HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_2016-11-15_MND-Report
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PROPOSED MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION #2016-0003
6500 Palma Avenue Atascadero, CA 93422 805/461-5000
Findings:
1. The project does not have the potential to degrade the environment.
2. The project will not achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.
3. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.
4. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.
Determination:
Based on the above findings, and the information contained in the Initial Study 2016-0003 (made a part hereof by
reference and on file in the Community Development Department), it has been determined that the above project
will not have an adverse impact on the environment when the following mitigation measures are incorporated into
the project (see attachment).
Property
Owner/Applicant:
Peter Laughlin, P.O. Box 2003, Monterey, CA 93942
RRM Design, 3765 s. Higuera Street, Suite 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Project Title: Emerald Ridge Apartments
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Project Location: 2705, 2605, 2535 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422
(San Luis Obispo County) APN: 049-151-011, 049-151-009, 049-151-063
Project
Description:
The project consists of a high density apartment complex:
208 apartment units: 72 one bedroom units & 136 two bedroom units;
1,128 square foot clubhouse with a community pool, BBQ area, dog run, & tot lot;
Pedestrian trail along El Camino Real & connected pathways throughout site; and
Construction of a new street for future connection into Gran Mercado (Del Rio Road
Specific Plan)
Development includes a total of 208 residential units with six (6) separate apartment buildings.
Three (3) buildings will be three (3) stories each, with a combination of one (1) bedroom
apartment units and two (2) bedroom attached townhome units. The remaining three (3)
buildings will be four (4) stories each, with a combination of one (1) bedroom apartment units
and two (2) bedroom attached townhome units. The project site is approximately 7.5 acres with
slopes varying from 0-20 percent. Currently, there is one historic colony home on the site, which
will be converted into a clubhouse for private use of the residents. RMF-20 zoning districts allow
for up to 24/du per acre. The applicant is requesting a density bonus for an additional 27 units.
The City’s Zoning Policy 2.1 allows a density bonus for projects that exhibit high quality design.
The project is proposed to be completed over three (3) phases. The phases are as follows:
Phase 1 – 70 units with construction of Street “B” and portion of improvements to El
Camino Real;
Phase 2 – 70 units with rehabilitation of the historic colony house, tot lot and other
amenities and the remainder of improvements to El Camino Real;
Phase 3 – 68 units with the remainder of amenities improvement.
General Plan Designation: High Density Residential (HDR)
Zoning District: Residential Multi-Family (RMF-20)
CITY OF ATASCADERO
PROPOSED MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Page 2 of 2
Prepared By: Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP / Stefanie Farmer, Planning Intern
Date Posted: October 27, 2016
Public Review Ends: November 15, 2016
Attachments: - Initial Study 2016-0003
- Location & Zoning Map
- Aerial
- Site Plan / Grading Plan
- Floor Plan
- Elevations / Sections
- Site Photos
- Site Vegetation Map
- National Wetlands Inventory Map
- Fault Map
- Hazardous Materials Map
- FIRM
- Existing Residential Interface Exhibits
- Acoustic Study
- Arborist Report
- Biological Report
- Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Plan
- Traffic Impact Report
- CalEEMod
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Environmental Review 2016-0003
Lead Agency Name
and Address:
City of Atascadero
6500 Palma Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422
Contact Person and
Phone Number:
Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP / Stefanie Farmer, Planning Intern
City of Atascadero, Community Development Department, Phone: (805) 461-
5000
General Plan
Designation:
High Density Residential (HDR)
Zoning: Residential Multiple Family (20 units/ac) (RMF-20)
Surrounding Land Residential Suburban (RS); Commercial Park (CPK); Residential Multi-Family
(RMF-20)
Property
Owner/Applicant:
Peter Laughlin, P.O. Box 2003, Monterey, CA 93942
RRM Design, 3765 S. Higuera Street, Suite 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Project Title: Emerald Ridge Apartments
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Project Location: 2705, 2605, 2535 El Camino Real, Atascadero, CA 93422
(San Luis Obispo County) APN: 049-151-011, 049-151-009, 049-151-063
Project
Description:
The project consists of a high density apartment complex:
208 apartment units: 72 one bedroom units & 136 two bedroom units;
1,128 square foot clubhouse with a community pool, BBQ area, dog run, & tot lot;
Pedestrian trail along El Camino Real & connected pathways throughout site; and
Construction of a new street for future connection into Gran Mercado (Del Rio Road
Specific Plan)
Development includes a total of 208 residential units with six (6) separate apartment buildings.
Three (3) buildings will be three (3) stories each, with a combination of one (1) bedroom
apartment units and two (2) bedroom attached townhome units. The remaining three (3)
buildings will be four (4) stories each, with a combination of one (1) bedroom apartment units
and two (2) bedroom attached townhome units. The project site is approximately 7.5 acres with
slopes varying from 0-20 percent. Currently, there is one historic colony home on the site, which
will be converted into a clubhouse for private use of the residents. RMF-20 zoning districts allow
for up to 24/du per acre. The applicant is requesting a density bonus for an additional 27 units.
The City’s Zoning Policy 2.1 allows a density bonus for projects that exhibit high quality design.
The project is proposed to be completed over three (3) phases. The phases are as follows:
Phase 1 – 70 units with construction of Street “B” and portion of improvements to El
Camino Real;
Phase 2 – 70 units with rehabilitation of the historic colony house, tot lot and other
amenities and the remainder of improvements to El Camino Real;
Phase 3 – 68 units with the remainder of amenities improvement.
General Plan Designation: High Density Residential (HDR)
Zoning District: Residential Multi-Family (RMF-20)
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies
whose approval is
required (e.g., permits,
financing approval, or
participation agreement)
Regional Water Quality Control Board District #3; San Luis Obispo Air
Pollution Control District.
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forest
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology /Soils
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water
Quality
Land Use / Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population / Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities / Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant effect” or “potentially significant
unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
10/27/16
Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP Date
Planner
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-site, cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Signi ficant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to
a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross -
referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document purs uant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to informatio n sources for potential
impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance .
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
SOURCES: Project Description; Planning Staff Site Visit; Architectural Plans; Atascadero General Plan 2025;
Caltrans Scenic Vista List; Atascadero Municipal Code
DISCUSSION:
1.a. The proposed project does not obscure an adopted scenic vista from the City of Atascadero, therefore no impact.
1.b. The project site is not located within a state scenic highway. The proposed project is located on a section of El
Camino Real and is not designated a scenic vista. Therefore, the propos ed project creates no impact.
1.c. The surrounding existing property uses range from residential to commercial. There are Residential Suburban
lots ranging from ½ acre to 2 ½ acres bordering the eastern and southern side of the proposed project. The southern
side has single family homes near the proposed project site. The northern side has High Density Residential single
family homes close to the property line. Across El Camino Real, there are non-residential developments in
Commercial Park lots with a wide variety of uses, including retail, offices, and storage businesses. Currently, the lots
are vacant aside from a one single family residence that is considered a Colony Home with historical and architectural
significance. The colony home will be preserved and converted into a Club House. Additionally, the proposed
architecture is considered high quality. The plans indicate that development will utilize retaining walls and grading in
order to maintain the natural topography. The building design theme is California Craftsman and is compatible with
the colony home. The overall design incorporates asymmetrical patterns, variable setbacks, angled walls, separate
pedestrian walkways, terraces, and landscaping. The landscaping plan shows trees evenly sp aced throughout the
perimeter of the lots adjacent to existing single family homes as a buffer to proposed new development. Therefore,
the impact is deemed less than significant.
1.d. All proposed lighting 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 project 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.
Proposed Mitigation Measures – Aesthetics
Mitigation Measure 1.d.1: A photo metric plan will be required for each phase of construction at the time of building
permit submittal.
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 2
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing
impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to informat ion compiled by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the
Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))??
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
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?
SOURCES: Atascadero General Plan 2025; San Luis Obispo County Ag Mapping
DISCUSSION
2.a. 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. Therefore, no impact.
2.b. The property is not in an agricultural zone and is not under a Williamson Act c ontract based on review of
Atascadero GIS / San Luis Obispo Agriculture mapping information. Therefore, no impact.
2.c. The project does not involve rezoning of forest land or timberland. Therefore, no impact.
2.d.e. The project 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, no impact.
3. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 3
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
SOURCES: Air Pollution Control District (APCD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 2012; Project Description, Site Plan
DISCUSSION:
3.a.) The proposed project does not obstruct the local regulations governing air quality and the City’s adopted Climate
Action Plan (CAP), therefore no impact.
3.b.c.) This project proposes 208 apartment units (72 one bedroom and 136 two bedroom). The proposed project is
within the South Central Coast Air Basin and is in a non-attainment zone for Particle Mater (PM-10).
According to the Operational Screening Criteria for Project Air Quality Analysis (Table 1-1, SLOAPCD, 2014),
Apartment Mid Rise would have to be at or over 120 dwelling units in order to be expected to exceed the APCD
Annual GHG Bright Line Threshold, and at or over 137 dwelling units in order to be expected to exce ed the APCD
Daily Ozone Precursor Significance Threshold. Based on the overseeing agency’s screening criteria for the proposed
project, the impact must be evaluated further to asses potential significant impact and incorporate the appropriate
mitigation measures.
Based on the full build out of the proposed project, Staff completed a Cal EEMOD evaluation of the project for
projected air quality. The model has been provided as an attachment. The proposed project will last more than one
quarter, therefore the quarterly thresholds were utilized to determine mitigation required for air quality impacts . The
proposed project exceeds Tier 1 quarterly Thresholds for the following for construction related impacts:
ROG + NOx = 3.6474 tons (2.5 tons threshold).
With implementation of mitigation measures 3.b.1 through 3.b.4, the construction related emission impacts are
determined be less than significant impact.
The proposed project does not exceed the thresholds of significance for Operational Emissions impact, based on the
established screening criteria established by the SLOAPCD, therefore the proposed project is considered less than
significant.
3.d) The proposed project site is located to existing residences, which are considered sensitive receptors to idling
construction equipment. Additional mitigation is required consistent with SLOAPCD to reduce impacts. Additionally, to
reduce PM10 emissions the applicant will be required to implement the fugitive dust mitigation measures, expanded list.
With the proposed mitigation measures, this impact is considered less than significant.
3.e) 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.
Proposed Mitigation Measures – Air Quality
Mitigation Measure 3.b.1: At the time of building permit submittal, the Applicant may submit a detailed construction
plan with timelines for construction to ensure appropriate quality mitigation measures are in place for each phase of
construction. The applicant may submit this construction schedule to APCD and provide City Staff a list of mitigation
measures as approved by SLOAPCD. These mitigation measures will be placed on the approved building plans for
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 4
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
each phase.
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 di sturbed. 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. 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: The project shall reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), and diesel
particulate matter (DPM) emissions from construction equipment listed below:
1. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;
2. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non -
taxed version suitable for use off-road);
3. Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty
diesel engines, and comply with the State off-Road Regulation;
4. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on -road heavy-
duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
5. Construction or trucking companies with fleets that that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine
standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by
proving alternative compliance;
6. All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the
designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit;
7. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;
8. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;
9. Electrify equipment when feasible;
10. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and,
11. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas
(CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel
Mitigation Measure 3.b.4: The project shall utilize Best Available Technology (BACT) in order to reduce ozone
precursor emissions from the list below.
1. Further reducing emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off -road and 2010 on-road compliant
engines;
2. Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available; and
3. Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies. These strategies are listed at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm
Mitigation Measure 3.d.1: The project shall be conditioned to comply with all applicable District regulations pertai ning
to the control of fugitive dust (PM-10):
2.4 Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures: Expanded List
If the estimated ozone precursor emissions from the actual fleet for a given construction phase are expected to exceed
the APCD threshold of significance after the standard mitigation measures are factored into the estimation, then BACT
needs to be implemented to further reduce these impacts. The BACT measures can include:
1. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
2. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site.
Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non -
potable) water should be used whenever possible;
3. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed;
4. 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;
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 5
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site;
9. 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;
10. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash o ff trucks and
equipment leaving the site;
11. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water
sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible;
12. All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans; and 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 20% opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend
periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons sha ll be
provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 6
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
conservation plan?
SOURCES: Project Description; Atascadero Tree Ordinance; Wetlands Inspection and Biological Inspection Report,
Sierra Delta Consultants; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory; Arborist Report
DISCUSSION:
4.a. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory show no wetlands, lakes, or rivers on or near the
property. The Wetland and Biological Inspection Report identifies an artificial drainage area from previous
development on neighboring properties and does not qualify as a wetland based on the lack of hydrophitic soils and
wetland hydrology. The report indicates that there will be no impacts to sensitive, rare, threatened or endangered
plant or animal species. Therefore, no impact.
4.b.c. The artificial drainage area identified in the Wetlands Inspection and Biological Inspection report does not
qualify as a wetland. The report identifies willows and cottonwood to be the dominant vegetation in the area and it was
determined that removal of this vegetation or manipulation of the drainage will not affect the natural biological
communities of the surrounding area. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
4.d. The Wetlands Inspection and Biological Inspection Report conclude 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 will reduce this impact to a less than significant threshold.
4e. There are a total of one hundred and eleven (111) oak trees, including trees between two (2) inches in DBH and
four (4) inches in DBH, within the project boundary. There are nineteen (19) native trees that will be saved and ninety
two (92) native trees recommended for removal. Five (5) native trees are in poor condition with high failure potential.
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. The largest native trees (trees 13, 14, 15, 19, and 20 from the arborist’s report) will be preserved.
Additionally, the landscaping plan incorporates replanting of native trees on the project site. With the proposed
mitigation measures 4.e.1, 4.e.2, 4.e.3, 4.e.4, and 4.e.5 incorporated, conflict with the City’s Native Tree Ordinance is
determined to be less than significant.
4.f. The proposed project does not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan. Therefore no impact.
Proposed Mitigation Measures – Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure 4.d.1: 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 p rotected 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.
Mitigation Measure 4.e.1: Grading and excavation and grading 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
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 7
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 in the Tree Protection
Plan. 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 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.
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 8
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 for each phase.
Mitigation Measure 4.e.5: All utilities shall remain outside the driplines of native trees.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in '15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
SOURCES: Project Description; Historic Resource Evaluation; U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, City of
Atascadero GIS.
DISCUSSION:
5.a. The Historic Resource Evaluation identified the Bennett/Goodwin Colony Home (p -40-041263) to be potentially
significant at the local level. The evaluation has found that the two-story home is in good repair and well cared for and
that the current porch is not original and inconsistent with the overall aesthetic. The porch has been expanded and
now hides important features of the home such as original bay windows. The proposed project has incorporated the
colony home within the design by preserving the structure and utilizing the home as a club house. With
implementation of mitigation measure 5.a.1, the potential for a significant impact is rendered to be less than significant.
5.b.c. Geographical Information systems (GIS) of the City of Atascadero show that there are no known archaeological
or paleontological resources located on or adjacent to the site. The Salinian Tribal Administrator does not have any
current concerns about the project site at this point in time; however, the location of the proposed project is between
two larger recorded archaeological sites. With the incorporation of mitigation 5.b.1, the impact is considered less than
significant.
5.d. No known human remains have been found or documented in the vicinity of the project . The site may have a
potential to have human remains on-site due to no known archeological study completed directly on-site. In addition,
no Native American burial sites have been located around the project area. With implementation of mitigation measure
5.d.1, the potential for a significant impact is rendered to less than significant thresholds.
Mitigation 5.a.1: Modifications to the building shall reflect the original design and follow the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the treatment of historic properties. The proposed project includes a modified floor plan of the colony
home and a new deck. The modified floor plan shall preserve all defining characteristics and features of the building.
The new deck shall be designed to emphasize unique and original features of the home, such as the bay windows.
The design shall incorporate the original characteristics of the deck with the encircling veranda and utilize minimal
solid wood posts and rails.
Mitigation 5.b.c.1: Conduct a phase one archaeological survey before the issuance of building permits. If resources
are present on the project site, a cultural resource monitor from the Salinan Tribe will be present during all ground
disturbing activities.
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 9
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
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 -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
SOURCES: Project Description; City of Atascadero GIS.
DISCUSSION:
6.a.i As illustrated by Attachment 6, the project is not located on any known earthquake faults. The property contains
no unusual geological formations. Therefore, no impact.
6.a.ii. 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.
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 10
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
6.a.iii.iv. Geographical information systems show the project site to be in an area of low risk for both landslides and
liquefaction, therefore no impact.
6.b. The City of Atascadero GIS indicates the project site to have a low amount of erosion and the soil is considered to
have good drainage. Construction activities on the site will be required to comply with sedimentation and erosion
control measures prescribed by the City Engineer.
6.c.d. The City of Atascadero GIS expansion determination indicates that the bearing soils lie in the “Low” expansion
potential ranges. Due to the site’s non-expansive soils, the impacts are considered less than significant.
6.e. The site will be served by local utility systems and will not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems. Therefore, no impact.
Proposed Mitigation Measures – Geology and Soils
Mitigation Measure 6.b.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.b.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.b.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 placed prior to commencement of grading
activities. This device shall be approved by the City Engineer.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an
agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
SOURCES: Air Pollution Control District (APCD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 2012; Project Description, Site Plan;
Atascadero Climate Action Plan.
DISCUSSION:
7.a.b. According to the San Luis Obispo County APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2012), a project consistent with
an adopted qualified Green House Gas (GHG) reduction plan, the project will not have significant GHG emission
impacts. The proposed project is a high density residential project which does not conflict with the City’s adopted
Climate Action Plan. The project incorporates solar panels on top of covered parking spaces and will designate
electrical car and bicycle parking. The project will implement a sidewalk along El Camino Real and will replant trees
while preserving some native trees along with other drought tolerant landscaping. Additionally, the project will
incorporate building code standards that allow for reduction in energy and water use. The proposed project will utilize
landscaped water quality treatment areas and storm water detention areas to keep drainage onsite. Therefore, the
impact is determined to be less than significant.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 11
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code 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 area
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people living or working
in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people living or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
SOURCES: Project Description; General Plan Land Use Element; EnviroStor; City of Atascadero GIS.
DISCUSSION
8.a.b.c. The proposed project does not generate or involve the use of significant amounts of hazardous materials.
There are no known hazardous materials on the site or nearby. Therefore no impact.
8.d. The property is not a listed hazardous material site on the EnviroStor database. Therefore no impact.
8.e.f. The property is not near an airport. Therefore no impact.
8.g. Proposed project does not impair implementation with an adopted emergency r esponse plan or evacuation plan,
therefore no impact.
8.h. The proposed project is within the urban core and not located near wildlands. Geographical information systems
show the project site to be in a moderate fire hazard zone. Implementation of the Mit igation Measure 8.h.1 will render
this impact to a less than significant threshold.
Proposed Mitigation Measures – Hazard and Hazardous Materials
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 12
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Mitigation Measure 8.h.1: Construction will comply with section the California Building and Fire Codes. Ne w
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.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:
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
previously-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
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?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
SOURCES: Project Description; Project Plans.
DISCUSSION
9.a. The proposed project will add additional wastewater discharge and reduce stormwater infiltration on a primarily
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 13
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
vacant site. Overall, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on water quality standards. Erosion,
sediment, and storm water control measures specified in the Storm Water Control Plan shall be implemented as
necessary to ensure reduced pollutant releases and minimize potential environmental impacts of the project.
Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact.
9.b. The project site is currently primarily vacant and will develop the project from its current state to one with high
density residential apartments. The current vacant site does provide some level of groundwater recharge due it its
vacant state. The project has incorporated the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post-Stormwater Construction
standards. This includes incorporation of low impact development swales and use of underground detention areas that
allow for natural infiltration of stormwater and 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.
9.c. 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 preliminary drainage p lan that incorporates standards outlined by this agency to
reduce on-site drainage impacts. Therefore, this impact is deemed less than significant.
9.d.e.f. The Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan indicates that the proposed project will consist of 6.75 acres of
impervious surface and 0.75 acres of pervious surfacing and landscaping. The proposed project will 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 to be treated on-site rather
than conveyed off-site by typical curb/gutter/ system. The use of underground detention areas and low-impact
development bioswales treat stormwater runoff and allow it to naturally percolate back into the soil, removing harmful
sediments in a natural state. 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. Therefore the impact is considered less than significant.
9.g.h.i.j. Future housing will be outside of the 100-year flood hazard area. The project area is not subject to
inundation by a tsunami. Therefore, the proposed project creates no impact.
Proposed Mitigation Measures – Hydrology and Water Quality
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 AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
SOURCES: Land Use, Open Space & Conservation Element; Project Description; Atascadero Zoning Ordinance.
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 14
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
DISCUSSION:
10.a. The project will not physically divide an established community. The proposed project is in an area that has
different types of zoning next to each other, rangi ng from Residential Suburban to Commercial Park and High Density
Residential. The site is located adjacent to El Camino Real, which is the main economic corridor for the City and the
vacant lot is currently zoned for a project similar to what is proposed. Therefore the proposed project has no impact.
10.b. Residential uses are an appropriate use in the High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan designation as well
as Residential Multiple Family (RMF-20) zone. Surrounding properties are zoned Residential Multiple Family (RMF-
20), Commercial Park (CPK), and Residential Suburban (RS). The site’s zoning and use is consistent with the
General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project creates no impact.
10.c. The project is consistent with the open space and conservation policies identified in the General Plan. Therefore
no impact.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
SOURCES: Project Description; Atascadero General Plan 2025
DISCUSSION:
11.a.b. No mining is proposed as a part of the proposed project. No known mineral resources have been identified in
the area. Therefore, no impact.
12. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
ground-borne vibration or ground-borne 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
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 15
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
the project expose people living or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
SOURCES: Project Description; Noise Element; Noise Ordinance
DISCUSSION:
12.a.b. The project use is consistent with surrounding residential land uses and standards established in the local
general plan and noise ordinance. The project will not result in significant exposure of persons to the generation of
noise levels or ground borne vibration and noise levels. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact.
12.c. The project will not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise le vels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project. Therefore, the impacts are considered less than significant.
12.d. 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.
12.e.f. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or private airstrip. Therefore the project creates no
impact.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
SOURCES: Project Description; General Plan Land Use Element; General Plan Housing Element, 2010 US Census.
DISCUSSION:
13.a. The project proposes twenty (208) apartment units on currently vacant parcels, aside from one colony home that
will be converted into a clubhouse. Based on the 2010 US Census, the City’s average household size is 2.51 persons
per unit. The total projected population of the project at build out is approximately 522 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.
13.b.c. Two (2) vacant single family residences are currently on-site. No housing or persons will be displaced. These
units are vacant. Therefore, no impact.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 16
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
SOURCES: Project description; Atascadero General Plan; Atascadero Municipal Code; City Fire Department, City
Police Department, City Public Works Department
DISCUSSION:
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 City’s adopted Development Impact Fees fall into the following
categories: Drainage Fees; Streets, Road, Bridge Fees; Sewer Fees; Public Safety Fees; and Park Fees,
Miscellaneous Fees. In addition, school fees are collected by the Atascadero Unified School District. The amount of
impact fees is determined by the date that the building permit is issued. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
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 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. 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 additio nal 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 proposed within the development include a community pool, bbq area,
TOT lot, dog run, 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. With the
payment of these fees 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.
15. RECREATION --
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 that
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 17
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
SOURCES: Project Description; Parks and Recreation Element.
DISCUSSION:
15.a. 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. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
15.b. The project proposes one main active recreation area and several smaller passive recreation areas located
throughout the development. The proposed recreational areas are strategically placed to preserve the existing
environment and will not have an adverse effect, therefore the impact is less than significant.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:
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?
SOURCES: Land Use Element; Circulation Element; Atascadero Bike Plan; Traffic Impact Study, W -trans; Project
Description
DISCUSSION:
16.a.b. The Traffic Impact Study concludes the proposed project is estimated to generate 1,383 new daily trips, 106
new AM peak hour trips, and 129 new PM peak hour trips.
Existing Without Project Conditions
The study area includes the following intersections: Del Rio Road/El Camino Real, Del Rio Road/US 101 Northbound
Ramps, Del Rio Road/US 101 Southbound Ramps, Del Rio Road/Ramona Road, and El Camino Real/Project Access.
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 18
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Under existing conditions, the study intersections are operating at LOS B or higher.
Existing Plus Project
Trip distribution calculations are based on data from 2000 census for home-to-work or work-to-home trips to assess
existing conditions with proposed project conditions. At existing conditions with the proposed project, the study
intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably at the same levels of service as without the project.
Queue lengths currently exceed capacity for the southbound right turn movement on the US 101 Southbound Ramp at
Del Rio Road during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours without the project. The addition of project volumes would result in
a slight increase in the queue length, though it has been determined that this increase is less -than-significant.
Exiting Plus Project with Future Walmart
Future traffic volume projections were developed based on data from the Del Rio Road Area Specific Plan EIR
Transportation Impact Analysis from 2012. At the time of certification of the EIR for the Del Rio Road Specific Plan
EIR, analyzed a maximum build out of 181 units at that site. Traffic condition evaluations assumed a roundabout at the
intersection on Del Rio Road/El Camino Real, which would be constructed as part of the Walmart development project,
and is currently under plan check review, and the traffic signal control at the Del Rio Road/US 101 Northbound and
Southbound Ramp intersections were assumed to remain in place. At future conditions with the proposed project, the
study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably at the same levels of serv ice as without the project,
even with the increase in units that was originally analyzed.
Future Plus Project (Walmart / Annex Projects Included)
Vehicle queues in the vicinity of the Del Rio Road freeway interchange would be within acceptable storage und er
future and future plus project conditions. Queue lengths without the project would exceed capacity for the southbound
right turn movement on the US 101 Southbound Ramp at Del Rio Road during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The
addition of the project volumes would result in similar queue length. The variations can be attributed to the stochastic
nature of the SIMTRAFFIC program, therefore the project would not result in increased queue lengths on this
movement. Queue lengths would exceed for the eastbound left turn/through movement on Del Rio Road at the US
101 Northbound Ramp during the p.m. peak hour under future conditions. With the project volumes added, the queue
lengths are expected to increase during the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour, resulting in deficient operation. The
project would contribute traffic volumes toward queues at the Del Rio Road interchange that exceed the available
storage capacity. This condition is worsen with the additional 27 units that were not originally analyzed in both the Del
Rio Road Commercial Area Specific Plan.
The traffic impact fees that go towards mitigating the future plus project condition at the Del Rio Road / US 101
interchange, however this traffic impact fee only anticipates the maximum general plan build out of 181 units, and not
the additional 27 units. Therefore, the applicant will need to mitigated the additional 27 units through an additional
traffic impact fee based on its fair share of impact to the US 101 / Del Rio Road interchange, based on t he cost
estimate established in the September 2014 Management Report, in addition to the standard development impact fee
to be paid on the 181 units. With payment of standard traffic impact fees for the 181 units, and standard traffic impact
fee plus fair share of interchange fee on the 27 bonus units, this impact is considered less than significant with
mitigation.
Transit Service
Transit facilities serving the project site are expected to be adequate, and the project is not expected to affect bus load
factors or service. The proposed project is constructing a sidewalk along El Camino Real and the bicycle facilities have
been found to be adequate.
16.c.d. No changes will occur to the air traffic patterns, and the project will not increase hazards due to sharp curves or
incompatible uses. Therefore, no impact.
16.e. 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 significa nt.
16.f. 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, therefore no impact.
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 19
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Proposed Mitigation Measures – Transportation / Traffic
Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.1: A designated left turn lane that provides access to the project access roadway shall be
provided. This may be accomplished by new striping on EL Camino Real.
Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.2: Site lines shall be improved for vehicles exiting the commercial driveway on the south
side of Principal Ave. This shall include a parking restriction plan to be reviewed approved by the City of Atascadero
Public Works department. This may include red curb striping / signage or any oth er additional devices required to
enforce no parking along this segment.
Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.3: Payment of Circulation System Fee (TIF) shall be made at the time of issuance of
building permits for 181 residential units. Those traffic impact fees shall be collected based on the adopted Citywide
traffic impact fee at the time of building permit issuance. At this time, the adopted traffic impact fee is $3,684 per unit,
which is collected as a part of the overall development impact fee.
Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.4: A Payment of Circulation System Fee (TIF) shall be made prior to the issuance of
building permits for 27 bonus residential units not anticipated by the City’s General Plan that contribute to the
deficiencies to the US 101 / Del Rio Road interchange. Those traffic impact fees shall be collected based on the
adopted traffic impact fee at the time of building permit issuance. At this time, the adopted traffic impact fee is $3,684
per units, which is collected as a part of the overall development impact fee.
An additional, fair share contribution, traffic fee shall be applicable for the 27 bonus units. The applicant shall pay its
fair share based on its percentage impact by the provided traffic study. The fair share contribution shall be based on
the September 23, 2014 Management Report estimating the Del Rio Road / US 101, which is estimated at 12 million
dollars. This additional feel shall be collected as a part of Phase II and Phase III units, or distributed evenl y over all 3
phases. The applicant may further refine the percentage of impact with an additional study to be approved by both the
City Engineer and the Community Development Director.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider that serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 20
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
SOURCES: Project Description
DISCUSSION:
17.a.b.e The parcels within the proposed project boundary may be served by the City’s sewer system. The applicant
will be required to connect all residential units to the City’s sanitary sewer system. The City’s sewer system has
capacity to treat all wastewater generated by the proposed project and will not result in the construction or expansion
of new or existing wastewater facilities, therefore the impact is less than significant.
17.c. On-site storm water drainage has been designed to flow into three (3) detention basins across the middle center
of the project site. The project also proposes a water quality treatment area through landscaping in the recreation area
and also at the front of the site located across El Camino Real. Points of concentrated drainage shall incorporate
natural rock riprap designed to blend with the natural landscape and function to dissipate energy and eliminate
concentrated flow onto adjacent properties. Consistent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post
Stormwater Construction standards, all new discharges are contained on-site and mimics pre-construction stormwater
flow. Therefore, impact is less than significant.
17.d. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC) has indicated that it can provide water to the proposed project.
All property within the City limits is entitled to water from the AMWC The project is not expected to require a significant
quantity of water for the proposed use. Water is pumped from several portions 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 the city’s needs through build out and beyond:
Water demand at build out for multi-family housing is estimated to be at approximately 242 acre foot (AFY). The City is
projected to have enough water to meet the demand with 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). In light of the recent drought,
landscaping will be consistent with the City’s water efficient landscaping ordinance. Turf will not be permitted to be
installed by the developer in any portion of the proposed project for consistency with the City’s ordinance. This is
included as a mitigation measure.
17.f.g. Solid waste will be collected by the City of Atascadero, through contract personnel, and processed to the
Chicago Grade landfill. There is sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project. Therefore the impact is less than
significant.
Proposed Mitigation Measures – Utilities
Mitigation Measure 17.d.1: Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for
review and approval. Landscaping must consist of drought tolerant species and utilize drip irrigation.
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 21
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Initial Study 2016-0003
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
d) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term
environmental goals?
DISCUSSION: The project site consists of undeveloped residential sites which is 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.
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 22
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
SOURCES:
General Plan Land Use Element, City of Atascadero, 2002
Zoning Ordinance, part of Municipal Code, City of Atascadero, as amended through 2015.
Land Use Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Crawford, Multari, & Clark, adopted 2002
CEQA Handbook, Air Quality Control District, April 2012
General Plan Safety Element, City of Atascadero, 2014
General Plan Circulation Element, 2002
General Plan Noise Element, adopted 2002
Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee Nexus Report, 2006
Noise Ordinance, City of Atascadero, 2004
Flood Insurance Rate Map, community-panel number 06079C0827G
Trip Generation, Institute of Traffic Engineers
US Census
PROJECT SOURCES:
Project Description
Site Improvement Plans
Grading Plan
Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Plan
Biological Report
Arborist Report
Geotechnical Soils Report
Traffic Impact Study
Architectural Elevations
CalEEMod
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 23
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Attachment 1
Location & Zoning Map
Zoning: Residential Multi-Family (20 units / acre) (RMF-20)
General Plan Designation: High Density Residential (HDR)
Project Site:
2705, 2605, 2535 El Camino Real
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 24
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Attachment 2
Aerial
Project Site:
2705, 2605, 2535 El Camino Real
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY
10/28/16 Page 25
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Attachment 3
Site Plan
Elevations
Elevations / Sections
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Preliminary Stormwater Drainage Plan
See Attached
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
SHEET INDEX
T.1 COVER SHEET
T.2 INSPIRATION BOARD
T.3 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
A.1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
A.2 SITE SECTIONS
A.3 VEHICULAR ACCESS AND PARKING
A.4 ACCESSIBLE PATHWAYS
A.5 PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS
A.6 PROJECT PHASING PLAN
A.7 MIN. OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT
A.8 MIN. LANDSCAPE COVERAGE EXHIBIT
C.1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
C.2 PLELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
L.1 INSPIRATION IMAGES
L.2 OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN
L.3 COMMON LANDSCAPE AREA
L.4 TYP. COURTYARD LANDSCAPE
L.5 PLANT SCHEDULE
A.9 BLDG. A TYP. UNIT PLANS
A.10 BLDG. A TYP. UNIT PLANS
A.11 BLDG. 1A, 3A & 5A SUBFLOOR
A.12 BLDG. 1A, 3A & 5A FIRST FLOOR
A.13 BLDG. 1A, 3A & 5A SECOND FLOOR
A.14 BLDG. 1A, 3A & 5A THIRD FLOOR
A.15 BLDG. 1A, 3A & 5A ELEVATIONS
A.16 BLDG. 1A, 3A & 5A ELEVATIONS
A.17 BLDG. B TYP. UNIT PLANS
A.18 BLDG. B TYP. UNIT PLANS
A.19 BLDG. B TYP. UNIT PLANS
A.20 BLDG. 2B, 4B & 6B SUBFLOOR
A.21 BLDG. 2B, 4B & 6B FIRST FLOOR
A.22 BLDG. 2B, 4B & 6B SECOND FLOOR
A.23 BLDG. 2B, 4B & 6B THIRD FLOOR
A.24 BLDG. 2B, 4B & 6B ELEVATIONS
A.25 BLDG. 2B, 4B & 6B ELEVATIONS
A.26 CLUBHOUSE FLOOR PLAN
A.27 CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS
A.28 CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS
A.29 TYPICAL CARPORTS
A.30 PERSPECTIVE - PROJECT ENTRY
A.31 PERSPECTIVE - EL CAMINO
A.32 PERSPECTIVE - TYP. COURTYARD
A.33 PERSPECTIVE - CLUBHOUSE
A.34 COLORS AND MATERIALS
TOTAL SHEET COUNT = 44
BUILDING AREAS
BUILDING A (35 UNITS) *
(12) - PLAN A 13,464 SF
(8) - PLAN B 5,544 SF
(9) - PLAN C1 8,856 SF
(5) - PLAN C2 4,840 SF
(1) - STUDIO 450 SF
CARPORTS/TANDEM/STORAGE/STAIRS
COURTYARDS/WALKWAYS 14,286 SF
BUILDING A SUBTOTAL 47,440 SF
(3) - BUILDING A
TOTAL 142,320 SF
*BUILDINGS 1A AND 3A WILL HAVE 1 LESS 1 BED UNIT
FOR A TOTAL OF 34 UNITS PER BLDG.
BUILDING B (35 UNITS)
(10) - PLAN A 11,220 SF
(12) - PLAN B 2,079 SF
(3) - PLAN C1 2,952 SF
(2) - PLAN C2 1,936 SF
(2) - PLAN D 2,108 SF
(6) - PLAN E 6,768 SF
STAIRS/COURTYARDS/
WALKWAYS 7,626 SF
BUILDING B SUBTOTAL 34,689 SF
(3) - BUILDING A
TOTAL 104,067 SF
CARPORTS (172 STALLS)
(31) - STANDARD (4-PACK) 18,414 SF
(12) - COMPACT (4-PACK) 5,568 SF
CARPORT TOTAL 23,982 SF
PROJECT DIRECTORY
CLIENT: LDC COMMERCIAL
PO BOX 2003
MONTEREY, CA 93940
ARCHITECT: RRM DESIGN GROUP
3765 SOUTH HIGUERA ST, SUITE 102
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
CONTACT: EDDIE HERRERA
EMAIL: EMHERRERA@RRMDESIGN.COM
PH: 805-543-1794
LANDSCAPE: RRM DESIGN GROUP
3765 SOUTH HIGUERA ST, SUITE 102
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
CONTACT: WES AROLA
CIVIL: RRM DESIGN GROUP
3765 SOUTH HIGUERA ST, SUITE 102
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
CONTACT: TIM WALTERS
ARBORIST: DAVE’S TREE SERVICE
625 JAMESON COURT
ARROYO GRANDE, CA. 93420
CONTACT: DAVE RAGAN
PH: 805-481-1038
TRAFFIC: W-TRANS
475 14TH STREET, SUITE 290
OAKLAND, CA. 94612
CONTACT: SMADAR BOARDMAN
PH: 510-444-2600
HISTORICAL: BERTRANDO AND BERTANDO
RESEARCH CONSULTANTS
267 FOOTHILL BLVD.
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405
CONTACT: BETSY BERTRANDO
PH: 805-544-1308
DWELLING UNIT AREAS
UNIT A - TOWNHOME
LOWER FLOOR 598 SF
UPPER FLOOR 524 SF
TOTAL LIVING 1,122 SF
DECK/PATIO 64 SF
UNIT B - FLAT
LOWER FLOOR 693 SF
TOTAL 693 SF
DECK/PATIO 45 SF
UNIT C1 - FLAT
LOWER FLOOR 984 SF
TOTAL 984 SF
UNIT C2 - FLAT
LOWER FLOOR 968 SF
TOTAL 968 SF
DECK/PATIO 50 SF
UNIT D - FLAT
LOWER FLOOR 1,054 SF
TOTAL LIVING 1,054 SF
PATIO 59 SF
UNIT E - TOWNHOME
LOWER FLOOR 590 SF
UPPER FLOOR 538 SF
TOTAL LIVING 1,128 SF
DECK 76 SF
PATIO 60 SF
CLUBHOUSE
LOWER FLOOR 1,580 SF
ATTIC 400 SF
TOTAL LIVING 1,128 SF
DECK 910 SF
DENSITY STATISTICS
LOT AREA (NET)
7.55 AC (328,878 SF)
RMF ZONE DENSITY
24 DWELLING UNITS PER NET ACRE
24DU x 7.55 AC = 181 UNITS
15% DENSITY BONUS FOR ATTACHED MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT
OF EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH DESIGN QUALITY THROUGH THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS.
181 UNITS x 0.15 = 27 UNITS
TOTAL DWELLING UNITS ALLOWED = 208 UNITS
T.1
COVER SHEET
DWELLING UNITS
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED
1 BED UNITS 72
2 BED UNITS 136
TOTAL DWELLING UNITS 208
PARKING CALCS.
Parking Calculations
Table 1. Required Parking per City Zoning Code
Unit Type Parking Requirement
Spaces Required
One-bedroom (72) 1.5 spaces/unit1 72 x 1.5 = 108.0
Two-bedroom (136) 2.0 spaces/unit1 136 x 2.0 = 272.0
Guest 1.0 space/5 units 208/5 = 42.0
SUBTOTAL 422.0
Parking Substition2
Car Space Substitution for
Motorcycle Parking
- 21.0
Parking Substition3
Car Space Substitution for
Bicycle Rack Parking
- 21.0
TOTAL – 208 UNITS 380
1 One covered space/unit required
2 City ordinance 9-4.115(b). Parking spaces may be replaced at a ratio of (1) motorcycle space for each (20) spaces.
3 City ordinance 9-4.115(c). Parking spaces may be replaced at a ratio of (1) bike rack for each (20) spaces.
Per Municipal Code Section 9-4.115 (h), the City’s parking standards may be modified
through conditional use permit approval based on specific findings of fact that the
characteristics of a use or its immediate vicinity do not necessitate the number of
parking spaces, type of design, or improvements required by this title and that reduced
parking will be adequate to accommodate on the site all parking needs generated by the
use.
Table 2. Proposed Parking
Unit Type Parking Requirement Spaces Required
One-bedroom (72) 1.5 spaces/unit1 72 x 1.5 = 108.0
Two-bedroom (136) 2.0 spaces/unit1 136 x 2.0 = 272.0
Guest 1.0 space/5 units 208/5 = 42.0
SUBTOTAL 422.0
Parking Substition2
Car Space Substitution for
Motorcycle Parking
- 14.0 (1:30 ratio)
Parking Substition3
Car Space Substitution for
Bicycle Rack Parking
- 21.0
TOTAL – 208 units 387.0
Supplemental off-site
parking (El Camino Real)
+/-25.0
With Supplemental
Guest Parking at El
Camino Real
412.0
1 One covered space/unit required
2 City ordinance 9-4.115(b). Parking spaces may be replaced at a ratio of (1) motorcycle space for each (20) spaces.
3 City ordinance 9-4.115(c). Parking spaces may be replaced at a ratio of (1) bike rack for each (20) spaces.
Table 3. Proposed Parking Breakdown Summary
Parking Space Type Spaces Provided
Uncovered Standard 57
Uncovered Compact 351
Electric Car 6
Carports Standard 1242
Carports Compact 48 1,2
Carports/Tandem (Bldg A) 752
Guest 42 (31 stalls on Street B)
TOTAL Vehicle Stalls 387
Off-Site Supplemental Guest Parking 25
TOTAL Vehicle Stalls Plus Off-Site
Supplemental Guest Parking 412
Motorcycle Stalls 14
Bicycle Racks (5 bikes per rack) 21
TOTAL Motorcycle and Bicycle 35
1 Code allows 20% compact spaces. Total of 20% compact spaces proposed, consisting of uncovered and as carports..
2 Covered Parking. One (1) covered parking space (carport or tandem) per dwelling unit required. Total of 247 proposed; 208 required.
PROJECT DATA
APN: 049-151-063, 049-151-009, 049-151-011
ZONING: RMF 20
ALLOWABLE HEIGHT: 30 FT/2 STORIES
PROPOSED HEIGHT: REFER TO SITE BLDG. SECTIONS
(HEIGHT AND STORY INCREASE THROUGH C.U.P.)
ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE: 50%
SETBACKS:
FRONT: 25 FEET SIDE: 5 FEET REAR: 10 FEET
OPEN SPACE: (SEE SHEET A.7)
REQUIRED: 300 SF PER UNIT
208 UNITS X 300 SF = 62,400 SF MIN. REQUIRED
*SPACE MAY BE PROVIDED IN MORE THAN ONE
LOCATION PROVIDED THAT NO INDIVIDUAL OPEN
SPACE IS LESS THAN 1,000 SF
MIN LANDSCAPE: 25% (SEE SHEET A.8)
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
T.2
PROJECT NARRATIVE
3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
p: (805) 543-1794 • f: (805) 543-4609 www.rrmdesign.com
a California corporation Lenny Grant, Architect C26973 Jerry Michael, PE 36895, LS 6276 Jeff Ferber, LA 2844
EMERALD RIDGE PROJECT NARRATIVE
Applicant: LDC Commercial
Representative: RRM Design Group
Addresses: 2605, 2555, &2705 El Camino Real
APNs: 049-151-063, 049-151-049, 049-151-011)
Land Use/Zoning: Residential Multiple-Family High Density (RMF -20)
Project Description: 208 residential units on 7.55 acres
The units include:
1) One-bedroom units (72); and
2) Two-bedroom units (136).
Density Calculations
Per Municipal Code Section 9-3.173 (f), a density bonus may be granted, subject to
approval by the City Council through a master plan of development (CUP), consistent
with Sections 9-3.801 through 9-3.806. In addition, General Plan Policy 2.1 supports
approval of a 15% density bonus through the CUP upon a finding of superior design.
Allowed Density: 24 units/acre
Calculation: 24 x 7.55 = 181.2
15% Density Bonus: 181 x 0.15 = 27
Proposed Density: 181 + 27 = 208 units
Proposed Density – Rationale for Support:
Consistent with the following Housing Element goals and policies:
1) Goal HOS 1: Promote diverse and high-quality housing opportunities to meet the
needs of all segments of the community.
2) Policy 1.2: Encourage a variety of high-quality housing types in multi-family areas.
3) Goal HOS 3: Ensure that an adequate amount of rental housing exists.
4) Policy 4.3: Encourage attractive architecture and site landscaping that respect terrain
and native trees.
5) Policy 6.3: Encourage multi-family projects that provide affordable housing (affordable
by design).
6) Policy 10.1: Encourage infill and intensification in areas suitable for housing within the
Urban Services Line (USL).
Parking Calculations
Table 1. Required Parking per City Zoning Code
Unit Type Parking Requirement
Spaces Required
One-bedroom (72) 1.5 spaces/unit1 72 x 1.5 = 108.0
Two-bedroom (136) 2.0 spaces/unit1 136 x 2.0 = 272.0
Guest 1.0 space/5 units 208/5 = 42.0
SUBTOTAL 422.0
Parking Substition2
Car Space Substitution for
Motorcycle Parking
- 21.0
Parking Substition3
Car Space Substitution for
Bicycle Rack Parking
- 21.0
TOTAL – 208 UNITS 380
1 One covered space/unit required
2 City ordinance 9-4.115(b). Parking spaces may be replaced at a ratio of (1) motorcycle space for each (20) spaces.
3 City ordinance 9-4.115(c). Parking spaces may be replaced at a ratio of (1) bike rack for each (20) spaces.
Per Municipal Code Section 9-4.115 (h), the City’s parking standards may be modified
through conditional use permit approval based on specific findings of fact that the
characteristics of a use or its immediate vicinity do not necessitate the number of
parking spaces, type of design, or improvements required by this title and that reduced
parking will be adequate to accommodate on the site all parking needs generated by the
use.
Table 2. Proposed Parking
Unit Type Parking Requirement Spaces Required
One-bedroom (72) 1.5 spaces/unit1 72 x 1.5 = 108.0
Two-bedroom (136) 2.0 spaces/unit1 136 x 2.0 = 272.0
Guest 1.0 space/5 units 208/5 = 42.0
SUBTOTAL 422.0
Parking Substition2
Car Space Substitution for
Motorcycle Parking
- 14.0 (1:30 ratio)
Parking Substition3
Car Space Substitution for
Bicycle Rack Parking
- 21.0
TOTAL – 208 units 387.0
Supplemental off-site
parking (El Camino Real)
+/-25.0
With Supplemental
Guest Parking at El
Camino Real
412.0
1 One covered space/unit required
2 City ordinance 9-4.115(b). Parking spaces may be replaced at a ratio of (1) motorcycle space for each (20) spaces.
3 City ordinance 9-4.115(c). Parking spaces may be replaced at a ratio of (1) bike rack for each (20) spaces.
Table 3. Proposed Parking Breakdown Summary
Parking Space Type Spaces Provided
Uncovered Standard 57
Uncovered Compact 351
Electric Car 6
Carports Standard 1242
Carports Compact 48 1,2
Carports/Tandem (Bldg A) 752
Guest 42 (31 stalls on Street B)
TOTAL Vehicle Stalls 387
Off-Site Supplemental Guest Parking 25
TOTAL Vehicle Stalls Plus Off-Site
Supplemental Guest Parking 412
Motorcycle Stalls 14
Bicycle Racks (5 bikes per rack) 21
TOTAL Motorcycle and Bicycle 35
1 Code allows 20% compact spaces. Total of 20% compact spaces proposed, consisting of uncovered and as carports..
2 Covered Parking. One (1) covered parking space (carport or tandem) per dwelling unit required. Total of 247 proposed; 208 required.
Emerald Ridge Narrative
Page 5 of 5
Building Height
Per Municipal Code Section 9-4.113 (b)(1), height may be modified through the CUP
process provided that the “Planning Commission first finds the project will not result in
substantial detrimental effects on the enjoyment and use of adjoining properties and that the
modified height will not exceed the lifesaving equipment capabilities of the Fire Department.”
In order to meet full density consistent with City Housing Element goals and to protect
on-site resources, the applicant is requesting three-story apartment buildings with
subterranean parking garage level at some buildings.
Reasons to support the added height include:
1) Development along the main project streetscape is a combination of two and three
stories, so there are gaps in the massing and a variety of roof heights.
2) Taller buildings are oriented to the center and back of the site where they do not
impact the privacy or solar access of adjacent properties.
3) The apparent mass of the of the building is minimized by stepping the building
foundation with the slope of the existing topography.
4) Development is placed along the perimeter of the site leaving a large central open area
to accommodate preservation of the existing Colony House and healthy native oak
trees per the Arborist’s Report.
5) Development preserves the existing colony home and offers adaptive reuse of existing
home by converting the structure into common clubhouse facility.
6) Development provides large centralize common open space to allow community
connectivity.
Conditional Use Permit - Rationale for support:
1) The project will provide community linkage to pedestrian and vehicular access by
working with City staff to incorporate Street “B” to the project.
2) Project respects site topography; the building footprints have been sited to step with
elevation changes and help minimize extensive grading. The goal is to have balanced cut
and fill on site.
3) Heritage oak trees will be saved as feasible, consistent with the recommendations of the
Arborist, and adequate room provided for their health and survival.
4) The historic Colony House will be rehabilitated and saved in place with its adaptive
reuse as a project amenity (central clubhouse).
5) Garages are provided which will reduce the visual impact of total vehicles parked on
site.
6) Community storage provided to help reduce visual clutter.
jmwN:\0201\0238-01-RS15-Emerald-Ridge-Apartments-Entitlement-Con-Docs\Planning\Narrative\eh-Emerald-Ridge-Project-Narrative-8-31-16-Admin.docx
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
INSPIRATION IMAGE BOARD
T.3
880
8 9 0 9009009 00 9109208 8 0
8 9 0
9 0 0
91 0
920
880
8 9 0
9 0 0
9 1 0
8 7 2
8 7 260"OAK12"OAK17"OAK24"PINE14"TR22"OAK10"OAK22"TR22"TR(DEAD)3-12"TR5-8"TR4-10"TR13"OAK8"OAK6"OAK6"TR10"OAK6"TR2-15"OAK12"OAK3-10"OAK9"TR(DEAD)24"TR36"OAK15"OAK10"OAK14"OAK6"OAK10"OAK3"OAK2-10"OAK10"OAK10"OAK15"OAK15"OAK20"PINE6"OAK27"TR9"OAK16"OAK15"OAK2-10"OAK18"OAK5"TR4"OAK17"TR(DEAD)2-12"TR10"OAK3-10"TR12"TR14"TR2-16"OAK8"TR9"OAK15"TR6"OAK8"OAK3"OAK6"OAK8"OAK8"OAK10"OAK10"OAK3"OAK5"OAK5"OAK5"OAK5"OAK5"OAK5"OAK5"OAK3"OAK5"OAK5"OAK3"OAK6"OAK12"OAK5"OAK12"OAK6"OAK6"OAK6"OAK6"OAK8"OAK8"OAK6"OAK60"OAK60"OAK60"OAK3-4"OAK2-15"OAK30"OAK22"TR18"TR4-10"TR30"OAK6"OAK40"OAKSMHRIM874.14INVERT=863.23SMHRIM873.50INVERT=863.61LOT14PORTIONOFLOT15E L C A M I N O
R E A LCC-2000-0544733MB25LOT16CONCRETEDROPINLETTG=873.25INV=871.25DROPINLETTC872.88INV=870.00EXISTINGPAVEDDRIVEWAYSHEDSHEDSHEDGARAGEHOUSE3MB2524"PIPECUR B &GUTT ER
E D G E O F
P A V E M E N T
EDGE OF
PA VE ME NT
C U R B &
G U T T E R
E D G E O F
P A V E M E N T
C U R B &
G U T T E R
A C
B E R M
DROPINLETTG871.30DROPINLETTG871.10WALLWALLWALLCONCRETETELEPHONEPULLBOXGMSWM WMWMS
WV
WMDATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
T.4
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
SCALE: 1”=30’
0 15 30 60
8 7 3 .2 5 +/-
8 7 8 .8 0
8 7 6 .4 6
8 7 4 .5 1
ramp
ramp60"OAK12"OAK17"OAK24"PINE14"TR22"OAK10"OAK3-12"TR5-8"TR4-10"TR13"OAK6"TR2-15"OAK9"TR(DEAD)24"TR36"OAK15"OAK14"OAK10"OAK3"OAK2-10"OAK10"OAK10"OAK15"OAK15"OAK20"PINE6"OAK27"TR9"OAK16"OAK15"OAK2-10"OAK18"OAK5"TR17"TR(DEAD)2-12"TR10"OAK3-10"TR12"TR14"TR2-16"OAK8"TR9"OAK15"TR8"OAK3"OAK6"OAK8"OAK8"OAK10"OAK10"OAK5"OAK5"OAK3"OAK5"OAK5"OAK6"OAK12"OAK12"OAK6"OAK6"OAK6"OAK6"OAK8"OAK8"OAK6"OAK60"OAK60"OAK60"OAK30"OAK22"TR18"TR4-10"TR30"OAK6"OAK40"OAK880
8 9 0 9009009208 8 0
8 90
910
880
8 9 0
9 1 0
C
A.2
CLUBHOUSE
BUILDING 1
TYPE A
BUILDING 2
TYPE B
BUILDING 3
TYPE A
B U I L D I N G 4
T Y P E B
B U I L D I N G 6
T Y P E B
B U I L D I N G 5
T Y P E A
POOL AREATOT-LOT
AREA
22P
914' F.F.
905' F.F.
888' F.F.
8 8 7 F .F .
902' F.F.
STANDARD
CARPORT
CO M P A C T
CA R P O R T
S T A N D A R D
CA R P O R T
COMPACTCARPORTCOMPACTCARPORTS T A N D A R D
C A R P OR T
STANDARD
CARPORT
STANDARD
CARPORT
STANDARD
CARPORT
T/R
T/R
T/R
T/R
T/R
T/R
1 HC E L E CT R I C S T A L L
S E T B A C K5' - 0 "SETBACK10' - 0"SETBACK10' - 0"SETBACK
5' - 0"
COURTYARD
C O U R T Y AR D
COURTYARD
COURTYARD
CO U R T Y A RD
C O U R T Y A R D
C O V E R E D T A N D E M
COVERED TANDEM
COVERED TANDEM
VIEW DECK
HC
MAIL
KIOSK
PROJECT
ENTRY
SIGN
1 2 ' - 0"
6 ' - 0 "
8 ' - 6 "
1 5 ' - 0 1 /2 "
5P
4P
14' - 6 1/2"RAMPRAMP25' - 0"B
A.2
A
A.2 RAMPBBQ
AREA
40' - 0"28' - 7"
SPA AREA
BBQ
AREA
CARPORT
TEMPORARY
PROJECT TURN
AROUND AREA
STANDARDCARPORT25' - 0"14
14
12
8
3
904' F.F.
9 1 4 ' F .F .
9 0 4 ' F .F .
1 1 ' - 5 1 /2 "
1 4 ' - 11 1 /2 "
1 0 ' - 0"
25
25
5
8C 2C
RAMP
4
15
25' - 0"25' - 0"27' - 0"
895' F.F.25
21
19 26' - 0"24' - 0"17
18C
19C
MAIN
ENTRY
COMMON
AREA
POOL
ENTRY
12
25' - 0"3C
5
15
2
18
4
4
2 4 ' - 0"24' - 0"12' - 0"
878' F.F.
COURT
YARD
SETBACK25' - 0"8 7 7 ' F .F .
C O U R T
Y AR D
P E D E S T R I A N T R A I L
P E D E S T R I A N T R A I L
PEDESTRIAN TRAIL
R A M P
1 0 ' - 0"
8 8 9 F .F .
8 7 9 ' F .F .
C O U R T
Y AR D
ACCESS TO
FUTURE
STREET "A"
(NOT A PART)
PROVIDE 6' HiGH CONTINUOUS SOLID WOOD FENCE
ALONG NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE INNER EDGE
25
DOG RUN
5
5
HCHC
HC
5 E L EC T R I C
ST AL L S
HC
1 H C C A R P O R T ST A L L
1 H C U N C O V E R E D S T AL L
1 HC CARPORT STALL
HC
1 HC CARPORT STALL
1 HC
CARPORT
STALL HC
1 HC
TANDEM
STALL
HC
1 HC
TANDEM
STALL
HC
1 HC
TANDEM
STALL
HC
HC
HC
1 HC UNCOVERED STALL
1 H C U N C O V E R E D S T AL L
HC
2 HC UNCOVERED STALLS
1 HC UNCOVERED STALL
HC
1 HC
UNCOVERED
STALL HC
1
5
CO M P A C T
CA R P O R T
CO M P A C T
CA R P O R T
CO M P A C T
CA R P O R T
22C
S T A N D A R D
C A R P O R T
S T A N D A R D
CA R P O R T
STANDARD
CARPORT
STANDARD
CARPORT
STANDARD
CARPORT
STANDARD
CARPORT
STANDARD
CARPORT
8C
8C
A.1
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1”=30’
0 15 30 60
BLDG. 5A U.F.F.
914' - 0"
BLDG. 5A L.F.F.
904' - 0"
BLDG. 6B U.F.F.
889' - 0"
BLDG. 6B L.F.F.
879' - 0"
CARPORT
PL
PL
CARPORT
CARPORTTOWNHOME
FLAT
FLAT
GARAGE STORAGE
DECK TOWNHOME
FLAT
COMMON OPEN SPACEEL CAMINO REAL
889' - 0" UPPER F.F.879' - 0" LOWER F.F.
904' - 0" LOWER F.F.914' - 0" UPPER F.F.36' - 0"34' - 0"37' - 6"27' - 6"10' - 0"32' - 6"950' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT948' - 0" PROPOSED TOWER HEIGHT
941' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
BUILDING 5ABUILDING 6BBLDG. HEIGHT36' - 0"BLDG. HEIGHT35' - 6"924' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
915' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
LINE OF (E) SITE GRADE
6' High Solid
Wood Fence
CLUBHOUSE F.F.
902' - 0"
BLDG. 4B L.F.F.
877' - 0"
BLDG. 4B U.F.F.
887' - 0"
PL
887' - 0" UPPER F.F.
877' - 0" LOWER F.F.
TOWNHOME
FLAT
BLDG. HEIGHT36' - 0"BLDG. HEIGHT35' - 6"913' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
922' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
BUILDING 4B
CARPORT
LINE OF (E) SITE GRADE
CARPORT
CARPORT
CLUBHOUSE
EL CAMINO REAL
BLDG. 1A U.F.F.
905' - 0"
BLDG. 2B L.F.F.
878' - 0"
BLDG. 2B U.F.F.
888' - 0"
BLDG. 1A L.F.F.
895' - 0"
PL
PL
CARPORT CARPORT
CARPORT
CARPORT CARPORT
CARPORT CARPORT
923' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
914' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
BLDG. HEIGHT 35' - 6"888' - 0" UPPER F.F.BLDG. HEIGHT36' - 0"878' - 0" LOWER F.F.
BUILDING 2B
TOWNHOME
FLAT
941' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
932' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
BUILDING 1ABLDG. HEIGHT37' - 6"BLDG. HEIGHT36' - 0"939' - 0" PROPOSED TOWER HEIGHT
TOWER HEIGHT34' - 0"TOWNHOME
FLAT
DECK
FLAT
GARAGE STORAGE
LINE OF (E) SITE GRADE LINE OF (E) SITE GRADE
EL CAMINO REAL APARTMENTS27' - 6"GARAGE10' - 0"6' High Solid
Wood Fence
BLDG. 3A L.F.F.
904' - 0"
BLDG. 3A U.F.F.
914' - 0"
PL
TOWNHOME
BUILDING 3A
TOWNHOMETOWNHOME
FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT
FLAT
GARAGE STORAGE
914' - 0" UPPER F.F.904' - 0" LOWER F.F.BLDG. HEIGHT36' - 6"GARAGE10' - 0"APARTMENTS36' - 0"BLDG. HEIGHT46' - 0"950' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT 950' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
LINE OF (E) SITE GRADE BLDG. EXPOSURE+/- 30' - 6"6' High Solid
Wood
Fence
C:\Users\emherrera\Documents\SITE PLAN-CENTRAL_emherrera.rvt10/5/2016 4:37:05 PM
A.20238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGESITE SECTIONS
05/26/2016
1" = 20'-0"A.3 A.2
Section CC
1" = 20'-0"A.3 A.2
Section 2B
1" = 20'-0"A.3 A.2
Section AA
BLDG. 5A U.F.F.
914' - 0"
BLDG. 5A L.F.F.
904' - 0"
BLDG. 6B U.F.F.
889' - 0"
BLDG. 6B L.F.F.
879' - 0"
CARPORT
PL
PL
CARPORT
CARPORTTOWNHOME
FLAT
FLAT
GARAGE STORAGE
DECK TOWNHOME
FLAT
COMMON OPEN SPACEEL CAMINO REAL
889' - 0" UPPER F.F.879' - 0" LOWER F.F.
904' - 0" LOWER F.F.914' - 0" UPPER F.F.36' - 0"34' - 0"37' - 6"27' - 6"10' - 0"32' - 6"950' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT948' - 0" PROPOSED TOWER HEIGHT
941' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
BUILDING 5ABUILDING 6BBLDG. HEIGHT36' - 0"BLDG. HEIGHT35' - 6"924' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
915' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
LINE OF (E) SITE GRADE
6' High Solid
Wood Fence
CLUBHOUSE F.F.
902' - 0"
BLDG. 4B L.F.F.
877' - 0"
BLDG. 4B U.F.F.
887' - 0"
PL
887' - 0" UPPER F.F.
877' - 0" LOWER F.F.
TOWNHOME
FLAT
BLDG. HEIGHT36' - 0"BLDG. HEIGHT35' - 6"913' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
922' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
BUILDING 4B
CARPORT
LINE OF (E) SITE GRADE
CARPORT
CARPORT
CLUBHOUSE
EL CAMINO REAL
BLDG. 1A U.F.F.
905' - 0"
BLDG. 2B L.F.F.
878' - 0"
BLDG. 2B U.F.F.
888' - 0"
BLDG. 1A L.F.F.
895' - 0"
PL
PL
CARPORT CARPORT
CARPORT
CARPORT CARPORT
CARPORT CARPORT
923' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
914' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
BLDG. HEIGHT 35' - 6"888' - 0" UPPER F.F.BLDG. HEIGHT36' - 0"878' - 0" LOWER F.F.
BUILDING 2B
TOWNHOME
FLAT
941' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
932' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
BUILDING 1ABLDG. HEIGHT37' - 6"BLDG. HEIGHT36' - 0"939' - 0" PROPOSED TOWER HEIGHT
TOWER HEIGHT34' - 0"TOWNHOME
FLAT
DECK
FLAT
GARAGE STORAGE
LINE OF (E) SITE GRADE LINE OF (E) SITE GRADE
EL CAMINO REAL APARTMENTS27' - 6"GARAGE10' - 0"6' High Solid
Wood Fence
BLDG. 3A L.F.F.
904' - 0"
BLDG. 3A U.F.F.
914' - 0"
PL
TOWNHOME
BUILDING 3A
TOWNHOMETOWNHOME
FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT
FLAT
GARAGE STORAGE
914' - 0" UPPER F.F.904' - 0" LOWER F.F.BLDG. HEIGHT36' - 6"GARAGE10' - 0"APARTMENTS36' - 0"BLDG. HEIGHT46' - 0"950' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT 950' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
LINE OF (E) SITE GRADE BLDG. EXPOSURE+/- 30' - 6"6' High Solid
Wood
Fence
C:\Users\emherrera\Documents\SITE PLAN-CENTRAL_emherrera.rvt10/5/2016 4:37:05 PM
A.20238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGESITE SECTIONS
05/26/2016
1" = 20'-0"A.3 A.2
Section CC
1" = 20'-0"A.3 A.2
Section 2B
1" = 20'-0"A.3 A.2
Section AA
BLDG. 5A U.F.F.
914' - 0"
BLDG. 5A L.F.F.
904' - 0"
BLDG. 6B U.F.F.
889' - 0"
BLDG. 6B L.F.F.
879' - 0"
CARPORT
PL
PL
CARPORT
CARPORTTOWNHOME
FLAT
FLAT
GARAGE STORAGE
DECK TOWNHOME
FLAT
COMMON OPEN SPACEEL CAMINO REAL
889' - 0" UPPER F.F.879' - 0" LOWER F.F.
904' - 0" LOWER F.F.914' - 0" UPPER F.F.36' - 0"34' - 0"37' - 6"27' - 6"10' - 0"32' - 6"950' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT948' - 0" PROPOSED TOWER HEIGHT
941' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
BUILDING 5ABUILDING 6BBLDG. HEIGHT36' - 0"BLDG. HEIGHT35' - 6"924' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
915' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
LINE OF (E) SITE GRADE
6' High Solid
Wood Fence
CLUBHOUSE F.F.
902' - 0"
BLDG. 4B L.F.F.
877' - 0"
BLDG. 4B U.F.F.
887' - 0"
PL
887' - 0" UPPER F.F.
877' - 0" LOWER F.F.
TOWNHOME
FLAT
BLDG. HEIGHT36' - 0"BLDG. HEIGHT35' - 6"913' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
922' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
BUILDING 4B
CARPORT
LINE OF (E) SITE GRADE
CARPORT
CARPORT
CLUBHOUSE
EL CAMINO REAL
BLDG. 1A U.F.F.
905' - 0"
BLDG. 2B L.F.F.
878' - 0"
BLDG. 2B U.F.F.
888' - 0"
BLDG. 1A L.F.F.
895' - 0"
PL
PL
CARPORT CARPORT
CARPORT
CARPORT CARPORT
CARPORT CARPORT
923' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
914' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
BLDG. HEIGHT 35' - 6"888' - 0" UPPER F.F.BLDG. HEIGHT36' - 0"878' - 0" LOWER F.F.
BUILDING 2B
TOWNHOME
FLAT
941' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
932' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
BUILDING 1ABLDG. HEIGHT37' - 6"BLDG. HEIGHT36' - 0"939' - 0" PROPOSED TOWER HEIGHT
TOWER HEIGHT34' - 0"TOWNHOME
FLAT
DECK
FLAT
GARAGE STORAGE
LINE OF (E) SITE GRADE LINE OF (E) SITE GRADE
EL CAMINO REAL APARTMENTS27' - 6"GARAGE10' - 0"6' High Solid
Wood Fence
BLDG. 3A L.F.F.
904' - 0"
BLDG. 3A U.F.F.
914' - 0"
PL
TOWNHOME
BUILDING 3A
TOWNHOMETOWNHOME
FLAT FLAT FLAT FLAT
FLAT
GARAGE STORAGE
914' - 0" UPPER F.F.904' - 0" LOWER F.F.BLDG. HEIGHT36' - 6"GARAGE10' - 0"APARTMENTS36' - 0"BLDG. HEIGHT46' - 0"950' - 0" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT 950' - 6" PROPOSED BLDG. HEIGHT
LINE OF (E) SITE GRADE BLDG. EXPOSURE+/- 30' - 6"6' High Solid
Wood
Fence
C:\Users\emherrera\Documents\SITE PLAN-CENTRAL_emherrera.rvt
10/5/2016 4:37:05 PM
A.20238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGESITE SECTIONS
05/26/2016
1" = 20'-0"A.3 A.2
Section CC
1" = 20'-0"A.3 A.2
Section 2B
1" = 20'-0"A.3 A.2
Section AA
A.2
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
SITE CROSS-SECTIONS
SITE SECTION C
SITE SECTION B
SITE SECTION A
SCALE: 1”=30’
0 15 30 60
COVERED COMPACT PARKING
COVERED STANDARD PARKING
COVERED TANDEM PARKING
PARKING LEGEND
UNCOVERED STANDARD PARKING
UNCOVERED COMPACT PARKING
OFF-SITE “NON-REQUIRED”
SUPPLEMENTAL GUEST PARKING
ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING
MOTORCYCLE PARKING
BICYCLE PARKING
BUILDING 2
TYPE B
BUILDING 4
TYPE B
BUILDING 6
TYPE B
BUILDING 5
TYPE A
BUILDING 1
TYPE A
BUILDING 3
TYPE A
STREET ‘B’CLUBHOUSE
COMMON
AREA
EL CAMINO RE
A
L
HC
HC
HC HC
HC
HCHC
HC
HC HC
HCHC
HCHC
HC
STANDARD STALLS: A MINIMUM OF 2% OF EACH PARKING
STALL TYPE TO BE ADA COMPLIANT AND ON AN ACCESSIBLE
ROUTE. ACCESSIBLE SITE PARKING SHALL COMPLY THE LATEST
BUILDING CODE ADDITION AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF
ATASCADERO.
MIN. 2 ACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED, 3 PROVIDED
MIN. 3 ACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED, 4 PROVIDED
SEE SHEET A.1 FOR HC LOCATIONS
MIN. 2 ACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED, 7 PROVIDED
SEE SHEET A.1 FOR HC LOCATIONS
MIN. 1 ACCESSIBLE STALLS REQUIRED, 1 PROVIDED
SEE SHEET A.1 FOR HC LOCATIONS
A.3
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
VEHICULAR ACCESS AND PARKING
SCALE: 1”=30’
0 15 30 60
8 7 3 .2 5 +/-
8 7 8 .8 0
8 7 6 .4 6
8 7 4 .5 1
ramp
ramp
BUILDING 1
TYPE A
BUILDING 2
TYPE B
BUILDING 3
TYPE A
B U I L D I N G 4
T Y P E B
B U I L D I N G 6
T Y P E B
B U I L D I N G 5
T Y P E A
CLUBHOUSE
A.4
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
SCALE: 1”=30’
0 15 30 60
8 7 3 .2 5 +/-
8 7 8 .8 0
8 7 6 .4 6
8 7 4 .5 1
ramp
ramp
CLUBHOUSE
BUILDING 1
TYPE A
BUILDING 2
TYPE B
BUILDING 3
TYPE A
B U I L D I N G 4
T Y P E B
B U I L D I N G 6
T Y P E B
B U I L D I N G 5
T Y P E A
A.5
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
PROJECT PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS
SCALE: 1”=30’
0 15 30 60
8 7 3 .2 5 +/-
8 7 8 .8 0
8 7 6 .4 6
8 7 4 .5 1
ramp
ramp
CLUBHOUSEBUILDING 1
TYPE A
BUILDING 2
TYPE B
BUILDING 3
TYPE A
B U I L D I N G 4
T Y P E B
B U I L D I N G 6
T Y P E B
B U I L D I N G 5
T Y P E A
A.6
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
PROJECT PHASING PLAN
TENTATIVE PROJECT
PHASING SUMMARY
PHASE 1
STREET ‘B’
BUILDING 1A
BUILDING 2B
PROJECT ENTRY MONUMENT
PARKING/CARPORTS
PHASE 2
BUILDING 3A
BUILDING 4B
CLUBHOUSE/TOT-LOT AREA
PARKING/CARPORTS
PHASE 3
BUILDING 5A
BUILDING 6B
COMMON POOL AREA
PARKING/CARPORTS
PHASE 1 PHASE 2
PHASE 3
SCALE: 1”=30’
0 15 30 60
VEHICLE PARKING AND DRIVEWAY
ACCESS
OPEN SPACE AREA (81,000 SF)
LEGEND
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
A.7
DATE: MAY 26, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2535, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
MINIMUM OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT
SCALE: 1”=30’
0 15 30 60
CLUBHOUSE
BUILDING 1
TYPE A
BUILDING 2
TYPE B
BUILDING 3
TYPE A
B U I L D I N G 4
T Y P E B
B U I L D I N G 6
T Y P E B
B U I L D I N G 5
T Y P E A
COMMON
OPEN AREA
STREET 'B'E L C A M I N O R E A L
OPEN SPACE
CALCULATION
REQUIRED:
300 SF PER UNIT
208 UNITS X 300 SF = 62,400 SF MIN.
REQUIRED *SPACE MAY BE PROVIDED
IN MORE THAN ONE LOCATION
PROVIDED THAT NO INDIVIDUAL OPEN
SPACE IS LESS THAN 1,000 SF
PROVIDED: 81,000 SF
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
VEHICLE ACCESS PAVEMENT
LANDSCAPE AREA (128,200 SF)
LEGEND
A.8
DATE: MAY 26, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2535, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE COVERAGE EXHIBIT
SCALE: 1”=30’
0 15 30 60
CLUBHOUSE
BUILDING 1
TYPE A
BUILDING 2
TYPE B
BUILDING 3
TYPE A
B U I L D I N G 4
T Y P E B
B U I L D I N G 6
T Y P E B
B U I L D I N G 5
T Y P E A
COMMON
OPEN AREA
STREET 'B'E L C A M I N O R E A L
LANDSCAPE
COVERAGE
CALCULATION
REQUIRED:
LOT AREA 328,878 SF (7.55 AC)
MIN. 25% REQUIRED
82,219.5 SF
PROVIDED: 128,200 SF
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
C.1SCALE: 1”=30’
0 15 30 60
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN
C.2SCALE: 1”=30’
0 15 30 60
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
STORM WATER CONTROL PLAN
C.3SCALE: 1”=30’
0 15 30 60
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
landscape inspiration images|community space & courtyards
L.1
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
OVERALL LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN
L.2SCALE: 1”=30’
0 15 30 60
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 5
CLUBHOUSE
SHEET L.4
SHEET L.3
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 4
EL CAMINO REAL
BUILDING 6
SITE KEY
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
COMMON OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPE PLAN
L.3
WATER WALL FEATURE
ELEVATED PLANTER SEAT WALL
HEIGHT WITH SPECIMEN
MAGNOLIA TREE
DECORATIVE PAVING
DECORATIVE PAVERS WITH
ACCENT BANDING
SHADE AND DROUGHT TOLERANT
PLANTINGS, TYP.
LARGE ACCENT POTTERY TO
MATCH ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
1
LANDSCAPE KEY:
2
3
4
5
6
1
2 4
5
3
6
WATER WALL FEATURE
ELEVATED PLANTER SEAT WALL
HEIGHT WITH SPECIMEN
MAGNOLIA TREE
DECORATIVE PAVING
DECORATIVE PAVERS WITH
ACCENT BANDING
SHADE AND DROUGHT TOLERANT
PLANTINGS, TYP.
LARGE ACCENT POTTERY TO
MATCH ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
1
LANDSCAPE KEY:
2
3
4
5
6
1
2 4
5
3
6
SITE KEY
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
TYPICAL BUILDING COURTYARD LANDSCAPE PLAN
L.4
TREES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT
ACER RUBRUM `ARMSTRONG`ARMSTRONG RED MAPLE 24"BOX
ARBUTUS X `MARINA`ARBUTUS MULTI-TRUNK 24"BOX
ARBUTUS X `MARINA`ARBUTUS STANDARD 24"BOX
LAURUS NOBILIS SWEET BAY 24"BOX
MAGNOLIA X SOULANGIANA SAUCER MAGNOLIA MULTI-TRUNK 60"BOX
OLEA EUROPAEA `SWAN HILL` TM SWAN HILL OLIVE FIELD GROWN
PLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE MULTI-TRUNK 24"BOX
PLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE 24"BOX
PYRUS CALLERYANA ORNAMENTAL PEAR 24"BOX
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 24"BOX
TRISTANIA CONFERTA BRISBANE BOX 24"BOX
X CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS CHITALPA 24"BOX
SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME CONT
ALYOGYNE HUEGELII `SANTA CRUZ`BLUE HIBISCUS 5 GAL
ANIGOZANTHOS MIX KANGAROO PAW 1 GAL
ANISODONTEA CAPENSIS CAPE MALLOW 5 GAL
ARBUTUS UNEDO `COMPACTA`DWARF STRAWBERRY TREE 5 GAL
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA `HOWARD MCMINN`HOWARD MCMINN MANZANITA 5 GAL
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS DENSIFLORA `SENTINEL`MANZANITA 5 GAL
BERGENIA CORDIFOLIA HEARTLEAF BERGENIA 1 GAL
CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA `KARL FOERSTER`FEATHER REED GRASS 1 GAL
CAREX DIVULSA BERKELEY SEDGE 1 GAL
CEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS `YANKEE POINT`CALIFORNIA LILAC 1 GAL
CEANOTHUS X `BLUE JEANS`CALIFORNIA LILAC 5 GAL
CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM `EL CAMPO`CAPE RUSH 5 GAL
CISTUS LADANIFER CRIMSON SPOT ROCKROSE 1 GAL
DIANELLA CAERULEA `CASSA BLUE`CASSA BLUE FLAX LILY 1 GAL
PLANT SCHEDULE
DIANELLA CAERULEA `VARIEGATA`BLUE FLAX LILY 1 GAL
DIETES VEGETA AFRICAN IRIS 1 GAL
ECHIUM CANDICANS PRIDE OF MADEIRA 5 GAL
HEUCHERA MAXIMA ISLAND ALUM ROOT 1 GAL
HEUCHERA MIX CORAL BELLS 1 GAL
HYDRANGEA QUERCIFOLIA `SNOW QUEEN`SNOW QUEEN OAKLEAF HYDRANGEA 5 GAL
JUNCUS PATENS CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH 1 GAL
LEONOTIS LEONURUS LION`S TAIL 5 GAL
LEUCADENDRON X `SAFARI SUNSET`CONEBUSH 5 GAL
LEYMUS CONDENSATUS `CANYON PRINCE`NATIVE BLUE RYE 1 GAL
LIRIOPE MUSCARI `MAJESTIC`MAJESTIC LIRIOPE 1 GAL
LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA `BREEZE`DWARF MAT RUSH 1 GAL
LOROPETALUM CHINENSE GREEN LOROPETALUM 5 GAL
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS 1 GAL
NEPETA X FAASSENII `WALKERS LOW`WALKERS LOW CATMINT 1 GAL
PENNISETUM SPATHIOLATUM RYE PUFFS 1 GAL
PHORMIUM X `SEA JADE`NEW ZEALAND FLAX 5 GAL
PHORMIUM X `SHIRAZ`NEW ZEALAND FLAX 5 GAL
POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM WESTERN SWORD FERN 1 GAL
ROSA ACICULARIS `ICEBERG`PRICKLY ROSE 5 GAL
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ROSEMARY 5 GAL
ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `HUNTINGTON CARPET`HUNTINGTON CARPET ROSEMARY 5 GAL
SALVIA CLEVELANDII CLEVELAND SAGE 5 GAL
SEDUM RUPESTRE ANGELINA SEDUM 1 GAL
SENECIO MANDRALISCAE `BLUE CHALK STICKS`SENECIO 1 GAL
SESLERIA AUTUMNALIS AUTUMN MOOR GRASS 1 GAL
SOLANUM JASMINOIDES POTATO VINE 1 GAL
IRRIGATION DESIGN:
THE IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL AND THE
STATE WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. THE WATER
CONSERVATION METHOD FOR THE NEW LANDSCAPE PLANT
MATERIAL HAS A LOW TO MEDIUM WATER USE, AND THE ETWU
(ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE) PER YEAR IS ESTIMATED TO BE WITHIN
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WATER ALLOCATION (MAWA) WHICH
WILL BE CALCULATED FOR THE PROJECT.
ADDITIONALLY, A WEATHER SENSING, 'SMART CONTROLLER' WILL BE
USED TO MONITOR THE IRRIGATION WATER AND MANAGE DAILY
WATER CONSUMPTION TO THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH
HYDROZONE.
ALL TREES, LAWN, TYPICAL SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS WILL
BE IRRIGATED ON SEPARATES SYSTEMS SO THAT ONCE ESTABLISHED,
WATER CAN BE REGULATED IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER.
TREES WILL BE IRRIGATED BY BUBBLERS. LAWN WILL BE IRRIGATED BY
HIGH EFFICIENCY SPRAY NOZZLES. ALL OTHER PLANTING WILL RECEIVE
DRIP IRRIGATION.
PLANTING DESIGN:
THE PLANT MATERIAL SELECTED IN THE LIST AT THE LEFT IS KNOWN TO
THRIVE IN THE LOCAL SOILS AND CLIMATE CONDITIONS OF THE
PROJECT SITE. THE LANDSCAPE WILL BE DESIGNED FOR DROUGHT
TOLERANT, LOW MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING, REQUIRING
MINIMAL WATER USE TO CONSERVE WATER AND PREVENT RUN-OFF.
THE BIO-RETENTION AREAS, SHOWN ON THE PLANS, INCORPORATE
SPECIAL SOILS AND PLANT MATERIAL WHICH INCREASES WATER
QUALITY THROUGH BIO-FILTRATION AND ALLOWS THE WATER TO
PERCOLATE INTO THE NATIVE SOIL, RECHARGING THE
GROUNDWATER. ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES, AND TRASH ENCLOSURES
WILL BE SCREENED WITH TALLER PLANT MATERIAL. TREES HAVE BEEN
LOCATED TO SHADE PATHWAYS AND PARKING AREAS.
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
PLANT SCHEDULE
L.5
UP
DWUP UP
DWUP
GREAT ROOM
17'10" X 14'0"
KIT.
10'3" X 12'6"ENTRY4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.S.
BED 212'8" x 10'2"
BATH 1
11'4" X 5'1"
BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BATH 2
7'6" X 7'0"
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
HALL
BATH6'2"x10'1"
CL.
7'6"x3'10"
CL.
6'3"x5'6"BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BED 211'8" x 13'3"
ENTRY4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
LIVING
17'10" X 14'0"
KITCHEN/
DINING
15'0" X 10'6"
S.
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG A-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt
7/8/2016 12:37:43 PM
A10238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING A COMMON UNIT PLANS
04/29/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER STANDARD1
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER BATH OPTION3
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER STANDARD4
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER GALLEY KITCHEN2
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
UP
DWUP UP
DWUP
GREAT ROOM
17'10" X 14'0"
KIT.
10'3" X 12'6"ENTRY4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.S.
BED 212'8" x 10'2"
BATH 1
11'4" X 5'1"
BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BATH 2
7'6" X 7'0"
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
HALL
BATH6'2"x10'1"
CL.
7'6"x3'10"
CL.
6'3"x5'6"BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BED 211'8" x 13'3"
ENTRY4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
LIVING
17'10" X 14'0"
KITCHEN/
DINING
15'0" X 10'6"
S.
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG A-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt
7/8/2016 12:37:43 PM
A10238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING A COMMON UNIT PLANS
04/29/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER STANDARD1
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER BATH OPTION3
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER STANDARD4
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER GALLEY KITCHEN2
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
UP
DWUP UP
DWUP
GREAT ROOM
17'10" X 14'0"
KIT.
10'3" X 12'6"ENTRY4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.S.
BED 212'8" x 10'2"
BATH 1
11'4" X 5'1"
BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BATH 2
7'6" X 7'0"
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
HALL
BATH6'2"x10'1"
CL.
7'6"x3'10"
CL.
6'3"x5'6"BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BED 211'8" x 13'3"
ENTRY4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
LIVING
17'10" X 14'0"
KITCHEN/
DINING
15'0" X 10'6"
S.
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG A-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt
7/8/2016 12:37:43 PM
A10238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING A COMMON UNIT PLANS
04/29/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER STANDARD1
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER BATH OPTION3
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER STANDARD4
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER GALLEY KITCHEN2
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
UP
DWUP UP
DWUP
GREAT ROOM
17'10" X 14'0"
KIT.
10'3" X 12'6"ENTRY4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.S.
BED 212'8" x 10'2"
BATH 1
11'4" X 5'1"
BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BATH 2
7'6" X 7'0"
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
HALL
BATH6'2"x10'1"
CL.
7'6"x3'10"
CL.
6'3"x5'6"BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BED 211'8" x 13'3"
ENTRY4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
LIVING
17'10" X 14'0"
KITCHEN/
DINING
15'0" X 10'6"
S.
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG A-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt
7/8/2016 12:37:43 PM
A10238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING A COMMON UNIT PLANS
04/29/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER STANDARD1
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER BATH OPTION3
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER STANDARD4
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER GALLEY KITCHEN2
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
A.9
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
TYPICAL UNIT PLANS - BUILDINGS 1A, 3A & 5A
UNIT PLAN A - TOWNHOME
2BED/2.5 BATH/1.5 BATH
LOWER LEVEL - GALLEY KITCHEN OPTION UPPER LEVEL UPPER LEVEL- ONE BATH OPTIONLOWER LEVEL
0 1 2 4 8
SCALE: 1/4”=1’
D W D W
DWBATH10' X 6'3"
BED
12'3" X 10'6"
DINING
7' X 8'
KIT.
11'1" X 7'9"
LIVING
12'6" X 12'10"
PATIO/DECK
ENTRY8'3" X 4'6"
CL.
S.S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
KIT.
11'6" X 12'8"
HALL
BED 1
12'6"x 12'6"
BED 2
12'6" X 10'7"
BATH10'0" X 6'4"
LIVING
14'6" X 11'8"
CL.
3'9"x6'8"
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
KIT.
11'6" X 12'8"
BATH10'0" X 6'4"
LIVING
14'6" X 11'8"
S.
BED 1
14'1" X 12'6"OFFICE
13'6" x 10'7"
PATIO/DECK
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG A-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt7/8/2016 12:37:44 PM
A20238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING A COMMON UNIT PLANS
04/29/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A2
UNIT B FLOOR PLAN-STANDARD1
1/4" = 1'-0"A2
UNIT C FLOOR PLAN STANDARD 2-BEDROOM2
1/4" = 1'-0"A2
UNIT C FLOOR PLAN STANDARD 1-BEDROOM3
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
D W D W
DWBATH10' X 6'3"
BED
12'3" X 10'6"
DINING
7' X 8'
KIT.
11'1" X 7'9"
LIVING
12'6" X 12'10"
PATIO/DECK
ENTRY8'3" X 4'6"
CL.
S.S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
KIT.
11'6" X 12'8"
HALL
BED 1
12'6"x 12'6"
BED 2
12'6" X 10'7"
BATH10'0" X 6'4"
LIVING
14'6" X 11'8"
CL.
3'9"x6'8"
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
KIT.
11'6" X 12'8"
BATH10'0" X 6'4"
LIVING
14'6" X 11'8"
S.
BED 1
14'1" X 12'6"OFFICE
13'6" x 10'7"
PATIO/DECK
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG A-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt7/8/2016 12:37:44 PM
A20238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING A COMMON UNIT PLANS
04/29/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A2
UNIT B FLOOR PLAN-STANDARD1
1/4" = 1'-0"A2
UNIT C FLOOR PLAN STANDARD 2-BEDROOM2
1/4" = 1'-0"A2
UNIT C FLOOR PLAN STANDARD 1-BEDROOM3
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
D W D W
DWBATH
10' X 6'3"
BED
12'3" X 10'6"
DINING
7' X 8'
KIT.
11'1" X 7'9"
LIVING
12'6" X 12'10"
PATIO/DECK
ENTRY
8'3" X 4'6"
CL.
S.S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
KIT.
11'6" X 12'8"
HALL
BED 112'6"x 12'6"
BED 2
12'6" X 10'7"
BATH
10'0" X 6'4"
LIVING
14'6" X 11'8"
CL.
3'9"x6'8"
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
KIT.
11'6" X 12'8"
BATH
10'0" X 6'4"
LIVING
14'6" X 11'8"
S.
BED 1
14'1" X 12'6"OFFICE
13'6" x 10'7"
PATIO/DECK
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG A-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt
7/8/2016 12:37:44 PM
A20238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING A COMMON UNIT PLANS
04/29/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A2
UNIT B FLOOR PLAN-STANDARD1
1/4" = 1'-0"A2
UNIT C FLOOR PLAN STANDARD 2-BEDROOM2
1/4" = 1'-0"A2
UNIT C FLOOR PLAN STANDARD 1-BEDROOM3
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
A.10
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
TYPICAL UNIT PLANS - BUILDINGS 1A, 3A & 5A
UNIT PLAN C1 - FLAT
2BED/1BATH
UNIT PLAN C2 - FLAT
1BED/1BATH
UNIT PLAN B - FLAT
1BED/1BATH
0 1 2 4 8
SCALE: 1/4”=1’
UP
CORRIDOR
1-CAR GARAGE 1-CAR GARAGE 1-CAR GARAGE 1-CAR GARAGE 1-CAR GARAGE 1-CAR GARAGE 1-CAR GARAGE1-CAR GARAGE1-CAR GARAGE1-CAR GARAGE1-CAR GARAGE1-CAR GARAGE1-CAR GARAGE
COMMON STAIRS
TANDEM TANDEM TANDEM TANDEM TANDEM TANDEM TANDEM TANDEM TANDEM TANDEM TANDEM TANDEM
UTIL.
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
N:\0201\0238-01-RS15-Emerald-Ridge-Apartments-Entitlement-Con-Docs\Architecture\Model\BLDG A-CENTRAL.rvt8/31/2016 10:34:05 AM
A30238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING A FLOOR PLAN
04/29/16 SITE KEY
A.11
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - BUILDINGS 1A, 3A & 5A
BLD’G. SUBFLOOR
GARAGE STALLS | STORAGE
0 2 4 8 16
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
DWDWDWDWDW D W
DW DWDWDWD W
DW DWDWDW
D W DW
DNUP
BATH
BED
DINING
KIT.
LIVING
PATIO/DECK
ENTRYCL.
DINING
LIVING
KIT.
BATH
BED
PATIO
ENTRYCL.
BATH
BED
DINING
KIT.
LIVING
PATIO/DECK
ENTRY CL.
DINING
LIVING
KIT.
BATH
BED
PATIO
ENTRY CL.
DINING
LIVING
KIT.
BATH
BED
ENTRY
CL.
DINING
LIVING
KIT.
BATH
BED
ENTRY
CL.
DINING
KIT.
BATH LIVING
ENTRY
BED 1
OFFICEPATIO/DECK
DINING
KIT.
BATH
LIVING
ENTRY
BED 1
OFFICE
PATIO/DECK
DINING
KIT.
BATH
LIVING
ENTRY
BED 1
OFFICE
PATIO/DECK
DINING
KIT.
BATH
LIVING
ENTRY
BED 1
OFFICE
PATIO/DECK
DINING
KIT.
BATHLIVING
ENTRY
BED 1
OFFICE PATIO/DECK
DINING
KIT.
HALL
BED 1 BED 2
BATH
LIVING
CL.
ENTRY
DINING
KIT.
HALL
BED 1 BED 2
BATH
LIVING
CL.
ENTRY
DINING
KIT.
HALL
BED 1 BED 2
BATH
LIVING
CL.
ENTRY
DINING
KIT.
HALL
BED 1 BED 2
BATH
LIVING
CL.
ENTRY
DINING
LIVING
KIT.
BATH
BED
ENTRY
CL.
DINING
KIT.
HALL
BED 1 BED 2
BATH
LIVING
CL.
ENTRY
STUDIO
(COMMON AREA AT
BUILDINGS 3A AND 5A)
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG A-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt
7/8/2016 12:37:47 PM
A40238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING A FLOOR PLAN
04/29/16
1/8" = 1'-0"A4
GROUND FLOOR PLAN1
A.12
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - BUILDINGS 1A, 3A & 5A
BLD’G. FIRST FLOOR
APARTMENT UNITS | COMMON COURTYARD
UNIT 104
PLAN C2
UNIT 105
PLAN C2
UNIT 106
PLAN C2
UNIT 103
PLAN B
UNIT 107
PLAN B
UNIT 102
PLAN B
UNIT 108
PLAN B
UNIT 101
PLAN C2
UNIT 109
PLAN C2
UNIT 116
PLAN B
UNIT 115
PLAN B
UNIT 114
PLAN C1
UNIT 113
PLAN C1
UNIT 117
STUDIO PLAN
UNIT 112
PLAN C1
UNIT 111
PLAN C1
UNIT 110
PLAN C1
COURTYARD
0 2 4 8 16
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
SITE KEY
DNDN
DWDWDWDW
DW D W
UP D W
UP D W
UPDW
UPDW
UP
DWUP
DWUP
DWUP
DWUPDW UPDW UPDW UPDWDN
DINING
KIT.
HALL
BED 1
BED 2 BATH LIVING
CL.
ENTRY
DINING
KIT.
HALL
BED 1
BED 2BATHLIVING
CL.
ENTRY
DINING
KIT.
HALL
BED 1 BED 2
BATH
LIVING
CL.
ENTRY
DINING
KIT.
HALL
BED 1 BED 2
BATH
LIVING
CL.
ENTRY
DINING
LIVING
KIT.
BATH
BED
ENTRY
CL.
DINING
LIVING
KIT.
BATH
BED
ENTRY
CL.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.
ENTRY
PATIO
PWD.S.
GREAT
ROOM KIT.
ENTRY
PATIO
PWD.S.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.
ENTRY
PATIO
PWD.S.
GREAT
ROOMKIT.
ENTRY
PATIO
PWD.S.GREAT
ROOM
KIT.ENTRY
PATIO PWD.
S.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.ENTRY
PATIO PWD.
S.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.ENTRY
PATIO PWD.
S.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.ENTRY
PATIO PWD.
S.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.ENTRY
PATIOPWD.
S.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.ENTRY
PATIOPWD.
S.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.ENTRY
PATIOPWD.
S.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.ENTRY
PATIOPWD.
S.
DECKDECK
COMMON DECK AREA
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG A-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt7/8/2016 12:37:49 PM
A50238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING A FLOOR PLAN
04/29/16
1/8" = 1'-0"A5
SECOND FLOOR PLAN1
A.13
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - BUILDINGS 1A, 3A & 5A
BLD’G. SECOND FLOOR
APARTMENT UNITS | COMMON BALCONY
UNIT 203
PLAN A
UNIT 208
PLAN A
UNIT 202
PLAN A
UNIT 209
PLAN A
UNIT 201
PLAN C1
UNIT 210
PLAN C1
UNIT 218
PLAN B
UNIT 217
PLAN B
UNIT 216
PLAN C1
UNIT 215
PLAN C1
UNIT 214
PLAN A
UNIT 204
PLAN A
UNIT 213
PLAN A
UNIT 205
PLAN A
UNIT 212
PLAN A
UNIT 206
PLAN A
UNIT 211
PLAN A
UNIT 207
PLAN A
0 2 4 8 16
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
SITE KEY
HALL
BATH
CL.
CL.
BED 1 BED 2
HALL
BATH
CL.
CL.
BED 1 BED 2
BED 2
BATH 1
BED 1
BATH 2 HALL
CL. 1
CL.2
HALL
BATH
CL.
CL.
BED 1BED 2
BED 2
BATH 1BED 1
BATH 2
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
BED 2
BATH 1BED 1
BATH 2
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
BED 2
BATH 1BED 1
BATH 2
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
BED 2
BATH 1BED 1
BATH 2
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
BED 2
BATH 1 BED 1
BATH 2
HALL
CL. 1CL.2
BED 2
BATH 1 BED 1
BATH 2
HALL
CL. 1CL.2
BED 2
BATH 1 BED 1
BATH 2
HALL
CL. 1CL.2
HALL
BATH
CL.
CL.BED 1
BED 2
BED 2BED 1 BED 2 BED 1
BED 2
BED 1
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG A-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt
7/8/2016 12:37:50 PM
A60238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING A FLOOR PLAN
04/29/16
1/8" = 1'-0"A6
THIRD FLOOR PLAN1
A.14
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - BUILDINGS 1A, 3A & 5A
BLD’G. THIRD FLOOR
APARTMENT UNITS
UNIT 203
PLAN A
UNIT 208
PLAN A
UNIT 202
PLAN A
UNIT 209
PLAN A
UNIT 214
PLAN A
UNIT 204
PLAN A
UNIT 213
PLAN A
UNIT 205
PLAN A
UNIT 212
PLAN A
UNIT 206
PLAN A
UNIT 211
PLAN A
UNIT 207
PLAN A
0 2 4 8 16
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
SITE KEY
A.15
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
BUILDINGS 1A, 3A & 5A
BLD’G. FRONT ELEVATION
SOUTH VIEW
BLD’G. LEFT ELEVATION
WEST VIEW
0 2 4 8 16
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
SITE KEY
A.16
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
BUILDINGS 1A, 3A & 5A
BLD’G. RIGHT ELEVATION
EAST VIEW
BLD’G. REAR ELEVATION
NORTH VIEW
0 2 4 8 16
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
SITE KEY
UP
DWUP
WUP
DWUP
WGREAT ROOM
17'10" X 14'0"
KIT.
10'3" X 12'6"ENTRY
4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
BED 2
12'8" x 10'2"
BATH 1
11'4" X 5'1"
BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BATH 2
7'6" X 7'0"
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
HALL
BATH
6'2"x10'1"
CL.
7'6"x3'10"
CL.
6'3"x5'6"BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BED 2
11'8" x 13'3"
ENTRY
4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
LIVING
17'10" X 14'0"
KITCHEN/
DINING
15'0" X 10'6"
PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG B-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt7/8/2016 12:51:30 PM
A10238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING B UNIT TYPES
05/18/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER STANDARD1
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER BATH OPTION2
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER STANDARD3
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER GALLEY KITCHEN4
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
UP
DWUP
WUP
DWUP
WGREAT ROOM
17'10" X 14'0"
KIT.
10'3" X 12'6"ENTRY
4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
BED 2
12'8" x 10'2"
BATH 1
11'4" X 5'1"
BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BATH 2
7'6" X 7'0"
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
HALL
BATH
6'2"x10'1"
CL.
7'6"x3'10"
CL.
6'3"x5'6"BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BED 2
11'8" x 13'3"
ENTRY
4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
LIVING
17'10" X 14'0"
KITCHEN/
DINING
15'0" X 10'6"
PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG B-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt7/8/2016 12:51:30 PM
A10238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING B UNIT TYPES
05/18/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER STANDARD1
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER BATH OPTION2
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER STANDARD3
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER GALLEY KITCHEN4
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
UP
DWUP
WUP
DWUP
WGREAT ROOM
17'10" X 14'0"
KIT.
10'3" X 12'6"ENTRY
4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
BED 2
12'8" x 10'2"
BATH 1
11'4" X 5'1"
BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BATH 2
7'6" X 7'0"
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
HALL
BATH
6'2"x10'1"
CL.
7'6"x3'10"
CL.
6'3"x5'6"BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BED 2
11'8" x 13'3"
ENTRY
4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
LIVING
17'10" X 14'0"
KITCHEN/
DINING
15'0" X 10'6"
PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG B-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt7/8/2016 12:51:30 PM
A10238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING B UNIT TYPES
05/18/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER STANDARD1
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER BATH OPTION2
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER STANDARD3
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER GALLEY KITCHEN4
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
UP
DWUP
WUP
DWUP
WGREAT ROOM
17'10" X 14'0"
KIT.
10'3" X 12'6"ENTRY
4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
BED 2
12'8" x 10'2"
BATH 1
11'4" X 5'1"
BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BATH 2
7'6" X 7'0"
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
HALL
BATH
6'2"x10'1"
CL.
7'6"x3'10"
CL.
6'3"x5'6"BED 1
13'1" X 11'8"
BED 2
11'8" x 13'3"
ENTRY
4'10" X 5'0"
PATIO PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
LIVING
17'10" X 14'0"
KITCHEN/
DINING
15'0" X 10'6"
PWD.
5'2" X 5'6"
S.
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG B-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt7/8/2016 12:51:30 PM
A10238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING B UNIT TYPES
05/18/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER STANDARD1
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER BATH OPTION2
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-UPPER STANDARD3
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
UNIT A FLOOR PLAN-LOWER GALLEY KITCHEN4
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
A.17
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
TYPICAL UNIT PLANS - BUILDINGS 2B, 4B & 6B
UNIT PLAN A - TOWNHOME
2BED/2.5 BATH/1.5 BATH
UPPER LEVEL UPPER LEVEL- ONE BATH OPTIONLOWER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL - GALLEY KITCHEN OPTION
0 1 2 4 8
SCALE: 1/4”=1’
D W
DW DWBATH
10' X 6'3"
BED
12'3" X 10'6"
DINING
7' X 8'
KIT.11'1" X 7'9"
LIVING
12'6" X 12'10"
PATIO/DECK
ENTRY
8'3" X 4'6"
CL.
S.
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
KIT.
11'6" X 12'8"
HALL
BED 1
12'6"x 12'6"BED 2
12'6" X 10'7"
BATH
10'0" X 6'4"
LIVING
14'6" X 11'8"
CL.
3'9"x6'8"
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
KIT.
11'6" X 12'8"
BATH
10'0" X 6'4"
LIVING
14'6" X 11'8"
S.
BED 1
14'1" X 12'6"
OFFICE13'6" x 10'7"
PATIO/DECK
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG B-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt
7/8/2016 12:51:33 PM
A20238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING B UNIT TYPES
05/18/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A2
UNIT B FLOOR PLAN-STANDARD2
1/4" = 1'-0"A2
UNIT C FLOOR PLAN-2 BED1
1/4" = 1'-0"A2
UNIT C FLOOR PLAN- 1 BED3
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
D W
DW DWBATH
10' X 6'3"
BED
12'3" X 10'6"
DINING7' X 8'
KIT.11'1" X 7'9"
LIVING
12'6" X 12'10"
PATIO/DECK
ENTRY
8'3" X 4'6"
CL.
S.
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
KIT.11'6" X 12'8"
HALL
BED 1
12'6"x 12'6"BED 2
12'6" X 10'7"
BATH10'0" X 6'4"
LIVING
14'6" X 11'8"
CL.
3'9"x6'8"
S.
DINING
11'6" X 10'
KIT.11'6" X 12'8"
BATH10'0" X 6'4"
LIVING
14'6" X 11'8"
S.
BED 1
14'1" X 12'6"
OFFICE13'6" x 10'7"
PATIO/DECK
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG B-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt7/8/2016 12:51:33 PM
A20238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING B UNIT TYPES
05/18/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A2
UNIT B FLOOR PLAN-STANDARD2
1/4" = 1'-0"A2
UNIT C FLOOR PLAN-2 BED1
1/4" = 1'-0"A2
UNIT C FLOOR PLAN- 1 BED3
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
A.18
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
TYPICAL UNIT PLANS - BUILDINGS 2B, 4B & 6B
UNIT PLAN C1 - FLAT
2BED/1BATH
UNIT PLAN C2 - FLAT
1BED/1BATH
UNIT PLAN B - FLAT
1BED/1BATH
0 1 2 4 8
SCALE: 1/4”=1’
DW
DWS.
BED 1
13'0" X 10'6"
LAUNDRY
5'4" X 6'8"
BATH
5'8" X 10'5"
CL.
BED 2
10'6" X 12'0"
KITCHEN
12'4" X 14'0"
LIVING
14'0" X 15'0"
DINING9'0" X 9'0"
ENTRY
CL.S.
S.
PATIO
BED 2
12'8" X 12'9"
BED 112'11" X 10'2"
W.I.C.
6'1"x5'1"
HALL
BATH
6'1" X 12'
S.
S.
KIT.11' X 11'
GREAT ROOM
18' X 14'
ENTRY
PWD.
6'1" X 5'8"DECK
S.
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG B-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt
7/8/2016 12:51:35 PM
A30238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING B UNIT TYPES
05/18/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A3
UNIT D FLOOR PLAN1
1/4" = 1'-0"A3
UNIT E FLOOR PLAN-LOWER STANDARD2
1/4" = 1'-0"A3
UNIT E FLOOR PLAN-UPPER STANDARD3
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
DW
DWS.
BED 1
13'0" X 10'6"
LAUNDRY
5'4" X 6'8"
BATH
5'8" X 10'5"
CL.
BED 2
10'6" X 12'0"
KITCHEN
12'4" X 14'0"
LIVING
14'0" X 15'0"
DINING9'0" X 9'0"
ENTRY
CL.S.
S.
PATIO
BED 2
12'8" X 12'9"
BED 112'11" X 10'2"
W.I.C.
6'1"x5'1"
HALL
BATH
6'1" X 12'
S.
S.
KIT.11' X 11'
GREAT ROOM
18' X 14'
ENTRY
PWD.
6'1" X 5'8"DECK
S.
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG B-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt
7/8/2016 12:51:35 PM
A30238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING B UNIT TYPES
05/18/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A3
UNIT D FLOOR PLAN1
1/4" = 1'-0"A3
UNIT E FLOOR PLAN-LOWER STANDARD2
1/4" = 1'-0"A3
UNIT E FLOOR PLAN-UPPER STANDARD3
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
DW
DWS.
BED 1
13'0" X 10'6"
LAUNDRY
5'4" X 6'8"
BATH
5'8" X 10'5"
CL.
BED 2
10'6" X 12'0"
KITCHEN
12'4" X 14'0"
LIVING
14'0" X 15'0"
DINING9'0" X 9'0"
ENTRY
CL.S.
S.
PATIO
BED 2
12'8" X 12'9"
BED 112'11" X 10'2"
W.I.C.
6'1"x5'1"
HALL
BATH
6'1" X 12'
S.
S.
KIT.11' X 11'
GREAT ROOM
18' X 14'
ENTRY
PWD.
6'1" X 5'8"DECK
S.
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG B-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt
7/8/2016 12:51:35 PM
A30238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING B UNIT TYPES
05/18/16
1/4" = 1'-0"A3
UNIT D FLOOR PLAN1
1/4" = 1'-0"A3
UNIT E FLOOR PLAN-LOWER STANDARD2
1/4" = 1'-0"A3
UNIT E FLOOR PLAN-UPPER STANDARD3
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
LAUNDRY
HOOK-UP
LOCATION
A.19
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
TYPICAL UNIT PLANS - BUILDINGS 2B, 4B & 6B
UNIT PLAN E - TOWNHOME
2BED/1.5 BATH
UPPER LEVELLOWER LEVEL
UNIT PLAN D - FLAT
2BED/1BATH
0 1 2 4 8
SCALE: 1/4”=1’
DW D W
PATIO
BED 2
BED 1
W.I.C.
HALL
BATH
PATIO
BED 2
BED 1
W.I.C.
HALL
BATH
PATIO
BED 2
BED 1
W.I.C.
HALL
BATH
PATIO
BED 2
BED 1
W.I.C.
HALL
BATH
PATIO
BED 2
BED 1
W.I.C.
HALL
BATH
PATIO
BED 2
BED 1
W.I.C.
HALL
BATH
BATH LAUNDRY
CL.
BED 1
BED 2KITCHEN
LIVING
ENTRY
DINING
BATHLAUNDRY
CL.
BED 1
BED 2 KITCHEN
LIVING
ENTRY
DINING
COURTYARD
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG B-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt7/8/2016 12:51:37 PM
A40238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING B FLOOR PLANS
05/18/16
A.20
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - BUILDINGS 2B, 4B & 6B
BLD’G. SUBFLOOR
APARTMENT UNITS | COMMON COURTYARD
UNIT 117
PLAN E
UNIT 001
PLAN D
UNIT 116
PLAN E
UNIT 112
PLAN E
UNIT 115
PLAN E
UNIT 111
PLAN E
UNIT 002
PLAN D
UNIT 110
PLAN E
0 2 4 8 16
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
SITE KEY
DWDWDWDWDWDWDN
D W D W D W
DWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWKIT.
GREAT
ROOM
ENTRY
PWD.
DECK
KIT.
GREAT
ROOM
ENTRY
PWD.
DECK
KIT.
GREAT
ROOM
ENTRY
PWD.
DECK
KIT.
GREAT
ROOM
ENTRY
PWD.
DECK
KIT.
GREAT
ROOM
ENTRY
PWD.
DECK
KIT.
GREAT
ROOM
ENTRY
PWD.
DECK
DINING
KIT.
HALL
BED 1BED 2
BATH
LIVING
CL.
ENTRY
DINING
KIT.
HALL
BED 1BED 2
BATH
LIVING
CL.
ENTRY
DINING
KIT.
HALL
BED 1BED 2
BATH
LIVING
CL.
ENTRY
BATH
BED
DINING
KIT.
LIVING
PATIO/DECK
ENTRYCL.
BATH
BED
DINING
KIT.
LIVING
PATIO/DECK
ENTRYCL.
DINING
LIVING
KIT.
BATH
BED
PATIO
ENTRYCL.
BATH
BED
DINING
KIT.
LIVING
PATIO/DECK
ENTRY CL.
DINING
LIVING
KIT.
BATH
BED
PATIO
ENTRY CL.
BATH
BED
DINING
KIT.
LIVING
PATIO/DECK
ENTRY CL.
DINING
KIT.
BATH
LIVING
ENTRY
BED 1
OFFICE
PATIO/DECK
DINING
KIT.
BATH
LIVING
ENTRY
BED 1
OFFICE
PATIO/DECK
COURTYARD
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG B-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt
7/8/2016 12:51:41 PM
A50238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING B FLOOR PLANS
05/18/16
A.21
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - BUILDINGS 2B, 4B & 6B
BLD’G. FIRST FLOOR
APARTMENT UNITS | COMMON COURTYARD
UNIT 104
PLAN C
UNIT 105
PLAN C
UNIT 106
PLAN C
UNIT 103
PLAN B
UNIT 107
PLAN B
UNIT 102
PLAN B
UNIT 108
PLAN B
UNIT 101
PLAN B
UNIT 109
PLAN B
UNIT 117
PLAN E
UNIT 113
PLAN D
UNIT 116
PLAN E
UNIT 112
PLAN E
UNIT 115
PLAN E
UNIT 111
PLAN E
UNIT 114
PLAN D
UNIT 110
PLAN E
0 2 4 8 16
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
SITE KEY
DNDN
DWDWDW D W D W D W
UP D W
UP D W
UP D W
UPDW
UPDW
UPDW
UP
DWUP
DWUP
DWUP
DWDN
BATH
BED
DINING
KIT.
LIVING
PATIO/DECK
ENTRY
CL.BATH
BED
DINING
KIT.
LIVING
PATIO/DECK
ENTRY
CL.
DINING
LIVING
KIT.
BATH
BED
ENTRY
CL.
BATH
BED
DINING
KIT.
LIVING
PATIO/DECK
ENTRY
CL.BATH
BED
DINING
KIT.
LIVING
PATIO/DECK
ENTRY
CL.
DINING
LIVING
KIT.
BATH
BED
PATIO
ENTRY
CL.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.
ENTRY
PATIO
PWD.S.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.
ENTRY
PATIO
PWD.S.
GREAT
ROOM KIT.
ENTRY
PATIO
PWD.S.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.
ENTRY
PATIO
PWD.S.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.
ENTRY
PATIO
PWD.S.
GREAT
ROOMKIT.
ENTRY
PATIO
PWD.S.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.ENTRY
PATIO PWD.
S.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.ENTRY
PATIO PWD.
S.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.ENTRY
PATIO PWD.
S.
GREAT
ROOM
KIT.ENTRY
PATIO PWD.
S.
COMMON DECK AREA COMMON DECK AREA
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG B-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt7/8/2016 12:51:45 PM
A60238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING B FLOOR PLANS
05/18/16
A.22
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - BUILDINGS 2B, 4B & 6B
BLD’G. SECOND FLOOR
APARTMENT UNITS | COMMON BALCONY
UNIT 204
PLAN A
UNIT 205
PLAN A
UNIT 206
PLAN A
UNIT 207
PLAN A
UNIT 203
PLAN A
UNIT 208
PLAN A
UNIT 202
PLAN A
UNIT 209
PLAN A
UNIT 201
PLAN A
UNIT 210
PLAN A
UNIT 216
PLAN B
UNIT 215
PLAN B
UNIT 213
PLAN B
UNIT 214
PLAN B
UNIT 212
PLAN B
UNIT 211
PLAN B
0 2 4 8 16
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
SITE KEY
BED 2
BATH 1
BED 1
BATH 2HALL
CL. 1
CL.2
BED 2
BATH 1
BED 1
BATH 2HALL
CL. 1
CL.2
HALL
BATH
CL.
CL.
BED 1 BED 2
BED 2
BATH 1
BED 1
BATH 2 HALL
CL. 1
CL.2
BED 2
BATH 1
BED 1
BATH 2 HALL
CL. 1
CL.2
HALL
BATH
CL.
CL.
BED 1BED 2
BED 2
BATH 1BED 1
BATH 2
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
BED 2
BATH 1BED 1
BATH 2
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
BED 2
BATH 1BED 1
BATH 2
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
BED 2
BATH 1BED 1
BATH 2
HALL
CL. 1 CL.2
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
C:\Users\cachurch\Documents\BLDG B-CENTRAL_cachurch.rvt7/8/2016 12:51:48 PM
A70238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTSBUILDING B FLOOR PLANS
05/18/16
A.23
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - BUILDINGS 2B, 4B & 6B
BLD’G. THIRD FLOOR
APARTMENT UNITS
UNIT 204
PLAN A
UNIT 205
PLAN A
UNIT 206
PLAN A
UNIT 207
PLAN A
UNIT 203
PLAN A
UNIT 208
PLAN A
UNIT 202
PLAN A
UNIT 209
PLAN A
UNIT 201
PLAN A
UNIT 210
PLAN A
0 2 4 8 16
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
SITE KEY
A.24
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
BUILDINGS 2B, 4B & 6B
BLD’G. FRONT ELEVATION
SOUTH VIEW
BLD’G. LEFT ELEVATION
WEST VIEW
0 2 4 8 16
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
SITE KEY
A.25
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
BUILDINGS 2B, 4B & 6B
BLD’G. RIGHT ELEVATION
EAST VIEW
BLD’G. REAR ELEVATION
NORTH VIEW
0 2 4 8 16
SCALE: 1/8”=1’
SITE KEY
UP
DN
OFFICE
LOBBY
LOUNGE
LOUNGE
SHARED
FACILITY
LAUNDRY
RESTROOM
NEW DECK
NEW
PORCH
NEW
PORCH ACCESSIBLE RAMPENTRY
(E) STAIRS LOUNGE
LOUNGE
NEW FIREPLACE
WASHER/DRYER
EQUIPMENT BY OWNER
DN
(E) ATTIC
SPACE
(E) ATTIC
SPACE
(E) STAIRS
A.26
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
CLUBHOUSE FLOOR PLAN
PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN
(EXISTING FOOTPRINT TO REAMAIN)
EXISTING ATTIC
(TO REMAIN)
0 1 2 4 8
SCALE: 1/4”=1’
SITE KEY
A.27
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS
WEST ELEVATION
FRONT VIEW
SOUTH ELEVATION
RIGHT VIEW
0 1 2 4 8
SCALE: 1/4”=1’
SITE KEY
A.28
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS
EAST ELEVATION
REAR VIEW
NORTH ELEVATION
LEFT VIEW
0 1 2 4 8
SCALE: 1/4”=1’
SITE KEY
14' - 0"2' - 0"TYP.
8' - 0"
16' - 0"16' - 0" TYP.TYP. COMPACT STALL
8'X14' MIN.
LANDSCAPE AREA PER SITE PLAN
CONC. CURB
18' - 0"
TYP.
9' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"18' - 0" TYP.TYP. STANDARD
STALL
9'X18' MIN.
LANDSCAPE AREA PER SITE PLAN
CONC. CURB
FUTURE SOLAR
PANEL LOCATION
FUTURE SOLAR
PANEL LOCATION
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
N:\0201\0238-01-RS15-Emerald-Ridge-Apartments-Entitlement-Con-Docs\Architecture\Model\CARPORT.rvt
3/17/2016 12:47:24 PM
A10238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGESCHEMATIC FLOOR PLAN
MM/DD/YYYY
1/4" = 1'-0"A-6.1 A1
CARPORT FLOOR PLAN COMPACT1
1/4" = 1'-0"A-6.1 A1
CARPORT FLOOR PLAN STANDARD2
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT FRONT COMPACT3
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT LEFT COMPACT4
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT FRONT STANDARD5
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT LEFT STANDARD614' - 0"2' - 0"TYP.
8' - 0"
16' - 0"16' - 0" TYP.TYP. COMPACT STALL
8'X14' MIN.
LANDSCAPE AREA PER SITE PLAN
CONC. CURB
18' - 0"
TYP.
9' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"18' - 0" TYP.TYP. STANDARD
STALL
9'X18' MIN.
LANDSCAPE AREA PER SITE PLAN
CONC. CURB
FUTURE SOLAR
PANEL LOCATION
FUTURE SOLAR
PANEL LOCATION
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
N:\0201\0238-01-RS15-Emerald-Ridge-Apartments-Entitlement-Con-Docs\Architecture\Model\CARPORT.rvt3/17/2016 12:47:24 PM
A10238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGESCHEMATIC FLOOR PLAN
MM/DD/YYYY
1/4" = 1'-0"A-6.1 A1
CARPORT FLOOR PLAN COMPACT1
1/4" = 1'-0"A-6.1 A1
CARPORT FLOOR PLAN STANDARD2
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT FRONT COMPACT3
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT LEFT COMPACT4
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT FRONT STANDARD5
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT LEFT STANDARD614' - 0"2' - 0"TYP.
8' - 0"
16' - 0"16' - 0" TYP.TYP. COMPACT STALL
8'X14' MIN.
LANDSCAPE AREA PER SITE PLAN
CONC. CURB
18' - 0"
TYP.
9' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"18' - 0" TYP.TYP. STANDARD
STALL
9'X18' MIN.
LANDSCAPE AREA PER SITE PLAN
CONC. CURB
FUTURE SOLAR
PANEL LOCATION
FUTURE SOLAR
PANEL LOCATION
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
N:\0201\0238-01-RS15-Emerald-Ridge-Apartments-Entitlement-Con-D ocs\Architecture\Model\CARPORT.rvt3/17/2016 12:47:24 PM
A10238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGESCHEMATIC FLOOR PLAN
MM/DD/YYYY
1/4" = 1'-0"A-6.1 A1
CARPORT FLOOR PLAN COMPACT1
1/4" = 1'-0"A-6.1 A1
CARPORT FLOOR PLAN STANDARD2
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT FRONT COMPACT3
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT LEFT COMPACT4
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT FRONT STANDARD5
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT LEFT STANDARD614' - 0"2' - 0"TYP.
8' - 0"
16' - 0"16' - 0" TYP.TYP. COMPACT STALL
8'X14' MIN.
LANDSCAPE AREA PER SITE PLAN
CONC. CURB
18' - 0"
TYP.
9' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"18' - 0" TYP.TYP. STANDARD
STALL
9'X18' MIN.
LANDSCAPE AREA PER SITE PLAN
CONC. CURB
FUTURE SOLAR
PANEL LOCATION
FUTURE SOLAR
PANEL LOCATION
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
N:\0201\0238-01-RS15-Emerald-Ridge-Apartments-Entitlement-Con-Docs\Architecture\Model\CARPORT.rvt
3/17/2016 12:47:24 PM
A10238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGESCHEMATIC FLOOR PLAN
MM/DD/YYYY
1/4" = 1'-0"A-6.1 A1
CARPORT FLOOR PLAN COMPACT1
1/4" = 1'-0"A-6.1 A1
CARPORT FLOOR PLAN STANDARD2
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT FRONT COMPACT3
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT LEFT COMPACT4
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT FRONT STANDARD5
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT LEFT STANDARD614' - 0"2' - 0"TYP.
8' - 0"
16' - 0"16' - 0" TYP.TYP. COMPACT STALL
8'X14' MIN.
LANDSCAPE AREA PER SITE PLAN
CONC. CURB
18' - 0"
TYP.
9' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"18' - 0" TYP.TYP. STANDARD
STALL
9'X18' MIN.
LANDSCAPE AREA PER SITE PLAN
CONC. CURB
FUTURE SOLAR
PANEL LOCATION
FUTURE SOLAR
PANEL LOCATION
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
N:\0201\0238-01-RS15-Emerald-Ridge-Apartments-Entitlement-Con-Docs\Architecture\Model\CARPORT.rvt3/17/2016 12:47:24 PM
A10238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGESCHEMATIC FLOOR PLAN
MM/DD/YYYY
1/4" = 1'-0"A-6.1 A1
CARPORT FLOOR PLAN COMPACT1
1/4" = 1'-0"A-6.1 A1
CARPORT FLOOR PLAN STANDARD2
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT FRONT COMPACT3
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT LEFT COMPACT4
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT FRONT STANDARD5
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT LEFT STANDARD614' - 0"2' - 0"TYP.
8' - 0"
16' - 0"16' - 0" TYP.TYP. COMPACT STALL
8'X14' MIN.
LANDSCAPE AREA PER SITE PLAN
CONC. CURB
18' - 0"
TYP.
9' - 0"16' - 0"2' - 0"18' - 0" TYP.TYP. STANDARD
STALL
9'X18' MIN.
LANDSCAPE AREA PER SITE PLAN
CONC. CURB
FUTURE SOLAR
PANEL LOCATION
FUTURE SOLAR
PANEL LOCATION
P: (805) 543-1794 | F: (805) 543-4609 | www.rrmdesign.com
3765 South Higuera St., Ste. 102, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
A California Corporation | Victor Montgomery, Architect #C11090 | Jerry Michael, PE #36895, LS #6276 | Jeff Ferber, LA #2844
N:\0201\0238-01-RS15-Emerald-Ridge-Apartments-Entitlement-Con-D ocs\Architecture\Model\CARPORT.rvt3/17/2016 12:47:24 PM
A10238-01-RS15 - EMERALD RIDGESCHEMATIC FLOOR PLAN
MM/DD/YYYY
1/4" = 1'-0"A-6.1 A1
CARPORT FLOOR PLAN COMPACT1
1/4" = 1'-0"A-6.1 A1
CARPORT FLOOR PLAN STANDARD2
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT FRONT COMPACT3
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT LEFT COMPACT4
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT FRONT STANDARD5
1/4" = 1'-0"A1
CARPORT LEFT STANDARD6
A.29
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
TYPICAL CARPORTS
FLOOR PLAN
COMPACT
TYP. SIDE ELEVATION
COMPACT
FRONT ELEVATION
COMPACT
FLOOR PLAN
STANDARD
TYP. SIDE ELEVATION
STANDARD
FRONT ELEVATION
STANDARD
SITE KEY
A.30
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
PROJECT ENTRANCE PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM EL CAMINO REAL | MONUMENT SIGN AREA
SITE KEY
A.31
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
BUILDINGS 1A, 3A & 5A PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM EL CAMINO REAL | COMMON COURTYARD AREA
SITE KEY
SITE KEY
A.32
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
BUILDINGS 2B, 4B & 6B PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM SECOND LEVEL WALKWAY | COMMON COURTYARD AREA
A.33
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
CLUBHOUSE PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM OPEN SPACE WALKWAY | COMMON TOT-LOT AREA
SITE KEY
A.34
DATE: SEPT. 28, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
TYPICAL BUILDINGS AND CLUBHOUSE COLORS AND MATERIALS
B. ASPHALT SHINGLES:
GAF ROOFING TIMBERLINE HD IN
BARKWOOD
1. MAIN COLOR:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
DUTCH COCOA SW6032
2. ACCENT COLOR:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
REALIST BEIGE SW6078
3. DOOR AND WINDOW TRIM:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
IVORY LACE SW7013
4. ACCENTS AND DETAILS:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
SOFTWARE SW7074
COLOR SCHEME 1 COLOR SCHEME 2
1.1.
2.2.
3.3.
4.4.
A.B.A.B.
1. MAIN COLOR:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
JERSEY CREAM SW6379
2. ACCENT COLOR:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
RUSKIN ROOM GREEN SW0042
3. DOOR AND WINDOW TRIM:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
ROCKY RIVER SW6215
4. ACCENTS AND DETAILS:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
REDDENED EARTH SW6053
1. SIDING:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
CLARY SAGE SW6178
2. DOOR AND WINDOW TRIM:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
ROSEMARY SW6187
3. ACCENTS AND DETAILS:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
MUSLIN SW6133
4. DOORS AND WINDOWS:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
RED TOMATO SW6607
5. BRICK VENEER:
EL DORADO STONE TUNDRABRICK IN
HARTFORD
6. ASPHALT SHINGLES:
GAF ROOFING TIMBERLINE HD IN
MISSION BROWN
COLOR SCHEME 4 CLUBHOUSE
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.3.
4.4.
5.
1. MAIN COLOR:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
HALCYON GREEN SW6213
2. ACCENT COLOR:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
CHELSEA MAUVE SW0002
3. DOOR AND WINDOW TRIM:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
CLOCK GRAY SW 6278
4. ACCENTS AND DETAILS:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
IVORY LACE SW7013
COLOR SCHEME 5
1.
2.
3.
4.
6.
C. ASPHALT SHINGLES:
GAF ROOFING TIMBERLINE HD IN
PEWTER GRAY
COLOR SCHEME 3
1.
2.
3.
4.
C.C.
1. MAIN COLOR:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
ROCKWOOD RED SW2802
2. ACCENT COLOR:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
DOPPER TAN SW6144
3. DOOR AND WINDOW TRIM:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
KILIM BEIGE SW6106
4. ACCENTS AND DETAILS:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
ROCKWOOD SHUTTER GREEN SW2809
COLOR SCHEME 6
1.
2.
3.
4.
1. MAIN STUCCO:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
MANNERED GOLD SW6130
2. STUCCO ACCENT:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
IVORIE SW6127
3. DOOR AND WINDOW TRIM:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
PEWTER GREEN SW6208
4. ACCENTS AND DETAILS:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
CORDOVAN SW6027
A. ASPHALT SHINGLES:
GAF ROOFING TIMBERLINE HD IN
CHARCOAL
1. MAIN STUCCO:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
CONNECTED GRAY SW6165
2. STUCCO ACCENT:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
FAVORITE TAN SW6157
3. DOOR AND WINDOW TRIM:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
FOXY SW6333
4. ACCENTS AND DETAILS:
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
CLOCK GRAY SW6278
B. BRICK VENER:
EL DORADO STONE TUNDRABRICK IN
HARTFORD
C. STONE VENEER:
EL DORADO STONE RIVER ROCK IN
RIO GRANDE
A. STONE VENEER:
EL DORADO STONE STACKED STONE IN
ALDERWOOD
ROOF SHINGLE OPTIONSSTONE VENEER OPTIONS
ANGLED PARKING ALTERNATIVE STATISTICS
WITH STREET ‘B’ PARALLEL PARKING LAYOUT
PROPOSED PARKING: 380 VEHICLE STALLS
(SEE SHEET T.1 PARKING CALCS.)
WITH STREET ‘B’ ANGLED PARKING LAYOUT
PROPOSED PARKING: 391 VEHICLE STALLS (11 ADDITIONAL STALLS
GAINED WITH ANGLED PARKING ALTERNATIVE)
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: PARALLEL PARKING LAYOUT PREFERRED BY
DESIGN TEAM AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
ANGLED PARKING LAYOUT WILL REQUIRE REDUCTION OF OPEN SPACE
AREA TO ALLOW FOR APPROPRIATE STREET ‘B’ ROAD WIDTH. MIN. OPEN
SPACE AREA WILL STILL BE MET. BUILDINGS 1A AND 2B WILL REQUIRE
HORIZONTAL SHIFT WHICH WILL COMPRESS SITE CIRCULATION AND LIMIT
LANDSCAPE BUFFER ZONES BETWEEN BUILDINGS AND DRIVEWAY AREAS.
EXB.1
DATE: OCT. 04, 2016
EMERALD RIDGE APARTMENTS
2555, 2605 AND 2705 EL CAMINO REAL, ATASCADERO PROJECT# 0238-01-RS15
PARKING EXHIBIT - STREET ‘B’ ANGLED PARKING OPTION
SCALE: 1”=30’
0 15 30 60
Attachment 4
Site Photos
View from El Camino Real frontage looking North
View of existing El Camino Real frontage looking at project site
10/28/16 Page 2
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Colony Home on project site
Colony Home with the deck refurbished
10/28/16 Page 3
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
View of property from East border of property looking West
View of property from East border of property looking West
10/28/16 Page 4
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Existing frontage of Principal Ave. looking north.
10/28/16 Page 5
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Attachment 5
Site Vegetation Map
Attachment 6
10/28/16 Page 6
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Fault Map
Proposed Project Site Known Fault
10/28/16 Page 7
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Attachment 7
National Wetlands Inventory Map
10/28/16 Page 8
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Attachment 8
Hazardous Materials Map
10/28/16 Page 9
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Attachment 9
FIRM
Project site
10/28/16 Page 10
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Attachment 12
Arborist Report
See Attached
Attachment 13
Biological Report
See Attached
Attachment 14
Historic Resource Evaluation
See Attached
Attachment 15
Traffic Impact Study
See Attached
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 707.542.9500
475 14th Street, Suite 290 OAKLAND, CA 94612 510.444.2600
1276 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 204 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 650.314.8313
w-trans.com
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Traffic Impact Study
Draft Report
in the
City of Atascadero
July 21, 2016
i
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Transportation Setting ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Capacity Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Alternative Modes .................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Access and Circulation .......................................................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 22
Study Participants and References ................................................................................................................................... 23
Figures
1. Study Area and Existing Lane Configurations .................................................................................................................. 3
2. Existing Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................................................... 10
3. Future Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................................................................... 12
4. Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
5. Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................................................................... 16
Tables
1. Collision Rates at the Study Intersections .......................................................................................................................... 5
2. Bicycle Facility Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
3. Intersection Level of Service Criteria ................................................................................................................................... 8
4. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ......................................................................................................... 11
5. Future Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................................................... 13
6. Trip Generation Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
7. Trip Distribution Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................. 15
8. Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ....................................................... 17
9. Future and Future plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................ 17
10. Peak Hour Queues Near Del Rio Road Interchange – Existing and Existing plus Project ................................ 18
11. Peak Hour Queues Near Del Rio Road Interchange – Future and Future plus Project ..................................... 19
Appendices
A. Collision Rate Calculations
B. Intersection Level of Service Calculations
C. Queuing Calculations
D. Left Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
1
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Executive Summary
The proposed Emerald Ridge project would construct 208 apartment units on a lot currently occupied by a single
family home. The project is anticipated to generate 1,383 trips per day, including 106 trips during the a.m. peak
hour and 103 during the p.m. peak.
Analysis indicates that the four study intersections analyzed under the Existing conditions scenario are operating
acceptably. With the addition of project traffic, the five intersections (including El Camino Real at the Project
Access) analyzed would operate acceptably.
Under projected Future volumes and the planned improvement that would upgrade traffic control from a traffic
signal to a roundabout at Del Rio Road/El Camino Real, the study intersections would operate acceptably, and
would continue to do so with the addition of project generated traffic.
Traffic volumes generated by the project are not expected to significantly affect queuing operations at the US 101
freeway interchange with Del Rio Road, except under Future plus Project conditions, where the project would
contribute to queue lengths that already exceed available storage.
Vehicles will access the project via the Project Access roadway, which intersects El Camino Real approximately
one-third mile south of the Del Rio Road/El Camino Real intersection. So as not to obstruct sight lines, landscaping
and foliage along the project frontage should be set back.
A southbound left turn lane on El Camino Real at the Project Access roadway is warranted under Future plus
Project traffic volumes and should be installed to provide access to the project.
Facilities for alternative modes would be adequate upon completion of recommended improvements, which
include providing a complete pedestrian connection to the bus stop located on the east side of El Camino Real
north of San Benito Road and providing bicycle parking on-site.
2
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the potential traffic impacts that would be associated with development of the
proposed Emerald Ridge Apartments project, which would consist of 208 apartments to be located at 2535, 2605
and 2705 El Camino Real in the City of Atascadero. The traffic study was completed in accordance with the criteria
established by the City of Atascadero, and is consistent with standard traffic engineering techniques.
Prelude
The purpose of a traffic impact study is to provide the City of Atascadero staff and policy makers with data that
they can use to make an informed decision regarding the potential traffic impacts of a proposed project, and any
associated improvements that would be required in order to mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance as
defined by the City of Atascadero’s General Plan or other policies. Vehicular traffic impacts are typically evaluated
by determining the number of new trips that the proposed use would be expected to generate, distributing these
trips to the surrounding street system based on existing travel patterns or anticipated travel patterns specific to
the proposed project, then analyzing the impact the new traffic would be expected to have on critical intersections
or roadway segments. Impacts relative to access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and to transit are also addressed.
Project Profile
The project would result in the construction of a total of 208 apartments. The project site is currently occupied by
one single family home and is bounded by El Camino Real to the west, single family residences on Madera Place
to the north, and vacant lots to the south and east as shown in Figure 1.
D EL R IO R D
SAN BENITO RDRAMONA RDEL CAMINO
REALUS101 SB RAMPU
S
1
0
1
S
B
RAMPUS10
1
N
B R
A
M
P
US101 NB RAMPRIO
R
I
TA
RDM A D E R A P L
Project Site
LEGEND
Study Intersection#
Figure 1 - Study Area and Existing Lane Configurations
Emerald Ridge Traffic Impact Study
021ata.ai 07/16
Project
North
Not to Scale
North
Not to Scale
4 3
2
1
4
Ramona Rd
Del Rio Rd
3 US 101 SB Ramps
Del Rio Rd
2 US 101 NB Ramps
Del Rio Rd
Del Rio Rd
El Camino Real1
B
L
4
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Transportation Setting
Operational Analysis
Study Area and Periods
The study area includes the following intersections:
1. Del Rio Road/El Camino Real
2. Del Rio Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps
3. Del Rio Road/US 101 Southbound Ramps
4. Del Rio Road/Ramona Road
5. El Camino Real/Project Access
Operating conditions during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak periods were evaluated to capture the highest
potential impacts for the proposed project as well as the highest volumes on the local transportation network.
The morning peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and reflects conditions during the home to work or
school commute, while the p.m. peak hour occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and typically reflects the highest
level of congestion during the homeward bound commute.
The intersection of El Camino Real/Project Access was evaluated under the Existing plus Project and Future plus
Project scenarios only.
Study Intersections
Del Rio Road/Ramona Road is a tee intersection with a stop control on the northbound Ramona Road approach.
Del Rio Road/US 101 Southbound Ramps is a four-legged signalized intersection. The north leg is the US 101
Southbound off ramp and the south leg is the on ramp. The intersection’s south leg has a parallel line crosswalk.
Del Rio Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps is a four-legged signalized intersection. The north leg is the US 101
Northbound on ramp and the south leg is the off ramp. Protected-permissive left-turn phasing is provided for
eastbound Del Rio Road. The intersection’s south leg has a parallel line crosswalk.
Del Rio Road/El Camino Real is a four-legged signalized intersection with parallel line crosswalks provided on all
legs. Protected left-turn phasing is provided on northbound and southbound El Camino Real.
El Camino Real/Project Access would be a tee intersection with stop control on the westbound Project Access
approach.
The locations of the study intersections and the existing lane configurations and controls are shown in Figure 1.
5
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Collision History
The collision history for the study area was reviewed to determine any trends or patterns that may indicate a safety
issue. Collision rates were calculated based on records available from the California Highway Patrol as published
in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports. The most current five-year period available
is January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2015.
As presented in Table 1, the calculated collision rates for the study intersections were compared to average
collision rates for similar facilities statewide, as indicated in 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways,
California Department of Transportation. All of the study intersections have calculated collision rates lower than
the Statewide average except Del Rio Road/El Camino Real. Copies of the collision rate calculations are provided
in Appendix A.
Table 1 – Collision Rates at the Study Intersections
Study Intersection Number of
Collisions
(2011-2015)
Calculated
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
Statewide
Average
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
1. Del Rio Road/El Camino Real 10 0.53 0.43
2. Del Rio Road/US 101 Northbound Ramps 3 0.18 0.43
3. Del Rio Road/US 101 Southbound Ramps 4 0.30 0.43
4. Del Rio Road/Ramona Road 0 0.00 0.14
Note: c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering
At the intersection of Del Rio Road/El Camino Real, the calculated collision rate was 0.53 collisions per million
vehicles entering (c/mve), which is higher than the statewide average for similar facilities of 0.43 c/mve. Of the
ten reported collisions for this period, a total of five collisions were broadside collisions that had traffic signals and
signs and auto right-of-way violation as the primary collision factor. A roundabout is planned to be constructed
in the next few years as part of the Walmart project. Roundabouts can help improve safety at intersections by
reducing the number of conflict points between vehicle paths and potential for certain types of collisions at these
points.
Alternative Modes
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions, and
various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. In general, sidewalk gaps, obstacles, and barriers can
be found along all of the roadways connecting to the project site. Existing gaps and obstacles along the
connecting roadways impact convenient and continuous access for pedestrians to nearby shopping centers and
transit and present safety concerns in those locations where appropriate pedestrian infrastructure would address
potential conflict points.
El Camino Real – Intermittent sidewalk coverage is provided on El Camino Real with significant gaps on both
sides of the street between San Benito and Del Rio Road. Sidewalks are provided along developed property
frontages. Curb ramps and crosswalks at side street approaches are not provided. Overhead street lighting
exists along El Camino Real.
6
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Bicycle Facilities
The Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2012, classifies bikeways into
three categories:
Class I Multi-Use Path – a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians
with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized.
Class II Bike Lane – a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.
Class III Bike Route – signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street
or highway.
Guidance for Class IV Bikeways is provided in Design Information Bulletin Number 89: Class IV Bikeway Guidance
(Separated Bikeways/Cycle Tracks), Caltrans, 2015.
Class IV Separated Bikeway/Cycle Track – a bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles that requires physical
separation such as grade differences, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking between
the bikeway and through vehicular traffic.
In the project area, Class II bike lanes exist on El Camino Real. Table 2 summarizes the existing and planned bicycle
facilities in the project vicinity, as contained in the City of Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Table 2 – Bicycle Facility Summary
Status
Facility
Class Length
(miles)
Begin Point End Point
Existing
El Camino Real II 6.00 Southern City Limits Del Rio Rd
Planned
Del Rio Rd II 1.70 San Anselmo Rd Monterey Rd
San Benito Rd II 0.60 El Camino Real Del Rio Rd
Source: City of Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2010
Transit Facilities
The San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority provides a fixed route bus service in the City of Atascadero. RTA
Local Route 9 provides loop service to destinations throughout the City of Atascadero and surrounding
communities and stops on El Camino Real between Atalaya Street and Pine Street. Route 9 operates Monday
through Friday with approximately one hour headways between 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Saturday service operates
with approximately one hour headways between 7:45 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Bicycle racks are available on all RTA buses. Bike rack space is on a first come, first served basis. Additional bicycles
are allowed on RTA buses at the discretion of the driver.
Dial-a-ride, also known as paratransit, or door-to-door service, is available for those who are unable to
independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability. Atascadero Dial-A-Ride is designed to
serve the needs of individuals with disabilities within the City of Atascadero.
7
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Capacity Analysis
Intersection Level of Service Methodologies
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and
roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents
free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of measure
that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation.
The study intersections were analyzed using methodologies published in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM),
Transportation Research Board, 2000. This source contains methodologies for various types of intersection
control, all of which are related to a measurement of delay in average number of seconds per vehicle.
The Level of Service for the intersections that have side street stop control were analyzed using the “Two-Way
Stop-Controlled” intersection capacity method from the HCM. This methodology determines a level of service for
each minor turning movement by estimating the level of average delay in seconds per vehicle. Results are
presented for individual movements together with the weighted overall average delay for the intersection.
The study intersections that are currently controlled by a traffic signal, or may be in the future, were evaluated
using the signalized methodology from the HCM. This methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes,
green time for each movement, phasing, whether or not the signals are coordinated, truck traffic, and pedestrian
activity. Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology.
For purposes of this study, delays were calculated using optimized signal timing.
Intersections that are proposed to be controlled by modern roundabouts were evaluated using the FHWA
Roundabout Method, also contained within the Unsignalized Methodology of the HCM. This methodology
determines intersection operation using the gap acceptance method using basic geometric and volume data to
calculate entering and circulating flows. This information is then translated to an overall average vehicle delay,
with LOS break points at the same delays as used in the signalized methodology.
The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 3.
8
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Table 3 – Intersection Level of Service Criteria
LOS Two-Way Stop-Controlled Signalized Roundabout
A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Gaps in
traffic are readily available for
drivers exiting the minor street.
Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most
vehicles arrive during the green
phase, so do not stop at all.
Delay of 0 to 10 seconds.
B Delay of 10 to 15 seconds. Gaps in
traffic are somewhat less readily
available than with LOS A, but no
queuing occurs on the minor street.
Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More
vehicles stop than with LOS A, but
many drivers still do not have to stop.
Delay of 10 to 20 seconds.
C Delay of 15 to 25 seconds.
Acceptable gaps in traffic are less
frequent, and drivers may approach
while another vehicle is already
waiting to exit the side street.
Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The
number of vehicles stopping is
significant, although many still pass
through without stopping.
Delay of 20 to 35 seconds.
D Delay of 25 to 35 seconds. There
are fewer acceptable gaps in traffic,
and drivers may enter a queue of
one or two vehicles on the side
street.
Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The
influence of congestion is noticeable,
and most vehicles have to stop.
Delay of 35 to 55 seconds.
E Delay of 35 to 50 seconds. Few
acceptable gaps in traffic are
available, and longer queues may
form on the side street.
Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if
not all, vehicles must stop and drivers
consider the delay excessive.
Delay of 55 to 80 seconds.
F Delay of more than 50 seconds.
Drivers may wait for long periods
before there is an acceptable gap in
traffic for exiting the side streets,
creating long queues.
Delay of more than 80 seconds.
Vehicles may wait through more than
one cycle to clear the intersection.
Delay of more than 80 seconds.
Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000
Analysis of Interchange Area Queuing
Adverse queuing conditions can result in traffic impacts at closely spaced intersections, particularly at freeway
interchanges where queues can potentially affect mainline freeway operation. For these reasons, an analysis of
queuing was performed for the Del Rio Road corridor between Ramona Road and El Camino Real, including the
US 101 Northbound Ramps and US 101 Southbound Ramps intersections. The projected vehicle queues were
determined using the applied timing schemes in SIMTRAFFIC, which is a traffic simulation extension of SYNCHRO
that generates random “seeding” of vehicles on the street network and then simulates how vehicles will flow
through the system using the actual volumes, phasing, and timing developed in SYNCHRO. Because each
SIMTRAFFIC run is unique, a series of ten separate “runs” was used to develop queuing estimates. The 95th
percentile queues projected for each lane in the five SIMTRAFFIC runs were averaged and are reported as the
maximum queue.
Traffic Operation Standards
The City of Atascadero’s adopted Level of Service standard is contained in Policy 1.3 of the 2025 Atascadero General
Plan. This standard allows for a minimum operation of LOS C or better at all intersections and on all arterial and
9
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
collector roads. Upon City Council approval, LOS D is acceptable where residences are not directly impacted and
improvements made meet City standards.
The City of Atascadero LOS standard does not differentiate between signalized intersections and other types of
controls. Since application of the LOS C standard to individual movements at two- or all-way stop-controlled
intersections may lead to recommendations which create unnecessary delay or maintenance expenses, mitigation
measures such as a traffic signal, additional lanes, or revised right-of-way controls were only considered if
operation on any single movement fell to LOS F, indicating an average delay in excess of 50 seconds, and traffic
signal warrants were met. This approach is common practice in evaluating unsignalized intersections and is
acceptable to the City.
Caltrans maintains a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D for freeway facilities where LOS C is
considered acceptable and LOS D exceeds the standard.
A project would create a significant circulation impact if it would create or worsen queuing conditions at freeway
interchange intersections in which the projected queues cannot be accommodated within the available storage
space.
Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation based on existing traffic volumes
during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This condition does not include project-generated traffic volumes. Volume
data was collected on June 1, 2016 while local schools were in session.
Intersection Levels of Service
Under existing conditions, the study intersections are operating acceptably at LOS A or B overall as well as on and
on the northbound Ramona Road approach. A summary of the intersection level of service calculations is
contained in Table 4. The existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2, and copies of the Level of Service
calculations are provided in Appendix B.
D EL R IO R D
SAN BENITO RDRAMONA RDEL CAMINO
REALUS101 SB RAMPU
S
1
0
1
S
B
RAMPUS10
1
N
B R
A
M
P
US101 NB RAMPRIO
R
I
TA
RDM A D E R A P L
Project Site
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM Peak Hour Volume
PM Peak Hour Volume
XX
(XX)
#
Figure 2 - Existing Traffic Volumes
Emerald Ridge Traffic Impact Study
021ata.ai 07/16
Project
North
Not to Scale
North
Not to Scale
(145)249
(0) 1
(0) 0(21)12105(233)
23 (24)
06/164
49 (86)1 (0)182(219)(107)160
(57)101
79 (128)
143(137)
06/163
(64) 95
(276)246
(75)35(0) 1(153)97154(182)
182(170)
06/16285(52)50(94)10(14)(78) 55
(78)113
(252)164
(2) 3(211)112(111) 64(19) 916 (9)
144(86)
25 (20)
06/161
4 3
2
1
11
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Table 4 – Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Del Rio Rd/El Camino Real 16.8 B 18.2 B
2. Del Rio Rd/US 101 NB Ramps 5.9 A 6.3 A
3. Del Rio Rd/US 101 SB Ramps 7.4 A 7.7 A
4. Del Rio Rd/Ramona Rd 0.8 A 1.0 A
Northbound Approach 11.0 B 10.6 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way
stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
Future Conditions
Traffic Volumes
Future traffic volume projections were developed based on data from the Del Rio Road Area Specific Plan EIR
Transportation Impact Analysis, March 8, 2012. The future volumes in the EIR traffic analysis were obtained from
the regional travel demand model maintained by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). The
model includes traffic projections for the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours upon buildout of all development
anticipated to take place by the year 2035 throughout San Luis Obispo County, including buildout of the
Atascadero General Plan. These future volumes were adjusted as follows:
Walmart Project – Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the Walmart project were adjusted to reflect
the final project size that is moving forward with construction.
Del Rio Annex – The Annex portion of the EIR “project” was not included in these Future background traffic
volumes with the exception of the Annex Phase II, which is now proposed as a hotel.
Future Growth Increment – The future traffic growth increment, not including the Walmart or Annex projects,
was adjusted to account for the new 2016 traffic counts since the previous growth was based on 2012 base
conditions.
Road Facilities
Future traffic conditions were evaluated assuming a roundabout at the intersection of Del Rio Road/El Camino
Real, which would be constructed as part of the Walmart development project. Traffic signal control at the Del Rio
Road/US 101 Northbound and Southbound Ramp intersections were assumed to remain in place.
Intersection Operation
Under the anticipated Future volumes, the study intersections are expected to operate acceptably at LOS A or B
both overall and on the northbound Ramona Road approach. Future volumes are shown in Figure 3 and operating
conditions are summarized in Table 5.
D EL R IO R D
SAN BENITO RDRAMONA RDEL CAMINO
REALUS101 SB RAMPU
S
1
0
1
S
B
RAMPUS10
1
N
B R
A
M
P
US101 NB RAMPRIO
R
I
TA
RDM A D E R A P L
Project Site
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM Peak Hour Volume
PM Peak Hour Volume
XX
(XX)
#
Project Access (not yet existing)*
Figure 3 - Future Traffic Volumes
Emerald Ridge Traffic Impact Study
021ata.ai 07/16
Project
North
Not to Scale
North
Not to Scale
(184)284
(0) 2
(0) 0(26)14130(254)
29 (26)
Future4
49 (100)1 (1)303(406)(141)196
(68)101
108(156)
200(295)
Future3
(64)116
(500)383
(75) 42(0) 1(301)203229(359)
260(358)
Future2102(79)61 (163)26 (21)(102) 91
(251)258
(409)228 (0) 0(376)199(171)179(19) 939 (18)
198(262)
25 (20)
Future1
4 3
2
1
5*
0(0)
0(0)252(401)0 (0)(390)329(0) 0Future5
13
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Table 5 – Future Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Del Rio Rd/El Camino Real 5.5 A 7.4 A
2. Del Rio Rd/US 101 NB Ramps 6.8 A 9.9 A
3. Del Rio Rd/US 101 SB Ramps 9.3 A 14.1 B
4. Del Rio Rd/Ramona Rd 0.9 A 1.1 A
Northbound Approach 11.2 B 10.8 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way
stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
Project Description
The project consists of a 208 unit apartment complex on a 7.55 acre lot with a new access road along the north
end of the lot. The project site is currently occupied by a single-family dwelling. The proposed project site plan is
shown in Figure 4.
Project
North
Not to Scale
Figure 4 - Site Plan
Emerald Ridge Traffic Impact Study
021ata.ai 07/16
North
Not to Scale
Projectoj
Northr
Not to Scale
021ata ai
N
N
15
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Trip Generation
The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard rates published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 for “Apartment” (ITE LU 220).
The expected trip generation potential for the proposed project is indicated in Table 6. The proposed project is
expected to generate an average of 1,383 trips per day, including 106 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 103
during the p.m. peak hour.
Table 6 – Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
Apartment 208 du 6.65 1,383 0.51 106 21 85 0.62 129 84 45
Note: du = dwelling unit
Trip Distribution
The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was based on data from the 2000 Census for
home-to-work or work-to-home trips. The applied distribution assumptions and resulting trips are shown in Table
7.
Table 7 – Trip Distribution Assumptions
Route Percent Daily
Trips
AM
Trips
PM
Trips
US 101North (to/from the north) 30% 415 32 39
US 101 South (to/from the south) 15% 208 16 19
El Camino Real (to/from the north) 15% 207 16 19
El Camino Real (to/from the south) 30% 415 32 39
Del Rio Road (to/from the east) 5% 69 5 6
Del Rio Road (to/from the west) 5% 69 5 7
TOTAL 100% 1,383 106 129
Intersection Operation
Existing plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-related traffic to the Existing volumes, the study intersections are expected to
continue operating acceptably at the same levels of service as without the project. These results are summarized
in Table 8. Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5.
D EL R IO R D
SAN BENITO RDRAMONA RDEL CAMINO
REALUS101 SB RAMPU
S
1
0
1
S
B
RAMPUS10
1
N
B R
A
M
P
US101 NB RAMPRIO
R
I
TA
RDM A D E R A P L
Project Site
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM Peak Hour Volume
PM Peak Hour Volume
XX
(XX)
#
Project Access (not yet existing)*
Figure 5 - Project Traffic Volumes
Emerald Ridge Traffic Impact Study
021ata.ai 07/16
Project
North
Not to Scale
North
Not to Scale
(4)2
(0)0
(0)0(0)03(1)
0(0)
Project4
0(0)0(0)6(25)(4)2
(0)0
3(1)
13(7)
Project3
(0)0
(29)8
(0)0(0)0(13)326(14)
16(8)
Project20(0)3(13)0(0)(0) 0
(0) 0
(42)11 (0) 0(22)42(7)13(2) 40(0)
0(0)
1(4)
Project1
4 3
2
1
5*
59(31)
26(14)0 (0)15(59)(0)0(25)6Project5
17
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Table 8 – Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
Existing Conditions Existing plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Del Rio Rd/El Camino Real 16.8 B 18.2 B 25.8 C 18.4 B
2. Del Rio Rd/US 101 NB Ramps 5.9 A 6.3 A 6.0 A 6.4 A
3. Del Rio Rd/US 101 SB Ramps 7.4 A 7.7 A 7.6 A 8.1 A
4. Del Rio Rd/Ramona Rd 0.8 A 1.0 A 0.8 A 1.0 A
Northbound Approach 11.0 B 10.6 B 11.0 B 10.6 B
5. El Camino Real/Project Access -- -- -- -- 2.1 A 1.6 A
Westbound Approach -- -- -- -- 10.2 B 11.8 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way
stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
Finding – The study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably at the same levels of service
upon the addition of project-generated traffic.
Future plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-generated traffic to the anticipated Future volumes, and with the planned
roundabout at Del Rio Road/El Camino Real, the study intersections are expected to continue operating
acceptably. The Future plus Project operating conditions are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9 – Future and Future plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
Future Conditions Future plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. Del Rio Rd/El Camino Real 5.5 A 7.4 A 5.8 A 7.8 A
2. Del Rio Rd/US 101 NB Ramps 6.8 A 9.9 A 7.0 A 11.3 A
3. Del Rio Rd/US 101 SB Ramps 9.3 A 14.1 B 9.7 A 15.5 B
4. Del Rio Rd/Ramona Rd 0.9 A 1.1 A 0.9 A 1.1 A
Northbound Approach 11.2 B 10.8 B 11.2 B 10.9 B
5. El Camino Real/Project Access -- -- -- -- 1.7 A 1.4 A
Westbound Approach -- -- -- -- 11.9 B 13.6 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way
stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
Finding – The study intersections would continue operating acceptably with project traffic added, at the same
Levels of Service as without the project.
18
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Interchange Area Queuing
Queuing in the vicinity of the US 101 interchange at Del Rio Road was assessed under Existing, Existing plus
Project, Future, and Future plus Project conditions to determine whether the project would potentially impact
operation at the interchange. Under each scenario, the projected maximum queues were determined using the
SIMTRAFFIC application of Synchro, and averaging the maximum projected queue for each of ten runs.
Existing and Existing plus Project Conditions
Vehicle queues in the vicinity of the Del Rio Road freeway interchange are within acceptable storage under
Existing and Existing plus Project conditions. However, queue lengths currently exceed capacity, and are expected
to continue to exceed capacity, for the southbound right-turn movement on the US 101 Southbound Ramp at Del
Rio Road during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours without the project by less than 40 feet, or approximately two car
lengths. The addition of project volumes would result in a slight increase in the queue length, though this increase
is less-than-significant and can be attributed to the stochastic nature of the SIMTRAFFIC program; therefore, the
project would not result in increased queue lengths on this movement. A summary of the a.m. and p.m. peak hour
queues is presented in Table 10. Copies of the SIMTRAFFIC projections are contained in Appendix C.
Table 10 – Peak Hour Queues Near Del Rio Road Interchange – Existing and Existing plus Project
Study Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Scenario LT TR LT TR LT R LT R
Del Rio Rd/US 101 NB Ramps
Available Storage 342 -- -- 262 912 225 -- --
Maximum Queue
Existing (AM/PM) 103/116 88/107 49/57 63/64
Existing plus Project (AM/PM) 143/179 97/94 46/58 55/70
Del Rio Rd/US 101 SB Ramps
Available Storage -- 686 342 -- -- -- 965 25
Maximum Queue
Existing (AM/PM) 107/109 73/120 71/95 53/60
Existing plus Project (AM/PM) 125/104 94/107 85/117 56/63
Notes: LT = Left-turn/through movement; TR = Through/right-turn movement; R = Right-turn movement; Maximum (95th
Percentile ) Queue represents the maximum queues that develop within SIMTRAFFIC (values represent the
average of 10 SIMTRAFFIC runs); all distances are measured in feet; Bold text = deficient operation
Finding – The project would not contribute to excess queues.
Future and Future plus Project Conditions
Vehicle queues in the vicinity of the Del Rio Road freeway interchange would be within acceptable storage under
Future and Future plus Project conditions. However, queue lengths without the project would exceed capacity
for the southbound right-turn movement on the US 101 Southbound Ramp at Del Rio Road during the a.m. and
p.m. peak hours by less than 40 feet, or approximately two car lengths. The addition of project volumes would
result in a similar queue length, and the variations can be attributed to the stochastic nature of the SIMTRAFFIC
program; therefore, the project would not result in increased queue lengths on this movement. Queue lengths
would exceed capacity for the eastbound left-turn/through movement on Del Rio Road at the US 101 Northbound
19
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Ramp during the p.m. peak hour under Future conditions. With project volumes added, the queue lengths are
expected to increase during the a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour, resulting in deficient operation. Queue
lengths would exceed available capacity during the a.m. peak hour by approximately one car length. Queues
would exceed available capacity over Future conditions with project volumes added during the p.m. peak hour
by approximately two car lengths. A summary of the a.m. and p.m. peak hour queues is presented in Table 11.
Copies of the SIMTRAFFIC projections are contained in Appendix C.
Table 11– Peak Hour Queues Near Del Rio Road Interchange – Future and Future plus Project
Study Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Scenario LT TR LT TR LT R LT R
Del Rio Rd/US 101 NB Ramps
Available Storage 342 262 912 225
Maximum Queue
Future (AM/PM) 290/416 121/285 44/60 88/105
Future plus Project (AM/PM) 364/441 132/222 49/57 76/91
Del Rio Rd/US 101 SB Ramps
Available Storage 686 342 965 25
Maximum Queue
Future (AM/PM) 145/114 98/323 123/424 59/61
Future plus Project (AM/PM) 247/243 184/284 189/823 57/66
Notes: LT = Left-turn/through movement; TR = Through/right-turn movement; R = Right-turn movement; Maximum (95th
Percentile ) Queue represents the maximum queues that develop within SIMTRAFFIC (values represent the
average of 10 SIMTRAFFIC runs); all distances are measured in feet; Bold text = deficient operation
Finding – The project would contribute traffic volumes toward queues at the Del Rio Road interchange that
exceed the available storage capacity.
20
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Alternative Modes
Pedestrian Facilities
Given the proximity of retail located less than one-quarter mile north of the site, it is reasonable to assume that
some project residents would want to walk, bike, and/or use transit to and from the project site.
Project Site – Sidewalks do not exist along the project frontage. The site plan indicates that sidewalks would be
installed along the project’s frontage along El Camino Real and along the new Project Access roadway.
Finding – With the construction of sidewalks shown in the site plan, pedestrian facilities serving the project site
are expected to be adequate. However, given the proximity of the transit stop to the south, the applicant should
provide pedestrian facilities that allow for a connection for residents to transit.
Recommendation – The applicant should work with City staff to provide a complete connection from the project
site to the bus stop located on El Camino Real north of San Benito Road.
Bicycle Facilities
Existing bike lanes together with shared use of minor streets provide adequate access for bicyclists.
Bicycle Storage
The project site plan does not identify the provision of bicycle parking or storage facilities. It is recommended that
bicycle parking be provided on-site at a rate of 10 percent of the total parking spaces provided on-site given the
proximity of adjacent retail land uses and bicycle facilities.
Finding – Bicycle facilities serving the project site are expected to be adequate. The City of Atascadero Municipal
Code does not specify bicycle parking requirements for multifamily residential land use.
Recommendation – It is recommended that bicycle parking facilities be provided on-site given the proximity of
adjacent retail land uses and bicycle facilities.
Transit
Existing transit routes are adequate to accommodate project-generated transit trips. Existing stops are within
acceptable walking distance of the site, and any transit trips would be spread out in time.
Finding – Transit facilities serving the project site are expected to be adequate, and the project is not expected to
affect bus load factors or service.
21
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Access and Circulation
Site Access
The project site would be accessed via the Project Access roadway located on the north end of the site, which
intersects El Camino Real approximately one-third mile south of the Del Rio Road/El Camino Real intersection. The
Project Access would be built to roadway design standards to allow for a future connection to a planned roadway
“Street A” that would provide additional access and circulation to the nearby Walmart site.
Sight Distance
Sight distances along El Camino Real at the proposed project driveway were evaluated based on sight distance
criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans. The recommended sight distance at
intersections of public streets is based on corner sight distances, which is based on the approach travel speeds.
Additionally, the stopping sight distance needed for a following driver to stop if there is a vehicle waiting to turn
into a side street is evaluated based on stopping sight distance criterion and the approach speed on the major
street. Based on the posted speed limit of 45 mph on El Camino Real, the minimum corner sight distance is 495
feet and the stopping sight distance required is 360 feet. A review of field conditions and electronic
measurements using the site plan indicate that corner and stopping sight distances at the Project Access roadway
are adequate and would be met so long as landscaping and foliage along the project frontage should be set back
from the roadway to avoid obstructing sight lines in either direction.
Finding – Sight distance would be satisfactory at the proposed Project Access roadway with implementation of
the recommended improvements.
Recommendation – Landscaping and foliage along the project frontage should be set back so as not to obstruct
sight lines in either direction.
Access Analysis
Left-Turn Lane Warrants
The need for left-turn lanes on El Camino Real was evaluated based on criteria contained in the Intersection
Channelization Design Guide, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report No. 279,
Transportation Research Board, 1985, as well as a more recent update of the methodology developed by the
Washington State Department of Transportation. The NCHRP report references a methodology developed by M.
D. Harmelink that includes equations that can be applied to expected or actual traffic volumes in order to
determine the need for a left-turn pocket based on safety issues. Based on our research and discussions with
Caltrans staff, this methodology is consistent with the “Guidelines for Reconstruction of Intersections,” August
1985, which was referenced in Section 405.2, Left-turn Channelization, of previous editions of the Caltrans
Highway Design Manual, though this reference has been deleted from the most recent edition of this manual.
The need for left-turn channelization in the form of a southbound left-turn pocket on El Camino Real was
evaluated based on the p.m. peak hour volumes, which has the highest left-turn and through volumes, as well as
safety criteria. Under Existing plus Project conditions, a southbound left-turn lane is not warranted on El Camino
Real at the Project Access; under Future plus Project conditions, a southbound left-turn lane would be warranted
on El Camino Real at the Project Access. Left-turn lane warrant calculations are provided in Appendix D.
Finding – A southbound left turn lane is warranted under Future plus Project conditions.
Recommendation – A southbound left turn lane should be installed on El Camino Real that provides access to the
Project Access roadway.
22
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
Three of the four intersections evaluated under existing conditions had collision rates for the five-year study
period that are lower than the statewide average for similar facilities, with the exception being Del Rio Road/El
Camino Real. The planned roundabout is expected to improve safety at the intersection.
Currently, all four study intersections operate acceptably.
Under Future conditions, and with the planned roundabout at Del Rio Road/El Camino Real, all of the study
intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably.
The proposed project would generate an average of 1,383 trips per day, including 106 trips during the a.m.
peak hour and 129 during the p.m. peak hour.
With the addition of project-generated traffic, all of the study intersections are expected to continue
operating acceptably under all scenarios evaluated.
The project is not expected to significantly impact queuing operations at the Del Rio Road freeway
interchange under Existing plus Project conditions.
Under Future conditions and with project volumes added to the roadway network, the project would
contribute towards already excessive queues at the Del Rio Road interchange.
With the implementation of the recommended pedestrian sidewalk connection and bicycle parking,
pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities are expected to adequately serve the project site.
Sight distance would be satisfactory at the proposed project driveway upon implementation of the
recommended improvements.
A southbound left-turn lane is warranted on El Camino Real at the Project Access under Future plus Project
conditions.
Recommendations
The applicant should work with City staff to ensure adequate connections to transit for residents, specifically
to the bus stop located on El Camino Real north of San Benito Road.
Bicycle parking facilities should be provided on-site.
Landscaping and foliage along the project frontage should be set back so as not to obstruct sight lines.
A southbound left turn lane should be installed on El Camino Real that provides access to the Project Access
roadway.
23
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 21, 2016
Study Participants and References
Study Participants
Principal in Charge Steve Weinberger, PE, PTOE
Associate Engineer Smadar Boardman, EIT
Graphics Hannah Yung
Editing/Formatting Hannah Yung
Report Review Zack Matley, AICP
References
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan: Pedaling from 2010 to 2025, City of Atascadero, 2010
Atascadero Municipal Code, Quality Code Publishing, 2016
City of Atascadero General Plan 2025, Crawford Multari & Clark, Omni-Means, and City of Atascadero Community
Development Department, 2004
City of Atascadero: Revised Transportation Impact Analysis: Appendix O to the Del Rio Road Commercial Area Specific
Plan, City of Atascadero, 2012
Design Information Bulletin Number 89: Class IV Bikeway Guidance (Separated Bikeways/Cycle Tracks), California
Department of Transportation, 2015
Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000
Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition, California Department of Transportation, 2012
Intersection Channelization Design Guide, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report No.
279, Transportation Research Board, 1985
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), California Highway Patrol, 2010-2015
Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012
ATA021.R1
A
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 2016
Appendix A
Collision Rate Calculations
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 10
Number of Injuries: 1
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 10300
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Suburban
10 x
10,300 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.53 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.43 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 3
Number of Injuries: 0
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 9200
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Suburban
3x
9,200 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.18 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.43 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Wednesday, June 01, 2016
Wednesday, June 01, 2016
37.9%
Intersection Collision Rate Calculations
January 1, 2011
December 31, 2015
Intersection #Del Rio Road & El Camino Real
collision rate = 1,000,000
Del Rio Road & US 101 Northbound Ramp
37.9%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
January 1, 2011
365
Intersection #
December 31, 2015
Number of Collisions x 1 Millioncollision rate =
1:
Collision Rate Injury Rate
0.0%
Collision Rate Fatality Rate
collision rate = 365
2:
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
0.4%
collision rate = ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
10.0%
1,000,000
Injury Rate
Fatality Rate
0.0%
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
0.0%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
0.4%
Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc.
7/14/2016
Page 1 of 2
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 4
Number of Injuries: 0
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 7300
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Suburban
4x
7,300 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.30 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.43 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 0
Number of Injuries: 0
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 4200
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Tee
Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls
Area: Suburban
0x
4,200 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.00 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.14 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
collision rate =
Collision Rate
Wednesday, June 01, 2016
0.7%
0.0% 0.0%
1,000,000
365
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
Del Rio Road & Ramona Road
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
0.4%
Wednesday, June 01, 2016
0.0%
4:
0.0%
December 31, 2015
collision rate =
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
Intersection Collision Rate Calculaions
Intersection #
Fatality Rate
365
Collision Rate
3: Del Rio Road & US 101 Southbound Ramps
collision rate = 1,000,000
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
Injury Rate
13/31/15
Emerald Ridge Apartments
January 11, 2011
38.0%
Fatality Rate Injury Rate
January 1, 2011
collision rate =
Intersection #
37.9%
Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc.
7/14/2016
Page 2 of 2
B
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 2016
Appendix B
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis1: El Camino Real & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Existing ConditionsW-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 55 113 164 25 144 16 115 64 9 10 50 85Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.91Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1833 1583 1829 1770 1829 1770 1686Flt Permitted 0.87 1.00 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1619 1583 1738 1770 1829 1770 1686Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89Adj. Flow (vph) 62 127 184 28 162 18 129 72 10 11 56 96RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 1370700600570Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 189 47 0 201 0 129 76 0 11 95 0Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 4 4 8Actuated Green, G (s) 13.5 13.5 13.5 5.7 21.4 4.6 20.3Effective Green, g (s) 13.0 13.0 13.0 5.2 21.9 4.1 20.8Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.43 0.08 0.41Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 4.0 0.5 4.3 0.5 4.3Lane Grp Cap (vph) 412 403 443 180 785 142 687v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.04 0.01 c0.06v/s Ratio Perm c0.12 0.03 0.12v/c Ratio 0.46 0.12 0.45 0.72 0.10 0.08 0.14Uniform Delay, d1 16.0 14.6 16.0 22.2 8.7 21.7 9.5Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.0 1.0 10.7 0.2 0.1 0.4Delay (s) 16.3 14.6 17.0 32.9 8.9 21.8 9.9Level of Service B B B C A C AApproach Delay (s) 15.5 17.0 23.6 10.7Approach LOS B B C BIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 16.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.2% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis1: El Camino Real & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Existing ConditionsW-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 78 78 252 20 86 9 213 111 19 14 94 52Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1817 1583 1828 1770 1821 1770 1763Flt Permitted 0.83 1.00 0.93 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1554 1583 1719 1770 1821 1770 1763Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Adj. Flow (vph) 80 80 260 21 89 9 220 114 20 14 97 54RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 2070600700240Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 160 53 0 113 0 220 127 0 14 127 0Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 4 4 8Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 9.7 26.7 4.2 21.2Effective Green, g (s) 10.9 10.9 10.9 9.2 27.2 3.7 21.7Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.51 0.07 0.40Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 4.0 0.5 4.3 0.5 4.3Lane Grp Cap (vph) 314 320 348 302 920 121 711v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 0.07 0.01 c0.07v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.03 0.07v/c Ratio 0.51 0.16 0.33 0.73 0.14 0.12 0.18Uniform Delay, d1 19.1 17.7 18.3 21.1 7.1 23.5 10.3Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 0.7 7.2 0.3 0.2 0.6Delay (s) 19.5 17.8 19.1 28.4 7.4 23.7 10.9Level of Service B B B C A C BApproach Delay (s) 18.5 19.1 20.4 12.0Approach LOS B B C BIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 18.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39Actuated Cycle Length (s) 53.8 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.0% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Existing ConditionsW-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 95 246 0 0 182 154 35 1 97 0 0 0Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1837 1747 1776 1583Flt Permitted 0.81 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1510 1747 1776 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89Adj. Flow (vph) 107 276 0 0 204 173 39 1 109 0 0 0RTOR Reduction (vph)00005100083000Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 383 0 0 326 0 0 40 26 0 0 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 249Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 7 4 8 2 2Permitted Phases 4 2Actuated Green, G (s) 12.5 12.5 6.3 6.3Effective Green, g (s) 12.5 12.5 6.3 6.3Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.24 0.24Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 704 814 417 372v/s Ratio Prot 0.19 c0.02v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 0.02v/c Ratio 0.54 0.40 0.10 0.07Uniform Delay, d1 5.1 4.7 8.0 8.0Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1Delay (s) 6.0 5.0 8.1 8.0Level of Service A A A AApproach Delay (s) 6.0 5.0 8.1 0.0Approach LOSAAAAIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 5.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50Actuated Cycle Length (s) 26.8 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.5% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Existing ConditionsW-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 64 276 0 0 170 182 75 0 153 0 0 0Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1845 1733 1770 1583Flt Permitted 0.87 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1621 1733 1770 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 70 300 0 0 185 198 82 0 166 0 0 0RTOR Reduction (vph)000068000122000Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 370 0 0 315 0 0 82 44 0 0 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 249Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 7 4 8 2 2Permitted Phases 4 2Actuated Green, G (s) 11.3 11.3 7.0 7.0Effective Green, g (s) 11.3 11.3 7.0 7.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.27 0.27Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 696 744 471 421v/s Ratio Prot 0.18 c0.05v/s Ratio Perm c0.23 0.03v/c Ratio 0.53 0.42 0.17 0.10Uniform Delay, d1 5.5 5.2 7.4 7.3Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1Delay (s) 6.3 5.6 7.6 7.4Level of Service A A A AApproach Delay (s) 6.3 5.6 7.5 0.0Approach LOSAAAAIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 6.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51Actuated Cycle Length (s) 26.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.3% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Existing ConditionsW-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 0 160 101 143 790000182149Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1765 1805 1775 1583Flt Permitted 1.00 0.67 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1765 1253 1775 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Growth Factor (vph) 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89%Adj. Flow (vph) 0 142 90 127 700000162144RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4700000000026Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 185 0 0 1970000016318Turn Type NA pm+pt NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 4 3 8 6 6Permitted Phases 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 8.2 8.2 11.0 11.0Effective Green, g (s) 8.2 8.2 11.0 11.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.40Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 532 377 717 640v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.09v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.01v/c Ratio 0.35 0.52 0.23 0.03Uniform Delay, d1 7.4 7.9 5.3 4.9Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 1.3 0.2 0.0Delay (s) 7.8 9.2 5.5 4.9Level of Service A A A AApproach Delay (s) 7.8 9.2 0.0 5.4Approach LOSAAAAIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 7.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45Actuated Cycle Length (s) 27.2 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.7% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Existing ConditionsW-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 0 107 57 137 1280000219086Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1776 1816 1770 1583Flt Permitted 1.00 0.75 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1776 1401 1770 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93Adj. Flow (vph) 0 115 61 147 1380000235092RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3800000000058Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 138 0 0 2850000023534Turn Type NA pm+pt NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 4 3 8 6 6Permitted Phases 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5Effective Green, g (s) 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 658 519 656 587v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.13v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.02v/c Ratio 0.21 0.55 0.36 0.06Uniform Delay, d1 6.7 7.7 7.1 6.3Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 1.2 0.3 0.0Delay (s) 6.8 8.9 7.4 6.3Level of Service A A A AApproach Delay (s) 6.8 8.9 0.0 7.1Approach LOSAAAAIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 7.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55Actuated Cycle Length (s) 31.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.6% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: Ramona Road & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Existing ConditionsW-TransMovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 249 1 23 105 0 12Sign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Hourly flow rate (vph) 219 1 20 92 0 11PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh) 1Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft) 96pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 220 352 220vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 220 352 220tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3p0 queue free % 98 100 99cM capacity (veh/h) 1349 636 820Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1Volume Total 220 113 11Volume Left 0 20 0Volume Right 1 0 11cSH 1700 1349 615Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.02 0.02Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 1Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.5 11.0Lane LOS A BApproach Delay (s) 0.0 1.5 11.0Approach LOS BIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 0.8Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.2% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: Ramona Road & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Existing ConditionsW-TransMovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 145 0 24 233 0 21Sign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91Hourly flow rate (vph) 159 0 26 256 0 23PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh) 1Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft) 96pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 159 468 159vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 159 468 159tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3p0 queue free % 98 100 97cM capacity (veh/h) 1420 543 886Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1Volume Total 159 282 23Volume Left 0 26 0Volume Right 0 0 23cSH 1700 1420 664Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.02 0.03Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 3Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 10.6Lane LOS A BApproach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 10.6Approach LOS BIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 1.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.9% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Future ConditionsW-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 116 383 0 0 260 229 42 1 203 0 0 0Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1841 1745 1776 1583Flt Permitted 0.81 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1512 1745 1776 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj. Flow (vph) 116 383 0 0 260 229 42 1 203 0 0 0RTOR Reduction (vph)000047000159000Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 499 0 0 442 0 0 43 44 0 0 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 249Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 7 4 8 2 2Permitted Phases 4 2Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 6.7 6.7Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 6.7 6.7Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.22 0.22Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 788 909 387 345v/s Ratio Prot 0.25 0.02v/s Ratio Perm c0.33 c0.03v/c Ratio 0.63 0.49 0.11 0.13Uniform Delay, d1 5.3 4.7 9.6 9.7Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.4 0.1 0.2Delay (s) 6.9 5.1 9.7 9.8Level of Service A A A AApproach Delay (s) 6.9 5.1 9.8 0.0Approach LOSAAAAIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 6.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59Actuated Cycle Length (s) 30.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Future ConditionsW-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 64 500 0 0 358 359 75 0 301 0 0 0Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1852 1737 1770 1583Flt Permitted 0.80 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1495 1737 1770 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj. Flow (vph) 64 500 0 0 358 359 75 0 301 0 0 0RTOR Reduction (vph)000056000225000Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 564 0 0 661 0 0 75 76 0 0 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 249Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 7 4 8 2 2Permitted Phases 4 2Actuated Green, G (s) 16.1 16.1 7.6 7.6Effective Green, g (s) 16.1 16.1 7.6 7.6Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.24 0.24Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 759 882 424 379v/s Ratio Prot c0.38 0.04v/s Ratio Perm 0.38 c0.05v/c Ratio 0.74 0.75 0.18 0.20Uniform Delay, d1 6.2 6.2 9.6 9.6Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 4.0 3.5 0.2 0.3Delay (s) 10.1 9.7 9.8 9.9Level of Service B A A AApproach Delay (s) 10.1 9.7 9.9 0.0Approach LOSBAAAIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 9.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69Actuated Cycle Length (s) 31.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.8% ICU Level of Service EAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Future ConditionsW-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 0 196 101 200 1080000303149Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1777 1804 1774 1583Flt Permitted 1.00 0.65 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1777 1219 1774 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Growth Factor (vph) 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89%Adj. Flow (vph) 0 174 90 178 960000270144RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3700000000026Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 227 0 0 2740000027118Turn Type NA pm+pt NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 4 3 8 6 6Permitted Phases 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 10.4 10.4 12.9 12.9Effective Green, g (s) 10.4 10.4 12.9 12.9Actuated g/C Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.41 0.41Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 590 405 731 652v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.15v/s Ratio Perm c0.22 0.01v/c Ratio 0.39 0.68 0.37 0.03Uniform Delay, d1 8.0 9.0 6.4 5.5Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 4.4 0.3 0.0Delay (s) 8.4 13.4 6.7 5.5Level of Service A B A AApproach Delay (s) 8.4 13.4 0.0 6.5Approach LOSABAAIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 9.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61Actuated Cycle Length (s) 31.3 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.6% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Future ConditionsW-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 0 141 68 295 15600004061100Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1781 1804 1774 1583Flt Permitted 1.00 0.68 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1781 1270 1774 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj. Flow (vph) 0 141 68 295 15600004061100RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3100000000064Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 178 0 0 4510000040736Turn Type NA pm+pt NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 4 3 8 6 6Permitted Phases 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 15.5 13.2 13.2Effective Green, g (s) 15.5 15.5 13.2 13.2Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.36 0.36Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 752 536 638 569v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.23v/s Ratio Perm c0.36 0.02v/c Ratio 0.24 0.84 0.64 0.06Uniform Delay, d1 6.8 9.5 9.8 7.7Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 11.4 2.1 0.0Delay (s) 7.0 20.9 11.9 7.7Level of Service A C B AApproach Delay (s) 7.0 20.9 0.0 11.1Approach LOS A C A BIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 14.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87Actuated Cycle Length (s) 36.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.6% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: Ramona Road & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Future ConditionsW-TransMovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 284 2 29 130 0 14Sign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Hourly flow rate (vph) 250 2 26 114 0 12PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh) 1Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft) 96pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 252 416 251vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 252 416 251tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3p0 queue free % 98 100 98cM capacity (veh/h) 1314 581 788Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1Volume Total 252 140 12Volume Left 0 26 0Volume Right 2 0 12cSH 1700 1314 591Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.02 0.02Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 2Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.6 11.2Lane LOS A BApproach Delay (s) 0.0 1.6 11.2Approach LOS BIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 0.9Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.4% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: Ramona Road & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Future ConditionsW-TransMovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 184 0 26 254 0 26Sign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Hourly flow rate (vph) 184 0 26 254 0 26PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh) 1Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft) 96pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 184 490 184vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 184 490 184tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3p0 queue free % 98 100 97cM capacity (veh/h) 1391 527 858Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1Volume Total 184 280 26Volume Left 0 26 0Volume Right 0 0 26cSH 1700 1391 644Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.02 0.04Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 3Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 10.8Lane LOS A BApproach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 10.8Approach LOS BIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 1.1Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.2% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis1: El Camino Real & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 55 113 175 26 144 16 157 77 13 10 53 85Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.91Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1833 1583 1828 1770 1822 1770 1691Flt Permitted 0.87 1.00 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1618 1583 1734 1770 1822 1770 1691Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89Adj. Flow (vph) 62 127 197 29 162 18 176 87 15 11 60 96RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 1470700800570Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 189 50 0 202 0 176 94 0 11 99 0Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 4 4 8Actuated Green, G (s) 13.5 13.5 13.5 5.7 21.4 4.6 20.3Effective Green, g (s) 13.0 13.0 13.0 5.2 21.9 4.1 20.8Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.43 0.08 0.41Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 4.0 0.5 4.3 0.5 4.3Lane Grp Cap (vph) 412 403 442 180 782 142 689v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.05 0.01 c0.06v/s Ratio Perm c0.12 0.03 0.12v/c Ratio 0.46 0.12 0.46 0.98 0.12 0.08 0.14Uniform Delay, d1 16.0 14.6 16.0 22.8 8.8 21.7 9.5Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 1.0 59.7 0.3 0.1 0.4Delay (s) 16.3 14.7 17.1 82.6 9.1 21.8 9.9Level of Service B B B F A C AApproach Delay (s) 15.5 17.1 55.6 10.7Approach LOSBBEBIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 25.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.36Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.4% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis1: El Camino Real & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 78 78 294 24 86 9 235 118 21 14 107 52Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1817 1583 1826 1770 1820 1770 1771Flt Permitted 0.83 1.00 0.92 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1547 1583 1697 1770 1820 1770 1771Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97Adj. Flow (vph) 80 80 303 25 89 9 242 122 22 14 110 54RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 2410600700220Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 160 62 0 117 0 242 137 0 14 142 0Turn Type Perm NA Perm Perm NA Prot NA Prot NAProtected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6Permitted Phases 4 4 8Actuated Green, G (s) 11.5 11.5 11.5 10.5 26.8 4.2 20.5Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 11.0 11.0 10.0 27.3 3.7 21.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.51 0.07 0.39Clearance Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 4.0 0.5 4.3 0.5 4.3Lane Grp Cap (vph) 315 322 345 327 920 121 688v/s Ratio Prot c0.14 0.08 0.01 c0.08v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.04 0.07v/c Ratio 0.51 0.19 0.34 0.74 0.15 0.12 0.21Uniform Delay, d1 19.1 17.8 18.4 20.8 7.1 23.6 11.0Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 0.8 7.6 0.3 0.2 0.7Delay (s) 19.6 17.9 19.2 28.4 7.5 23.8 11.6Level of Service B B B C A C BApproach Delay (s) 18.5 19.2 20.6 12.6Approach LOS B B C BIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 18.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41Actuated Cycle Length (s) 54.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.9% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 95 254 0 0 198 180 35 1 100 0 0 0Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1838 1743 1776 1583Flt Permitted 0.80 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1495 1743 1776 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89Adj. Flow (vph) 107 285 0 0 222 202 39 1 112 0 0 0RTOR Reduction (vph)00005300086000Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 392 0 0 371 0 0 40 26 0 0 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 249Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 7 4 8 2 2Permitted Phases 4 2Actuated Green, G (s) 13.1 13.1 6.3 6.3Effective Green, g (s) 13.1 13.1 6.3 6.3Actuated g/C Ratio 0.48 0.48 0.23 0.23Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 714 833 408 363v/s Ratio Prot 0.21 c0.02v/s Ratio Perm c0.26 0.02v/c Ratio 0.55 0.45 0.10 0.07Uniform Delay, d1 5.1 4.7 8.3 8.3Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.1Delay (s) 5.9 5.1 8.4 8.3Level of Service A A A AApproach Delay (s) 5.9 5.1 8.4 0.0Approach LOSAAAAIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 6.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51Actuated Cycle Length (s) 27.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.4% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 64 305 0 0 178 196 75 0 166 0 0 0Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1847 1731 1770 1583Flt Permitted 0.88 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1634 1731 1770 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92Adj. Flow (vph) 70 332 0 0 193 213 82 0 180 0 0 0RTOR Reduction (vph)000068000134000Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 402 0 0 338 0 0 82 46 0 0 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 249Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 7 4 8 2 2Permitted Phases 4 2Actuated Green, G (s) 12.2 12.2 7.0 7.0Effective Green, g (s) 12.2 12.2 7.0 7.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.26 0.26Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 732 776 455 407v/s Ratio Prot 0.20 c0.05v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 0.03v/c Ratio 0.55 0.44 0.18 0.11Uniform Delay, d1 5.5 5.1 7.9 7.7Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1Delay (s) 6.3 5.5 8.1 7.9Level of Service A A A AApproach Delay (s) 6.3 5.5 7.9 0.0Approach LOSAAAAIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 6.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52Actuated Cycle Length (s) 27.2 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.1% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 0 162 101 156 820000188149Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1766 1804 1775 1583Flt Permitted 1.00 0.67 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1766 1244 1775 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Growth Factor (vph) 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89%Adj. Flow (vph) 0 144 90 139 730000167144RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 4600000000026Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 188 0 0 2120000016818Turn Type NA pm+pt NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 4 3 8 6 6Permitted Phases 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 8.4 8.4 11.0 11.0Effective Green, g (s) 8.4 8.4 11.0 11.0Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.40 0.40Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 541 381 712 635v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 c0.09v/s Ratio Perm c0.17 0.01v/c Ratio 0.35 0.56 0.24 0.03Uniform Delay, d1 7.4 7.9 5.4 5.0Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 1.8 0.2 0.0Delay (s) 7.8 9.7 5.6 5.0Level of Service A A A AApproach Delay (s) 7.8 9.7 0.0 5.5Approach LOSAAAAIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 7.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47Actuated Cycle Length (s) 27.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.9% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 0 111 57 144 1290000244086Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1778 1815 1770 1583Flt Permitted 1.00 0.74 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1778 1386 1770 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93Adj. Flow (vph) 0 119 61 155 1390000262092RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3600000000057Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 144 0 0 2940000026235Turn Type NA pm+pt NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 4 3 8 6 6Permitted Phases 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 11.9 11.9 12.2 12.2Effective Green, g (s) 11.9 11.9 12.2 12.2Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 659 513 672 601v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 c0.15v/s Ratio Perm c0.21 0.02v/c Ratio 0.22 0.57 0.39 0.06Uniform Delay, d1 6.9 8.1 7.2 6.3Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 1.6 0.4 0.0Delay (s) 7.1 9.6 7.6 6.3Level of Service A A A AApproach Delay (s) 7.1 9.6 0.0 7.3Approach LOSAAAAIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 8.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58Actuated Cycle Length (s) 32.1 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.6% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: Ramona Road & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 251 1 23 108 0 12Sign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Hourly flow rate (vph) 221 1 20 95 0 11PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh) 1Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft) 96pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 222 357 221vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 222 357 221tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3p0 queue free % 98 100 99cM capacity (veh/h) 1347 632 818Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1Volume Total 222 115 11Volume Left 0 20 0Volume Right 1 0 11cSH 1700 1347 614Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.02 0.02Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 1Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.5 11.0Lane LOS A BApproach Delay (s) 0.0 1.5 11.0Approach LOS BIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 0.8Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.5% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: Ramona Road & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 149 0 24 234 0 21Sign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91Hourly flow rate (vph) 164 0 26 257 0 23PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh) 1Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft) 96pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 164 474 164vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 164 474 164tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3p0 queue free % 98 100 97cM capacity (veh/h) 1415 539 881Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1Volume Total 164 284 23Volume Left 0 26 0Volume Right 0 0 23cSH 1700 1415 661Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.02 0.03Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 3Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 10.6Lane LOS A BApproach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 10.6Approach LOS BIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 1.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.2% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis5: El Camino Real & Project Access7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 26 59 155 6 15 207Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Hourly flow rate (vph) 26 59 155 6 15 207PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 395 158 161vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 395 158 161tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 96 93 99cM capacity (veh/h) 603 887 1418Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 85 161 222Volume Left 26 0 15Volume Right 59 6 0cSH 776 1700 1418Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.09 0.01Queue Length 95th (ft) 9 0 1Control Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.6Lane LOS B AApproach Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.6Approach LOS BIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 2.1Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.0% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis5: El Camino Real & Project Access7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 14 31 284 25 59 288Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Hourly flow rate (vph) 14 31 284 25 59 288PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 702 296 309vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 702 296 309tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 96 96 95cM capacity (veh/h) 385 743 1252Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 45 309 347Volume Left 14 0 59Volume Right 31 25 0cSH 576 1700 1252Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.18 0.05Queue Length 95th (ft) 6 0 4Control Delay (s) 11.8 0.0 1.7Lane LOS B AApproach Delay (s) 11.8 0.0 1.7Approach LOS BIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 1.6Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.2% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 116 391 0 0 276 255 42 1 206 0 0 0Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1842 1742 1776 1583Flt Permitted 0.80 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1496 1742 1776 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj. Flow (vph) 116 391 0 0 276 255 42 1 206 0 0 0RTOR Reduction (vph)000050000161000Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 507 0 0 481 0 0 43 45 0 0 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 249Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 7 4 8 2 2Permitted Phases 4 2Actuated Green, G (s) 16.0 16.0 6.7 6.7Effective Green, g (s) 16.0 16.0 6.7 6.7Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.52 0.22 0.22Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 779 907 387 345v/s Ratio Prot 0.28 0.02v/s Ratio Perm c0.34 c0.03v/c Ratio 0.65 0.53 0.11 0.13Uniform Delay, d1 5.3 4.9 9.6 9.7Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 0.6 0.1 0.2Delay (s) 7.3 5.5 9.7 9.8Level of Service A A A AApproach Delay (s) 7.3 5.5 9.8 0.0Approach LOSAAAAIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 7.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60Actuated Cycle Length (s) 30.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.4% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 64 529 0 0 366 373 75 0 314 0 0 0Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1853 1736 1770 1583Flt Permitted 0.78 1.00 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1446 1736 1770 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj. Flow (vph) 64 529 0 0 366 373 75 0 314 0 0 0RTOR Reduction (vph)000057000209000Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 593 0 0 682 0 0 75 105 0 0 0Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 249Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 7 4 8 2 2Permitted Phases 4 2Actuated Green, G (s) 16.1 16.1 7.6 7.6Effective Green, g (s) 16.1 16.1 7.6 7.6Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.24 0.24Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 734 881 424 379v/s Ratio Prot 0.39 0.04v/s Ratio Perm c0.41 c0.07v/c Ratio 0.81 0.77 0.18 0.28Uniform Delay, d1 6.5 6.3 9.6 9.8Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 6.5 4.3 0.2 0.4Delay (s) 13.0 10.6 9.8 10.2Level of Service B B A BApproach Delay (s) 13.0 10.6 10.1 0.0Approach LOSBBBAIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 11.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.77Actuated Cycle Length (s) 31.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 87.6% ICU Level of Service EAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 0 198 101 213 1110000309149Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1778 1803 1774 1583Flt Permitted 1.00 0.65 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1778 1212 1774 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Growth Factor (vph) 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89%Adj. Flow (vph) 0 176 90 190 990000275144RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3600000000026Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 230 0 0 2890000027618Turn Type NA pm+pt NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 4 3 8 6 6Permitted Phases 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 11.0 11.0 13.2 13.2Effective Green, g (s) 11.0 11.0 13.2 13.2Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.34 0.41 0.41Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 607 414 727 648v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.16v/s Ratio Perm c0.24 0.01v/c Ratio 0.38 0.70 0.38 0.03Uniform Delay, d1 8.0 9.2 6.6 5.7Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 5.1 0.3 0.0Delay (s) 8.4 14.2 7.0 5.7Level of Service A B A AApproach Delay (s) 8.4 14.2 0.0 6.8Approach LOSABAAIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 9.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service AHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63Actuated Cycle Length (s) 32.2 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.7% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (vph) 0 145 68 302 15700004311100Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85Flt Protected 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (prot) 1782 1803 1774 1583Flt Permitted 1.00 0.68 0.95 1.00Satd. Flow (perm) 1782 1263 1774 1583Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj. Flow (vph) 0 145 68 302 15700004311100RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3100000000063Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 182 0 0 4590000043237Turn Type NA pm+pt NA Split NA PermProtected Phases 4 3 8 6 6Permitted Phases 8 6Actuated Green, G (s) 15.7 15.7 13.7 13.7Effective Green, g (s) 15.7 15.7 13.7 13.7Actuated g/C Ratio 0.42 0.42 0.37 0.37Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 748 530 649 579v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.24v/s Ratio Perm c0.36 0.02v/c Ratio 0.24 0.87 0.67 0.06Uniform Delay, d1 7.0 9.9 9.9 7.7Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 13.9 2.6 0.0Delay (s) 7.2 23.7 12.5 7.7Level of Service A C B AApproach Delay (s) 7.2 23.7 0.0 11.6Approach LOS A C A BIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 15.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.89Actuated Cycle Length (s) 37.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.7% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane Group
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: Ramona Road & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 286 2 29 133 0 14Sign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Hourly flow rate (vph) 252 2 26 117 0 12PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh) 1Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft) 96pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 253 421 253vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 253 421 253tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3p0 queue free % 98 100 98cM capacity (veh/h) 1312 578 786Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1Volume Total 253 143 12Volume Left 0 26 0Volume Right 2 0 12cSH 1700 1312 590Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.02 0.02Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 2Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.5 11.2Lane LOS A BApproach Delay (s) 0.0 1.5 11.2Approach LOS BIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 0.9Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.6% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: Ramona Road & Del Rio Road7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 188 0 26 255 0 26Sign Control Free Free StopGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Hourly flow rate (vph) 188 0 26 255 0 26PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh) 1Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft) 96pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 188 495 188vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 188 495 188tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3p0 queue free % 98 100 97cM capacity (veh/h) 1386 524 854Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1Volume Total 188 281 26Volume Left 0 26 0Volume Right 0 0 26cSH 1700 1386 640Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.02 0.04Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 1 3Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 10.9Lane LOS A BApproach Delay (s) 0.0 0.9 10.9Approach LOS BIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 1.1Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.4% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis5: El Camino Real & Project Access7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportAM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 26 59 329 6 15 252Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Hourly flow rate (vph) 26 59 329 6 15 252PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 614 332 335vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 614 332 335tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 94 92 99cM capacity (veh/h) 450 710 1224Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 85 335 267Volume Left 26 0 15Volume Right 59 6 0cSH 603 1700 1224Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.20 0.01Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 0 1Control Delay (s) 11.9 0.0 0.6Lane LOS B AApproach Delay (s) 11.9 0.0 0.6Approach LOS BIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 1.7Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.3% ICU Level of Service AAnalysis Period (min) 15HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis5: El Camino Real & Project Access7/14/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSynchro 7 - ReportPM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions W-TransMovement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsVolume (veh/h) 14 31 390 25 59 401Sign Control Stop Free FreeGrade 0% 0% 0%Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Hourly flow rate (vph) 14 31 390 25 59 401PedestriansLane Width (ft)Walking Speed (ft/s)Percent BlockageRight turn flare (veh)Median type None NoneMedian storage veh)Upstream signal (ft)pX, platoon unblockedvC, conflicting volume 922 402 415vC1, stage 1 conf volvC2, stage 2 conf volvCu, unblocked vol 922 402 415tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1tC, 2 stage (s)tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2p0 queue free % 95 95 95cM capacity (veh/h) 285 648 1144Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1Volume Total 45 415 460Volume Left 14 0 59Volume Right 31 25 0cSH 464 1700 1144Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.24 0.05Queue Length 95th (ft) 8 0 4Control Delay (s) 13.6 0.0 1.6Lane LOS B AApproach Delay (s) 13.6 0.0 1.6Approach LOS BIntersection SummaryAverage Delay 1.4Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15
C
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 2016
Appendix C
Queuing Calculations
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Existing Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 1: El Camino Real & Del Rio RoadMovement EB EB WB NB NB SB SBDirections Served LT R LTR L TR L TRMaximum Queue (ft) 93 57 100 92 37 27 63Average Queue (ft) 61 36 66 56 18 9 4295th Queue (ft) 101 63 108 104 43 32 82Link Distance (ft) 262 262 1685Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150Storage Blk Time (%) 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 0Intersection: 2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NB NBDirections Served LT TR LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 87 79 42 51Average Queue (ft) 57 47 19 3795th Queue (ft) 103 88 49 63Link Distance (ft) 342 262 912Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB SB SBDirections Served TR LT LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 45 64 61 46Average Queue (ft) 29 40 39 1995th Queue (ft) 54 73 71 53Link Distance (ft) 3 342 965Upstream Blk Time (%) 12Queuing Penalty (veh) 27Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25Storage Blk Time (%) 14 2Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 3Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Existing Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 1: El Camino Real & Del Rio RoadMovement EB EB WB NB NB SB SBDirections Served LT R LTR L TR L TRMaximum Queue (ft) 111 75 88 142 76 25 98Average Queue (ft) 69 54 57 95 35 8 5595th Queue (ft) 116 90 98 160 91 29 105Link Distance (ft) 262 262 1685Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150Storage Blk Time (%) 2 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0Intersection: 2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NB NBDirections Served LT TR LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 103 98 45 58Average Queue (ft) 64 58 29 4195th Queue (ft) 116 107 57 64Link Distance (ft) 342 262 912Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB SB SBDirections Served TR LT LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 48 107 85 50Average Queue (ft) 28 64 54 3495th Queue (ft) 55 120 95 60Link Distance (ft) 3 342 965Upstream Blk Time (%) 12Queuing Penalty (veh) 21Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25Storage Blk Time (%) 18 6Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 13
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Existing Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 4: Ramona Road & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NB NBDirections Served TR LT L RMaximum Queue (ft) 44 57 5 30Average Queue (ft) 23 22 1 1095th Queue (ft) 53 67 12 33Link Distance (ft) 683 3 1003Upstream Blk Time (%) 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 0Storage Bay Dist (ft) 20Storage Blk Time (%) 2Queuing Penalty (veh) 0Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 37Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Existing Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 4: Ramona Road & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NB NBDirections Served TR LT L RMaximum Queue (ft) 46 61 5 28Average Queue (ft) 18 45 1 1495th Queue (ft) 54 84 12 38Link Distance (ft) 683 3 1003Upstream Blk Time (%) 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 1Storage Bay Dist (ft) 20Storage Blk Time (%) 4Queuing Penalty (veh) 0Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 53
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Future Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 1: El Camino Real & Del Rio RoadMovement EB EB WB NB NB SBDirections Served LT R LTR L TR LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 68 52 64 51 57 54Average Queue (ft) 37 25 38 31 30 2895th Queue (ft) 82 58 72 61 68 64Link Distance (ft) 244 244 1672Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NB NBDirections Served LT TR LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 246 113 36 81Average Queue (ft) 163 68 17 5395th Queue (ft) 290 121 44 88Link Distance (ft) 342 244 912Upstream Blk Time (%) 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 4Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB SB SBDirections Served TR LT LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 48 90 110 48Average Queue (ft) 30 59 67 2795th Queue (ft) 56 98 123 59Link Distance (ft) 3 342 965Upstream Blk Time (%) 16Queuing Penalty (veh) 43Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25Storage Blk Time (%) 26 3Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 7Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Future Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 1: El Camino Real & Del Rio RoadMovement EB EB WB NB NB SBDirections Served LT R LTR L TR LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 98 88 95 128 81 100Average Queue (ft) 50 53 57 81 47 6795th Queue (ft) 114 105 129 160 155 119Link Distance (ft) 244 244 1672Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150Storage Blk Time (%) 6Queuing Penalty (veh) 11Intersection: 2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NB NBDirections Served LT TR LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 320 242 53 99Average Queue (ft) 258 150 32 6695th Queue (ft) 416 285 60 105Link Distance (ft) 342 244 912Upstream Blk Time (%) 15 8Queuing Penalty (veh) 80 54Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB SB SBDirections Served TR LT LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 51 241 325 51Average Queue (ft) 35 171 184 3995th Queue (ft) 66 323 424 61Link Distance (ft) 3 342 965Upstream Blk Time (%) 27 2 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 58 9 0Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25Storage Blk Time (%) 51 6Queuing Penalty (veh) 51 22
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Future Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 4: Ramona Road & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NBDirections Served TR LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 71 57 25Average Queue (ft) 39 29 995th Queue (ft) 89 73 30Link Distance (ft) 683 3Upstream Blk Time (%) 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 1Storage Bay Dist (ft) 20Storage Blk Time (%) 3Queuing Penalty (veh) 0Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 65Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Future Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 4: Ramona Road & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NB NBDirections Served TR LT L RMaximum Queue (ft) 109 59 29 38Average Queue (ft) 48 42 8 2195th Queue (ft) 141 84 41 50Link Distance (ft) 683 3 1003Upstream Blk Time (%) 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 1Storage Bay Dist (ft) 20Storage Blk Time (%) 0 15Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 287
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 1: El Camino Real & Del Rio RoadMovement EB EB WB NB NB SB SBDirections Served LT R LTR L TR L TRMaximum Queue (ft) 108 63 94 107 74 14 76Average Queue (ft) 70 41 69 72 34 5 4295th Queue (ft) 119 69 107 137 92 22 87Link Distance (ft) 262 262 1685Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150Storage Blk Time (%) 2Queuing Penalty (veh) 2Intersection: 2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NB NBDirections Served LT TR LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 118 83 39 48Average Queue (ft) 76 57 17 3395th Queue (ft) 143 97 46 55Link Distance (ft) 342 262 912Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB SB SBDirections Served TR LT LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 48 82 72 46Average Queue (ft) 26 53 48 2595th Queue (ft) 51 94 85 56Link Distance (ft) 3 342 965Upstream Blk Time (%) 12Queuing Penalty (veh) 27Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25Storage Blk Time (%) 16 4Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 7Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 1: El Camino Real & Del Rio RoadMovement EB EB WB NB NB SB SBDirections Served LT R LTR L TR L TRMaximum Queue (ft) 106 87 94 152 123 31 94Average Queue (ft) 70 61 59 112 50 11 5695th Queue (ft) 118 99 100 176 134 37 103Link Distance (ft) 262 262 1685Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 150Storage Blk Time (%) 4 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 0Intersection: 2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NB NBDirections Served LT TR LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 164 85 48 63Average Queue (ft) 83 55 30 4495th Queue (ft) 179 94 58 70Link Distance (ft) 342 262 912Upstream Blk Time (%) 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 1Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB SB SBDirections Served TR LT LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 45 96 105 50Average Queue (ft) 26 66 65 3895th Queue (ft) 51 107 117 63Link Distance (ft) 3 342 965Upstream Blk Time (%) 14Queuing Penalty (veh) 24Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25Storage Blk Time (%) 21 5Queuing Penalty (veh) 18 13
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 4: Ramona Road & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NBDirections Served TR LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 60 56 20Average Queue (ft) 28 32 695th Queue (ft) 74 75 26Link Distance (ft) 683 3Upstream Blk Time (%) 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 0Storage Bay Dist (ft) 20Storage Blk Time (%) 2Queuing Penalty (veh) 0Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 43Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 4: Ramona Road & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NB NBDirections Served TR LT L RMaximum Queue (ft) 48 50 10 32Average Queue (ft) 19 34 2 1695th Queue (ft) 53 78 17 41Link Distance (ft) 683 3 1003Upstream Blk Time (%) 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 1Storage Bay Dist (ft) 20Storage Blk Time (%) 5Queuing Penalty (veh) 0Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 63
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 1: El Camino Real & Del Rio RoadMovement EB EB WB NB NB SBDirections Served LT R LTR L TR LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 75 38 74 58 48 65Average Queue (ft) 36 23 42 36 26 3495th Queue (ft) 87 53 82 73 57 74Link Distance (ft) 244 244 1672Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NB NBDirections Served LT TR LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 274 113 38 70Average Queue (ft) 183 72 20 4895th Queue (ft) 364 132 49 76Link Distance (ft) 342 244 912Upstream Blk Time (%) 5Queuing Penalty (veh) 23Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB SB SBDirections Served TR LT LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 55 141 142 46Average Queue (ft) 31 86 90 3195th Queue (ft) 60 184 189 57Link Distance (ft) 3 342 965Upstream Blk Time (%) 21 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 55 0Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25Storage Blk Time (%) 38 3Queuing Penalty (veh) 17 8Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 1: El Camino Real & Del Rio RoadMovement EB EB WB NB NB SBDirections Served LT R LTR L TR LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 75 87 102 116 79 90Average Queue (ft) 41 42 57 70 39 5195th Queue (ft) 89 94 118 136 104 103Link Distance (ft) 244 244 1672Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150Storage Blk Time (%) 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 3Intersection: 2: US 101 NB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NB NBDirections Served LT TR LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 354 202 43 83Average Queue (ft) 309 135 25 6295th Queue (ft) 441 222 57 91Link Distance (ft) 342 244 912Upstream Blk Time (%) 29 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 168 3Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 3: US 101 SB Ramps & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB SB SBDirections Served TR LT LT RMaximum Queue (ft) 58 223 627 51Average Queue (ft) 35 153 357 4095th Queue (ft) 67 284 823 66Link Distance (ft) 3 342 965Upstream Blk Time (%) 45 1 5Queuing Penalty (veh) 96 2 0Storage Bay Dist (ft) 25Storage Blk Time (%) 62 5Queuing Penalty (veh) 62 20
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 4: Ramona Road & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NB NBDirections Served TR LT L RMaximum Queue (ft) 122 52 9 24Average Queue (ft) 63 28 3 1095th Queue (ft) 187 73 27 34Link Distance (ft) 683 3 1003Upstream Blk Time (%) 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 1Storage Bay Dist (ft) 20Storage Blk Time (%) 10Queuing Penalty (veh) 0Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 103Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions7/15/2016Emerald Ridge ApartmentsSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 4: Ramona Road & Del Rio RoadMovement EB WB NB NBDirections Served TR LT L RMaximum Queue (ft) 154 62 24 36Average Queue (ft) 75 29 6 2095th Queue (ft) 176 77 31 46Link Distance (ft) 683 3 1003Upstream Blk Time (%) 0Queuing Penalty (veh) 0Storage Bay Dist (ft) 20Storage Blk Time (%) 26Queuing Penalty (veh) 0Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 354
D
Traffic Impact Study for the Emerald Ridge Apartments
July 2016
Appendix D
Left Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
(veh/hr)(veh/hr)
284 288
25 59
Northbound Speed Limit: 45 mph Southbound Speed Limit: 45 mph
Northbound Configuration:Southbound Configuration:
1. Check for right turn volume criteria %lt 17.0 %
AV 386 veh/hr
2. Check advance volume threshold criteria for turn lane
AV = -
Va = 309
-
NO
Right Turn Taper Warrants
1. Check taper volume criteria
2. Check advance volume threshold criteria for taper
AV = 450 Study Intersection
NO NO
Turn Lane Warrant Analysis - Tee Intersections
Study Intersection: El Camino Real/Project Access
Study Scenario: PM Peak Hour Existing plus Project
Direction of Analysis Street: North/South Cross Street Intersects: From the East
Northbound Right Turn Lane Warrants Southbound Left Turn Lane Warrants
El Camino Real El Camino Real
Northbound Volumes Southbound Volumes
Through Volume == Through Volume
Right Turn Volume == Left Turn Volume
2 Lanes - Undivided Project Access 2 Lanes - Undivided
Percentage Left Turns
Advancing Volume Threshold
NOT WARRANTED Less than 40 vehicles If AV<Va then warrant is met
Advancing Volume Threshold
Advancing Volume
If AV<Va then warrant is met
Right Turn Lane Warranted:
Northbound
(evaluate if right turn lane is unwarranted)
Thresholds not met, continue to next step
Advancing Volume Threshold
Advancing Volume Va = 309 Two lane roadway warrant threshold for: mph
If AV<Va then warrant is met No Turn lane warranted if point falls to right of warrant threshold line
45
Right Turn Taper Warranted: Left Turn Lane Warranted:
Methodology based on Washington State Transportation Center Research Report Method For Prioritizing Intersection Improvements , January 1997.
The right turn lane and taper analysis is based on work conducted by Cottrell in 1981.
The left turn lane analysis is based on work conducted by M.D. Harmelink in 1967, and modified by Kikuchi and Chakroborty in 1991.
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000Opposing Volume (Vo)Advancing Volume (Va)
W-Trans 7/15/2016
(veh/hr)(veh/hr)
390 401
25 59
Northbound Speed Limit: 45 mph Southbound Speed Limit: 45 mph
Northbound Configuration:Southbound Configuration:
1. Check for right turn volume criteria %lt 12.8 %
AV 387 veh/hr
2. Check advance volume threshold criteria for turn lane
AV = -
Va = 415
-
NO
Right Turn Taper Warrants
1. Check taper volume criteria
2. Check advance volume threshold criteria for taper
AV = 450 Study Intersection
NO YES
El Camino Real
Study Intersection: El Camino Real/Project Access
Study Scenario: PM Peak Hour Future plus Project
North/South From the East
Northbound Volumes Southbound Volumes
Right Turn Lane Warrants Left Turn Lane Warrants
Right Turn Volume == Left Turn Volume
2 Lanes - Undivided
Northbound
Advancing Volume Threshold
2 Lanes - Undivided
Northbound
NOT WARRANTED Less than 40 vehicles
Project Access
Percentage Left Turns
If AV<Va then warrant is met
Southbound
Turn Lane Warrant Analysis - Tee Intersections
Direction of Analysis Street: Cross Street Intersects:
The left turn lane analysis is based on work conducted by M.D. Harmelink in 1967, and modified by Kikuchi and Chakroborty in 1991.
Advancing Volume Threshold
Advancing Volume Threshold
The right turn lane and taper analysis is based on work conducted by Cottrell in 1981.
No
Methodology based on Washington State Transportation Center Research Report Method For Prioritizing Intersection Improvements , January 1997.
Through Volume =
Turn lane warranted if point falls to right of warrant threshold line
Two lane roadway warrant threshold for: 45
Thresholds not met, continue to next step
If AV<Va then warrant is met
Advancing Volume
Right Turn Taper Warranted: Left Turn Lane Warranted:
(evaluate if right turn lane is unwarranted)
Va = 415 mph
Right Turn Lane Warranted:
If AV<Va then warrant is met
Advancing Volume
= Through Volume
El Camino Real
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000Opposing Volume (Vo)Advancing Volume (Va)
W-Trans 7/15/2016
Attachment 16
CalEEMod
See Attached
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Apartments Mid Rise 207.00 Dwelling Unit 7.55 200,678.00 592
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
4
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)3.2 44
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2018Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Emerald Ridge
San Luis Obispo County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 1 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Project Characteristics - SOCAL Gas provides gas
Land Use - Based on submitted site plans for proposed project
Construction Phase - Based on provided construction schedule
Demolition -
Grading - Based on submitted grading plan
Road Dust - based on the amount of road pavement
Woodstoves - No wood stoves allowed
Energy Use -
Land Use Change -
Sequestration -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -
Energy Mitigation -
Water Mitigation -
Waste Mitigation -
Operational Off-Road Equipment - deleting line
Off-road Equipment - No demo of any buildings required
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 2 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingCheck False True
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 40 0
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 6.25
tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeet 207,000.00 200,678.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 207,000.00 200,678.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.45 7.55
tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural
tblSequestration NumberOfNewTrees 0.00 60.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 150.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 3 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2017 0.3466 2.9306 2.1278 3.9300e-
003
0.2563 0.1621 0.4183 0.1107 0.1515 0.2622 0.0000 358.6439 358.6439 0.0644 0.0000 360.2532
2018 3.3740 1.8576 1.6617 3.2300e-
003
0.1017 0.1014 0.2030 0.0274 0.0952 0.1226 0.0000 291.8736 291.8736 0.0460 0.0000 293.0243
Maximum 3.3740 2.9306 2.1278 3.9300e-
003
0.2563 0.1621 0.4183 0.1107 0.1515 0.2622 0.0000 358.6439 358.6439 0.0644 0.0000 360.2532
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2017 0.3466 2.9306 2.1278 3.9300e-
003
0.1624 0.1621 0.3245 0.0600 0.1515 0.2115 0.0000 358.6437 358.6437 0.0644 0.0000 360.2530
2018 3.3740 1.8576 1.6617 3.2300e-
003
0.1017 0.1014 0.2030 0.0274 0.0952 0.1226 0.0000 291.8734 291.8734 0.0460 0.0000 293.0241
Maximum 3.3740 2.9306 2.1278 3.9300e-
003
0.1624 0.1621 0.3245 0.0600 0.1515 0.2115 0.0000 358.6437 358.6437 0.0644 0.0000 360.2530
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.22 0.00 15.11 36.73 0.00 13.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 4 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.1852 0.0329 2.8378 1.5000e-
004
0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 4.6029 4.6029 4.5600e-
003
0.0000 4.7169
Energy 0.0124 0.1056 0.0449 6.7000e-
004
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
0.0000 387.8951 387.8951 0.0144 4.7300e-
003
389.6625
Mobile 0.7591 3.7983 10.4884 0.0257 2.1270 0.0409 2.1679 0.5702 0.0387 0.6089 0.0000 2,342.119
4
2,342.119
4
0.1061 0.0000 2,344.771
3
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 19.3288 0.0000 19.3288 1.1423 0.0000 47.8863
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.2788 29.8873 34.1660 0.4408 0.0107 48.3622
Total 1.9566 3.9368 13.3711 0.0265 2.1270 0.0649 2.1920 0.5702 0.0627 0.6329 23.6076 2,764.504
7
2,788.112
2
1.7081 0.0154 2,835.399
2
Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 5-15-2017 8-14-2017 1.4396 1.4396
2 8-15-2017 11-14-2017 1.2067 1.2067
3 11-15-2017 2-14-2018 1.1433 1.1433
4 2-15-2018 5-14-2018 1.0331 1.0331
5 5-15-2018 8-14-2018 3.6474 3.6474
Highest 3.6474 3.6474
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 5 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 1.1266 0.0329 2.8378 1.5000e-
004
0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 4.6029 4.6029 4.5600e-
003
0.0000 4.7169
Energy 0.0124 0.1056 0.0449 6.7000e-
004
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
0.0000 255.0692 255.0692 8.3500e-
003
3.4800e-
003
256.3161
Mobile 0.7344 3.6000 9.9430 0.0241 1.9905 0.0384 2.0289 0.5336 0.0364 0.5699 0.0000 2,196.526
1
2,196.526
1
0.1004 0.0000 2,199.035
0
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 15.4630 0.0000 15.4630 0.9138 0.0000 38.3090
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.9951 20.9211 23.9162 0.3086 7.4600e-
003
33.8535
Total 1.8733 3.7385 12.8257 0.0249 1.9905 0.0624 2.0529 0.5336 0.0604 0.5939 18.4582 2,477.119
3
2,495.577
5
1.3357 0.0109 2,532.230
7
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
4.26 5.04 4.08 6.00 6.42 3.83 6.34 6.42 3.75 6.16 21.81 10.40 10.49 21.80 28.91 10.69
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 6 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
3.0 Construction Detail
2.3 Vegetation
CO2e
Category MT
New Trees 42.4800
Vegetation Land
Change
0.0000
Total 42.4800
Vegetation
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 5/15/2017 6/9/2017 5 20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/10/2017 6/23/2017 5 10
3 Grading Grading 6/24/2017 7/21/2017 5 20
4 Building Construction Building Construction 7/22/2017 6/8/2018 5 230
5 Paving Paving 6/9/2018 7/6/2018 5 20
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 7/7/2018 8/3/2018 5 20
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6.25
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 7 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Residential Indoor: 406,373; Residential Outdoor: 135,458; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0
(Architectural Coating – sqft)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 8 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0410 0.4275 0.2301 3.9000e-
004
0.0219 0.0219 0.0204 0.0204 0.0000 35.6005 35.6005 9.7300e-
003
0.0000 35.8438
Total 0.0410 0.4275 0.2301 3.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.0219 0.0219 0.0000 0.0204 0.0204 0.0000 35.6005 35.6005 9.7300e-
003
0.0000 35.8438
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Soil Stabilizer
Replace Ground Cover
Water Exposed Area
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 6 15.00 0.00 150.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 9 149.00 22.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 9 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.2000e-
004
8.9000e-
004
7.7700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4500e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.3202 1.3202 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.3217
Total 9.2000e-
004
8.9000e-
004
7.7700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4500e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.3202 1.3202 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.3217
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0410 0.4275 0.2301 3.9000e-
004
0.0219 0.0219 0.0204 0.0204 0.0000 35.6005 35.6005 9.7300e-
003
0.0000 35.8438
Total 0.0410 0.4275 0.2301 3.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.0219 0.0219 0.0000 0.0204 0.0204 0.0000 35.6005 35.6005 9.7300e-
003
0.0000 35.8438
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 10 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
3.2 Demolition - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.2000e-
004
8.9000e-
004
7.7700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4500e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.3202 1.3202 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.3217
Total 9.2000e-
004
8.9000e-
004
7.7700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4500e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.3202 1.3202 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.3217
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0903 0.0000 0.0903 0.0497 0.0000 0.0497 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0248 0.2614 0.1173 1.9000e-
004
0.0144 0.0144 0.0132 0.0132 0.0000 17.6672 17.6672 5.4100e-
003
0.0000 17.8025
Total 0.0248 0.2614 0.1173 1.9000e-
004
0.0903 0.0144 0.1047 0.0497 0.0132 0.0629 0.0000 17.6672 17.6672 5.4100e-
003
0.0000 17.8025
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 11 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.5000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
4.6600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
8.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
8.7000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.7921 0.7921 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7930
Total 5.5000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
4.6600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
8.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
8.7000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.7921 0.7921 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7930
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0352 0.0000 0.0352 0.0194 0.0000 0.0194 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0248 0.2614 0.1173 1.9000e-
004
0.0144 0.0144 0.0132 0.0132 0.0000 17.6672 17.6672 5.4100e-
003
0.0000 17.8025
Total 0.0248 0.2614 0.1173 1.9000e-
004
0.0352 0.0144 0.0496 0.0194 0.0132 0.0326 0.0000 17.6672 17.6672 5.4100e-
003
0.0000 17.8025
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 12 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
3.3 Site Preparation - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.5000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
4.6600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
8.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
8.7000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.7921 0.7921 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7930
Total 5.5000e-
004
5.4000e-
004
4.6600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
8.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
8.7000e-
004
2.3000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
2.4000e-
004
0.0000 0.7921 0.7921 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.7930
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0635 0.0000 0.0635 0.0335 0.0000 0.0335 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0307 0.3389 0.1710 3.0000e-
004
0.0178 0.0178 0.0164 0.0164 0.0000 27.5595 27.5595 8.4400e-
003
0.0000 27.7706
Total 0.0307 0.3389 0.1710 3.0000e-
004
0.0635 0.0178 0.0813 0.0335 0.0164 0.0498 0.0000 27.5595 27.5595 8.4400e-
003
0.0000 27.7706
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 13 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.0700e-
003
0.0305 7.0700e-
003
6.0000e-
005
1.2800e-
003
2.9000e-
004
1.5700e-
003
3.5000e-
004
2.8000e-
004
6.3000e-
004
0.0000 5.9123 5.9123 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 5.9207
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.2000e-
004
8.9000e-
004
7.7700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4500e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.3202 1.3202 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.3217
Total 1.9900e-
003
0.0314 0.0148 7.0000e-
005
2.7200e-
003
3.0000e-
004
3.0200e-
003
7.3000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
1.0200e-
003
0.0000 7.2325 7.2325 3.9000e-
004
0.0000 7.2424
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0248 0.0000 0.0248 0.0131 0.0000 0.0131 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0307 0.3389 0.1710 3.0000e-
004
0.0178 0.0178 0.0164 0.0164 0.0000 27.5594 27.5594 8.4400e-
003
0.0000 27.7705
Total 0.0307 0.3389 0.1710 3.0000e-
004
0.0248 0.0178 0.0426 0.0131 0.0164 0.0294 0.0000 27.5594 27.5594 8.4400e-
003
0.0000 27.7705
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 14 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
3.4 Grading - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.0700e-
003
0.0305 7.0700e-
003
6.0000e-
005
1.2800e-
003
2.9000e-
004
1.5700e-
003
3.5000e-
004
2.8000e-
004
6.3000e-
004
0.0000 5.9123 5.9123 3.3000e-
004
0.0000 5.9207
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 9.2000e-
004
8.9000e-
004
7.7700e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4500e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.3202 1.3202 6.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.3217
Total 1.9900e-
003
0.0314 0.0148 7.0000e-
005
2.7200e-
003
3.0000e-
004
3.0200e-
003
7.3000e-
004
2.9000e-
004
1.0200e-
003
0.0000 7.2325 7.2325 3.9000e-
004
0.0000 7.2424
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1791 1.5269 1.0455 1.5500e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 138.2834 138.2834 0.0341 0.0000 139.1351
Total 0.1791 1.5269 1.0455 1.5500e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 138.2834 138.2834 0.0341 0.0000 139.1351
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 15 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0151 0.2922 0.0927 5.7000e-
004
0.0149 4.2400e-
003
0.0191 4.2900e-
003
4.0600e-
003
8.3500e-
003
0.0000 54.7824 54.7824 2.7400e-
003
0.0000 54.8509
Worker 0.0524 0.0510 0.4439 8.4000e-
004
0.0825 6.1000e-
004
0.0831 0.0219 5.6000e-
004
0.0225 0.0000 75.4061 75.4061 3.4800e-
003
0.0000 75.4931
Total 0.0675 0.3432 0.5366 1.4100e-
003
0.0974 4.8500e-
003
0.1022 0.0262 4.6200e-
003
0.0308 0.0000 130.1885 130.1885 6.2200e-
003
0.0000 130.3440
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1791 1.5269 1.0455 1.5500e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 138.2832 138.2832 0.0341 0.0000 139.1349
Total 0.1791 1.5269 1.0455 1.5500e-
003
0.1028 0.1028 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 138.2832 138.2832 0.0341 0.0000 139.1349
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 16 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2017
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0151 0.2922 0.0927 5.7000e-
004
0.0149 4.2400e-
003
0.0191 4.2900e-
003
4.0600e-
003
8.3500e-
003
0.0000 54.7824 54.7824 2.7400e-
003
0.0000 54.8509
Worker 0.0524 0.0510 0.4439 8.4000e-
004
0.0825 6.1000e-
004
0.0831 0.0219 5.6000e-
004
0.0225 0.0000 75.4061 75.4061 3.4800e-
003
0.0000 75.4931
Total 0.0675 0.3432 0.5366 1.4100e-
003
0.0974 4.8500e-
003
0.1022 0.0262 4.6200e-
003
0.0308 0.0000 130.1885 130.1885 6.2200e-
003
0.0000 130.3440
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1541 1.3449 1.0109 1.5500e-
003
0.0862 0.0862 0.0811 0.0811 0.0000 136.7162 136.7162 0.0335 0.0000 137.5535
Total 0.1541 1.3449 1.0109 1.5500e-
003
0.0862 0.0862 0.0811 0.0811 0.0000 136.7162 136.7162 0.0335 0.0000 137.5535
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 17 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0130 0.2709 0.0821 5.7000e-
004
0.0149 3.4300e-
003
0.0183 4.2900e-
003
3.2800e-
003
7.5800e-
003
0.0000 54.5759 54.5759 2.6300e-
003
0.0000 54.6416
Worker 0.0459 0.0442 0.3821 8.1000e-
004
0.0825 5.8000e-
004
0.0831 0.0219 5.4000e-
004
0.0225 0.0000 73.3633 73.3633 3.0200e-
003
0.0000 73.4388
Total 0.0589 0.3151 0.4642 1.3800e-
003
0.0974 4.0100e-
003
0.1014 0.0262 3.8200e-
003
0.0300 0.0000 127.9392 127.9392 5.6500e-
003
0.0000 128.0805
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1541 1.3449 1.0109 1.5500e-
003
0.0862 0.0862 0.0811 0.0811 0.0000 136.7160 136.7160 0.0335 0.0000 137.5534
Total 0.1541 1.3449 1.0109 1.5500e-
003
0.0862 0.0862 0.0811 0.0811 0.0000 136.7160 136.7160 0.0335 0.0000 137.5534
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 18 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
3.5 Building Construction - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0130 0.2709 0.0821 5.7000e-
004
0.0149 3.4300e-
003
0.0183 4.2900e-
003
3.2800e-
003
7.5800e-
003
0.0000 54.5759 54.5759 2.6300e-
003
0.0000 54.6416
Worker 0.0459 0.0442 0.3821 8.1000e-
004
0.0825 5.8000e-
004
0.0831 0.0219 5.4000e-
004
0.0225 0.0000 73.3633 73.3633 3.0200e-
003
0.0000 73.4388
Total 0.0589 0.3151 0.4642 1.3800e-
003
0.0974 4.0100e-
003
0.1014 0.0262 3.8200e-
003
0.0300 0.0000 127.9392 127.9392 5.6500e-
003
0.0000 128.0805
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0164 0.1752 0.1480 2.3000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
8.8000e-
003
8.8000e-
003
0.0000 20.8116 20.8116 6.4800e-
003
0.0000 20.9736
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0164 0.1752 0.1480 2.3000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
8.8000e-
003
8.8000e-
003
0.0000 20.8116 20.8116 6.4800e-
003
0.0000 20.9736
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 19 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.0000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
6.6900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4500e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.2845 1.2845 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2858
Total 8.0000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
6.6900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4500e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.2845 1.2845 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2858
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0164 0.1752 0.1480 2.3000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
8.8000e-
003
8.8000e-
003
0.0000 20.8116 20.8116 6.4800e-
003
0.0000 20.9736
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0164 0.1752 0.1480 2.3000e-
004
9.5600e-
003
9.5600e-
003
8.8000e-
003
8.8000e-
003
0.0000 20.8116 20.8116 6.4800e-
003
0.0000 20.9736
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 20 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
3.6 Paving - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.0000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
6.6900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4500e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.2845 1.2845 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2858
Total 8.0000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
6.6900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4400e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.4500e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.9000e-
004
0.0000 1.2845 1.2845 5.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.2858
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 3.1392 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.9900e-
003
0.0201 0.0185 3.0000e-
005
1.5100e-
003
1.5100e-
003
1.5100e-
003
1.5100e-
003
0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.5593
Total 3.1422 0.0201 0.0185 3.0000e-
005
1.5100e-
003
1.5100e-
003
1.5100e-
003
1.5100e-
003
0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.5593
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 21 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.6100e-
003
1.5500e-
003
0.0134 3.0000e-
005
2.8900e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.9100e-
003
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.5689 2.5689 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 2.5715
Total 1.6100e-
003
1.5500e-
003
0.0134 3.0000e-
005
2.8900e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.9100e-
003
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.5689 2.5689 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 2.5715
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 3.1392 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.9900e-
003
0.0201 0.0185 3.0000e-
005
1.5100e-
003
1.5100e-
003
1.5100e-
003
1.5100e-
003
0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.5593
Total 3.1422 0.0201 0.0185 3.0000e-
005
1.5100e-
003
1.5100e-
003
1.5100e-
003
1.5100e-
003
0.0000 2.5533 2.5533 2.4000e-
004
0.0000 2.5593
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 22 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Density
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
Implement NEV Network
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.6100e-
003
1.5500e-
003
0.0134 3.0000e-
005
2.8900e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.9100e-
003
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.5689 2.5689 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 2.5715
Total 1.6100e-
003
1.5500e-
003
0.0134 3.0000e-
005
2.8900e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.9100e-
003
7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
7.9000e-
004
0.0000 2.5689 2.5689 1.1000e-
004
0.0000 2.5715
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 23 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.7344 3.6000 9.9430 0.0241 1.9905 0.0384 2.0289 0.5336 0.0364 0.5699 0.0000 2,196.526
1
2,196.526
1
0.1004 0.0000 2,199.035
0
Unmitigated 0.7591 3.7983 10.4884 0.0257 2.1270 0.0409 2.1679 0.5702 0.0387 0.6089 0.0000 2,342.119
4
2,342.119
4
0.1061 0.0000 2,344.771
3
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Mid Rise 1,376.55 1,322.73 1213.02 5,652,098 5,289,220
Total 1,376.55 1,322.73 1,213.02 5,652,098 5,289,220
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Mid Rise 13.00 13.00 13.00 35.80 21.00 43.20 86 11 3
5.0 Energy Detail
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Apartments Mid Rise 0.538734 0.036174 0.198999 0.136972 0.036255 0.008427 0.013246 0.018689 0.002427 0.001358 0.005860 0.000839 0.002018
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 24 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 132.7968 132.7968 6.0000e-
003
1.2400e-
003
133.3172
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 265.6228 265.6228 0.0120 2.4800e-
003
266.6636
NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0124 0.1056 0.0449 6.7000e-
004
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
0.0000 122.2724 122.2724 2.3400e-
003
2.2400e-
003
122.9990
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0124 0.1056 0.0449 6.7000e-
004
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
0.0000 122.2724 122.2724 2.3400e-
003
2.2400e-
003
122.9990
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated
Percent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 25 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
2.2913e
+006
0.0124 0.1056 0.0449 6.7000e-
004
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
0.0000 122.2724 122.2724 2.3400e-
003
2.2400e-
003
122.9990
Total 0.0124 0.1056 0.0449 6.7000e-
004
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
0.0000 122.2724 122.2724 2.3400e-
003
2.2400e-
003
122.9990
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
2.2913e
+006
0.0124 0.1056 0.0449 6.7000e-
004
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
0.0000 122.2724 122.2724 2.3400e-
003
2.2400e-
003
122.9990
Total 0.0124 0.1056 0.0449 6.7000e-
004
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
8.5400e-
003
0.0000 122.2724 122.2724 2.3400e-
003
2.2400e-
003
122.9990
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 26 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
913071 265.6228 0.0120 2.4800e-
003
266.6636
Total 265.6228 0.0120 2.4800e-
003
266.6636
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
456485 132.7968 6.0000e-
003
1.2400e-
003
133.3172
Total 132.7968 6.0000e-
003
1.2400e-
003
133.3172
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 27 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior
No Hearths Installed
Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.1266 0.0329 2.8378 1.5000e-
004
0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 4.6029 4.6029 4.5600e-
003
0.0000 4.7169
Unmitigated 1.1852 0.0329 2.8378 1.5000e-
004
0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 4.6029 4.6029 4.5600e-
003
0.0000 4.7169
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 28 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.3139 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.7838 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0875 0.0329 2.8378 1.5000e-
004
0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 4.6029 4.6029 4.5600e-
003
0.0000 4.7169
Total 1.1852 0.0329 2.8378 1.5000e-
004
0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 4.6029 4.6029 4.5600e-
003
0.0000 4.7169
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 29 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Apply Water Conservation Strategy
Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Turf Reduction
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System
Use Water Efficient Landscaping
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.3139 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.7252 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0875 0.0329 2.8378 1.5000e-
004
0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 4.6029 4.6029 4.5600e-
003
0.0000 4.7169
Total 1.1266 0.0329 2.8378 1.5000e-
004
0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0155 0.0000 4.6029 4.6029 4.5600e-
003
0.0000 4.7169
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 30 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 23.9162 0.3086 7.4600e-
003
33.8535
Unmitigated 34.1660 0.4408 0.0107 48.3622
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
13.4869 /
8.5026
34.1660 0.4408 0.0107 48.3622
Total 34.1660 0.4408 0.0107 48.3622
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 31 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Institute Recycling and Composting Services
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
9.44082 /
5.95182
23.9162 0.3086 7.4600e-
003
33.8535
Total 23.9162 0.3086 7.4600e-
003
33.8535
Mitigated
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 32 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 15.4630 0.9138 0.0000 38.3090
Unmitigated 19.3288 1.1423 0.0000 47.8863
Category/Year
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
95.22 19.3288 1.1423 0.0000 47.8863
Total 19.3288 1.1423 0.0000 47.8863
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 33 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
11.0 Vegetation
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
76.176 15.4630 0.9138 0.0000 38.3090
Total 15.4630 0.9138 0.0000 38.3090
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 34 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT
Unmitigated 42.4800 0.0000 0.0000 42.4800
11.1 Vegetation Land Change
Initial/Fina
l
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Acres MT
Others 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vegetation Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 35 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
11.2 Net New Trees
Number of
Trees
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT
Miscellaneous 60 42.4800 0.0000 0.0000 42.4800
Total 42.4800 0.0000 0.0000 42.4800
Species Class
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Date: 10/26/2016 3:11 PMPage 36 of 36
Emerald Ridge - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Exhibit A
Mitigation Monitoring Program
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Timing
FM: Final Map
GP: Grading Permit
BP: Building Permit
TO: Temporary
Occupancy
FI: Final inspection
FO: Final Occupancy
Responsibility
/Monitoring
PS: Planning Services
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
PD: Police Department
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
AMWC: Water Comp.
Mitigation Measure 1.d.1: A photo metric plan will be required for each
phase of construction at the time of building permit submittal.
BP PS/BS
Mitigation Measure 3.b.1: At the time of building permit submittal, the
Applicant may submit a detailed construction plan with timelines for
construction to ensure appropriate quality mitigation measures are in place
for each phase of construction. The applicant may submit this construction
schedule to APCD and provide City Staff a list of mitigation measures as
approved by SLOAPCD. These mitigation measures will be placed on the
approved building plans for each phase.
BP PS/BS
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. 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.
GP PS/BS
Mitigation Measure 3.b.3: The project shall reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx),
reactive organic gases (ROG), and diesel particulate matter (DPM)
emissions from construction equipment listed below:
1. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to
manufacturer’s specifications;
2. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB
certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for
use off-road);
3. Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's Tier 2 certified
engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and
comply with the State off-Road Regulation;
4. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or
cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel
engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
5. Construction or trucking companies with fleets that that do not
have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards
identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt
area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance;
6. All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5
minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas
and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute
idling limit;
7. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not
permitted;
8. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet
of sensitive receptors;
9. Electrify equipment when feasible;
10. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered
equipment, where feasible; and,
11. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where
feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural
gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel
BP PS/BS
10/28/16 Page 2
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Exhibit A
Mitigation Monitoring Program
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Timing
FM: Final Map
GP: Grading Permit
BP: Building Permit
TO: Temporary
Occupancy
FI: Final inspection
FO: Final Occupancy
Responsibility
/Monitoring
PS: Planning Services
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
PD: Police Department
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
AMWC: Water Comp.
Mitigation Measure 3.b.4: The project shall utilize Best Available
Technology (BACT) in order to reduce ozone precursor emissions from the
list below.
1. Further reducing emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4
off-road and 2010 on-road compliant engines;
2. Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available; and
3. Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies.
These strategies are listed at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm
BP PS/BS
Mitigation Measure 3.d.1: The project shall be conditioned to comply with
all applicable District regulations pertaining to the control of fugitive dust
(PM-10):
2.4 Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures: Expanded List
If the estimated ozone precursor emissions from the actual fleet for a given
construction phase are expected to exceed the APCD threshold of
significance after the standard mitigation measures are factored into the
estimation, then BACT needs to be implemented to further reduce these
impacts. The BACT measures can include:
1. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
2. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to
prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering
frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15
mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever
possible;
3. All dirt stock pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed;
4. 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;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. 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;
8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15
mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site;
9. 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;
10. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved
roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the
BP PS/BS
10/28/16 Page 3
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Exhibit A
Mitigation Monitoring Program
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Timing
FM: Final Map
GP: Grading Permit
BP: Building Permit
TO: Temporary
Occupancy
FI: Final inspection
FO: Final Occupancy
Responsibility
/Monitoring
PS: Planning Services
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
PD: Police Department
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
AMWC: Water Comp.
site;
11. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with
reclaimed water should be used where feasible;
12. All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on
grading and building plans; and 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 20% opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their
duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work
may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such
persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior
to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
Mitigation Measure 4.d.1: 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.
GP PS
Mitigation Measure 4.e.1: Grading and excavation and grading 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
GP PS
10/28/16 Page 4
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Exhibit A
Mitigation Monitoring Program
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Timing
FM: Final Map
GP: Grading Permit
BP: Building Permit
TO: Temporary
Occupancy
FI: Final inspection
FO: Final Occupancy
Responsibility
/Monitoring
PS: Planning Services
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
PD: Police Department
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
AMWC: Water Comp.
equipment.
Mitigation Measure 4.e.2: Tree protection fencing shall be installed at the
locations called out in the Tree Protection Plan. An inspection of the tree
fencing shall be done by City staff prior to issuance of building permits.
GP PS
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 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
GP PS
10/28/16 Page 5
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Exhibit A
Mitigation Monitoring Program
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Timing
FM: Final Map
GP: Grading Permit
BP: Building Permit
TO: Temporary
Occupancy
FI: Final inspection
FO: Final Occupancy
Responsibility
/Monitoring
PS: Planning Services
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
PD: Police Department
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
AMWC: Water Comp.
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 for each phase.
FI PS
Mitigation Measure 4.e.5: All utilities shall remain outside the driplines of
native trees
BP PS/ BS
Mitigation 5.a.1: Modifications to the building shall reflect the original
design and follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the treatment
of historic properties. The proposed project includes a modified floor plan
of the colony home and a new deck. The modified floor plan shall preserve
all defining characteristics and features of the building. The new deck shall
be designed to emphasize unique and original features of the home, such
as the bay windows. The design shall incorporate the original
characteristics of the deck with the encircling veranda and utilize minimal
solid wood posts and rails.
BP PS/ BS
Mitigation 5.b.c.1: Conduct a phase one archaeological survey before the
issuance of building permits. If resources are present on the project site, a
cultural resource monitor from the Salinan Tribe will be present during all
ground disturbing activities.
GP PS/ BS
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.
GP PS
10/28/16 Page 6
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Exhibit A
Mitigation Monitoring Program
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Timing
FM: Final Map
GP: Grading Permit
BP: Building Permit
TO: Temporary
Occupancy
FI: Final inspection
FO: Final Occupancy
Responsibility
/Monitoring
PS: Planning Services
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
PD: Police Department
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
AMWC: Water Comp.
Mitigation Measure 6.b.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.
GP PS/ BS
Mitigation Measure 6.b.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.
GP PS / BS
Mitigation Measure 6.b.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 placed prior to commencement of
grading activities. This device shall be approved by the City Engineer.
GP / FI PS/CE
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.
BP / FI BS / FD
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.
GP PS/CE
Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.1: Striping El Camino Real must be provide a
designated left turn lane that provides access to the project access
roadway.
FI PS/CE
Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.2: Restricting parking to improve sight lines for
vehicles exiting the commercial driveway on the south side of Principal Ave
must be approved by the Public Works department. This may include red
curb striping / signage or any other additional devices required to enforce
no parking along this segment.
FM or FI FD
Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.3: Payment of Circulation System Fee (TIF) shall
be made prior to the issuance of building permits for 181 residential units
that contribute to the deficiencies to the US 101 / Del Rio Road
interchange. Those traffic impact fees shall be collected based on the
adopted traffic impact fee at the time of building permit issuance. At this
time, the adopted traffic impact fee is $3,684 per units, which is collected
as a part of the overall development impact fee.
BP PS/CE
Mitigation Measure 16.a.b.4: Payment of Circulation System Fee (TIF) shall
be made prior to the issuance of building permits for 27 bonus residential
units not anticipated by the City’s General Plan that contribute to the
BP PS/CE
10/28/16 Page 7
MitNegDec_firstdraftupdated
Exhibit A
Mitigation Monitoring Program
PLN 2016-1597 / CUP 2016-0298 / TRP 2016-0200
Emerald Ridge Apartments
Timing
FM: Final Map
GP: Grading Permit
BP: Building Permit
TO: Temporary
Occupancy
FI: Final inspection
FO: Final Occupancy
Responsibility
/Monitoring
PS: Planning Services
BS: Building Services
FD: Fire Department
PD: Police Department
CE: City Engineer
WW: Wastewater
CA: City Attorney
AMWC: Water Comp.
deficiencies to the US 101 / Del Rio Road interchange. Those traffic impact
fees shall be collected based on the adopted traffic impact fee at the time
of building permit issuance. At this time, the adopted traffic impact fee is
$3,684 per units, which is collected as a part of the overall development
impact fee.
An additional, fair share contribution, traffic fee shall be applicable for the
27 bonus units. The applicant shall pay its fair share based on its
percentage impact by the provided traffic study. The fair share contribution
shall be based on the September 23, 2014 Management Report estimating
the Del Rio Road / US 101, which is estimated at 12 million dollars. This
additional feel shall be collected as a part of Phase II and Phase III units, or
distributed evenly over all 3 phases. The applicant may further refine the
percentage of impact with an additional study to be approved by both the
City Engineer and the Community Development Director.
Mitigation Measure 17.d.1: Landscaping plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department for review and approval.
Landscaping must consist of drought tolerant species and utilize drip
irrigation.
BP PS/BP