Caltrans' Peak Hour Warrant I 1 (Urban Areas) for both intersections. A queuing analysis was performed by OMNI -MEANS along Santa Rosa Road between the two future signalized ramp heads, It was determined that there is not adequate space between the two ramp intersections to accommodate traffic signals at this location. However, if these traffic signals were coordinated, traffic flow would be improved. A detailed analysis would be required. Ultimately, this substandard interchange needs to be improved to Caltrans' current standards. Therefore, it is recommended that City and/or Caltrans conduct a Project Study Report (PSR) for this interchange to determine future improvements. These future improvements may include consideration of roundabouts and/or re -aligning surface streets in addition to the recommendations made by OMNI -MEANS. Based upon Caltrans' Guide for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (June 2001), the equitable share responsibility was calculated during the PM peak hour period. Based upon the project's contribution to the PM peak hour traffic growth at this intersection, the project's "fair -share" of improvements at the intersection at Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/US 101 SB On Ramp is projected to be 43.5% [259/(1652-1,056)]_ At the intersection of Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/US 101 NB Ramps, the project's "fair -share" of improvements is projected to be 31.4% [176/(2011-1,451)]_ With recommended improvements at these intersections, the AM and PM peak hour LOS are projected to operate acceptably. West Front Properties Traffic Impact Study Page 25 May 24, 2005 RRrLl Design Group R752TS005.D0C/(55-5675-02) Project Driveways: It is recommended, and was assumed during this analysis, that the Portola Road/Driveway # I operate as a "right -tum -only" intersection_ This is a result of the close proximity to the Portola Road/West Front Road intersection_ It is further recommended that acceleration and deceleration lanes be installed that comply with the City's development standards. Based upon the forecasted traffic volumes at Portola Road/Driveway #1, the deceleration lane should be a minimum of 50 feet for the eastbound right tum lane. For West Front Road/Driveway #2 and West Front Road/Driveway #3, the acceleration and deceleration lanes should also be a minimum of 50 feet. YEAR 2025 BASE CONDITIONS Under "Year 2025 Base" conditions, the following mitigation measures are recommended: Santa Rosa Road/US 101 interchange: Install traffic signals and coordinate with nearby traffic signals on the Santa Rosa Road NB and SB Ramps (discussed above) and widen the existing structure to accommodate left turn lanes. As a result of cumulative traffic growth within the vicinity of this interchange and the existing substandard design of this tight diamond interchange, the existing all -way stop controlled intersdctions are forecasted to degrade the operational status to unacceptable LOS "F" conditions during the PM peak. In addition, the estimated traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hour period meet Caltrans' Peak Hour Warrant 11 (Urban Areas). Santa Rosa RoadMest Front Road intersection: Based upon the above recommended mitigation measure, OMNI -MEANS conducted a queuing analysis that indicated that the traffic on the eastbound approach of Santa Rosa Road/US 101 SB Ramps would create operational problems at the Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road all - way stop -controlled intersection. Therefore, it is recommended that the eastbound stop be eliminated so that only the northbound approach is stop -controlled. It is further recommended that access restriction at this intersection be considered by Caltrans and the City. Restricting movements at this intersection to a "right-tums only" intersection will likely improve safety as well as improve the flow of traffic on the Santa Rosa Road corridor west of US 101. Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real intersection: Provide for dual northbound left turning movements on EI Camino Real to accommodate the forecasted increase of traffic volume at this intersection. In fact, over 400 peak hour northbound left turning movements are projected for this movement. implementation of the proposed mitigation measure is forecasted to result in acceptable LOS through Year 2025. YEAR 2025 BASE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Under "Year 2025 Base plus Project" conditions, it is assumed that mitigation measures recommended under "Existing" conditions have been implemented. Under "Year 2025 Base plus Project" conditions, the following mitigation measures have been identified and/or the equitable share has been calculated: Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real intersection: Based upon Caltrans' Guidefor Preparation ofTraffic Impact Studies (June 2001), the equitable share responsibility was calculated during the PM peak hour period. Based upon the project's contribution to the PM peak hour traffic growth at the intersection of Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real, the project's "fair -share" of improvements at the intersection is projected to be 8.9% [70/3,017 - 2,235)] in "Year 2025 Base plus Project" conditions. ROUNDABOUT/SYNCIIRO ANALYSIS Per the City's request, OMNI -MEANS conducted a conceptual roundabout analysis at the US 101 NB and SB Ramp heads at Santa Rosa Road_ A brief description of the results of the analysis for the worst case scenario— West Front Properties Traffic Impact Study Page 26 May 24, 2005 - R" Design Group R752TS005_DOCI(55-5625-02) "Year 2025 + Project" PM Peak Hour— is provided in this section. It should be noted that the roundabout was analyzed on the conceptual basis only and that roundabouts are going to be seriously considered, further engineering design and analysis must be performed. Right -of -Way must also be considered and would be determined upon completion of the ultimate build -out of the roundabout. The use of modem roundabouts in the United States in the early 1990s and their popularity bas continued to grow. Roundabouts are circular intersections that feature, among other important geometric components, a central island, a circulatory roadway, and splitter islands on each approach. Key to the proper implementation of these facilities is the understanding that roundabouts rely upon two basic and important principles: 1. Speed reduction through the facility, achieved through geometric design, which ensures optimal operational benefits and safety enhancement; and 2. The yield -at -entry rule that requires traffic entering the intersection to yield to traffic that is traveling in the circulatory roadway when conflicts occur between them_ Use of roundabouts on the State Highway system may be considered for the primary purpose of enhancing safety and operational characteristics at intersections. Dependent upon the location and situation, roundabout installation has the potential benefits of improved safety, intersection capacity, and an overall betterment in operational characteristics of the intersection. OMNI -MEANS conducted the roundabout analysis by utilizing Synchro/SimTraffic software. SimTraffic is a secondary program that works in conjunction with Synchro to produce a visual representation of traffic operations. SimTraffic uses a Poisson distribution to randomly determine when new vehicles enter the network and to choose vehicle paths through the network. Because of this random process, 10 simulation runs are conducted and averaged to determine the average speed and average delay per vehicle for acceptable operating conditions. For the conceptual analysis completed by OMNI -MEANS, the inside radius was assumed to be 50 feet. It was also.assumed that one lane would exist for the roundabout at Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/US 101 SB on ramp. However, due to the required mitigation of dual left turn lanes on the northbound approach at Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real, a two lane roundabout would be needed at Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/US 101 NB on ramp. The operating conditions simulated that average delay per vehicle was 15.5 seconds and the average speed was projected to be 13 mph for the roundabout located at Santa Rosa Road/West Front Road/US 101 SB on ramp. For the two lane roundabout located at Santa Rosa Road/East Front Road/US 101 NB on ramp, the average delay per vehicle was 9.2 seconds and the average speed was 13 mph. It should be noted, however, that this roundabout analysis was conceptual in nature and further analysis would be required to develop LOS results. Based upon the Synchro analysis, acceptable LOS could be achieved at the study intersections along the Santa Rosa Road corridor with the installation of roundabouts at the Santa Rosa Road/US 101 interchange. It is recommended that the City and/or Caltrans ultimately complete a Project Study Report (PSR) for this interchange that would determine future layout and improvements to the interchange. In addition, the Synchro analysis demonstrated that signalization of both of the ramps would operate acceptably provided West Front Road is a right-tums-only driveway and that the signals are coordinated. West Front Properties Traffic Impact Study Page 27 May 24, 2005 RRAI Design Group R751TS005.DOCI(55-5625-02) !VEST FRONT ROAD/ DRI VEIYAY x3 1 H h LEGEND xx GAS/RETAIL DIVERTED LINKED TRIPS (xx) RESTAURANT/RETAIL DIVERTED LINKED TRIPS [xx] GAS/RETAIL PASS -BY TRIPS LAS LDMAS AVE. West Front Properties TIS Figure A-1 _. �AM Peak Hour Pass-By/Diverted Linke � Trips 55Z5-- C2 �ql PORTOL4 ROAD �f WEST FRONT ROAD/ US 101 SB OFFRASIP �2 1 VEST FRONT ROAD / DRIVEIVAY 111 n n nI i t N N n L p� SANTA ROSA ROAD I �J WESTFRONTROAD/ US,101SBONRAW h v N �- 2 (3) SANTA ROSA ROAD/ EASTFRONTROADI U.S. 101 AB ON RAMP �1O WEST FRONT ROAD -1 DRTVEIVAY H2 n n n i [7517)53 '1 ? N 1 x m WESTFRONTROADI DRIYEIVAY #3 �I i 1 n LEGEND xx GAS/RETAIL DIVERTED LINKED TRIPS (xx) RESTAURANT/RETAIL DIVERTED LINKED TRIPS [xx] GAS/RETAIL PASS -BY TRIPS JSP 101 �� o 9��9 JZP OHO v�1 0 < 'A 9�F 9 3 14 LAS LDMAS AVE. 2 PQRTDLA RD, 1 I 11 PROJECT LOCATION 4 O SPN� P R L 7 J / _p RIEL RD. PO SFS y� CJS West Front Properties TIS Figure A-1 PM Peak Hour Pass-By/Diverted Linked Trips 1