The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution 2019-058 CITY OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration APPLICATION PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Environmental Document No. 2019-0002 PROJECT TITLE Principal Mixed-use Amendment, CUP, Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change APPLICANT NAME & PHONE NUMBER Barry Ephraim, ECR Principal, LLC Contact Email ctaylor@atascadero.org MAILING ADDRESS: 125 South Bowling Green Way Los Angeles, CA 90049 STAFF CONTACT: Callie Taylor, Senior Planner (805) 470-3448 ctaylor@atascadero.org PROJECT ADDRESS: 9105, 9107, 9109 Principal Ave, 9300 Pino Solo Atascadero, CA 93422 APN: 030-491-001; 013; 019; 020 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of an amendment to a previously approved Planned De velopment #24 mixed-use project. The applicant is proposing revisions to the approved master plan of development and a new Tentative Tract Map to increase the unit count to 55 residential units, which includes a 10% density bonus for providing affordable housing. The master plan of development includes 1,830 square feet of office area as a part of the live-work units on Principal Avenue, and one drive-through carwash which is currently under construction as it was previously approved and analyzed through CEQA under the previous project approved in 2015. A 6,500 sq. ft. area directly adjacent to El Camino Real is proposed to be changed from RMF-10 zoning to Commercial Retail (CR) to allow for future commercial development along the El Camino corridor at a later date. The project site is approximately 5.4 acres with an average slope of less than 10 percent. There are six (6) native oak trees proposed for removal as a part of the revised project. Project access will be provided at two driveways on Principal Avenue. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR) / General Commercial (GC) Zoning District: Residential Multi-Family (RMF-10) / Planned Development (PD-24) / Commercial Retail (CR) LEAD AGENCY: City of Atascadero Community Development Department 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 DOCUMENT AVAILABLE ONLINE: http://www.atascadero.org/environmentaldocs STATE CLEARING HOUSE REVIEW: ☒ Yes NO ☐ REVIEW PERIOD BEGINS: 2/8/2019 REVIEW PERIOD ENDS: 3/10/2019 PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: ☐No ☒ Yes Date to be determined PUBLIC NOTICE: The City of Atascadero is releasing a draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative declaration for 9105, 9107, 9109 Principal Ave, 9300 Pino Solo for review and comment to all effected agencies, organizations, and interested parties. Reviewers should focus on the content and accuracy of the report and the potential impacts upon the environment. The notice for this project is in compliance with the C alifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Persons responding to this notice are urged to submit their comments in writing. Written comments should be delivered the City (lead agency) no later than 5pm on the date listed as “review period ends”. Submittal of written comments via email is also accepted and should be directed to the Staff contact at the above email address. This document may be viewed by visiting the Community Development Department, listed under the lead agency address, or accessed via the City’s website. . Page 1 of 177 Exhibit A Exhibit A Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 1 CITY OF ATASCADERO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Initial Study Summary – Environmental Checklist APPLICATION PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Environmental Document No. 2019-0002 PROJECT TITLE: Principal Mixed-use Amendment, CUP, Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change 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 ☐ Hazards / Hazardous Materials ☐ Recreation ☐ Agricultural Resources ☐ Hydrology / Water Quality ☐ Transportation / Traffic ☐ Air Quality ☐ Land Use / Planning ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Biological Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Utilities / Service Systems ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Noise ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance ☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Population / Housing ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation, the Community Development Director finds that: ☐ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☒ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ☐ the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" 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. ☐ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 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, nothing further is required. Callie Taylor Prepared by (Print) Signature Date Phil Dunsmore Reviewed by (Print) Signature Date Exhibit A Page 2 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 2 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The City of Atascadero’s environmental review process incorporates all of the requirements for completing the Initial Study as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study includes Staff’s on-site inspection of the project site and surrounding and a detailed review of the information on file for the proposed project. In addition, available background information is reviewed for each project. Relevant information regarding soil types and characteristics, geological information, significant vegetation and /or wildlife resources, water availability, wastewater disposal service, existing land uses and surrounding land use categories and other information relevant to the environmental review process are evaluated for each project. Exhibit A includes the refere nces used, as well as the agencies or groups that were contacted as a part of this initial study. The City of Atascadero uses the checklist to summarize the results of the research accomplished during the initial environmental review of the project. Persons, agencies, or organizations interested in obtaining more information regarding the environmental review process for a project should contact the Community Development Department, 6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 or call (805) 461-5000. A. PROPOSED PROJECT Description: The project consists of an amendment to a previously approved Planned De velopment #24 mixed-use project. The applicant is proposing revisions to the approved master plan of development and a new Tentative Tract Map to increase the unit count to 55 residential units, which includes a 10% density bonus for providing affordable housing. The master plan of development includes 1,830 square feet of office area as a part of the live-work units on Principal Avenue, and one drive-through carwash which is currently under construction as it was previously approved and analyzed through CEQA under the previous project approved in 2015. A 6,500 sq. ft. area directly adjacent to El Camino Real is proposed to be changed from RMF-10 zoning to Commercial Retail (CR) to allow for future commercial development along the El Camino corridor at a later date. The project site is approximately 5.4 acres with an average slope of less than 10 percent. There are six (6) native oak trees proposed for removal as a part of the revised project. Project access will be provided at two driveways on Principal Avenue. General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR) / General Commercial (GC) Zoning District: Residential Multi-Family (RMF-10) / Planned Development (PD-24) / Commercial Retail (CR) Assessor parcel number(s): 030-491-001; 013; 019; 020 Latitude: 35° 28’ 9.83” N Longitude: 120° 38’ 59.67” W Other public agencies whose approval is required: Department of Fish and Wildlife (if construction is required in designated waters of the US) Army Corps of Engineers (if construction is required in designated waters of the US) B. EXISTING SETTING Land use designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR) / General Commercial (GC) Zoning district Residential Multi-Family (RMF-10) / Planned Development (PD-24) / Commercial Retail (CR) Parcel size: 5.25 acres Topography: Mostly flat Average Slope: 10% Exhibit A Page 3 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 3 Vegetation: Oaks, annual grasses, development located adjacent to drainage swale with riparian vegetation Existing use: Carwash currently under construction, remaining parcel is vacant Surrounding land use: Residential Single-Family (RSF-Y), Multi-family (RMF-20) & Commercial Retail (CR) Surrounding zoning: Residential Single-Family, Multi-family, & Commercial Retail North: South: East: West: Residential Single-Family (RSF-Y) / Commercial Retail (CR) / Gusta Rd Residential Multi- Family (RMF-20) / Commercial Retail / Principal Avenue Residential Single- Family (RSF-Y) Commercial Retail (CR) / El Camino Real C. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS During the initial study process, at least one issue was identified as having a potentially significant environmental effect (see following Initial Study). The potentially significant items associated with the proposed project can be minimized to less than significant levels. CITY OF ATASCADERO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 1. AESTHETICS – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Have a substantial adverse effect on an adopted scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ EXISTING SETTING: The project site is not located within a state scenic highway. The proposed project is located on a section of El Camino Real that is primarily commercial development and is not designated a scenic vista. The surrounding existing residences consists of single-family development ranging from lots less than ½ acre to lots that are greater than one (1) acre in size directly adjacent (north of the proposed project) and to the east of the proposed project along Pino Solo Avenue. Development to the south of the proposed project includes high Exhibit A Page 4 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 4 density residential units and non-residential development. There are 20 native oak trees on the subject site, ranging in size from 10” to 49” in diameter. PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project does not impact or obscure an adopted scenic vista. The project site is not located within a state scenic highway. The proposed project’s residential development / mixed-use is consistent with development to the south of the project. Proposed residences include two-story buildings that are designed with four-sided architecture to be visually appealing and compatible with surrounding uses. A landscape plan and section drawings have been submitted to demonstrate how additional landscaping will buffer the new residential units from existing residential development on Pino Solo. With adoption of mitigation measure 1.c.1, the impact is deemed less than significant. Six (6) native trees are proposed for removal for construction of the project. The native tree removals shall be mitigated for compliance with the native tree ordinance by either payment of tree mitigation fees, or by replanting of native trees on site. New street trees shall be planted in the front yards of the new homes as shown on the proposed landscape plan. The proposed architecture of the non-residential use (car wash) is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character of the commercial properties along El Camino Real. Proposed architecture consists of a mix of vertical siding and galvanized steel to evoke an agrarian motif. The location of the car wash is at the corner of El Camino Real and Principal Avenue and acts as the project entry. The proposed residential architecture is consistent with the neighboring large lot residential development and the overall surroundings. All proposed lighting within the residential portion of the proposed project will be residential in nature. The Atascadero Municipal Code (AMC) contains language under section 9-4.137, exterior lighting, stating that “no light glare shall be transmitted or reflected in such concentration or intensity as to be detrimental or harmful to persons or to interfere with the use of surrounding properties or streets.” To ensure that the residential portion does not create a substantial light source that adversely affect nighttime views, implementation of mitigation measure 1.d.1 would reduce this impact to less than significant thresholds. The architectural materials of the proposed car wash are reflective and have the potential to create off site glare once construction is completed. Those reflective materials include galvanized metal, or aluminum. This could affect traffic on El Camino Real and daytime views in the area. Daytime off-site glare can be mitigated with additional landscaping around the proposed use, as well as, non-reflective coating or similar reflectivity reducing agent applied on all reflective surfaces. With incorporation of mitigation measure 1.d.2, and 1.d.3, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant threshold. Additional lighting from the proposed car-wash will be included. This lighting has a potential to spill off-site and change the character of the existing neighborhood. To ensure no off-sight glare, consistent with the Atascadero Municipal Code, mitigation measure 1.d.4 has been provided to ensure review of a photometric plan as a part of the building permit submittal and an on -site inspection prior to final occupancy of the proposed car-wash to ensure no off-site glare is produced. Implementation of this measure will reduce this impact to a less than significant threshold. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Mitigation measures have been included in order to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 1.c.1: A landscaping plan shall be submitted for all lots adjacent to existing residential development and must identify locations of proposed evergreen trees or similar Exhibit A Page 5 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 5 screening trees with a minimum box size of 24-inches. These trees shall be spaced throughout an individual lot to ensure screening of existing residences and proposed new development. Mitigation Measure 1.d.1: All lighting shall be 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 in parking areas. No light shall be permitted to spill off-site. Fixtures shall be shield cut-off type so that no light sources are visible from offsite. Mitigation Measure 1.d.2: Applicant must submit a landscaping plan, concurrent with building permit submittal, for the proposed carwash use. Landscaping plan shall include tree plantings 30-feet on center along El Camino Real and additional plantings along property boundary perimeter in designated landscaping planters. Mitigation Measure 1.d.3: At the time of building permit submittal for car-wash portion of the proposed project, building plans shall indicate the use of a non-reflective coating, or other glare reducing applications on all galvanized or corrugated metal surfaces utilized as a part of the proposed car-wash structure. Materials must be noted on construction detail sheets and lead project designer of record must submit a letter certifying application of materials prior to building permit final. Mitigation Measure 1.d.4: At the time of building permit submittal for car wash portion of the proposed project, applicant must submit a photometric plan showing locations of proposed on- site lighting. All exterior site lights shall utilize full cut-off, “hooded” lighting fixtures to prevent offsite light spillage and glare. Fixtures shall be shield cut-off type. Prior to final occupancy, City Staff and the applicant shall meet on-site and review lights at nighttime condition to ensure that there is no off-site light spillage or glare. 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to nonagricultural use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Exhibit A Page 6 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 6 Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: 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 in an agricultural zone and is not under a Williamson Act contract based on review of Atascadero GIS / San Luis Obispo Agriculture mapping information. PROPOSED PROJECT: The project is an amendment to a previously approved mixed use planned development, and is located in an area identified for this type of use and density. The subdivision is a mixed-use residential and commercial retail property on a vacant site along the El Camino Real corridor in an area with no significance for agricultural production. The project does not involve rezoning of forest land or timberland, is not under a Williamson Act contract, and will not result in a loss of forest land and will not result in a conversion of forest land to non - forest use or farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no impact. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No impacts are expected. No mitigation is required. 3. AIR QUALITY – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Exhibit A Page 7 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 7 Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ EXISTING SETTING: San Luis Obispo County is a nonattainment area for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM10) (SLO County Clean Air Plan, 2001). The site is located adjacent to single family, multifamily, and commercial properties. The site is currently vacant (with the exception of the carwash currently under construction) as the abandoned buildings which were previously located on site were removed in 2017. PROPOSED PROJECT: The project proposes revisions to the previously approved master plan of development which was approved in 2015 for 37 residential units, 3,215 square feet of live work office space, and a 1,645 sf drive-through carwash. The proposed amendment would increase the residential unit count to a total of 55 residential units. The quantity of ozone and PM10 that might be created by 55 residential units is not expected to exceed thresholds of significance established by the SLO County Air Pollution Control District. According to the Operational and Construction Screening Criteria for Project Air Quality Analysis (Table 1-1, SLOAPCD, 2017), Single Family Housing would have to be at or over 76 dwelling units in order to be expected to exceed the APCD GHG Numerical Threshold (operational and construction), and would have to be at or above 128 units to exceed the APCD Ozone Precursor Significance Threshold. Based on the overseeing agency’s screening criteria for the residential portion of the proposed project, the impact is determined to be less than significant. In order to exceed SLOAPCD significance thresholds, an Auto Care Center would need to meet or exceed 73,000 square feet and a General Office Building would have to meet or exceed 75,000 square feet. Both the proposed 1,645 square foot carwash, which is determined to be an Auto Care Center, as well as the proposed 1st floor office uses in the live work building, are well below the threshold screening criteria established by the overseeing agency, therefore the impact is determined to be less than significant. The overall proposed project does not exceed air quality and emissions thresholds set by the Operational Screening Criteria for Project Air Quality Analysis (Table 1-1, SLOAPCD, 2017), therefore not creating a significant impact. Construction activities, including site grading, have the potential to produce small quantities of air pollution that include dust and equipment exhaust. Air quality impacts from construction will be temporary and short term. The project must be conditioned to comply with all applicable APCD regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust (PM-10) as showed in Section 2 “Assessing and Mitigating Construction Impacts” of the April 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook to reduce air quality impacts. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact is considered less than significant. No further demolition is proposed on site as the site was cleared and previously abandoned buildings on the site were removed in 2017. Undergrounding of utilities is included as part of the proposed project, and therefore, mitigation measures related to demolition and asbestos have been included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Exhibit A Page 8 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 8 The construction of the project will not concentrate pollutants or create objectionable odors based on the proposed uses and screening criteria established by the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Mitigation measures have been included in order to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 3.b.1: The project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable District regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust (PM-10) as contained in Section 2 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook “Assessing and Mitigating Construction Impacts.” The applicant and contractors shall manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD's 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402). 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 and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible; Please note that since water use is a concern due to drought conditions, the contractor or builder shall consider the use of an APCD- approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the amount of water used for dust control. For a list of suppressants, see Section 4.3 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook; c. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed; d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities; e. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to 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 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; k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible; l. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans; and, m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and Exhibit A Page 9 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 9 weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. Mitigation Measure 3.b.2: The project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable APCD regulations pertaining to Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA). Prior to any grading activities a geologic evaluation should be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, and exemptions request must be filed with t he District. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety program for approval by the APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of the SLO County APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook includes a map of zones throughout San Luis Obispo County where NOA has been found and geological evaluation is required prior to any grading. Mitigation Measure 3.b.3: Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Asbestos containing materials could be encountered during the demolition or remodeling of existing buildings or the disturbance, demolition, or relocation of above or below ground utility pipes/pipelines (e.g., transite pipes or insulation on pipes). This project includes these activities and therefore it may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. Applicant shall contact the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 for further information prior to any demolition onsite or relocation of above or below ground utility pipes/pipelines. Mitigation Measure 3.b.4: Effective February 25, 2000, the APCD prohibited developmental burning of vegetative material within San Luis Obispo County. There shall be no developmental burning of vegetative material as part of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 3.b.5: Portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities may require California statewide portable equipment registration (issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit. The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements, but should not be viewed as exclusive. For a more detailed listing, refer to the Technical Appendices, page 4-4, in the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook.  Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers;  Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater;  Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator;  Internal combustion engines;  Rock and pavement crushing; and  Tub grinders. Exhibit A Page 10 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 10 Prior to the start of the project, the applicant shall contact the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. Mitigation Measure 3.b.6: Under APCD Rule 504, only APCD approved wood burning devices can be installed in new dwelling units. These devices include:  All EPA-Certified Phase II wood burning devices;  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;  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;  Pellet-fueled woodheaters; and  Dedicated gas-fired fireplaces. The applicant shall contact the APCD Enforcement Division at 781-5912 with any questions regarding wood burning devices. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or CDFW and USFWS? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 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? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Exhibit A Page 11 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 11 Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable e) Conflict with policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as the tree native tree 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: A Biological and Wetland Resources Assessment was completed by Sage Institutes for the original project on February 10, 2015. The areas currently proposed for development are consistent with the analysis provided in the 2015 biological report. A supplemental Biological and Wetland Resources Assessment Addendum was completed on June 28, 2016, which included Floristic Inventory and Rare Plant Survey report for the project area. The supplemental report was completed to fufill Mitigation Measure 4.a.2, which was included with the original project MND certified in 2015. SII botanist Melinda Elster conducted walking field surveys of the entire project area on April 18 and May 3, 2016. SII Principal Ecologist David Wolff conducted a walking field survey of the entire project site on June 6, 2016. All plant species observed were identified and recorded during each field survey. To ensure adequacy of the floristic inventory and rare plant survey, it was conducted in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) The 2015 BA query of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) revealed the recorded occurrences of 12 special-status plant species within a five-mile radius of the project site. The special-status plant species occurrences recorded in the CNDDB are commonly associated with a specific soil type, moisture regime, habitat, and/or elevation range that dictates the range or microhabitat of the species. As documented in the 2015 BA, grassland plant species associated with sandy soils had the potential to occur on the site. None of the CNDDB rare plant occurrences are on or in close proximity to the project area, and most are in varied undisturbed habitat areas outside the city. The springtime floristic inventory and rare plant survey conducted on the project area confirmed the findings in the 2015 BA that the dominate habitat type of the project area was disturbed non- native annual grassland habitat. The site supports native and non-native grasses and broadleaf herbaceous species amidst the scattered oaks onsite, and willow riparian corridor along the drainage. All plant species observed were identifiable during the three field surveys conducted over the project area so there were no limitations in completing the rare plant survey for 2016 in accordance with accepted agency and industry standards. The winter rains along with the warm and mostly dry February and March 2016 manifested substantial grassland species growth to further support the adequacy of the survey. PROPOSED PROJECT: The project would subdivide the existing 5.25 acre lot, and 55 new residential units would be constructed, along with the drive-through carwash which is currently under construction on the project site. The project will not impact any adopted conservation plan. No rare, threatened, or endangered plant species were observed within the project area Exhibit A Page 12 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 12 during the SII field surveys. The biological report provides a list of all plant species observed during the SII 2016 floristic inventory and rare plant survey documenting the negative findings. Based on the biological and wetland resource assessment, the proposed project site may provide habitat for common resident and migratory wildlife species typical to the regional. However, given that the site is surrounded by urban development, wildlife use is likely limited. No special status species were visible or recorded on-site. Based on the site conditions, the project biologist has determined that a potential exists to disturb the silvery legless lizard habitat that may be present on-site. To ensure that the proposed project does not disturb or adversely affect the silvery legless lizard, mitigation measure 4.a.1 has been included to reduce this potential impact to less than significant threshold. The Biological and Wetland Resources Assessment identifies an ephemeral drainage that runs along the western site boundary as illustrated by the National Wetlands Inventory map. The ephemeral drainage supports a willow and cottonwood riparian habitat and appears to essentially flow to the start of a mapped blue line creek approximately 790 feet downstream of the project site. Given the defined channel characteristics that continue as tributary to a mapped blue line creek, the Assessment identifies the drainage as a waters of the U.S. and waters of the State subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction. Per the City’s requirements, the project will comply with the twenty (20) foot setback from designated waters of the US. No development is proposed within the ephemeral drainage / riparian area, however drainage improvements appear to be located within the identified riparian area. To reduce any potential significant impacts to waters of the US, waters of the State, and riparian habitat, mitigation measure 4.b.c.1 and 4.b.c.2 are incorporated. The Biological and Wetland Resources Assessment concludes that vegetation and tree removal during the nesting season for birds could result in the destruction of active bird’s nests. Destruction of active nests is prohibited by the Fish and Game Code of California Sections 3503 and 3503.1. To reduce this potential impact to nesting birds, implementation of mitigation measure 4.d.1 and 4.d.2 will reduce this impact to a less than significant threshold. An updated arborist report has been provided for the currently proposed project. The report identifies twenty (20) mature oak trees within the project boundary. Six (6) trees are proposed for removal. The City’s Native Tree ordinance contains standards that dedicate when a tree may be removed. In this instance, proposed development cannot be modified to accommodate the preservation of the identified native trees. The applicant has demonstrated, to the extent feasible, the preservation of native trees through site design and location of project amenities. Any future construction will be subject to the Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance, which requires a tree protection plan when construction occurs near native trees and mitigation when native trees must be removed. Mitigation measures are included to ensure compliance with the tree ordinance for tree protection and replanting mitigation. With the proposed mitigation measures incorporated, conflict with the City’s Native Tree Ordinance is determined to be less than significant. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Mitigation measures have been included in order to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.a.1: A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 30 days of initial site disturbance to identify whether silvery legless lizards are present. If silvery legless lizards are detected, a biological monitor shall be present during initial ground disturbing and vegetation removal activities to allow for a salvage and relocation effort for the lizard and other ground dwelling common wildlife that may be present. Exhibit A Page 13 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 13 Mitigation Measure 4.a.2: Conduct a springtime rare plant survey to determine the presence/absence of any special-status plants. Should any be discovered, implement a seed and/or plant salvage program and incorporate the salvaged material into the drainage setback and detention basin landscaped areas. Mitigation Measure 4.b.c.1: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for work in the ephemeral drainage. Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. Compliance with Corps permitting would also include obtaining and CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In addition, the Corps and RWQCB may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent impacts on riparian/wetland habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less than- significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.b.c.2: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1600 et.seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required for work within the ephemeral drainage and riparian habitat (stream zone). Should an agreement be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFW. The CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In addition, CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of onsite riparian habitat restoration to the extent feasible. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less - than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.d.1: Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31 outside of the nesting season for birds. If vegetation and/or tree removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. Mitigation Measure 4.d.2: If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Exhibit A Page 14 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 14 Mitigation Measure 4.e.1: Grading and excavation work shall be consistent with the City of Atascadero Tree Ordinance. Special precautions when working around native trees include: 1. All existing trees outside of the limits of work shall remain. 2. Earthwork shall not exceed the limits of the project area. 3. Low branches in danger of being torn from trees shall be pruned prior to any heavy equipment work being done. 4. Vehicles and stockpiled material shall be stored outside the drip line of all trees. 5. All trees within twenty feet of construction work shall be fenced for protection with 4-foot chain link, snow or safety fencing placed per the approved tree protection plan. Tree protection fencing shall be in place prior to any site excavation or grading. Fencing shall remain in place until completion of all construction activities. 6. Any roots that are encountered during excavation shall be clean cut by hand and sealed with an approved tree seal. 7. Utilities such as water, gas, power, cable, storm drainage, and sewer should be redirected from under the canopy of any trees that are to remain. 8. Where a building is placed within the canopy of a tree the foundation should be redesigned so that it bridges across any root systems. 9. Any foundation or other structure that encroaches within the drip line of trees to be saved shall be dug by hand. 10. At no time shall tree roots be ripped with construction equipment. Mitigation Measure 4.e.2: Tree protection fencing shall be installed at the locations called out by the project arborist in a Tree Protection Plan, which shall be submitted with building permits. An inspection of the tree fencing shall be done by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure 4.e.3: The following measure shall be incorporated on-site during the construction process of the proposed project: 1. A minimum height construction protective barrier shall be erected around the drip line of the tree plus 4’. The fence shall be supported with “T” posts at no more than 6’ o.c. and tied at least 3 places per post. This fence shall be installed by the General Contractor before any rough grading is allowed on the site. Approval for this stage must be obtained in writing from either the Arborist or the Counties/Cities representative. 2. Earthwork shall not exceed the limits of the project area. 3. Low branches in danger of being torn during construction process shall be pruned prior to any heavy equipment work being undertaken. 4. Once the rough grading is accomplished the fence may be moved closer to the trunk of the tree for finish grading. At no time shall the fence be placed within the Critical Root Zone (CRZ). This location is determined by the diameter of the trunk at Diameter Breast Height (DBH). (4.5’ above grade) and is 1’ per 1” diameter in the direction of the drip line. At no time shall the fence be moved closer to the trunk than the drip line. 5. Any roots that are encountered over 2” diameter, during the excavation process shall be clean cut perpendicular to the direction of root growth with a handsaw. At no time shall tree seal be applied to any cut. Any roots over 2” diameter the county/city representative shall be notified to determine the preferred course of action. Exhibit A Page 15 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 15 6. All trenching with CRZ area shall require hand trenching to preserve and protect roots over 2” in diameter. 7. No grading of trenching is allowed within the CRZ fenced area without written permission from the County/City representative or a certified arborist. 8. Any roots over 4” in diameter are not to be cut or ripped until inspec ted and approved in writing by the arborist. 9. If, for whatever reason, work must be accomplished inside the drip line 4”-6” of mulch must be applied first to decrease the possibilities of compaction upon written approval from the arborist. 10. There shall be a pre-construction meeting between the Engineering/Planning staff of the County/City, Grading equipment operators, Project Superintendent and the Arborist to review the project conditions and requirements prior to any grubbing or earth work for any portions of the project site. All tree protection fencing shall be installed for inspection prior to this meeting. 11. All trees shall be pruned before any construction takes place that are in the development areas to be saved if they might be damaged by the construction equipment. This must be accomplished by a bonded, licensed, and certified Tree Service Contractor. 12. All debris shall be cleared from the area or chipped and spread on the site or stacked in orderly piles for future use by the Owner, at the Owners request. 13. In locations where paving is to occur within the drip line grub only and do not compact unless authorized in writing. Permeable pavers or other preamble surface must be approved by the Arborist. Mitigation Measure 4.e.4: Upon project completion and prior to final occupancy a final status report shall be prepared by the project arborist certifying that the tree protection plan was implemented, the trees designated for protection were protected during construction, and the construction-related tree protection measures are no longer required for tree protection. Mitigation Measure 4.e.5: All utilities shall remain outside the driplines of native trees to the extent feasible. Any utilities that encroach on the critical root zone of protected trees shall be monitored during excavation by an arborist to ensure damage to native tree roots is minimized. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Exhibit A Page 16 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 16 Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ EXISTING SETTING: The project site was previously developed with two single-family residences which were demolished in 2017. A drainage swale is located on site, which conveys drainage water from an outlet near the edge of El Camino Real right-of-way, across the property. There are no known significant historical, archeological, paleontological or geological resources located on site. PROPOSED PROJECT: Geographical Information systems (GIS) of the City of Atascadero show that there are no known historic or archaeological resources located on or adjacent to the site. No known human remains have been found or documented in the vicinity of the project. It is possible unknown resources could be unearthed during any future construction. The Atascadero Municipal Code requires construction work to stop if archeological resources are discovered. Interested parties must be contacted for proper disposition of any significant archeological resource or human remains. With implementation of mitigation measure 5.d.1, the potential for a significant impact is rendered to less than significant thresholds. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Mitigation measures have been included in order to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant impact. Mitigation 5.d.1: In the event that human remains are discovered on the property, all work on the project shall stop and the Atascadero Police Department and the County Coroner shall be contacted. The Atascadero Community Development Department shall be notified. If the human remains are identified as being Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted at (916) 653-4082 within 24 hours. A representative from both the Chumash Tribe and the Salinan Tribe shall be notified and present during the excavation of any remains. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Result in the exposure to or production of unstable earth conditions including the following:  Landslides;  Earthquakes;  Liquefaction;  Land subsidence or other similar hazards? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Exhibit A Page 17 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 17 Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable b) Be within a California Geological Survey “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone, or other known fault zone? (consultant Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication #42) ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Result in soil erosion, topographic changes, loss of topsoil or unstable soil conditions from proposed improvements such as grading, vegetation removal, excavation or use of fill soil? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ d) Include any structures located on known expansive soils? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Be inconsistent with the goals and policies of the City’s Safety element relating to geologic and seismic hazards? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: As illustrated by the Fault map included in the attachments, the project site is not located on any known earthquake faults. The property contains no unusual geological formations. Although there are no known faults within the project area, there are faults located near the City that have been known to create seismic events. The 2003 San Simeon earthquake was the last known large seismic event that affected the proposed project area. The City adopts the California Building Code as its building code and updates this code during each required adoption cycle. This code is continually updated with requirements to make building safer during a seismic event. Incorporation of the latest California Building Code requirements at the time of building permit submittal will reduce the exposure of people and structures to strong ground shaking to a less than significant level. PROPOSED PROJECT: Geographical information systems show the project site to be in an area of low risk for both landslides and liquefaction. The Geotechnical Engineering Report submitted for the project indicates that the upper soils on the site are considered to be highly erodible; therefore, stabilization of the soils during and following construction will be essential to reduce erosion damage. Construction activities on the site will be required to comply with sedimentation and erosion control measures prescribed by the City Engineer as well as mitigation proposed by the geotechnical report. Mitigation measure 6.b.1 through 6.b.4 shall be implemented and potential significant impacts to a less than significant threshold. Geographical Information System’s expansion determination indicates that the bearing soils lie in the “Low to Moderate” and “Moderate” expansion potential ranges. Due to the site area’s non- expansive soils and crushed rock, draft Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan and Basin Analysis Reports prepared for the project concluded that no special measures with respect to expansive soils are considered necessary. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Exhibit A Page 18 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 18 The site will be served by local utility systems and will not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Mitigation measures have been included in order to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6.c.1: The on-site subdivision / grading permit plans shall include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt, and debris from entering the storm drain system during and after construction, consistent with mitigation or construction methods outlined in the geotechnical report. Plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance. Mitigation Measure 6.c.2: All cut and fill slopes mitigated with an appropriate erosion control method (erosion control blanket, hydro-mulch, or straw mulch appropriately anchored) immediately after completion of earthwork, as approved by the City Engineer. All disturbed slopes shall have appropriate erosion control methods in place. Mitigation Measure 6.c.3: The contractor will be responsible for the clean up of any mud or debris that is tracked onto public streets by construction vehicles. An approved device must be in place prior to commencement of grading activities. This device shall be approved by the City Engineer. Mitigation Measure 6.c.4: A re-vegetation plan shall be submitted with building permits. All disturbed cut and fill slopes shall be vegetated as specified in a landscaping plan. The landscaping plan must be approved by both the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ EXISTING SETTING: The site is located on the El Camino real corridor, in close proximity to shopping, services, and bus routes. Transportation is responsible for 43% of the carbon emissions in the Atascadero community while residential electricity natural gas use is responsible for 29% of emissions (Atascadero Climate Action Plan, 2014). PROPOSED PROJECT: The project will create 55 new residential units, in addition to the mixed-use live work space and the drive-through carwash. Each new residence creates an incremental increase in greenhouse gas production. However, the residences are infill development on a vacant site surrounded by residential and commercial uses. The project site Exhibit A Page 19 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 19 is located along major transit routes, and in close proximity to shopping and services. Sidewalks are included within the project, and connect to surrounding public streets to allow for neighborhood access. Any new construction will be subject to California Green Building Code energy-efficiency standards. According to the Operational Screening Criteria for Project Air Quality Analysis (Table 1-1, SLOAPCD, 2017), Single Family Housing would have to be at or over 76 dwelling units in order to be expected to exceed the APCD GHG Numerical Threshold (operational and construction), and would have to be at or above 128 units to exceed the APCD Daily Ozone Precursor Significance Threshold. In order to exceed SLOAPCD significance thresholds, an Auto Care Center would need to meet or exceed 73,000 square feet and a General Office Building would have to meet or exceed 75,000 square feet. The proposed project includes 55 residential units, a 1,645 square foot car wash, and less than 2,000 square feet of office space, and is therefore do not exceed air quality and emissions thresholds set by the Operational Screening Criteria for Project Air Quality Analysis (Table 1-1, SLOAPCD, 2017.) Therefore the proposed project’s impacts are determined to be less than significant. The proposed project is a mixed-use project with residential, commercial, and office uses on an infill site within the urban services line. The project is designed to provide a pedestrian-friendly and interconnected streetscape with good access to/from the development for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users Buildings are designed to be oriented to face public streets with parking and vehicular access from within interior project roads and driveways. The proposed project is not in conflict with the City’s adopted Climate Action Plan, and therefore the impact is determined to be less than significant. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No significant impacts are expected. No mitigation is required. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Create a 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 materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Exhibit A Page 20 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 20 Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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 the environment? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ g) 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ EXISTING SETTING: There are no known hazardous materials on the site or nearby. The property is not a listed hazardous material site on the EnviroStor database. The property is not within 2 miles of an airport. The proposed project is within the urban core of the City along the El Camino Real corridor and is not located near wildlands. PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project does not generate or involve the use of significant amounts of hazardous materials. Proposed project does not impair implementation with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Geographical information systems show the project site to be in a high fire hazard zone. The project will not interfere with local roads used for emergency evacuation. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure 8.h.1 will render this impact to a less than significant threshold. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Mitigation measures have been included in order to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 8.h.1: Construction will comply with section the California Building and Fire Codes. New residences in the City are required to install fire sprinklers. Fire protection Exhibit A Page 21 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 21 measures shall include the use of non-combustible exterior construction and roofs and fire- resistant building materials. 9. HYDROLOGY / WATER QUALITY – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Exhibit A Page 22 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 22 Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: The site is currently predominantly vacant, with construction underway on the carwash that was previously approved for construction in 2015. The remainder of the site is unimproved. A drainage swale runs through the north side of the subject property from a drainage culvert at the edge of El Camino Real. The drainage is not identified as “blueline creek,” however, it there is riparian vegetation including willows in this area. The property is outside the federal Flood Hazard Boundary and Flood Insurance Rate Map areas. The property is outside the Salinas Dam inundation area. The property is too far from the ocean to be affected by a tsunami or seiche. PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project will add additional wastewater discharge and reduce storrmwater infiltration on a primarily vacant site. Overall, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on water quality standards. Erosion, sediment and environme ntal control measures specified in the project description shall be implemented as necessary to ensure reduced pollutant releases and minimize potential environmental impacts of the project. The current vacant site does provide some level of groundwater recharge due it its vacant and unimproved state. The project has been designed to incorporate the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post-Stormwater Construction standards. This includes incorporation of low impact development swales, and basins that allow for natural infiltration of stormwater that would typically be conveyed into the City’s stormwater drainage system. Implementation of the RWQCB’s Post Stormwater Construction standards render the depletion or interference with groundwater recharge as a less than significant impact. The proposed project will not alter the course of a stream, river or identified waters of the United States (US). The existing drainage pattern of the site will be altered to accommodate development of the proposed project. The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Post-Stormwater Construction standards to address this type of issue. The applicant has submitted a 2017 draft preliminary drainage plan that incorporates standards outlined by this agency to reduce on-site drainage impacts. Therefore, this impact is deemed less than significant. The proposed project has the potential to contribute runoff water or provide additional sources of polluted run-off. The Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post-Stormwater Construction standards address these potentially significant impacts by requiring runoff be treated on-site rather than conveyed off-site by typical curb/gutter/ system. The use of infiltration basins and low-impact development bio-swales treat stormwater runoff and allow it to naturally percolate Exhibit A Page 23 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 23 back into the soil, removing harmful sediments in a natural state. The project will implement Low Impact Design principals and install Stormwater Control Measures, and will be designed to satisfy the requirements of the City’s Post Construction Storm Water Quality Ordinance. Construction activities are subject to review for compliance with City drainage and grading regulations. Drainage will not be permitted to create or intensify any hazards for persons or property in the vicinity. Implementation of proposed drainage improvements, consistent with Mitigation Measure 9.d.e.f.1-2 will reduce this impact to a threshold of less than significant. Future housing will be outside of the 100-year flood hazard area. The project area is not subject to inundation by a tsunami. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Mitigation measures have been included in order to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 9.d.e.f.1: The project shall be designed to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post Construction Stormwater Management requirements for development projects in the Central Coast region. This shall be done through a combination of pervious pavement, landscaped areas, and shallow, unfenced retention ponds and detention basins, or other methods consistent with the Post Construction Stormwater Management requirements. Mitigation Measure 9.d.e.f.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. 10. LAND USE & PLANNING – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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 adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: The project is within a multi-family and commercial mixed-use Planned Development zoning district. The RMF-10 zoning has a density of 10 units per acre, and the CR zoning has a residential density of up to 24 units per acre, where residential can be constructed on upper floors only (not ground level.) Exhibit A Page 24 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 24 PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project includes 55 residential units within attached and detached homes. The applicant is proposing to utilize the California State Density bonus law to include affordable units on site with a density bonus of 10% to increase the unit count above the standard base density. The proposal for increased density is consistent with City ordinances and State Density Bonus law. The proposed lots meet all other applicable land use regulations for the proposed Planned Development #24 amendment and General Plan policies. The project will not physically divide an established community, but will act as a mixed-use transition between the commercial zone and the adjacent single-family neighborhood. The proposed project is in compliance with the General Plan Policy 3.1, allowing mixed-use infill development in the mid-block portion of a General Commercial area along El Camino Real. A mixed-use development is consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed project and uses comply with the Planned Development Overlay Zone No. 24 that is established on all parcels within the project boundary. The Atascadero Zoning Ordinance indicates that the proposed car wash is allowable in the Commercial Retail (CR) zone. Residential uses are an appropriate use in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) General Plan designation as well as Residential Multiple Family (RMF-10) zone. Surrounding properties are zoned Limited Single Family Residential (RSF-Y), Commercial Retail (CR), Commercial Service (CS), and Commercial Tourist (CT). The site’s zoning and use is consistent with the General Plan. The project is consistent with the open space and conservation policies identified in the General Plan. No habitat conservation plan will be affected. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No impacts are expected. No mitigation is required. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: The project is within an established commercial and multi-family mixed- use zoning district without known mineral resources. PROPOSED PROJECT: No mining is proposed as a part of the proposed project. No known mineral resources have been identified in the area. Therefore, there is no impact. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No significant impacts are expected. No mitigation is required. Exhibit A Page 25 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 25 12. NOISE – Will the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: The project is located on a vacant site along the El Camino Real corridor, adjacent to commercial to the north and west, and adjacent to single-family residential to the east. PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project contains several new sources of noise to the existing neighborhood. The use that may generate noise levels in excess of established standards is the car wash use located at the intersection of El Camino Real and Principal Avenue. The car wash facility‘s operation will include several noise sources. A 2014 Acoustic Study found the drying blower at the exit of the wash tunnel to be the most significant noise source, and the vacuum units, which will be running during normal optional hours are identified as a secondary noise source that may generate noise in excess of the City’s Noise Ordinance. Based on estimations, the blowers would be in operation for thirty one (31) minutes during a busy hour. The Acoustic Study determined that with the implementation of recommended mitigations, the project will not result in significant exposure of persons to the generation of noise levels in Exhibit A Page 26 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 26 excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. These mitigation measures were included with the Mitigated Negative Declaration which was certified in 2015, and the measures have been incorporated into the design of the carwash which is currently under construction. With the mitigation measures incorporated, the sound levels are reduced to less than significant levels by relocation of the blower or by increasing the level of acoustical isolation for the several residential units that are impacted. Based on this analysis, mitigation measures have been included to require both relocation of the dryer blower, and additional construction materials to reduce noise impacts for both existing and potential new residents within the proposed project boundaries. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 12.a.1 through 12.a.4 will reduce noise impacts to a threshold of less than significance. The Acoustic Study concludes that people will not be exposed to excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. The car wash will not produce vibrations at levels that would be detectable at the closest sensitive uses. Therefore the impact is deemed less than significant. Existing ambient noise levels measured at the boundary of the residential area during a peak traffic hour are at the 52 dB level. The project would produce a 58 dB level, without special mitigation, thereby exceeding existing ambient noise levels. A noise level mitigation of 6 decibles is needed to bring the project into conformance with City standards, as evaluated in in the August 2014 Acoustic Study. The Acoustic Study concludes that the project will not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project provided that mitigation measures are incorporated. The area presently is exposed to noise from traffic on El Camino Real that is in excess of the limits permitted by City code. While the project will add to the nose levels the increment will not substantially change the present environment. Therefore, incorporation of mitigation measures 12.a.1 through 12.a.4 will render these impacts less than significant. Construction is expected to involve some heavy machinery and use of impact tools that will temporarily increase the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Construction activities shall comply with the City of Atascadero Noise Ordinance for hours of operation (between 7am and 9pm). Therefore the impact is considered less than significant. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or private airstrip. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Mitigation measures have been included in order to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 12.a.1: In order to reduce the impact of the air blower noise associated with the carwash, blowers shall be placed deeper in the carwash tunnel, as recommended in the August 2014 Acoustic Study. Mitigation Measure 12.a.2: Acoustical protection shall be added to the facades of the residences within the project that face the car wash site, as recommended in the August 2014 Acoustic Study. Mitigation Measure 12.a.3: Following completion of the car wash phase of construction, noise levels shall be reassessed to determine the need for a noise barrier wall. If determined to be necessary to comply with City noise ordinance standards, the wall shall be constructed at the Exhibit A Page 27 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 27 side of the exit drive, and shall be designed to be several feet higher than the height of the blower closest to the exit. A wall extending eight feet from the end of the tunnel would reduce sideline noise levels by six decibels. Mitigation Measure 12.a.4: The Acoustic Study recommends the following design and structural specifications for achieving a 25 decibel noise reduction.  Installation of an air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system so that windows in rooms and office spaces facing east can remain closed.  Exterior doors facing east should be solid core with sweeps and seals that make a positive closure.  Exterior walls should be constructed of stucco 7/8” three coats over plywood 5/8” on exterior.  Interior surfacing should be 5/8” for drywall interior. Additional acoustic insulation could be achieved by two layers of drywall or application over resilient furring channels.  Glass in both windows and doors should not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the floor area in a room. This is for conventional windows. It is reasonable to permit an increased opening size if the window assembly conforms to the specifications providing a greater than 25 decibel NLR. The greatest improvement in the sound insulation of windows can be achieved by using thicker glass and a larger air space between panes in dual glazed windows. STC values may be used in estimating a window’s sound blocking qualities by the newer, Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class or OITC (ASTM E1332) value is preferred and more appropriate for units exposed to transportation noise.  Voids around windows should be filled with insulation and wood blocking, and the perimeter of windows thoroughly caulked.  Vents and openings should be minimized on the sides of the buildings exposed to the road and if vents are required, they should be designed with acoustical baffles. 13. POPULATION & HOUSING – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Exhibit A Page 28 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 28 EXISTING SETTING: The project site is currently vacant, with the carwash currently under construction on the front portion of the project site. Two (2) single family residential structures were previously demolished in 2017, as they were vacant and in extremely poor condition as they had been abandoned for many years. PROPOSED PROJECT: The project proposes 55 residential units through a subdivision of currently vacant parcels. Based on the 2010 US Census, the City’s average household size is 2.51 persons per unit. The total amount of units proposed by the amended project is 55 units. The total projected population of the project at build out is approximately 138 persons. This represents less than 1% of the City’s total population of 28,310, based on the 2010 US Census. Therefore, the proposed residences as a part of the proposed project will not have substantial growth inducing effects. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact on growth. No housing or persons will be displaced. The units which were previously demolished had been abandoned for many years and were not inhabitable. Therefore, there is no significant impact to population or housing as a result of the project. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No significant impacts are expected. No mitigation is required. 14. PUBLIC SERVICE: Will the proposed project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered public services in any of the following areas: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Emergency Services (Atascadero Fire)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Police Services (Atascadero Police)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Public Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: The project is within an established mixed-use multi-family residential and commercial zoning district. PROPOSED PROJECT: Each new residence in Atascadero creates an incremental increase in the demand on public services. New residential units are subject to development impact fees and school fees that account for the increased demand. Development Impact Fees: Development Impact Fees are required to be paid for any new development within the City of Atascadero when a building permit is issued. The Cit y’s adopted Development Impact Fees fall into the following categories: Drainage Fees (including the Amapoa Tecorida Drainage Area Fee); Streets, Road, Bridge Fees; Sewer Fees; Public Safety Fees; and Park Fees, Miscellaneous Fees. In addition, school fees are collected by the Exhibit A Page 29 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 29 Atascadero Unified School District. The amount of impact fees is determined by the date that the building permit is issued, or when a vesting tentative map has been deemed complete. The proposed project was deemed complete on March 17, 2015. Fire and Police: Impact fees are charged for new development, to help pay the cost of providing new facilities, equipment, and personnel to serve the expanding city. The Fire Department of the City of Atascadero 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. In addition to typical fire and police development impact fee payments, the proposed project will need to annex into the City’s Community Facilities District (CFD). Since 2005, the City requires new development to annex into the City’s CFD to off -set on-going costs to provide police, fire, and parks services. The proposed project will not result in substantial adverse impacts to these public services, therefore the impact is less than significant. 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 residence. With payment of impact fees, the proposed project’s impact to school facilities is less than significant. Parks: The proposed project will not increase demand on existing City parks and recreation facilities. As a part of the proposed project, Common recreational facilities are proposed within the development include a garden, TOT lot, and other passive recreation features. The proposed project applicant will be required to pay development impact fees as a part of building permit issuance for additional park facilities within the City. In addition, the project will be required to annex into the City’s CFD for on-going maintenance costs of existing parks. With the payment of these fees and annexation into the City’s CFD, the impact is less than significant. Other public facilities: The construction of the project will have no impact on construction of other public facilities. Therefore, no impact. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No significant impacts are expected. No mitigation is required. 15. RECREATION: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable Exhibit A Page 30 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 30 Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ EXISTING SETTING: The project is within an established mixed-use multi-family residential and commercial zoning district. PROPOSED PROJECT: Each new residence in Atascadero creates an incremental increase in the demand on recreation facilities. Future residents are expected to use existing parks and recreational facilities, in addition to facilities that are provided on-site as a part of the proposed project. The numbers of proposed residents is not expected to result in substantial physical deterioration of any facilities. The proposed project requires discretionary approval and is required to annex into the City’s Community Facilities District (CFD) to off -set additional maintenance costs created by new residences With implementation of mitigation measure 15.a.1, the impact is less than significant. No new public recreation facilities are proposed with the project. A small private park, as well as private walking paths and open green spaces, will be developed by the owner as part of the residential project. The on-site private park, greenspaces, and pathways shall be maintained by the residential Homeowners Association (HOA). The project proposes three passive open space areas located throughout the development. Proposed open spaces are strategically placed to preserve the existing environment and will not have an adverse effect, therefore the impact is less than significant. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Mitigation measures have been included in order to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 15.a.1: The applicant, prior to final map recordation, shall annex into the City’s Community Facilities District (CFD) that will be levied to residents on an annual basis within the proposed project boundary to off-set additional maintenance costs by new residents on existing recreation facilities maintained by the City. 16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable Exhibit A Page 31 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 31 Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☒ d) 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) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ EXISTING SETTING: The project site is located between El Camino Real, Principal Avenue, and Pino Solo. The site is surrounded by existing development, including commercial, single- family, and multi-family. PROPOSED PROJECT: A Transportation Impact Study was completed for the previously approved project in November 2014. The original report analyzed a project with 37 residential units, in addition to the office space and the carwash, and concluded that the previously proposed project was estimated to generate 633 new daily trips, 60 new AM peak hour trips, and 66 new PM peak hour trips. An addendum to the traffic report was completed by the project’s transportation engineer in May 2018 to address the increased unit count being proposed. The traffic report addendum identified that the revised project, with 55 units, off ice space, and the carwash, would create a total of 676 daily trips, and increase of 43 daily trips compared to the previously approved project. Exhibit A Page 32 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 32 As identified in the traffic report, under existing plus the project scenario all study intersections would operate acceptably at Level of Service (LOS) B or better with the addition of project trips, with the exception of the Principal Avenue / El Camino Real Intersection. This intersection would operate at a LOS C at its project worse delay, which is the PM peak. Currently this intersection, without the project, operates at a LOS A. The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) indicates that at the existing plus project scenario, the intersection of Principal Avenue / El Camino Real has an existing average delay of less than a second delay at the PM peak, with the worse delay at 13 seconds during the PM Peak and 11.7 seconds during the AM peak. These delays will increase with the proposed project. The average delay will increase to almost 2 seconds during the AM peak and almost 1.2 seconds during the PM Peak. Worse wait time scenario will be approximately 12.4 seconds during the AM Peak, and 15 seconds during the PM Peak. Principal Avenue was studied with just a shared right turn/left turn lane on El Camino Real. The study recommends that dedicated turn lanes be added for right turn only / left turn only onto El Camino Real and additional striping “red curb / no parking” be added to accommodate site distance issues with the proposed new development. The TIS also studied signal warrants for the Principal Avenue / El Camino Real intersection. The proposed project does not meet warrants established by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2014 edition (CAMUTCD). This manual provides guidance to ensure that traffic control devices are installed only if a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and operation of the intersection and will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. Mitigation Measures have been included to ensure construction of these improvements per the traffic impact study. Cumulative plus project scenario the LOS delays increase at all identified intersections that were studied. The Traffic Report shows additional queuing delays at the US 101 / Santa Rosa Road northbound on-ramps as well as additional delays at the Santa Rosa Road / El Camino Real. The LOS at the Santa Rosa Road / El Camino Real intersection and the Principal Avenue / El Camino Real intersections remaining at acceptable levels with worse approach delays running at LOS C. Any LOS below of a LOS D is considered deficient under the City’s General Plan. Proposed project traffic impact is considered less than significant. Improvements to the Santa Rosa US HWY 101 interchange were completed in 2005, and a reimbursement area was established to recoup the costs for projects that would receive future benefit from these improvements. The project site is within the Santa Rosa reimbursement area adopted by City Council on February 16, 2016, and will be required to pay into the Santa Rosa / Highway 101 traffic signal reimbursement fund with issuance of the building permits within the project site. US 101 Mainline Operations and Interchange – Santa Rosa Road The TIS identified existing delays and LOS at the Santa Rosa Road / US 101 as LOS A during the AM peek and LOS B during the PM peek. Delays at the AM peek for the southbound ramp were estimated at 9.8 seconds and 7.2 seconds for the PM Peek. The Northbound ramps were estimated at 7.1 AM peek delays and 9.3 peek delays. Existing Plus Project delays at both on- ramps increased as a result of the proposed project. Existing plus project delays would increase from 9.8 seconds to 17 seconds at the US 101 southbound ramps (LOS B) and 13 seconds (LOS B) during the PM peek. Existing plus project delays at the US 101 northbound ramps Exhibit A Page 33 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 33 would increase at the PM peek only from 9.3 seconds to 15.2 seconds. The additional traffic will also cause the northbound ramps to exceed queuing storage (area that allows cars to enter the freeway), as indicated in the TIS. The queuing is expected increase, thus causing an interchange deficiency under Caltrans standards. The Santa Rosa Road / US 101 interchange is an identified as a project (ST-37) under the City’s Master Facilities Plan for improvements. The Study identified that the interchange required an estimated $8.1 million to construct interchange improvements that includes, but not limited to right-of-way acquisition, signal construction, lane configuration, interchange approach improvements up to 200 yards away from ingress / egress ramps. The City Council adopted this nexus fee study in 2006. The study assumed that the entire $8.1 million dollar cost to improve the intersection would be generated by the City’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). The City’s TIF fee assumes that all new development from 2006 on-forward would pay their “fair-share” to interchange improvements for the Santa Rosa Road interchange. The proposed project is creating additional deficiencies in the queuing at the northbound ramp of US 101. To mitigate those deficiencies, the City is required to collect TIF funds to put towards an ultimate improvement that would create a LOS of C or better at the interchange. The City collects $5,597 per unit (medium density) in TIF and additional non-residential fees for projects to fund all projects identified in the City’s 2006 Master Facilities study. A mitigation measure has been included to collect the Circulation System TIF, which is included as a part of the overall development impact fee, on each unit within the proposed project to pay for its “fair-share” of improvements to the Santa Rosa Road interchange. Implementation of this mitigation measure creates an impact that is less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No changes will occur to the air traffic patterns, and the project will not increase hazards due to sharp curves or incompatible uses. The proposed project provides adequate emergency vehicle access. The Fire department will review plans to determine suitable fire protection measures, therefore impact is less than significant. The project is consistent with the area circulation, the Atascadero Bike Plan, and per the General Plan. Adequate parking will be provided on-site for the proposed project. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Mitigation measures have been included in order to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.1: Principal Avenue shall be improved by the project applicant to include striping of a designated left and right turn lane on westbound Principal Avenue between El Camino Real and the westerly project driveway to reduce queuing times and traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.2: On-street parking on Principal Avenue shall be restricted to improve sight lines for vehicles exiting the commercial driveway on the south side of Principal Ave. The area of designated no parking shall be approved by the Public Works department. Restricted parking areas may include red curb striping / signage or any other additional devices required to enforce no parking along this segment, and shall be installed by the project applicant. Exhibit A Page 34 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 34 Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.3: Payment of Circulation System Fee (TIF) shall be made prior to the issuance of building permits for all residential and non-residential uses within the project. Fees shall be based on the Development Impact Fee schedule adopted by City Council. Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.4: The project is located within the Santa Rosa interchange reimbursement boundary which was adopted by the Atascadero City Council on February 9, 2016. Both the residential and commercial portions of the project shall be required to pay the Santa Rosa / Highway 101 traffic signal reimbursement mitigation fee in accordance with City Council resolution 2016-005. 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe?: ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Impact a listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as define in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Impact a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California native American Tribe? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: The project is a vacant infill site located along the El Camino Real corridor. The site was previously developed with two residential structures which were demolished last year after it was determined that the structures were not of historical importance. PROPOSED PROJECT: In accordance with Assembly Bill 52, Tribal Consultation has been initiated by the City of Atascadero. Certified letters were sent on December 12, 2018 to all contacts listed by Native American Heritage Commission for the Atascadero area. There are no known archeological or tribal cultural resources in the area. The project site does not include any Colony Houses or other known historical resources. The Atascadero Municipal Exhibit A Page 35 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 35 Code requires developers to stop work and notify interested parties if archeological resources are discovered during construction. During Public Review of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, comments were submitted by the Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties requesting that a cultural resource specialist from the tribe be on site during all tree removal activities. Oak trees were a food source of the Salinan People, and often cultural items such as stone grinding bowls, pestles and cutting tools were used during the acorn harvests and left on site for the next harvest. A Mitigation Measure has been added to the MND to require a cultural resource specialist to be on site during tree removal. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Mitigation measures have been included in order to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 17.a: Prior to the removal of native trees on the subject site, the developer shall contract with a cultural resource specialist from a local tribe to be onsite during all native oak tree removals. If any tribal cultural resources are discovered on-site, the City and the developer shall work with the tribe’s cultural resource specialist to protect the resources. 18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Will the project: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Exhibit A Page 36 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 36 Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: The subject site is a 5.25 acre vacant infill site located along the El Camino Real corridor. City sewer is available near the project site. Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC) will provide water. All property within the City limits is entitled to water from AMWC, who pumps water from several portions of Atascadero sub-basin of the largest underground basin in the county, the Paso Robles Formation, using a series of shallow and deep wells. The water company anticipates that it will be able to meet th e City’s needs through build out and beyond. Water demand at build out is estimated to be at 16,000-20,000 acre-feet per year (AFY). The City is projected to have enough water to meet the demand with the approval of the Nacimiento Water Project, which has allocated the City an additional 3,000 AFY with a flow rate of 3.48 million gallons per day (mgd). Solid waste from the City is taken to the Chicago Grade Landfill, a 188-acre privately-owned facility. Allos, the new owner of the landfill estimates the landfill has 70 years of projected disposal capacity. PROPOSED PROJECT: The incremental increase in water demand for the new project will be accounted for by the collection of water meter fees when new service is established. The project is not expected to make a significant quantity of solid waste. There is capacity at the City’s wastewater treatment plant to accommodate the new development. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No significant impacts are expected. No mitigation is required. 19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable Exhibit A Page 37 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 37 Potentially Significant Impact Requires Mitigation Insignificant Impact Not Applicable 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 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ EXISTING SETTING: The subject site is a 5.25 acre vacant infill site located along the El Camino Real corridor, with mixed use zoning of commercial retail and residential multi-family. PROPOSED PROJECT: The project site consists of undeveloped residential and commercial sites which are currently being proposed for a mixed use development, consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed project has been analyzed as required by CEQA and the Atascadero Municipal Code. Project-related impacts have been identified and mitigation measures have been included within the proposal to reduce the effect of the proposed project as described herein. MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No significant impacts are expected. No mitigation is required. For further information on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or the City’s environmental review process, please visit the City’s website at www.atascadero.org under the Community Development Department or the California Environmental Resources Evaluation System at: http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/ for additional information on CEQA. Exhibit A Page 38 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 38 Exhibit A – Initial Study References & Outside Agency Contacts The Community Development Department of the City of Atascadero has contacted various agencies for their comments on the proposed project. With respect to the proposed project, the following outside agencies have been contacted (marked with a ☒) with a notice of intent to adopt a proposed negative / mitigated negative declaration. ☒ Atascadero Mutual Water Company ☒ Native American Heritage Commission ☒ Atascadero Unified School District ☒ San Luis Obispo Council of Governments ☒ Atascadero Waste Alternatives ☒ San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District ☒ AB 52 – Salinan Tribe ☐ San Luis Obispo Integrated Waste Management Board ☒ AB 52 – Northern Chumash Tribe ☒ Regional Water Quality Control Board District 3 ☒ AB 52 – Xolon Salinan Tribe ☐ HEAL SLO – Healthy Communities Workgroup ☒ AB 52 – Other ☒ US Postal Service ☐ California Highway Patrol ☒ Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) ☒ California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Region 4) ☒ Southern California Gas Co. (SoCal Gas) ☒ California Department of Transportation (District 5) ☒ San Luis Obispo County Assessor ☒ Pacific Gas & Electric ☐ LAFCO ☐ San Luis Obispo County Planning & Building ☐ Office of Historic Preservation ☐ San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Department ☒ Charter Communications ☐ Upper Salinas – Las Tablas RCD ☐ CA Housing & Community Development ☐ Central Coast Information Center (CA. Historical Resources Information System) ☐ CA Department of Toxic Substances Control ☐ CA Department of Food & Agriculture ☐ US Army Corp of Engineers ☐ CA Department of Conservation ☐ Other: AT&T ☐ CA Air Resources Board ☐ Other: ☐ Address Management Service ☐ Other: Exhibit A Page 39 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 39 The following checked (“☒”) reference materials have been used in the environmental review for the proposed project and are hereby incorporated by reference into the Initial Study. The following information is available at the Community Development Department and requested copies of information may be viewed by requesting an appointment with the project planner at (805) 461-5000. ☒ Project File / Application / Exhibits / Studies ☒ Adopted Atascadero Capital Facilities Fee Ordinance ☒ Atascadero General Plan 2025 / Final EIR ☒ Atascadero Inclusionary Housing Policy ☒ Atascadero Municipal Code ☒ SLO APCD Handbook ☒ Atascadero Appearance Review Manual ☒ Regional Transportation Plan ☐ Atascadero Urban Stormwater Management Plan ☒ Flood Hazard Maps ☐ Atascadero Hillside Grading Guidelines ☒ CDFW / USFW Mapping ☒ Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance & Guidelines ☐ CA Natural Species Diversity Data Base ☒ Atascadero Climate Action Plan (CAP) ☒ Archeological Resources Map ☐ Atascadero Downtown Revitalization Plan ☒ Atascadero Mutual Water Company Urban Water Management Plan ☒ Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan ☐ CalEnvironScreen ☒ Atascadero GIS mapping layers ☐ Other _______________ ☐ Other _______________ ☐ Other _______________ Exhibit A Page 40 of 177 EXHIBIT B – MITIGATION SUMMARY TABLE PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment, CUP, Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change Environmental Document No. 2019-0002 Per Public Resources Code § 21081.6, the following measures also constitutes the mitigation monitoring and/or reporting program that will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. The measures will become conditions of approval (COAs) should the project be approved. The City of Atascadero, as the Lead Agency, or other responsible agencies, as specified, is responsible to verify compliance with these COAs. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure 1.c.1: A landscaping plan shall be submitted for all lots adjacent to existing residential development and must identify locations of proposed evergreen trees or similar screening trees with a minimum box size of 24-inches. These trees shall be spaced throughout an individual lot to ensure screening of existing residences and proposed new development. Mitigation Measure 1.d.1: All lighting shall be 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 in parking areas. No light shall be permitted to spill off-site. Fixtures shall be shield cut-off type so that no light sources are visible from offsite. Mitigation Measure 1.d.2: Applicant must submit a landscaping plan, concurrent with building permit submittal, for the proposed carwash use. Landscaping plan shall include tree plantings 30-feet on center along El Camino Real and additional plantings along property boundary perimeter in designated landscaping planters. Mitigation Measure 1.d.3: At the time of building permit submittal for car-wash portion of the proposed project, building plans shall indicate the use of a non-reflective coating, or other glare reducing applications on all galvanized or corrugated metal surfaces utilized as a part of the proposed car-wash structure. Materials must be noted on construction detail sheets and lead project designer of record must submit a letter certifying application of materials prior to building permit final. Mitigation Measure 1.d.4: At the time of building permit submittal for car wash portion of the proposed project, applicant must submit a photometric plan showing locations of proposed on-site lighting. All exterior site lights shall utilize full cut-off, “hooded” lighting fixtures to prevent offsite light spillage and glare. Fixtures shall be shield cut-off type. Prior to final occupancy, City Staff and the applicant shall meet on-site and review lights at nighttime condition to ensure that there is no off-site light spillage or glare. Mitigation Measure 3.b.1: The project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable District regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust (PM-10) as contained in Section 2 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook “Assessing and Mitigating Construction Impacts.” The applicant and contractors shall manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD's 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule Exhibit A Page 41 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 41 402). 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 and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible; Please note that since water use is a concern due to drought conditions, the contractor or builder shall consider the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the amount of water used for dust control. For a list of suppressants, see Section 4.3 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook; c. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed; d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities; e. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non -invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to 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 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; k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible; l. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans; and, m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. 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 Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. Mitigation Measure 3.b.2: The project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable APCD regulations pertaining to Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA). Prior to any grading activities a geologic evaluation should be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, and exemptions 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 ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety program for approval by the APCD. Exhibit A Page 42 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 42 Technical Appendix 4.4 of the SLO County APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook includes a map of zones throughout San Luis Obispo County where NOA has been found and geological evaluation is required prior to any grading. Mitigation Measure 3.b.3: Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Asbestos containing materials could be encountered during the demolition or remodeling of existing buildings or the disturbance, demolition, or relocation of above or below ground utility pipes/pipelines (e.g., transite pipes or insulation on pipes). This project includes these activities and therefore it may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. Applicant shall contact the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 for further information prior to any demolition onsite or relocation of above or below ground utility pipes/pipelines. Mitigation Measure 3.b.4: Effective February 25, 2000, the APCD prohibited developmental burning of vegetative material within San Luis Obispo County. There shall be no developmental burning of vegetative material as part of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 3.b.5: Portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities may require California statewide portable equipment registration (issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit. The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements, but should not be viewed as exclusive. For a more detailed listing, refer to the Technical Appendices, page 4-4, in the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook.  Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers;  Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater;  Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator;  Internal combustion engines;  Rock and pavement crushing; and  Tub grinders. Prior to the start of the project, the applicant shall contact the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. Mitigation Measure 3.b.6: Under APCD Rule 504, only APCD approved wood burning devices can be installed in new dwelling units. These devices include:  All EPA-Certified Phase II wood burning devices;  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;  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;  Pellet-fueled woodheaters; and  Dedicated gas-fired fireplaces. The applicant shall contact the APCD Enforcement Division at 781-5912 with any questions regarding wood burning devices. Exhibit A Page 43 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 43 Mitigation Measure 4.a.1: A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 30 days of initial site disturbance to identify whether silvery legless lizards are present. If silvery legless lizards are detected, a biological monitor shall be present during initial ground disturbing and vegetation removal activities to allow for a salvage and relocation effort for the lizard and other ground dwelling common wildlife that may be present. Mitigation Measure 4.a.2: Conduct a springtime rare plant survey to determine the presence/absence of any special-status plants. Should any be discovered, implement a seed and/or plant salvage program and incorporate the salvaged material into the drainage setback and detention basin landscaped areas. Mitigation Measure 4.b.c.1: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for work in the ephemeral drainage. Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. Compliance with Corps permitting would also include obtaining and CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In addition, the Corps and RWQCB may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent impacts on riparian/wetland habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less than- significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.b.c.2: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1600 et.seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required for work within the ephemeral drainage and riparian habitat (stream zone). Should an agreement be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFW. The CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In addition, CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of onsite riparian habitat restoration to the extent feasible. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.d.1: Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31 outside of the nesting season for birds. If vegetation and/or tree removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. Mitigation Measure 4.d.2: If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non- disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Exhibit A Page 44 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 44 Mitigation Measure 4.e.1: Grading and excavation work shall be consistent with the City of Atascadero Tree Ordinance. Special precautions when working around native trees include: 1. All existing trees outside of the limits of work shall remain. 2. Earthwork shall not exceed the limits of the project area. 3. Low branches in danger of being torn from trees shall be pruned prior to any heavy equipment work being done. 4. Vehicles and stockpiled material shall be stored outside the drip line of all trees. 5. All trees within twenty feet of construction work shall be fenced for protection with 4-foot chain link, snow or safety fencing placed per the approved tree protection plan. Tree protection fencing shall be in place prior to any site excavation or grading. Fencing shall remain in place until completion of all construction activities. 6. Any roots that are encountered during excavation shall be clean cut by hand and sealed with an approved tree seal. 7. Utilities such as water, gas, power, cable, storm drainage, and sewer should be redirected from under the canopy of any trees that are to remain. 8. Where a building is placed within the canopy of a tree the foundation should be redesigned so that it bridges across any root systems. 9. Any foundation or other structure that encroaches within the drip line of trees to be saved shall be dug by hand. 10. At no time shall tree roots be ripped with construction equipment. Mitigation Measure 4.e.2: Tree protection fencing shall be installed at the locations called out by the project arborist in a Tree Protection Plan, which shall be submitted with building permits. An inspection of the tree fencing shall be done by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure 4.e.3: The following measure shall be incorporated on-site during the construction process of the proposed project: 1. A minimum height construction protective barrier shall be erected around the drip line of the tree plus 4’. The fence shall be supported with “T” posts at no more than 6’ o.c. and tied at least 3 places per post. This fence shall be installed by the General Contractor before any rough grading is allowed on the site. Approval for this stage must be obtained in writing from either the Arborist or the Counties/Cities representative. 2. Earthwork shall not exceed the limits of the project area. 3. Low branches in danger of being torn during construction process shall be pruned prior to any heavy equipment work being undertaken. 4. Once the rough grading is accomplished the fence may be moved closer to the trunk of the tree for finish grading. At no time shall the fence be placed within the Critical Root Zone (CRZ). This location is determined by the diameter of the trunk at Diameter Breast Height (DBH). (4.5’ above grade) and is 1’ per 1” diameter in the direction of the drip line. At no time shall the fence be moved closer to the trunk than the drip line. 5. Any roots that are encountered over 2” diameter, during the excavation process shall be clean cut perpendicular to the direction of root growth with a handsaw. At no time shall tree seal be applied to any cut. Any roots over 2” diameter the county/city representative shall be notified to determine the preferred course of action. 6. All trenching with CRZ area shall require hand trenching to preserve and Exhibit A Page 45 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 45 protect roots over 2” in diameter. 7. No grading of trenching is allowed within the CRZ fenced area without written permission from the County/City representative or a certified arborist. 8. Any roots over 4” in diameter are not to be cut or ripped until inspected and approved in writing by the arborist. 9. If, for whatever reason, work must be accomplished inside the drip line 4”-6” of mulch must be applied first to decrease the possibilities of compaction upon written approval from the arborist. 10. There shall be a pre-construction meeting between the Engineering/Planning staff of the County/City, Grading equipment operators, Project Superintendent and the Arborist to review the project conditions and requirements prior to any grubbing or earth work for any portions of the project site. All tree protection fencing shall be installed for inspection prior to this meeting. 11. All trees shall be pruned before any construction takes place that are in the development areas to be saved if they might be damaged by the construction equipment. This must be accomplished by a bonded, licensed, and certified Tree Service Contractor. 12. All debris shall be cleared from the area or chipped and spread on the site or stacked in orderly piles for future use by the Owner, at the Owners request. 13. In locations where paving is to occur within the drip line grub only and do not compact unless authorized in writing. Permeable pavers or other preamble surface must be approved by the Arborist. Mitigation Measure 4.e.4: Upon project completion and prior to final occupancy a final status report shall be prepared by the project arborist certifying that the tree protection plan was implemented, the trees designated for protection were protected during construction, and the construction-related tree protection measures are no longer required for tree protection. Mitigation Measure 4.e.5: All utilities shall remain outside the driplines of native trees to the extent feasible. Any utilities that encroach on the critical root zone of protected trees shall be monitored during excavation by an arborist to ensure damage to native tree roots is minimized. Mitigation 5.d.1: In the event that human remains are discovered on the property, all work on the project shall stop and the Atascadero Police Department and the County Coroner shall be contacted. The Atascadero Community Development Department shall be notified. If the human remains are identified as being Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted at (916) 653-4082 within 24 hours. A representative from both the Chumash Tribe and the Salinan Tribe shall be notified and present during the excavation of any remains. Mitigation Measure 6.c.1: The on-site subdivision / grading permit plans shall include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt, and debris from entering the storm drain system during and after construction, consistent with mitigation or construction methods outlined in the geotechnical report. Plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance. Mitigation Measure 6.c.2: All cut and fill slopes mitigated with an appropriate erosion control method (erosion control blanket, hydro-mulch, or straw mulch appropriately anchored) immediately after completion of earthwork, as approved by the City Engineer. All disturbed slopes shall have appropriate erosion control methods in place. Mitigation Measure 6.c.3: The contractor will be responsible for the clean up of any mud or Exhibit A Page 46 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 46 debris that is tracked onto public streets by construction vehicles. An approved device must be in place prior to commencement of grading activities. This device shall be approved by the City Engineer. Mitigation Measure 6.c.4: A re-vegetation plan shall be submitted with building permits. All disturbed cut and fill slopes shall be vegetated as specified in a landscaping plan. The landscaping plan must be approved by both the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department. Mitigation Measure 8.h.1: Construction will comply with section the California Building and Fire Codes. New residences in the City are required to install fire sprinklers. Fire protection measures shall include the use of non-combustible exterior construction and roofs and fire- resistant building materials. Mitigation Measure 9.d.e.f.1: The project shall be designed to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post Construction Stormwater Management requirements for development projects in the Central Coast region. This shall be done through a combination of pervious pavement, landscaped areas, and shallow, unfenced retention ponds and detention basins, or other methods consistent with the Post Construction Stormwater Management requirements. Mitigation Measure 9.d.e.f.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. Mitigation Measure 12.a.1: In order to reduce the impact of the air blower noise associated with the carwash, blowers shall be placed deeper in the carwash tunnel, as recommended in the August 2014 Acoustic Study. Mitigation Measure 12.a.2: Acoustical protection shall be added to the facades of the residences within the project that face the car wash site, as recommended in the August 2014 Acoustic Study. Mitigation Measure 12.a.3: Following completion of the car wash phase of construction, noise levels shall be reassessed to determine the need for a noise barrier wall. If determined to be necessary to comply with City noise ordinance standards, the wall shall be constructed at the side of the exit drive, and shall be designed to be several feet higher than the height of the blower closest to the exit. A wall extending eight feet from the end of the tunnel would reduce sideline noise levels by six decibels. Mitigation Measure 12.a.4: The Acoustic Study recommends the following design and structural specifications for achieving a 25 decibel noise reduction.  Installation of an air conditioning or a mechanical ventilation system so that windows in rooms and office spaces facing east can remain closed.  Exterior doors facing east should be solid core with sweeps and seals that make a positive closure.  Exterior walls should be constructed of stucco 7/8” three coats over plywood 5/8” on exterior.  Interior surfacing should be 5/8” for drywall interior. Additional acoustic insulation could be achieved by two layers of drywall or application over resilient furring channels. Exhibit A Page 47 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 47  Glass in both windows and doors should not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the floor area in a room. This is for conventional windows. It is reasonable to permit an increased opening size if the window assembly conforms to the specifications providing a greater than 25 decibel NLR. The greatest improvement in the sound insulation of windows can be achieved by using thicker glass and a larger air space between panes in dual glazed windows. STC values may be used in estimating a window’s sound blocking qualities by the newer, Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class or OITC (ASTM E1332) value is preferred and more appropriate for units exposed to transportation noise.  Voids around windows should be filled with insulation and wood blocking, and the perimeter of windows thoroughly caulked.  Vents and openings should be minimized on the sides of the buildings exposed to the road and if vents are required, they should be designed with acoustical baffles. Mitigation Measure 15.a.1: The applicant, prior to final map recordation, shall annex into the City’s Community Facilities District (CFD) that will be levied to residents on an annual basis within the proposed project boundary to off-set additional maintenance costs by new residents on existing recreation facilities maintained by the City. Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.1: Principal Avenue shall be improved by the project applicant to include striping of a designated left and right turn lane on westbound Principal Avenue between El Camino Real and the westerly project driveway to reduce queuing times and traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.2: On-street parking on Principal Avenue shall be restricted to improve sight lines for vehicles exiting the commercial driveway on the south side of Principal Ave. The area of designated no parking shall be approved by the Public Works department. Restricted parking areas may include red curb striping / signage or any other additional devices required to enforce no parking along this segment, and shall be installed by the project applicant. Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.3: Payment of Circulation System Fee (TIF) shall be made prior to the issuance of building permits for all residential and non-residential uses within the project. Fees shall be based on the Development Impact Fee schedule adopted by City Council. Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.4: The project is located within the Santa Rosa interchange reimbursement boundary which was adopted by the Atascadero City Council on February 9, 2016. Both the residential and commercial portions of the project shall be required to pay the Santa Rosa / Highway 101 traffic signal reimbursement mitigation fee in accordance with City Council resolution 2016-005. Mitigation Measure 17.a: Prior to the removal of native trees on the subject site, the developer shall contract with a cultural resource specialist from a local tribe to be onsite during all native oak tree removals. If any tribal cultural resources are discovered on-site, the City and the developer shall work with the tribe’s cultural resource specialist to protect the resources. Exhibit A Page 48 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 48 EXHIBIT C – PROJECT FIGURES & SUPPLEMENTS Attachment 1 – Location Map / General Plan & Zoning Project Site: 9105 Principal Ave. Zoning: Residential Multiple Family (10 units / acre) (RMF-10) Commercial Retail (CR) Planned Development #24 overlay General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR) General Commercial (GC) Surrounding Zoning: Residential Single Family (1.0 acre lot min) (RSF-Y) Commercial Retail (CR); Commercial Service (CS); Residential Multiple Family (20 units / acre) (RMF-20); Commercial Tourist (CT) Exhibit A Page 49 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 49 Attachment 2 – Aerial Image Project Site: 9105 Principal Ave. Exhibit A Page 50 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 50 Attachment 3 – Site Photos Exhibit A Page 51 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 51 Exhibit A Page 52 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 52 Attachment 4 – Proposed Landscape and Site Plan Exhibit A Page 53 of 177 SBDV 18-0109 Tentative Map AT 18-0086 | McCrudden Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 53 Attachment 5 – Site Section & Perspective Drawings Exhibits Exhibit A Page 54 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 54 Exhibit A Page 55 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 55 Attachment 6 – Tentative Tract Map Exhibit A Page 56 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 56 Exhibit A Page 57 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 57 Exhibit A Page 58 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 58 Exhibit A Page 59 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 59 Attachment 7 – Residential Elevations Exhibit A Page 60 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 60 Attachment 8 – Mixed-use, Live-work Elevations Exhibit A Page 61 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 61 Attachment 9 – Elevations / Sections –Car Wash Exhibit A Page 62 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 62 Attachment 10 – Fault Map Exhibit A Page 63 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 63 Attachment 11 – FIRM Map Project site: 9105 Principal Ave. Exhibit A Page 64 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 64 Attachment 12 – National Wetlands Inventory Map Exhibit A Page 65 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 65 Attachment 13 – Acoustic Study Exhibit A Page 66 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 66 Exhibit A Page 67 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 67 Exhibit A Page 68 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 68 Exhibit A Page 69 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 69 Exhibit A Page 70 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 70 Exhibit A Page 71 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 71 Exhibit A Page 72 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 72 Exhibit A Page 73 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 73 Exhibit A Page 74 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 74 Attachment 14 – Arborist Report Exhibit A Page 75 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 75 Exhibit A Page 76 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 76 Exhibit A Page 77 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 77 Exhibit A Page 78 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 78 Exhibit A Page 79 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 79 Exhibit A Page 80 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 80 Exhibit A Page 81 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 81 Exhibit A Page 82 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 82 See Attached Attachment 15 – Biological Report Exhibit A Page 83 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT Revised February 10, 2015 Prepared for: OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC. Exhibit A Page 84 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ............................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 2 4.0 Results.......................................................................................................................................................... 3 4.1 Habitat Types and Plant Communities......................................................................................................... 3 4.1.1 Disturbed Non-Native Annual Grassland .................................................................................................... 3 4.1.2 Coast live oak woodland .............................................................................................................................. 3 4.1.3 Arroyo Willow Riparian Habitat ................................................................................................................... 4 4.3 WATERS OF THE U.S., WATERS OF THE STATE & WETLANDS .................................................................................... 4 4.4 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN ............................................................. 4 4.4.1 Special Status Botanical Resources .............................................................................................................. 5 4.4.2 Special Status Wildlife .................................................................................................................................. 6 5.0 Impact Assessment and Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 7 5.1 Sufficiency of Biological Data ....................................................................................................................... 7 5.2 Impacts ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 5.3 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................................... 8 6.0 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 9 7.0 References ................................................................................................................................................... 9 APPENDIX A – FIGURES FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2: VICINITY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH MAP FIGURE 3: SOILS MAP FIGURE 4: HABITAT MAP FIGURE 5: GENERAL PLAN BLUE LINE DRAINAGE MAP FIGURE 6: CNDDB OCCURRENCES MAP FIGURE 7: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS APPENDIX B – TABLES TABLE B-1: PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED TABLE B-2: CNDDB RECORDED OCCURRENCES Exhibit A Page 85 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED 1 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Sage Institute, Inc. (SII) has completed this biological and wetland resources assessment to describe and map the existing conditions within the approximately five-acre mostly undeveloped project site. The Tract 3070 proposed project includes development of four parcels for mix uses including site access from Principal Avenue.  APN: 030-491-001: 0.30 acre  APN: 030-491-013: 2.99 acre  APN: 030-491-019: 1.01 acre  APN: 030-491-020: 1.02 acre The proposed project is located at 9105 Principal Avenue at the intersection with El Camino Real on the eastside of U.S. Highway 101 in the City of Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County. The property is directly surrounded on all sides by residential and commercial/industrial/urban development. Open space lands are to the northwest through the Chalk Mountain Golf Course that abuts the railroad tracks, with the wastewater treatment plant and the Salinas River corridor across the tracks approximately one mile to the east of the proposed project site. The purpose of this biological assessment is to document existing conditions of the proposed project site and to evaluate the potential for any direct or indirect potentially significant impacts on biological or wetland resources or adverse effects on any rare, threatened, or endangered plant or wildlife species (special-status species). This report is intended to support the environmental review documentation process for the City of Atascadero. A Regional Location Map and Vicinity Aerial Photograph Map are provided as Figure 1 and Figure 2 in Appendix A. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Tract 3070 project site supports predominantly a disturbed non-native annual grassland habitat with scattered oaks, coyote brush shrubs, and non-native trees. The grassland habitat is dominated by mostly non-native annual grasses and herbaceous broadleaf species (forbs) with a few widely scattered native forbs. Native forbs may be more prevalent but were not observable during the late season field survey conducted for this study. There are nine coast live oaks, five valley oaks, and five blue oaks currently existing around and on the project site. (For more information on trees see Arborist Report, Solid Oak Tree Management, October 27, 2014.) There is one ephemeral drainage that runs along the western site boundary that supports a willow and cottonwood riparian habitat that appears to essentially flow into a City mapped blue line drainage. There are three remaining residential structures along Principal Avenue and a remnant foundation in the middle of the eastern project boundary. Review of aerial photography dating back to 1994 suggests the site is mostly unchanged over that time and does not appear to have been subject to intensive grazing or cultivation. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has identified two soil series with two mapping units on the study area. Onsite soils are mapped as San Andreas-Arujo complex and Botella Exhibit A Page 86 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED 2 series. The following briefly describes the soil series and mapping units within the study area that are shown on Figure 3 of Appendix A. The surface layer and formation descriptions of soil types can be helpful in predicting suitability for certain plants, plant communities, and certain wildlife use. San Andreas-Arujo complex (9 to 15 percent slopes) – The San Andreas-Arujo complex (9 to 15 percent slopes), mapping unit 193, consists of 30 percent San Andreas sandy loam and 25 percent Arujo sandy loam. Areas of these are too intricately mixed for separate mapping. The San Andreas series consists of well drained soils with moderately rapid permeability formed over weathered sandstone. The San Andreas series representative profile is a dark gray sandy loam surface layer to about 12 inches, a light brownish gray and light gray sandy loam about 17 inches thick, and weathered sandstone to a depth of 29 inches or more. The Arujo series consists of a well-drained soil with moderately slow permeability that formed in material weathered from sandstone. The Arujo series representative profile is a dark gray sandy loam surface layer to about 10 inches, a grayish brown and light grayish brown sandy clay loam about 21 inches thick, a light gray sandy loam substratum at a depth of 47 inches or more. Depth to the white weathered sandstone ranges from 40 to 60 inches. Botella sandy loam (2 to 9 percent slopes) – The Botella series consists of very deep well drained soil with moderately slow permeability that forms in alluvial fans from sedimentary-derived rocks. The Botella series consists of a dark gray sandy loam surface layer to about 16 inches, a dark gray sandy loam about five inches thick, a dark grayish brown sandy clay loam about 25 inches thick, a light brownish gray sandy clay loam about 14 inches thick, and a light brownish gray sandy clay loam to a depth of about 60 inches. 3.0 METHODOLOGY SII biologists conducted a review of the available background information including project plan maps, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Atascadero 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map, several years of available aerial photography of the study area from Bing and Google Earth, the NRCS soil survey, and query results from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for information on special-status species recorded occurrences within an approximately five mile radius of the proposed project site. The five mile search radius was used as an alternative to the typical 10-mile CNDDB search radius because it would have included other areas generally not relevant to this urbanized study area. The CNDDB provided a list and mapped locations of special-status plants and wildlife species that have been recorded in the region of the project site. The CNDDB records help to focus the field survey efforts and evaluation of potential project effects on specific species or habitats. It is noted that the CNDDB does not necessarily include all potential special-status species occurring in the region, but rather only those that have been recorded by the CNDDB. SII Principal Ecologist David Wolff and SII Biologist Noel Fie conducted a field reconnaissance survey of the proposed project site on October 23, 2014, with Ms. Fie and Mr. Wolff conducting additional site surveys on October 28 and December 24, 2014 respectively. Field reconnaissance included walking the entirety of the proposed project site recording plant and wildlife species observed. The site survey was conducted between 1300 and 1600 hours under 75°F on October 23, 2014. The site was surveyed a second time on October 28th 2014 between 0900 and 1400 hours under clear skies and 71°F Exhibit A Page 87 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED 3 temperatures and briefly a third time on December 24th between 1220 and 1330 hours under partly cloudy skies and 66°F. The purpose of the field surveys was to document existing conditions in terms of habitat for plant and wildlife species, suitability to support special-status species, and the potential to support wetland and/or riparian habitats. Plant and wildlife species observed in the field were recorded. The onsite habitat types were described by the aggregation of plants and wildlife based on the composition and structure of the dominant vegetation observed at the time field reconnaissance was conducted. SII Principal Ecologist David Wolff conducted a field survey and acted as primary editor and principal in charge of report preparation. The survey data collected on plant and wildlife species and conclusions presented in this biological assessment are based on the methods and field reconnaissance conducted over the project site as described above. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES The plant communities within the study area are generally described by the assemblages of observed plant species that occur together in the same area forming habitat types. Plant community descriptions are generally based on A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Plant names used in this report follow The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Thoroughly Revised and Expanded (Baldwin et al. 2012). The following describes the plant communities and habitat characteristics observed within the project site. The project site supports the following distinct plant communities: 1) disturbed non-native annual grassland with scattered coyote brush shrubs; 2) remnant valley/live oak woodland alliance; and 3) arroyo willow riparian alliance associated with the drainage that runs along the western side of the site. Table B-1 in Appendix B provides a list of plant species observed during the SII field survey. Figure 4 in Appendix A provides a habitat map for the project site, and Figure 7 provides a set of representative photographs. 4.1.1 DISTURBED NON-NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLAND The non-native annual grassland habitat, or semi-natural annual brome grassland alliance, is typically dominated by non-native annual grasses and herbaceous broadleaf plant species, along with native forbs and wildflowers. Annual grassland habitat occurs as the dominant habitat type within the proposed project site and occurs as the understory to the oak woodland. The non-native annual grassland within the project was observed to be relatively low in species diversity and dominated by grasses that are typical of areas that have been subject to previous disturbance. Dominant plant species observed in the non-native annual grassland habitat include oats (Avena sativa), rip gut brome (Bromus diandrus), fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), yellow-star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), and cheeseweed (Malva parviflora). Native species observed in low abundance include Salinas River tarweed (Deinandra pentactis), vinegarweed (Trichostema lanceolatum), and a few scattered purple needle grass (Stipa pulchra), soap plant (Chlorogalum sp.), and deer grass (Muhlenbergia rigens). 4.1.2 COAST LIVE OAK WOODLAND The project site supports a remnant coast live oak woodland that can be described by scattered coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia), along with several valley oaks (Quercus lobata) and blue oaks (Quercus douglassi). The oak woodland onsite consists of nine coast live oaks, five valley oaks, and five blue oaks widely spaced throughout the site (See Figure 4). (For more information on trees see Arborist Report, Solid Oak Tree Management, October 27, 2014.) The understory was dominated by the non-native annual grassland habitat described above. Exhibit A Page 88 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED 4 4.1.3 ARROYO WILLOW RIPARIAN HABITAT The arroyo willow riparian habitat occurs within and along the ephemeral drainage that runs approximately 630 feet along the northwest border of the project site (Figure 4). The riparian habitat is dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) with one large thicket occurring at the southwest corner of the study area. The riparian habitat along the drainage includes scattered Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), red willow (Salix laevigata), non-native elm trees (Ulmus parviflora), oaks, and a small patch (25 sq. ft.) of red fescue (Festuca rubra) in the center of the drainage. The understory was dominated by the non-native annual grassland habitat described above. 4.2 WILDLIFE The annual grassland, oak woodland, and riparian habitat types on the proposed project site may provide habitat for common resident and migratory wildlife species typical in the region adapted to the urban environment. The grassland and trees can provide food, cover, and nesting habitat for birds. Wildlife species observed during the limited field reconnaissance included the scrub jay and California black-tailed deer. Additional resident, locally nomadic, and migratory, bird, mammal, reptile and amphibian species could occur on the project site that were not observed during the field visits. The site is connected at the north end to the open space of the golf course and the Salinas River corridor to the east. However, given that the site is surrounded by urban development, Highway 101 and El Camino Real, wildlife use is likely limited given it is essentially a “dead end” for the habitat area against the urbanization. Additionally, the small remnant of habitat on the project area does not support a significant amount of grassland and oak woodland habitat in the context of the great expanse of the interconnected and diverse habitat mosaic available to wildlife in the undeveloped areas in this region of San Luis Obispo County. 4.3 WATERS OF THE U.S., WATERS OF THE STATE & WETLANDS The study area is traversed by one ephemeral drainage which enters the property from the south through a pipe under El Camino Real and may capture runoff from the west side of the freeway. This drainage runs for 630 feet along the western property line and has a defined bed, bank, and channel supporting varied riparian, wetland, and upland plant species. As discussed above, the riparian habitat is dominated by arroyo willows stands with elm trees, red willows, valley oaks, and several Fremont cottonwoods. According to the City of Atascadero’s General Plan Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Element Figure II-8, the onsite ephemeral drainage leads to the start of a mapped blue line creek approximately 790 feet downstream of the project site. The City’s mapped blue line creek runs approximately 1.08 miles to the northeast where it appears to hit a culvert crossing of the railroad tracks near the Salinas River corridor (see Figure 5). Given the defined channel characteristics that continue as tributary to a mapped blue line creek, this drainage is likely considered waters of the U.S. and waters of the State subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction respectively. In addition, the City’s General Plan requires a 20-foot setback from mapped blue line creeks in the General Plan and as shown on USGS maps. 4.4 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN Special-status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); those considered “species of concern” by the USFWS; those listed or Exhibit A Page 89 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED 5 candidates for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFW; and plants occurring on lists 1B, 2, and 4 of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Natural Communities of Special Concern are habitat types considered rare and worthy of tracking in the CNDDB by the CDFG because of their limited distribution or historic loss over time. Special-status species typically require specific soil or habitat types such as serpentine soils or aquatic resources. The search and review of the CNDDB revealed 12 special-status plant species and 13 special-status wildlife species with recorded occurrences in the five-mile search radius of the project site. The following briefly describes or summarizes the special-status species issues and potential for occurrence within the study area. While none of these species, or remnants thereof, were observed during the SII field survey, appropriately timed surveys for rare plants were not conducted as a part of this study. Table B-2 in Appendix B provides a list of special-status species recorded in the CNDDB and includes scientific and common names, listing status, habitat requirements, and likelihood for occurrence within the project area. 4.4.1 SPECIAL STATUS BOTANICAL RESOURCES The CNDDB revealed the recorded occurrences of 12 special-status plant species within a five mile radius of the project site. The special-status plant species occurrences recorded in the CNDDB are commonly associated with a specific soil type, moisture regime, habitat, and/or elevation range that dictates the range or microhabitat of the species. No vernal pools or other seasonal wetlands were observed within the study area, and while the surveys were conducted late in the growing season, no rare, threatened, or endangered plant species or remnants thereof were observed within the project area. But these observations are based on fall plant growth with most of the site mowed leaving little identifiable herbaceous species plant material. While there is a low probability for these species, a chance remains for special-status plants associated with sandy soils given the site does not appear to have been subject to intensive grazing or cultivation dating back to 1994. As such, onsite a springtime floristic survey would be needed to confirm definitive negative findings for grassland and sandy soil associated annual plant species. The following provides a suitability analysis for special-status plant species with CNDDB recorded occurrences in the region. The special-status plant species associated with the grassland habitats occurring in the region associated with heavy clay soils are the Mile’s milk vetch (Astragalus didymocarpus var. milesianus) and the round- leaved filaree (California macrophylla). These species are typically restricted to semi-shaded areas along the margins and/or adjacent to cismontane woodland and chaparral and prefer soil types that contain a high content of clay. The existing soil types within the project area are mapped and observed with a sandy loam surface layer and therefore would not represent suitable habitat for these species. No remnants of these grassland species were observed during SII field reconnaissance of the project site. The perennial woody species Santa Margarita manzanita Arctostaphylos pilosula and mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula) would have been noticeable even during the late season survey. Neither species was observed during SII field reconnaissance of the project site. The special-status plant species known from vernal pool wetland habitat occurring in the region is the shining navarretia (Navarretia nigeliformis). The proposed project site does not support seasonal wetland areas or vernal pools and, therefore, does not represent suitable habitat for this plant species. Exhibit A Page 90 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED 6 Special-status plants associated with serpentine soils include Eastwood’s larkspur (Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae), the most beautiful jewelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus), Brewer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe breweri), and Palmer’s monardella (Mondardella palmeri). No serpentine soils are mapped or observed within the project area, therefore, the site does not represent suitable habitat for these plant species. The special-status annual plant species associated with sandy soils in chaparral and oak woodland habitats are the La Panza mariposa lily (Calochortus simulans), yellow flowered eriastrum (Eriastrum luteum), and straight-awned spineflower (Chorizanthe rectispina). The existing soil type on the study area contains a high percentage of sand content with a sandy loam surface layer and could represent suitable habitat for these species. None of these species are formally listed under FESA or CESA but are CNPS List 1B species. While there is a low probability for these species within the project area, a springtime floristic survey would be needed to confirm definitive negative findings. 4.4.2 SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE The CNDDB search revealed the recorded occurrences of 13 special-status wildlife species within the five-mile search radius of the project site. Special-status wildlife species known from the region evaluated for this study are discussed by groups based upon habitat preferences, specific habitat use requirements (i.e. terrestrial or aquatic), mobility, and migratory patterns. Aquatic Species – The CNDDB has recorded occurrences within the five-mile search range for the western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), Coast Range newt (Taricha torosa), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), and foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii). These species are closely associated with perennial aquatic habitats of streams and ponds for most of their life cycle with the Coast Range newt seeking aquatic habitat for breeding from dense woodlands of upland habitats. California red-legged frogs were observed approximately 5.2 miles north of the study area in 2003 in a ponded area of Paso Robles Creek just upstream of the confluence with the Salinas River. The foothill yellow-legged frog is recorded from Santa Margarita well south of the project site. The Coast Range newt is recorded from western Atascadero in the Graves Creek area woodlands approximately 3.25 miles to the west. Occurrence data for the western pond turtle is suppressed by the CNDDB to minimize capturing for pets or sale. Based on the review of aerial imagery back to 1994, the drainage that runs through the project area appears to have become more distinct from a swale to a defined channel over time with increased urbanization. Given the onsite drainage starts from a culvert at El Camino Real, does not represent an established historic creek with perennial or long term seasonal flows, and there is not a hydrologic connection to a perennial aquatic habitat, the project site drainage does not represent suitable habitat for any of these species. The California linderiella (LInderiella occidentalis) a species of fairy shrimp, and western spadefoot (toad) (Spea hammondii) are closely associated with vernal poola or temporary pond/puddle habitats that are not subject to flowing water. No evidence of vernal pool or seasonal pond habitats were observed during SII field surveys. As such, the project site does not support suitable seasonal aquatic habitat for these species. Birds – The CNDDB includes occurrences for wide-ranging resident and migratory bird species known from the region of the project site. The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is known for using open grassland areas for foraging and large oaks or cliffs for nesting habitat. The ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) is a winter visitor known for using open expanses of grassland for foraging. The small project site in an urban setting is not suitable nesting habitat for the golden eagle or foraging habitat for either raptor species. Exhibit A Page 91 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED 7 The grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) is typically found within grassland habitats, preferring drier sparse sites in tall grass prairies, with open or bare ground for feeding. The grassland and oak canopy on the project site represents suitable habitat for the grasshopper sparrow, however, the surrounding urbanization suggests this is a very low probability for occurrence. The purple martin (Progne subis) is a cliff nesting species (or bridges and overpasses) preferably in open areas situated close to a water source including creeks, rivers, wetlands, swamps, and wet meadows. The nearest known purple martin CNDDB occurrence is approximately 1.45 miles to the west in the Graves Creek area. The project site does not represent suitable habitat for the purple martin. Reptiles – The silvery legless lizard is mostly associated with sandy soils in grassland, coastal scrub, oak woodland, or chaparral habitats. The sandy loam soils within the grassland and oak woodland on the project site represents suitable habitat for the silvery legless lizard. Mammals – The Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) habitat is strongly correlated with the availability of caves and crevices. No such habitat occurs within the study area. 5.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 SUFFICIENCY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA The SII field surveys on October 23 and 28, 2014 were sufficient to adequately document existing conditions of the project area for habitat types and generalized wildlife use. However, the surveys were not sufficient enough or conducted at the proper time of year to detect sandy soil grassland special- status plant species, the grasshopper sparrow use, or presence of the silvery legless lizard. Definitive surveys for annual grassland special-status species would need to be conducted in the springtime. Otherwise, the data collected as articulated in this report provide sufficient biological data to adequately address the potential significance of impacts on biological resources. 5.2 IMPACTS The proposed project would convert the approximately five acres of grassland and oak woodland habitats to urban development while retaining some oak trees, and the drainage and most of the associated riparian tree habitat. Project plans show the removal of two live oaks, three valley oaks, two blue oaks, one non-native pine tree, and on none-native elm tree. The rest of the oaks would be retained within the development. The proposed project includes 30 replacement oak trees (11 live oaks, 13 valley oaks, 7 blue oaks) to be planted onsite with minimum 15-gallon size trees. For specific tree removal, retention, and replacement information see Oasis Associates, Inc. 10/29/2014 Sheet L-1 Conceptual Landscape Plan. Project plans illustrated on the Figure 4 habitat map show encroachment of project elements into the riparian canopy and 20-foot setback of the ephemeral drainage with retaining walls, building envelopes, and backyards. The project site supporting a mostly non-native annual grassland habitat with scattered oaks and an ephemeral drainage with patchy riparian habitat provides habitat for locally common wildlife accustomed to the urban environment. The project site is essentially an infill location and a “dead end” for habitat abutted against the urban development. As such, the conversion of the small plot of habitat may be considered a less than significant impact. Construction of the proposed project and conversion to urban development could result in the loss of mortality and/or displacement of locally common wildlife, and potentially the silvery legless lizard and grasshopper sparrow should they occur. Further, three special-status plants, the La Panza mariposa lily, Exhibit A Page 92 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED 8 yellow flowered eriastrum, and straight-awned spineflower, could occur and be lost to development. Given the small project size, urban surroundings, and none of the potentially occurring special-status plant or wildlife species are formally listed under FESA or CESA, impacts on biological resources could be considered to be less than significant. Vegetation, tree removal, and encroachment into the riparian canoyp during the nesting season for birds could result in the destruction of active bird’s nests and/or loss of nesting success. Destruction of active nests is prohibited by the Fish and Game Code of California Sections 3503 and 3503.1 (raptors specifically) and impacts on riparian habitat are subject to Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et. seq. As such, this could be considered a significant impacts. The following mitigation measures would avoid take or destruction of active nests and loss of riparian habitat thereby reducing this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. 5.3 MITIGATION MEASURES To reduce any potentially significant impact on nesting birds from vegetation and tree removals, the following mitigation measures are recommended.  Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31 outside of the nesting season for birds. If vegetation and/or tree removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required.  If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the non- disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. To reduce any potentially significant impacts on waters of the U.S., waters of the State and riparian habitat, the following mitigation measures are recommended.  The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for work in the ephemeral drainage. Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. Compliance with Corps permitting would also include obtaining and CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In addition, the Corps and RWQCB may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent impacts on riparian/wetland habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less- than-significant level.  The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1600 et.seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required for Exhibit A Page 93 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED 9 work within the ephemeral drainage and riparian habitat (stream zone). Should an agreement be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFW. The CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In addition, CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of onsite riparian habitat restoration to the extent feasible. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than-significant level. To further reduce the less than significant impacts on non-listed special-status plants and wildlife potentially occurring on the site, the following mitigation measures are recommended if feasible.  Conduct a springtime rare plant survey to determine the presence/absence of any special-status plants. Should any be discovered, implement a seed and/or plant salvage program and incorporate the salvaged material into the drainage setback and detention basin landscaped areas.  A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 30 days of initial site disturbance to identify whether silvery legless lizards are present. If silvery legless lizards are detected, a biological monitor shall be present during initial ground disturbing and vegetation removal activities to allow for a salvage and relocation effort for the lizard and other ground dwelling common wildlife that may be present. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, based on the findings described above establishing the existing conditions of biological resources within the study area, and incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial adverse effects or significant impacts to biological, botanical, wetland, or riparian habitat resources. Therefore, with mitigation measures incorporated into the project, direct and indirect (temporary) project impacts on biological resources would be considered to be at a less than significant level. 7.0 REFERENCES 1) Baldwin, Bruce G., Douglas H. Goldman, David J Keil, Robert Patterson, Thomas J. Rosatti, Ed. 2012. The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. 2) California Department of Fish and Game (CNDDB) 2014. Natural Diversity Data Base of recorded occurrences of special-status species. Accessed September 2014. 3) California Native Plant Society. 2014. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. 4) City of Atascadero Community Development Department, City of Atascadero, California. 1998. Native Tree Regulations. Atascadero, CA. 5) Crawford, M., C. Omni-Means, City of Atascadero Community Development Department. 2004. General Plan 2025. Final Plan. General Plan Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Element. II-36 pp. 6) Hickman, James C., Ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Exhibit A Page 94 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED 10 7) Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game Nongame-Heritage Program. 8) Holland, V.L., and Keil, David J. 1990. California Vegetation. Biological Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California. 9) Jameson, E.W. & Hans J. Peeters . 2004. Mammals of California, Revised Edition. University of California Press. 10) Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game Contract # 8023. Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. 11) Lindsey, Wesley C. 1983. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, California: Paso Rob;es Area. US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 12) Mayer, William & William Laudenslayer, Ed. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 13) Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler‐Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation, 2nd edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 14) Sibley, David Allen. 2001. National Audubon Society, The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 15) Stebbins, Robert C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company. 16) Vickery, P.D. 1996. Grasshopper Sparrow. The Birds of North America, 239 Exhibit A Page 95 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED APPENDIX A FIGURES FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2: VICINITY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH MAP FIGURE 3: SOILS MAP FIGURE 4: HABITAT MAP FIGURE 5: GENERAL PLAN BLUE LINE DRAINAGE MAP FIGURE 6: CNDDB OCCURRENCES MAP FIGURE 7: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Exhibit A Page 96 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED APPENDIX B TABLES TABLE B-1: PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED TABLE B-2: CNDDB RECORDED OCCURRENCES (10 MILE SEARCH RADIUS) Exhibit A Page 97 of 177 Tract 3070 Master Plan of Development Project Regional Location Map Figur e 1 0 0.85 1.7Miles ¨ Data Source(s): CDFW, CNDDB, Oct. 2014. Study Area USGS 7.5 Quadrangle Biological and Wetland Resources Assessment 0 6,600 13,200Feet Exhibit A Page 98 of 177 Tract 3070 Master Plan of Development Project Vicinity Aerial Overview Figur e 2 0 0.1 0.2Miles ¨ Data Source(s): CDFW, CNDDB, Oct. 2014. Study Area Approximate City of At ascade ro Mapp ed Blue Line Creek Observed Drainage Cha nnel Biological and Wetland Resources Assessment 0 800 1,600Feet Salinas River Exhibit A Page 99 of 177 Tract 3070 Master Plan of Development Project Soils Map Figur e 3 0 0.01 0.02Miles ¨ Data Source(s): CDFW, CNDDB, Oct. 2014. Study Area Ephemeral Draina ge NRCS Soil Map Units Botella sandy loam, 2-9% San Andreas-Arujo complex, 9-15% Biological and Wetland Resources Assessment 0 100 200Feet Exhibit A Page 100 of 177 1 2 345 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122 2524 23 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Unit-A1 Unit-B1 Unit-C1 Unit-D1 Unit-E1 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 39 Unit-A2 Unit-B2 Unit-C2 Unit-D2 Unit-E2 42 41 Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Tract 3070 Master Plan of Development Project Habitat Map Figure 4 0 0.01 0.02Miles ¨ Property Boundary Habitat Type Non-Native Annual Grassland Blue Oak Coast Live Oak Valley Oak Riparian Developed Ephemeral Drainage Biological and Wetland Resources Assessment 0 75 150Feet Exhibit A Page 101 of 177 City of Atascadero General Plan Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Element Final Plan Page II-36 June 25, 2002 Figure II-8: Blue Line Creek Diagram Exhibit A Page 102 of 177 Z Content may not reflect National Geographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC , USGS, NASA, ESA, METI,NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp. Stu dy Area Search Radiu s (5 -m i.) CNDDB Occurrences (Sept. 2 014) Atasc adero June beetle Brewer's spineflower California linderiella California red-legged frog Coast Rang e newt Eastwood's larkspur La Panza mariposa-lily Miles' milk-vetch Palmer's m onardella Santa Margarita manzanita Townsend's big -eared bat ferruginous hawk foothill yellow -legg ed frog golden eag le grasshopper sparrow mesa horkelia most beautiful jewelflower purple m artin round-leaved filaree shining navarretia silvery legless lizard straig ht-aw ned spineflower western pond turtle western spadefoot yellow-flow ered eriastrum Source(s): Orthophoto, PCEC, 2010; CAD data Cannon, 2013 Figure 6 CNDD B Special-Status Species Tract 3070 Master Plan of Development Project Biological and Wetland Resources Assessmentmap updated06/25/14 0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400550Meters 0 3,750 7,500 11,250 15,0001,875 Feet Study Area Exhibit A Page 103 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT – BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND ASSESSMENT FIGURE 7 – REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1 – View northwest of the ephemeral drainage culvert outfall along the west property line adjacent to El Camino Real. 10/23/2014 Photo 2 – View northeast of the incised channel with a willow tree thicket along the lower reach of the ephemeral drainage. 10/28/2014 Photo 3 – View north of the upper reach of the ephemeral drainage along west property line showing willow trees and herbaceous understory. 10/28/2014 Photo 4 – View west along north property line showing non-native annual grassland habitat. 10/28/2014 Exhibit A Page 104 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT – BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND ASSESSMENT FIGURE 7 – REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 5 –View south along east property line showing oak trees, non-native annual grassland, and sandy loam soils. 10/28/2014 Photo 6 – View south along east property line showing developed building (red arrow), pile of debris, and non-native annual grassland. 10/28/2014 Photo 7 – View west along south property line showing non-native annual grassland habitat with scattered oak trees. 10/28/2014 Photo 8 – View west along east property boundary. 10/28/2014 Exhibit A Page 105 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED TABLE B-1: PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED (10/24, 10/28, 12/24, 2014) COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) Blow-wives* Achyranchaena mollis Fiddleneck* Amsinkia sp. Oats Avena sativa Coyote brush* Baccharis pilularis Rip gut brome* Bromus diandrus Red brome Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Yellow-star thistle Centaurea solstitialis Soap plant* Chlorogalum sp. Redstem filaree Erodium cicutarium Red fescue Festuca rubra Foxtail barley Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum Deer grass* Muhlenbergia rigens Coast live oak* Quercus agrifolia Valley oak* Quercus lobata Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii Wild radish Raphanus sativus Red willow* Salix laevigata Arroyo willow* Salix lasiolepis Purple needle grass* Stipa pulchra Wheat Triticum sp. Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia Vetch Vicia sp. Cocklebur* Xanthium strumarium *=native species Exhibit A Page 106 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED TABLE B-2 CNDDB RECORDED OCCURRENCES (FIVE-MILE SEARCH RADIUS) Common Name Scientific Name(s) Listing Status USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS General Habitat Description Period of Identification Potential Occurrence Plants Santa Margarita manzanita Arctostaphylos pilosula --/--/1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest and chaparral communities on decomposed granite and sandstone shale outcrops and slopes. 170-1100m. Flowering: December - March Not observed Miles’ milk-vetch Astragalus didymocarpus var. milesianus --/--/1B.2 Grassy areas and coastal scrub typically on clay soils near coast, <400m. Central Coast. Flowering: March - May Not suitable soils La Panza mariposa-lily Calochortus simulans --/--/1B.3 Chaparral, valley grassland, foothill woodland. Sand (often granitic), < 1100 m. se Outer South Coast Ranges (c San Luis Obispo Co.). Flowering: May - July Very low Brewer’s spineflower Chorizanthe breweri --/--/1B.3 Chaparral, foothill woodland, coastal sage scrub, closed-cone pine forest. Serpentine gravel or rocks; 60–800 m. Outer South Coast Ranges (SW SLO Co). Flowering: March - July Not suitable soils Straight-awned spineflower Chorizanthe rectispina --/--/1B.3 Chaparral, foothill woodland, northern coastal scrub, coastal sage scrub. Sand or gravel; 200-600 m. Outer south coast ranges. Flowering: May-July Very low Eastwood’s larkspur Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae --/--/1B.2 Coastal chaparral, grassland, on serpentine; 100–500 m. s Central Coast, Outer South Coast Ranges (San Luis Obispo Co.). Flowering March - May Not suitable soils Yellow-flowered eriastrum Eriastrum luteum --/--/1B.2 Chaparral, foothill woodland, mixed evergreen forest. Drying slopes in sandy gravelly soils; <1000 m. south coast ranges (Monterey, San Luis Obispo cos.). Flowering: May - July Very low round-leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum var. californicum) --/--/1B.1 Cismontane woodland, scrubland, valley and foothill grassland with clay soils. 15-1200m. Flowering: March - July Not suitable soils Mesa horkelia Horkelia cuneata var. puberula --/--/1B.1 Dry, sandy, coastal chaparral, outer south coast ranges. Flowering: March - July Not observed Palmer’s monardella Mondardella palmeri --/--/1B.2 Chaparral, foothill woodland on serpentine; 200-800 m. north outer south coast ranges (Santa Lucia range). Flowering: June - August Not suitable soils shining navarretia Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. radians --/--/1B.2 Valley grassland, foothill woodland, usually occurs in vernal pool and wetlands, but occasionally found in non-wetlands. Flowering: April - July No suitable wetland habitat Exhibit A Page 107 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED TABLE B-2 CNDDB RECORDED OCCURRENCES (FIVE-MILE SEARCH RADIUS) Common Name Scientific Name(s) Listing Status USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS General Habitat Description Period of Identification Potential Occurrence Most beautiful jewelflower Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus --/--/1B.2 Chaparral, valley grassland, foothill woodland on serpentine. Flowering: April - September Not suitable soils Invertebrates California linderiella Linderiella occidentalis --/ST/-- Prefers geologic formations and soil types supporting vernal pools in California, at altitudes as high as 1,150 meters (3,770 ft) above sea level. Breeding: December - May No suitable wetland habitat onsite Amphibians California red-legged frog Rana draytonii FT/SSC/-- Frequents perennial rocky streams and rivers with rocky substrate and open, sunny banks, in forests, chaparral, and woodlands. Sometimes found in isolated pools, vegetated backwaters, and deep, shaded, spring-fed pools. Breeding: April - June No suitable habitat onsite Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii --/SSC/-- Found mainly near ponds in humid forests, woodlands, grasslands, coastal scrub, and streamsides with plant cover. Most common in lowlands or foothills. Frequently found in woods adjacent to streams. Breeding: November - April No suitable habitat onsite Western spadefoot Spea hammondii --/SSC/-- Largely terrestrial; enters seasonal ponds only to breed. Prefers open areas with sandy or gravelly soils, in a variety of habitats including mixed woodlands, grasslands, chaparral, sandy washes, lowlands, river floodplains, alluvial fans, playas, foothills, and mountains. Breeding: January to May, depending on development of seasonal ponds. No suitable wetland breeding habitat onsite Coast range newt Taricha torosa --/SSC/-- Found in wet forests, oak forests, chaparral, and rolling grasslands and aquatic habitats for breeding (creeks, ponds). Breeding: Fall through late spring. No suitable habitat onsite Reptiles silvery legless lizard Anniella pulchra pulchra --/SSC/-- Shows a preference for areas of leaf litter and loose sandy soil along washes, beach sand dunes, open scrub and woodland, and sandy benches along alluvial fans. Observable year round. Low Western pond turtle Emys marmorata --/SSC/-- Requires perennial aquatic habitat and constructs nests along edge of streams and ponds. Observable year round. No suitable aquatic habitat onsite Exhibit A Page 108 of 177 TRACT 3070 MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BIOLOGICAL AND WETLAND RESOURCES ASSESSMENT – REVISED TABLE B-2 CNDDB RECORDED OCCURRENCES (FIVE-MILE SEARCH RADIUS) Common Name Scientific Name(s) Listing Status USFWS/CDFW/ CNPS General Habitat Description Period of Identification Potential Occurrence Birds grasshopper sparrow Ammdramus savannarum --/SSC/-- typically found within intermediate grassland habitats, preferring drier sparse sites in tall grass prairies, with open or bare ground for feeding Observable year round. Low golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos MBTA, BGEPA/SSC,CFP/-- Breeds on cliffs, in large trees, or atop electrical towers; forages in open habitats. Nesting: January - June. Year round resident. No suitable habitat onsite Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis --/--/-- Open country, primarily prairies, plain and badlands, breeding in trees near streams or on steep slopes, sometimes on mounds in open desert. Observable year round. No suitable habitat onsite Purple martin Progne subis --/SSC/-- Distributed in forest and woodland areas at low to intermediate elevations throughout much of California. Prefer open spaces that are situated close to any water source including wetlands, swamps, and wet meadows. March - September No suitable habitat onsite Mammals Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorthinus townsendii --/SSC/-- Sea level to 3,300 meters: coniferous forests, mixed meso-phytic forests, deserts, native prairies, riparian communities, active agricultural areas, and coastal habitat types. Distribution is strongly correlated with the availability of caves and cave-like roosting habitat. Breeding: November - February No suitable habitat onsite Status Codes Federal State California Native Plant Society FE = Federally Endangered SE = State Endangered List 1 = Plants of Highest Priority (2 sub lists): FT = Federally Threatened ST = State Threatened 1A = Plants Presumed Extinct in California FC= Federal Candidate SR= State Rare 1B = Plants Rare and Endangered in California and Elsewhere CH = Federal Critical Habitat CFP = California Fully Protected List 2 = Plants Rare or Endangered in California, but More Common Elsewhere BGEPA= Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act SSC = State Species of Special Concern List 3 = Plants about which More Information is needed MBTA = Protected by Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act SA = Not formally listed but included in CDFG “Special Animal” list. List 4 = Plants of Limited Distribution (A Watch List) Exhibit A Page 109 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 83 Attachment 16 – Biological Report Addendum Exhibit A Page 110 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 84 Exhibit A Page 111 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 85 Exhibit A Page 112 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 86 Exhibit A Page 113 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 87 Exhibit A Page 114 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 88 See Attached Attachment 17 – Traffic Impact Report Exhibit A Page 115 of 177 Principal Mixed Use Atascadero Transportation Impact Study Central Coast Transportation Consulting 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-3 Morro Bay, CA 93442 (805) 316-0101 November 2014 Exhibit A Page 116 of 177 Central Coast Transportation Consulting November 2014 1Principal Mixed Use Atascadero Transportation Impact Study Executive Summary This study evaluates the potential transportation impacts of the Principal Mixed Use project located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Principal Avenue in the City of Atascadero. The project consists of 37 residential units, 3,215 square feet (s.f.) of office uses, and a single bay automated car wash. Project access would be provided via two driveways on Principal Avenue. The project would generate 633 new daily trips, 60 new AM peak hour trips, and 66 new PM peak hour trips. The following intersections are analyzed during the weekday morning (7-9 AM) and evening (4-6 PM) time periods: 1. Principal Avenue/El Camino Real 2. Santa Rosa Road/US 101 Southbound Ramps 3. Santa Rosa Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps 4. Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real The study intersections are evaluated under these scenarios: 1. Existing Conditions reflect 2014 traffic counts and the existing transportation network. 2. Existing Plus Project Conditions add project generated traffic to Existing Conditions volumes. 3. Cumulative Conditions represent future traffic conditions reflective of buildout of land uses in the area. 4. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions add project traffic to Cumulative Conditions volumes. All of the study intersections would operate acceptably at LOS B or better under all analysis scenarios. On-site circulation is adequate as proposed. Site access would be improved by delineating a left and right turn lane for westbound Principal Avenue at El Camino Real. This may require the restriction of parking on the south side of Principal Avenue, eliminating three on-street parking spaces and improving sight lines for vehicles exiting the commercial driveway on the south side of Principal Avenue. Exhibit A Page 117 of 177 Central Coast Transportation Consulting November 2014 2Principal Mixed Use Atascadero Transportation Impact Study Contents Executive Summary .................................................................. 1 Contents ...................................................................................... 2 Introduction ............................................................................... 3 Analysis Methods....................................................................... 6 Existing Conditions ................................................................... 7 Existing Plus Project Conditions .......................................... 10 Cumulative Conditions ........................................................... 13 References ................................................................................. 15 Figure 1: Project and Study Locations .............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 2: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 3: Existing Peak Hour Volumes and Lane Configurations ............................................................... 9 Figure 4: Project Trip Distribution, Assignment, and Existing Plus Project Volumes ...........................12 Figure 5: Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes .................................................14 Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: LOS/Queue Calculation Sheets Exhibit A Page 118 of 177 Central Coast Transportation Consulting November 2014 3Principal Mixed Use Atascadero Transportation Impact Study Introduction This study evaluates the potential transportation impacts of the Principal Mixed Use project located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Principal Avenue in the City of Atascadero. The project consists of 37 residential units, 3,215 square feet (s.f.) of office uses, and a single bay automated car wash. Project access would be provided via two driveways on Principal Avenue. The project’s location and study intersections are shown on Figure 1, while Figure 2 shows the site plan. The following intersections are analyzed during the weekday morning (7-9 AM) and evening (4- 6 PM) time periods: 5. Principal Avenue/El Camino Real 6. Santa Rosa Road/US 101 Southbound Ramps 7. Santa Rosa Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps 8. Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real The study intersections are evaluated under these scenarios: 5. Existing Conditions reflect 2014 traffic counts and the existing transportation network. 6. Existing Plus Project Conditions add project generated traffic to Existing Conditions volumes. 7. Cumulative Conditions represent future traffic conditions reflective of buildout of land uses in the area. 8. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions add project traffic to Cumulative Conditions volumes. Exhibit A Page 119 of 177 Principal Mixed Use Atascadero Figure 1: Project and Study Locations Legend: 7 - Study Intersection- Project Site 1 2 3 4 Exhibit A Page 120 of 177 Figure 2: Site Plan Principal Mixed Use Atascadero Exhibit A Page 121 of 177 Central Coast Transportation Consulting November 2014 6Principal Mixed Use Atascadero Transportation Impact Study Analysis Methods The analysis approach was developed based on the City of Atascadero and Caltrans standards. City of Atascadero Facilities The Circulation Element of the City of Atascadero’s General Plan includes a policy to maintain LOS C or better as the standard at all intersections and on all arterial and collector roads. LOS D is acceptable upon City Council approval where residences are not directly affected and improvements to meet the LOS C standard are not feasible. Caltrans Facilities Caltrans operates the US 101 mainline and ramps. Caltrans strives to maintain operations at the LOS C/D threshold on state-operated facilities, where LOS C is acceptable but LOS D is not. If an existing State Highway facility is operating at LOS D, E, or F the existing service level should be maintained. Level of Service Thresholds The level of service thresholds for intersections based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) are presented in Table 1. The study intersections are analyzed with the Synchro 8 software package applying the 2010 HCM methods. The 95th percentile queues represent the queue length that would not be exceeded 95 percent of the time. Queue lengths are discussed under each scenario, and are reported on the calculation sheets in Appendix B. Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Level of Service ≤ 10 A ≤ 10 A > 10 - 20 B > 10 - 15 B > 20 - 35 C > 15 - 25 C > 35 - 55 D > 25 - 35 D > 55 - 80 E > 35 - 50 E > 80 F > 50 F Table 1: Intersection Level of Service Thresholds Signalized Intersections1 Stop Sign Controlled Intersections2 1. Source: Exhibit 18-4 of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. 2. Source: Exhibits 19-1 and 20-2 of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. Exhibit A Page 122 of 177 Central Coast Transportation Consulting November 2014 7Principal Mixed Use Atascadero Transportation Impact Study Existing Conditions This section describes the existing transportation system and current operating conditions in the study area. EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK US Highway 101 is a north-south facility connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. In the vicinity of the project it is a four-lane freeway with a grade separated full access interchange at Santa Rosa Road. El Camino Real is a north-south major arterial with a varying cross-section of two to four lanes, with four lanes and a center two-way left-turn lane in the study area. It parallels US 101 through the City. Santa Rosa Road is an east-west minor arterial with two travel lanes connecting State Route 41 to US 101 and El Camino Real. Principal Avenue is an east-west roadway with two travel lanes. It is classified as a local road, serving nearby residential and commercial areas. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, multi-use paths, and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections. Sidewalks are provided along the development frontage on El Camino Real, on El Camino Real toward Santa Rosa Road, and along the south side of the Santa Rosa Road overcrossing of US 101. Bicycle facilities in the study area consist of multi-use paths separate from the roadway (Class I), on- street striped bike lanes (Class II), and signed bike routes (Class III). The City’s Bike Plan identifies existing Class II bike lanes on Santa Rosa Road from US 101 to El Camino Real and on El Camino Real from Santa Rosa Road to the northern area of the City. EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) provides fixed route transit service to the study area. Route 9 serves San Luis Obispo, Santa Margarita, Atascadero, Templeton, Paso Robles, and San Miguel with 20-60 minute headways on weekdays and 2-3 hour headways on weekends. There is a Route 9 bus stop on the project’s frontage on El Camino Real near the Principal Avenue intersection. Atascadero Dial- A-Ride provides door-to-door service within the City limits on weekdays. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic counts for weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions were collected at the study intersections in 2014 while schools were in session. Traffic count sheets are provided in Appendix A. Figure 3 shows the existing peak hour traffic volumes. Table 2 presents the LOS for the study intersections based on the thresholds shown in Table 1, with detailed calculation sheets included in Appendix B. Exhibit A Page 123 of 177 Central Coast Transportation Consulting November 2014 8Principal Mixed Use Atascadero Transportation Impact Study The study intersections operate acceptably at LOS B or better. Queue spillback on the eastbound approaches to the Santa Rosa Road/US 101 NB Ramps and Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real intersection was noted during field observations. These queues generally cleared within one signal cycle and did not result in a breakdown of flow at adjacent intersections. The northbound left turn movement at Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real experiences long queues during peak hours, at times spilling out of the designated left-turn pocket into the two-way left-turn lane. They were not observed to reach Montecito Avenue. These observations are consistent with the analysis results. Intersection Peak Hour Delay1 (sec/veh) LOS 2 Queues Exceed Storage? AM 1.0 (11.7) A (B) No PM 0.7 (13.6) A (B) No AM 9.8 A No PM 7.2 A No AM 7.1 A No PM 9.3 A Yes AM 15.3 B No PM 14.3 B No 1. Principal Ave/ El Camino Real 2. Santa Rosa Rd/ US 101 SB Ramps Table 2: Existing Intersection Levels of Service 2. For side-street-stop controlled intersections the worst approach's delay is reported in parenthesis next to the overall intersection delay. 1. HCM 2010 average control delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Santa Rosa Rd/ US 101 NB 4. Santa Rosa Rd/ El Camino Real Exhibit A Page 124 of 177 Figure 3: Existing Peak Hour Volumes and Lane Configurations Principal Mixed Use Atascadero Legend: - Study Area Intersection - Stop Sign - AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Traffic Signal - Project Site 7 Existing Peak Hour Volumes Existing Lane Configuration 1.2.3.4. 1.2.3.4. 1 2 3 4 Exhibit A Page 125 of 177 Central Coast Transportation Consulting November 2014 10Principal Mixed Use Atascadero Transportation Impact Study Existing Plus Project Conditions This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding transportation network. Existing Plus Project conditions reflect existing traffic levels plus the estimated traffic generated by the proposed project. PROJECT TRAFFIC ESTIMATES The amount of project traffic affecting the study intersections is estimated in three steps: trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment. Trip generation refers to the total number of trips generated by the site. Trip distribution identifies the general origins and destination of these trips, and trip assignment specifies the routes taken to reach these origins and destinations. Trip Generation The project’s trip generation estimate, shown in Table 3, was developed using data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. The project trip generation estimate shows 633 new daily trips, 60 new AM peak hour trips, and 66 new PM peak hour trips. Trip Distribution and Assignment The directions of approach and departure for project trips were estimated based on existing trip patterns and the locations of complementary land uses. Project trips were assigned to individual intersections based on the trip distribution percentages, and were then added to the existing traffic volumes for Existing Plus Project Conditions. Figure 4 shows the trip distribution percentages, project trip assignment, and Existing Plus Project volumes. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS Table 4 summarizes the operating conditions under Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions. All study intersections would operate acceptably at LOS B or better with the addition of project trips. No queuing issues are reported. In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Residential1 20 units 190 4 11 15 13 7 20 Residential Condo/Townhouse2 17 units 138 2 11 13 9 5 14 General Office3 3215sq ft35415145 Automated Car Wash4 1945 sq ft 270 14 13 27 14 13 27 Total Trips 633 24 36 60 37 29 66 3. ITE Land Use Code 710, General Office Building. Average rates used. 1. ITE Land Use Code 210, Single-Family Detached Housing. Average rates used. 4. ITE Land Use Code 948, Automated Car Wash. Average rate used, with daily taken as ten times the PM peak hour, due to limited data. AM data taken to be equal to PM data. Source: Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE (2012) and CCTC, 2014 Table 3: Project Trip Generation Land Use Number of Trips Daily AM PM Size 2. ITE Land Use Code 230, Single-Family Detached Housing. Average rates used. Exhibit A Page 126 of 177 Central Coast Transportation Consulting November 2014 11Principal Mixed Use Atascadero Transportation Impact Study Site Access and On-Site Circulation On-site circulation deficiencies would occur if project designs fail to meet appropriate standards, fail to provide adequate truck access, or would result in hazardous conditions. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 2. Two driveways on Principal Avenue provide access to the project. Curb ramps and sidewalks are proposed along the project frontages. On-site circulation is adequate as proposed. Principal Avenue is currently stop controlled at El Camino Real, which has a center two-way left-turn lane to separate turning traffic from through vehicles. The Principal Avenue approach was evaluated with a single shared left/right turn lane. The Principal Avenue/El Camino Real intersection is projected to operate acceptably under all studied scenarios with this configuration, and would not meet the peak hour signal warrant under any scenario. The curb-to-curb width of Principal Avenue is proposed to be 40 feet near El Camino Real. Adding delineated right and left turn lanes to Principal Avenue would minimize the potential for confusion for drivers exiting the driveways on the west side of El Camino Real. Striping Principal Avenue to provide a designated left and right turn lane between El Camino Real and the westerly project driveway is recommended. This may require on-street parking restrictions on the south side of Principal Avenue, resulting in the loss of approximately three parking spaces. Restricting parking would improve sight lines for vehicles exiting the commercial driveway on the south side of Principal Avenue. Intersection Peak Hour Delay1 (sec/veh) LOS 2 Delay1 (sec/veh) LOS 2 Queues Exceed Storage? AM 1.0 (11.7) A (B) 1.6 (12.4) A (B) No PM 0.7 (13.6) A (B) 1.2 (15.0) A (C) No AM 9.8 A 17.0 B No PM 7.2 A 12.9 B No AM7.1A7.2A No PM 9.3 A 15.2 B Yes AM 15.3 B 15.4 B No PM 14.3 B 14.5 B No 2. For side-street-stop controlled intersections the worst approach's delay is reported in parenthesis next to the overall intersection delay. 1. HCM 2010 average control delay in seconds per vehicle. 3. Santa Rosa Rd/ US 101 NB 4. Santa Rosa Rd/ El Camino Real Table 4: Existing & Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Existing Existing Plus Project 1. Principal Ave/ El Camino Real 2. Santa Rosa Rd/ US 101 SB Ramps Exhibit A Page 127 of 177 Figure 4: Project Trip Distribution, Assignment, and Existing Plus Project Volumes Principal Mixed Use Atascadero - Study Area Intersection Legend: - AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Project Site 7 - Project Trip Distribution Percentage Project Trip Assignment Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes 1.2.3.4. 1.2.3.4. 1 2 3 4 Exhibit A Page 128 of 177 Central Coast Transportation Consulting November 2014 13Principal Mixed Use Atascadero Transportation Impact Study Cumulative Conditions Cumulative conditions represent build-out of the land uses in the region. CUMULATIVE ROADWAY NETWORK The Cumulative roadway network was assumed to stay the same as the Existing conditions network. Various planning documents show the reconstruction of the Santa Rosa Road interchange, with roundabout traffic control at the ramp junctions. These improvements are not currently funded, so they were not assumed to be in place under Cumulative conditions. CUMULATIVE VOLUME FORECASTS Cumulative traffic forecasts were developed using the most recent version of the SLOCOG Transportation Demand Model, which projects traffic growth throughout the region. The forecasts were compared to those developed as a part of the 2014 US 101 Corridor Mobility Study and were found to be consistent. Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project volumes are shown on Figure 5. CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Table 5 summarizes Cumulative traffic conditions with and without the project. Under Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project conditions all study intersections would operate acceptably at LOS B or better. The eastbound 95th percentile queues at Santa Rosa Road/US 101 NB Ramps would continue to spill back across the overcrossing. These queues are projected to increase from 274 feet under Existing PM conditions to 317 feet under Cumulative PM conditions. Under Cumulative Plus Project PM conditions the queues are projected to be 322 feet. The project extends these queues by an insignificant amount. The northbound left turn at Santa Rosa Road/El Camino Real spills out of the marked turn pocket and into the two-way left-turn lane under Existing conditions. Cumulative growth will extend the queues at this location, but not to the extent that they would block Montecito Avenue. Installation of a second left turn lane would reduce this queuing but would require a second receiving lane on Santa Rosa Road. The proposed project does not add traffic to this movement. The project’s payment of traffic impact fees would constitute its fair share contribution to future improvements in the area. Intersection Peak Hour Delay1 (sec/veh) LOS 2 Delay1 (sec/veh) LOS 2 Queues Exceed Storage? AM 1.0 (12.2) A (B) 1.5 (13.2) A (B) No PM 0.9 (15.0) A (C) 1.3 (16.9) A (C) No AM 17.6 B 17.8 B No PM 14.9 B 15.1 B No AM 7.5 A 7.7 A No PM 15.2 B 15.5 B Yes AM 17.5 B 17.8 B No PM 16.3 B 16.5 B No 4. Santa Rosa Rd/ El Camino Real 1. HCM 2010 average control delay in seconds per vehicle. 2. For side-street-stop controlled intersections the worst approach's delay is reported in parenthesis next to the overall intersection delay. Table 5: Cumulative & Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project 1. Principal Ave/ El Camino Real 2. Santa Rosa Rd/ US 101 SB Ramps 3. Santa Rosa Rd/ US 101 NB Exhibit A Page 129 of 177 Figure 5: Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes Principal Mixed Use Atascadero Legend: - AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes - Project Site 7 - Study Area Intersection Cumulative Peak Hour Volumes Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes 1.2.3.4. 1.2.3.4. 1 2 3 4 Exhibit A Page 130 of 177 Central Coast Transportation Consulting November 2014 15Principal Mixed Use Atascadero Transportation Impact Study References California Department of Transportation. 2002. Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. _____. 2012. Highway Design Manual. City of Atascadero. 2010. Bicycle Transportation Plan. _____. 2004. General Plan 2025. SLOCOG. 2014. US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan. Transportation Research Board. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual. W-Trans. 2008. Interchange Operational Improvement Study. Exhibit A Page 131 of 177 Appendix A: Traffic Count Sheets Exhibit A Page 132 of 177 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: 020 N 095045AM MD PM TOTAL TOTAL AM MD PM 00 17 21 38 0 00 0001 0 29 25 54 0 MD020 AM 700AM - NOON - PM 400PM - AM PEAK HOUR NOON PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 0 430 PM 10/08/14 730 AM 900AM Date 600PM TMC SUMMARY OF El Camino Real & Principal Ave. Principal Ave.APPROACH LANES0APPROACH LANES APPROACH LANES 0 0 AM190570TOTAL380El Camino Real0 APPROACH LANES331160089940 PMAM260TOTAL MD056824Project #: 14-1289-001 0 El Camino RealPrincipal Ave. 0 MD PM WEDNESDAY Day El Camino Real & Principal Ave. 14-1289-001 CONTROL 1-Way Stop WB (Intersection Name) TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT LOCATION #: COUNT PERIODS Exhibit A Page 133 of 177 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: 021 N 2437597AM MD PM TOTAL TOTAL AM MD PM 1 233 19100 116 318211 1 1340 MD120 AM 700AM - NOON - PM 400PM - AM PEAK HOUR NOON PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 135 430 PM 10/08/14 730 AM 900AM Date 600PM TMC SUMMARY OF El Camino Real & Santa Rosa Rd. Santa Rosa Rd.APPROACH LANES325APPROACH LANES APPROACH LANES 98 12 AM2133462TOTAL297El Camino Real200 APPROACH LANES25872775156788 PMAM5110TOTAL MD2384201Project #: 14-1289-002 525 El Camino RealSanta Rosa Rd. 4 MD PM WEDNESDAY Day El Camino Real & Santa Rosa Rd. 14-1289-002 CONTROL Signal (Intersection Name) TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT LOCATION #: COUNT PERIODS Exhibit A Page 134 of 177 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: 000 N 000AM MD PM TOTAL TOTAL AM MD PM 0 168 131 186 317 1 1 648 234 201 435 1 0 66121 MD010 AM 700AM - NOON - PM 400PM - AM PEAK HOUR NOON PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR WEDNESDAY Day US 101 NB Ramps & Santa Rosa Rd. 14-1289-003 CONTROL Signal (Intersection Name) TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT Project #: 14-1289-003 165 US 101 NB RampsSanta Rosa Rd. 279 MD PM LOCATION #:MD195139520TOTAL0US 101 NB Ramps87 APPROACH LANES951913833323471 PMAMTMC SUMMARY OF US 101 NB Ramps & Santa Rosa Rd. Santa Rosa Rd.APPROACH LANES78APPROACH LANES APPROACH LANES 92 369 AM000TOTAL076 445 PM 10/08/14 730 AM 900AM Date 600PM COUNT PERIODS Exhibit A Page 135 of 177 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: 010 N 13157624AM MD PM TOTAL TOTAL AM MD PM 010 41 100 141 0 1 378 212 242 454 1 0 82 69 151 0 MD000 AM 700AM - NOON - PM 400PM - AM PEAK HOUR NOON PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 6 445 PM 10/08/14 730 AM 900AM Date 600PM TMC SUMMARY OF US 101 SB Ramps & Santa Rosa Rd. Santa Rosa Rd.APPROACH LANES66APPROACH LANES APPROACH LANES 4 227 AM3026119TOTAL38US 101 SB Ramps27 APPROACH LANES000000 PMAM32270TOTAL MD000Project #: 14-1289-004 93 US 101 SB RampsSanta Rosa Rd. 151 MD PM WEDNESDAY Day US 101 SB Ramps & Santa Rosa Rd. 14-1289-004 CONTROL Signal (Intersection Name) TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT LOCATION #: COUNT PERIODS Exhibit A Page 136 of 177 Appendix B: LOS/Queue Calculation Sheets Exhibit A Page 137 of 177 3ULQFLSDO08 ([LVWLQJ$0(O&DPLQR5HDO 3ULQFLSDO$YH11/3/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportIntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTVol, veh/h 29 17 331 16 26 380Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 - - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 31 18 356 17 28 409Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 625 187 0 0 373 0 Stage 1 365 - - - - - Stage 2 260 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 417 823 - - 1182 - Stage 1 673 - - - - - Stage 2 760 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 404 823 - - 1182 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 504 - - - - - Stage 1 673 - - - - - Stage 2 736 - - - - -Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 11.7 0 0.6HCM LOS BMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 588 1182 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.084 0.024 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.7 8.1 0.1HCM Lane LOS - - B A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 -3ULQFLSDO08 ([LVWLQJ$0866%5DPS:)URQW5G 6DQWD5RVD5G11/3/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 263 75 381 489v/c Ratio 0.27 0.09 0.45 0.78Control Delay 10.8 3.4 12.8 27.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0Total Delay 10.8 3.4 13.5 27.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 53 0 83 162Queue Length 95th (ft) 111 19 172 220Internal Link Dist (ft) 445 235 842Turn Bay Length (ft) 100Base Capacity (vph) 983 875 848 771Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 209 0Spillback Cap Reductn0000Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.09 0.60 0.63Intersection Summary Exhibit A Page 138 of 177 3ULQFLSDO08 ([LVWLQJ$0866%5DPS:)URQW5G 6DQWD5RVD5G11/3/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 4 227 66 82 212 41 0 0 0 322 38 70Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 258 75 93 241 47 366 43 80Adj No. of Lanes011010 010Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 020Cap, veh/h 134 720 618 260 455 78 426 50 93Arrive On Green 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.33 0.33 0.33Sat Flow, veh/h 9 1847 1583 258 1167 200 1308 154 286Grp Volume(v), veh/h 263 0 75 381 0 0 489 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1856 0 1583 1625 0 0 1747 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.8 0.0 0.9 4.8 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.02 1.00 0.24 0.12 0.75 0.16Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 854 0 618 793 0 0 569 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.31 0.00 0.12 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2031 0 1631 1775 0 0 1737 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.1 0.0 5.5 6.6 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.0 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 0.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.0 0.0 5.9 8.7 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A A BApproach Vol, veh/h 338 381 489Approach Delay, s/veh 6.8 8.7 12.8Approach LOS A A BTimer12345678Assigned Phs 4 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 51.8 13.2 51.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 28.0 29.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 9.4 6.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.3 0.0 4.2Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.8HCM 2010 LOS A3ULQFLSDO08 ([LVWLQJ$0861%5DPS()URQW6W 6DQWD5RVD5G11/3/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT WBT WBR NBTLane Group Flow (vph) 592 264 144 281v/c Ratio 0.66 0.27 0.16 0.57Control Delay 11.5 6.6 1.8 19.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 11.5 6.6 1.8 19.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 80 28 0 50Queue Length 95th (ft) 204 73 18 147Internal Link Dist (ft) 235 398 686Turn Bay Length (ft)Base Capacity (vph) 1492 1662 1445 736Starvation Cap Reductn 71 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn0000Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.42 0.16 0.10 0.38Intersection Summary Exhibit A Page 139 of 177 3ULQFLSDO08 ([LVWLQJ$0861%5DPS()URQW6W 6DQWD5RVD5G11/3/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 92 369 78 6 234 131 138 98 19 0 0 0Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 101 405 86 7 257 144 152 108 21Adj No. of Lanes010011010Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222020Cap, veh/h 237 662 129 131 982 846 190 135 26Arrive On Green 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.20 0.20 0.20Sat Flow, veh/h 178 1240 241 11 1840 1583 969 688 134Grp Volume(v), veh/h 592 0 0 264 0 144 281 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1660 0 0 1851 0 1583 1791 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 4.4 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 1.4 4.4 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.17 0.15 0.03 1.00 0.54 0.07Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1029 0 0 1113 0 846 350 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.17 0.80 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2319 0 0 2593 0 2139 1028 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.8 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.5 11.4 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 4.3 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.6 2.6 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.3 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 3.6 15.6 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A A BApproach Vol, veh/h 592 408 281Approach Delay, s/veh 5.3 3.8 15.6Approach LOS A A BTimer12345678Assigned Phs 2 4 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 19.8 19.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 40.0 40.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 9.0 4.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.8 7.0Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.1HCM 2010 LOS A3ULQFLSDO08 ([LVWLQJ$0(O&DPLQR5HDO 6DQWD5RVD5G'ULYHZD\11/3/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 132 392 6 334 319 6 358 133v/c Ratio 0.36 0.38 0.03 0.56 0.13 0.04 0.41 0.27Control Delay 26.2 1.8 28.2 20.9 5.8 32.2 21.0 6.7Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 26.2 1.8 28.2 20.9 5.8 32.2 21.0 6.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 32 0 1 77 14 2 45 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 105 17 13 201 60 14 115 34Internal Link Dist (ft) 398 252 434 267Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 105 183Base Capacity (vph) 563 1362 1061 1084 3003 159 1678 821Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.29 0.01 0.31 0.11 0.04 0.21 0.16Intersection Summary Exhibit A Page 140 of 177 3ULQFLSDO08 ([LVWLQJ$0(O&DPLQR5HDO 6DQWD5RVD5G'ULYHZD\11/3/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 98 12 325 1 3 1 277 258 7 5 297 110Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 118 14 392 1 4 1 334 311 8 6 358 133Adj No. of Lanes011010120121Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 368 44 736 2 8 2 414 1530 39 11 731 327Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.43 0.43 0.01 0.21 0.21Sat Flow, veh/h 1594 189 1583 299 1197 299 1774 3526 91 1774 3539 1583Grp Volume(v), veh/h 132 0 392 6 0 0 334 156 163 6 358 133Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1783 0 1583 1795 0 0 1774 1770 1847 1774 1770 1583Q Serve(g_s), s 3.1 0.0 8.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.8 2.7 2.7 0.2 4.4 3.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.1 0.0 8.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.8 2.7 2.7 0.2 4.4 3.6Prop In Lane 0.89 1.00 0.17 0.17 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 412 0 736 11 0 0 414 768 801 11 731 327V/C Ratio(X) 0.32 0.00 0.53 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.20 0.20 0.53 0.49 0.41Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 503 0 817 940 0 0 1001 1605 1675 143 1498 670HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.8 0.0 9.5 24.6 0.0 0.0 18.0 8.7 8.7 24.6 17.4 17.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.6 32.2 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.1 0.1 33.2 0.5 0.8Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 3.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.7 1.3 1.4 0.2 2.2 1.6LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.3 0.0 10.1 56.8 0.0 0.0 21.7 8.9 8.8 57.8 17.9 17.9LnGrp LOS B BE CAAEBBApproach Vol, veh/h 524 6 653 497Approach Delay, s/veh 11.6 56.8 15.4 18.4Approach LOS BEBBTimer12345678Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.3 25.5 15.5 15.6 14.3 4.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 45.0 14.0 28.0 21.0 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 4.7 10.7 10.8 6.4 2.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.9 0.7 0.9 3.8 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.3HCM 2010 LOS B3ULQFLSDO08 ([LVWLQJ30(O&DPLQR5HDO 3ULQFLSDO$YH11/3/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportIntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.7Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTVol, veh/h 25 21 568 24 19 570Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 - - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 27 22 604 26 20 606Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 961 315 0 0 630 0 Stage 1 617 - - - - - Stage 2 344 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 254 681 - - 948 - Stage 1 501 - - - - - Stage 2 689 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 246 681 - - 948 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 370 - - - - - Stage 1 501 - - - - - Stage 2 667 - - - - -Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 13.6 0 0.4HCM LOS BMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 467 948 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.105 0.021 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.6 8.9 0.1HCM Lane LOS - - B A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 - Exhibit A Page 141 of 177 3ULQFLSDO08 ([LVWLQJ30866%5DPS:)URQW5G 6DQWD5RVD5G11/3/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 160 28 419 389v/c Ratio 0.15 0.03 0.42 0.74Control Delay 8.1 3.8 8.2 27.9Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0Total Delay 8.1 3.8 8.6 27.9Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 0 94 131Queue Length 95th (ft) 65 11 151 186Internal Link Dist (ft) 445 235 842Turn Bay Length (ft) 100Base Capacity (vph) 1077 938 995 689Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 232 0Spillback Cap Reductn 165 0 0 1Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.03 0.55 0.57Intersection Summary3ULQFLSDO08 ([LVWLQJ30866%5DPS:)URQW5G 6DQWD5RVD5G11/3/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 6 151 27 69 242 100 0 0 0 302 19 61Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 6 154 28 70 247 102 308 19 62Adj No. of Lanes011010 010Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 020Cap, veh/h 175 676 587 253 409 153 375 23 76Arrive On Green 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.27 0.27 0.27Sat Flow, veh/h 22 1823 1583 175 1105 412 1381 85 278Grp Volume(v), veh/h 160 0 28 419 0 0 389 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1845 0 1583 1692 0 0 1745 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 0.0 0.3 2.6 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.04 1.00 0.17 0.24 0.79 0.16Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 851 0 587 815 0 0 474 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2767 0 2265 2554 0 0 1950 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.8 0.0 4.5 2.2 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.3 0.0 4.7 4.4 0.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A A BApproach Vol, veh/h 188 419 389Approach Delay, s/veh 5.2 4.4 11.2Approach LOS A A BTimer12345678Assigned Phs 4 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 54.9 10.1 54.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.0 25.0 32.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 6.7 4.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.8 0.0 3.7Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.2HCM 2010 LOS A Exhibit A Page 142 of 177 3ULQFLSDO08 ([LVWLQJ30861%5DPS()URQW6W 6DQWD5RVD5G11/3/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT WBT WBR NBTLane Group Flow (vph) 476 222 200 415v/c Ratio 0.49 0.21 0.20 0.77Control Delay 19.0 8.3 2.1 29.7Queue Delay 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 20.1 8.3 2.1 29.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 169 38 0 142Queue Length 95th (ft) 274 84 28 210Internal Link Dist (ft) 235 398 686Turn Bay Length (ft)Base Capacity (vph) 978 1076 1007 648Starvation Cap Reductn 276 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 12 0 0Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.21 0.20 0.64Intersection Summary3ULQFLSDO08 ([LVWLQJ30861%5DPS()URQW6W 6DQWD5RVD5G11/3/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 76 279 87 6 201 186 195 139 52 0 0 0Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 300 94 6 216 200 210 149 56Adj No. of Lanes010011010Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222020Cap, veh/h 220 520 147 130 832 716 250 177 67Arrive On Green 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.28 0.28 0.28Sat Flow, veh/h 171 1150 325 12 1840 1583 898 637 240Grp Volume(v), veh/h 476 0 0 222 0 200 415 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1646 0 0 1852 0 1583 1776 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 6.5 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.4 6.5 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.17 0.20 0.03 1.00 0.51 0.13Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 887 0 0 962 0 716 494 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.28 0.84 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1967 0 0 2222 0 1813 1375 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.92 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.1 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 5.1 10.1 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.9 3.9 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.2 3.7 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.4 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 6.0 14.0 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A A BApproach Vol, veh/h 476 422 415Approach Delay, s/veh 8.4 5.8 14.0Approach LOS A A BTimer12345678Assigned Phs 2 4 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.3 52.7 52.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 34.0 34.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 8.1 4.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.4 5.5Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 9.3HCM 2010 LOS A Exhibit A Page 143 of 177 3ULQFLSDO08 ([LVWLQJ30(O&DPLQR5HDO 6DQWD5RVD5G'ULYHZD\11/3/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 148 213 32 253 448 2 491 141v/c Ratio 0.40 0.25 0.13 0.52 0.19 0.01 0.49 0.26Control Delay 29.2 2.0 26.5 25.8 7.8 36.0 22.0 6.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 29.2 2.0 26.5 25.8 7.8 36.0 22.0 6.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 42 0 7 68 24 1 67 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 128 21 37 191 103 8 168 43Internal Link Dist (ft) 398 252 434 267Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 105 183Base Capacity (vph) 602 1197 975 937 2737 150 1649 813Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.18 0.03 0.27 0.16 0.01 0.30 0.17Intersection Summary3ULQFLSDO08 ([LVWLQJ30(O&DPLQR5HDO 6DQWD5RVD5G'ULYHZD\11/3/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 135 4 200 3 18 9 238 420 1 2 462 133Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 144 4 213 3 19 10 253 447 1 2 491 141Adj No. of Lanes011010120121Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 285 8 554 5 30 16 328 1657 4 4 972 435Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.18 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.27 0.27Sat Flow, veh/h 1728 48 1583 165 1044 549 1774 3623 8 1774 3539 1583Grp Volume(v), veh/h 148 0 213 32 0 0 253 218 230 2 491 141Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1776 0 1583 1758 0 0 1774 1770 1861 1774 1770 1583Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 0.0 4.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 6.3 3.5 3.5 0.1 5.4 3.3Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 0.0 4.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 6.3 3.5 3.5 0.1 5.4 3.3Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.09 0.31 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 293 0 554 51 0 0 328 810 851 4 972 435V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.00 0.38 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.27 0.27 0.51 0.51 0.32Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 615 0 841 989 0 0 960 1647 1733 154 1686 754HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.6 0.0 11.3 22.2 0.0 0.0 17.9 7.8 7.8 23.0 14.1 13.3Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.4 11.8 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.2 0.2 77.9 0.4 0.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.0 2.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.7 1.8 0.1 2.6 1.5LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 18.9 0.0 11.7 34.0 0.0 0.0 21.7 7.9 7.9 100.9 14.5 13.8LnGrp LOS B B C C A A F B BApproach Vol, veh/h 361 32 701 634Approach Delay, s/veh 14.7 34.0 12.9 14.6Approach LOS B C B BTimer12345678Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.1 25.1 11.6 12.5 16.7 5.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 43.0 16.0 25.0 22.0 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 5.5 6.7 8.3 7.4 2.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.1 1.0 0.6 5.3 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.3HCM 2010 LOS B Exhibit A Page 144 of 177 Principal MUEx+P AM1: El Camino Real & Principal Ave11/4/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportIntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.6Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTVol, veh/h 52 30 331 32 34 380Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 - - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 56 32 356 34 37 409Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 650 195 0 0 390 0 Stage 1 373 - - - - - Stage 2 277 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 402 814 - - 1165 - Stage 1 666 - - - - - Stage 2 745 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 386 814 - - 1165 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 490 - - - - - Stage 1 666 - - - - - Stage 2 714 - - - - -Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 12.4 0 0.8HCM LOS BMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 574 1165 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.154 0.031 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 12.4 8.2 0.1HCM Lane LOS - - B A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 0.1 -Principal MUEx+P AM2: US 101 SB Ramp/W Front Rd & Santa Rosa Rd11/4/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 264 75 391 495v/c Ratio 0.27 0.09 0.47 0.79Control Delay 10.7 3.3 13.0 27.7Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0Total Delay 10.7 3.3 13.7 27.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 54 0 87 164Queue Length 95th (ft) 109 19 175 227Internal Link Dist (ft) 445 235 842Turn Bay Length (ft) 100Base Capacity (vph) 979 872 835 767Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 199 0Spillback Cap Reductn0000Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.27 0.09 0.61 0.65Intersection Summary Exhibit A Page 145 of 177 Principal MUEx+P AM2: US 101 SB Ramp/W Front Rd & Santa Rosa Rd11/4/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 4 228 66 89 214 41 0 0 0 327 38 70Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 259 75 101 243 47 372 43 80Adj No. of Lanes011010 010Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 020Cap, veh/h 60 1017 870 251 578 104 430 50 92Arrive On Green 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.33 0.33 0.33Sat Flow, veh/h 7 1851 1583 330 1051 189 1313 152 282Grp Volume(v), veh/h 264 0 75 391 0 0 495 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1858 0 1583 1569 0 0 1747 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.8 0.0 1.5 8.6 0.0 0.0 17.3 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.02 1.00 0.26 0.12 0.75 0.16Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1077 0 870 932 0 0 572 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.00 0.09 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1077 0 870 932 0 0 753 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.7 0.0 6.9 8.4 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 2.6 0.0 0.7 4.4 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.2 0.0 7.1 9.8 0.0 0.0 28.8 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A A CApproach Vol, veh/h 339 391 495Approach Delay, s/veh 8.0 9.8 28.8Approach LOS A A CTimer12345678Assigned Phs 4 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 39.7 25.3 39.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 28.0 29.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.8 19.3 10.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.3 2.0 4.0Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.0HCM 2010 LOS BPrincipal MUEx+P AM3: US 101 NB Ramp/E Front St & Santa Rosa Rd11/4/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT WBT WBR NBTLane Group Flow (vph) 599 274 152 286v/c Ratio 0.67 0.28 0.17 0.58Control Delay 11.7 6.7 1.8 19.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 11.7 6.7 1.8 19.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 83 30 0 51Queue Length 95th (ft) 207 76 18 151Internal Link Dist (ft) 235 398 686Turn Bay Length (ft)Base Capacity (vph) 1488 1656 1440 733Starvation Cap Reductn 82 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn0000Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.17 0.11 0.39Intersection Summary Exhibit A Page 146 of 177 Principal MUEx+P AM3: US 101 NB Ramp/E Front St & Santa Rosa Rd11/4/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 92 375 78 6 243 138 138 98 24 0 0 0Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 101 412 86 7 267 152 152 108 26Adj No. of Lanes010011010Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222020Cap, veh/h 225 653 125 120 970 834 213 152 36Arrive On Green 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.22 0.22 0.22Sat Flow, veh/h 178 1239 238 11 1840 1583 950 675 162Grp Volume(v), veh/h 599 0 0 274 0 152 286 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1654 0 0 1851 0 1583 1787 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 4.8 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 1.6 4.8 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.17 0.14 0.03 1.00 0.53 0.09Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1002 0 0 1090 0 834 401 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.18 0.71 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2130 0 0 2387 0 1967 943 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.4 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 4.0 11.5 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.4 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 3.8 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.7 2.6 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.1 13.9 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A A BApproach Vol, veh/h 599 426 286Approach Delay, s/veh 6.0 4.3 13.9Approach LOS A A BTimer12345678Assigned Phs 2 4 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.2 21.0 21.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 40.0 40.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.8 10.0 4.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 7.0 7.2Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.1HCM 2010 LOS APrincipal MUEx+P AM4: El Camino Real & Santa Rosa Rd/Driveway11/4/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 145 392 6 334 325 6 366 152v/c Ratio 0.39 0.38 0.03 0.57 0.14 0.04 0.42 0.30Control Delay 26.6 1.8 28.4 21.2 5.9 32.4 21.2 6.7Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 26.6 1.8 28.4 21.2 5.9 32.4 21.2 6.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 36 0 1 79 15 2 47 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 115 17 13 201 61 14 117 37Internal Link Dist (ft) 398 252 434 267Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 105 183Base Capacity (vph) 556 1359 1051 1073 2979 157 1657 822Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.29 0.01 0.31 0.11 0.04 0.22 0.18Intersection Summary Exhibit A Page 147 of 177 Principal MUEx+P AM4: El Camino Real & Santa Rosa Rd/Driveway11/4/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 109 12 325 1 3 1 277 263 7 5 304 126Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 131 14 392 1 4 1 334 317 8 6 366 152Adj No. of Lanes011010120121Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 372 40 735 2 8 2 414 1541 39 11 743 332Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.44 0.44 0.01 0.21 0.21Sat Flow, veh/h 1610 172 1583 299 1197 299 1774 3528 89 1774 3539 1583Grp Volume(v), veh/h 145 0 392 6 0 0 334 159 166 6 366 152Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1782 0 1583 1795 0 0 1774 1770 1847 1774 1770 1583Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 0.0 8.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.9 2.8 2.8 0.2 4.6 4.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 0.0 8.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 8.9 2.8 2.8 0.2 4.6 4.2Prop In Lane 0.90 1.00 0.17 0.17 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 411 0 735 11 0 0 414 773 807 11 743 332V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.00 0.53 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.21 0.21 0.53 0.49 0.46Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 498 0 812 932 0 0 992 1591 1660 142 1485 664HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.1 0.0 9.6 24.8 0.0 0.0 18.1 8.7 8.7 24.8 17.4 17.3Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.6 32.2 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.1 0.1 33.2 0.5 1.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 1.7 0.0 3.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 4.8 1.4 1.4 0.2 2.3 1.9LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.6 0.0 10.2 57.0 0.0 0.0 21.9 8.9 8.9 58.0 17.9 18.3LnGrp LOS B BE CAAEBBApproach Vol, veh/h 537 6 659 524Approach Delay, s/veh 11.9 57.0 15.5 18.5Approach LOS BEBBTimer12345678Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.3 25.9 15.6 15.7 14.5 4.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 45.0 14.0 28.0 21.0 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 4.8 10.8 10.9 6.6 2.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.1 0.7 0.9 3.9 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.4HCM 2010 LOS BPrincipal MUEx+P PM1: El Camino Real & Principal Ave11/4/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportIntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.2Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTVol, veh/h 44 31 568 48 32 570Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 - - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 47 33 604 51 34 606Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 1001 328 0 0 655 0 Stage 1 630 - - - - - Stage 2 371 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 239 668 - - 928 - Stage 1 493 - - - - - Stage 2 668 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 226 668 - - 928 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 353 - - - - - Stage 1 493 - - - - - Stage 2 631 - - - - -Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 15 0 0.7HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 438 928 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.182 0.037 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15 9 0.2HCM Lane LOS - - C A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 0.1 - Exhibit A Page 148 of 177 Principal MUEx+P PM2: US 101 SB Ramp/W Front Rd & Santa Rosa Rd11/4/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 162 28 427 396v/c Ratio 0.15 0.03 0.44 0.74Control Delay 8.2 3.8 8.5 27.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0Total Delay 8.2 3.8 9.0 27.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 0 95 133Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 11 152 189Internal Link Dist (ft) 445 235 842Turn Bay Length (ft) 100Base Capacity (vph) 1071 933 982 691Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 214 0Spillback Cap Reductn 156 0 0 1Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.03 0.56 0.57Intersection SummaryPrincipal MUEx+P PM2: US 101 SB Ramp/W Front Rd & Santa Rosa Rd11/4/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 6 153 27 75 243 100 0 0 0 309 19 61Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 6 156 28 77 248 102 315 19 62Adj No. of Lanes011010 010Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 020Cap, veh/h 70 1110 963 204 632 242 373 23 73Arrive On Green 0.61 0.61 0.61 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27 0.27 0.27Sat Flow, veh/h 21 1825 1583 228 1040 398 1388 84 273Grp Volume(v), veh/h 162 0 28 427 0 0 396 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1846 0 1583 1665 0 0 1745 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.04 1.00 0.18 0.24 0.80 0.16Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1180 0 963 1078 0 0 469 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1180 0 963 1078 0 0 671 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.5 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.5 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 1.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.7 0.0 5.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 29.2 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A A CApproach Vol, veh/h 190 427 396Approach Delay, s/veh 5.6 1.1 29.2Approach LOS A A CTimer12345678Assigned Phs 4 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 43.5 21.5 43.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.0 25.0 32.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 15.9 2.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.8 1.5 3.9Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.9HCM 2010 LOS B Exhibit A Page 149 of 177 Principal MUEx+P PM3: US 101 NB Ramp/E Front St & Santa Rosa Rd11/4/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT WBT WBR NBTLane Group Flow (vph) 486 230 206 422v/c Ratio 0.50 0.22 0.21 0.78Control Delay 19.0 8.3 2.1 30.0Queue Delay 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 20.1 8.3 2.1 30.0Queue Length 50th (ft) 179 40 0 144Queue Length 95th (ft) 277 86 28 215Internal Link Dist (ft) 235 398 686Turn Bay Length (ft)Base Capacity (vph) 975 1073 1007 647Starvation Cap Reductn 270 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 25 0 0Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.22 0.20 0.65Intersection SummaryPrincipal MUEx+P PM3: US 101 NB Ramp/E Front St & Santa Rosa Rd11/4/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 76 288 87 6 208 192 195 139 59 0 0 0Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 310 94 6 224 206 210 149 63Adj No. of Lanes010011010Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222020Cap, veh/h 184 664 188 63 1106 950 244 173 73Arrive On Green 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.28 0.28 0.28Sat Flow, veh/h 198 1107 313 11 1842 1583 882 626 265Grp Volume(v), veh/h 486 0 0 230 0 206 422 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1619 0 0 1853 0 1583 1772 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 14.7 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.6 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.9 14.7 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.17 0.19 0.03 1.00 0.50 0.15Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1036 0 0 1169 0 950 490 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.22 0.86 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1036 0 0 1169 0 950 627 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.90 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.1 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 6.0 22.3 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 9.6 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 5.2 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.8 8.5 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.6 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 6.4 31.9 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A A CApproach Vol, veh/h 486 436 422Approach Delay, s/veh 8.6 6.3 31.9Approach LOS A A CTimer12345678Assigned Phs 2 4 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.0 43.0 43.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 34.0 34.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.7 11.6 5.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 5.3 5.6Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.2HCM 2010 LOS B Exhibit A Page 150 of 177 Principal MUEx+P PM4: El Camino Real & Santa Rosa Rd/Driveway11/4/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 166 213 32 253 455 2 498 155v/c Ratio 0.47 0.23 0.15 0.56 0.22 0.02 0.53 0.29Control Delay 30.5 1.9 27.2 27.7 8.3 36.5 23.3 6.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 30.5 1.9 27.2 27.7 8.3 36.5 23.3 6.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 48 0 7 70 26 1 71 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 143 21 37 191 105 8 171 44Internal Link Dist (ft) 398 252 434 267Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 105 183Base Capacity (vph) 523 1190 818 816 2687 130 1435 734Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.18 0.04 0.31 0.17 0.02 0.35 0.21Intersection SummaryPrincipal MUEx+P PM4: El Camino Real & Santa Rosa Rd/Driveway11/4/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 152 4 200 3 18 9 238 427 1 2 468 146Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 162 4 213 3 19 10 253 454 1 2 498 155Adj No. of Lanes011010120121Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 288 7 555 5 30 16 328 1665 4 4 980 438Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.18 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.28 0.28Sat Flow, veh/h 1733 43 1583 165 1044 549 1774 3623 8 1774 3539 1583Grp Volume(v), veh/h 166 0 213 32 0 0 253 222 233 2 498 155Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1776 0 1583 1758 0 0 1774 1770 1861 1774 1770 1583Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 0.0 4.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 6.3 3.6 3.6 0.1 5.5 3.7Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 0.0 4.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 6.3 3.6 3.6 0.1 5.5 3.7Prop In Lane 0.98 1.00 0.09 0.31 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 295 0 555 51 0 0 328 813 855 4 980 438V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.00 0.38 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.27 0.27 0.51 0.51 0.35Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 610 0 836 980 0 0 951 1632 1717 152 1670 747HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.9 0.0 11.4 22.4 0.0 0.0 18.1 7.8 7.8 23.2 14.2 13.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.0 0.4 11.9 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.2 0.2 77.9 0.4 0.5Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 2.1 0.0 2.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.8 1.9 0.1 2.8 1.7LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.6 0.0 11.8 34.2 0.0 0.0 21.9 8.0 8.0 101.1 14.6 14.0LnGrp LOS B B C C A A F B BApproach Vol, veh/h 379 32 708 655Approach Delay, s/veh 15.2 34.2 13.0 14.7Approach LOS B C B BTimer12345678Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.1 25.4 11.7 12.6 16.9 5.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 43.0 16.0 25.0 22.0 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 5.6 6.7 8.3 7.5 2.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.2 1.1 0.6 5.4 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.5HCM 2010 LOS B Exhibit A Page 151 of 177 Principal MU Cumulative AM1: El Camino Real & Principal Ave11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportIntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTVol, veh/h 30 20 380 20 30 450Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 - - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 32 22 409 22 32 484Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 725 215 0 0 430 0 Stage 1 419 - - - - - Stage 2 306 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 360 790 - - 1126 - Stage 1 632 - - - - - Stage 2 720 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 346 790 - - 1126 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 459 - - - - - Stage 1 632 - - - - - Stage 2 692 - - - - -Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 12.2 0 0.6HCM LOS BMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 551 1126 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.098 0.029 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 12.2 8.3 0.1HCM Lane LOS - - B A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 0.1 -Principal MU Cumulative AM2: US 101 SB Ramp/W Front Rd & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 301 80 443 523v/c Ratio 0.31 0.09 0.54 0.81Control Delay 11.4 3.3 14.5 28.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0Total Delay 11.4 3.3 15.7 28.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 65 0 108 172Queue Length 95th (ft) 124 19 206 247Internal Link Dist (ft) 445 235 842Turn Bay Length (ft) 100Base Capacity (vph) 957 857 821 767Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 181 0Spillback Cap Reductn0000Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.09 0.69 0.68Intersection Summary Exhibit A Page 152 of 177 Principal MU Cumulative AM2: US 101 SB Ramp/W Front Rd & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 5 260 70 90 250 50 0 0 0 330 50 80Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 6 295 80 102 284 57 375 57 91Adj No. of Lanes011010 010Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 020Cap, veh/h 61 988 847 220 585 109 429 65 104Arrive On Green 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.34 0.34 0.34Sat Flow, veh/h 8 1848 1583 285 1095 204 1252 190 304Grp Volume(v), veh/h 301 0 80 443 0 0 523 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1856 0 1583 1583 0 0 1747 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.6 3.9 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.8 0.0 1.6 10.6 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.02 1.00 0.23 0.13 0.72 0.17Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1049 0 847 915 0 0 598 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.29 0.00 0.09 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1049 0 847 915 0 0 752 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.96 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.4 0.0 7.4 9.4 0.0 0.0 20.1 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 3.1 0.0 0.7 5.4 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.1 0.0 7.6 11.1 0.0 0.0 29.5 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A B CApproach Vol, veh/h 381 443 523Approach Delay, s/veh 8.8 11.1 29.5Approach LOS A B CTimer12345678Assigned Phs 4 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.8 26.2 38.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 28.0 29.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.8 20.3 12.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.9 2.0 4.5Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.6HCM 2010 LOS BPrincipal MU Cumulative AM3: US 101 NB Ramp/E Front St & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT WBT WBR NBTLane Group Flow (vph) 638 319 176 297v/c Ratio 0.70 0.32 0.18 0.62Control Delay 12.6 6.8 1.6 22.1Queue Delay 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 12.7 6.8 1.6 22.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 97 38 0 58Queue Length 95th (ft) 230 87 19 171Internal Link Dist (ft) 235 398 686Turn Bay Length (ft)Base Capacity (vph) 1410 1580 1394 695Starvation Cap Reductn 111 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn0000Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.49 0.20 0.13 0.43Intersection Summary Exhibit A Page 153 of 177 Principal MU Cumulative AM3: US 101 NB Ramp/E Front St & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 100 400 80 10 280 160 140 100 30 0 0 0Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 110 440 88 11 308 176 154 110 33Adj No. of Lanes010011010Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222020Cap, veh/h 220 666 123 114 1000 867 211 151 45Arrive On Green 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.23 0.23 0.23Sat Flow, veh/h 186 1217 224 17 1827 1583 924 660 198Grp Volume(v), veh/h 638 0 0 319 0 176 297 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1627 0 0 1844 0 1583 1782 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 5.5 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.6 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 2.0 5.5 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.17 0.14 0.03 1.00 0.52 0.11Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1009 0 0 1114 0 867 407 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.20 0.73 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1897 0 0 2144 0 1777 850 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.7 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 4.1 12.7 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.5 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 4.6 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.9 2.9 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.4 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 4.2 15.3 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A A BApproach Vol, veh/h 638 495 297Approach Delay, s/veh 6.4 4.4 15.3Approach LOS A A BTimer12345678Assigned Phs 2 4 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.1 23.5 23.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 40.0 40.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.5 11.6 5.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 7.9 8.3Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.5HCM 2010 LOS APrincipal MU Cumulative AM4: El Camino Real & Santa Rosa Rd/Driveway11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 151 434 18 398 385 6 422 157v/c Ratio 0.48 0.40 0.09 0.67 0.18 0.05 0.52 0.33Control Delay 33.7 1.9 29.5 26.6 7.0 38.0 26.4 7.3Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 33.7 1.9 29.5 26.6 7.0 38.0 26.4 7.3Queue Length 50th (ft) 48 0 4 111 20 2 67 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 124 19 24 258 74 15 136 37Internal Link Dist (ft) 398 252 771 267Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 105 183Base Capacity (vph) 427 1244 795 848 2677 121 1272 669Starvation Cap Reductn 0 34000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.36 0.02 0.47 0.14 0.05 0.33 0.23Intersection Summary Exhibit A Page 154 of 177 Principal MU Cumulative AM4: El Camino Real & Santa Rosa Rd/Driveway11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 110 15 360 5 5 5 330 310 10 5 350 130Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 133 18 434 6 6 6 398 373 12 6 422 157Adj No. of Lanes011010120121Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 361 49 782 10 10 10 469 1654 53 11 760 340Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.26 0.47 0.47 0.01 0.21 0.21Sat Flow, veh/h 1571 213 1583 577 577 577 1774 3500 112 1774 3539 1583Grp Volume(v), veh/h 151 0 434 18 0 0 398 188 197 6 422 157Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1784 0 1583 1732 0 0 1774 1770 1843 1774 1770 1583Q Serve(g_s), s 4.2 0.0 11.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 12.4 3.7 3.7 0.2 6.2 5.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 0.0 11.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 12.4 3.7 3.7 0.2 6.2 5.0Prop In Lane 0.88 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 410 0 782 30 0 0 469 836 871 11 760 340V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.00 0.56 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.23 0.23 0.53 0.56 0.46Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 428 0 798 771 0 0 851 1364 1420 122 1273 570HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.9 0.0 10.3 28.5 0.0 0.0 20.4 9.1 9.1 28.9 20.4 20.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.8 17.6 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.1 0.1 33.8 0.6 1.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 2.1 0.0 4.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 6.7 1.8 1.9 0.2 3.1 2.3LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.5 0.0 11.1 46.1 0.0 0.0 24.8 9.2 9.2 62.8 21.1 21.0LnGrp LOS B B D C A A E C CApproach Vol, veh/h 585 18 783 585Approach Delay, s/veh 13.3 46.1 17.1 21.5Approach LOS B D B CTimer12345678Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.4 31.6 17.4 19.4 16.5 5.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 45.0 14.0 28.0 21.0 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 5.7 13.2 14.4 8.2 2.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.0 0.2 1.0 4.3 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.5HCM 2010 LOS BPrincipal MU Cumulative PM1: El Camino Real & Principal Ave11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportIntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.9Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTVol, veh/h 30 30 660 30 20 670Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 - - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 32 32 702 32 21 713Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 1117 367 0 0 734 0 Stage 1 718 - - - - - Stage 2 399 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 201 630 - - 867 - Stage 1 444 - - - - - Stage 2 647 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 193 630 - - 867 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 321 - - - - - Stage 1 444 - - - - - Stage 2 621 - - - - -Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 15 0 0.5HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 425 867 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.15 0.025 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 15 9.3 0.2HCM Lane LOS - - C A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 0.1 - Exhibit A Page 155 of 177 Principal MU Cumulative PM2: US 101 SB Ramp/W Front Rd & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 173 31 449 469v/c Ratio 0.17 0.04 0.49 0.80Control Delay 9.2 4.0 10.1 29.2Queue Delay 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.3Total Delay 9.3 4.0 10.6 29.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 32 0 101 158Queue Length 95th (ft) 71 12 150 233Internal Link Dist (ft) 445 235 842Turn Bay Length (ft) 100Base Capacity (vph) 1003 887 926 693Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 172 0Spillback Cap Reductn 158 0 0 26Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.03 0.60 0.70Intersection SummaryPrincipal MU Cumulative PM2: US 101 SB Ramp/W Front Rd & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 10 160 30 80 250 110 0 0 0 370 20 70Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 10 163 31 82 255 112 378 20 71Adj No. of Lanes011010 010Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 020Cap, veh/h 83 1015 900 194 580 235 434 23 81Arrive On Green 0.57 0.57 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 0.31 0.31Sat Flow, veh/h 42 1785 1583 226 1020 414 1407 74 264Grp Volume(v), veh/h 173 0 31 449 0 0 469 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1827 0 1583 1660 0 0 1746 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.5 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.5 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.06 1.00 0.18 0.25 0.81 0.15Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1098 0 900 1009 0 0 538 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.00 0.03 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1098 0 900 1009 0 0 671 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.7 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.0 0.0 6.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 31.4 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A A CApproach Vol, veh/h 204 449 469Approach Delay, s/veh 6.9 1.4 31.4Approach LOS A A CTimer12345678Assigned Phs 4 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 41.0 24.0 41.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.0 25.0 32.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 18.5 2.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.1 1.5 4.2Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.9HCM 2010 LOS B Exhibit A Page 156 of 177 Principal MU Cumulative PM3: US 101 NB Ramp/E Front St & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT WBT WBR NBTLane Group Flow (vph) 560 258 247 431v/c Ratio 0.58 0.25 0.24 0.80Control Delay 20.2 8.4 2.0 31.4Queue Delay 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 22.3 8.4 2.0 31.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 217 47 0 147Queue Length 95th (ft) 317 92 28 230Internal Link Dist (ft) 235 398 686Turn Bay Length (ft)Base Capacity (vph) 970 1053 1019 640Starvation Cap Reductn 266 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 52 0 0Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.80 0.26 0.24 0.67Intersection SummaryPrincipal MU Cumulative PM3: US 101 NB Ramp/E Front St & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 80 340 100 10 230 230 200 140 60 0 0 0Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 86 366 108 11 247 247 215 151 65Adj No. of Lanes010011010Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222020Cap, veh/h 168 675 186 73 1078 943 249 175 75Arrive On Green 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.28 0.28 0.28Sat Flow, veh/h 174 1134 313 26 1810 1583 884 621 267Grp Volume(v), veh/h 560 0 0 258 0 247 431 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1621 0 0 1836 0 1583 1771 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 15.0 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.2 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 4.9 15.0 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.15 0.19 0.04 1.00 0.50 0.15Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1029 0 0 1151 0 943 499 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.26 0.86 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1029 0 0 1151 0 943 627 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.85 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.7 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 6.3 22.2 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.6 10.1 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 6.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.2 8.7 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.8 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 6.9 32.3 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A A CApproach Vol, veh/h 560 505 431Approach Delay, s/veh 9.8 6.7 32.3Approach LOS A A CTimer12345678Assigned Phs 2 4 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.3 42.7 42.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 34.0 34.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.0 14.2 6.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 6.1 6.8Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.2HCM 2010 LOS B Exhibit A Page 157 of 177 Principal MU Cumulative PM4: El Camino Real & Santa Rosa Rd/Driveway11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 175 255 37 319 548 5 574 160v/c Ratio 0.53 0.28 0.20 0.66 0.27 0.04 0.62 0.30Control Delay 36.0 1.9 30.3 32.1 9.1 39.8 27.5 6.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 36.0 1.9 30.3 32.1 9.1 39.8 27.5 6.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 76 0 12 135 61 2 124 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 154 23 43 243 127 14 206 46Internal Link Dist (ft) 398 252 780 267Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 105 183Base Capacity (vph) 457 1082 694 712 2471 114 1254 664Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.38 0.24 0.05 0.45 0.22 0.04 0.46 0.24Intersection SummaryPrincipal MU Cumulative PM4: El Camino Real & Santa Rosa Rd/Driveway11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 160 5 240 5 20 10 300 510 5 5 540 150Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 170 5 255 5 21 11 319 543 5 5 574 160Adj No. of Lanes011010120121Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 299 9 623 7 31 16 391 1784 16 9 997 446Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.22 0.50 0.50 0.01 0.28 0.28Sat Flow, veh/h 1726 51 1583 238 998 523 1774 3593 33 1774 3539 1583Grp Volume(v), veh/h 175 0 255 37 0 0 319 267 281 5 574 160Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1776 0 1583 1759 0 0 1774 1770 1857 1774 1770 1583Q Serve(g_s), s 4.9 0.0 6.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 9.3 4.9 4.9 0.2 7.6 4.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 0.0 6.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 9.3 4.9 4.9 0.2 7.6 4.4Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.14 0.30 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 308 0 623 55 0 0 391 879 922 9 997 446V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.00 0.41 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.30 0.30 0.53 0.58 0.36Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 521 0 813 838 0 0 813 1395 1463 130 1427 638HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.7 0.0 12.0 26.1 0.0 0.0 20.2 8.1 8.1 27.1 16.8 15.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.0 0.4 13.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.2 0.2 38.6 0.5 0.5Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 2.6 0.0 2.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 5.0 2.4 2.5 0.2 3.7 2.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.3 0.0 12.4 39.2 0.0 0.0 24.5 8.3 8.3 65.7 17.3 16.1LnGrp LOS C BD CAAEBBApproach Vol, veh/h 430 37 867 739Approach Delay, s/veh 16.4 39.2 14.3 17.4Approach LOS B D B BTimer12345678Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.3 31.1 13.5 16.0 19.4 5.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 43.0 16.0 25.0 22.0 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 6.9 8.4 11.3 9.6 3.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.8 1.1 0.8 5.8 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 16.3HCM 2010 LOS B Exhibit A Page 158 of 177 Principal MU Cumulative Plus Project AM1: El Camino Real & Principal Ave11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportIntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.5Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTVol, veh/h 53 33 380 36 38 450Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 - - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 57 35 409 39 41 484Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 752 224 0 0 447 0 Stage 1 428 - - - - - Stage 2 324 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 346 779 - - 1110 - Stage 1 625 - - - - - Stage 2 705 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 328 779 - - 1110 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 444 - - - - - Stage 1 625 - - - - - Stage 2 669 - - - - -Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 13.2 0 0.8HCM LOS BMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 532 1110 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.174 0.037 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.2 8.4 0.2HCM Lane LOS - - B A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6 0.1 -Principal MU Cumulative Plus Project AM2: US 101 SB Ramp/W Front Rd & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 303 80 453 529v/c Ratio 0.32 0.09 0.56 0.81Control Delay 11.6 3.3 15.2 28.2Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0Total Delay 11.6 3.3 16.4 28.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 68 0 116 171Queue Length 95th (ft) 126 19 214 251Internal Link Dist (ft) 445 235 842Turn Bay Length (ft) 100Base Capacity (vph) 949 851 805 767Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 164 0Spillback Cap Reductn0000Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.09 0.71 0.69Intersection Summary Exhibit A Page 159 of 177 Principal MU Cumulative Plus Project AM2: US 101 SB Ramp/W Front Rd & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 5 261 70 97 252 50 0 0 0 335 50 80Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 6 297 80 110 286 57 381 57 91Adj No. of Lanes011010 010Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 020Cap, veh/h 61 983 842 229 569 105 434 65 104Arrive On Green 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.35 0.35 0.35Sat Flow, veh/h 8 1848 1583 302 1070 197 1258 188 300Grp Volume(v), veh/h 303 0 80 453 0 0 529 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1856 0 1583 1569 0 0 1747 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 1.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 0.0 1.6 11.2 0.0 0.0 18.5 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.02 1.00 0.24 0.13 0.72 0.17Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1043 0 842 903 0 0 603 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.29 0.00 0.10 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1043 0 842 903 0 0 752 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.5 0.0 7.5 9.6 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.2 1.9 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 3.2 0.0 0.8 5.6 0.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.2 0.0 7.7 11.5 0.0 0.0 29.7 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A B CApproach Vol, veh/h 383 453 529Approach Delay, s/veh 8.9 11.5 29.7Approach LOS A B CTimer12345678Assigned Phs 4 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 38.6 26.4 38.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 28.0 29.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.9 20.5 13.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.0 2.0 4.5Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.8HCM 2010 LOS BPrincipal MU Cumulative Plus Project AM3: US 101 NB Ramp/E Front St & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT WBT WBR NBTLane Group Flow (vph) 644 329 184 302v/c Ratio 0.71 0.33 0.19 0.63Control Delay 12.7 6.9 1.6 22.5Queue Delay 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 12.8 6.9 1.6 22.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 100 40 0 60Queue Length 95th (ft) 233 90 19 178Internal Link Dist (ft) 235 398 686Turn Bay Length (ft)Base Capacity (vph) 1399 1569 1386 690Starvation Cap Reductn 117 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn0000Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.50 0.21 0.13 0.44Intersection Summary Exhibit A Page 160 of 177 Principal MU Cumulative Plus Project AM3: US 101 NB Ramp/E Front St & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 100 406 80 10 289 167 140 100 35 0 0 0Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 110 446 88 11 318 184 154 110 38Adj No. of Lanes010011010Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222020Cap, veh/h 217 669 122 111 1005 870 209 150 52Arrive On Green 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.23 0.23 0.23Sat Flow, veh/h 185 1217 222 16 1828 1583 907 648 224Grp Volume(v), veh/h 644 0 0 329 0 184 302 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1623 0 0 1844 0 1583 1778 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 5.7 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.9 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 2.2 5.7 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.17 0.14 0.03 1.00 0.51 0.13Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1008 0 0 1116 0 870 411 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.21 0.74 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1850 0 0 2097 0 1737 829 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.8 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 4.2 13.0 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.6 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.9 3.1 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.5 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 4.3 15.6 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A A BApproach Vol, veh/h 644 513 302Approach Delay, s/veh 6.5 4.5 15.6Approach LOS A A BTimer12345678Assigned Phs 2 4 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.4 24.0 24.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 40.0 40.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.7 11.9 5.5Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.1 8.1 8.5Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 7.7HCM 2010 LOS APrincipal MU Cumulative Plus Project AM4: El Camino Real & Santa Rosa Rd/Driveway11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 164 434 18 398 367 6 430 176v/c Ratio 0.50 0.40 0.10 0.67 0.17 0.05 0.53 0.35Control Delay 34.2 1.9 29.7 27.0 7.1 38.2 26.6 7.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 34.2 1.9 29.7 27.0 7.1 38.2 26.6 7.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 53 0 4 115 20 2 71 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 134 19 24 259 70 15 138 38Internal Link Dist (ft) 398 252 771 267Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 105 183Base Capacity (vph) 419 1240 781 833 2648 119 1249 672Starvation Cap Reductn 0 46000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.39 0.36 0.02 0.48 0.14 0.05 0.34 0.26Intersection Summary Exhibit A Page 161 of 177 Principal MU Cumulative Plus Project AM4: El Camino Real & Santa Rosa Rd/Driveway11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 121 15 360 5 5 5 330 295 10 5 357 146Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 146 18 434 6 6 6 398 355 12 6 430 176Adj No. of Lanes011010120121Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 364 45 781 10 10 10 468 1656 56 11 765 342Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.26 0.47 0.47 0.01 0.22 0.22Sat Flow, veh/h 1588 196 1583 577 577 577 1774 3494 118 1774 3539 1583Grp Volume(v), veh/h 164 0 434 18 0 0 398 179 188 6 430 176Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1783 0 1583 1732 0 0 1774 1770 1842 1774 1770 1583Q Serve(g_s), s 4.6 0.0 11.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 12.5 3.5 3.5 0.2 6.4 5.7Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.6 0.0 11.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 12.5 3.5 3.5 0.2 6.4 5.7Prop In Lane 0.89 1.00 0.33 0.33 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 409 0 781 30 0 0 468 839 873 11 765 342V/C Ratio(X) 0.40 0.00 0.56 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.21 0.21 0.53 0.56 0.51Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 426 0 796 768 0 0 847 1358 1414 121 1268 567HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.2 0.0 10.4 28.6 0.0 0.0 20.5 9.0 9.0 29.0 20.5 20.3Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.0 0.8 17.7 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.1 0.1 33.9 0.6 1.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 2.3 0.0 5.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 6.7 1.7 1.8 0.2 3.2 2.6LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 19.8 0.0 11.2 46.3 0.0 0.0 24.9 9.2 9.2 62.9 21.1 21.5LnGrp LOS B B D C A A E C CApproach Vol, veh/h 598 18 765 612Approach Delay, s/veh 13.5 46.3 17.3 21.6Approach LOS B D B CTimer12345678Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.4 31.8 17.5 19.5 16.7 5.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 45.0 14.0 28.0 21.0 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 5.5 13.2 14.5 8.4 2.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.0 0.2 1.0 4.3 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 17.8HCM 2010 LOS BPrincipal MU Cumulative Plus Project PM1: El Camino Real & Principal Ave11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportIntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.3Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTVol, veh/h 49 40 660 54 33 670Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 - - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2Mvmt Flow 52 43 702 57 35 713Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 1158 380 0 0 760 0 Stage 1 731 - - - - - Stage 2 427 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 189 618 - - 848 - Stage 1 437 - - - - - Stage 2 626 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 176 618 - - 848 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 306 - - - - - Stage 1 437 - - - - - Stage 2 583 - - - - -Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 16.9 0 0.7HCM LOS CMinor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 396 848 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.239 0.041 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 16.9 9.4 0.3HCM Lane LOS - - C A AHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.9 0.1 - Exhibit A Page 162 of 177 Principal MU Cumulative Plus Project PM2: US 101 SB Ramp/W Front Rd & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 175 31 456 476v/c Ratio 0.18 0.04 0.50 0.80Control Delay 9.3 3.9 10.1 29.7Queue Delay 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.3Total Delay 9.3 3.9 10.6 30.0Queue Length 50th (ft) 33 0 101 160Queue Length 95th (ft) 71 12 149 241Internal Link Dist (ft) 445 235 842Turn Bay Length (ft) 100Base Capacity (vph) 999 884 918 692Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 162 0Spillback Cap Reductn 222 0 0 24Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.23 0.04 0.60 0.71Intersection SummaryPrincipal MU Cumulative Plus Project PM2: US 101 SB Ramp/W Front Rd & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 10 162 30 86 251 110 0 0 0 377 20 70Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 10 165 31 88 256 112 385 20 71Adj No. of Lanes011010 010Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 020Cap, veh/h 82 1010 895 203 567 229 440 23 81Arrive On Green 0.57 0.57 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 0.31 0.31Sat Flow, veh/h 41 1787 1583 242 1004 406 1412 73 260Grp Volume(v), veh/h 175 0 31 456 0 0 476 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1828 0 1583 1652 0 0 1746 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.06 1.00 0.19 0.25 0.81 0.15Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1091 0 895 999 0 0 545 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.00 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1091 0 895 999 0 0 672 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.8 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.2 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 1.6 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.1 0.0 6.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 31.7 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS A A A CApproach Vol, veh/h 206 456 476Approach Delay, s/veh 7.0 1.5 31.7Approach LOS A A CTimer12345678Assigned Phs 4 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 40.7 24.3 40.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 32.0 25.0 32.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 18.8 2.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.2 1.5 4.2Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.1HCM 2010 LOS B Exhibit A Page 163 of 177 Principal MU Cumulative Plus Project PM3: US 101 NB Ramp/E Front St & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT WBT WBR NBTLane Group Flow (vph) 569 266 254 438v/c Ratio 0.59 0.25 0.25 0.80Control Delay 20.6 8.5 2.0 31.4Queue Delay 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 22.9 8.6 2.0 31.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 222 49 0 148Queue Length 95th (ft) 322 94 29 234Internal Link Dist (ft) 235 398 686Turn Bay Length (ft)Base Capacity (vph) 967 1051 1020 641Starvation Cap Reductn 262 0 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn 0 52 0 0Storage Cap Reductn0000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.81 0.27 0.25 0.68Intersection SummaryPrincipal MU Cumulative Plus Project PM3: US 101 NB Ramp/E Front St & Santa Rosa Rd11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 80 349 100 10 237 236 200 140 67 0 0 0Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1900 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 86 375 108 11 255 254 215 151 72Adj No. of Lanes010011010Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222020Cap, veh/h 165 675 182 72 1072 937 248 174 83Arrive On Green 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.29 0.29 0.29Sat Flow, veh/h 171 1141 307 24 1813 1583 868 610 291Grp Volume(v), veh/h 569 0 0 266 0 254 438 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1620 0 0 1837 0 1583 1768 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 15.3 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.7 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 5.1 15.3 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 0.15 0.19 0.04 1.00 0.49 0.16Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1022 0 0 1144 0 937 505 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.27 0.87 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1022 0 0 1144 0 937 626 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.84 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.9 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 6.5 22.1 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.6 10.5 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 6.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.3 8.9 0.0 0.0LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.1 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 7.1 32.6 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS B A A CApproach Vol, veh/h 569 520 438Approach Delay, s/veh 10.1 6.9 32.6Approach LOS B A CTimer12345678Assigned Phs 2 4 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.6 42.4 42.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 34.0 34.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.3 14.7 7.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.3 6.2 7.0Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.5HCM 2010 LOS B Exhibit A Page 164 of 177 Principal MU Cumulative Plus Project PM4: El Camino Real & Santa Rosa Rd/Driveway11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportLane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 193 255 37 319 555 5 581 173v/c Ratio 0.56 0.28 0.21 0.67 0.27 0.05 0.62 0.32Control Delay 36.5 1.9 30.5 32.7 9.3 40.2 28.0 6.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 36.5 1.9 30.5 32.7 9.3 40.2 28.0 6.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 86 0 12 140 65 2 130 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 169 23 43 243 129 14 209 48Internal Link Dist (ft) 398 252 780 267Turn Bay Length (ft) 140 105 183Base Capacity (vph) 448 1080 677 698 2445 111 1228 662Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.24 0.05 0.46 0.23 0.05 0.47 0.26Intersection SummaryPrincipal MU Cumulative Plus Project PM4: El Camino Real & Santa Rosa Rd/Driveway11/6/2014Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 8 ReportMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 177 5 240 5 20 10 300 517 5 5 546 163Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1863Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 188 5 255 5 21 11 319 550 5 5 581 173Adj No. of Lanes011010120121Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 301 8 624 7 31 16 390 1790 16 9 1003 449Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.22 0.50 0.50 0.01 0.28 0.28Sat Flow, veh/h 1730 46 1583 238 998 523 1774 3594 33 1774 3539 1583Grp Volume(v), veh/h 193 0 255 37 0 0 319 271 284 5 581 173Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1776 0 1583 1759 0 0 1774 1770 1857 1774 1770 1583Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 0.0 6.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 9.4 5.0 5.0 0.2 7.7 4.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 0.0 6.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 9.4 5.0 5.0 0.2 7.7 4.8Prop In Lane 0.97 1.00 0.14 0.30 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 309 0 624 55 0 0 390 881 925 9 1003 449V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.41 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.31 0.31 0.53 0.58 0.39Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 517 0 809 832 0 0 807 1384 1453 129 1417 634HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.0 0.0 12.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 20.4 8.2 8.2 27.3 16.9 15.8Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.0 0.4 13.1 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.2 0.2 38.6 0.5 0.5Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(-26165%),veh/ln 2.9 0.0 2.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 5.1 2.5 2.6 0.2 3.8 2.2LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.1 0.0 12.5 39.5 0.0 0.0 24.7 8.4 8.4 65.9 17.4 16.4LnGrp LOS C BD CAAEBBApproach Vol, veh/h 448 37 874 759Approach Delay, s/veh 17.0 39.5 14.3 17.5Approach LOS B D B BTimer12345678Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.3 31.4 13.6 16.1 19.6 5.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 43.0 16.0 25.0 22.0 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 7.0 8.4 11.4 9.7 3.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.1 1.2 0.8 5.8 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 16.5HCM 2010 LOS B Exhibit A Page 165 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 89 Attachment 18 – Traffic Impact Report Addendum Exhibit A Page 166 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 90 Author of Comments Organization Represented Date of Comments A Elizabeth Ann Gomez Resident of Pino Ave February 20, 2019 B Patti Dunton Salinan Tribe of San Luis Obispo and Monterey March 08, 2019 C Stephanie Teaford Heal SLO Healthy Communities, Work Group March 08, 2019 D Jackie Mansoor Air Pollution Control District of San Luis Obispo County March 08, 2019 E Jenna Schudson California Department of Transportation, District 5 March 14, 2019 Attachment 19 – Response to Comments for MND 2019-0002 Exhibit A Page 167 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 91 Comments on Draft CEQA Document Response to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION #2019-0002 Principal Mixed-use Amendment, CUP, Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change (PLN 2014-1519) Elizabeth Ann Gomez Local Resident Dated February 20, 2019 Comments: See attached letter. Response: The City of Atascadero appreciates the comments provided and encourages participation in the CEQA document review process. The comments above are noted. A - Comments and Response to Elizabeth Ann Gomez Exhibit A Page 168 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 92 Comments on Draft CEQA Document B - Comments and Response to Salinan Tribe Exhibit A Page 169 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 93 Response to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION #2019-0002 Principal Mixed-use Amendment, CUP, Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change (PLN 2014-1519) Patti Dunton, Tribal Administrator Salinan Tribe of San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties Dated March 08, 2019 Comment #1: Cultural Resources Request that a cultural resource specialist from Salinan Tribe be on site during all tree removals. Response: As identified in the letter from the Salinan Tribe, oak trees were a food source of the Salinan People, and often cultural items such as stone grinding bowls, pestles and cutting tools were used during the acorn harvests and left on site for the next harvest. A Mitigation Measure has been added to the MND to require a cultural resource specialist to be on site during tree removal in order to reduce the potential impacts to less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure 17.a: Prior to the removal of native trees on the subject site, the developer shall contract with a cultural resource specialist from a local tribe to be onsite during all native oak tree removals. If any tribal cultural resources are discovered on-site, the City and the developer shall work with the tribe’s cultural resource specialist to protect the resources. Exhibit A Page 170 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 94 Comments on Draft CEQA Document C - Comments and Response to Heal SLO Exhibit A Page 171 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 95 Response to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION #2019-0002 Principal Mixed-use Amendment, CUP, Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change (PLN 2014-1519) Stephanie Teaford, Chair Heal SLO Healthy Communities, Work Group Dated March 08, 2019 Comments: See attached letter. Response: The City of Atascadero appreciates the comments provided and encourages participation in the CEQA document review process. In addition to the small private yards on each lot, the proposed development includes three (3) main outdoor open space and recreation areas. Open space is combined with landscaped drainage basins and located near the ephemeral drainage swale to further increase the green space areas of shared use at certain times of the year. A playground area with play equipment will be installed by the developer and owned and maintained by the HOA. An acoustical analysis have been provided to assess the carwash use and includes recommendations to minimize the noise from the blowers. The acoustical engineer’s recommendations have been incorporated into the MND as mitigation measures 12.a.1-3. The comments in the above Heal SLO Healthy Communities, Work Group are noted. No additional mitigation measures are required. Exhibit A Page 172 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 96 Comments on Draft CEQA Document D - Comments and Response to Air Pollutant Control District Exhibit A Page 173 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 97 Exhibit A Page 174 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 98 Response to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION #2019-0002 Principal Mixed-use Amendment, CUP, Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change (PLN 2014-1519) Jackie Mansoor, Air Quality Specialist Air Pollution Control District of San Luis Obispo County Dated March 08, 2019 Comments: See attached letter. Response: The City recognizes the support which the Air Pollution Control District provides in regard to the project’s mixed- use, urban infill development. Comments have been noted. The City recognizes APCD’s analysis shows that both “Construction Phase Impacts” and “Operational Phase Impacts” are below impact thresholds with selected mitigations. All mitigation measures shall be implemented and followed during the course of the project. Exhibit A Page 175 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 99 Comments on Draft CEQA Document E - Comments and Response to California Department of Transportation Exhibit A Page 176 of 177 PLN 2014-1519 Amendment Principal Mixed-Use Amendment 2019 Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org Page 100 Response to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION #2019-0002 Principal Mixed-use Amendment, CUP, Tentative Tract Map, Zone Change (PLN 2014-1519) Jenna Schudson, Development Review Coordinator California Department of Transportation, District 5 Dated March 14, 2019 Comment #1: Traffic Impact Please provide information regarding the City’s Traffic Impact Fee program, the document that the interchange project is listed in, and whether it is identified on the SLOCOG RTP project list. Comment #2: Please provide the updated May 2018 Traffic Study referenced in the Mitigated Negative Declaration document. Response: Comments have been noted, and informational documents provided to Caltrans. The May 2018 Traffic Study has been added as an attachment to the MND. No additional mitigation measures are required. Exhibit A Page 177 of 177