Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 2014-0005 EXHIBIT A: Addendum to 3F Meadows Environmental Impact Report City of Atascadero Addendum to 3F MEADOWS Environmental Impact Report March 21, 2014 Prepared by: City of Atascadero Planning Department 6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 I. INTRODUCTION This memorandum, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), is an Addendum to the certified 3F Meadows Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 94061014 (“3F Meadows EIR”). The 3F Meadows EIR analyzed the potential impacts of the 3F Meadows Ranch development project, which entailed a lot line adjustment (LLA 94005), a zone change (ZC 94-001) which created the Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 11 (“PD-11”), and a colony road abandonment (RA 94-001) to provide for a comprehensive reconfiguration and development of the existing 115-lot colony residential subdivision into 111 residential parcels, a water tank parcel and three open space lots on an 800+ acre site in the City of Atascadero to address access issues, create larger parcels of open space and relocate and develop residential lots into more compact areas of the site to minimize environmental impacts (“3F Meadows Ranch Project” or “Project”). The 3F Meadows EIR identified mitigation measures to reduce all of the potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the 3F Meadows Ranch Project to levels of insignificance, and the City certified the 3F Meadows EIR and approved the 3F Meadows Ranch Project in February 1995. The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate proposed minor changes to some of the off-site traffic mitigation measures identified in the original 3F Meadows EIR, which were incorporated into the PD-11 zoning district1 developed for and applied as conditions of approval to the 3F Meadows Ranch Project. Other than the minor changes to PD-11 discussed and analyzed herein, no other changes or discretionary approvals are proposed for or to the number, location or development of any residential lots, roads or any other aspects of the 3F Meadows Ranch Project. As explained below, it is necessary for the City to modify some of the traffic mitigation measures to: (i) avoid creating new, more severe significant adverse environmental impacts; (ii) ensure road improvements are constructed consistent with and meet current Caltrans recommendations and standards; and (iii) delete those which are not necessary to address any potentially significant traffic impacts associated with the Project. As demonstrated in this Addendum, no further environmental review beyond this Addendum is necessary due to the fact that the proposed changes to the PD-11 will not result in any new or more severe environmental impacts. II. BACKGROUND While the City certified the 3F Meadows EIR and approved the 3F Meadows Ranch Project in 1995, residential construction on the Project site did not begin in earnest until after the Project was acquired by Castlerock Development (“Castlerock”) in 2003. The original project applicant/developer was the Davis Family Trust. Castlerock continues to own and develop the Project2 today. To date, Castlerock has applied for residential building permits for 31 of the 34 Phase 1 lots.3 In response to those 31 applications the City has issued 26 building permits and 1 PD-11 is located in the City of Atascadero Municipal Code, Title 9 (Planning And Zoning), Chapter 3 (Zoning Districts), Article 28 (PD (Planned Development) Overlay Zone), Section 9-3.656 (Establishment of Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 11). The Municipal Code is available online at: http://qcode.us/codes/atascadero/ 2 The Project is now commonly referred to as Oak Ridge Estates, but for purposes of this Addendum will continue to be referred to as the “3F Meadows Ranch Project” or just “Project” for consistency. 3 The 3 remaining Phase 1 lots include two residential parcels (lots 9 and 80) and one AMWC water tank parcel (lot 11). construction has been completed and the permits finaled on 25 of them. The 3F Meadows/Oak Ridge Estates Public Improvement Map attached hereto as Exhibit A depicts the Project site, the four (4) phases of planned development and the current status of the development of the residential lots in phase 1. As a result of the economic downturn, however, construction on the Project has been very limited since 2006. The City issued the first building permit in early 2004 and the last building permit in the summer of 2007. Then, in March of 2010, the City informed Castlerock that it could not issue any additional building permits for new residential dwellings until certain off-site road improvements required by PD-11 were constructed. All of the off-site road improvements the City demanded be constructed before it would issue any further building permits involved road improvements at or near the intersection of State Route 41 and Los Altos Road (“SR 41/Los Altos”). These improvements stemmed from comments the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) provided on the original 3F Meadows EIR. Indeed, the 3F Meadows EIR included a “Traffic Safety” section which established mitigation measures to address various potential traffic safety impacts, including potential traffic safety impacts at SR 41/Los Altos.4 Most notably, Caltrans requested and the final 3F Meadows EIR required a new right-turn lane for westbound traffic on State Route 41 approaching SR 41/Los Altos, as well as a new “refuge lane” for eastbound traffic entering SR 41 from Los Altos Road. As noted above, the City then incorporated those mitigation measures into PD-11 and applied them as conditions of approval to the 3F Meadows Ranch Project. PD-11’s conditions of approval also included these measures as required road improvements at a second location, the intersection of SR 41 and the access driveway to Project lots 109-112. The fact that not all of the off-site road improvements required by PD-11 have been constructed is not the result of a lack of effort on the part of the City or the former and current Project developers. Indeed, the original Project applicant/developer began discussions with Caltrans soon after the City approved the Project to discuss designs for the off-site road improvements required by PD-11. (See March 1995 correspondence between Engineering Development Associates and Caltrans attached hereto as Exhibit B.) After acquiring the Project, Castlerock continued those discussions with Caltrans regarding the scope of the necessary off-site road improvements and even submitted proposed SR41/Los Altos improvement plans as part of a preliminary encroachment permit application review process in 2005. In response, Caltrans indicated that it had changed its position with respect to the right-turn lane it previously requested for westbound traffic on State Route 41 approaching Los Altos road. In the June 15, 2005 letter from Caltrans’ permit Engineer attached hereto as Exhibit C, Caltrans indicated that it would no longer require or accept the right-turn channelization because constructing a new right-turn lane at that location would require extensive realignment of an adjacent creek that would create additional adverse environmental impacts and right of way constraints. Understandably, and in an effort to avoid any such new, unintended environmental impacts, 4The 3F Meadows EIR limited its analysis of transportation impacts to generalized traffic safety impacts because no formal peak hour trip review or intersection level of service analyses were p repared as is typical today. In other words, the 3F Meadows EIR did not identify whether vehicle delay or queuing would actually increase to unacceptable levels at any off-site intersections or roadway segments as a result of the addition of Project -related traffic and thus limited its identification of potential impacts and imposition of mitigation measures to address general traffic safety concerns associated with average daily traffic estimates. Caltrans indicated that the SR41/Los Altos intersection should instead be improved to meet the requirements of the “standard public road approach intersection,” which would require a less intrusive right-turn taper (limited extension of paved shoulder) instead of a new, full right-turn lane.5 In 2010 Caltrans confirmed that its position had not changed, stating that so long as no changes were approved to increase the number of vehicle trips generated by the Project upgrading the SR41/Los Altos intersection to the standard road approach intersection as shown in Figure 405.7 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual would provide a satisfactory design to accommodate vehicles turning right onto Los Altos Road. (See November 9, 2010 Caltrans letter attached hereto as Exhibit D.) Before taking any action to modify the off-site road improvement requirements contained in PD- 11 to make them consistent with Caltrans’ updated position, City staff retained an independent traffic engineer, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. (“W-Trans”), to analyze potential traffic impacts based on current data. Specifically, the City asked W-Trans to determine whether eliminating PD-11’s right-turn lane requirement at SR41/Los Altos would result in a new or more severe traffic impact as well as to analyze whether the Project-generated vehicle trips might result in any other potential traffic impacts at either the intersection of State Route 41 and Los Altos Road or the intersection of State Route 41 and the access driveway to Project lots 109-112. W-Trans collected traffic volume count data on August 28, 2013, and presented its analysis and conservative evaluation of the impacts associated with Project-related traffic on those two intersections under existing, existing plus project, future and future plus project conditions in a report to the City dated February 4, 2014. (W-Trans’ February 4, 2014 report is attached hereto as Exhibit E.) W-Trans’ analysis was conservative because it not only analyzed the impact of the vehicle trips associated with the Project’s 82 undeveloped lots, but also included traffic from the 4 secondary units anticipated to be built within the Project area in the next 20 years and from the 15 undeveloped lots that lie outside the Project site but within the same traffic shed. Based on W-Trans’ report, City staff prepared proposed modifications to PD-11 to account for the current data and analysis of the Project’s potential traffic impacts at the intersections of State Route 41 and Los Altos Road and the intersection of State Route 41 and the access driveway to Project lots 109-112 and once again consulted with Caltrans. In a letter dated March 11, 2014, Caltrans indicated that it did not have any objections to the City’s proposed modifications to the off-site road improvement requirements contained in PD-11 and indicated its desire to cooperate with the City and Castlerock in constructing the modified off-site road improvements. (Caltrans’ March 11, 2014 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit F.) III. PROPOSED CHANGES TO PD-11 A copy of the existing text of Municipal Code section 9-3.656 containing the PD-11 overlay zone regulations is attached hereto as Exhibit G, which clearly shows all of the proposed changes/modified text developed by City staff and approved by Caltrans in strikeout (deletions) and underline (additions) format. Specifically, the changes are limited to the off-site road improvements managed by the City’s Engineering Division in subsection (c)(3) and the key aspects of the proposed changes are summarized as follows: 5 See Chapter 405.7 Public Road Intersections and related Figure 405.7 from Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual found here http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/english/chp0400.pdf 9-3.656(c)(3)(v) Original condition requiring new left- turn lanes for eastbound traffic on SR 41 at intersections with Los Altos Road and driveway serving lots 109-112. Modification proposes: (1) minor text amendments to acknowledge and address the fact that one of the required left-turn lanes has already been constructed but may need further refinements to comply with current Caltrans standards; and (2) revised timing requirements for construction of new left-turn lane on SR 41 to account for the fact that the left-turn lane from eastbound SR 41 already exists for eastbound traffic entering Los Altos Road and to ensure no building permits are issued for Project lots 109-112 before the new left-turn lane improvement is constructed for eastbound SR41 traffic entering the driveway access for Project lots 109-112, if required by Caltrans. 9-3.656(c)(3)(vi) Original condition requiring vehicle refuge lanes Modification proposes to: (1) delete the requirement to construct vehicle refuge lanes; (2) create a new condition requiring that the existing residential driveway approach to SR 41 serving lots 109- 112 be improved to current Caltrans Design Standards; and (3) create timing requirement for construction of improvements to bring driveway approach to SR 41 serving lots 109-112 to current Caltrans Design Standards to ensure no building permits are issued for lots 109-112 before this improvement is constructed. 9-3.656(c)(3)(vii) Original condition requiring sight distance improvements Modification proposes: (1) enhanced sight distance clearance to ensure compliance with most current Caltrans standards; and (2) revised timing requirements for interim/final sight distance improvements. 9-3.656(c)(3)(viii) Original condition requiring advisory/warning signage on SR 41 Modification proposes: (1) enhanced advisory/warning signage to ensure compliance with most current Caltrans standards; and (2) revised timing requirements for interim/final advisory/warning signage. 9-3.656(c)(3)(ix) Original condition requiring right-turn lanes for westbound traffic on SR 41 at intersections with Los Altos Road and driveway serving Project lots 109-112. Modification proposes: (1) right-turn taper (in lieu of full dedicated right-turn lane) on SR 41 for westbound traffic entering Los Altos Road; (2) deletion of right-turn lane requirement on SR 41 for westbound traffic entering driveway serving Project lots 109-112; and (3) revised timing requirement for construction of right-turn taper to ensure improvement is constructed well before it is warranted. As discussed and demonstrated below, the proposed changes to PD-11 are minor in nature in that they do not result in any new significant adverse environmental impacts or an increase in the severity of impacts already identified in the 3F Meadows EIR. Rather, the modifications avoid the creation of a new significant adverse impact and generally provide updates to modernize and ensure the required improvements are built to current Caltrans Design Standards. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A. Applicable Legal Standards This Addendum is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, which states: “The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a) echoes and implements the CEQA statutory provision contained in Public Resources Code section 21166 in that it specifies that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project unless the lead agency determines: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e), this Addendum details: (1) proposed changes to modify some and delete other provisions in the PD-11; (2) the less-than-significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed changes in the PD-11; and (3) the reasons and evidentiary support for the City’s conclusions that the changes to the PD-11 do not meet the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR. Further guidance is provided by caselaw, particularly as referenced under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 which refers to Bowman v. Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, which distinguished requirements for a subsequent EIR from the threshold required for initial EIR preparation, stating: Whereas section 21151 requires an EIR if the project ‘may have a significant effect on the environment,’ section 21166 provides that an agency may not require preparation of an EIR unless ‘substantial changes’ in the project or its circumstances will require ‘major revisions’ to the EIR. The two statutes serve quite different purposes and have correspondingly different effects. The question addressed by section 21151 is whether any environmental review is warranted. CEQA procedures reflect a preference for resolving doubts in favor of such review. [citations omitted]. In the present case, however, section 21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired and the question is whether circumstances have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process. Thus, while section 21151 is intended to create a ‘low threshold require for preparation of an EIR,’ section 21161 indicates a quite different intent, namely, to restrict the powers of agencies ‘by prohibiting [them] from requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report’ unless the stated conditions are met. Further, caselaw is equally clear that in situations like this one, lead agencies may modify or delete previously adopted mitigations measures without preparing a supplemental EIR if the agency gives a legitimate reason for making the change, and supports its decision with substantial evidence. (Mani Bros. Real Estate Group v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1385; Katzeff v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 601; Lincoln Place Tenants Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.,App.4th 1491. These decisions demonstrate that where the modification or deletion of a mitigation measure would not change the prior approval in a way that would allow a new significant impact to occur, or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact, no subsequent EIR is required and a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR shall be given and can be provided in an addendum to the prior EIR. B. Evaluation Of The Potential Environmental Impacts Of The Proposed Changes To PD-11 The following discussion evaluates the potential environmental consequences associated with the changes the City is proposing to make to several of the Project conditions in PD-11. Because the PD-11 conditions at issue involve measures identified solely to address the potential off-site traffic impacts of the 3F Meadows Project at the intersections of SR 41/Los Altos Road and SR 41/driveway to Project lots 109-112, this discussion is similarly limited to evaluating whether the proposed changes will result in any new or more severe traffic impacts at those intersections compared to the potential traffic impacts identified in the original 3F Meadows EIR. This limitation is reasonable because, as noted above, no changes are proposed for any other aspect of the Project including the number, location or development of residential lots, roads or any other aspect of the 3F Meadows Project and the City is not proposing any discretionary approvals other than the changes to PD-11. 1. The Proposed Changes To The Condition In PD-11 (Section 9- 3.656(c)(3)(v)) Requiring New Left-turn lanes On SR 41 Will Not Result In Any New Or More Severe Traffic Impacts. As demonstrated in Exhibit G, the City is proposing to modify this condition as follows: The above-referenced modifications: (1) make minor text amendments to acknowledge and address the fact that required left-turn lane onto Los Altos Road has been constructed but may need further refinements to comply with Caltrans standards; and (2) revise the timing requirements for construction of new left-turn lane on SR 41 to account for the fact that the left- turn lane from SR 41 already exists for eastbound traffic entering Los Altos Road and to ensure no building permits are issued for Project lots 109-112 before the new left-turn lane improvement is constructed for eastbound SR41 traffic entering the driveway access for Project lots 109-112, if required by Caltrans. The 3F Meadows EIR imposed these left-turn lanes on SR41 to address unspecified “safety hazards.” Analysis of current information and data, however, demonstrates that traffic impacts and safety hazards from the 3F Meadows Project at these two intersections are less than significant. As noted in W-Tran’s report, reported accidents at the SR41/Los Altos Road intersection are below the statewide average for similar intersections. Further, the W-Trans report also notes that the required left-turn lane from eastbound SR41 onto Los Altos Road has already been constructed. Nonetheless, instead of deleting this requirement the City is simply modifying it to ensure that any additional left-turn lane improvements Caltrans believes are necessary to bring that existing left lane into conformance with current Caltrans Design Standards are constructed well before full Project build-out. Further, the W-Trans’ report also concludes that a left-turn lane into the driveway for lots 109- 112 is not warranted under any conditions. According to the recent traffic counts and W-Trans’ conservative analysis regarding potential traffic impacts associated with full build-out of the Project and other undeveloped lots in the vicinity a left-turn lane into the driveway to lots 109- 112 is neither warranted now nor in the future. Nonetheless, while the City is not currently proposing to delete the required left-turn lane into lots 109-112, the proposed amendment does include language permitting Caltrans to delete the requirement at its discretion in the future. Regardless, because the most current traffic information and impact analysis demonstrates that a left-turn lane is not required to address any identified adverse environmental impacts associated with vehicles turning left into lots 109-112, no impacts will result even if Caltrans decides to modify or delete this requirement in the future. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that PD-11 will continue to require that the existing residential driveway approach serving Project lots 109-112 be improved to current Caltrans Design Standards. (See Section IV.B.2. immediately below.) In sum, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the proposed changes to Section 9- 3.656(c)(3)(v) will not result in any new or more severe impacts than those previously identified in the 3F Meadows EIR and no further environmental impact analysis is required under CEQA. 2. The Proposed Changes To The Condition In PD-11 (Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(vi)) Requiring Vehicle Refuge Lanes Will Not Result In Any New or More Severe Traffic Impacts. As demonstrated in Exhibit G, the City is proposing to modify this condition as follows: The above-referenced modifications: (1) delete the requirement to construct vehicle refuge lanes; (2) create a new condition requiring that the existing residential driveway approach to SR 41 serving lots 109-112 be improved to current Caltrans Design Standards; and (3) create timing requirement for construction of improvements to bring driveway approach to SR 41 serving lots 109-112 to current Caltrans Design Standards to ensure no building permits are issued for lots 109-112 before this improvement is constructed. The 3F Meadows EIR imposed these left-turn lanes on SR41 to address unspecified “safety hazards.” Analysis of current information and data, however, demonstrates that traffic impacts and safety hazards from the 3F Meadows Project at these two intersections are less than significant and that vehicle refuge lanes are not necessary. W-Trans’ report demonstrates that both intersections do and will continue to operate satisfactorily at a level of service C or better during the peak traffic hours. Accordingly, vehicles desiring to turn out onto SR 41 from Los Altos Road or from the driveway to Project lots 109-112 will not experience significant adverse delays. As a result, there is no potential traffic impact at these intersections in need of mitigation requiring the construction of vehicle refuge lanes and thus no adverse environmental impacts will result from the deletion of the refuge lane requirements. While current data showing that reported accidents at the SR41 and Los Altos road intersection are below the statewide average for similar intersections demonstrates that there are no current traffic safety concerns at that intersection, no such similar data is available for the intersection of SR 41 and the driveway to lots 109-112. Accordingly, the City’s proposed modification to PD- 11 requires that the driveway approach to SR41 be improved to meet current Caltrans Design Standards before the issuance of any building permits for lots 109-112. This condition will ensure that any traffic safety concerns will be addressed before anyone moves into and begins using the driveway to lots 109-112. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the proposed changes to Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(vi) will not result in any new or more severe impacts than those previously identified in the 3F Meadows EIR and no further environmental impact analysis is required under CEQA. 3. The Proposed Changes To The Condition In PD-11 (Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(vii)) Requiring Sight Distance Improvements Will Not Result In Any New or More Severe Traffic Impacts. As demonstrated in Exhibit G, the City is proposing to enhance this condition as follows: The above-referenced modifications propose: (1) enhanced sight distance requirements to ensure compliance with the most current Caltrans design standards; and (2) revised timing requirements for interim/final sight distance improvements. These enhancements and revised timing requirements take nothing significant away from and only strengthen the prior sight distance improvement requirement in that the proposed changes not only ensure adequate sight distance will be provided at both intersections in accordance with current Caltrans Design Standards6, but that the sight distance improvements at both intersections will be made and maintained in the short term due to the new interim timing requirements until final sight distance improvements are constructed as part of the long-term intersection improvements required for both intersections. These interim requirements were 6 The use of current standards will increase the traffic safe ty protection of this condition because while 500 feet of sight distance clearance was the standard when the 3F Meadows EIR was prepared, Caltrans’ current sight distance clearance standard for vehicles turning out onto a state highway with a design posted speed of 55 mph is now 605 feet of required corner sight distance clearance. (See Caltrans Encroachment Permits Manual, Appendix J – Road Connections and Driveways.) added by the City to address public comments about sight-distance issues as it may be several years until the final improvements to SR-41/Los Altos Road and SR41/driveway to lots 109-112 intersections are constructed pursuant to Sections 9-3.656(c)(3)(vi) [upgraded residential driveway approach serving lots 109-112] and 9-3.656(c)(3)(ix) [upgraded SR41-Los Altos Road intersection to add right-turn taper and other related improvements]. Because the prior site distance improvement requirements have been retained and modified solely to ensure early compliance with modern standards, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the proposed changes to Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(vii) will not result in any new or more severe impacts than those previously identified in the 3F Meadows EIR and no further environmental impact analysis is required under CEQA. 4. The Proposed Changes To The Condition In PD-11 (Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(viii)) Requiring Advisory And Warning Signage Will Not Result In Any New or More Severe Traffic Impacts. As demonstrated in Exhibit G, the City is proposing to enhance this condition as follows: The above-referenced modifications propose: (1) enhanced advisory/warning signage requirements to ensure compliance with the most current Caltrans design standards; and (2) revised timing requirements for interim/final advisory/warning signage. These enhancements and revised timing requirements take nothing significant away from and only strengthen the prior requirement in that the modifications not only ensure adequate signage will be provided at both intersections in accordance with current Caltrans Design Standards, but that the signage at both intersections will be installed in the short term due to the new interim timing requirements until final signage improvements are constructed as part of the long-term intersection improvements required for both intersections. These interim requirements were added by the City to address public comments about warning signage issues as it may be several years until the final improvements to SR-41/Los Altos Road and SR41/driveway to lots 109-112 intersections are constructed pursuant to Sections 9-3.656(c)(3)(vi) [upgraded residential driveway approach serving lots 109-112] and 9-3.656(c)(3)(ix) [upgraded SR41-Los Altos Road intersection to add right-turn taper and other related improvements]. Because the prior advisory and warning signage requirements have been retained and modified solely to ensure early compliance with modern standards, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the proposed changes to Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(vii) will not result in any new or more severe impacts than those previously identified in the 3F Meadows EIR and no further environmental impact analysis is required under CEQA. 5. The Proposed Changes To The Condition In PD-11 (Section 9-3.656(c)(3)(ix)) Requiring New Right-turn Lanes Will Not Result In Any New or More Severe Traffic Impacts. As demonstrated in Exhibit G, the City is proposing to modify this condition as follows: The above-referenced modifications propose: (1) the construction of a right-turn taper (in lieu of full dedicated right-turn lane) on SR 41 for westbound traffic entering Los Altos Road; (2) the deletion of the right-turn lane requirement on SR 41 for westbound traffic entering driveway serving Lots 109-112; and (3) a revised timing requirement for the construction of the right-turn taper to ensure improvement is constructed well before it is warranted. The 3F Meadows EIR imposed these right-turn lanes on SR41 in response to comments submitted by Caltrans and to address unspecified “safety hazards.” Analysis of current information and data, however, demonstrates that traffic impacts and safety hazards from the 3F Meadows Project at these two intersections are less than significant and that new right-turn lanes are no longer necessary as the anticipated traffic does not generate enough vehicles making right- turns at these intersections to require the construction of new right-turn lanes. Additionally, Caltrans has indicated and recently re-confirmed that it no longer desires the right-turn channelization because constructing a new right-turn lane at this location would require extensive realignment of an adjacent creek that would create additional adverse environmental impacts and right of way constraints. The W-Trans’ report demonstrates that both intersections do and will continue to operate satisfactorily at a level of service C or better during the peak traffic hours. More importantly, the W-Trans’ report demonstrates that the threshold requiring a new right-turn lane on SR 41 for westbound traffic entering Los Altos Road will not be reached until an additional 112 residential units were to be developed above and beyond the units anticipated to be developed by the Project and other nearby undeveloped parcels in the traffic shed area in the Future Plus Project scenario. Similarly, the W-Trans’ report demonstrates that no additional facilities in the form of either a right-turn lane or right-turn taper would be warranted on SR 41 for westbound traffic entering the driveway serving Project lots 109-112 even under Future Plus Project traffic conditions due to the low traffic volume to be generated by the four additional residential lots, and, any potential safety impacts will be addressed by the new condition discussed above requiring Castlerock to bring the driveway approach to up to current Caltrans standards prior to development of Project lots 109-112 Accordingly, no new or more severe impacts will result from deleting the right-turn lane requirements at these intersections because there is no potential traffic impact now or in the future resulting from the Project that would require a right-turn lane for mitigation. However, while right-turn lanes are not warranted at either intersection, W-Trans’ report does conclude that a right-turn taper on SR 41 for westbound traffic entering Los Altos Road is necessary to reduce a potential traffic impact under both Existing Plus Project and Future Plus Project scenarios. W-Trans’ report also concludes that the right-turn taper would be required just prior to full build-out of the 101 anticipated residential units studied (82 remaining Project lots, 15 non-Project lots in the same traffic shed and 4 anticipated second units in the traffic shed). Accordingly, the proposal to add a condition requiring construction of a right-turn taper prior to the issuance of the 52nd building permit or for the Project or within 3-years (whichever occurs first) ensures that the mitigation recommended by Caltrans and confirmed by W -Trans will be in place well before it is warranted. In sum, substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the proposed changes to Section 9- 3.656(c)(3)(ix) will not result in any new or more severe impacts than those previously identified in the 3F Meadows EIR and no further environmental impact analysis is required under CEQA. V. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis in this Addendum and its exhibits, the City concludes that a subsequent EIR is not necessary as the proposed changes to PD-11 are minor in nature in that they do not result in any new significant adverse environmental impacts or an increase in the severity of impacts previously identified in the 3F Meadows EIR. In fact, the changes are decidedly beneficial from an environmental impact and public safety point of view as they avoid the creation of a new significant adverse impact (associated with the original PD-11 requirement that State Route 41 be widened to facilitate construction of a new dedicated right-turn lane from westbound State Route 41 onto Los Altos Road) and generally provide updates to modernize and ensure that the improvements that are necessary are built to current Caltrans Design Standards. ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 03-11-14 Exhibit A 3F Meadows/Oak Ridge Estates Public Improvement Map ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 03-11-14 Exhibit B March 6, 1995 letter from Engineering Development Associates (Michael Hodge) to Caltrans (Larry Newland) ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 03-11-14 Exhibit C June 15, 2005 letter from Caltrans (Steve Senet) to R. Thompson Consulting (Russ Thompson) ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 03-11-14 Exhibit D November 9, 2010 letter from Caltrans (Steve Senet) to Ogden & Fricks LLP (Roy Odgen) ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 03-11-14 Exhibit E W-Trans’ February 4, 2014 report to City of Atascadero Deputy Public Works Director (David Athey) ITEM NUMBER: DATE: 03-11-14 Exhibit F March 11, 2014 letter from Caltrans (Steve Senet) to City Deputy Public Works Director (David Athey) Exhibit G Proposed amendments to PD-11 showing deletions (in strikeout) and additions (in underline) format