Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item #2 - ARCH-0255-2019 & USE-0526-2019 (279 Bridge)
Meeting Date: September 25, 2019 Item Number: 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a proposed mixed-use project consisting of three buildings including: Building A (8,636-square foot [sf] manufacturing shell with mezzanine); Building B (31,726 sf mixed-use building including 7,200 sf of commercial shell on the ground level with 16 loft-style, two-bedroom residential units above); and Building C (6,850-sf mixed-use building including 3,421-sf of commercial shell on the ground level with two residential units above) with associated parking and site improvements The project includes a request for a mixed-use parking reduction of six percent, and an Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER#0286-2014). PROJECT ADDRESS: 279 Bridge Street BY: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7176 E-mail: sscott@slocity.org FILE NUMBERS: ARCH-0255-2019/USE-0526-2019 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the project based on findings and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Devin Gallagher Representative Aisling Fearon, Ten Over Studio General Plan Services & Manufacturing Zoning Manufacturing (M) Site Area 2.73 acres Environmental Status Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER#0286‐2014) SUMMARY The 2.73-acre project site is located at the terminus of Bridge Street, within an area that supports a variety of uses including manufacturing, commercial, offices, live/work, multi-family residential, and single- family residential. The site is zoned Manufacturing (M), and surrounding zones include Manufacturing (M) to the north and west, and Residential (R-2) to the south and east. Lands further to the south, including the South Hills, are zoned Conservation/Open Space (C/OS). The site is accessed from Bridge 2 Packet Page 4 ARCH-0255-2019 & USE-0526-2019 279 Bridge Street Page 2 Street, via an existing bridge that crosses the riparian corridor along the northern boundary of the proposed development area. The site is nearly level, and is within the AO floodzone.1 Previous Entitlement History On May 1, 2017, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved a project on this project site that consisted of three commercial/light manufacturing shell buildings including the following: Building A (8,636 square feet including mezzanine level) (no change proposed from previous entitlement); Building B (9,957 square feet); and Building C (4,704 square feet including a second floor caretaker’s residence with outdoor patio). The project approval included approval of a Master Use List to minimize potential neighborhood incompatibilities, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The previous approval included tree removals and onsite plantings as recommended by the City Arborist, and associated site improvements (Attachment 3, ARC staff reports and resolution). Since that time, the applicant has substantially modified the project and proposed uses for the site, which required design review by the ARC (with a recommendation provided to the Planning Commission) and requires consideration of a Use Permit to establish the proposed mixed-use project and mixed-use parking reduction. Proposed Project The proposed mixed-use project consists of three buildings and associated site improvements (refer to Attachment 2, Project Plans) including: Building A, an approximately 27-foot tall 8,636-square foot manufacturing shell with mezzanine Building B, an approximately 35-foot tall, 31,726-square foot building consisting of three, three story-structures connected by an elevated walkway on the second floor. 7,200 square feet of commercial shell and covered parking on the ground level, with 16 loft-style, two-bedroom residential units above. The project includes roof decks for private outdoor use, and structural projections (up to 45 feet) include stair towers and solar panels. Building C, an approximately 30-foot tall, 6,850-square foot mixed-use building including 3,421- sf of commercial shell on the ground level with two residential units above. Site improvements include surface parking, short and long-term bicycle parking, landscaping, walkways, bioretention basins, permeable pavement. Project includes a request for a six percent mixed parking reduction, resulting in a total of 70 vehicle parking spaces. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City development standards and guidelines. Planning Commission review is required for consideration of a mixed-use project in the Manufacturing (M) zone. As the project requires Planning Commission review, consideration of the proposed six percent mixed-use parking reduction is also within the Planning Commission’s purview, in addition to the proposed Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. 1 AO Floodzone: Potential of flooding up to two feet during a 100-year storm Packet Page 5 ARCH-0255-2019 & USE-0526-2019 279 Bridge Street Page 3 2.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW OF CURRENT PROJECT The ARC reviewed the proposed project on September 9, 2019 for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and voted 3:1:3 to recommend the approval of the architectural design with the following modifications: 1) revise plans to show additional variability and articulation on Building B and 2) consider additional screening for the rear parking (Attachment 3, ARC staff report). Following the ARC meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans to address the ARC’s recommendations for the Planning Commission’s consideration (Attachment 2, Project Plans) (refer to Section 3.3 Architectural Review Commission Directional Items). 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The project must conform to the standards and limitations of the Zoning Regulations, and be consistent with applicable Community Design Guidelines (CDG). The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project for consistency with applicable standards, as discussed in this analysis. 3.1 Consistency with the General Plan The General Plan Land Use Element’s (LUE) described uses for the Services and Manufacturing land use designation include residential uses as part of mixed-use p rojects.2 The LUE states that the City shall: promote infill development that contributes positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas (Policy 2.2.7 Neighborhood Enhancement) and shall encourage mixed-use projects where appropriate and compatible with existing and planned development; and shall support the location of mixed use projects near major activity nodes and transportation corridors where appropriate (Policy 2.3.6 Housing and Business). There is an existing transit stop approximately 0.4 mile from the project site on South Higuera Street, and the site is proximate to Exposition and Meadow Parks, the South Hills Natural Area, and bicycle routes on surrounding roads. The mixed-use project includes uses that provide a transition between the residential neighborhood and uses to the west and north, and the industrial and commercial uses to the south and east. As noted above, the project site is within a floodplain. Consistent with LUE Policies 6.6.6 and 6.7.1 (Creeks, Wetlands, and Flooding Policies, Development Requirements; Creeks and Flooding Programs, Previously Developed Areas), the project design complies with the minimum creek setback standard (20 feet) and minimizes drainage concentrations and impervious coverage by including the use of bioretention basins, permeable paving, and landscaping. A Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis (KVC, 2014) was prepared for the site, and the consulting engineer (Keith V. Crowe, PE, PLS) prepared the preliminary grading and drainage plan for the project. This document and plans were reviewed by City engineers to determine compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations (which allow for the “dry” floodproofing of commercial buildings) and the Drainage Design Manual. As proposed, the project is consistent with these regulations and standards, and further review of final grading, drainage, and stormwater management plans will be required upon the applicant’s submittal of applications for grading and building permits. Compliance with existing regulations and standards would ensure consistency with Safety Element Policy S (Flood Hazard Avoidance and Reduction). 2 LUE Table 1. General Plan Land Use Designations and Development Standards within the LUCE Planning Sub-area Packet Page 6 ARCH-0255-2019 & USE-0526-2019 279 Bridge Street Page 4 The Noise Element of the General Plan sets noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land uses, such as the residential uses adjacent to the project site.3 Consistent with Noise Element Policy 1.8 (Preferred Noise Mitigation Approaches), the project site plan shows the proposed light manufacturing shell located near the western property boundary and locates outdoor uses and doors facing the interior of the project site. The proposed project is buffered from the Iron Works industrial use by live/work units on the adjacent parcel to the west. Regarding future uses within the identified light manufacturing and commercial shells, the project is subject to the Master Use list approved with the previous entitlement and limitations on use as required by the Zoning Regulations (refer to discussion below). In addition, as proposed, the applicant would be required to comply with the Zoning Regulations, which limits hours of operation for non-residential uses within mixed-use projects (7:00 AM to 8:00 PM). 3.2 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations The proposed project complies with lot coverage, density, and building height standards identified for the M zone. As the site is located adjacent to an R-2 zone, Zoning Regulations 17.70.050 (Edge Conditions) applies to the project. The proposed project does not include any balconies or terraces facing the properties within the R-2 zone, and meets minimum required setbacks based on building height and the proposed rooftop decks (refer to Project Statistics, below). PROJECT STATISTICS Site Details Proposed (Minimum) Allowed/Required Setbacks – Side / Edge Condition 12 feet (Building A) 23 feet (Building B) 20 feet (Building C) None required (M zone) 23 feet (Edge Condition) 19 feet (Edge Condition) Setbacks – Rear 20 feet (Building A) 24 feet (Building B) 16 feet (Edge Condition) 23 feet (Edge Condition) Setbacks – Roof-deck 33 feet (Building B) 33 feet (Edge Condition) Maximum Height of Structures 35 feet 35 feet Max Building Coverage (footprint) 14% 75% Required Parking Spaces 70* 70* * Includes requested 6% mixed-use parking reduction to be considered by Planning Commission The project is consistent with Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.130 (Mixed-Use Development) site layout and design standards because: the location of residential units would minimize noise exposure from existing industrial uses in the general area; proposed shell Building A would be located in the southwest corner of the project site; all non-residential uses within the site are restricted by limitations on use for mixed-use projects;4 and the project incorporates pedestrian walkways and connections within 3 Maximum exposure to stationary noise sources: 50 dB hourly (7AM-10PM), 45 dB hourly (10PM-7AM) 4 ZR Section 17.70.130.D.4 The following uses and activities shall not be allowed within any mixed-use development: a. Major vehicle/equipment repair (e.g., body or mechanical work, including boats and recreational vehicles, vehicle detailing and painting, upholstery, or any similar use); b. Storage of flammable liquids or hazardous materials beyond that normally associated with a residential use; c. Manufacturing or industrial activities, including but not limited to welding, machining, or any open flame work; or d. Any other activity or use, as determined by the review authority, to be incompatible with residential activities and/or to have the possibility of affecting the health or safety of mixed-use development residents due Packet Page 7 ARCH-0255-2019 & USE-0526-2019 279 Bridge Street Page 5 the site. As noted above, the project complies with required Edge Condition standards, which would reduce potential impacts on proximate residential uses. Solid fencing and a landscape buffer are proposed along the western, southern, and eastern perimeter to address potential light/glare impacts and visibility, and the building designs are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, which demonstrates a primarily commercial/industrial character along Bridge Street. 3.3 Architectural Review Commission Directional Items The ARC voted 3:1:3 (three Commissioners absent) to recommend approval of the architectural design with the following two modifications to be addressed in the final design of the project: ARC Directional Item #1: Revise plans to show additional variability and articulation on Building B. Response: The proposed design for Building B reviewed by the ARC consisted of two structures approximately 8,326 (B.1) and 23,400 (B.2) square feet each, connected by a second floor walkway (refer to Figure 1, below). The applicant’s revised plans show three structures, approximately 8,326 (B.1), 11,700 (B.2), and 11,700 (B.3) square feet each, connected by a second floor walkway (refer to Figure 2, below). The revised design breaks up the long wall face of previous structure B.2 by dividing this structure into two (B.2 and B.3) with a ten-foot separation, and incorporates a landscaped pedestrian walkway between structures B.2 and B.3. The revised design provides additional articulation including an arch feature over the ten-foot wide walkway between B.2 and B.3, and approximately four-foot setbacks in the north-facing rooftop planters. Figure 1. Building B North Elevation Reviewed by the ARC Figure 2. Revised Building B North Elevation to the potential for the use to create dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gases, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts, or would be hazardous because of materials, processes, products, or wastes. Packet Page 8 ARCH-0255-2019 & USE-0526-2019 279 Bridge Street Page 6 ARC Directional Item #2: Consider additional screening for the rear parking area. Response: The applicant proposes to address this item by providing additional landscaping along the southern property boundary. The landscape plans reviewed by the ARC showed eight trees between the rear Building B access and parking area. The applicant’s proposed revised landscape plan shows an additional seven trees, including three California sycamores between the surface parking area and the adjacent lot to the south. The revised plan continues to show six-foot solid wood fencing along the western, southern, and eastern perimeter. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was adopted on June 1, 2015 for the proposed project, which included construction of a bridge over the creek and three manufacturing shell buildings. Since that time, construction of the bridge has been completed. The adopted IS/MND identifies that the project would potentially affect the following environmental factors unless mitigated: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology/soils, and noise. The currently proposed project is located within the same footprint as the project assessed in the adopted IS/MND; however changes including proposed uses and the larger size of Building B (and to a lesser extent, the larger size of Building C) necessitated preparation of an Addendum to the adopted IS/MND to address the project changes, per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (refer to Attachment 4). Section 15164 subsection (b) states that an addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. This section of the State CEQA Guidelines is designed to provide clear authority for an addendum as a way of making minor changes or additions to an IS/MND. A summary of the potential impacts and adopted mitigation measures required to ensure potential impacts are mitigated to a level of insignificance is provided below: Aesthetics: Similar to the originally approved project, exterior lighting has the potential to result in glare as seen from parking lot and building light poles affecting adjacent residences. Required mitigation includes replacement of freestanding light posts with bollard lighting that is outside required setbacks (Mitigation Measures AES 1 and AES 2). Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Similar to the originally approved project, construction activities have the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards and affect adjacent sensitive residential uses. Required mitigation includes compliance with San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (APCD) air emission reduction measures, Air Resources Board regulations related to naturally occurring and material containing asbestos, and APCD permit requirements (Mitigation Measures AQ 1, AQ 2, AQ 3, AQ 4, and AQ 5). Operation of the project as currently proposed would not exceed APCD thresholds for operational emissions, and future uses are subject to screening-level health risk assessments when determined to be necessary by the APCD, based on the specific use (Mitigation Measure AQ 6). Based on the limitations on use for mixed-use projects, it is unlikely any future uses would require a health risk assessment; however, this measure remains to ensure potential impacts would be less than significant. Packet Page 9 ARCH-0255-2019 & USE-0526-2019 279 Bridge Street Page 7 Biological Resources: The proposed project would be located within a similar footprint as the originally approved project, and would result in similar impacts including effects due to shallow groundwater conditions, impacts to nesting birds and wildlife, and impacts to other waters. Required mitigation includes: the use of caisson foundation design, to be engineered pursuant to a final geotechnical engineering report, and compliance with Clean Water Act permits (Mitigation Measures BIO 1, BIO 2, BIO 3, BIO 4, and BIO 5). The bridge component analyzed in the adopted MND has been constructed; therefore, mitigation related to the bridge is not applicable to the current project. Geology/Soils: Similar to the originally-proposed project, shallow groundwater present within the site necessitates a caisson foundation system, and required mitigation includes provision of a geotechnical engineering investigation and comprehensive design level report (Mitigation Measure GEO 1). Noise: The originally-approved project consisted of manufacturing uses and a caretaker’s unit; the adopted MND identifies a potential noise impact resulting from the use of loading docks (affecting adjacent residential uses). Required mitigation includes orienting loading facilities away from adjacent residential development (Mitigation Measure NOI 1). The current project is restricted by the limitations on use and noise standards specific to mixed-use projects, which would further reduce potential operational noise impacts. The addendum (Attachment 4) adds additional information to the environmental record for the project, including changes to the project description and associated analysis. As documented and supported by the analysis in the addendum: 1) these minor technical changes do not materially change the findings and conclusions of the adopted IS/MND; 2) no substantial changes are proposed or would occur that would require major revisions to the adopted IS/MND; 3) no new significant environmental effects are identified and there would not be a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 4) the project would not result in any significant effects that would be substantially more severe than what was identified in the adopted IS/MND; and 5) the applicant will comply with all identified adopted mitigation measures, which are incorporated into the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1). 5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS All City Departments have reviewed the project and have provided comments that are incorporated into the staff report and recommended resolution as conditions of approval. 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required. 6.2 Deny the project. An action denying the application should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Project Plans 3. Current ARC report and attached previous ARC report and resolution 4. Addendum to Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration Packet Page 10 RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF THREE BUILDINGS OF 8,636, 31,726, AND 6,850 SQUARE FEET EACH, INCLUDING A SIX PERCENT PARKING REDUCTION, AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMETNS DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 (279 BRIDGE STREET, ARCH-0255-2019 AND USE- 0526-2019) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 9, 2019, recommending the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the Community Design Guidelines, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0255-2019, Devin Gallagher, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 25, 2019, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526- 2019, Devin Gallagher, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Review. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Architectural Review Commission on June 1, 2015. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review, finding that: 1) the minor technical changes addressed in the Addendum do not materially change the findings and conclusions of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2) no substantial changes are proposed or would occur that would require major revisions to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration; 3) no new significant environmental effects are identified and there would not be a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 4) the project would not result in any significant effects that would be substantially more severe than what was identified in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 5) the applicant will comply with all adopted mitigation measures. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 11 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019 Page 2 Aesthetics Mitigation Measure AES 1: All freestanding light post shall be eliminated and replaced with bollard lighting depicted elsewhere on project plans. Monitoring Plan, AES 1: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development Planning staff as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications as necessary for consistency with City standards and to ensure that light spillage into the creek corridor or across property lines will not occur, prior to department sign off and issuance of permits. Mitigation Measure AES 2: All freestanding bollard lighting shall be located outside required yard and creek setbacks. Monitoring Plan, AES 2: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development Planning staff as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall ensure that all lighting is outside required yard and creek setbacks, prior to department sign off and issuance of permits. Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Monitoring Plan, AQ 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 12 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019 Page 3 with APCD requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and modify practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. a) Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b) Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work. c) All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d) Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. e) Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f) All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g) All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h) Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. j) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 13 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019 Page 4 k) Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. l) All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. m) The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. Monitoring Plan, AQ 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 14 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019 Page 5 i. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection )d) of the regulation; and, ii. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit. 2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors: a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended. d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site. 3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply. Monitoring Plan, AQ 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ 6: To confirm the health risks to residents of the development are below APCD thresholds, screening level health risk assessments shall be completed and provided to the APCD for review and approval prior to the issuance of business permits when required by the APCD. Monitoring Plan, AQ 6: Confirmation with compliance with APCD regulations shall be provided with business permit applications as applicable. All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 15 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019 Page 6 provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO 1: The final geotechnical engineering report shall be prepared to ensure that caisson foundations in lieu of over-excavated building pads with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent to riparian setbacks. Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Community Development staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the final geotechnical engineering report and use of caisson foundations, and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO 2: To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level, vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall be conducted between September 1st and January 31st outside of the nesting bird season. If vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), then, preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. 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. Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction nesting bird surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO 3: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 30 days of initial ground disturbance to identify whether any upland wildlife species are using any portion of the project areas where ground disturbance is proposed. If ground dwelling wildlife species are detected a biological monitor shall be present during initial ground disturbing and/or vegetation removal activities to attempt salvage and relocation efforts for the wildlife that may be present, such as common reptiles ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 16 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019 Page 7 and small mammals. The salvage and relocation effort for non-listed wildlife species would further reduce the level of this less than significant impact. Monitoring Plan, BIO 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO 4: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. Compliance with Corps permitting would also include obtaining a CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent impacts on riparian habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less- than-significant level. Monitoring Plan, BIO 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials, including documentation of compliance with any Corps permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CWA/Corps compliance. Mitigation Measure BIO 5: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should an agreement be required, the property owners shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFW. The CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In addition, CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of riparian habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible and additional compensatory riparian tree plantings. Using the City-required creek setback area along Meadow Creek for riparian tree replacement would be an appropriate onsite compensatory mitigation approach. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than significant level. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 17 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019 Page 8 Monitoring Plan, BIO 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials, including documentation of compliance with any CDFW permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CDFW compliance. Geology & Soils Mitigation Measure GEO 1: A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a comprehensive design-level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project. Additional borings will be required to address specific areas of the site once building layout and structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The report shall address site preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, retaining wall design parameters, slabs-on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on retaining walls), and any other items deemed relevant to the geotechnical engineer. Monitoring Plan, GEO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the geotechnical analysis as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or construction permits. Noise Mitigation Measure NOI 1: Loading facilities shall be sited to orient away from residential development on adjacent properties, to increase the separation from noise-sensitive uses and to allow the buildings to attenuate any generated noise. The Architectural Review Commission will review final building design and layout to ensure that any loading docks are strategically located so as to attenuate noise generated on the site. Monitoring Plan, NOI 1: The Architectural Review Commission will review the site plan to ensure loading docks are located to attenuate generated noise effect on adjacent residential land. SECTION 2. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the project (ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019), based on the following findings: 1. As conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project respects site constraints and will be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. The project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations, since the proposed building design complies with all property development standards including height, setbacks, coverage, floor area ratio, density, and parking for the Manufacturing zone, including standards for Edge ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 18 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019 Page 9 Conditions. 3. The project is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.2.7 (Neighborhood Enhancement), because the project is located within a half-mile of an existing transit stop, and is proximate to bicycle routes, parks, open space, and commercial uses. In addition, the mixed-use project includes uses that provide a transition between the residential neighborhood and uses to the west and north, and the industrial and commercial uses to the south and east. 4. The project is consistent with LUE Policies 6.6.6 and 6.7.1 (Creeks, Wetlands, and Flooding Policies, Development Requirements; Creeks and Flooding Programs, Previously Developed Areas), because the project design complies with the minimum creek setback standard (20 feet), minimizes drainage concentrations and impervious coverage by including the use of bioretention basins, permeable paving, and landscaping, and is required to comply with the Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.78 (Flood Damage Prevention), Waterway Management Plan, and Drainage Design Manual. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure consistency with Safety Element Policy S (Flood Hazard Avoidance and Reduction). 5. The project is consistent with Noise Element Policy 1.8 (Preferred Noise Mitigation Approaches) because the project site plan shows the proposed manufacturing shell located near the western property boundary and locates outdoor uses and doors facing the interior of the project site. The proposed project is buffered from the Iron Works industrial use by live/work units on the adjacent parcel to the west. Future uses are subject to the Master Use list approved with the previous entitlement and incorporated into the project description, and limitations on use as required by the Zoning Regulations for mixed-use projects. 6. The project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations, because the proposed building design complies with all property development standards including height, setbacks, coverage, floor area ratio, density, and parking for the Manufacturing (M) zone, Edge Conditions (Section 17.70.050), and outdoor rooftop uses. 7. The project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations for Mixed-use Projects (Section 17.70.130) because the proposed building design complies with objective design criteria and performance standards for mixed-use development. 8. The project design is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines because the architectural design of the project is compatible with design and scale of existing structures in the surrounding neighborhood, the project incorporates articulation and space between buildings to minimize massing, visual linkages are provided between buildings through the use of landscaping, and pedestrian walkways, the proposed design demonstrates use of articulated facades by incorporating balconies and decks, and a variety of siding materials (metal, corrugated metal, and stucco) is proposed to provide texture, relief, and visual interest. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 19 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019 Page 10 9. The six percent parking reduction is approved because the shared parking facility would serve more than one use; the peak hours of use will not overlap or coincide to the degree that peak demand for parking spaces from all uses or projects would be greater than the total supply of spaces (70 spaces); the proposed shared parking will be adequate to serve each use; and the parking demand analysis conducted and prepared under procedures set forth by the Community Development Director supports the proposed reduction. SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission (PC) hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions: Planning Division 1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the Planning Commission for project entitlements ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application. 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the type of bicycle racks proposed, location and dimensions of all short and long-term bicycle parking. Sufficient detail shall be provided about the placement and design of bike racks to demonstrate compliance with relevant Engineering Standards and Community Design Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development Directors. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include recessed window details and all other details including but not limited to awnings, balconies, and railings. Plans shall indicate the type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window features. Plans shall demonstrate the use of high-quality materials for all design features that reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible with the neighborhood character, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 5. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit shall ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 20 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019 Page 11 confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them from view of the public right-of-way and adjacent uses. A line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements. 6. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, the back-flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors. 7. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. Street trees species shall comply with City standards. 8. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a photometric plan, demonstrating compliance with maximum light intensity standards. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.70.100 of the Zoning Regulations. 9. Residents of new mixed-use projects, whether owners or tenants, shall be notified in writing before taking up residence that they will be living in an urban-type environment and that the noise levels may be higher than a strictly residential area. 10. A comprehensive sign program for the project shall be developed to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The sign program shall include information on the sizes, locations, colors, materials, and types and illumination of signage proposed for the building and the overall site. Project signs shall be designed to be compatible with the architecture of proposed buildings and to complement the site’s setting. The Director may approve signage if he finds that the proposal conforms to the sign regulations and is in keeping with the design characteristics of the building. The Director may refer signage to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the building. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 21 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019 Page 12 11. No structure shall include a loading dock that faces residential uses to the south or east. Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development 12. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC.12.16.050 13. The building plan submittal shall correctly reflect the right-of-way width, location of frontage improvements, front property line location, and all easements. All existing frontage improvements including street trees shall be shown for reference. 14. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 15. Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternative paving materials are recommended for water quality and/or control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternative paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 16. The applicant/developer shall consider the use of a shared accessible path of travel from the public right-of-way with the adjoining property located at 285 Bridge Street. The existing sidewalk serving 285 Bridge appears to be established to a point near the bridge crossing. A shared path could limit the amount of existing landscape and/or trees to be removed and could potentially preserve the existing parking layout and limit the area of site disturbance. A separate access easement or amendment of the existing easement agreement may be required. 17. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. All new wire services shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown and noted. 18. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. The trash enclosure shall be designed in accordance with the City Design Guidelines and City Engineering Standard 1010.B for water quality treatment. 19. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be accepted ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 22 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019 Page 13 and conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development may alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site or adjoining sites. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 20. The building plan submittals shall include a complete drainage report. The report shall show compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. 21. This property is located within a designated flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, all new structures and appurtenant utilities shall comply with all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements and the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations per Municipal Code Chapter 17.84. 22. This property is located in an AO (2’ depth) Flood Zone; the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 2’ above adjacent grade. The structure and any exterior building service equipment including the sewer lift station must be raised, floodproofed, or proved to be inherently flood resistant to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE or 3’ above the highest adjacent grade. Additional freeboard to 2’ above the BFE may result in additional structure protection and savings on flood insurance and is strongly encouraged. 23. The property owner and/or future tenants shall manage any outdoor storage so that materials and accessory structures do not have a significant impact on the floodzone in accordance with the Drainage Design Manual and the Floodplain Management Regulations. 24. The project shall comply with Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The building plan submittal shall include a complete Post Construction Stormwater Checklist as available on the City’s website. 25. A Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) shall be provided in a format provided by the city. The agreement shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. An Operations and Maintenance Manual shall be provided in conjunction with the building plan submittal for all post construction BMPs. 26. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading or excavations result in land disturbance of one or more acres. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. An application is required to the State Board under their recently adopted Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and Tracking System (SMARTS). 27. The building plan submittal shall include a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for reference. Incorporate any erosion control measures into the building plans as ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 23 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019 Page 14 required by the Board, identified in the SWPPP, and in accordance with Section 10 of the city’s Waterways Management Plan. The building plan submittal shall include reference to the WDID number on the grading and erosion control plans for reference. 28. Work adjacent to or within a channel or creek may require the approvals of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), The Army Corp of Engineer’s, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A copy of any required permits or a written permit waiver or exemption for the same shall be provided to the City prior to demolition, grading, and/or building permit issuance. 29. The building plan submittal, grading plans, and drainage report shall incorporate any project specific permitting requirements from any higher governmental authority. The applicant/developer shall comply with the County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) standards and permit requirements related to Naturally Occurring Asbestos. APCD approval shall be secured prior to any ground disturbing activities. 30. The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3” or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property lines with canopies and/or root systems that extend onto the property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. 31. The existing willow and walnut trees located on the property shall be retained unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist and the Community Development Director. A tree removal proposal will require a report from a certified arborist with a summary of why the tree(s) can’t be saved. If approved for removal, compensatory tree(s) shall be incorporated into the building plan submittal. 32. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Contact the City Arborist at 781-7023 to review and establish any required preservation measures to be included with the building permit submittal. 33. The proposed 6’ privacy fencing located along the southerly property line shall be located at the top of bank or at a reasonable setback from the top of bank to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, Public Works Department, and Natural Resources Manager. The fence shall be extended to the easterly property line and then northerly to connect with the proposed privacy fence located along the easterly property line. If required by the City or other agencies with permit jurisdiction over the swale and brambles, a section(s) of the fence may need to be constructed with open fencing to support the migration of riparian wildlife. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 24 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-19 279 Bridge Street, ARCH-0255-2019 and USE-0526-2019 Page 15 Utilities Department 34. All utility easements dedicated to the City shall comply with the latest engineering design standards, and shall have reasonable alignments needed for maintenance of public infrastructure. 35. The proposed gravity sewer system shall use HDPE pipe, or an approved equal that meets or exceeds the performance needed to eliminate groundwater infiltration. Fire Department 36. Fire Department Access to Equipment: Rooms or areas containing controls for air-handling systems, automatic fire-protection systems, or other diction, suppression or control elements shall be identified for use by the fire department and shall be located in the same area. A sign shall be provided on the door to the room or area stating “Fire Sprinkler Riser” and “Fire Alarm Control Panel”. Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access. Show Riser room on floor plans. 37. Show proposed location of onsite (private) fire hydrant. Indemnification 38. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. On motion by Commissioner _______________, seconded by Commissioner _______________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: RECUSED: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of September, 2019. _____________________________ Tyler Corey, Secretary Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 25 ENTITLEMENT PACKAGE. 09/16/19 BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT The Bridge Street Development Is env1s1oned as a qua int, urban neighborhood m a park like setting ·anew. vibrant. progressive community ol entrepreneurs, makers. arti st s and independent thinke rs. Prep11red by TEN OVER STUDIO ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 26 CONTACTS CLIENT DEVIN GALLAGHER P.O BOX 1826. SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93406 805.234.0824 galpro@mac.com ARCHITECT TEN OVER STUDIO 539 MARSH ST .. SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 805.541.1010 CONTACT: AISLING FEARON aislingl@tenoversludio.com CIVIL ENGINEER GROUND UP DESIGN & CM, INC P.O. BOX 1583. PASO ROBLES, CA 93447 805.227.4159 CONTACT: STACIE GLEIM staciegleim@earlhllnk.net LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TEN OVER STUDIO 539 MARSH ST .. SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93401 805.541.1010 CONTACT: JULIA OBERHOFF juliao@tenoversludlo.com INDEX PROJECT INFO & DATA CONTEXTUAL SITE PLAN PRECEDENT IMAGES AERIAL PERSPECTIVES PRELIM. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN EASEMENT EXHIBIT PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONS TREE REMOVAL PLAN PLANTING PLAN PLANT PALETTE WATER CALCULATIONS LIGHTING PLAN SITE PLAN AND SITE SECTIONS BUILDING B FLOOR PLANS BUILDING B UNIT FLOOR PLANS BUILDING C FLOOR PLANS BUILDING B ELEVATIONS BUILDING B MATERIAL BOARD BUILDING C ELEVATIONS BUILIDNG C MATERIAL BOARD BUILDING SECTIONS PERSPECTIVES Tl.O TO Tl.1 T2.I T1 .3 Tl .4 TO Tl.5 Cl.O C1.1 C2.0 C3.0 l1.0 L 1.1 L1.2 TO L13 l1.4 l1.5 Al.0 TO A1.1 A2.0 A2.1 A2.2 TO A2.3 A3.0 A3.1 A3.2 A3.3 A4.0 AS.OTO A5.8 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 27 PROJECT DESCRIPTION lHE PROPOSED PRMCT ltll'OlVES A USE CHANGE FROM MANllfACT1.IUNG TO MIXED USE FOR THE PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED BUILDINGS B AND C Of ARCll-4293-2016. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE M ZONE ANO \\ffilN THE OESIGHATEO FLOOO ZOHE AD (2'·0-DEPTl1) NO LMNG SPACES SHAlL OCCUPY TH£ GROUND FLOOR . ENTRIES AT GRADE AND ALL BUILDING MArullALS WILL EITHER BE OIIY FlOOO PROTECTED OR ELEVATED ABOVE THE DESIGN FlOOD ELEVATION OF 3"-0' ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE . THE smE IS INDUSTRIAL/ CONTEMPORARY \l,llH A WAREHIJUS< / LOFT FEEL AND THE PROJECT IS REOUESTING A MIXED USE PARJCING REDUCTION OF 6%. THE ZONE IS ADJACENT TO RESOEHTIAl ZONES ON THE SOUTHERN AND l'.l'STERN SJDES AND IS COMPUANT WITH EDGE CONDmONS. THE PROPOSEO PROGRAM FROM BUILDING A WIU REMAIN THE SAME FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ARCH· 4293-2016 �ICH INCLUDES A S,719 SF LIGHT MANUFACIUIING SHELL ON THE GROONO FLOOII WITH A 2,917 SF MEZZAHJNE ABOVE. THE PROPOSED PROGRAM FOii BUii.DiNG 8 INCLUDES A 7.200 Sf COMMERCIAi. SHEU AHO TUCK UNDER PARKING � THE GROUND FLOOll 1'<1TH (16) 1,SOO SF1WO-ROOR (750 Sf /FLOOII) LDFT·STYLE RESWJ!NCESON THE SECOND FLOOR. ACCESS TO UNfTS l'llll. BE FROM (3) EXTERIOR EGRESS STAIRS AND (1) ELEVATOR TO A SHARED EGIIESSBALONY AT THE SECONDR.OOR.EACH UNITl'llll. BE PROVIDED ACCESS TO A PRIVATE ROOfTOP DECK TH£ PROPOSED PROGflAM FOR BUILDING C INctUOES A 3,421 Sf COMMERCIAL SHELL ON THE GROUND A.DOR AND (2)RESIOENTIAL UNITS ON THE S�D FLOOR. (1 ) 1,182Sf 1-BEDROOMAND (1) 1,905 SF3-BEDROOM THE UNITS ALSO INCLUDE OUTDOOR PATIOS ANO ARE ACCESSED FROM A SHARED INTERIOR STAIR. SITE UPGRAll£S INCLOOE A REVISION TO THE PARKING LOT AND LANDSCAPING FROM THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ARCH-4293·2016TO ACCOMODATE THE PROf'05EO ADJUSTMENTS TO BUIUlmGS 8 AND C. THE PROJECT WLL MEET PUBLIC ART ORDINANCE REOU IREMENTS BY PROWliNG PIJ!!LIC ART THROIJGH A SEPARATE PERMIT LAND USE REQUIREMENTS ........ ,.,.. ZONING PREVIOUSI.Y IJlf'RovtOUSE PROOO$EOUSE ALLOW£D USE III li:*£ omnEM.t'NTS/US( rEIIMn REQUIRED lOTSll[ sntC:OV'ERACE '"' OENSll'Y HEIGHTUMO AO».em ZONES JfOIITK M SETIACXS fAO«T f\OODlONE PWINCOIMS " Dl'IYE AISLE IUII, WIOTH: N.1.0WNII.I 1'1.0WA8U N.J.OWABU AIIJJWABU S,N.J. 279 BAIOGE STREET 8IJlDISG 8 AHO C. SAN WIS tll!SPO. CA 13401 004o811'436 MI MAM.f/lCM NG W,NUfACMING ""®-US, v F\.AANING OOMMISSICN USE PERMIT 1189UIS, 2J3ACRE ,,, ACIUAI I� {11',:17&>5'} ACTUAi 2'1ACFE • 66.$2 ACTUAi 35'-0" ACTUAi usr SOOTH R·2 R-2 SIOE IIWI 1& 1� AO· 2' A6CM: AO..\ACE:HT GRAD( lfX9 NSlI n_y 14\,.17J)S1 Sf 03',('6,364if) 1816 A=28'·g-, 8:35'-0", Cs29'-6" wm M 2,· PARKING CALCULATIONS PARKING REQUIRED RESIDEHT1Al BllUJING B BllUJINGC GUEST COMMERCIAl BUllDmG A BUllOING B BUILDING C ADA SPACES EV REQUIRED CLEAN AIR MOTORCYCLE USE UNIT COUNT (DR SF) 2BED X16 32 1 BEO + 3BEO 4 UNITS 18 TOTAi. WI MIX£D USE REDUCTION OF 6'1, MAIM.·LIGHT 8636Sf BUS/RETAIL 7200SF BUS/RETAIL 3421 SF TOTAL W/ MIXED USE REDUCTION OF 6'1, TOTAi. (W/ MIX£D USE REDUCTION OF &'.II) TDTAL PROVIDED USE # Of SPACES COMMERCIAL 41 RESIDENTIAL 29 REQ•DTOTAI. PROVIDED TOTAi. USE # OF SPACES COM�RCIA1. ,, RESIIJENTIAL 31 REQ'O TOTAi. PROVWED TDTAI. USE # OF SPACES COMMERCW. 43 REQ'O TOTAi. PROVIDED TDTAI. USE II DF SPACES COMMERCW. 41 RESIOENT1AL 29 REll'D TDTAI. PROVIDED TOTAi. PARKING FACTOR SPACES REQUIRED Q.75/BEO 24 075/BED 3 1 /5UNITS 4 31 29 I/ 1,000SF 9 l/300Sf 24 1/300SF 11 4' ., 70 70 AO AF ACTOR ADA REQUIRED 2@ 26-50 SPCS 2 �OFSPActS 1 3 2VAN. 1 STD EV FACTOR EV REQUIRED t�Of$PACES ' 1Dr,OF SPACES 3 1 1 VAii, 1 srn. 5 EV Cl£ANR AIR FACTOR Cl£AN AIR REQUIRED 3@2B-50SPCS 3 3 3 PARKING FACTOR MOTORCYCLE REQ'D 1 /20@10+ SPCS 2 1 /20@ 10+ SPCS 1 3 3 VICINITY MAP BICYCLE PARKING CALCULATIONS BICYCLE PARKING REO'D UNIT COUNT (OR Sf} BUILDING A BEV MANUF BUILDING B BUSINESS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING C BUSINESS RESIOENT1Al B636Sf TOTAi. 7200SF 16 TOTAi. 3421 SF 2 TOTAi. REll'DTOTAI. PROVIDED TOTAi. TOTAL 8"YCLf 1/2000Sf 1 /IOOOSF 2/IHT+GST 1/IOOOSF 2/IJNIT+GST SHOftTTEflM LON6TtRM 4 25'1, 1 75'1, 1 1 75\ 5 25'4 35 1 /5UNITS 3 2/UNJT I 3 75'11 2 251' 4 1 /5UNITS 0 2/UNIT 2 1l 12 lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Tl O IA� LUii OBISPO CA -OAIE 09 16, 19 • 3 3 2 32 34 1 4 5 42 42 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 28 BUILDING INFO -BUILDING B OCCUPANCY 8, R,2, S,2 CONST. TYP1: VB, SPRINICURED SPRIN KUR NfPA 13. SPRINKLE RED STORI ES PROPOSED 3 BUILDING AREAS BUILDING 8 ARSTFLOOA SlCON O FLOOII TllRll FLOOR ROOF USE.ROOM B,COMM SHEU ORCUlATION U,ACCl'SSORY S,2 , CMRED PKG TOTAL: R·2.CON OO U, ACCESSORY TOTAL: R·2.CONOO TOTAL: R·2.CONOO TOTAL: BUILDING TOTAL: PARKING TOTAL: AREA 7200Sf 147Sf 254Sf 4600Sf 7601 Sf t2DOOSF 12SSF 12125Sf 12000Sf 12000 Sf OSF OSF 3172&Sf 4600 SF DECK, COVERED DECK, UNCDVER'O OSF OSf O SF O Sf OSF OSF OSF OSF OSf 160Sf OSF 160SF OSF 10392 Sf O Sf 10392 Sf O SF 10557Sf IN CIDENTAL UStS • < 10'J.AGGREGATE fLOOII OF Of TOTAL FLOOA AREA ··LESS THAN 50 OCCUPANTS= B OCCUPANCY BUILDING INFO -BUILDING C OCCUPANCY B, R-2 CONST. TYP1: VB. Sl'RINICUREO SPRINKLER NFPA 13, SPRINKLERED STORIES PROPOS ED 2 BUILDING AREAS BUILDING C FIRST FLOOR SECOIIO FLOOR USE. ROOM 8, COMM. SHElL CIRCULATION U. ACCESSORY TOTAL: R·2,CONOO TOTAL: BUILDING TOTAL: AAEA 3421 Sf 163 SF 17 9Sf 3763SF :l087 Sf 3087SF 6850 Sf DECK. CO'IIRE O DECK. UNCOVEFl'D OSF 125 SF OSF 125Sf OSF 486 Sf O SF 4'6 SF OSF 611 SF INCtOEHTAL USES= <1 D'UGGREGATE FLOOR Of OF TOTAL FLOOR AREA .. LESS THAN 50 OCCUPANTS= B OCCUPANCY DENSITY CALCULATIONS TOTAL DENSITY ALL OWED DEHSITY CALC BUILDING 8 AN O C UNIT TYPES UNITTYP1: STWIW1BD < 600 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 4+8EOROOM TOTAL BUILDING B AVER AGE UNIT SIZE BUILDING C AVERAGE UNI T Sill BUILDING B UNIT# Uflf 200 IJNIT201 UNIT202 UHfT203 UtjlT204 OOIT 205 UNIT 206 UNIT207 UNIT208 UNIT209 UNIT210 UNIT211 UN IT212 UNIT213 Uflf 214 UNIT215 TOTALII AU. 16 8UILDIN6 C OOIT1 UtjlT2 TOTAL# ALL 2 LOTSIZE· 273 ACRE DENSITY FACTOA· 24 / ACRE ALLOW. DENSITY: 65.� UNIT COUNT DU FACTOR 0 o.s I 0.66 16 1 1 1.5 0 2 TOTAL UNIT Sf: 24000 TOTAL I UNITS· 16 AVERAGE IA'<ITSF: 1500 TOTAL UNITSF: 3087 TOTAL # UNITS. AVERAGE UNIT SF-1544 SIZE(SF) <600 1·80 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 24000 0 0 1182 x 1906 3087 0 1 Z.SD x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 16 0 DENSITY 0 0.66 16 1.5 0 18.16 J.80 4-BD+ 0 0 x 1 0 lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Tl l SAN LUIS OBISPO CA -OATE 09, 16 19 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 29 © BRIDGE AND EGRESS BALCONIES WITH METAL SIDING SUMMARY OF CONTEXT Our sile is primarily surrounded by similar induslrial buildings. Two residences are lo the easl and have been provided wilh visual barriers and additional selbacks. The residences under construction to the south are a mix of 2 and 3 story units with rool!op decks. The live-work units under construction 10 the wesl are 3 stories. Adjacent lo lhe live-work units is the linear Archlleclural Iron Works building. The general surrounding materials include corrugated melal, stucco, horizontal wood, and vertical standing seam 1n varymg colors as mdicaled below. G) CORRUGATED METAL SIDING AND ROLL-UP DOORS AT ADJACENT LIVE-WORK UNITS @ NEIGHBORING CONTEMPORARY RESIDENCES WITH SHED ROOFS ANO METAL ACCENTS. 2-STORY RESIDENCE WITH ROOFTOP DECK .... "' � cc �C-S-MU :© M -:::.:.. --, ---® 88111:BE SJ CD ADJACENT LINEAR WAREHOUSE WITH INDUSTRIAL FINISHES AND WINDOW STYLES (D NEIGHBORING METAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING @ NEIGHBORING CONTEMPORARY RESIDENCES WITH REPETITIVE ELEMENTS, PARKING BELOW. 2-STORY RESIDENCE ABOVE WITH ROOFTOP DECK 0 <D M C/OS-5 CONTEXTUAL SITE PLAN SCAL£, N. T.S. lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Tl 2 Sltl lUIS OBISPO CA -DATE 09116119 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 30 �........:: ril-.;;;; �-...: a-=•l lm!r-..... ·-...... • •• 11•;•• "r.:1111 D! •cm.• i:=-• . -·.... Kl ..... ., •• l'II .. -._ .. fl: 1-·!, •..•••• '; I i=ll I IHII IIJll lf i -;.-s -· • 't �r- PRECEDENT IMAGES lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Tl 3 SAN LUIS OBISPO CA -OAT! 09'16119 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 31 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 32 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 33 BRIDGE ST. --- ,;� --=�-��.,t -�' ) --a.. 0;; __, � ..... :;: >-..... ;;;c::; ._:..... - ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 34 .... .., •==-��•=:.::...":" 1'7.n.ll --·-... �--.. •=·--·---�-.--- EXISTING ANO PROPOSED EAS<MENTS • PHASE ONE & TWO IMPROVEMENl 10 TEN OVER STUDIO.INC .. -\lllllh.,...U,. ,.."''"" *O'IIMrJIMiP 1-z UJ �t::: UJ !E V> I <x WW ...... :z: ...... == a.. 0;; _, � ......... >· ...... � C) � -- ...... 0 ...... ::::: 1..1.1 = -er:: z ...... 4 V\ "'. -...... - (.0 :;: c; --er:: ... -::: Cl.1 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 35 I II I II I u I ' II I I ' I ' r. 10 TEN OVER STUDIO.INC •• ••tu��l �V.C.OW. Pl �- � c: Ooc: -·-CL E;,,. 'al 0: ct 5 1-z: ...... � c.... o;;; ..... ;; ...... ->:= ...... 0 = e; 1-- � ...... ::: ...... "' co: ;;;; 1-- • V\ "". ...... -c.!:I:;; o; --co: -co =: C2.0 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 36 .• ... wes1 to Eou S&ctton i-"='.:· --------<l_�I J-----_-=_· ._._,_J _,__[ _"::""_ . .;, ____,:zj �i9 f West to Eost Section -,-;-- North 10 South Section rnc:n, ---. . �� I .. ·� -·--r /--·-::::.,.. �..;.;;,:,:-_-----------------·-------------7---------------------- -�� ... c��., ___ / ,.. - 10 TEN OVER STUDIO.INC ........ !M'1t..,.U9*1 "mt.Ml.lttf ........... .( . <eltr,.V,OOwe,P.E. �- -:z: ....... :e ca.. 0..............>....... c:, c � --c:, ....... ....... a,:: .. - v, -....... t::I ...c Q c,,: ca ;:; C3.0 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 37 --- PARCEL I BUILDING A 5118Sf --- PAl\0El2 ----------- BUILDING 8.1 2200 Sf R.lii.::liiilill'-------- --- ---------------1-----���--=---�-�) ---=� -�� BUILDING 8.2 11l00Sf KEYNOTES 1. LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE 2. (N) TRASH AND RECYCLING RECEPTACLES 3.(N) TRANSFORMER 4. (N) DETENTION PONDS 5. (E) CREEK SETBACK 6. (E) VALVE BOX 7. (E) PROPERTY LINE 8.(E) CREEK PLANTING TO PROTECT AND REMAIN 9. (E) REDWOOD TREES TO PROTECTAND REMAIN10. (N) RETAINING WALL, SEE CIVILS SHEETS FOR FURTHER DETAIL 11.(E) TREES TO REMAIN ANO TO BE PROETECTED 12. (N) MEADOW 13. (N) PERVIOUS DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATIO 14. (NJ PERVIOUS DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATH 15. (NJ 6'·0" WOOD FENCING 16. (E) 6'·6" WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE, , •• ,o·-o· lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Ll O SAN LUIS OBISPO CA -Dllf 09, 16 19 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 38 ' \ f l \ \ PARCEL I ------ PAACB. 2 ----- ---- N) 6' ·O" FENCING ALONG PROPERTY KEYNOTES 1. LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE 2 (N) TRASH AND RECYCLING RECEPTACLES 3. (N) TRANSFORMER 4. (N) DETENTION PONDS 5. ( E) CREEK SETBACK 6. (E) VALVE BOX 7. (E) PROPERTY LINE 8. (E) CREEK PLANTING TO PROTECT AND REMAIN 9. (E) REDWOOD TREES TO PROTECT ANO REMAIN ;\ -,�, '�� 10. (N) RETAINING WALL. SEE CIVILSSHEETS FOR FURTHER DETAIL 11.(E) TREES TO REMAIN AND TO BE PROETECTEO 12. (N) MEADOW13. (N) PERVIOUS DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATIO 14. (N) PERVIOUS DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATH 15. (N) 6' -o· WOOD FENCING 16 (E) 6'-6" WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN PLANTING PLAN SCALE:,.. ,o·-o· lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Ll l SAN LUIS OBISPO CA -OAT[ 09116•19 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 39 PLANT PALETTE PLANT IMAGES TREES QTY BOTANICAL I COMMON NAME CONT REMARKS 11 Arbutus x ·Marina· I ArbuttJs Staooard 15 gal Size: 40' -50' tall an<l 20' -40' wide WUCOLS PF :.1 • .3 Cercis occidentalis I Western Redbud 15 gal Size: 15 • tall and wide WUCOLS PF: < . 1 25 Existing Tree /Tree Planted for Riparian Mitigation Verify in Reid ARBUTUS WESTERN REDBUD COAST SILK TASSEL 0 8 Garrya elllptica • James Roor I Coast Silk Tassel 15 gal Size:6·-10· ta11and3'·10' wide WUCOLS PF= .1·.3 3 Magnolia grandiflora I Southern Magnolia 36'box Size: 60 · ·80 • tall and 30 • ·50 • wide WUCOLS PF= .4 • .6 Platanus racemosa I California Sycamore 15 gal Size: so· tall and 35 ·.40· wide WUCOLS PF: .4 • .6 SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA FEATHER REED GRASS SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS • ® @ 9 Calamagrostls x acutlllora • Ka� Foerster I Feather Reed Grass 1 gal Size: 3· -s· !all and 1 • -6'-2' -6' wide WUCOLS PF = .1 • .3 Carex divulsa I Berkeley Sedge 1 gal s,ze: 1 • -2" 1a11 and wide WUCOLS PF: .4-.6 Ceanolhusx ·concha' /Calffornia Lilac 1 gal SlZe: 4 · Jail an<! wide WU COLS PF = .1 • .3 CALIFORNIA LILAC CAPE RUSH COMMON BUCKWHEAT 157 Chondrope1alum tectorum I Cape Rush 1 gal Size:2 • -3 • tall and wide WUCOLS PF: .7 - .9 13 Eriogonum lasciculatum/ Common Buckwlleat 1 gal Size: 3 • ·4 • tall and wide. WUCOLS PF= .1 • .3 10 Heteromeles arbutifOlla I Toyon Sgal Size: 5· -30· tall and 10· .15 · wkfe WUCOLS PF = < .1 TO YON PLANT PALETTE lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Ll 2 SA� LUIS OBISPO CA -OAT[ 091161 rg • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 40 PLANT PALETTE PLANT IMAGES Malloma aqul1ollum · Compacta · I Compact Oregon Grape t gal Size: 2 ° -3 · tall and 3 · -4 · wide WUCOLS PF= <.1 •88 Muhlenbergia rigens I Deer Grass 1 gal Size: 4 • -5 • tall and 4 • -6 • wide WUCOLS Pf: .1 • .3 18 Ribes sanguineum / Red Flowering Currant 1 gat Sile: 3· -6' tall and 3· wide WUCOLS PF= .1-.3 3 Rosa calrtomica/ Calrtomia Wild Rose 1 gal Size:3· tall x3--6· wide WUCOLS PF: .1 • .3 •14 Salvia spatnacea I Humm,ngblrd Sage 1 gal Size:1·-2· ta11x4·.5· wide WUCOLS PF: .1 -.3 Salvia x 'Celestial Blue'/ Purple Sa{le 1 gal Sile: 3 • ·6 · tall anct wide WUCOLS PF: .1 ·.3 Votis californica 'Rogers Red'/ Rogers Calffornia Wild Goape 1 gal Size: 10 · -40 • tall and 1 • wide WUCOLS PF= .1-.3 •12 Woodwardia fimbriata I Giant Chain Fem 1 gal Size: 4 · ·5 • tall and 3 • wide WUCOLS PF = .4-.6 27 Zauschneria call1ornica ·Bert· s Bluff· / Bert· s Catl1omla Fuchsia 1 gal Size: 3 · · tall and wide WUCOLS PF: >.1 . l� ,.. . . ,..,_.�..:. --·--:; ;._, �-.. �· �:;_,,F�.:-fi-«.: ' .. -� .•:·, _'-"· -�-�; .. ...... ... ' ... _. �J ·· ,,,,.�"'· COMPACT OREGON GRAPE � :�· "'.··· �--�· . . ·, ·, � ' ' . � , �· . CALIFORNIA WILD ROSE DEER GRASS RED FLOWERING CURRENT HUMMINGBIRD SAGE PURPLE SAGE GROUND COVERS OlY BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME CONT SPACING REMARKS CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE GIANT CHAIN FERN BEATS CALIFORNIA FUSCHIA • 1,227 Carex pansa I Sanddune Sedge Plugs 12"0.C. Size: 6" -12· tall and spreading WUCOLS PF = .4·.6 1.235 Carex praegracilis / Slender Sedge Plugs 12"0.C. Size: 1 • tall and wide WUCOLS PF: .4-.6 SAND DUNE SEDGE SLENDER SEDGE PLANT PALETTE CONTINUED lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Ll 3 SIN lUIS OBISPO CA -DATE 09116119 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 41 I I EstlUMlfd Tolfl Water Uu � ETWU •(ET,) x (0 S2) x ((PF x HA/IE)• SLA) tefthan071 I Hvdroxont 1 2 • • 5 • 7 8 9 ........ MAWA= 284,464 091 071 Pl.ant Water u .. Type(s) (low, Mtd1um, hlal't) -..... LOW Low LOW Mod .. m LOW LOW LOW -m SlA ElWU• 07· 10 100 Hydroioot P11nt F1cto, Area (HA) fPFI (fl"> PF x HA ltr\ 04& 1.037 •n032 5.8'12 l.869 010 4.789 •79 020 •oe 82 0.0 208ll 828 010 1.765 ,n 030 2.0 n 030 2.293 885 045 810 275 0 0 0 0 0 ... 2 1 0 0 s..n 19043 1'17.513 -IElWU come"" ...... Cube.Feet 197 HCF o,.s ....,,., ... 015 MilllOtltOfGtlOM Maximum Applied Water A11owanoe Calculations for New and Rehabilitated Landscapes Enter value In Pala Blue CeUs I Tan Cells ShOw RKults M8$$a°"" and Warnings Cl ick on the blue cell on rlahl 10 Pld< Cilv Name San LulS OblSoo Name of Cilv ET O of City from Appendix A 4380 ET0 (Inches/year) Enler total landscaoe inctud,no SLA 19,043 00 LA(n2\ Enter Special Landscape Area 000 SLA(ft2 ) Results· MAWA • (ET 0) x (0.62) x ((0 55 x LA)+(0.45 x SLA)J 284,464 33 Gallons 38.02148 Cubie Feet 38027 HCF 087 Acre-feet 0.28 Millions of Gallons ... �,,.. .. ,s-ttt'\nln inn t--nArrju6 pr61"fl'\J i I ET0 of City from Appendix A 4380 ET O (inches/year) Landscaoe Area 19,04300 LA<l'rl iSoedal Landscape Alea 000 SLA (tr) 000 Total annual nMdoltation Enter Etteetwe p_..lnitauon 000 Ecol <•""""25% of 10111 annual oreeioltatJonl W'lthMAWA IHesutts: MAWA•(ET O • Ewt) x (0.62) x ((0.55 x LA)•(OA5 x SLA)J • Gallons I • Cubic Feet I • HCF I • Acre-feel I • MltliOns Of GaJIOns WATER CALCULATIONS lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT LI 4 SA� LUIS OBISPO CA -DAIE 09116119 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 42 PARCa 1 PARCEL 2 ------- / ' 10 BRIDGE STREET DE N KEYNOTES 1. LINE OF 2. (N) TRA:�ILOING ABOVE RECEPTACLES ANO RECYCLING !· (N) TRANSFORMER �: l�I g�:i����B:g�os 7 (E) VALVE BOX 8. (E) PROPERTY LINE PRO��C�R:ii PLANTI NG TO g (E) R REMAIN PROTECT E::c,0�� TREES TO 10. (N) RET MAIN CIVILS SHE:;�i�g WALL. SEE DETAIL R FURTHER 1 t.(E) TREES TO PROTECTED REMAIN ANO TO BE 12· (N) MEADOW 13· (N) PERVIOU GRANITE PATIO S DECOMPOSED 14• (N) PERVIO GRANITE PATH US DECOMPOSED 15. (N) 6'-0" 16 (E) 6' 6" WOOD FENCING SAii l UIS OBISPO CA DATE 09116, 19 Ll.5 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 43 I Di \/ ' \ / / / ' ' L I (,"' PAACEl I PAACEL 2 --------... 24'-0' ...... ------------r,� / o<•-- I \ KEYNOTES 1.UNE OF BUILOING ABOVE 2 POTENTIAL DEMISING WALL, TYP. 3.(N) LONGTERM BIKE LOCKERS. TYP. OF (6) SPACES4. (NJ SHOAT TEAM BIKE PARKING, TYP. OF(12) SPACES5. (N) RAMP6.(N) TRASH ANO RECYCLING RECEPTACLES7 (NJ TRASH. RECYCLING. ANO ORGANICS'----RECEPTACLES I •I ------J 8.(NJ TRANSFORMER 9.(N) EV CHARGING STATION10.MOTORCYCLE PARKING11 (N) MONUMENT SIGN12.(N) FOC FOR INTERIOR FIRE RISER ACCESS FROM EXTERIOR 13.(N) FIRE HYDRANT PEA CITY STANDARDS14.FIRE TRUCK TURN-AROUND SITE PLAN SCALE,,.. ,o·-o· lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Al O SIH LU IS OBISPO CA -OAT[ 09'16119 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 44 I STAIR TOWER· 45 '-10" A.F.G PARAP ET· 35'-0' A.F .G. "s,-ROOF· 33'-0' A.F.G i--�::.::.--=....:....:.:::..:: ___ ,� ..... �-------9 i .., 0 M e=i-""'.1--------lo,-- � ROOF· 27'·3" M.O � � � flRSTA.OOR -13'-0"AF.G. i FLOOR · 3'-0" A.f.G ���----...... 38'·2' 33'-0' MIN. AT EOGE CONDITION 13'-6' / / 24'-8' 1.BUILDING B SECTION SCALE: I'• 20'·0' 3.BUILDING A SECTION SCALE.-I'• 20·-o· 33'·0" / SETBACK 10'·0" 23'-0" 5'-3" / / / / S8BACK R OOF • 33'·0" A.F.G. SECOND FLOOR • 23'·0' A.F.G. FIRST A.DOR · 13'·0' A.F.G (E) GRADE 0'·0" 2.BUILDING B SECTION SCALE: 1' • 20·.o• I� �..l-R-'-00'-F-· 29'_·_6"_A_F.G_.../ , ___ 2r,_.o_• -;, 5·.1· ,,_ I S8BACK � ....A:)....:..:.::.:...:.=�.:....:.::::..:.:::...--1 � � flOOR-3'-0"AF.G m -A.)_"-----� 4.BUILDING C SECTION SCALE: I'• 20'-0' SITE SECTIONS lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Al l SAN LUIS OBISPO CA -OATE 09/16119 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 45 6,, t ' !;, !il ' / ' t ' / !"7' / / / / W<r / 1........, COMMERCIAL TENANTS COVER£0 CARPORT is,q 34'-C)" / - ,. . ., 90'<, / 1..........1-....... COMMERCIAL TENANTS COVERED CARPORT lM'<r ,a<r / / ,a<r / go,q ROOF PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1• • 40'·0· SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: r • 40'·0· 90'.()" CO MMERCIAL TE NANTS COVERED CARPORT FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCAUi: 1• • 40'·0· / ' t !:? ' ' / / 1o' "-, ' � ' BUILDING B OVERALL FLOOR PLANS lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT A2 O SAN LUIS OBISPO CA -OATE 09 16 19 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 46 � ;I 'I' � I 1 ' 15'.()" II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II � COMMERCIAL � TENANT II 450SF II II II II II It II II II :� PO�IBlE DEMISING � I WALL. TYP. I II II COVEREDCARPORT 0 ---- FIRST FLOOR PLAN SC,1l£1 1/8" • 1·-0• 15'.()" J-... RAISED WALKWAY ,-� ; l I � ! � ' 4'-6" /-- LIVING I I KITCHEN I AND DINING 6'.()" 4'-6" / / SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCAL& 1/1" • 1·-0· / 15'.()" / 15'-0--r ! ' _, - ;:'ill ; �; ROOF §BEDROOM DECK 493SF .... ' I-� 750SF I- 2:? " .. ROOF MECH. � � 192Sf BEDROOM ; 4'-0' TALL MR:H SCREEN WALL, 1"1'. I " 6'-6" 4 '.()" 4'·6' 10'-6" -/ /---If-/ THIRD FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN SCALE, 1/I"• 1·-0· SCALE, I/I"• 1'-0" BUILDING B TYP. UNIT FLOOR PLANS lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT A2 l SAN LUIS OBISPO CA -OAT( 091 16119 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 47 / lo � 18'-6" 28'·7" 21'·5" 8'-8' 28'-10" 21·-1· / ---/ / DECK 25 SO. FT. II II II II II II II II II MECHANICAL II 111 SO.FT. II II COMMERCIAL 9 II COMMERCIAL II TENANT :;;: TENANT II 861 SO. FT. 1071 SQ. FT. II COMMERCIAL II TENANT II COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL 587 SO. FT. II TENANT TENANT 2nso.FT. 625 SQ. FT I II E-POSSIBLE DEMISING II WALL. TYP. IIII RAISED WALKWAY II II II II II II RESIDENTIAL ENTRY FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCAL/i, J/8" • J'•O" BUILDING C OVERALL FIRST FLOOR PLAN lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT A2 2 SAN LUIS OBISPO CA -OATE09,16119 • / ;,- ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 48 / PATIO 332SO. FT. l 18'-6" -'----- 47'-1" KITCHEN/DINING/LIVING 800SQ. FT. / BEDROOM 296 SO. FT. 58'-10" ------------/ BEOROOM 1 240 SQ. FT. 1:==::=-::==--� BATH 1 b 50$0. FT.� KITCHEN/DINING/LIVING 1006$0. FT. 28'-7" 21'-5" 8'-8" /'--------------�l'------------/-----fa-----28'-10" / 127'-0" 21·-1· BEDROOM 2 208 SQ. FT. BEDROOM 3 300 SO. FT. 21·-1· II 1 �--------------------------/SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 118" • l'•O" BUILDING C OVERALL SECOND FLOOR PLAN lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT A2 3 SIN LUIS OBISPO CA -DATE 09'16'19 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 49 � STAIRTO'MR-45'-lO"A.F.G ......____ PARAPET· 35'-0" A.F.G. ----------ROOF · 33'·0" A.F.G. SECONO FLOOR· 23'-0" A.F.G. FIRST FLOOR· 13 '-0' A.F.G. (EJ GAAOE O',O" • AU. UGKTING TO BE NIGKT SKY PRESERVATION COM.OUANT 3.EAST ELEVATION 4.WEST ELEVATION 1.NORTH ELEVATION SCA(.£, I"• 20·-o· 2.SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: t• • 20'·0· BUILDING B ELEVATIONS lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT A3 O SAii LUIS OBISPO CA -DATE 09116' 19 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 50 DOOR PAINT SIERRA REDWOOD #SW 7598 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS SMOOTH PAINTED STUCCO FINISH PEPPERCORN #SW 767 4 SHERWIN-WJLLUMS METAL WALL PANEL. STOREFRONT, ANO ROLL-UP DOOR. TRIM TO MATCH MATIE DARK BRONZE WEST£RN STATES METAL ROOPJNG METAL WALL PANEL FRESH RUST W£ST£RN STATES METAL ROOFING WOOD DECKING MACHICHE MATA YER.DE --------------- CORRUGATED SIDING ASH GRAY WESTERN STATES METAL ROOFING BUILDING B MATERIAL BOARD ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 51 � TOP OF ROOF • 29'-6• A.F.G. �---------i___., _____ _ PARAPET· 19'·6" A.F.G. � ARST FlOOR • 16'.0" A.F.G. FlOOO ZONE 3'·0' � (E) GRADE 0'.0" ---------� • ALL LIGHTING TO BE NIGHT SKY PRESERVATION COMPLIANT 3.EAST ELEVATION SCAL£1 I"• 20·-o• 1.SOUTH ELEVATION sc,11.e, , •• 20·-o· 2.NORTH ELEVATION SCAL£1 I"· 20'·0" 4.WEST ELEVATION SCALI;, 1• • 20•-o• BUILDING C ELEVATIONS lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT A3 2 SAN lUII OBISPO CA -OAT£ 09116 19 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 52 METAL WALL PANEL, STOREFRONT, ANO ROLL-UP DOOR. TRIM TO MATCH MA TIE DARK BRONZE WF.ST£RN STATES M£TAI_ ROOPIN(I CORRUGATED METAL SIDING FRESH RUST WESTERN STATES META/.. ROOflNG WOOD DEC KING MACHICHE MATAYEROE CORRUGATED SIDING ASH GRAY WESTERN STAT£$ META/. ROOP/NG BUILDING C MATERIAL BOARD lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT A3 3Slll LUii OBISPO CA -OATE 09116119 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 53 PLANTER I ROOF OECK .... J. ROOF MECH. � AREA 4'·0' TALL 2"2 MECH. SCREEN WALL STAIR I TOWER � SECONDA.OOR·23'-0'AFG RESIDENTIAL UNIT RESIDENTIAL UNIT � PARAPET -1�-6' A.f.G PATIO \__ J. RESIDENTIAL RES. UNIT STAIR RESIDENTIAL UNIT RESIDENTIAL UNIT � RRSTA.OOR.J:t-O'A.FG. � fllSTFLOOR • 16'-0' A.F.G. I I I COMMERCIAL : COMMERCIAL I COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL I COMMERCIAL RAISED COMMERCIAL WALKWAY (E) GRADE <t·O' STAIR RAISED WALKWAY COMMERCIAL TENANT COVERED CARPORT 1.BUILDING B SCALE: 1" • 20·-o• RES. STAIR TOWER, TYP. I D I :t;OMMERCIAt: JENANTS, TYi) PLANTER ;m. "' .J... fl.OOR-3'-0'A.fG. " .J... (E)GIW>E0'-0' 'r RAISED WALKWAY PLANTER TYP.� TENANT I TENANT I TENANT I I RES. ROOF DECK SEPARATION, TYP. RES. ROOF DECK, TYP. ,---,----,,----1� I I !j:OMMERCIAI! ltNANTS, TY!ll I R TENANT I TENANT I I 2.BUILDING C SCALE: l' • 20'•0" RES. STAIR TOWER, TYP. SOLAR PANEL TYP. TENANT ..l.J II 3.BUILDING C SCALE: 1" • 20·-o· 4.BUILDING B SCALE: I'• 20'•0" BUILDING SECTIONS lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT A4 O SAN LUIS OBISPO Cl -011£ 09 16 19 • ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 54 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 55 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 56 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 57 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 58 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 59 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 60 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 61 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 62 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 63 10 TO LEAVE THE WORLD BETTER THAN WE FOUND IT C.rtlfied � ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Page 64 Meeting Date: September 9, 2019 Item Number: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING The applicant is requesting design review of a proposed mixed‐use project consisting of three buildings including: Building A (8,636‐square foot [sf] manufacturing shell with mezzanine); Building B (31,726 sf mixed‐use building including 7,200 sf of commercial shell on the ground level with 16 loft‐ style, two‐bedroom residential units above); and Building C (6,850‐sf mixed‐use building including 3,421‐sf of commercial shell on the ground level with two residential units above) with associated parking and site improvements (Attachment 1, Project Plans). The project includes a request for a mixed‐use parking reduction of six percent. Previous Entitlement Background. On May 1, 2017, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved a project on this project site that consisted of three commercial shell buildings including the following: Building A (8,636 square feet including mezzanine level) (no change proposed from previous entitlement); Building B (9,957 square feet); and Building C (4,704 square feet including a second floor caretaker’s residence with outdoor patio). The previous approval included tree removals and onsite plantings as recommended by the City Arborist, and associated site improvements (Attachment 2, Previous ARC Report and Resolution). Since that time, the applicant has substantially modified the project and proposed uses for the site, which require design review by the ARC (with a recommendation to be provided to the Planning Commission [PC]) and consideration of a PC Use Permit to establish the proposed mixed‐use project and mixed‐use parking reduction. General Location: The 2.73‐acre project site is located south of Bridge Street, and is accessed via an existing bridge over Meadow Creek. Present Use: Vacant Zoning: Manufacturing (M) General Plan: Services & Manufacturing Surrounding Uses and Zoning: East: Existing single‐family residences, R‐2‐SP West: Live/work units, M‐PD North: Light Industrial/Office, M & C‐S‐PD South: Single‐family residences & Open Space beyond, R‐2‐PD & C/OS zoning FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner PROJECT ADDRESS: 279 Bridge Street FILE NUMBERS: ARCH‐0255‐2019/USE‐0526‐2019 APPLICANT: Bridge Squared, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Aisling Fearon ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ For more information contact: Shawna Scott at 781‐7176 or sscott@slocity.org Figure 1: Subject Property ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 65 ARCH‐0255‐2019 279 Bridge Street Page 2 2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN Architecture: Industrial / Contemporary Design details: Entry feature leading to rear parking area behind/under Building B, ground‐level commercial with two‐story residential units with roof top decks above (Building B), roof‐top solar panels, large windows, decks, balconies, and exterior stairs, flat and sloping roof elements, and landscaped buffer along the eastern, western, and southern property lines Materials: Metal wall panels, corrugated siding, smooth‐painted stucco, wood decking Colors: Matte dark bronze, grays, rust, red/maroon 3.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW The ARC’s role is to 1) review the proposed mixed‐use project in terms of its consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and applicable City Standards and 2) provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission. 4.0 PROJECT STATISTICS Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required Setbacks – Side / Edge Condition 12 feet (Building A) 30 feet (Building B) 20 feet (Building C) None required (M zone) 23 feet (Edge Condition) 19 feet (Edge Condition) Setbacks – Rear 20 feet (Building A) 24 feet (Building B) 16 feet (Edge Condition) 23 feet (Edge Condition) Setbacks – Roof‐deck 35+ feet (Building B) 33 feet (Edge Condition) Maximum Height of Structures 35 feet 35 feet Max Building Coverage (footprint) 14% 75% Required Parking Spaces 70* 70* Environmental Status Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER#0286‐2014) * Includes requested 6% mixed‐use parking reduction to be considered by Planning Commission Figure 2: Building B (portion) Figure 3: Building C (mixed‐use) ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 66 ARCH‐0255‐2019 279 Bridge Street Page 3 5.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS1 Highlighted Sections Discussion Items Chapter 2 – General Design Principals §2.1.B. Consider the context The project site is located on a parcel zoned M, with single‐family residences to the south and east, live/work units to the west, and commercial, industrial, and office uses in the proximity along Bridge Street. The ARC should discuss how the project fits in with the best examples o f appropriate site design and architecture in the vicinity of the site. Chapter 3, Section 3.1 – Commercial Project Design Guidelines §3.1.B.2. Neighborhood compatibility §3.1.C.1. Site planning, consider neighboring development As noted above, the project site is located in an area that demonstrates a variety of land uses, and is proximate to structures with varying architectural styles. In addition, the development would be approximately 200 feet setback from Bridge Street, and surrounded by existing development. The proposed project setbacks from adjacent residential development meets or exceeds standard setbacks. The ARC should discuss the project’s proportionality and size, building setbacks and massing, and application of colors and materials relative to the surrounding neighborhood. §3.1.C.2.g. Site planning, multiple buildings This guideline states that “multiple buildings in a single project should be designed to create a visual and functional relationship with one another”, which creates opportunities for plazas and pedestrian areas while preventing long rows of buildings. The guideline notes that where clustering is impractical, a visual link should be established between buildings. The project incorporates landscaping, pavers, and an entry feature/elevated walkway (Building B), which provide visual links between the buildings. Chapter 3, Section 3.3 – Industrial Project Design Guidelines §3.3.A.3.General design objectives, building setbacks The proposed project site plan for the Buildings B and C show setbacks ranging from 20 to 30 feet from neighboring residential uses, consistent with the Zoning Regulations for the edge conditions (adjacent zoning is R‐2 to the south and east). The ARC should discuss if the proposed project setbacks are proportionate to the scale of the structure such that the buildings would not visually impose on neighboring uses. §3.3.A.5. General design objectives, main elements This guideline notes that preferred site design show “multiple buildings on the same site clustered to create a campus‐like setting that takes advantage of shared open space and pedestrian amenities.” As noted above (§3.2.C.2.g. Site planning, multiple buildings), while clustering of the buildings may be impractical due to the shape of the parcel and recognition of the standard creek setback for Meadow Creek, the project includes 1 Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 67 ARCH‐0255‐2019 279 Bridge Street Page 4 landscaped areas, a pedestrian path constructed with permeable pavers near the creek, an outdoor patio, and decks. §3.3.B.2. Architectural design, mass and scale of structures The proposed design demonstrates use of articulated facades by incorporating balconies and decks. A variety of siding materials (metal, corrugated metal, and stucco) is proposed to provide texture, relief, and visual interest. The ARC should discuss if additional articulation is needed, such as offsets. 6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 6.1 Recommend approval of the project, which may include specific conditions of approval to be considered by the Planning Commission. 6.2 Continue the project. An action continuing the application should include direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 6.3 Recommend denial the project. An action denying the application should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, CDG, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 7.1 Project Plans 7.2 Previous ARC Report and Resolution – May 1, 2017 7.3 Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 68 ENTITLEMENT PACKAGE , 08/28/ 19 BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT The Bridge Streel Developme nl is env,s,onecl as a quaint, urban neighborhood in a park like selling -a new. vibrant. progressive community of entrepreneurs, makers, a1t1s1s and independent thinkers Prepared by TEN OYER STUDIO ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 69 CONTACTS CLIENT DEVIN GALLAGHER P.O. BOX t 826, SA� LUIS OBISPO. CA 93406 805.234.0824 galpro@rmc.com ARCHITECT TEN OVER STUDIO 539 MARSH ST., SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93401 805.541.1010 CONTACT: AISLING FEARON a1slingf@tenoverslud10.com CIVIL ENGINEER GROUND UP DESIGN & CM, INC P.O. BOX 1583, PASO ROBLES, CA 93447 805.227.4159 CONTACT: STACIE GLEIM slaciegleim@e�rtlllink.net LANDSCAPE ARCHJTECT TEN OVER STUDIO 539 MARSH ST., SAN LUIS O BISPO. CA 93401 805.541.1010 CONTACT: JULIA OBERHOfF juliao@lenoverstudio.com INDEX PROJECT INFO & DATA CONTEXTUAL SITE PLAN PRECEDENT IMAGES AERIAL PERSPECTIVES PRELIM. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN EASEMENT EX HIBIT PRELIM INARY UTILITY PLAN PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONS TREE REMOVAL PLAN PLANTING PLAN PLANT PALETlE WATER CALCULATIONS LIGHTING PLAN SIT£ PLAN AND SITE SECTIONS BUILDING B FLOOR PLANS BUILDING B UNIT FLOOR PLANS BUILDING C FLOOR PLANS BUILDING B ELEVATIONS BUILDING B MATERIAL BOARD BUILDING C ELEVATIONS BUILIDNG C MATERIAL BOARD BUILDING SECTIOriS PERSPECTIVES Tl .O TO Tl.1 T2.I Tt.3 Tl.4 TO Tl.5 CLO Cl.I C2.0 C3.0 Ll.O Ll.1 ll.2 TO Ll.3 ll.4 ll.5 Al.O 10 At.t A2.0 A2.l A2.2 TO A2.3 A3.0 Al.I A3.2 A3.3 A4.0 A5.0 TO A5.8 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 70 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE l'l!tf'OSEO Pffl.£CT IIMl.� ALISE CIW«iE ffflMMNUIICTIRIIG IDMOlll USE fOR THE l'IIEW:'lJSLY ENIITLED8UUlNGS 8 NEJ C or <ACH-4293-2016 THE PAO.Eel IS LDCATB> IN ll£ M 1.t1HE NEJWITHlt 11£ OESIGNATID flOOO ZDIE NJ j?.0-OEPTlf). IIO lMNG SPACES SHl.u. OCQ.PI 1HE GlOONO ROOR. OO!IES AT l1WJE NEJ IU 8UUlNG MArnlLOlS l'IU 8T1-£R BE Dil'f A.000 l'lllllCTtO OR B.EVATEOAll(M THE OESl:;N ROOD ELEVATION Of 3.0-lillM. MlJ,t,CEli!"GR.IDE. 11£ STYLE IS IMJUSIRIAL/<XlllTaf'OIW!YY<lltt AWmHOUSE ILOfl fUL N«>ll£ FfflEHS REOISTN'.i A YlfO USE PARKJH:i REOu::llOH or� THE ZIINE IS All.llaNl TO ilESDelTW. DES ON TttE SOUlHERN AHO WESTERN SIIES N«> IS OJIM'l.lAHI wmt EOOE � 1lfE PAOPOSEOPROGRAMFl¥lM stJllll«i A l\'LL REMAIH1l£SNJE FR(N 11£ PREVIOUSLY APPR:Mll AIOl-4293-3)16WHICII IN:llaS A 5.719SF LIGHT MNI.FACII.Rt«; SHIU CN THE GllllNl fl.Om Yllltt A 2.917 SF --- 1HE PROP058)f'RlGAA!,IRJREIIJUlllli S INCl.lllSA 7ZX) Sf COMMlillCW.SHEU.NIKJ 1UCK l1()61 fll'JWIG ON 1HE 6ROUIO A.OOfl MTH (16) 1,5(1) Sf 11\0flOOfl (7lC Sf I FLOOR) LOfT·sm.E RESIIENCESOII TttE sroMIROOR. IICX:ESS ID LN1S WU IIE ff!OM (3) EXTERIORBiRESS STAIIS .. 'll (11 ELEVATOR ID A Skli!EOEGRESS BALCINY AT Tl£ SllXlNOllOOR. EACH INT 1\11.l llE PllOYIOEO N:aSS TOA PRIVATE ROOfTOJ>OEO< lHE PIU'OSEO Pffl6IW4 FOR 6\aDIIG C IN:llaS A J.4l1 SF COMMIIIWl SHIU 111111£ GllllNl f\.000 1,1;() (l) RESIIEHllAL INTS ON THE SECOND fLOOII, (1) 1.1&' Sf 1-llEIJIOOMAND jl) 1,!I05 Sf 3-eEDRlOM THE UIITS ALSO wcua OUTDOOR PAOOS ANO NIE A£CESSEO -A SIWlED INIDIIOR STAIR SITE lFGPAOES lliCUllE A R8ISOi TD THE PARKl'iG lOT NII LAlll5CAPl!IG ffiOM llfE PR!WllJSlY ,lj>Pfl()V!D-l!l).:1016TOAWJMOO,\TE M PROPOScD 141$1MENTS TO BIUJIIGS SN«> C. THE PAO.ECT WlL IIEET 1'18.JC NIT OAOOWCE RE<U1IEMEillTS BY PROWllNG IU3lJC NIT TlflOUGH A SEJ'IAATE l'!IIMT. LAND USE REQUIREMENTS -........... 'lt"ilm.xil:. �llti.l. -DIIGBNDt:.SM UIS<BSfO.CAfl«)I CIM411-Cll5 WJl&Ml.lM:nl.lal6 ............... --• ft.NNNG CDMSSDl"tlSE"ftRIIT lll!&?tSf """" '" .......,. 14S,.17,Ql1Sf l!.(111,371_.5.Sf) ......... Dlll.l ... l04Sf) 24.JOlf. ·l:6� ......... 1116 :IS.V ........ l-21'-9" 1·3!5' ..... C-2'9,..,. WT ...... ..SJ ... ... .. -.... .. " PARKING CALCULATIONS US£ 11.-rCIOI.Wl(IJRSF) 2BIDX16 32 1BID•311ED 4 INTS 18 TOTAL WlllmD IISElEKJCTIOII DFR. MND.·Llilif 8636Sf llUS/RflNL 720051' llUS(RflNI. 3-121 Sf TDIAl WI IIIXW IISE IIEDUCTIDI OF R TO!Al (WI 11mD IISE REOll:TIOII OF 111) TOTMPllO'lllm AIIUPACES IISE 411 Of SPACES COY.ElDliL 41 ilESIJENTLI;. 29 IIED11TDIAl PllMDBI JO!Al £V IIElllllllED IJSE #Of SPACES COIMRCW. 43 AES106lllW. 31 RfO'DTOTAL l'lllfflll(DTOTAL CUAIIAIR USE II Of SPACES cru.t.lER;W. -0 IIEll'DTDTAL PIIO'IIJEDTD!Al IIOTORCYCU DSE II Of SPActS allMIDJ,L 41 -29 IIEO'O TOTAL flllMDOl lllTAL rAIIUIGFACTOR SPACESRIOIHD 0.7SISEO 24 0.75/SED 3 1/51.tl!TS I 31 zg 111,000Sf g 1/DlSF � 11:nlSf 11 � 41 ,. ,. ADA FACTOR .lllAIIEOUffD 2@26-511SPCS 2 2ToorSPM:ES 1 3 211U.1STD ff FACTOR EY IIBII.IRED 101;0fSPAaS 4 IOI Of SPACES 3 1 1VAII,, 1 Sill, 5 £V ClUIIR AIR FACTOJI CUAIIAIIIIIEGlllllEII 3@26-511Sl'tS 3 3 s PUIIJ9GFAClllll IMlTIIIICYCU IIEll'D 1120@1D+Si'CS 2 1/20@1D+Si'CS 1 3 3 VICINITY MAP BICYCLE PARKING CALCULATIONS IIJUIIIG A IIEV.t.WU. UIIIT COUii' !OR Sf) 8636Sf TOTAL 1200SF 16 TOJAL 34l1 Sf 2 TO!Al 11E011 lllTAL P1ID'IIDEDTOTAL lOTAUICYCU 1/:imlSF 111000Sf 2/LNT+GST 1 {1000Sf 211HT+GST SIIORT TERII LOE TEAii 4 2:;I I 15' 1 1 751. 5 251 35 llHNTS 3 2/INT I 3 75' 2 251 I 1/SINTS 0 2/lNT 2 12 12 lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Tl O 14N lUIS OelS,o C4 -011! 08 18 19 • 3 3 2 32 34 I 4 5 CZ 4Z ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 71 BUILDING INFO -BUILDING B COIIST. TYPf VS. Sl'Rlli<I.ERED SPRIBl.lll lff>A 13,SPfllNKLlllfO STDIIIES PIIDPOSEO 3 IIJlllmGAIIEAS IUIU: .. 61 RAST R.OOR SEC<IIO llOOR THRO llOCII ROOf USE, IID4* 8,COM.l SHII.L CIICUAOON U.ACCESSORY S-2,CO'IEl,ED� rDTAL: R-2.COliDD U, lllnSSllRY roTAL: R-2,COliDD TOTAL: R-2.COIIDO TOTAL: �rout.: PAa.GrDTAI.: ARIA noDSF IOSf 254 Sf <la:IISF 1WISf 12IXl>Sf 125Sf 12125SF 120:l)Sf 120DISF OSF ISF 31l'aSf -SF DECK, COVEll(I) DECK,u.cow&n) DSf OSf ISF ISf OSf DSf tSf ISf OSF IOOSF D Sf 150 Sf OSF 10392Sf ISF 1DJ'l2SF ISF 11552SF "INCUNTAL USES : < IOI AGG-TE flOOO Of OF roTAL llOCII AREA • "LESS THAN 50 OOCLl'ANIS = B OOCLl',W;\' BUILDING INFO -BUILDING C OCCtJPAIICY COIISJ. TYPf SPlll(KlEJI STDIIIES P!IOPOSEO IUILl*GAREAS 1!9.JJIIEC fR>TR.OOR SECOhl>FLOOR 8,R-2 W,Sfflll«lf.RED fffA 13, SPRNQ.ERfD USl. llOOII ARO B.00-SHEU 3421 Sf CIOOll.A OOH 163Sf U.NXESSOR'f l79Sf rDTAl: 3763SF R-2.roNOO :mlSF TOTA" 3117SF IUILDIIG TOTAL: -Sf DECK, COffllBI DSF ISF DSf ISF ISF OECS, U.COYEJl1l 125SF 125SF <116SF <IASF 111 Sf "11«:IOENTALUSES: <IOIAGGREGATEllOOROFOF TOTAL FLOOR I.REA • "LESS TIINI 50 ocaPA.'ITS � B OOCl.l'A.'ICY DENSITY CALCULATIONS TOTAl DEIISIJY Al1.0WEO OEIISITY C.W: U\IIT TYPf IIIIUJIIIGIAIIOC STllllCl'llll < 600 I BEDIIJOM 28ElllllOM 3BEIJIIXN •• BEl)R()()M TOIAl UNIT TYPES IUIUIIIIG I AYIM&E UIUT SIZE IUII.NIGCAYIJ!AGEU\IITSIZE IUI.DIIE I llllll'# l.NT20D l.NT201 l.NT202 LNT203 LMf 204 IHT20S UNIT2D6 tNT201 INJ208 INJ209 INJ210 lNT211 lNJ212 l.NT21J LNT214 lNT215 TOTN.#M.J. ,. l.lllll LMT2 TOIN.#AU 2 LOTSIIE: 2.7310![ DENSITYFACmt 24/KPE ALI.OW. llEINSITY. 65..5l U\IITC:OOllr DOFUTOR D Cl5 l DJi6 16 I l 1.5 0 2 TOTIUJIITSI'. 2.0CO TOTAL# LNITS: 16 A'IERAGLNTSF" llOJ TOTAL INTSf: _, TOTAL # INlS. 2 A'IERAG' I.NT SF: 1� Sill (SF) <600 1-eo 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 llOJ llOJ llOJ llOJ llOJ llOJ -I I 1182 x 1905 3117 D l 2-80 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 1& I OEJISITY 0 DJi6 16 1.5 0 11.1' 3-80 4-80+ I I x 1 I ......... lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Tl I Sii LUIS OBISPO Cl -D�TE 68 18' I� • ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 72 © BRIDGE ANO EGRESS BALCONIES WITH METAL SIDING SUMMARY OF CONTEXT Our site rs primarily sur1ounded by similar industrial buildings. Two residences are lo the easl and have been provided w1lh visual barriers and add1honal setbacks. The residences under conslruclton lo lhe south are a mix ol 2 and 3 story unils with rooftop decks. The live-work units under construction lo the west a1e 3 slories. Adjacent lo the live-wor! units 1s the linear Architectural Iron Works building. The general surrounding malenals include corrugated melal. s1ucco, horizontal wood, and ve1llcal standing seam 1n varying colo1s as indicated below. CD CORRUGATED METAL SIDING ANO ROll-UP DOORS AT ADJACENT LIVE-WORK UNITS @ NEIGHBORING CONTEMPORARY RESIDENCES WITH SHED ROOFS ANO METAL ACCENTS, 2-STORY RESIDENCE WITH ROOFTOP DECK .... en � cc C-S -MU �C-S-MU i: © M @ (D ADJACENT LINEAR WAREHOUSE WITH INDUSTRIAL FINISHES AND WINDOW STYLES BRID1lE ST 0 CD @ NEIGHBORING METAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING @ NEIGHBORING CONTEMPORARY RESIDENCES WITH REPETITIVE ELEMENTS, PARKING BELOW, 2-STORY RESIDENCE ABOVE WITH ROOFTOP DECK C-S-MU M M-PP----- C/OS-5 CONTEXTUAL SITE PLAN SCALE, N. T.S. lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Tl 2 SAN lUII orn,o CA -DAI[ OS 16 19 • ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 73 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 74 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 75 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 76 \ 10 TEN OVER STUOID,INC ·--111.--u----- -z: ....... � � 0;; ...... :; ....... ->� ....... Q c::; t-o u..a ·� ....... :: -z 1-c ..,., :;; ....... -c.o:;: c� -- Cl.O ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 77 � -:...:..=•-=-·-- --� --------·-r--··___/ ·. BRIDGE ST. ) ----.......__. __ __ -- I . J i . �------------ i--, EXISING ANO Pl!OfOSED EASEMEKIS • PHASE ONE &. TWO MPROVfMEKI 10 TEN OVER SJU 010 ,IRC ·- ....... Q; .. ·-- 1-z w �!:::: w�V> I <( x WW -z: ..... �a.. 0;; __, �..... ...>;: ..... C> c::; I- :;........ :::: ........ =-;;; I- -c ...,.. ":..... _(.!) � Q� -----::: Cl.1 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 78 I i I I I I I I i : ""\ II i I I L I i I I I I I ! I I I : I , I I I I i I 1 I I I l I \ I { """"' I .... ------- l.aJ ;; a,: ;;;; _ .. V"I "". l.aJ -�= cc ;; : CICI ;::; C2.0 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 79 - West 1o Eosl Seclion w� to Em1 Section �- -�···· ( ... : .-··� -� _,,, lo Soulh Section -...... -"""'- __ ;r-1 =I_ -- l--9/:5;--l 1-l. .... 1 l- == ·-- 10 TEIIOVER STUDIO IIIC --•=----u-·--- Mlilrl V. 0o,,,e. PL �- .... :z ....... ::e a.. C;;; __, :; ....... ->�..........c� .... :; ....... � ....... = -�....... V'l "'. � � .... � <.:> :;: Q;; -----::: C3.0 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 80 PARCll.2 ---·· - -- ��J-- ---" -\, , --- KEYNOTES ING ABOVE 1.LINE OFS BHUl��O RECYCLING2 (NJ TRA RECEPTA���FOR IAfR 3. l�l �ETENTIOlf PONDS 4. (E) CREEK SETBACK �-(E) VALVE BOX 1: (E) PROPERPTLYA�l�tG TO PROTECT B. (E) CREEK AND REMAIN OD TREES TO PROTECT9_ (E) REDWO AND REMAI N G WALL SEE CIVILS10. (N) RETAININ DETAIL S HEETS FOR Figi����I N AND TO BE l l.(E) TREES T PROETECTED 12. (N) MEA RV�g�S DECOMPOSED 13. (N) PE GRANITE PAT IOOUS DECOMPOSEDl 4. (N) PE RVI GRANITE PATH FENCING 15. (N) 6:-o: ;ggg FENCE TO RE MAIN 16. (E) 6 -6 - SCAPE PLANE9 OVERALL LANO SCALE:r-,o·-o· BRIO ·u tuis oe1sio c1 e ) OATf 08 23 1:l ELOPMENT ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 81 ' \ \ \ \ � -PJACB. 1 --- ---- N) 6' ·O" FENCING ALONG PROPERTY KEYNOTES 1. LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE 2. (N) TRASH ANO RECYCLINGRECEPTACLES 3. (N) TRANSFORMER 4. (N) DETENTION PONDS 5. (E) CREEK SETBACK 6. (E) VALVE BOX 7. (E) PROPERTY LINE 8. (E) CREEK PLANTING TO PROTECT ANO REMAIN 9. (E) REDWOOD TREES TO PROTECT ANO REMAIN I 0. (N) RETAINING WALL. SEE CIVILS SHEETS FOR FURTHER DETAIL 11.(E) TREES TO REMAIN ANO TO BE PROETECTEO 12. (N) MEADOW 13. (N) PERVIOUS DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATIO14. (N) l'ERYIOUS DECOMPOSED GRANITE PATH 15. (N) 6' ·O" WOOD FENCING 16. (E) 6'·6" WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN N E9 PLANTING PLAN SCALL /" • 40'-4 " lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT LI I SI� LUIS OBISPO Cl -DUE 08 18 IS • ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 82 PLANT PALETTE TREES QTY BOTAr.lCAI./COMMON NAME CONT 10 ArtxAus x ·Marina· / Artktus Swldard 15gal c«cis occi:lmis / Wesrem Re<llud 15gal 25 Exisli1g Tree/ Tree Planled ror �n Mitigatioo Verily in Field 0 8 G¥yi eiiplic.1 • James Roof" I Coost Sik Tassel 15 !Pl 3 Plalaoos racemosa I talifomia Sycamore 15gal SHRlBS aTY BOTANICAL /C� AAME SIZE 0 6 Calamagroslis x acutillora · Kati NlEISler" / featllef Reed Grass 1 gal Ceanolt.Js I . Concha. I Calikma Uac 1 gal © 154 CIIOooropelalJm lectorum I Cape Rush I gal ® 14 Eriogonum 1ascicwt1.111 / Common Buck'Mleal I gal 11 lieteromeles artumlria / T O)On 5gal Mahooo aquifolium · Compacta • / Compact Cngoo Grape 1 gal •l'il Mul*nbffgia Jigens / Deer Grass lijal REMARKS Size: 40· -so· lal and 20· -40· wide wuca.s Pf:.1 •. 3 Size: 15 · tal arr:1 ...ie wuca.s PF: < .1 Size: s· -10· tall arr:13" -10· wide WUCOLS PF= .1-.3 Sile: so· lal and 35 · -40· wide WUCOLS PF: A · .6 REMARKS Size: 3' .5· t!land 1 · -6"·2"-6'wide wuca.s PF = .1 .. 3 Size: 4· talarr:1 � WUCOlS PF= .1-.3 Size::!" -:r tal arr:1 wile WUCOLS PF: .7 · .9 Sile: 3· -4· tau and wide. Yi1JCOLS PF = .1 • .3 Size: s· .30· 1a1 aoo 10· .15· wide WIJCa.S PF = < .1 Size: 2" .3· 1a1aoo 3· -4· ...ie W\JCOLS PF = <. I Size: 4 .. 5. tall and 4. -6. wide WUCOLSPF: .1 .. 3 PLANT IMAGES ARBUTUS CAPE RUSH COMPACT OREGON GRAPE WESTfRN REDBUD FEATHER REED GRASS COMMON BUCKWHEAT . ;,' 11,-:/J • . , · • !t'., l ·•u -� i, "J( If· .. , .,.,,.,. ·1,L'· \. '·f� . -·� DEER GRASS COAST SILK TASSEL CALIFORNIA LILAC TOYON PLANT PALETTE ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 83 PLANT PALETTE PLANT IMAGES ,.... 18 Ribes saflluinellm I Red� a.rant 1 gal Silf: 3· -6· 131 and 3· wide IMJCOLS PF= .1-.3 G)Rosa califo<rEa / Caifomia Wid Rose 1 gal Sizl!:3· taJJx3·�· wide 'MJCOLS PF: .1 -.3 •14 Salria spalhacea /H�rd Sage 1 gal Size: 1 • -2' ta11x4· .5· wide v.ucoi.s PF: .1 •. 3 9 SaMa t 'Celestial Blle' I Purple Sage 1 gal Size: 3. -6. tall and Mle WJCOI.S Pf:: .1-.3 4 Vltis califorri:a 'Rogers Re1t I Roge(s Califonsa Wid Grape 1 gal Size: 10·-40· 1a1and 1 · wide \\\JCOI.S Pf = .1-.3 12 1M>odwardia fimb!iata I Gian: Chai'l Fem 1 gal Sire: 4·.5· tatand3' wide \\\JCll.S Pf = .4-.6 ® 27 Zauscllneria cailomica ·sest" s Bl,tf' /Bfrt's Caifooia Fuchsia I gal Silf: 3· • tall and wide l'tUCOI.S PF: > .1 RED FLOWERING CURRENT PURPLE SAGE ,· iff, ·_ ... --�-... -'" ·"·· '_-· � ...... . .... ii ''ti . ..... . ·" . ·.', � .• CALIFORNIA WILD ROSE CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE HUMMINGBIRD SAGE �: -�··' ,......_ -.., . . '_ u!I...:, -• �,�� -� '> _ ... _ ••• �-... �-·' . . � ,-· ·\·, . ", ,, '�., _ ... At/j ., __ - / ' . �; .... ""( GIANT CHAIN FERN GROUPll COVERS QTY BOTAHlCPl I COMMON NAME CONT SPACING REMARKS --.. m .;_ ' . . . . ·.·_, . � _; 1.362 Carex pansa I Sar1Cltne Sedge Plugs 12"0.C. Size: 6" -12" tall aoo si:,eading v.ucot.S PF = . 4-.6 1.235 carex praegracis I SlesM!er Sedge 12"o.c. Size: 1 . lalJ and IWle BEATS CALIFORNIA FUSCHIA SANO DUNE SEDGE SLENDER SEDGE \\\JCOLS Pf· .4-.6 PLANT PALETTE CONTINUED lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Ll 3 Sl\ lLIIS &BISP6 CA -011£ 08 28, 13 • ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 84 EsbmQdTatplWS rtJse � ET\YJ =(ET.I• (0 6') xfffh HME) • 5tAJ ........ MA.WA= Low - StA I.......,._ 1 2 3 • 5 • 7 8 9 283/YY ••1 071 -- UMType(s) (low, medium,, -I -low l-low -. ...low low low ......... SU. � Piant Factor 0-03 04 -08 07-1 0 1()0 Plsit Fac:t.or IPA 04!1 032 010 O:lll o ... 010 010 030 045 1 ,._ 145.79' 19490 105 045 01S ..,.. ....... -OU\) �PhHAffl'I 1 037 m 51!42 1- 4,7119 419 ... 82 2.068 828 1 765 ,n -,. 2283 .... 610 Z/5 0 ' ( ( 4.8'!! 0 189<7 -C>bc:het IETWUcom pAts. witb MA.WA ta ,..,..,_ _....,_ Maximum Applied Water Allowance C•kulft ions for New and Rghabilitfted L.andSCfoeS EnlK "a,e in � Blue Cells T•n Cells Show RH- Messages and w�m.-.gs Click on the btue eel on f'i:lht IO Pick Civ Name L"" ET. or Cily from Aj>pef1di,c A Enter ID1af landscape O'ldudinn SI.A Etdet Special Landscape Area ,K .. U"'" W.WA = (ET.) x(ll.62) xl(0.55 x LA)+(0.45x 51.A)J MAWA cakutation inc tino Effective-Ptec;inrta.tion ttonal ET. of City from A,ppeoobc A Resutls: W.WA=(ET, • e...i x (ll.62) x 1(0.55 x LA)<(0.45 x SLAJJ I I Name of....,,, 4311( ET,0ncheslye31) 18947(1( LAITI 00( SlA(111 283.030.251 Galoos 37.835.n ubic Feet 378.36 "'-'" 087 feel 0.28 Milions of G.alons 43 80 ET, (onclles/year) 18,947 00 LA (II') 0 00 SLA Cit'\ O DI TOllal annual ...... __...alion O 0( ED011annrrv2S-.of1ctalaoouaJnnorinuition) -iGaloos • OubcFeet --F --� .. --ofGaloos WATER CALCULATIONS lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Ll 4 IHlUISO!ISPQ Cl -OAIE 08 23 13 • ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 85 \ \ \ \ � P.unl I ------ 10 --- ---------- ------ KEYNOTES 1. LINE OF B 2. (NJ TRAS�ILDING ABOVE RECEPTACLES ANO RECYCLING !· (NJTRANSFORMER . (NJ OETENT 5.(E) CREEK ��:/ONOS 6. (E) VALVE ACK 7 (E BOX 8. ) PROPERTY LINE · (EJ CREEK p PROTECT ANO R LAHTING TO 9. (E) REO EMAIN PROTECT .1.:00�D TREES TO 10. (N) RETA.I EMAIN CIVILS SHEET�l �G WALL, SEE DETAIL OR FURTHER l I .(E) TREES PROTECTED TO REMAIN AND TO BE 12. (N} MEADOW 13. (NJ PERVID GRANITE P/\TIO US DECOMPOSED 14. (NJ PERVIOUS GRANITE PA TH DECOMPOSED 15. (N) 6' -0" WOO BRIDGE STREET DEVE L1.5 Sl � l 'JII OB IS Pi CI 01 I[ 08 18 IS ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 86 Di L / / PNIC9. 1 --------·- PAll:8. 2 , \, \, / KEYNOTES I. LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE 2. POTENTIAL DEMISING WALL. TYP. 3. (N) LONGTERM BJKE LOCKERS. TYP. OF (6) SPACES 4.(N) SH ORT TERM BIKE PARKING, TYP. OF (12) SPACES 5.(N) RAMP 6. (N) TRASH ANO RECYCLING RECEPTACLES 7. (N) TRASH, RECYCLING, AND ORGANICS '-----REC EPTACLES ,, ' ·,-'-!- -�-� 8. (N) TRANSFORMER 9. (NJ EV CHARGING STATION10. MOTORCYCLE PARKING 11. (N) MONUMENT SIGN 12. (N) fDC �UH INTERIOR FJRE RISER ACCESS FROM EXTERIOR 13. (M) FIRE HYDRANT PER CITY STANDARDS 14. FIRE TRUCK TURN-AROUND N E9 SITE PLAN SC,ILE, 1• • 411"·0' lo-BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Al O SH LUIS OSISPO Cl -OH! 08 18 19 • ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 87 ' ' ' STAIR TIJ'MR • 45'· 10' A.F.G. PARAPET -lS'-0' .U.G. ROOF· 33'-0' .U.G. SECOND R.000 · 23'-0' A.F ..G. (E) GRADE0'-0' 13'-6" / / 24'-8" VARIES 21'-S" / / VARIES 1.BUILDING B SECTION / 20'-0' Sfll!ACK SCALE, I"· 20·-o· ,.._ 8'-0' / ' .... :,: STAIR TO',\e\ -�4'-0' A.F.G. PARAPET· lS'-0' A.F.G. ROOF· 33'-0' A.F.G. �_,..,.-SE_COH_D_FLOO_R _-23'_-0'_A._F._G._ ; � FIRST FLOOR· 13'-0' A.F.G. �!��------- �::. • (E) GRADE 0'-0' ,�w-------- / /- 30'·0' SElBACK 5'-3" / / 2.BUILDING B SECTION 20'-0' SETBACK 8'-1" / / SCALE.-I'· 20•-o• � -t",.1-R_OCl'_-'l7'_�·-A_.F._G. ____ ...._� ' ROOF· 29'·6" .U.G. :,: b i � 9 � FllST FLOOR· 13'-0' A.F.G. • ili "' ; -f"l_fl_OOR_-_3'-0'_.U_..G_ . ...._ ::. � � FLOOR · 3'-0' A.f.G. ' (E) GRADE 0'-0' � ' (E) GRADE 0'-0' 3.BUILDING A SECTION 4.BUILDING C SECTION SCALE.-1" • 10"·0" SCALE.-1' • 20"·0' SITE SECTIONS lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT Al l SI� LUIS os1s,o CI -OITE 08 13 19 • ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 88 ' t '"' ' / / / ,. ... / / COV0181 CAIIPOIIT ,, ... COl'EIIED t.Vll'ORT / ROOF PLAN THIRD FLOOR PLAN SCALE,l"• 40'-D' SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE, 1 • ,,o·-a· . ' / FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE, I'• 40'·0' BUILDING B OVERALL FLOOR PLANS ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 89 ' _, � b � ' l;, � ' ' / HNI' /- II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II H COMMERCIAL � TENANT II 450Sf II II II II II II II II II I� POSSEU llBISl'IG � II w.ou.1'11'-I II II COVERED CARPORT 0 FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: I/I"• l'·O' / 15'-0' / ' ' .:0 RAISED WALKWAY �,:. ' � - ; LIVING ; ' " � '7SOSf ;... of!_ ' � KITCHEN l;, :! AND DINING ' ' a= ' / 4'-6" / 6'-0" / �-6" / SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE--· I/•'• l'·O' /-15'-0" / /-15'-0" /- ' ' PlANTER � ' §; ROOFBEDROOMDECK z (93Sf ... ' _, lb .. ' ;... ' 750Sf � � lb :'.! ' ' BEDROOM ,:. ROOF ME'CH. b 192Sf § 'C> "'' ' 6"-6" 4'-0" 4'-6" 10-6" 4'-6" / / / / / / / THIRD FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN SCALE: 111' • l'·O' SCALE, J/'I" • l'·O" BUILDING B TYP. UNIT FLOOR PLANS ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 90 / / -- COMMERCIAL TENANT 271Sll. Fl. / ll II II I 28'-7" COMMERCIAL TENANT 625 SQ. FT. / 21'·5" COMMERCIAL TENANT 587 Sil. Fl. {----POSSIBLE DEMISING II WALL.TIP. c::=ic��--��'l::::::======!l�� RAISED WALKWAY /-8'-8" RESIDENTIAL ENTHY / 28'-10- COMMERCIAL TENANT 1071 SQ. FT. II II II II II II II II II II II c:::::jc::::,���=e:======:�[J'\ 21'·1' DECK 25 sa. FT. COMMERCIAL TENANT 861 SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE, I/I"• /"-o· BUILDING COVERALL FIRST FLOOR PLAN / / ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 91 / / / PATIO 332SO. n. 18'-6" / 4r.1· KITCHEN/DINING/LIVING 800 SQ FT. gc I ,.._Y,,-• �/'-. 28'·7" / 58'-10' � )l lll@JI - BEDROOM 296 SQ FT. 21'·5' / 12Nl" BATH 1 0 50SQ FT.;'.. KITCHEN/DINING/LIVING 1006 SQ FT. ___,.. r 28'·10' / 21'·1' BEDROOM 1 BEDROO M 2 240SQn. 208SQ FT. BEDROOM 3 300 SQ FT. � -- 21'·1" / � J / / SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE, 1/6' • 1 ·-0· BUILDING C OVERALL SECOND FlOOR PLAN ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 92 ' STAIR lOWER -45'-10" Af.6. PARAPET -3&-0' Af.6. � SECOH!l FLOOR · 23'-0' .\F.G. o� � � IIRSTFLOOR -1:t-O' .\F.G. :::, ... i (E) GRADE 0-0' • ILL UGHffiG TO BE IEHTSl(Y PRESERVAllON COMPUAHT 3.EAST ELEVATION 4.WEST ELEVATION SCALE: J • • 20·-o· SCALE,, •• �o·-o· 1.NORTH ELEVATION SCALE, r. ,o·-o· 2.SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: J • • 20· .. o· BUILDING B ELEVATIONS lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT A3 O SI� lUIS OBISPO Cl -D�TE OB 18• 19 • ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 93 DOOR PAINT SIERRA REOWOOD #SW 7598 SHERWIN-WILLJA/IIS SMOOTH PAINTEO STUCCO FINISH PEPPERCORN #SW 7674 SHERWIN-WJLLJAMS ME1AL WALL PANEL. STOREFRONT, AND ROLL-UP ODOR. TRIM TO MATCH MATIE DARK BRONZE WESTERN STATES METAL RO OFINC METAL WALL PANEL FRESH RUST WESTERN STATES METAL ROOFING WOOD DECKING MACHICHE MATAYEl1.DE CORRUGATED SIDING ASH GRAY WESTEl1.N STATES METAL ROOFING BUILDING B MATERIAL BOARD lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT A3 I I I� l UI I OE ISPO CI -OITE O! 2$ ll • ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 94 � TOPCfROOf-29'.S-A.FG. ---------�-----PARAPET· 19'-6" A.F.G. � FIRST flOOR -1&--0" A.F.G. � FLOOOl.'CN:J"-0' • AU LGHTING TO BE N!GKl SKY PRESERVAOON COMPLIANT 3.EAST ELEVATION SCALE.-I"• 20·-o· I.SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1 • • 10·-o· 2.NORTH ELEVATION SCALE, 1· • 20·-o· 4.WEST ELEVATION SCALE.-I"• 10"-1>" BUILDING C ELEVATIONS ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 95 METAL WALL PANEL, STOREFRONT. ANO ROLL-UP OOOR. TRIM TO MATCH MATTE OARK BRONZE W£$T£/IN STATES METAL IIOOFING CORRUGATED METAL SIDING FRESH RUST W£ST£/IN STATES METAL IIOOFING WOOD DECKING MACHICHE MATAl'ERDE CORRUGATED SIDING ASH GRAY WESTEIIN STATES METAL IIOOFING BUILDING C MATERIAL BOARD lo BRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT A3 3S�i IUIS OBISPO Cl -OH£ 08 18 19 • ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 96 STAR TIMER ·-U'-10"A..f &. PLA!fTER � P-ARAPEI -35'·0'" A.I G IDlf·l?..0-A.FG fflSfR.OCFI -13'-0"A.FG. (E)GR.ICE0-0" STAIR RAJSED WALKWAY I ROOF DECK ... J, �ROOF MECH. STAIR iEA TOWER ... RESIDENllAL UNIT RESIOENllAL UNIT COMMERCIAL COVERED TEIWfT CARPORT 1.BUILDING B SCALE.-I"• 10·-o· RES. STAIR 10WER, 1YP. I I I t;oMMERCW: JENANTS. TYJJ $ PARAPET· l!l'.a"'A..f"G \_ .J._ FRiTIUlOll -11!'.(J" Af.G .J._ ROOR-�-O"A.FG 'r .J,._{E)(;ll.l«!r.(J" 'r RAISED WALICWAY I PLANTER TYP.� PATIO I J, I COMMERCIAL lTENAHT I I RESIDENTIAi. COMMERCIAL TENANT UNIT I I COMMERCIAL I TENANT I I RES. ROOF DECK SEPARATION, TYP. I. ... RES. STAIR RESIDENTIAL UNIT I COMME'IICIAl I COMMERCIAL TENANT I TENANT I I : 2.BUILDING C RES. STAIR TOWER, TYP. SCALE.-1 • • 10·-o· RESfOENllAL UNIT RAISED COMME'IICIAl WALKWAY TENANT II 3.BUILDING C SCALE, J" • 10'·0" T ' 4.BUILDING B SCALE.-I"• 10·-o· BUILDING SECTIONS ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 97 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 98 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 99 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 100 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 101 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 102 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 103 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 104 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 105 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 106 10 TO LEAVE THE WORLD BETTER THAN WE FOUND IT ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 107 RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1007-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DESIGN OF THREE MANUFACTURING SHELL BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND TREE REMOVALS, AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 1, 2017, 279 BRIDGE STREET (ARCH-4293-2016) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on June 1, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0286-2014, Devin Gallagher, applicant, and adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, and approved a pre-fabricated bridge across Meadow Creek and an associated creek setback exception; and continued review of the three shell buildings and associated site improvements and tree removals to a date uncertain, and provided directional items to the applicant and staff; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 1, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-4293-2016, Devin Gallagher, applicant; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants approval to application ARCH-4293-2016, based on the following findings: 1.As conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the site and the surrounding neighborhood. 2.The project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations since the proposed building and site design complies with height, coverage, and setbacks for the Manufacturing zone. 3.The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element, which establishes Community Goals for Society and Economy to retain and accommodate the expansion of ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 108 Resolution No. ARC-1007-17 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 2 existing businesses that promote the economic well-being of the community. The project includes three shell buildings that can support new businesses and employment opportunities consistent with the uses envisioned by the Services and Manufacturing District. 4.As conditioned, the project is consistent with the City's General Plan policies applicable to development in a Services and Manufacturing area. 5.The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.3.3 (Residential Next to Non-residential) because the design incorporates elements to protect the adjacent residential atmosphere by locating loading docks as far as feasible from proximate residential uses, and providing setbacks, landscaping, and fencing along the shared property boundaries. 6.As conditioned, the project is consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines applicable to industrial development because the proposed buildings incorporate clean and simple lines, while including durable and aesthetic materials that provide color change and variety, and the proposed design is well articulated to create interest and shadow lines, with entries desi gned as an obvious component to each structure. The project provides setbacks greater than the minimum standard to provide a balance of scale and reduce visual imposition on neighboring uses, and loading facilities and accessory yards would be screened by perimeter landscaping and fencing. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Architectural Review Commission hereby finds the project consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted for the project (ER# 0289-2014), finding that it adequately identifies the project's potentially si gnificant impacts with incorporation of the following mitigation measures and monitoring programs: Aesthetics Mitigation Measure AES 1: All freestanding light posts shall be eliminated and replaced with bollard lighting depicted elsewhere on project plans. Monitoring Plan, AES I: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development Planning staff as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications as necessary for consistency with City standards and to ensure that light spillage into the creek corridor or across property lines will not occur, prior to department sign-off and issuance of permits. Mitigation Measure AES 2: All freestanding bollard lighting shall be located outside required yard and creek setbacks. Monitoring Plan, AES 2: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development Planning staff as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall ensure that all lighting is outside required yard and creek setbacks, prior to department sign-off and issuance of permits. Air Quality ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 109 Resolution No. ARC-1007-17 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 3 Mitigation Measure AO 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos A TCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Morutoring Plan, AO l: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AO 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. Monitoring Plan, AO 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AO 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and modify practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. a.Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b.Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h., and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work. c.All dirt stock-pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d.Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 110 Resolution No. ARC-1007-17 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page4 e.Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f.All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g.All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h.Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site. 1.All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. j.Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k.Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. I.All PM 10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. m.The contractor or builder shall desi gnate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. Monitoring Plan, AO 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AO 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781- 5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. Monitoring Plan, AO 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall desi gnate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 111 Resolution No. ARC-1007-17 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 5 The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AO 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1.California Diesel Idling Regulations a.On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: 1.Shall not idle the vehicle's primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and, 11.Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. b.Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board's In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. c.Signs must be posted in the desi gnated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state's 5-minute idling limit. d.Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors: e.Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. f.Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. g.Use of alternatively-fueled equipment is recommended. h.Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site. 1.Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply. Monitoring Plan, AO 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 112 Resolution No. ARC-1007-l 7 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 6 Mitigation Measure AO 6: To confirm the health risks to residents of the development are below APCD thresholds, screening level health risk assessments shall be completed and provided to the APCD for review and approval prior to the issuance of business permits when required by the APCD. Monitoring Plan, AO 6: Confirmation with compliance with APCD regulations shall be provided with business permit applications as applicable. All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO 1: The final geotechnical engineering report shall be prepared to ensure that caisson foundations in lieu of over-excavated building pads with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent to riparian setbacks. Monitoring Plan, BIO I: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City's Community Development staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the final geotechnical engineering report and use of caisson foundations, and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitie;ation Measure BIO 2: To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level, vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall be conducted between September 1st and January 31st outside of the nesting bird season. If vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), then, preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. 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. Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City's Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction nesting bird surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 113 Resolution No. ARC-1007-17 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 7 Mitie:ation Measure BIO 3: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 30 days of initial ground disturbance to identify whether any upland wildlife species are using any portion of the project areas where ground disturbance is proposed. If ground dwelling wildlife species are detected a biological monitor shall be present during initial ground disturbing and/or vegetation removal activities to attempt salvage and relocation efforts for the wildlife that may be present, such as common reptiles and small mammals. The salvage and relocation effort for non-listed wildlife species would further reduce the level of this less than significant impact. .Monitoring Plan. 8[0 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City's Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitie:ation Measure BIO 4: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been desi gned and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. Compliance with Corps permitting would also include obtaining a CW A 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent impacts on riparian habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than-significant level. Monitoring Plan. BIO 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials, including documentation of compliance with any Corps permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements shall be reviewed by the City's Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CW A/Corps compliance. Mitigation Measure BIO 5: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should an agreement be required, the property owners shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFW. The CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In addition, CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of riparian habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible and additional compensatory riparian tree plantings. Using the City-required creek setback area along Meadow Creek for riparian tree replacement would be ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 114 Resolution No. ARC-1007-17 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 8 an appropriate onsite compensatory mitigation approach. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than si gnificant level. Monitoring Plan, BLO 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials, including documentation of compliance with any CDFW permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements shall be reviewed by the City's Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CDFW compliance. Geology & Soils Mitigation Measure GEO 1: A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a comprehensive design -level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project. Additional borings will be required to address specific areas of the site once building layout and structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The report shall address site preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, retaining wall desi gn parameters, slabs-on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on retaining walls), and any other items deemed relevant to the geotechnical engineer. Monitoring Plan. GEO l: All mitigc1:tion measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the geotechnical analysis as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or construction permits. Mitigation Measure NOi 1: Loading facilities shall be sited to orient away from residential development on adjacent properties, to increase the separation from noise-sensitive uses and to allow the buildings to attenuate any generated noise. The Architectural Review Commission will review final building design and layout to ensure that any loading docks are strategically located so as to attenuate noise generated on the site. Monitoring Plan. NO! l: The Architectural Review Commission will review the site plan to ensure loading docks are located to attenuate generated noise effect on adjacent residential land. SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants approval to application ARCH-4293-2016, with incorporation of the following conditions and code compliance notes: Conditions and Code Requireinents Planning 1.The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 115 Resolution No. ARC-1007-17 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 9 and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review ("Indemnified Claims"). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. 2.The Architectural Review Commission's approval of this project will expire after three years if construction has not started. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single, one-year extension. 3.Final project desi gn and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in su�stantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 4.Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed ·building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be consistent with the color and material board submitted with Architectural Review application. 5.Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window features. 6.The locations of all exterior lighting, including lighting on the structure, bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City's Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. 7.Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will provide adequate screening. A line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed screening will ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 116 Resolution No. ARC-I 007-17 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 10 be adequate. This condition applies to both initial project construction and later building modifications and improvements. 8.A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. Trees within the buffer zone along the east property boundary shall be appropriate for screening year-round. The landscape plan, including creek restoration plantings, shall not include Boston ivy or cork oak. 9.The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, the backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors. 10.A comprehensive sign program for the project shall be developed to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. The sign program shall include information on the sizes, locations, colors, materials, and types and illumination of si gnage proposed for the building and the overall site. Project signs shall be designed to be compatible with the architecture of proposed buildings and to complement the site's setting. The Director may approve signage if he finds that the proposal conforms to the sign regulations and is in keeping with the desi gn characteristics of the building. The Director may refer si gnage to the ARC if it seems excessive or out of character with the building. 11.No structure shall include a loading dock that faces residential uses to the south or east. 12.To satisfy the City's lnclusionary Housing Requirements, applicant shall either pay Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees equal to 5% of building valuation or dedicate affordable housing unit(s) consistent with Table 2 of the General Plan Housing Element for Commercial Developments. If paying in-lieu fees, lnclusionary Housing Requirements shall be satisfied at time of building permit issuance. If dedicating affordable units, Inclusionary Housing Requirements shall be satisfied prior to occupancy of first commercial space. Engineering Division -Public Works/Community Development 13.Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC.12.16.050 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 117 Resolution No. ARC-1007-17 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 11 14.The building plan submittal shall correctly reflect the right-of-way width, location of frontage improvements, front property line location, and all easements. All existing frontage improvements including street trees shall be shown for reference. 15.Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 16.Development of the driveway and parking areas shall comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards for dimension, maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternative paving materials are recommended for water quality and/or control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the dripline of any tree. Alternative paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 17.The applicant/developer shall consider the use of a shared accessible path of travel from the public right-of-way with the adjoining property located at 285 Bridge Street. The existing sidewalk serving 285 Bridge appears to be established to a point near the bridge crossing. A shared path could limit the amount of existing landscape and/or trees to be removed and could potentially preserve the existing parking layout and limit the area of site disturbance. A separate access easement or amendment of the existing easement agreement may be required. 18.The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. All new wire services shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown and noted. 19.Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. The trash enclosure shall be designed in accordance with the City Design Guidelines and City Engineering Standard 1010.B for water quality treatment. 20.The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan. The plan shall consider historic off site drainage tributary to this property that may need to be accepted and conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development may alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site or adjoining sites. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 21.The building plan submittals shall include a complete drainage report. The report shall show compliance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual. 22.This property is located within a desi gnated flood zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of San Luis Obispo. As such, all new structures and appurtenant ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 118 Resolution No. ARC-I 007-17 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 12 utilities shall comply with all Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements and the City's Floodplain Management Regulations per Municipal Code Chapter 17.84. 23.This property is located in an AO (2' depth) Flood Zone; the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 2' above adjacent grade. The structure and any exterior building service equipment including the sewer lift station must be raised, floodproofed, or proved to be inherently flood resistant to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE or 3' above the highest adjacent grade. Additional freeboard to 2' above the BFE may result in additional structure protection and savings on flood insurance and is strongly encouraged. 24.The property owner and/or future tenants shall manage any outdoor storage so that materials and accessory structures do not have a significant impact on the floodzone in accordance with the Drainage Design Manual and the Floodplain Management Regulations. 25.The project shall comply with Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The building plan submittal shall include a complete Post Construction Stormwater Checklist as available on the City's website. 26.A Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) shall be provided in a format provided by the city. The agreement shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. An Operations and Maintenance Manual shall be provided in conjunction with the building plan submittal for all post construction BMPs. 27.EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading or excavations result in land disturbance of one or more acres. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOi) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. An application is required to the State Board under their recently adopted Stormwater Multi-Application, Reporting, and Tracking System (SMARTS). 28.The building plan submittal shall include a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for reference. Incorporate any erosion control measures into the building plans as required by the Board, identified in the SWPPP, and in accordance with Section 10 of the city's Waterways Management Plan. The building plan submittal shall include reference to the WDID number on the grading and erosion control plans for reference. 29.Work adjacent to or within a channel or creek may require the approvals of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), The Army Corp of Engineer's, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A copy of any required permits or a written permit waiver or exemption for the same shall be provided to the City prior to demolition, grading, and/or building permit issuance. ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 119 Resolution No. ARC-1007-17 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 13 30.The building plan submittal, grading plans, and drainage report shall incorporate any project specific permitting requirements from any higher governmental authority. The applicant/developer shall comply with the County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) standards and permit requirements related to Naturally Occurring Asbestos. APCD approval shall be secured prior to any ground disturbing activities. 31.The building plan submittal shall show all existing trees on the property with a trunk diameter of 3" or greater. Offsite trees along the adjoining property lines with canopies and/or root systems that extend onto the property shall be shown for reference. The plan shall note which trees are to remain and which trees are proposed for removal. Include the diameter and species of all trees. Tree canopies should generally be shown to scale for reference. 32.The existing willow and walnut trees located on the property shall be retained unless otherwise approved for removal by the City Arborist and the Community Development Director. A tree removal proposal will require a report from a certified arborist with a summary of why the tree(s) can't be saved. If approved for removal, compensatory tree(s) shall be incorporated into the building plan submittal. 33.Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the drip line of trees. A city approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans. Contact the City Arborist at 781-7023 to review and establish any required preservation measures to be included with the building permit submittal. 34.The proposed 6' privacy fencing located along the southerly property line shall be located at the top of bank or at a reasonable setback from the top of bank to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, Public Works Department, and Natural Resources Manager. The fence shall be extended to the easterly property line and then northerly to connect with the proposed privacy fence located along the easterly property line. If required by the City or other agencies with permit jurisdiction over the swale and brambles, a section(s) of the fence may need to be constructed with open fencing to support the migration of riparian wildlife. Utilities Department Condition(s) 35.All utility easements dedicated to the City shall comply with the latest engineering design standards, and shall have reasonable alignments needed for maintenance of public infrastructure. 36.The proposed gravity sewer system shall use HDPE pipe, or an approved equal that meets or exceeds the performance needed to eliminate groundwater infiltration. ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 120 Resolution No. ARC-1007-17 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 14 Code Requirement(s) 37.Water service meter(s) shall be adequately sized to serve the project's proposed units, and residential or caretaker units shall be separately metered from commercial units. 38.All water service(s) zoned for manufacturing shall provide a reduced pressure backflow preventer downstream of the meter. 39.The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design standards in effect during the time a building permit is obtained, and shall have reasonable alignments and clearances needed for maintenance. 40.Potable water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust control as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 17.07.070.C of the City's Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City's Construction Water Permit program. 41.The project's Landscape Plan shall be consistent with provisions of the City's declared drought emergency ( estimated total water use (ETWU) cannot exceed 50 percent of maximum applied water allowance or (MAW A)). Fire Department 42.Fire Department Access to Equipment: Rooms or areas containing controls for air-handling systems, automatic fire-protection systems, or other diction, suppression or control elements shall be identified for use by the fire department and shall be located in the same area. A sign shall be provided on the door to the room or area stating "Fire Sprinkler Riser" and "Fire Alarm Control Panel". Fire sprinkler risers shall be located in a room with exterior door access. Show Riser room on floor plans. 43.Show proposed location of onsite (private) fire hydrant. Code Requirements: 44.All exterior construction methods and material shall comply with Chapter 7 A (ignition resistant construction) of the Building Code, except for windows, for buildings located in wildfire prone areas. 45.Permeable pavers installed on fire apparatus access roads and driveways shall be capable of bearing 60,000 lb. fire truck. Upon motion of Vice-Chair Soll, seconded by Commissioner Rolph, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Nemcik, Rolph, Root, Starzyk, Beller, Vice-Chair Soll, and Chair Wynn None ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 121 Resolution No. ARC-1007-17 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 15 ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 1 st day of May 2017. Doug � Architectural Review Commission ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 122 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Continued design review of three shell buildings (including a caretaker quarters) totaling approximately 23,397 square feet, with associated site improvements and identified tree removals, with a determination that the project is consistent with the previously-adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. PROJECT ADDRESS: 279 Bridge Street BY: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7176 e-mail: sscott@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: ARCH-4242-2016 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy DirectorDD RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) which approves the project, and finds the project consistent with the previously-adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on findings, and subject to conditions. SITE DATA Applicant Devin Gallagher Representative John Knight, J.Knight Consulting Submittal Date 09/19/2014 Complete Date 02/23/2015 Resubmittal Date 12/20/2016 Zoning M (Manufacturing) General Plan Services & Manufacturing Site Area 2.73 acres Environmental Status A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the ARC on June 1, 2015. SUMMARY The applicant proposes to develop a Manufacturing zoned property with three shell buildings totaling approximately 23,397 square feet. The proposed contemporary industrial designed buildings include colors, materials, articulation, and detailing that are consistent with the Community Design Guidelines. The project was previously reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on June 1, 2015 (refer to Attachment 4, ARC Minutes, Resolution, and Agenda Report, June 1, 2015). At that time, the ARC adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project, and approved a pre-fabricated bridge across Meadow Creek, including an associated creek setback exception. In addition, the ARC provided three directional items specific to the site design and Meeting Date: May 1, 2017 Item Number: 1 ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 123 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 2 location of loading docks and trash enclosures (refer to Section 3.0 Project Analysis) and continued design review of the three proposed shell buildings to a date uncertain. During review of the re-submitted plans, Staff met with interested parties and received correspondence regarding the project (refer to Attachment 6, Public Correspondence). Therefore, this report focuses on the applicant’s response to the ARC’s directional items and key public comments and concerns. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The ARC’s role is to the review the proposed project, in terms of the project’s consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and previously-adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting Table 2.1 Site Information and Setting Please refer to Attachment 4 (ARC Minutes, Resolution, and Agenda Report, June 1, 2015) for additional site and setting information. 2.2 Project Description. A summary of significant project features includes the following (Attachment 3, Re-submitted Project Plans): 1.Three commercial shell buildings in the Manufacturing zone: a.Building A: 8,736 square feet including mezzanine level b.Building B: 9,957 square feet c.Building C: 4,704 square feet including a 1,770-square foot second floor “caretaker’s residence” with outdoor patio. 2.Tree removals (Chinese pistache, California pepper tree cluster and Italian stone pine) in the location of proposed paving (Attachment 3, Re-submitted Project Plans, Sheet A1 Architectural Site Plan). These removals and onsite tree plantings have been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. 3.Associated site improvements including a decorative concrete main access way, pavement, porous pavers, parking, trash enclosures, 6,893-square foot outdoor yard between Buildings A and B, a 2,934-square foot yard south of Building B, and site landscaping. Site Size 2.73 acres Present Use & Development Vacant; newly constructed bridge across Meadow Creek Land Use Designation Manufacturing (M) Access Bridge Street Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Light Industrial/Office (M & C‐S‐PD zoning) South: Single‐family residences under construction & Open Space beyond (R‐2‐PD & C/OS zoning) East: Existing single‐family residences (R‐2‐SP zoning) West: Live/work units under construction (M‐PD zoning) ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 124 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 3 4.Contemporary industrial design incorporating exposed metal beams, corrugated cor-ten (rusting) steel siding, corrugated galvanized roofing and siding, wood siding, zinc metal lap siding, board-form concrete, wood decking, stucco, and anodized aluminum windows and roll-up doors (Attachment 3, Re-submitted Project Plans, Sheet A9, Materials Board). Project statistics, including a comparison of the project previously reviewed by the ARC and the proposed re-submitted project, are provided in Table 2.2 below. Table 2.2 Project Statistics Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans, reviewed by ARC on June 1, 2015 2. Applicant’s re-submitted plans, dated March 30, 2017 3. City Zoning Regulations, March 2015 4. Measured from the edge of the yard 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The project analysis below focuses on the applicant’s response to the ARC directional items and responses to public comments and concerns regarding the project. 3.1 Response to Directional Items: The applicant submitted revised project plans and responses to directional items identified by the ARC at the June 1, 2015 meeting. Plan excerpts are provided below for reference; please refer to Attachment 3 for the complete project plan set. Directional Item #1: Relocate Building A to be further from adjacent residential uses in order to preserve views from the 215 Bridge Street project and providing additional buffering from the proposed commercial building. Item Previously Reviewed Project1 Current Project2 Ordinance Standard3 Side Yard Setbacks East (R‐2) West (M) South (R‐2), Bldg. A South (R‐2), Bldg. B North (creek) 12.3 feet 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet4 20 feet 16 feet, 6 inches 12 feet 20 feet 12 feet4 20 feet 11.5 feet 0 feet 8 feet 20 feet frm top of bank Max. Height Building A Building B Building C 29 feet 29 feet 31 feet 27 feet, 4 inches 25 feet, 10 inches 31 feet 35 feet Coverage 15% 15% 75% Floor Area Ratio 0.19 0.19 1.5 Parking spaces 1 space per 376 square feet (62 spaces) 1 space per 376 square feet (63 spaces) Requirement based on tenants (generally not greater than 1 space per 500 sf) ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 125 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 4 Response: The proposed location of Building A has been shifted eight feet to the north, increasing the building setback from the southern property line from 12 to 20 feet (refer to Figures 1 and 2, below). A planted bioswale and a variety of trees including coast live oak, California sycamore, and desert willow are proposed to be planted between Building A and the western and southern property lines (Attachment 3, Re-submitted Project Plans, Sheet L1). Additional discussion regarding site design and neighborhood compatibility is provided in Section 3.2 Public Comments, of this report. Figure 1. Previously-reviewed Project Figure 2. Currently proposed project Figure 3. Previously-reviewed Project Figure 4. Currently proposed project Directional Item #2: Relocate loading docks and trash enclosures as far away as possible from adjacent residential uses. Loading docks should be provided on the north side of the proposed buildings or between clustered buildings to buffer noise from adjacent residential uses. Response: The overhead doors and loading docks on the south side of Building B (see Figure 3) have been relocated to the north side of the building, facing away from the adjacent residential uses (see Figure 4). Trash enclosures have been relocated from the southern portion of the property, as shown in Figure 3, to the center of the property, north of Building B (refer to Figure 4). The Building A loading dock and overhead door remain on the north side of the building, in 12’ setback 20’ setback Creek setback (20’) Creek setback (20’) Trash Overhead doors & loading docks Trash Overhead doors ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 126 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 5 addition to overhead doors (but no identified loading dock) on the east side of the building. There are overhead doors on the south side of Building C; however, the loading docks were removed in a previous redesign presented to the ARC. Directional Item #3: Revise the site plan to include one parking lot tree per every six parking spaces in any row, and at the ends of each row of parking spaces per parking and driveway standards. Response: The site plan has been revised to include one parking lot tree per every six parking spaces in any row, and at the ends of each row of parking spaces, resulting in the planting of three additional trees (Attachment 3, Re-submitted Project Plans, Sheet L1). 3.2 Public Comments: Public comments at the previous ARC hearing on this item included concerns regarding the location, size, and height of proposed manufacturing shell buildings relative to adjacent residential development, in addition to potential noise, lighting, flooding, and traffic impacts. Review of the re-submitted plans included reaching out to interested parties who previously provided comments on the proposed project, and similar issues were raised by the public (see Attachment 6, Public Correspondence). The applicant’s response to these issues is provided in Attachment 7, and additional responses to these concerns are presented below. Neighborhood Compatibility, Caretaker’s Unit, Increased Setbacks, Size of Buildings. Proposed Building C would be located approximately 16 feet, 6 inches to the west of the eastern property line and an existing residence and garage located on the Exposition Drive cul-de-sac. At the previous ARC hearing, the applicant presented a revised design for Building C, which shifted the building to the south and west of its originally-proposed location and eliminated the loading docks on the south side of the building. With these changes, the outdoor upper-story patio and adjacent caretaker’s bedrooms and office would be located on the eastern side of the structure, facing the adjacent residential neighborhood (Attachment 3, Sheet A3, Building C Floor Plan). It is the applicant’s intention that the Building C caretaker would provide onsite security, and would be a contact for the adjacent neighborhood (Attachment 7, Applicant Response Letter). The height of the east-facing wall, including the raised building foundation, would be 21.5 feet above grade, and roughly 2.5 feet above the height of the proximate residence and garage (Attachment 3, Sheet A7, Site Sections, Section AA). A new six-foot wood fence and landscaping is proposed along the property line. The applicant provided additional information including: visual simulations, which show the project as seen from the Exposition Drive cul-de-sac; massing renderings to demonstrate the appearance of Buildings A and C relative to proximate development; and a shadow analysis, which shows the shadows created by the proposed project at various times during the year, with the longest shadows cast to the east and northeast during the late afternoon hours (Attachment 8, Photo-simulations, Renderings, and Shadow Study). One of the concepts identified by the adjacent neighbors is a 25-foot or greater setback along the western, eastern, and southern property lines. In addition, Staff initially recommended the following directional item: “Relocate the proposed buildings to be further from adjacent residential uses in consideration of providing additional buffering between residential uses and potential future uses that would be allowed at the subject location. The buildings should be oriented closer to the creek and clustered to achieve more of a ‘village’ or ‘campus-like’ setting ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 127 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 6 rather than spread throughout the site” (Attachment 4, ARC Agenda Report dated June 1, 2015). This concept would provide opportunities for additional noise buffering by locating loading docks and storage yards internal to the site and use of the buildings themselves to provide additional noise attenuation. At the June 1, 2015 hearing, the ARC did not direct the applicant to pursue this comprehensive site plan revision. As noted by the applicant, development constraints include the minimum creek setback along the northern portion of the project site and provision of adequate circulation and parking while maintaining the approximate size of the proposed structures. Therefore, in response to ARC direction, the setback for Building A increased from 12 to 20 feet as measured from the southern property line and roll-up doors and loading docks facing adjacent residential properties have been eliminated from Buildings B and C. Noise and Lighting. The project does not currently include a noise wall along the property boundary, and the adopted MND determined that potential noise impacts would be adequately mitigated to less than significant by orienting loading facilities away from residential development and use of the buildings themselves for noise attenuation (Attachment 9, MND, Section 12. Noise). Potential impacts from individual uses will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. Regarding exterior lighting, while project lighting will be visible, the project is required to comply with the City’s Night Sky Ordinance. All exterior lighting would be reviewed during the building plan process and compliance confirmed in the field prior to occupancy. Parking and Trail Use. The proposed project would include 63 onsite parking spaces, and no parking space reductions are requested. No single use, or cumulative uses, would be allowed to exceed 63 spaces, as calculated pursuant to Zoning Regulations Table 6, Parking Requirements by Use. The project does not include a connection to the existing South Hills Open Space Trail or Trailhead, and the site would be surrounded by fencing, which would prevent access to the trail from the project site. Flooding. The adopted MND included an assessment of potential hydrology and flood zone impacts, as documented in the supportive evidence (Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis; 2014) and as reviewed by the City Public Works Department (Attachment 9, MND, Section 9 Hydrology and Water Quality). The Public Works Department also reviewed the re- submitted plans. Based on these reviews and documentation, the project would not result in any significant flooding impacts. In addition, the project is required to demonstrate management of stormwater and flood waters such that the project would not result in peak flow runoff exiting the property, in compliance with the Waterways Management Plan and associated Drainage Design Manual. Traffic. Based on the adopted MND for the project and review by the City Public Works Department, the project would not generate trips that would exceed the capacity of the existing street network (Attachment 9, MND, Section 16 Transportation/Traffic). The existing roadways and intersections, including Bridge Street, South Street, and South Higuera, comply with City roadway standards, which are designed to accommodate passenger vehicles and large trucks. The trips generated by the proposed project would not warrant off-site road or intersection improvements, as these trips would be adequately accommodated by the existing road network. ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 128 ARCH-4293-2016 (279 Bridge Street) Page 7 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was adopted for the project as a whole on June 1, 2015 (see Attachment 9). Based on the minor changes to the project to address ARC directional items, and inclusion of previously adopted mitigation measures into the recommended conditions of approval, Staff recommends that the ARC find that the environmental effects of the modified project have been adequately addressed in the previously adopted MND. 5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The requirements of the other City departments are reflected in the Conditions of Approval. 6.0 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines. This alternative is not recommended, because further architectural review could be accommodated in the review process. 6.2 Continue the project to a date uncertain, with specific directional items provided. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1.Draft Resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3.Re-submitted Project Plans 4.ARC Minutes, Resolution, and Agenda Report, June 1, 2015 5.Previously-reviewed Plans 6.Public Correspondence 7.Applicant Response Letter 8.Photo-simulations, Renderings, and Shadow Study 9.Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration ER # 0286-2014 Included in Commissioner’s Packet: Re-Submitted Project Plans (11x17) Available at ARC Hearing: Colors and Materials Board Full staff report package and attachments available online: http://opengov.slocity.org/weblink/1/doc/64536/Page1.aspx ATTACHMENT 3 Packet Page 129 ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY ER #0286-2014 1. Project Title: 279 Bridge Street Mixed-Use Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner sscott@slocity.org (805) 781-7176 4. Project Location: 279 Bridge Street 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Bridge Squared, LLC 1680 La Finca Court Arroyo Grande, California 93420 6. General Plan Designation: Services & Manufacturing 7. Zoning: Manufacturing (M) 8. Description of the Project: The proposed mixed-use project consists of three buildings including: Building A (8,636-square foot [sf] manufacturing shell with mezzanine); Building B (31,726 sf mixed-use building including 7,200 sf of commercial shell on the ground level with 16 loft-style, two-bedroom residential units above); and Building C (6,850-sf mixed-use building including 3,421-sf of commercial shell on the ground level with two residential units above) with associated parking and site improvements. The project includes a request for a mixed-use parking reduction of six percent. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is a 2.73-acre flag lot with the flagpole portion of the lot accessing Bridge Street. The northern “flag” portion of the site is developed with a drive aisle and ten parking spaces that serve an existing building on an adjacent property. The property is an existing legal parcel with access provided by a bridge over Meadow Creek. The project site is bordered to the north by the Meadow Creek riparian corridor, existing commercial and industrial uses to the north (M and C-S-PD), live/work units to the west (M- PD), and residential development to the south and east (R-2-PD and R-2-S). The South Hills Open Space area is located further to the south. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 130 Addendum to Initial Study #0286-2014 Page 2 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Major Development Review and Planning Commission Use Permit 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Air Pollution Control District, Regional Water Quality Control Board Previous Entitlement and Environmental Review: On June 1, 2015, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the previous project, which included approval of construction of the existing access bridge over Meadow Creek, three manufacturing shell buildings (including caretaker’s quarters), tree removals, and site improvements. A copy of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached. At the time, the ARC approved the bridge component of the project, pending further design review of the manufacturing shell buildings. On May 1, 2017, the ARC approved a project on this project site that consisted of three shell buildings including the following: Building A (8,636 square feet including mezzanine level); Building B (9,957 square feet); and Building C (4,704 square feet including a second floor caretaker’s residence with outdoor patio). The previous approval included tree removals and onsite plantings as recommended by the City Arborist, and associated site improvements (Attachment 2, Previous ARC Report and Resolution). Since that time, the applicant has substantially modified the project and proposed uses for the site, which require design review by the ARC (with a recommendation to be provided to the Planning Commission) and consideration of a Planning Commission Use Permit to establish the proposed mixed- use project and mixed-use parking reduction. Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously adopted Negative Declaration if only “minor technical changes or additions” have occurred in the project description since the initial study was originally prepared. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Environmental impacts associated with development of the project site were evaluated in the MND (ER #0286-2014). The previous project evaluated in the adopted MND included the construction of three shell buildings (a total of 22,758 square feet of useable space and 13,525 square feet of coverage), construction of a bridge over Meadow Creek (which has been completed), construction of parking and site improvements, and tree removals. As a component of the previous project entitlement, a Use List for the site was established. The currently proposed project is consistent with the adopted Use List. The proposed project addressed in this Addendum consists of three buildings 8,636 (Building A), 31,726 (Building B), and 6,850 (Building C) square feet each and associated parking and site improvements. Proposed tree removals would be the same as identified in the previous entitlement (Chinese pistache, California pepper tree cluster and Italian stone pine). The primary changes to the project description since the MND was adopted consist of the proposed use of the proposed buildings from manufacturing to mixed-use (commercial and residential) and the proposed size and architectural design of ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 131 Addendum to Initial Study #0286-2014 Page 3 Buildings B and C. No changes to approved Building A (manufacturing shell) are proposed. Potential Impacts Mitigated to Less than Significant The previously-adopted MND found that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology/soils, and noise will be less than significant. A summary of the potential impacts and adopted mitigation measures is provided below, including an assessment of the potential impacts resulting from the currently proposed project. As discussed below, implementation of the project would not result in any new impacts or impacts with increased severity than what was identified in the adopted MND, and no new or amended mitigation measures are required. Aesthetics: The adopted MND identified a potential impact due to the potential for glare from the parking lot and building light poles affecting adjacent residences. Adopted mitigation includes replacing freestanding light posts with bollard lighting, to be located outside of required setbacks. This mitigation would apply to the current project. In addition, the current project is subject to Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.050 (Edge Conditions), which requires that any driveways and drive aisles facing an adjacent zone must be fully screened from the adjacent (R-2) use. The proposed project incorporates solid fencing and perimeter landscaping to be consistent with this regulation. All other aesthetic impacts resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project, because the project site is not located within a scenic vista, is not visible from a local or state scenic highway or roadway, and development of the site would be consistent with the underlying zoning and Community Design Guidelines, which address visual compatibility, including consistency with “Edge Condition” regulations due to the adjacent residential (R-2) zoning. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The adopted MND noted potential construction-related air quality impacts, which would be mitigated by compliance with standard APCD mitigation measures and permitting requirements. These mitigation measures would apply to the current project. Regarding operational impacts, the current mixed-use project would not exceed the operational thresholds identified by the APCD, and would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan because the project locates commercial and residential uses proximate to each other, and the site has access to bicycle lanes, transit, and a local park. Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.130 (Mixed-use Development) which notes that mixed-use development forwards the City’s sustainability goals by locating housing, jobs, recreation and other daily needs in close proximity to each other. Furthermore, Mixed-use Development regulations prohibit activities or uses that would be “incompatible with residential activities and/or have the possibility of affecting the health or safety of mixed-use development residents due to the potential for the use to create dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gasses, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts, or would be hazardous because of materials, processes, products, or wastes”. Mixed-Use Development performance standards also state that “all residential units shall be designed ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 132 Addendum to Initial Study #0286-2014 Page 4 to minimize adverse impacts from mechanical equipment and operations of nonresidential project air pollutant emissions and odors in compliance with the Air Pollution Control District Air Quality Handbook and [Municipal Code] Chapter 8.22 (Offensive Odors)”. Therefore, based on the design of the proposed project and compliance with existing regulations and adopted mitigation measures, the project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts. Biological Resources: The adopted MND identified potential impacts primarily related to the bridge over Meadow Creek, which has been constructed. The MND also identifies mitigation measures to mitigate potential impacts to nesting birds and wildlife during construction of the project, including pre-construction surveys, and requirements for monitoring. These mitigation measures would apply to the current project. In addition, standard erosion and sedimentation control measures, are required to protect water quality and habitat along the Meadow Creek corridor, pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code and Waterways Management Plan. Therefore, based on the design of the proposed project and compliance with adopted mitigation measures, the project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts. Geology/Soils: The adopted MND included the findings of a Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report and Foundation Alternative Memo, which concluded that the project is structurally feasible. Mitigation is identified to require a final geotechnical engineering investigation and comprehensive design-level report, which is required to address site preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, slabs- on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on retaining walls). This mitigation measure applies to the current project. In addition, as noted above, standard erosion and sedimentation measures are required during construction, which would mitigate potential impacts related to erosion and sedimentation. Noise: The adopted MND identified an impact related to use of manufacturing shell building loading docks, and required mitigation states that loading facilities are to be oriented away from residential uses on adjacent properties. The current project has changed manufacturing buildings B and C to mixed-use buildings with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential uses above. This use mix is anticipated to result in less potential operational noise than potential manufacturing uses, and any potential loading facilities are required to be oriented away from residential uses, in compliance with the adopted measure. In addition, the current project is subject to Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.050 (Edge Conditions), which: prohibits balconies and terraces above the first floor on the building side facing the R-2 zone; increased setbacks for roof top uses (ten feet greater than the standard); siting and four-sided screening of trash and recycling collection areas such that noise impacts are avoided; limited hours of operation (7:00 AM – 8:00 PM); and screening of mechanical service and loading areas. In addition, as noted above (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions), the mixed-use project is subject to regulations identified in Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.130 (Mixed-use Development), including performance standards that require that “all residential units shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts from nonresidential project noise and shall comply with ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 133 Addendum to Initial Study #0286-2014 Page 5 [Municipal Code] Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control)”. Based on the changes to the proposed use of the site, and compliance with the Zoning Regulations, no new or greater noise impacts would occur. Other Resources: Based on the changes to the project description, no other significant impacts would occur. The project is required to comply with the City’s adopted Drainage Design Manual and Waterways Management Plan to address drainage, stormwater management, and flooding (similar to the proposed project). The project would be adequately served by existing City water, sewer, parks, schools, and roadways and would not require off-site improvements beyond what was identified in the previous project. The applicant is required pay impact fees, including Traffic Impact Fees, to address the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts related to water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure. Therefore, based on the design of the proposed project and compliance with existing regulations, the project would not result in any new or increased significant impacts to other environmental resources. DETERMINATION: In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that this addendum to the 279 Bridge Street MND is necessary to document changes or additions that have occurred in the project description since the MND was adopted. The preparation of a subsequent environmental document is not necessary because: 1. None of the following circumstances included in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines have occurred which require a subsequent environmental document: a. The project changes do not result in new or more severe environmental impacts. b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require major changes to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. c. The modified project does not require any new mitigation measures. 2. The changes are consistent with City General Plan goals and polices that promote provision of additional housing within the City. Attached: Initial Study / Negative Declaration ER# 0286-2014 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 134 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER # 0286-2014 1. Project Title: 279 Bridge Street Project Development of a 2.73 acre site with three shell buildings, one on-site caretaker unit, an access bridge over Meadow Creek, and other associated site improvements, and including a modified list of allowed uses. ARCH/ER-0286-2014. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Marcus Carloni, Associate Planner (805) 781-7176 4. Project Location: 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Devin Gallagher 1680 La Finca Court Arroyo Grande, CA, 93420 Projects Representative Name and Address: John Knight 49 Mariposa Street San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Services & Manufacturing ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 135 2 7. Zoning: Manufacturing (M) 8. Description of the Project: The proposed project includes development of a 2.73 acre site with three shell buildings. The three separate buildings would include a total of 22,758 square feet of useable space and 13,525 square feet of coverage. All leasable commercial space will be on ground level and a mezzanine level within Building A, with a second level caretakers unit provided on the second floor of Building C. The site would be accessed from Bridge Street via the flag portion of the site, and across a Conspan Bridge that would be constructed to cross Meadow Creek. Allowed uses on the site would be as specified in the attached Use List, which is a more restrictive list of allowed/conditionally allowed uses proposed by the applicant. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is a 2.73-acre flag lot with the flagpole portion of the lot accessing Bridge Street. The northern “flag” portion of the site is developed with a drive aisle and ten parking spaces that serve an existing building on an adjacent property. The property is an existing legal parcel with no developed access from Bridge Street or any other public rights-of-way. Currently undeveloped, the property is primarily covered with non-native annual grasses. It is bordered to the north by the Meadow Creek riparian corridor, and to the south by an ephemeral swale. There are five existing trees on the site (outside the creek corridor), including: one California Pepper Tree, one Italian Stone Pine, one Coastal Live Oak, one Pepper Tree, and one Chinese Pistache. Proposed tree removals include the Italian Stone Pine and Chinese Pistache, and several trees/willow clusters in the riparian corridor to allow for the bridge crossing. This site is located in an “AO” flood zone. This zone indicates that there is a potential of flooding up to two-feet over the existing grade during the 100 year storm. The site is bordered by existing commercial and industrial uses to the north, by a 17 unit mixed use project to the west and south (currently under construction), by the South Hills Natural Reserve to the Southeast, and two existing single family homes to the east. The Land Use and Zoning maps for the property identify the property as designated Manufacturing. Existing uses surrounding the site area are as follows: North: Developed with light industrial and office uses; zoned M and C-S-PD. East: Developed with single-family residences; zoned R-2-S. Southeast: Conservation/Openspace (South Hills); zoned C/OS-40-SP. South: Currently being developed with single-family residences; zoned R-2-PD. West: Currently being developed with live-work units; zoned M-PD. See Attachment 1, Vicinity Map. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 136 3 Architectural Review: Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approval is required for the site layout and building design. The ARC will concurrently take action on the requested creek setback reduction and this environmental document. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) Central Coast Water Quality Control Board (CCWQCB) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly the Department of Fish and Game) Army Corps of Engineers ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 137 4 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. X Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services X Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation X Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems X Geology / Soils X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND GAME FEES The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination). X The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall b e subject to the payment of Fish and Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE X This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 138 5 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): 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 revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X 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” impact(s) or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact(s) 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, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date For: Derek Johnson Doug Davidson, Community Development Deputy Director Community Development Director 04-29-2015 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 139 6 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 Significant 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 Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis 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 pursuant 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 addressed site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. 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 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 140 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 7 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1, 4, 16, 28 --X-- b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? 16, 17, 28 --X-- c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 16, 17, 28 --X-- d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 8, 28 --X-- Evaluation a. The project site is not located within a scenic vista; however, the site is adjacent to the base of the South Hills Natural Reserve. The higher portions of the South Hills are considered a scenic vista within the City. The significant viewshed of this portion of the property begins at approximately the 300 -foot contour and above. Both the existing residential development immediately east of the site and the residential development currently under construction immediately to the south are at similar or higher contours then the proposed development. Because these elevations are well below the 300-foot contour that is considered a significant vista, the proposed development will not result in significant impacts to a scenic vista. b. The project site is not within or adjacent to a local or state scenic highway. c. The proposed development site is screened from Bridge Street behind existing c ommercial properties fronting the right-of-way and thick vegetation within the riparian corridor, which limit visibility to the site from the public roadway. A seasonal creek and its associated vegetation that includes willow trees and native shrubs furth er screen the proposed project site from the roadway and adjacent properties. All proposed structures have been designed to meet or exceed site setback and height limitations, and together with site improvements will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission to ensure consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. d. The proposed development includes a mix of building-wall mounted fixtures, bollards, and post fixtures for nighttime illumination. All proposed fixtures will include full cut-off shielding and be dark sky compliant, as required by the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (MC Chapter 17.23 ). Wall mounted fixtures on Buildings A and C are limited to the interior faces of the structures (Building A, north and east facades; Building C, south façade only), and will not cause illumination or glare to cross to adjacent properties. Building B, at the center of the site, has wall mounted fixtures along the east, west and south facades. Along the south façade, which parallels the southern property line, a setback of 32-feet from the closest portion of the structure will ensure that light spillage will not become a nuisance. A mixture of 15-foot high post lights and 3-foot high bollards are proposed to light the pathways, parking, and other outdoor areas. As discussed in greater detail in Section 12: Noise, with the exception of the caretakers unit, hours of operation for the site will be primarily during daylight hours, therefore nighttime illumination will largely be required for security purposes. As there are no intervening buildings between these parking and open yard areas that will be illuminated, the proposed post lights could create a new source of light and glare impacting the adjacent residents and South Hills Natural Reserve. Mitigation Measure AES 1 has been recommended that all post lights shall be eliminated and replaced with bollard lighting. An additional mitigation Measure (AES 2) has been recommended to require that all freestanding bollard fixtures be outside required yard and creek setbacks. This will necessitate relocation of one bollard currently shown within the creek setback immed iately west of the access bridge. Relocation of this bollard outside of the creek setback will ensure that any potentially significant impacts on riparian species are mitigated. The project may include reflective roofing materials including but not limite d to solar panels and metal roofing. Careful design and placement of such materials will reduce off site impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures: Aesthetics ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 141 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8 Mitigation Measure AES 1: All freestanding light posts shall be eliminated and replaced with bollard lighting depicted elsewhere on project plans or other low focused lighting fixtures as approved by the Architectural Review Commission. Mitigation Measure AES 2: All freestanding bollard lighting shall be located outside required yard and creek setbacks. Conclusion: With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures potential impacts associated with light, glare, and aesthetics will be reduced to a less than significant level. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1, 18 --X-- b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 10, 11 --X-- c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 17 --X-- Evaluation a. The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conversion of these agricultural resources to nonagricultural use. b. The project site is not located on farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is designated for Commercial uses in the General Plan and is zoned C-S (Commercial Services). The project site is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c. Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site. Conclusion: 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? 19, 28, 29, 32 --X-- b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? --X-- c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? --X-- d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? --X-- e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? --X-- Evaluation a), b), c), d) Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 142 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9 established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while area s that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. San Luis Obispo is currently designated as nonattainment for the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ground -level ozone and PM2.5 as well as the state standards for PM10. CEQA Appendix G states the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. In April 2012 the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLO APCD) adopted The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document identifying thresholds of significance to assist local jurisdictions during the review of projects that are subject to CEQA, and is designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. These thresholds of significance were designed to establish the level at which the SLO APCD believed air pollution emissions would cause significa nt environmental impacts under CEQA. Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 2.3.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the CAP. Assessment of potential air quality impacts that may result from the proposed project was conducted using the April 2012, CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The CEQA Air Quality Handbook is provided by the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District for the purpose of assisting lead agencies in assessing the potential air quality impacts from residential, comm ercial and industrial development. Under CEQA, the SLO County APCD is a responsible agency for reviewing and commenting on projects that have the potential to cause adverse impacts to air quality. Construction Significance Criteria: Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities, vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment and naturally occurring asbestos, has the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods. Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout California and may contain naturally occurring asbe stos. The SLO County APCD has identified that NOA may be present throughout the City of San Luis Obispo (APCD 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4), and under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105) are therefore required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any construction activities. A mitigation measure (AQ 1) has been recommended that all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM be complied with. The project will include extensive grading, which has the potential to disturb asbestos that is often found in underground utility pipes and pipelines (i.e. transite pipes or insulation on pipes). Demolition of this kind of underground equipment can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). As such, the project may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M – asbestos NESHAP). A mitigation measure (AQ 2) has been recommended for compliance with all regulatory requirements pertaining to the disturbance, removal or relocation of utility pipelines. Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and b usinesses in close proximity to the proposed construction site. Because the project is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors a mitigation measure (AQ 3) has been recommended to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402). Construction equipment itself can be the source of emissions, and may be subject to California Air Resources Board or APCD permitting requirements. This includes portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater or other equipment listed in the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendices, page 4 -4. Truck trips associated with the 2,210 CY of soils that will be exported from the site may also be a source of emissions subject to APCD permitting requirements, subject to specific truck routing selected. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulations can be reviewed at the following web ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 10 sites: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf and www.arb.ca.gov/react/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf. A mitigation measure (AQ 4) has been recommended to ensure proper use of subject equipment. Additionally, because the project is in close proximity to nearby sensitive receptors, an additional mitigation measure (AQ 5) is recommended to ensure that public health benefits are realized by reducing toxic risk from diesel emissions. Operational Screening Criteria for Project Impacts: Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that an industrial park with 22,758 square feet falls below the threshold of significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e) (maximum size for exemption stated as 71,000 square feet), therefor it is not necessary to run the more accurate CalEEMod computer model. The CalEEMod computer model is a tool for estimating vehicle travel, fuel use, and the resulting emissions related to the project’s land uses. The threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) would not be exceeded by the proposed project (maximum size for exemption stated at 130,000). Therefore, the APCD is not requiring any operational phase mitigation measures for this project. Because of the proximity to sensitive receptors, several uses that would otherwise be allowed or conditionally allowed in the Manufacturing Zone may not be appropriate for this si te. Included in the project description is a modified list of those uses which may be allowed or conditionally allowed on the site, and excluding those uses which have the potential to cause nuisance in terms of air quality, noise, and/or use of hazardous materials. Specific to Air Quality, those uses which have been prohibited on this site (though otherwise allowed in the Manufacturing Zone) include those uses involving vehicle services, fuel or petroleum dealers, laundry/dry cleaning plants, airports/heliport, cemetery, mausoleum or columbarium and heavy manufacturing. Additionally, the level of scrutiny and permitting requirements have been intensified for several other uses, including outdoor BBQ/Grills, photo and film processing labs, printing and publishing, furniture and fixture manufacturing, and outdoor light industrial uses to ensure that specific practices associated with activities are reviewed and conditioned to ensure that they will not create a nuisance. Please refer to Attachment 3, Use List. Because future tenants of the shell structures are unknown at this time, it is also not known what types of equipment that ma y be used in the future. Operational sources may require APCD permits. The following list is provided by the APCD as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements, but should not be viewed as exclusive. For a more detailed listing, refer to the Technical Appendix, page 4 -4, in the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook. New wineries or expanding wineries with the capacity of 26,000 gallons (10,000 cases at twelve 750 milliliter bottles per case) year or more require a Permit to Operate for fermentation and storage of wine; Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater; Chemical product processing and or manufacturing; Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generator; Food and beverage preparation (primarily coffee roasters); Furniture and fixture products; Metal industries, fabrication; Small scale manufacturing; Public utility facilities; Boilers; Internal combustion engines; Sterilization units(s) using ethylene oxide and incinerator(s); Cogeneration facilities; Tub grinders; and Trommel screens. Most facilities applying for an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate with stationary diesel engines greater than 50 hp , should be prioritized or screened for facility wide health risk impacts. A diesel engine -only facility limited to 20 non- emergency operating hours per year or that has demonstrated to have overall diesel particulate emissions less than or equal to 2 lb/yr does not need to do additional health risk assessment. Specific information regarding permitting requirements is available at the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912. In July 2009, the California Air Pollution Control officers Associations (CAPCOA) adopted a guidance document, “HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR PROPOSED LAND USE PROJECTS,” to provide uniform direction on how to ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 144 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11 assess the health risk impacts from and to proposed land use projects. The CAPCOA guidance document focuses on how to identify and quantify the potential acute, chronic, and cancer impacts of sources under CEQA review. As defined in the CAPCOA guidance document there are basically two types of land use projects that have the potential to cause long -term public health risk impacts and are named Type A and Type B. This project is considered a Type A project, a new proposed land use project that could generate toxic air contaminants that impact sensitive receptors. Air districts across California are uniform in their recommendation to use the significance thresholds that have been established under each district’s “Hot Spots” and permitting programs. The AP CD has defined the excess cancer risk significance threshold at 10 in a million for Type A projects in San Luis Obispo County. If tenants for the site are subject to APCD permitting a screening level health risk assessment will be required to determine the potential health risks to residents in the vicinity of the development. If the screening assessment is above 10 in a million, a more comprehensive health risk analysis will be required. Results of the screening and/or the refined health risk assessment n eed to be provided to the APCD for review and approval. Mitigation measure (AQ 6) is recommended to ensure that screening level health risk assessments are completed and provided to the APCD for review and approval prior to the issuance of business permits when required by the APCD. e) The project includes the development of an industrial park which will potentially be occupied by a variety of uses that ar e allowed or conditionally allowed in the Manufacturing zone. As noted in the discussion above, the project description includes a modified list of uses which may be allowed or conditionally allowed on the site, excluding those uses which have the potential to objectionable odors and other forms of nuisance. Mitigation Measures: Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781 -5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of ide ntified ACM. Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust - control work. c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 145 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 12 e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781 -5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: 1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and, 2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit. 2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive re quirements to minimize impacts to ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 146 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 13 nearby sensitive receptors: a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended. d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site. 3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply. Mitigation Measure AQ 6: To confirm the health risks to residents of the development are below APCD thresholds, screening level health risk assessments shall be completed and provided to the APCD for review and approval prior to the issuance of business permits when required by the APCD. Conclusion: With recommended air quality mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on air quality. 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 4,10, 11, 28, 30 --X-- b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? --X-- c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined in 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? --X-- 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? --X-- e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? --X-- f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? --X-- Evaluation a-d. The project proposes construction adjacent to Meadow Creek, a tributary to San Luis Obispo Creek, with access provided via a new ConspanTM bridge. The project has been designed in substantial compliance with the City’s Creek Setback Ordinance, with no encroachments into the established creek setback area other than minor grading and other modifications encroaching into the established setbacks of the creek channel for installation of the proposed bridge. A discretionary creek setback exception will be required for construction of the proposed pedestrian and vehicle bridge (Source Reference 11: City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 17.16.025). To eliminate the need for lateral over-excavation and re-compaction of soils for structural foundations and bridge abutments, cast-in-drilled- hold concrete pile (caisson) foundation systems can be used. Because of the shallow groundwater conditions, the construction of the caissons will require the use of casing or other similar drilling/construction methods to prevent groundwater from collapsing the sidewalls of drilled piers. A mitigation measure (BIO 1) has been recommended to ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 147 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 14 ensure that final geotechnical engineering is completed to ensure that caisson foundations in lieu of the over - excavated building pads and bridge foundations with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent or within riparian setbacks. Standard Conditions of Approval and Building Code Requirements will ensure that proper precautions are taken to ensure that impacts to the creek will be minimized. The Natural Resources Manager has reviewed the project plans and concurred that with the incorporation of recommended mitigation measures for the proposed development, including the bridge access across Meadow Creek, is supportable as there are no other feasible options to access the property. Natural Communities and Habitat Types The project site is predominantly composed of a non-native annual grassland habitat bordered by the Meadow Creek riparian corridor on the north and an ephemeral swale along the southern border of the site. The Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the project (Source Reference 30 & Attachment 9) identifies three distinct plant communities and habitat characteristics within the project site, including disturbed non-native annual grassland, Meadow Creek Arroyo Willow riparian woodland, ephemeral swale, and developed land. The mosaic of remnant patches of habitat within the urbanized landscape around the project area can support a variety of wildlife species that have become adapted to the urban environment, such as raccoons, opossums, rodents, and reptiles, and resident and migratory birds. Common passerines observed during field surveys included th e pacific slope flycatcher, chestnut-backed chickadee, bushtit, spotted towhee, northern mockingbird, and house finch. Given the undeveloped hillsides of surrounding areas and nearby Meadow Park, other wildlife species likely to occur on the site are seasonal migrants and/or residents to the area. The proposed new access road crossing of Meadow Creek and conversion of the annual grassland has the potential to impact ground nesting and/or tree nesting bird species if activities are conducted during the nesting season. Mitigation Measure BIO 2 has been recommended to ensure that appropriate timing and surveys are preformed, and best practices followed, prior to any vegetation removal or ground disturbance. Additionally, while impacts on common ground dwelling wildlife and the loss of less than 2.0 acres of non-native grassland is not considered a significant impact, Mitigation Measure BIO 3 is recommended to further reduce the level of this less-than-significant impact on common ground dwelling wildlife species. Although both Meadow Creek and the ephemeral swale are likely considered waters of the U.S. subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and waters of the State by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), i t is not anticipated that any areas meeting the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands will be disturbed by the project . Additionally, the project site is not part of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Special Status Species and Natural Communities of Special Conce rn Search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDD) identified both botanical and wildlife resources within a five-mile radius of the project site. However, most of these botanical and wildlife species are associated with specific soil types or habitat characteristics which are not present on the project site. Given the urban setting with a limited extent of grassland and riparian habitats, and the seasonal nature of Meadow Creek, the project site does not support suitable habitat for any special-status wildlife species. Although San Luis Obispo Creek is a well-documented stream for the South-central California steelhead Distinct Population Segment, there are significant migration barriers located within Meadow Creek, as well as a lack of sufficient stream flow throughout the year, that prevents steelhead migration into Meadow Creek from San Luis Obispo Creek. Field survey results indicated no observations of any rare, threatened, or endangered plant species within the project site. Further, the observable and identifiable plants, habitats, and soils suggest the site does not support habitat for special-status plants. Impact Assessment Implementation of the proposed project would result in impacts to vegetation and wildlife utilizing disturbed non - native annual grassland and willow riparian woodland habitats from the development of the access bridge crossing to the site and for the development area with an approximately 0.2 acre area remaining within the City-required 20-foot creek setback area. Given the small area of non-native vegetation within the urban landscape, this would be considered a less than significant impact. Approximately 0.08 acre (60-foot by 60-foot) of willow riparian woodland ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 148 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15 habitat would be removed for the bridge access across Meadow Creek. Given the value of riparian habitat in all landscape settings, this should be considered a potentially significant impact. The bridge crossing will result in fill of likely waters of the U.S./State and removal of willow and California black walnut riparian habitat that would require regulatory compliance from federal and state agencies. Impacts on seasonal creek and riparian habitat r esulting in fill of waters of the U.S./State should be considered a potentially significant impact. To reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S./State to a less than significant level, Mitigation Measures BIO 4 and BIO 5 are recommended to ensure that all Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulatory compliance and permitting requirements are met. e. No heritage trees or significant native vegetation will be removed with development of the site. There are five existing trees on the site (outside the creek corridor), including: one California Pepper Tree, one Italian Stone Pine, one Coastal Live Oak, one Pepper Tree, and one Chinese Pistache. Proposed tree removals include the I talian Stone Pine and Chinese Pistache, and several trees/willow clusters in the riparian corridor to allow for the bridge crossing. The bridge construction would remove up to two 6-inch diameter at breast height (dbh), four 8 -inch dbh and one 12-inch dbh California black walnut trees. The dbh of the willow trunks impacted include 1) 5”, 5”, 5”, 6”, 7”, 7”, 8”, 8”, 8”, 11”, and 13”; and 2) 3”, 4”, 4”, 9”, and seven stems less than 3” dbh. Both the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager have reviewed the removals and concurred that the proposed landscape plan, including landscape trees and native trees, shrubs and perennials within the creek setback area, provide adequate mitigation. Recommended Mitigation Measure BIO 5 would ensure that any compensatory riparian tree plantings required by CDFW would be implemented. f. The project site is not subject to any known adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Mitigation Measures: Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO 1: The final geotechnical engineering report shall be prepared to ensure that caisson foundations in lieu of over-excavated building pads with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent to riparian setbacks. Mitigation Measure BIO 2: To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level, vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall be conducted between September 1 st and January 31st outside of the nesting bird season. If vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), then, preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. 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 sit es 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 nes t would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO 3: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre -construction survey within 30 days of initial ground disturbance to identify whether any upland wildlife species are using any portion of the project areas where ground disturbance is proposed. If ground dwelling wildlife species are detected a biological monitor shall be present during initial ground disturbing and/or vegetation removal activities to attempt salvage and relocation efforts for the wildlife that may be present, such as common reptiles and small mammals . The salvage and relocation effort for non- listed wildlife species would further reduce the level of this less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure BIO 4: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the prop osed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. Compliance with Corps permitting would also include obtaining a CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 149 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16 Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent impacts on riparian habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO 5: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should an agreement be required, the property owners shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFW. The CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In addition, CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of riparian habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible and additi onal compensatory riparian tree plantings. Using the City- required creek setback area along Meadow Creek for riparian tree replacement would be an appropriate onsite compensatory mitigation approach. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than significant level. Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measures, the potential impacts associated with the project will be reduced to less than significant impact on biological resources. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5. 4, 10, 21,22, 23, 24 --X-- b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5) --X-- c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? --X-- d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? --X-- Evaluation a. The project site is an undeveloped open space area located between industrial development, residential areas, and preserved open space. Historical records, including maps and photographs show that during the late 19 th and early 20th century the parcel remained undeveloped while the surrounding properties were developed with residential areas to the north, the Catholic Cemetery to the west, and the Exposition Park Raceway to the east. A Phase I Archeological Resource Inventory was prepared (Attachment 22) which did not identify any historic resources on the site or within the immediate vicinity. b-d. The property does not contain any known prehistoric or historic archaeological resources identified on City maintained resource maps. An Archeological Resource Inventory of the site was prepared to determine the presence or likelihood of archaeological historical resources. Prehistoric settlements in this area typically are found near reliable water sources, important raw material sources, or important food resources. The low lying floodplain that encompasses the project area does not meet any of these criteria, although it is near locations that do. The surface survey resulted in no evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological materials. There is the limited potential that materials (including but not limited to bedrock mortars, historical trash deposits, and human burials) could be encountered given the proximity to the creek. The City’s Archeological Preservation Guidelines include a requirement that in the event that prehistoric or historic archaeological resources are encountered that work cease until the Community Development Department can ensure that the project can continue within procedural parameters accepted by the City of San Luis Obispo and the State of California, and any materials discovered during construction activities are appropriately handled. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 150 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17 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: 4,16, 26, 27, 28 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. --X-- II. Strong seismic ground shaking? --X-- III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? --X-- IV. Landslides? --X-- b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? --X-- 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? --X-- d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 [Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010], creating substantial risks to life or property? --X-- e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? --X-- Evaluation a, c, d. San Luis Obispo County, including the City of San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced northwest trending ridge -valley system of the central and northern coast of California. Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulti ng or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the special Studies Zone includes the San Andreas and Los Osos faults. The edge of this study area extends to the westerly city limit line, near Los Osos Valley Road. According to a recently conducted geology study, the closest mapped active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs in a northwest direction and is about one mile from the City’s westerly boundary. Because portions of this fault have displaced sediments within a geologically recent time (the last 10,000 years), portions of the Los Osos fault are considered “active”. Other active faults in the region include: the San Andreas, located about 30 miles to the northeast, the Nacimiento, located approximately 12 miles to the northeast, and the San Simeon-Hosgri fault zone, located approximately 12 miles to the west. Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of “High Seismic Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seism ic Zone D. To minimize this potential impact, the California Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project sit e has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true for most of the City. Development will be required to comply with all City Codes, including Building Codes, which require proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound b uildings to ensure new structures are built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. Both a Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report and Foundation Alternative Memo were prepared for this ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 151 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 18 project, which include preliminary conclusions and recommendations related to the development of the property, from a geotechnical and structural standpoint. These analyses conclude that the proposed project, while challenging in its scope and size, is structurally feasible, and that the site seems well-suited for a project of this type. As discussed in Section 4: Biology, to eliminate the need for lateral over excavation and re-compaction of the soils below for structural foundations (both buildings and the proposed bridge), which would encroach into the creek setback adjacent to Building C and expand the area of encroachment surrounding the bridge, cast -in-drilled-hold concrete pile (caisson) foundation systems can be used. Because of the shallow groundwater conditions, the construction of the caissons will require the use of casing or other similar drilling/construction methods to prevent groundwater from collapsing the sidewalls of drilled piers. A mitigation measure, (BIO 1) has been recommended to ensure that final geotechnical engineering is completed to ensure that caisson foundations in lieu of the over -excavated building pads and bridge foundations with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent or within riparian setbacks. S tandard Conditions of Approval and Building Code Requir ements will ensure that proper precautions are taken to ensure that impacts to the creek will be minimized. b. This is an undeveloped infill site, located in an urbanized area of the City. Subsurface soils are generally silty sandy clays overlain by silty sandy clay with gravel, with a “Medium” expansion level. In addition to structures and surface parking, the proposed development plan includes areas of permeable hardscape and ground covers. The planting plan is specifically designed to enhance the biology of the riparian channel and near-creek environment, provide visual screening, and to prevent further erosion. The project will not result in loss of topsoil. e. The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic t anks or alternative wastewater systems are not proposed and will not be used on the site. Mitigation Measures: Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure GEO 1: A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a comprehensive design - level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project. Additional borings will be required to address specific areas of the site once building layout and structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The report shall address site preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, , slabs -on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on retaining walls), and any other items deemed relevant to the geotechnical engineer. Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measure, the project will have a less than significant impact on geologic and soil resources. 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? 1,12, 28, 32 X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. X Evaluation a, b. In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed in the above air quality analysis, the state of California’s’ Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. The proposed project will result in infill development, located in close proximity to transit, services and employment centers. City policies recognize that compact, infill development allow for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and Citywide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) also recognizes that energy efficient design will result in significant energy savings, which result i n emissions reductions. SLOAPCD states that GHGs (CO2 and CH4) from all projects subject to CEQA must be quantified and mitigated to the extent feasible. The California Office of Planning and Research has provided the following direction for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions: ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 152 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 19 Lead agencies should make a good-faith effort, based on available information, to calculate, model, or estimate the amount of CO2 and other GHG emissions from a project, including the emissions associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage and construction activities; The potential effects of a project may be individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Lead agencies should not dismiss a proposed project’s direct and/or indirect climate change impacts without careful evaluation. All available information and analysis should be provided for any project that may significantly contribute new GHG emissions, either individually or cumulatively, directly or indirectly (e.g., transportation impacts); and, The lead agency must impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant level. CEQA does not require mitigation measures that are infeasible for specific legal, economic, technological, or other reasons. A lead agency is not responsible for wholly eliminating all GHG emissions from a project; the CEQA standard is to mitigate to a level that is “less than significant.” The emissions from project-related vehicle exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total project CO2eq emissions; see Air Quality discussion is Section 3 (above) for discussion. The remaining project CO2eq emissions are primarily from building heating systems and increased regional power plant electricity generation due to the project’s electrical demands. Utilizing the LEED 2009 Project Checklist for Core and Shell Development, the project proponent identified qualifying project features totaling 110 points, which would qualify the project as LEED Platinum. Short term GHG emissions from construction activities consist primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. Mitigation Measures AQ 3 and AQ 4 address vehicle and equipment exhaust, and include provisions for reducing those impacts to below a level of significance. In San Luis Obispo there are many ways to get around while reducing single-occupant vehicle trips, both for employees of the site and those patronizing the businesses during the operational phase of the project. Among these are the City’s Bus system, Rideshare programs that facilitate car and vanpooling, and the intricate bicycle transportation network. Additional long-term emissions associated with the project relate indirect source emissions, such as electricity usage for lighting. State Title 24 regulations for building energy efficiency are routinely enf orced with new construction. So although Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that an industrial park smaller than 36,000 square feet is below the threshold of significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e) (proposed development includes three buildings totally 22,758 square feet ), running the more accurate CalEEMod computer model identifies that the operational phase impacts will likely be less than the APCD’s thresholds in Table 3 -2 of the CEQA Handbook. The CalEEMod computer model is a tool for estimating vehicle travel, fuel use, and the resulting emissions related to the project’s land uses. The threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) would not be exceeded by the proposed project (maximum size for exemption stated at 113,000 square feet). Therefore, the APCD is not requiring any operational phase mitigation measures for this project. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 10, 11, 29 --X-- 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? --X-- c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? --X-- --X-- d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 31 --X-- ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 153 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 20 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 10, 17 --X-- f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? --X-- g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 3, 28 --X-- 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? --X-- Evaluation a. Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the term “hazardous substance” refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Both of these are classified according to four properties: toxicity, ignitability, corrosiveness, and reactivity (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3). A hazardous material is defined as a substance or combination of substances that may cause or significantly contribute to an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness, or may pose a substantial presence or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous wastes are hazardous substances that no longer have practical use, such as materials that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, or contaminated or are being stored until they can be disp osed of properly (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 2, Section 66261.10). Soil that is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials is a hazardous waste if it exceeds specific CCR Title 22 criteria. Public health is potentially at risk whenever hazardous materials are or would be used. It is necessary to differentiate between the “hazard” of these materials and the acceptability of the “risk” they pose to human health and the environment. A hazard is any situation that has the potential to cause damage to human health and the environment. The risk to health and public safety is determined by the probability of exposure, in addition to the inherent toxicity of a material. Factors that can influence the health effects when human beings are exposed to hazardous materials include the dose the person is exposed to, the frequency of exposure, the duration of exposure, the exposure pathway (route by which a chemical enters a person’s body), and the individual’s unique biological susceptibility. Construction Phase. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable building, health, fire, and safety codes. Hazardous materials would be used in varying amounts during construction and occupancy of the project. Construction and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline and diesel), oils, and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents); and possibly pesticides and herbicides. The amount of materials used would be small, so the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, because such use must comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including but not limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. Operational Phase. The proposed project is a shell industrial park located in the Manufacturing (M) zone, which would allow or conditionally allow a variety of uses. The site’s physical location, directly adjacent to both Meadow Creek and residential uses, renders several of the otherwise permissible uses inapprop riate due to the potential of exposure of the public and the environment to hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. As discussed in Section 3: Air Quality, included in the project description is a modified list of tho se uses ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 154 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 21 which may be allowed or conditionally allowed on the site, and excluding those uses which have the potential to cause nuisance in terms of air quality, noise, and/or use of hazardous materials. Specific to Hazards and Hazardous Materials, those uses which have been prohibited on this site (though otherwise allowed in the Manufacturing Zone) include those uses involving vehicle services, fuel or petroleum dealers, laundry/dry cleaning plants, airports/heliport, and heavy manufacturing. Additionally, the level of scrutiny and permitting requirements have been intensified for several other uses, including photo and film processing labs, printing and publishing, furniture and fixture manufacturing, and light industrial uses to ensure that specific practi ces associated with activities are reviewed and conditioned to ensure that they will not create a nuisance. Please refer to Attachment 3, Use List. b. As discussed in Impacts a, the proposed project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. Implementation of Title 49, Parts 171–180, of the Code of Federal Regulations would reduce any impacts associated with the potential for accidental release during construction or occupancy of the proposed project or by transporters picking up or delivering hazardous materials to the project site. These re gulations establish standards by which hazardous materials would be transported, within and adjacent to the proposed project. Where transport of these materials occurs on roads, the California Highway Patrol is the responsible agency for enforcement of reg ulations. c. The proposed project is a shell industrial park, and is located 0.30 miles from the nearest corner of Hawthorne Elementary School, at the intersection of Hutton and Branch Streets. As discussed in Impacts a and b, the proposed project is a shell industrial park, and a truncated list of allowed and conditionally allowed uses has been included in the project description to ensure that individual uses at the site would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment, including at the existing school. d. The project site is not on a parcel included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2012). The closest listed site is located at 309 South Street, the former McCarthy Steel, approximately 500 feet northeast of the project site. That site is listed on the Cortese State Water Resources Control Board GEOTRACKER database due to the presence of leaking underground Tank (LUSK) Cleanup Sites. That project is considered closed; therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment related to an existing hazardous materials site. e, f. The project is not located within any airport land use plan area as it is at the foot of the South Hills and outside any flight pattern. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. g. The project would be subject to the requirements contained in the City’s emergency response and evacuation plans . Therefore, impacts related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan are considered less than significant. h. The project site is located in the City of San Luis Obispo and although directly adjacent to the South Hills Open Space is not located within a wildland hazard area. The surrounding land is largely developed with urban and residential uses, and is set back from the creek corridor as required by the Conservation and Op en Space Element. The proposed project will have no impact on the placement of people or structures ne xt to wildland areas that could result in loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 6, 14, 15,17, 25,28 --X-- b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre -existing --X-- ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 155 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 22 nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? --X-- d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? --X-- e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? --X-- f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? --X-- g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? --X-- j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 11, 12, 30 --X-- Evaluation a, c- f, i. The project site is currently vacant except for a small red bricked parking area and drive aisle on the north panhandle of the site, and is primarily covered with non-native annual grasses with an average slope of less than two percent. It is bordered to the north with the Meadow Creek riparian corridor and on the south with an ephemeral swale. The site is within an AO flood zone with a sheet flow up to 2-feet deep. As such, the development is subject to the Floodplain Management Regulations. Although the project includes less than 22,000 square feet of impervious area, due to its proximity to a blueline creek and location in the 100-year floodplain the project is subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) and Post Construction Requirements for storm water control. Under these standards, the projects where Impervious Area ≥ 22,000 SF and in Watershed Management Zone 1 shall meet Post Construction Requirements 1 – 4 as follows: 1) Site Design and Runoff Reduction, 2) Water Quality Treatment, 3) Runoff Retention, and 4) Peak Management. For the SLO City/WWMP drainage criteria to be accommodated, Special Floodplain Management Zone Regulations require the analysis to verify that there will be: 1) No change in the 100, 50, 25, 10, 5 & 2 year peak flow runoff exiting the property, 2) Use of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to minimize potential release of sediments and clarify storm flows in minor storm events to reduce pollutants moving downstream into San Luis Creek, and 3) City Standard Criteria for Source Control of Drainage and Erosion Control, page 7 and 8 Standard 10 10, “Projects with pollution generating activities and sources must be designed to implement operation or source control measures consistent with recommendations from the California Stormwater Quality Association or other accepted standards. The on-site watersheds or drainage management areas, when developed will be a mix of hard surfaced roofs and paving, porous pavers, gravel surface and landscaping, as depicted in the September 2014 Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. With one exception, the buildings are proposed to be constructed using a flow-under concept, with an open path under the structures to allow the free flow of storm water. For the slab -on-grade building the area is blocked off as an ineffective flow area. A “train” of Best Management Practices (BMPs) are proposed to mitigate the potential pollutant load. These include the use of the perimeter bioswale or retention basins below the buildings, site design and efficient irrigation practices, roof runoff controls, use of pervious pa vements with gravel storage beds, infiltration basins beneath ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 156 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 23 buildings A and B, and a vegetated swale along the projects southern perimeter. Based on modeling contained in the report, the Consulting Engineer concluded that the proposed BMPs are adequate to mitigate the increased pollutant load and that the project as proposed will not adversely impact flood levels in the area. The Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis prepared by Keith Crow, PE, PLS, September 2014, conclude the project’s water flows can adequately be mitigated with proposed BMPs from preconstruction to post- construction, and complies with the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations, Waterways Management Plan, LID storm water treatment requirements, and Post Construction Stormwater Requirements. Compliance with the Waterways Management Plan is sufficient to mitigate any potentially significant impacts of the project in the areas of water quality and hydrology. The Public Works Department has determined that the proposed improvemen ts identified in the Crow Analysis are sufficient to avoid drainage impacts on-site, upstream, or downstream. b. The project will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not deplete groundwater resources. Groundwater recharge will also be maintained through the implementation of best management practices. Roof runoff will be released to either the perimeter bioswale or to shallow detention basins located beneath the buildings. Each basin will contain 12-inches of clean gravel and 24-inches of bioretention soil media to facilitate treatment. All walks and decks are elevated and are permeable with the grade underneath designed to either infiltrate naturally or sheet flow to the detention basins or the perimeter bioswale. The eastern parking area will be treated by a parking lot bioswale and porous pavement with secondary treatment occurring in existing brambles swale. g, i. Meadow Creek crosses through the northern portion of the project site. The majority of the site is within the boundaries of the area subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100-year storm with inundation depths of up to 2-feet (AO 2’ depth Zone). Both the northernmost extent and southeast corner of the site are somewhat higher elevation and are within the XB Zone, which is subject to a 0.2% annual chance of flooding . As discussed above, the project has been designed with elevated structures, retention basins, and permeable structures to ensure that development will not impede or re-direct the flow of any waters. Compliance with City standards will be sufficient to ensure that the proposed project does not endanger structures on this and other adjoin ing sites. i, j. The proposed development is outside the zone of impacts from any known levee or dam, or potential seiche or tsunami, and the existing upslope projects do not generate significant storm water runoff such to create a potential for inundation by mudflow. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 4, 10, 28 --X-- 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? --X-- c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? --X-- Evaluation a. The proposed development project is designed to utilize an infill development site and fit among existing manufacturing and residential development. Structures and project amenities are contained within the developable portion of the site without encroachment into sensitive creek setback areas, and will not physically divide an established community. b. With approval of necessary project entitlements, including environmental review and Architectural Review, the proposed project will not conflict with applicable City of San Luis Obispo land use plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project is proposed to be consistent with City ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 157 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 24 General Plan Designation and zoning for the project site, regulations and development standards. As discussed in Section 3: Air Quality and Section 8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, included in the project description is a modified list of those uses which may be allowed or conditionally allowed on the site, and excluding those uses which have the potential to cause nuisance in terms of air quality, noise, and/or use of hazardous materials. Please refer to Attachment 3, Use List. Approval of the access bridge will require findings be made for a Creek Setback Reduction as provided in Municipal Code Section 17.16.025.G4, which include that the location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat; that the structure will not limit the city’s design options for providing flood control measures; the exception will not prevent the implementation of city - adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environment al effects of implementing such plans; that there are circumstances applying to the site which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity; that the exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege or be detrimental to the public welfare; that site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project, and; redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. These standards will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, who will take final action on the project. c. As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Conclusion: Less than significant 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? 4 --X-- 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? --X-- Evaluation a, b. No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. Conclusion: Less than significant 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? 3, 9, 10, 31 --X-- b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? --X-- c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? --X-- d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? --X-- ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 158 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 25 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 27 --X-- 12 --X-- Evaluation a, c. The Noise Guidebook was adopted to help assess noise exposure and ensure project designs meet the standards of the City’s General Plan Noise Element. The Guidebook applies to noise from road, traffic, the railroad, and aircraft , as well as noise generated by various uses. Noise exposure information covers the major transportation noise sources, and a representative sampling of stationary sources, identified for study when the Noise Element was last updated. The Guidelines describe the compatibility of different land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of ldn or CNEL. An exterior noise environment of 50 to 60 Ldn or CNEL is considered to be “normally acceptable” for residential uses according to those guidelines. The Guidelines also consider the occupational noise exposure as well as noise exposure away from work environments, recognizing an exterior noise level of 55dB Ldn as a goal to protect the public from hearing loss, activity interference, sleep disturbance, and annoyance. Figure 5 of the Noise Element indicates that existing and build-out noise levels at the site are below 60 decibels (dB) Ldn. The proposed shell buildings and exterior spaces could house a variety of allowed and conditionally allowed uses, which would be required to conform to adopted noise standards. The proposed site layout has the potential to be problematic for future noise-generating uses, where buildings and building openings are adjacent to existing residences. As currently designed, Buildings A and C are sited with minimal setbacks to adjacent residences, while the loading dock for Building B is located fronting the property line shared with adjacent residential zoning and an approved residential project that is under construction. A mitigation measure (NOI 1) has been recommended that loading facilities be sited to orient away from residential development on adjacent properties. The Architectural Review Commission will review final building design and layout to ensure that any loading docks are strategically located so as to attenuate noise generated on the site. Additionally, a six-foot privacy fence has been proposed which would assist in attenuating noise generated on the site. The Guidebook indicates that noise level estimates should be taken as worst case estimates as they do not take into account shielding by buildings or landforms which can reduce noise exposure up to 14 dB. The Noise Element indicates that for residential uses noise levels of 60 dB are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor areas. As discussed in Section 3: Air Quality, Section 8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 10: Land Use and Planning, included in the project description is a modified list of those uses which may be allowed or conditionally allowed on the site, and excluding those uses which have the potential to cause nuisance in terms of air quality, noise, and/or use of hazardous materials. Potential impacts from these individual uses will therefore be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that exterior noise levels will be less than 60 dB when attenuation afforded by building features and site design are taken into account. Interior noise levels of less than 45dB will be achievable with standard building materials and construction techniques. Excepting for the caretakers unit, commercial hours of operation will be limited to approximately 7 am to 6pm, Please refer to Attachment 3, Use List. b. Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed project include a variety of potential uses, as described in the applicant’s proposed list of uses, some of which could involve the use of any equipment or processes that would result in some levels of ground vibration. However, such uses would be subject to individual case-by-case evaluation through the use permit process, ensuring that impacts from future activities woul d not become a nuisance and would be less than significant. Short-term increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the construction-related activities for the proposed project are anticipated. Construction activities would likely require the use of various types of equipment, such as forklifts, concrete mixers, and haul trucks. Because construction activities are restricted to the days, hours, and sound levels allowed by City ordinance, impacts associated with groundborne vibration and noise would be less than significant. d. Noise generated by the project would occur during short-term construction of the proposed shell buildings. Noise levels during construction may be temporarily higher than existing noise levels in the vicinity. Although there would ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 159 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 26 be intermittent construction noise in the project area during the construction period, noise impacts would be less than significant because the construction would be short term and restricted to the typical working hours, and temporary increased noise levels allowed by City ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 9.12: Noise Control). e, f. The project site is located approximately 1.8 miles from the nearest point of San Luis Air Port, but is not located within any airport land use plan area as it is at the foot of the South Hills and outside any flight pattern. There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Mitigation Measures: Noise Mitigation Measure NOI 1: Loading facilities shall be sited to orient away from residential development on adjacent properties, to increase the separation from noise -sensitive uses and to allow the buildings to attenuate any generated noise. The Architectural Review Commission will review final building design and layout to ensure that any loading docks are strategically located so as to attenuate noise generated on the site. Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measure, the project will have a less than significant impact on area noise levels. 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)? 1, 29 --X-- 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? --X-- --X-- Evaluation: a. The proposed project includes construction of a business park appropriate for a variety of light industrial and manufacturing uses. The three buildings include 22,758 square feet, including one 2 -bedroom caretakers unit. The new employment generated by the project would not be considered substantial, nor would the addition of one residential unit to the existing housing stock. Considering the surrounding area is currently developed, and the proposed project would utilize existing infrastructure at the subject location, the project would not induce additional growth that would be considered significant. No upgrades to the existing infrastructure are required to serve the project. The proposed project would not involve any other components that would induce further growth. b, c. The site is currently undeveloped. Therefore no housing would be displaced with the proposed development. Conclusion: 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, 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: a) Fire protection? 17, 29 --X-- b) Police protection? --X-- c) Schools? --X-- d) Parks? --X-- e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? --X-- f) Other public facilities? --X-- Evaluation ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 160 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 27 a. The proposed project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would marginally increase the demand for fire protection services over existing conditions. The project would be similar to the land uses on surrounding properties, and the site is already served by the City for fire protection. The project would not substantially alter the number of housing units or population in the city and would not result in the need for new fire protection facilities to serve t he site. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new fire protection facilities and impacts related to fire protection would be less than significant. b. The project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department for police protection services. The development of the site would not result in the need for increased patrols or additional units such that new police facilities would need to be constructed. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new police facilities, and impacts related to police protection would be less than significant. c. Consistent with SB 50, the proposed project will be required to pay developer fees to the SLOCUSD. These fees would be directed toward maintaining adequate service levels, which include incremental increases in school capacities. Implementation of this state fee system would ensure that any significant impacts to schools which could result from the proposed project would be offset by development fees, and in effect, reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. As the proposed structures are for commercial use, no new students are anticipated to be associated with this development. d. Because the project is primarily commercial in nature, it would result in a very minor increase in the number of people utilizing park facilities relative to the city’s existing population, and significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration at parks and recreation-oriented public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The proposed project is within close proximity to Meadow Park and the South Hills Open Space, which are within easy walking distance, and would have a less than significant impact on parks. e. As noted above and discussed in Section 16: Transportation/ Traffic, the project will not significantly add to demand on the circulation system. Because the proposed use is similar to surrounding uses and would result in a relatively minor increase in users relative to the city’s existing population, significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration of transportation infrastructure and other public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on transportation infrastructure and public facilities. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 10, 29 --X-- b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? --X-- Evaluation: a. The project will result in a minor demand for parks and other recreational facilities. Given that the project is largely commercial in nature no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of the site. Park Land In-Lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park space, maintenance or equipment in the vicinity, per existing City policy. Collection of these fees helps offset the impacts of new projects on the City’s recreational facilities. b. The project includes a small area near the creek for employees to take breaks and enjoy the site , including picnic table and landscaping. No other recreational facilities are proposed or will be necessitated. Conclusion: Less than significant impact ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 161 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 28 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? 1, 16, 17, 20, 28 --X-- 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? --X-- 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? --X-- d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? --X-- e) Result in inadequate emergency access? --X-- 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? --X-- Evaluation a, b. Regional access to the project site is provided by Highway 101, located east of the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by Bridge Street and South Higuera; with pedestrian and bicycle access also available via a bike path connection at the western end of Bridge Street to Exposition Drive and the Meadow Park bicycle path network. All roadways in the immediate project vicinity have curbs, gut ters, sidewalks, and on-street parking. The project does not conflict with any applicable circulation system plans and does not significantly add to demand on the circulation system or conflict with any congestion management programs or any other agency’s plans for congestion management. As currently proposed, the project will generate approximately 21 AM peak trips and 23 peak PM trips, which are well within the available capacity of the existing street network. ITE Code AM Rate AM Trips PM Rate PM Trips 23,300 sf light manufacturing 110 0.92 21 0.97 23 These vehicular trips will be added to local and area streets. While existing streets have sufficient capacity to accommodate the added vehicular traffic without reducing existing levels of service , the project location and anticipated business mix make it a prime candidate for use of non -motorized forms of transportation, particularly walking and biking. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact with regard to increased vehicular trips and does not conflict with performance standards provided in City adopted plans or policies. The project will also contribute to overall impact mitigation for transportation infrastructure by participating in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program. c. The project is not located in the vicinity of any public or private airports and will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns, nor does it conflict with any safety plans of the Airport Land Use Plan. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 162 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 29 d. The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways, including Bridge Street. The project would improve require through traffic through an existing parking lot, but would not significantly alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. The project driveway and bridge would be consistent with City code requirements for ingress/egress to safely and adequately serve potential users of the site. Because the project is a similar use to those in the immediate vicinity, the project would not introduce any incompatible uses. e. The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access has been provided. As proposed, the project bridge access would provide adequate access for all vehicles (including emergency vehicles), bicyclists, and pedestrians. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a negative effect on emergency access. f. The project is consistent with policies supporting alternative transportation due to the site’s location within the City’s urban center, and its proximity to shopping, parks and services. South Higuera is served by the SLO City bus lines for Routes 2, 4 and 5, which are located within walking distance on South Higuera. The projects central location is also convenient for walking and biking, with a bike path at the eastern end of Bridge Street connecting the area to Exposition Drive, Meadow Park, and points east. City standards require provision of on-site bicycle storage. The proposed project includes short term bicycle racks near each of the building entrances and long term bicycle storage within the buildings. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 6, 7, 14,16, 25,26, 27, 28 --X-- b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? --X-- 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? --X-- d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed? --X-- e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? --X-- f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? --X-- g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? --X-- Evaluation a-c, e. The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water, wastewater and storm water facilities. Development of the site is required to be served by City sewer and water service, which both have adequate capacity to serve the use. Existing storm water facilities are present in the vicinity of the project site, and it is not anticipated the proposed project will result in the need for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities which could have significant environmental effects. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 163 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 30 The on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standard s in the Uniform Plumbing Code and City standards. Sewer impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF). The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of the project. d. The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on water supplies, as ant icipated by the General Plan. Per the General Plan Water/Wastewater Element and the 2014 Water Resource Status Report, the City has sufficient water supplies for build-out of the City’s General Plan. The incremental change is not considered to be significant. Water impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for water supplies and water facilities, such as the City’s water treatment plan. The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of the project. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. f, g. The proposed project will be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for access and access to ensure that collection is feasible, both of which will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. San Luis Garbage has reviewed the location and size of enclosures and determined that they are sufficient in size to handle garbage and recycling. Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) shows that Californians dispose of roughly 2,500 pounds of waste per month. Over 90% of this waste goes to landfills, posing a threat to groundwater, air quality, and public health. Cold Canyon landfill is projected to reach its capacity by 2018. The Act requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. To help reduce the waste stream generated by thi s project, consistent with the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element policies to coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3), and Development Standards for Solid Waste Services (available at http://www.slocity.org/utilities/download/binstandards08.pdf) recycling facilities have been accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials is a submittal requirement with the building permit application. The incremental additional waste stream generated by this project is not anticipated to create significant impacts to solid waste disposal. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 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? --X-- The project is an infill commercial development in an urbanized area of the city. Without mitigation, the project could have the potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Page 3. As discussed above, potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources will be less than significant with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? --X-- The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the proposed project, all environmental impacts tha t ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 164 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 31 could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study for the following resource areas: aesthetics (AES 1-2), air quality (AQ 1-6), biological resources (BIO 1-5), cultural resources (CULT 1-2), and noise (NOI 1). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? --X-- Implementation of the proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings with incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study. 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. N/A b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions of the project. N/A 20. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element, December 2014 2. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996 3. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012 4. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006 5. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015 6. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 2010 7. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department 8. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 9. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010 10. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database 11. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations March 2015 12. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012 13. 2013 California Building Code 14. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan 15. Water Resources Status Report, October 2014, on file with in the Utilities Department 16. Site Visit 17. City of San Luis Obispo Staff Knowledge 18. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ 19. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012 20. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition, on file in the Community Development Department 21. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 22. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map 23. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map 24. Archeological Resource Inventory, Bertrando & Bertrando, July 2014 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 165 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 32 25. Preliminary Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analysis, September 2014 26. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Beacon Geotechnical, April 2012 27. Geotechnical Engineering Report Alternative Foundation Addendum, Beacon Geotechnical, March 16, 2015 28. Project Plans, dated November 14, 2014 29. Applicant project statement/description 30. Biological Resources Assessment, Sage Institute, July 2014 31. Website of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List: http://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/default.htm 32. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Referral Comments, via email March and April 2015 Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Project Plans 3. Use List 4. Archeological Resource Inventory, Bertrando & Bertrando, July 2014 5. Preliminary Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analysis, September 2014 6. Geotechnical Engineering Report, Beacon Geotechnical, April 2012 7. Geotechnical Engineering Report Alternative Foundation Addendum, Beacon Geotechnical, March 16, 2015 8. Applicant project statement/description 9. Biological Resources Assessment, Sage Institute, July 2014 REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Aesthetics Mitigation Measure AES 1: All freestanding light post shall be eliminated and replaced with bollard lighting depicted elsewhere on project plans. Monitoring Plan, AES 1: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development Planning staff as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall require modifications as necessary for consistency with City standards and to ensure that light spillage into the creek corridor or across property lines will not occur, prior to department sign off and issuance of permits. Mitigation Measure AES 2: All freestanding bollard lighting shall be located outside required yard and creek setbacks. Monitoring Plan, AES 2: Final plans shall be reviewed Community Development Planning staff as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall ensure that all lighting is outside required yard and creek setbacks, prior to department sign off and issuance of permits. Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 166 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 33 Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Monitoring Plan, AQ 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and modify practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work. c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 167 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 34 e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. Monitoring Plan, AQ 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 168 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 35 Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: 1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection )d) of the regulation; and, 2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit. 2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors: a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended. d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site. 3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply. Monitoring Plan, AQ 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ 6: To confirm the health risks to residents of the development are below APCD thresholds, screening level health risk assessments shall be completed and provided to the APCD for review and approval prior to the issuance of business permits when required by the APCD. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 169 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 36 Monitoring Plan, AQ 6: Confirmation with compliance with APCD regulations shall be provided with business permit applications as applicable. All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO 1: The final geotechnical engineering report shall be prepared to ensure that caisson foundations in lieu of over-excavated building pads with shallow foundations are utilized where adjacent to riparian setbacks. Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Community Development staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the final geotechnical engineering report and use of caisson foundations, and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO 2: To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level, vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall be conducted between September 1st and January 31st outside of the nesting bird season. If vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), then, preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. 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. Monitoring Plan, BIO 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction nesting bird surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO 3: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within 30 days of initial ground disturbance to identify whether any upland wildlife species are using any portion of the project areas where ground disturbance is proposed. If ground dwelling wildlife species are detected a biological monitor shall be present during initial ground ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 170 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 37 disturbing and/or vegetation removal activities to attempt salvage and relocation efforts for the wildlife that may be present, such as common reptiles and small mammals. The salvage and relocation effort for non-listed wildlife species would further reduce the level of this less than significant impact. Monitoring Plan, BIO 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction surveys and provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO 4: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. Compliance with Corps permitting would also include obtaining a CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent impacts on riparian habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than-significant level. Monitoring Plan, BIO 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials, including documentation of compliance with any Corps permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CWA/Corps compliance. Mitigation Measure BIO 5: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required for the proposed bridge crossing. Should an agreement be required, the property owners shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFW. The CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In addition, CDFW may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of riparian habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible and additional compensatory riparian tree plantings. Using the City-required creek setback area along Meadow Creek for riparian tree replacement would be an appropriate onsite compensatory mitigation approach. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than significant level. Monitoring Plan, BIO 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Final plans and supporting materials, including documentation of compliance with any CDFW permitting or compensatory mitigation requirements ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 171 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 0286-2014 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 38 shall be reviewed by the City’s Planning staff and Natural Resources Manager as part of the Building Permit application package, who shall confirm the adequacy of CDFW compliance. Geology & Soils Mitigation Measure GEO 1: A geotechnical engineering investigation shall be undertaken and a comprehensive design-level report prepared based on the final approved design of the project. Additional borings will be required to address specific areas of the site once building layout and structural foundation loads are determined, or can be reasonably estimated. The report shall address site preparation and grading, total and differential settlement under the structure loads, retaining wall design parameters, slabs-on-grade, expansive soils, site-specific seismicity (including seismic loads on retaining walls), and any other items deemed relevant to the geotechnical engineer. Monitoring Plan, GEO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the geotechnical analysis as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or construction permits. Noise Mitigation Measure NOI 1: Loading facilities shall be sited to orient away from residential development on adjacent properties, to increase the separation from noise-sensitive uses and to allow the buildings to attenuate any generated noise. The Architectural Review Commission will review final building design and layout to ensure that any loading docks are strategically located so as to attenuate noise generated on the site. Monitoring Plan, NOI 1: The Architectural Review Commission will review the site plan to ensure loading docks are located to attenuate generated noise effect on adjacent residential land. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 172 M C/OS-40 M M R-2 R-4 R-4-SP C/OS-5 C-S-MU C/OS-40-SP C-S-PD R-4 R-2-PD C/OS-40-SP R-1-SP R-2-SP R-2-SP R-2 R-1-SP C-S-MU R-2-SP C-S R-4-SP M-PD R-1-SP C-S-MU SOUTH BRIDGEBEEBEE EXPOSITIONCORRIDA W O O D B R I D G EPARKER VICINITY MAP File No. 0286-2014279 BRIDGE ¯ ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 173 S A N L U I S O B I S P O , C A L I F O R N I ASHEET INDEXTITLE / CODE:T1TITLE SHEETT2SITE PHOTOST3 AERIAL PERSPECTIVET4AERIAL PERSPECTIVET5 AERIAL PERSPECTIVET6 AERIAL PERSPECTIVET7SITE PERSPECTIVESCIVIL:C1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC2 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANC3 PRELIMINARY SITE SECTIONSARCHITECTURAL:A1SITE PLANA2BUILDING A & B FLOOR PLANSA3 BUILDING C FLOOR PLANA4BUILDING A EXTERIORELEVATIONSA5BUILDING B EXTERIORELEVATIONSA6BUILDING C EXTERIORELEVATIONSA7SITE SECTIONSA8 MATERIALS BOARDLANDSCAPE:L1LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT PLANL2PLANT LEGEND, WATER USE CALCS., LIGHTING PLANPROJECT DATAPROJECT DESCRIPTION:THIS PROJECT PROPOSES THREE SEPARATE BUILDINGS TO BE USEDFOR MANUFACTURING, AS WELL AS ACCESSORY AREAS AND ACARETAKER'S RESIDENCE.PROJECT ADDRESS: 279 BRIDGE STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN:004-811-036SITE AREA:118,919 SF (2.73 ACRES)ZONING:M / MANUFACTURINGPROPOSED USE:MANUFACTURINGOCCUPANCY:F-2CONSTRUCTION TYPE:TYPE II-BSPRINKLERS:YES# OF STORIES:2-STORYBUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWED:35'-0"BUILDING HEIGHT PROPOSED:BUILDING A29'-0"BUILDING B29'-0"BUILDING C31'-0"LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED:75% (2.05 ACRES/89,190 S.F.)LOT COVERAGE PROPOSED:15%(13,525 S.F.)TOTAL BUILDING AREA:23,309 S.F.IMPERVIOUS SURFACESROOF16,509 S.F.HARDSCAPE37,834 S.F.PERVIOUS SURFACESPAVING16,872 S.F.LANDSCAPE26,315 S.F.PROPOSED BUILDING AREAS:BUILDING AMANUFACTURING8,332 S.F.BUILDING BMANUFACTURING9,957 S.F.BUILDING CMANUFACTURING3,302 S.F.RESIDENCE1,718 S.F.TOTAL23,309 S.F.PARKINGPARKING SPACES PROVIDED62 SPACES (INC. 3 ADA SPACES)(RATIO = 1 SPACE / 376 S.F.)BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED15% OF AUTO SPACES 10 ORMORE10 SHORT-TERM SPACESREQUIRED2 LONG-TERM SPACESREQUIRED8(LONG-TERM SPACES TO BE PROVIDEDINSIDE BUILDINGS)MOTORCYCLE PARKINGREQUIRED4PROVIDED121404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.comARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - NOVEMBER 14, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comTITLESHEETT1ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 174 SITE PHOTOST2ABDEFEASTSOUTHSOUTHWESTWESTWESTNORTHWESTWESTNORTHEASTSOUTHEASTCNORTHNORTHWESTNOT TO SCALEKEY PLAN1N1404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.com$5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(:- NOVEMBER 04, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comFEDCBABRIDGESTREETATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 175 AERIALPERSPECTIVET31404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.com$5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 176 AERIALPERSPECTIVET41404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.com$5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 177 AERIALPERSPECTIVET51404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.com$5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(:- NOVEMBER 04, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 178 AERIALPERSPECTIVET61404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.com$5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 179 SITEPERSPECTIVET71404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.comARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - NOVEMBER 14, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 180 UP23'-0"19'-0"6'-8"54'-0"28'-10"24'-0"72'-0"54'-0"42'-0"36'-0"54'-0"90'-0"50'-6"24'-0"40'-0"9'-0"12'-0"12'-0"60'-0"42'-0"24'-0"29'-0"18'-0"24'-0"60'-0"60'-0"24'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"9'-0"27'-0"5'-0"5'-0"36'-0"62'-0"24'-0"19'-0"8'-0"45'-0"CAENTRYUPBUILDING A8,332 S.F.RAISED DECKRAISEDDECKBRIDGEWALKTRASHBUILDING B9,957 S.F.BUILDING C5,020 S.F.ENTRYUPUP(E) CA. PEPPERTREE CLUSTER TOREMAIN(E) ITALIAN STONEPINE TREE TO BEREMOVEDSLABON GRADE HATCHEDSECOND STORYABOVE DASHEDOFFICE MEZZANINEABOVE DASHEDRAISED DECKYARDSECOND STORYABOVE DASHED(E) BUILDING(E) RESIDENCEFUTURE RESIDENTIALFUTURE RESIDENTIALFUTURE RESIDENTIALFUTURELIVE/WORKUNITSM ZONE -INDUSTRIAL/MANUFACTURINGFUTURE RESIDENTIAL(E) 57 SPACESUPBIKE PARKINGBIKE PARKINGDIRECTORY SIGNPROJECT SIGNPOSSIBLE FUTURECONNCECTION TOOPEN SPACEMOTORCYCLE PARKING4'x8' STALL TYP.TYPICAL PARKING STALLSIZES 9' x 18' U.N.O.B(E) CHINESE PISTACHETO BE REMOVEDWILLOW CLUSTER TO BEREMOVED8" CAL. WALNUTS TO BEREMOVED4" CAL. WALNUT TO BEREMOVED8" CAL. WALNUT TO BETRIMMEDWALNUT CLUSTER TO BETRIMMEDWILLOW CLUSTER TO BETRIMMEDWILLOW CLUSTER TO BETRIMMEDEXISTING WOOD FENCEAS SEEN ON T2(E) COAST LIVE OAKTO REMAIN(E) CA. PEPPERTREE TO REMAINB72'-0"BBEWINTIIALBEOTTIDIRRRRTOBEBBBDDEDEEDRRAUUU033333303688RNRRBASSSLO55-0'4KAL88C)OTPPA.PREPISSTA"23'-6"12'-0"POSSIBLE FUTURENURSERY YARD6548 SF20'-0"32'-6"DNEW 6' HIGH WOOD PRIVACYFENCE TO EXTEND FROM (E)METAL FENCE8'-0"SLIDING GATE6' WOOD PRIVACYFENCE(E) RESIDENCE42'-0"CONCRETEPAVINGPERMEABLEPAVERSASPHALTPAVINGPERMEABLEBOARDWALKPERMEABLEDECKINGBUILDINGFOOTPRINTPROPERTY LINE2'-6" VEHICLE OVERHANG6' PRIVACY FENCELANDSCAPEAREAEDGE OF VEGETATIONDECOMPOSED GRANITE (DG),CLASS 2 ROAD BASEOR SIMILARCREEK SETBACKARCHITECTURALSITE PLANA1SCALE: 1" = 20'ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN1404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.comARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - NOVEMBER 14, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.com1ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 181 ABCDEFGABDFG125123467UPUPUPDECKDECKO.H. DOORENTRYLOADINGMANUFACTURINGUPO.H. DOORPLANTERPLANTERPLANTERRAMP101'-5"5'-6"10'-1"35'-2"11'-8"36'-0"3'-0"14'-0"12'-0"10'-0"5'-0"4'-8"25'-6"1'-10"4'-9"3'-6"86'-6"5'-912"11'-8"13'-6"53'-4"7'-10"16'-0"11'-6"10'-0"8'-0"4'-5"4'-8"4'-5"65'-7"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"38'-3"5'-912"2'-1"32'-0"18'-0"6"14'-612"18'-0"6'-0"5'-0"9'-6"101'-5"3'-0"47'-8"45'-3"5'-6"A2BC13414ACUPUPUPUPUPDECKDECKENTRYMANUFACTURINGRAMPPOTENTIAL DEMISINGWALLS, TYP.98'-6"27'-6"71'-0"3'-0"12'-0"12'-0"6"7'-0"12'-0"3'-0"12'-0"3'-0"12'-0"3'-0"12'-0"7'-0"54'-0"15'-0"24'-0"15'-0"3'-0"6'-0"6'-0"9'-0"54'-0"98'-6"1'-6"18'-0"12'-0"3'-0"12'-0"3'-0"12'-0"3'-0"12'-0"3'-0"12'-0"7'-0"DN1404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.com$5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comBUILDING A & BFLOOR PLANSA2LOWER FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING A1SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x211/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42LOWER FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING B2SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x211/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 182 BD1ABC3ACD312EE30'-0"30'-0"34'-6"94'-6"94'-6"30'-0"30'-0"34'-6"36'-0"20'-0"4'-0"6'-0"4'-0"12'-0"8'-0"6'-0"4'-0"12'-0"8'-0"6'-0"4'-0"12'-0"4'-0"8'-3"8'-3"1'-6"12'-0"A1BCDABCD3132EEUPUPUPDN97'-6"30'-0"30'-0"30'-0"5'-0"3'-0"2'-9"3'-0"24'-0"3'-0"2'-9"3'-0"2'-9"3'-0"5'-9"20'-0"6"6"36'-0"6'-6"28'-6"3'-0"12'-0"3'-0"2'-0"3'-0"3'-0"2'-6"3'-0"DECKENTRYLOADINGDECKDECKDECKENTRYLOADINGENTRYLOADINGMANUFACTURING IMANUFACTURING IIMANUFACTURING IIICARETAKER'SRESIDENCEENTRYPATIOPOTENTIAL DEMISINGWALL, TYP.O.H. DOOR, TYP.RAMP3'-0"21'-9"8'-3"3'-8"97'-6"30'-0"38'-3"21'-9"3'-0"7'-0"5'-6"3'-9"5'-6"3'-9"5'-6"2'-3"5'-0"3'-0"2'-9"3'-0"2'-6"3'-0"2'-9"3'-0"2'-9"3'-0"7'-3"EQ.8'-0"EQ.4'-6"4'-6"4'-6"4'-6"LIVINGKITCHENBEDROOMBATHM.BATHMASTERBEDROOMOFFICE1404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.com$5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comBUILDING CFLOOR PLANA3LOWER FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING C1SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 12x181/8" = 1'-0" @ 24x36UPPER FLOOR PLAN - BUILDING C2SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x211/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 183 NORTH ELEVATION4SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x21GFEDCBAMETAL PIPERAILING1/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42GALVANIZEDSOFFIT PANELSOLID GRAYSTOREFRONTPANELANODIZEDALUMINUMSTOREFRONTSYSTEMPAINTED METALFASCIASOUTH ELEVATION2SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x21GAGALVANIZEDCORRUGATED ROOFING1/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42CONCRETE BASEEAST ELEVATION1SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x213'-1" F.F.165.0'13'-7" F.F.177.5'29'-1" MAX. BLDG. HT.193.0'18'-2" T.P.182.1'35'-0" MAX. ALLOWED HTABOVE AVG. NAT. GRADE234CORRUGATEDCOR-TEN SIDING1/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42BOARD-FORMCONCRETE RAMP6170'-0" AVG. NAT. GRADE163.9'27'-1" T.P.191.0'PROPERTY LINE12'-0"WOODDECKINGNEW 6' WOODWALLWEST ELEVATION3SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x21251/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42171404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.com$5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comBUILDING AEXTERIORELEVATIONSA4ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 184 SOUTH ELEVATION2SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x21ZINC METAL LAP SIDING1/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42CAANODIZED ALUMINUM AND GLASSROLL-UP DOOR, TYP.NORTH ELEVATION4SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x21CA1/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42WOODSOFFITWOOD SIDINGANODIZEDALUMINUMSTOREFRONTSYSTEMPAINTED METALFASCIABZINC METALLAP SIDINGWEST ELEVATION3SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x214231/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x421WOODSIDINGZINC METALLAP SIDINGPAINTED METALFASCIAPROPERTY LINE32'-6"NEW 6' WOODWALLEAST ELEVATION1SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x213'-4" F.F.169.0'29'-0" MAX. BLDG. HT.195.0'18'-4" T.P.184.0'35'-0" MAX. ALLOWED HTABOVE AVG. NAT. GRADEZINC METAL LAPSIDING1/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x424123WOOD SIDING0'-0" AVG. NAT. GRADE165.7'26'-9" T.P.189.5'PROPERTY LINE32'-6"NEW 6' WOODWALLWOODDECKING1404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.com$5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comBUILDING BEXTERIORELEVATIONSA5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 185 SOUTH ELEVATION2SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x211/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42ABCWOOD SOFFITGREY STUCCOWOOD SIDINGEPROPERTY LINE12'-0"CORRUGATEDGALVANIZED METALWOOD DECKING W/METAL PIPE RAILINGANODIZED ALUMINUMAND GLASSROLL-UP DOORSNEW 6' WOOD WALLNORTH ELEVATION4SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x211/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42EACPAINTED METAL FASCIAGREY STUCCOWOOD SIDINGCORRUGATEDGALVANIZED METALBOARD-FORMEDCONCRETE PLANTERANODIZED ALUMINUMAND GLASSROLL-UP DOORS1/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42ROLL-UP DOOR310'-0" AVG. NAT. GRADE168.9'3'-1" F.F.172.0'27'-0" T.P.195.9'24'-3" T.P.193.1EAST ELEVATION1SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x2131'-1" MAX. BLDG. HT.200.0'35'-0" MAX. ALLOWED HTABOVE AVG. NAT. GRADE1/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x420'-0" AVG. NAT. GRADE168.9'32115'-7" F.F.184.5'3'-1" F.F.172.0'30'-0" T.P.198.8'WEST ELEVATION3SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x211404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.com$5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comBUILDING CEXTERIORELEVATIONSA6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 186 1/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42170'180'190'200'0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 1+00 1+25 1+50170'180'190'200'0+001+001+75160'170'180'190'200'0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 1+00 1+25 1+50160'170'180'190'200'0+001+001/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42160'170'180'190'200'0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 1+00 1+25170'180'190'200'0+001+00160'1/8" = 1'-0" @ 30x42SECTION AA3SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x21CREEK SETBACKPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINESECTION CC1SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x2112'-0"12'-0"28'-0" T.P. MAX196.9'31'-1" MAX. BLDG. HT.200.0'VARIES12'-3" MIN12'-6" MAX0'-0'" AVG. NAT. GRADE168.9'3'-1" F.F.172.0'35'-0" MAX. ALLOWED BLDG. HT.203.8'1'-1" FIN. SLAB165.0'0'-0" AVG. NAT. GRADE163.9'29'-1" MAX. BLDG. HT.193.0'3'-1" FIN. RAISED FLOOR167.0'35'-0" MAX. ALLOWED BLDG. HT.198.9'13'-0"1'-1" FIN. SLAB165.0'AVG. NAT. GRADE163.9'29'-1" MAX. BLDG. HT.193.0'35'-0" MAX. ALLOWED BLDG. HT.198.9'VARIES (22'-1" MAX)186.0'EXISTINGADJACENTBLDGBEYONDFUTUREADJACENTBLDGFUTUREADJACENTBLDG(E) WOODFENCEBUILDING ABUILDING ABUILDING CSECTION BB2SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x21SECTION DD4SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" @ 15x21160'170'180'190'200'0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75160'170'180'190'200'0+00BUILDING BFUTUREADJACENTBLDGPROPERTY LINENEW WOODWALL3'-0" F.F.169.0'0'-0" AVG. NAT. GRADE166.0'25'-0"191.0'35'-0" MAX. ALLOWED BLDG. HT.201.0'TRASHENCLOSUREBEYONDNEW WOODWALL29'-0" MAX. BLDG. HT.195.0'NEW WOODWALLF.F.E. APPROX. 173.5'(E) ADJACENTBUILDINGBEYOND1404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.com$5&+,7(&785$/5(9,(: - NOVEMBER 04, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comSITE SECTIONSA7ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 187 1404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.comARCHITECTURAL REVIEW - NOVEMBER 19, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comMATERIALSBOARDA8ZINC ALUMINUM METAL LAP SIDINGBUILDING B WALLSSMOOTH STUCCO FINISHBUILDING C UPPER WALLS WALLSCORRUGATED CORTEN STEELBUILDING A WALLSBOARD-FORMED CONCRETEBUILDING A BASE, ADA RAMP WALLSGALVANIZED CORRUGATED SIDINGBUILDINGS A AND C WALLSRAISED WOOD SIDEWALKWOOD RAINSCREENBUILDINGS B & C WALLSPERMEABLE PAVERS - SANDSTONE BLENDPARKING NEAR BUILDINGS A & BDARK BRONZE ALUMINUMWINDOW AND DOOR FRAMES AT BUILDINGS A, B, & CATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 188 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 189 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 190 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page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acket Page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acket Page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acket Page 194 © 2012 Contech Engineered Solutions LLC ZZZ&RQWHFK(6FRP ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS In the heart of ranch and wine country outside of Santa Barabara, CA, area conservationists were focused on enhancements to Quiota Creek, a tributary to the Lower Santa Ynez River, to open fish passages for migration. Southern California Steelhead trout were federally listed as an endangered species in 1997. The fish passage enhancement project included opening barriers to the upper portions of the creek suitable for spawning and over-summering for salmonoids, like steelheads and resident rainbow trout. Consulting Engineer, HDR/FishPro performed site reconnaissance of eight (8) crossings along Quiota Creek to develop recommendations, then plans to remove salmonoid migration barriers as part of the fish passage enhancement project by the Cachuma Operation & Maintenance Board (COMB) on behalf of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Quiota Creek Crossing #6 is approx. 3 miles upstream from the Santa Ynez River, and was a significant barrier to salmonoid migration. Here, water ran through a damaged low flow underneath but also washed over the pavement when the creek was high, creating safety issues on the narrow, tree-lined, one- lane road for trailer traffic crossing to nearby rural ranches. This was a priority crossing for replacement, and HDR/FishPro chose a 48’ x 11’ x 26’ CON/SPAN prefabricated bottomless arch culvert as their solution. As part of the project, the streambed was enhanced as habitat for fish. The CON/SPAN bridge project at Crossing #6 was completed in time to handle winter rains. This project primarily was funded by a California Department of Fish and Game Restoration Grant, with support from the five water district member units that make up COMB: the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, ID1; Goleta Water District; City of Santa Barbara; Montecito Water District; and Carpinteria Valley Water District. Quiota Creek Fish Passage Santa Ynez, California Stream Crossing for Fish Passage Project Team Members: Owner: Cachuma Operations & Maintenance Board Engineer: HDR / FishPro Contractor: Schock Contracting Corporation Technical Description: CON/SPAN® Painted B-series Arch t4QBO GU t3JTF GU t-FOHUI GU Installation Date: Fall 2011 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 195 PLARACPLARACPLARACPRUILIPRUILIPRUILIPRUILIPRUILIPRUILIQUEAGRQUEAGRQUEAGRQUEAGRPLARACPLARACPLARACUMBCALUMBCALUMBCALPLARACUMBCALQUEAGRQUEAGRQUEAGRQUEAGRQUEAGRCEROCCCHILINPLARACPLARACPLARACPLARACCHILINCHILINCEROCCCEROCCCEROCCPLARACPLARACPLARACPLARACQUEAGRQUEAGRQUEAGRQUEAGRPLARACCHITASCHITASARBMARARBMARARBMARARBMARARBMARARBMARPYRSPPPYRSPPPYRSPPGINBILPYRSPPTASPINQUEAGRQUEAGRQUEAGRQUEAGRHYDROZONE #21,375 SFHYDROZONE #101,150 SFHYDROZONE #83,590 SFCAREXEMPLOYEEBREAKAREADG PATHDECOMPOSEDGRANITEHYDROZONE #1700 SF20'-0"8'-4"5'-8"HYDROZONE #33,670 SFUMBCALQUEAGRQUEAGRQUEAGRPRUILIUMBCALPLARACPLARACPLARACQUEAGRQUEAGRQUEAGRQUEAGRARBMARQUEAGRCHITASCHITASARBMARPYRSPPGINBILGINBILGINBILGINBILORNAMENTAL PLANTINGSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEARB MARArbutus 'Marina'Marina Strawberry TreeCHI TASChitalpa tashkentensis 'Pink Dawn' Pink Dawn ChitalpaGIN BILGinko biloba 'Princeton Sentry'Maidenhair TreePYR CALPyrus calleryana 'Capital' or 'Chanticleer'Capital Pear / Chanticleer PearSHRUBS & PERENNIALSSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEGrevillea 'Red Hooks'NCNLeptospermum 'Dark Shadows'NCNLobelia laxifloraNCNLomandra longifolia NyallaNyalla Mat RushPhormium 'Yellow Wave'New Zealand FlaxMiscanthus transmorrisonensisEvergreen MiscanthusMulhenbergia capilaris 'White Cloud' White Awn MuhlySalvia spp. or 'Pozo Blue'SageGROUNDCOVERSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMECarex testaceaOrange SedgeCeanothus griseus horizontalis 'DiamondHeights'Diamond Heights CarmelCreeperCotoneaster damerii 'Lowfast'BearberryVINESSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEParthenocissus tricuspidataBoston IvyRosa banksiae 'Lutea'Yellow Lady Bank's RoseMITIGATION PLANTING - RIPARIAN SETBACKSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEPRU ILIPrunus ilicifolia ssp. lyonii Catalina CherryPLA RACPlatanus reacemosaCalifornia SycamoreQUE AGRQuercus agrifoliaCoast Live OakUMB CAL Umbellularia californicaCalifornia BaySHRUBS & PERENNIALSSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEArchtostapylos hookeriMonterey ManzanitaArtemesia californicaCalifornia Sage BrushCarex praegracillisClustered Field SedgeCeanothus hearstiorumHearst Ranch BuckbrushEriogonum fasiculatumCalifornia BuckwheatHeteromeles arbutifoliaToyonMimulus aurantiacusSticky Monkey FlowerMuhlenbergia rigensDeer GrassRhamnus californica 'Eve Case'CoffeeberryRosa californicaCalifornia RoseSalvia meliferaBlack SageBIO-SWALE PLANTINGSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMECER OCC Cercis occidentalisWestern RedbudCHI LINChilopsis linearisDesert WillowQUE AGRQuercus agrifoliaCoast Live OakPLA RAC Platanus racemosaCalifornia SycamoreSHRUBS, PERENNIALS, GROUND COVER, GRASSESSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEBaccharis pilularisCoyote BrushCarex pansaCalifornia Meadow SedgeChondropetalum tectorumSmall Cape RushJuncus patensBlue RushLeymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild RyeMuhlenbergia rigensDeer GrassSalvia spathaceaHummingbird SageSalvia uliginosaBog SagePRELIMINARY PLANTING PLANPLANTING LEGENDSEE SHEET: L-2 FOR COMPLETE PLANTING LEGEND1404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.comARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMITTAL - SEPTEMBER 15, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comLANDSCAPEDEVELOPMENTPLANL1Arbutus 'Marina'Cercis occidentalisChitalpa tashkentensis'Pink Dawn'Prunus ilicifolia lyoniiUmbellularia californicaPlatanus racemosaPyrus calleryana'Capital' or 'Chanticleer'Quercus agrifoliaPROPOSED TREESGinko biloba 'Princeton Sentry'ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 196 ORNAMENTAL PLANTINGSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQT.SIZE SPACINGWUCOLS / NOTESARB MARArbutus 'Marina'Marina Strawberry TreeX36" Box /2" Cal.Per PlanMOD / Multi-Trunk OR Multi-TrunkMature Size: 20' x 20'CHI TASChitalpa tashkentensis 'Pink Dawn' Pink Dawn Chitalpa24" Box /2" Cal.Per PlanMOD / Standard Trunk OR Multi-TrunkMature Size: 20' x 20'GIN BILGinko biloba 'Princeton Sentry'Maidenhair Tree24" Box Per Plan MOD / Standard TrunkPYR CALPyrus calleryana 'Capital' or 'Chanticleer' Capital Pear / Chanticleer PearX24" Box /2" Cal.Per PlanLOW / Standard TrunkMature Size: 35' x 20'SHRUBS & PERENNIALSSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQT.SIZE SPACINGWUCLOS / NOTESGrevillea 'Red Hooks'NCNTBD 15 Gal.Per PlanMOD /Leptospermum 'Dark Shadows'NCNTBD 5 Gal.Per PlanLOW /Lobelia laxifloraNCNTBD 5 Gal. 6'-0" OC MOD /Lomandra longifolia NyallaNyalla Mat RushTBD 1 Gal. 5'-0" OC MOD /Phormium 'Yellow Wave'New Zealand FlaxTBD 1 Gal. 6'-0" OC MOD /Miscanthus transmorrisonensisEvergreen MiscanthusTBD 1 Gal. 4'-0" OC MOD /Mulhenbergia capilaris 'White Cloud' White Awn MuhlyTBD 1 Gal. 5'-0" OC LOW /Salvia spp. or 'Pozo Blue'SageTBD 1 Gal. 5'-0" OC LOW /GROUNDCOVERSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQT.SIZE SPACINGWUCOLS / NOTESCarex testaceaOrange SedgeTBD 1 Gal 2'-6" OC LOW - MOD /Ceanothus griseus horizontalis 'DiamondHeights'Diamond Heights CarmelCreeperTBD 1 Gal 6'-0" OC MOD /Cotoneaster damerii 'Lowfast'BearberryTBD 1 Gal 6'-0" OC MOD /VINESSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQT.SIZE SPACINGWUCOLS / NOTESParthenocissus tricuspidataBoston IvyTBD 1 GalVariesMOD / TRAIN ON (EX) WALLRosa banksiae 'Lutea'Yellow Lady Bank's RoseTBD 5 Gal VariesMOD / TRAIN ON (EX) FENCEMITIGATION PLANTING - RIPARIAN SETBACKSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQT.SIZE SPACINGWUCOLS / NOTESPRU ILIPrunus ilicifolia ssp. lyonii Catalina CherryTBD5 Gal. /12" Cal.Per PlanLOW /Mature Size: 20' x 30'PLA RACPlatanus reacemosaCalifornia Sycamore15 Gal. /1" Cal.Per PlanMOD /Mature Size: 20' x 40'QUE AGRQuercus agrifoliaCoast Live Oak TBD15 Gal. /1" Cal.Per PlanLOW /Mature Size: 30' x 30'UMB CAL Umbellularia californicaCalifornia BayTBD15 Gal. /12" Cal.Per PlanMOD /Mature Size: 20' x 40'SHRUBS & PERENNIALSSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQT.SIZE SPACINGWUCLOS / NOTESArchtostapylos hookeriMonterey ManzanitaTBD 1 Gal. 5'-0" OC LowArtemesia californicaCalifornia Sage BrushTBD 1 Gal. 6'-0" OCLowCarex praegracillisClustered Field SedgeTBDPlugs12" OCLowCeanothus hearstiorumHearst Ranch BuckbrushTBD 1 Gal. 5'-0" OCLowEriogonum fasiculatumCalifornia BuckwheatTBD 1 Gal. 5'-0" OCLowHeteromeles arbutifoliaToyonTDB 5 Gal. 12'-0" OCLowMimulus aurantiacusSticky Monkey FlowerTBD 1 Gal. 5'-0" OCLowMuhlenbergia rigensDeer GrassTBD 1 Gal. 5'-0" OCLowRhamnus californica 'Eve Case'CoffeeberryTBD 1 Gal. 8'-0" OCLowRosa californicaCalifornia RoseTBD 1 Gal.Varies LowSalvia meliferaBlack SageTBD 1 Gal. 5'-0" OCLowBIO-SWALE PLANTINGSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQT.SIZE SPACINGWUCOLS / NOTESCER OCC Cercis occidentalisWestern RedbudTBD15 Gal. /1" Cal.Per PlanLow / Zone BMature Size: 20' x 25'CHI LINChilopsis linearisDesert Willow TBD5 Gal. /12" Cal.Per PlanLow / Zone BMature Size: 15' x 20'QUE AGRQuercus agrifoliaCoast Live Oak TBD15 Gal. /1" Cal.Per PlanLow / Zone BMature Size: 30' x 30'PLA RACPlatanus racemosaCalifornia SycamoreTBD15 Gal. /1" Cal.Per PlanModerate / Zone BMature Size: 30' x 30'SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, GROUND COVER, GRASSESSYMBOL BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQT.SIZE SPACINGWUCLOS / NOTESBaccharis pilularisCoyote BrushTBD 1 Gal. 5'-0" OC Low / Zone BCarex pansaCalifornia Meadow SedgeTBDPlugs1'-0" OCLow / Zones A & BChondropetalum tectorumSmall Cape RushTBD 1 Gal. 3'-0" OC Low / Zones A & BJuncus patensBlue RushTBD 1 Gal. 3'-0" OC Low / Zone BLeymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' Canyon Prince Wild RyeTBD 1 Gal. 5'-0" OC Low / Zone BMuhlenbergia rigensDeer GrassTBD 1 Gal. 5'-0" OC Low / Zone BSalvia spathaceaHummingbird SageTBD 1 Gal. 2'-0" OC Low / Zone BSalvia uliginosaBog SageTDB 1 Gal. 4'-0" OC Low / Zone BSITE LIGHTING LEGENDLINE VOLTAGE (120v) LIGHTINGSYMBOLFIXTURE / MODEL HEIGHT LAMPLUMINAIRELUMENSQUANT.WALL MOUNT /BEGA 3514 OR 6980P8 FT.4.2 Watts LED /46 Watts CF153 / 2125 8POST LIGHT /BEGA 8977P15 FT.55 Watts CF3183 3BOLLARD LIGHT /BEGA 7265 OR 72663' FT. 7.2 Watts LED 166 11SIGN LIGHT /HADCO WAF131 FT. 13 Watts CF 900 2LIGHTING NOTES:xALL LANDSCAPE LIGHTS SHALL BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT TYPEFIXTURES, WITH LAMP CUT-OFFSHEILD.xALL LIGHTING SHALL BE 120 VOLT.xLAMPS SHALL BE ENERGY EFFICIENT FIXTURES, LED WHEREFEASIBLE.SITE LIGHTING PLANSCALE: 1"=30'-0"MAWA & ETWU CALCULATIONSPLANTING LEGENDBOLLARD LIGHTPOST LIGHTWALL-MOUNT LIGHT AT BUILDINGS1404 BROAD STSAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401PH 805.540.8896jd@jimduffyarch.comwww.jimduffyarch.comARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMITTAL - SEPTEMBER 15, 2014P.O. Box 832, Atascadero, CA 93423Phone & Fax: (805) 464-0975KVCrowe@Charter.netKeith V. Crowe, P.E.JOHN KNIGHT - PROJECT PLANNER49 MARIPOSA DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.235.2406jknight@jknightconsulting.comPLANT LEGEND,WATER USE CALCS.,LIGHTING PLANL2ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 197 TREE REMOVAL / PROTECTION PLANTREE REMOVAL EXHIBITATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 198 TREE REMOVAL / PROTECTION PLANTREE REMOVAL EXHIBIT7d-Tree Removal Exhibit ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 199 Top of Bank(as determined by Surveyor)Creek Setback Exhibit(without Aerial)Edge of Ex. Vegetation(as determined by Biologist)“Averaged” Edge of VegetationUpdated: Sept. 10, 2014ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 200 8SGDWHG 6HSW7RSRI%DQN DVGHWHUPLQHGE\6XUYH\RU &UHHN6HWEDFN([KLELW ZLWK$HULDO (GJHRI([9HJHWDWLRQ DVGHWHUPLQHGE\%LRORJLVW ³$YHUDJHG´(GJHRI9HJHWDWLRQATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 201 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 202 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 203 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 204 49 Mariposa Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805-235-2406 F: 805-783-0329 March 27, 2015 Marcus Carloni Community Development 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 Via e-mail mcarloni@slocity.org Re: Bridge St – Revised Uses for Project Description Dear Mr. Carloni: In accordance with our recent discussions with City staff and the neighbors; we believe it to be in everyone’s best interest to voluntarily prohibit or restrict specific Uses on our Bridge Street project. We request that the attached “Amended Use List” be included as part of our Project Description and be used to regulate Uses on the site in the future. Please refer to the attached document for a full list. However, I would like to draw your attention to some examples below. Prohibited Uses: These uses are either allowed or conditionally allowed in the M Zone. We agree to voluntarily exclude them from the site in an effort to avoid future neighbor conflicts. • Auto parts sales with installation – concerns about potential noise • Cemetery, Mausoleum, Columbarium – including mortuaries • Construction & Heavy Equipment Sales & Rental – outdoor equipment storage and noise • Fuel Dealer – hazardous materials • Laundry, dry cleaning plant – hazardous materials • Nightclub – noise, vehicle trips, late hours • Petroleum Product Storage & Distribution – hazardous materials • Public Utility Facilities – vehicle trips and hazardous materials • Railroad Facilities • Recycling Facilities & Scarp Yard – outdoor storage and noise • Restaurant with Late Hour Alcohol Service – late hours and noise • Transit Station or Terminal • Truck or Freight Terminal – vehicle trips and trucks • Vehicle Service, Repair & Maintenance – concerns about potential noise associated with equipment (such as tire sales/installation) as well as hazardous materials/chemicals (such as auto body repair) ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 205 49 Mariposa Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 P: 805-235-2406 Restricted Uses – Director’s Review: These uses are currently allowed in the M Zone. Some of these uses have the potential to have adverse impacts on the neighbors. We agree that these will require a separate “Director’s Action” prior to occupancy on the site (requires public notification and posting and appealable to the Planning Commission). • Equipment Rental, Outdoor • Furniture & Fixtures Manufacturing (Cabinet Shop) • Photo and Film Processing Lab • Printing & Publishing • Wholesaling & Distribution Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to suggest any revisions. I would like to thank you and Jaime Hill for the assistance we received in refining the Amended Use List. Sincerely, John Knight jknight@jknightconsulting.com Attachments – Amended Use List cc: Jaime Hill JHill@slocity.org Doug Davidson ddavidson@slocity.org Devin Gallagher galpro@mac.com Jim Duffy jimd@tenoverstudio.com ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 206 Updated: March 27, 2015 279 Bridge Street List of Allowed Uses: To reduce potential of exposure of the public and the environment to significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, exposure of sensitive receptors to potential decreases in air quality or objectionable odors, or inappropriate levels of noise, a truncated list of allowed or conditionally allowed uses on the site, shall be used in place of Municipal Code Chapter 17.22, Table 9: Use Regulation when reviewing future uses at the site. Conditionally allowed uses shall be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department Director, or approval of an Administrative Use Permit or Planning Commission Use Permit, as identified below, upon findings that the proposed use will not result in a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, exposure of sensitive receptors to potential decreases in air quality or objectionable odors, or inappropriate levels of noise. The following Use List shall prevail: Allowed Uses ATMs Auto parts sales with installation Auto parts sales without installation Bakery, Wholesale Building and landscape materials sales, indoor Landscape materials sales, outdoor Business support services (examples noted below) blueprinting computer-related services (rental, repair) copying and quick printing services film processing and photofinishing (retail) mailing and mail box services outdoor advertising services protective services (other than office related) security systems services Caretakers quarters Catering service Equipment rental, indoor Equipment rental, outdoor Farm supply and feed store Fitness/health facility Fuel dealer (propane, etc.) Furniture and fixtures manufacturing, cabinet shop Home Occupation (with Home Occupation permit) Laboratory, medical, analytical, research, testing Laundry, dry cleaning plant Live/work units Maintenance service, client site services Manufacturing, light – when work is conducted inside a building Media production, broadcast studio Office, accessory Photo and film processing lab Printing and publishing Public utility facilities Railroad facilities Recycling facilities, small collection facility Repair service – equipment, large appliances, etc., indoor ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 207 Allowed Uses (continued) School, specialized education/training Storage, personal storage facility - indoor Storage yard, as a Principal Use Transit station or terminal Transit stop Truck or freight terminal Warehousing, indoor storage Wholesaling and distribution Conditionally Allowed Uses (Directors Action) Photo and film processing lab Furniture and fixtures manufacturing, cabinet shop Printing and publishing Wholesaling and distribution Conditionally Allowed Uses (Administrative Use Permit) Ambulance, taxi, and/or limousine dispatch Antennas and telecommunications facilities Auto parts sales with installation Bakery, retail Banks and financial services (4) Bar/Tavern Building materials sales, outdoor Construction and heavy equipment sales and rental Convenience store Crop Production Day care center (child/adult) (9) Extended hour retail Equipment rental, outdoor Food bank/packaged food distribution center Furniture and Fixtures Manufacturing, cabinet shop Industrial research and development Manufacturing – light, outdoor Media production- Backlots/outdoor facilities and soundstages Nightclub Office, business and service Office, processing Office, production and administrative Outdoor BBQ/Grill, accessory to restaurant Parking facility Parking facility, temporary Petroleum product storage and distribution Public utility facilities Recycling facilities- collection and processing Recycling facilities- scrap and dismantling yard Religious facility (7) Restaurant Restaurant with late hour alcohol service Social service organization Special event Storage yard, as a Principal Use Vehicle services repair and maintenance (major or minor) Veterinary clinic/hospital, boarding, large animal ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 208 Conditionally Allowed Uses (Administrative Use Permit) Wine tasting room, off-site Wholesaling and distribution Work/live units Conditionally Allowed Uses (Planning Commission Use Permit) Airport Auto and vehicle sales and rental Cemetery, mausoleum, columbarium Commercial recreation facility, indoor Heliport Homeless shelter Manufacturing, heavy Parking facility – Multi-level Sports and active recreation facility Sports and entertainment assembly facility Theatre, Drive-in Mixed-use project Mobile home, RV, and boat sales Note – several of the above uses include footnotes in parentheses. Refer to Table 9 of Chapt. 17.22 of the City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 209 Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants 267 Foothill Boulevard San Luis Obispo. CA 93405 (805) 544-1308 (Archaeological Resources) (805) 543-7831 (Historical Resources) (805) 543-7877 (FAX) bertrando@charter.net July 21, 2014 Figure 1: Overview of the Project Area facing south. Cultural Resource Inventory of 279 Bridge Street APN: 053-421-002, San Luis Obispo, CA. Prepared at the Request of: Prepared by: John Knight Ethan Bertrando J. Knight Consulting Archaeologist San Luis Obispo, CA. San Luis Obispo, CA. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 210 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 1 ABSTRACT In May, 2014, a request was made by John Knight of J. Knight Consultants on behalf of Devin Gallagher to have a Phase 1 Cultural Resource Inventory conducted at 279 Bridge Street (APN: 004-811-016) in San Luis Obispo, CA. The project area is located between South Street and Cheapskate Ridge in the southern part of the City. This study identified previous cultural resource inventories in the area resulting in the recording of several archaeological and historical sites. The results of this study concluded that no cultural resource appear on the property. Recommendations based on these conclusions are contained in this report. INTRODUCTION The fieldwork carried out as part of this study was conducted by Ethan Bertrando. Mr. Bertrando holds a Master's Degree in Anthropology with an emphasis in Archaeology and meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards as a qualified archaeologist. The fieldwork took place on 2.5 acre property July 11th, 2014. The property currently is an open space between an industrial area, a residential area and an open space. The investigation was conducted at the request of John Knight of J. Knight Consultants for Devin Gallagher. The property is located 279 Bridge Street (APN: 004-811-016) and is depicted on the San Luis Obispo 7.5' USGS quadrangle topographic map (Figure 2). Figure 2: Project Location Map. San Luis Obispo USGS Quadrangle 7.5 minute series. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 211 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 2 BACKGROUND Natural Setting The project area is located at the base a serpentine knoll (Cheapskate Ridge) and a small tributary of San Luis Obispo Creek that runs through Meadow Park. The surrounding areas that have not been developed contain open grassland and chaparral, marshy wetlands, riparian habitats and unique xeric communities common to the serpentine barrens. The climate of the general area is described as Mediterranean with hot dry summers and mild wet winters. The upper interior areas of the coastal valleys experience annual and daily temperature fluctuation more drastic than coastal areas but less extreme than other areas further inland. Summer temperatures around the project area occasionally reach beyond 100 Fahrenheit but more often settle around the mid to upper 80s. Winter temperatures dip below freezing but this is also very dependent on elevation as the valley bottoms can go frost free. Precipitation occurs almost exclusively between the months of November and April. Annual rainfall is variable, dependent on elevation and slope exposure but flooding in the coastal valleys is almost an annual occurrence. The dominant geology of the general area can be characterized as Franciscan formation (mélange) with intrusive dacites (e.g. Islay Peak) and isolated low lying areas of post Pleistocene alluvial deposits (Chipping 1987). The Franciscan mélange is composed of a variety of rock and mineral types. The most common types occurring around the project area are dark shale, sandstones (graywacke), basalts (e.g. pillow and redrock), serpentine, greenstone (altered submarine basalt), chert and small localized blocks of metamorphic rocks with minerals of the blueschist facies dispersed throughout a matrix of sheared shale or tectonic paste (Page 1972). These materials represent one of the oldest geologic formations of the immediate area and date to the Cretaceous Period. This wide variety of materials was exploited in prehistory for a number of uses. Chert and, to a lesser extent, basalt and shale were used in the production of chipped stone industries (e.g. projectile points, scrapers, choppers, blades, bifaces, etc.). Sandstone is well suited to the manufacture of groundstone products such as handstones, millingstones, mortars and pestles. Examples of these materials used for these tool types are quite common in the general area. Because of its relatively soft composition, serpentine and specifically schists referred to as "soap stone" were used to make shaped objects, often ornamental in nature. Beads, pipes and effigies of this material were highly prized and appeared as trade items throughout California. Other less common materials such as chromite were also utilized but played a relatively small role in the stone tool technology of the area. The surrounding native plant communities are various and unique. The surrounding grasslands contain a variety of native and introduced grasses, the most prominent of the native species are the needlegrasses (Nasella sp,). Wetland species can be found in the adjacent seasonal streams. Species such tule (Scirpus sp.), Poison Oak (Toxicodendrom diversilobum), Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) willows (Salix sp.) are found in these areas. The serpentine barrens support some of the most rare of the plants in the area with spineflower (Chorizanthe sp.), Dudleya (Dudleya sp.) Obispo Indian paintbrush (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis,), Cambria ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 212 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 3 morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. Episcopalism) and San Luis Obispo clay mariposa lily (Calochortus argillosus) as examples that also served as important Native American food (Bertrando 2006). Among the native plants found in the vicinity that were important to aboriginal population are a variety of oak (Quercus sp.), willow (Salix sp.), sage (Salvia sp.) and bunchgrass species (Juncus sp.), soap root (Chorogalum poeridiarum), Poison Oak (Toxicodendrom diversilobum) and manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita). The land surrounding the project parcel still supports a variety of native animal species that have existed in the area since prehistoric times. Among these surviving species are badger, rabbit, skunk, grey and ground squirrel, mule deer, fox, raccoon, coyote, bobcat, black bear and mountain lion as well as a variety of local and migrant avifauna, reptiles and smaller fauna. Important native species to the local prehistory and history that can no longer be found in the area are tule elk, pronghorn and grizzly bear. These were important species to the local Native American inhabitants. Tule elk and pronghorn continue to be important natural resources in the interior of the county. Prehistory The area surrounding the parcel was occupied at the time of Spanish contact by speakers of the Obispeño dialect of the Chumash Language. The Chumash were a group of hunter-gatherer-fishers who attained an extraordinary level of social complexity given their means of subsistence. Today, descendants of these groups continue to live in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties as well as elsewhere in California and the U.S. Chumash territory at the time of Spanish contact spread from Malibu in Los Angeles County to the northern reaches of San Luis Obispo County. It extended from the coast to the eastern slopes of the Temblor Range and included the northern Channel Islands. The Obispeño Chumash occupied the northern limits of the Chumash occupation sphere, beginning near the Nipomo area and extending northwards perhaps as far as San Simeon and beyond to the southern extent of the Big Sur Coastline (Gibson 1991; Greenwood 1978). The area contained in the San Luis Obispo watershed was rich in wild resources in prehistory particularly around the estuaries of Avila and Morro Bay. This abundance of resources is believed to be the cause for the high number of sites per square mile in that area compared with neighboring locations, especially to the north and inland. This high frequency of prehistoric sites makes this area extremely important regarding prehistoric cultural resources. The general pattern is that the likelihood of encountering large substantial prehistoric sites increases as one nears the coastline. Conversely, most of the sites located in the nearby foothills, such as the project area, are small ephemeral sites, often used for special purpose activities and were then abandoned. The Native American habitation in the general area has spanned more than 9,000 years (Bertrando and Levulett 2004; Fitzgerald 2000; Gibson 1996; Greenwood 1972). This is commonly broken down in the Chumash occupation sphere into three periods; Early (6000 -1400 BC), Middle (1400 BC- 1150 AD), and Late (1150 - 1500 AD) based on work ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 213 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 4 conducted by Chester King (1990). These major divisions are again subdivided into a refined culture history applicable to most areas of the Southern California Bight. Additional periods existing before (Paleo-Indian - 12,000 BP. and Paleo-Coastal 10,000 BP.) and after (Protohistoric and Historic) this chronology are also used when describing Native American habitations (Erlandson 1994). However, due to several factors (e.g., paucity of data and/or relatively short periods of existence) these periods have generally received less attention (Erlandson 1994; Gibson 1996). Table 1: Comparison of Regional Chronologies for San Luis Obispo County Years BP Pre-12000 12000-10000 9000- 10000 8500-9000 8000-8500 7500-8000 7000-7500 6500-6000 5500-6000 5000-5500 4500-5000 4000-4500 3500-4000 3000-3500 2500-3000 2000-2500 1500-2000 1000-1500 900-1000 800-900 700-800 600-700 500-600 400-500 300-400 200-300 100-200 King’s Chronology Paleoindian / Paleocoastal Early Period Middle Period Late Period Historic Period Glassow’s Chronology Paleoindian / Paleocoastal Initial Early Period Terminal Early Period Middle Period Late Period Historic Period Jones & Waugh’s Chronology Paleoindian / Paleocoastal Millingstone Horizon * Early Period Middle Period Middle/Late Transition Late Period Protohistoric Period Historic Period *Evidence from the Cross Creek Site (CA-SLO-1797) has pushed this date back considerably (Fitzgerald 2000). An adaptation of King’s chronology has been devised by Glassow (1996) for settlement in North Coastal Santa Barbara County encompassing an area roughly from Point Conception to Point Sal and may be also well applied to portions of southern coastal San Luis Obispo County. The period identified and delineated in this chronology include; Paleocoastal Period (9000-8500 BP), Initial Early Period (8500-6500 BP), Terminal Early Period (5000-3200 BP), Middle Period (3200-800 BP) and Late Period (800 BP - Missionization) (Glassow 1996). A more refined chronology has recently been put together specifically for the Central coast area (Jones et al. 1994; Jones and Waugh 1995). This modifies and adapts ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 214 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 5 chronologies both to the south and north of San Luis Obispo County to better understand transitions of cultural development throughout California's coastal and interior regions. It consists of four broad periods, rather than three, but these periods, due to a relative lack of knowledge regarding local prehistory in comparison to areas in the south, are not subdivided to the degree of King’s chronology. The six categories in chronological order are; Millingstone Horizon (6500-3500 BC), Early Period (3500-600 BC), Middle Period (600 BC-AD 1000), Middle/Late Transition (AD 1000-1250), Late Period (AD 1250-1500) and Protohistoric Period (AD 1500-1800). Although they share the same designations and many social and material trademarks as well, the three time periods in Jones & Waugh’s chronology differ substantially in temporal extent from King’s. They do share a common protohistoric and historic period designation as these dates are known in western history. They also acknowledge that pre-Holocene cultures would not be included in this chronology due to an extreme paucity of knowledge about initial colonization and subsequent occupation of California through the Pleistocene. Throughout the prehistory of the area there have been some trends and tendencies noted by researchers. In general, the coastal sites, because of the proximity to littoral and estuarine resources, are often identifiable as containing remarkably dense concentrations of shellfish remains (i.e., shell middens). The indigenous inhabitants were quite accomplished at recovering not only shellfish but other marine resources such as fish, marine mammals and seaweed. In addition, terrestrial resources provided a great part of their consumable goods. Interior sites were, as a rule, smaller than coastal sites and often located along major waterways that offered a wide variety of exploitable resources and a diversity of environments. In addition, special purpose activity areas are also noted including milling stations, quarry locations, hunting stands and rock art sites. It is only recently that settlement patterns have begun to become understood. Apparently villages were occupied year round in some areas, while others were seasonally abandoned to exploit abundant resources some distance from these locations. Ethnographic, and some archaeological evidence, suggests that all coastal villages from Morro Bay north were abandoned seasonally (Jones et al. 1994; Hoover and Sawyer 1977; Mikkelsen et al. 1998). Conflicting archaeological data supports the belief that some villages in Estero Bay were occupied throughout the year and supported relatively large populations (Clemmer 1962). The reality is that both examples probably occurred and shifts in settlement behavior happened often in prehistory. A wide variety of prehistoric site types have been identified in the general vicinity of the project area. These include; chipped stone quarries, groundstone quarries, seed processing stations, hunting blinds, rock art sites, animal kill/butchering sites, seasonal camps, stone tool manufacturing locations, lithic scatters, settled occupations, and spiritual "shrine" locations. To date, it has been difficult to determine any shift in settlement types or locations over time in the upper coastal valley. There does appear to be increasing evidence that fluctuations did occur, stimulated primarily by climatic shifts. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 215 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 6 Table 2; Central Coast Culture Sequence (after Jones and Waugh 1995) Early Holocene/ Paleocoastal ???-10,000 BP This includes all occupations prior to 10,000 BP and follows the description of Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene described elsewhere in California. Virtually nothing is known of this period but general data suggests that initial occupations originated well into the Pleistocene (Bertrando 2004). Millingstone 10,000-5,500 BP This culture period extends from 10,000 BP to 5,500 BP, based on a series of recent discoveries in San Luis Obispo County (Bertrando and Levulett 2004; Fitzgerald 2000; Greenwood 1972). This period roughly coincides with Rogers’ (1929) Oak Grove tradition and the Ex Period of the Santa Barbara Cha nnel Sequence (Roper et al. 1997). Jones and Waugh split the period into Millingstone (8,500-5,500 years ago) and Paleoindian (10,000-8,500) but recognize that there is virtually no archaeological variation between these two periods and so is included as a single period here. This period is known for its numerous millingslabs, cobble and core tools and apparent transient and broad-based way of life. Early Period & Early/Middle Period Transition 5,500-2,600 BP Apparent shifts in importance from seed processing to hunting and fishing usher in this culture Phase. From 5,500 BP to 2,600 BP maximum sea levels and corresponding environmental changes appear to have drastically altered adaptive strategies of the indigenous inhabitants. Occupations become more settled but not necessarily permanent. Among other developments, long distance trade appears to rise during this time. Middle Period 2,600-1,000 BP From 2,600 BP to 1,000 BP social complexity and technology experienced further developments as discussed above. An important occurrence of this period along the coast was the climatic ameliorization resulting in; "the gradual siltation of estuaries along the coast, including Morro Bay" (Jones et al. 1994). Middle/Late Transition 1,000-750 BP The period from 1,000 BP to approximately 750 BP was one of severe climatic instability associated with major El Nino events. This triggered adaptive responses that eventually led, in some areas, to increased social complexity and political control. Late Period 750-450 BP In response to climatic fluctuations, settlements at this time appear to shift from the coastline to interior settlements. This can be described as decreasing reliance on coastal resources, which were drastically affected by events such as El Niño, and a growing dependence on more reliable, storable commodities such as acorns (Jones and Waugh 1995). Protohistoric Period 450-150 BP For about a two hundred year period ending in 1769, coastal Native Californians maintained intermittent contact with European traders and pirates involved in the trans-Pacific trade. This had little effect technologically, although the economy was disrupted by the introduction of glass trade beads. The most detrimental result of this contact was the introduction of Old World diseases that culminated in the death of thousands of natives Unfortunately, the thriving aboriginal population did not survive European contact well. With the establishment of Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa in 1772, and occasional European visits to the area before that time, the Native American culture of the area changed dramatically. Indigenous technologies were lost or replaced by western ones and religion and belief systems became integrated with the Spanish ideal. Most devastating to the local Chumash population was the introduction of Old World diseases for which they had little natural tolerance (Heizer 1974). As a result the Native American population in the area dropped dramatically from the end of the 18th to the end of the 19th Century (Gibson 1991). ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 216 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 7 History Mission Period: 1772 to 1822 The first known recorded European contact in San Luis Obispo occurred on September 6, 1769, when the Spanish land expedition, led by the Governor of Baja California, Gaspar de Portolá, arrived from Loreto, Baja Sur, via San Diego. At that time, Fr. Crespi gave the name La Cañada de Natividad de Nuestra Señora near the location where Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was founded three years later (Engelhardt 1933). The era of greatest growth and prosperity for Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was between 1790 and 1810 (Kocher 1972). Remaining annual reports filed by the Mission Fathers give some information on the extent of growth and construction. Unfortunately, the reports for the first twenty-five years are missing, making information regarding ranchos and structure locations unknown during the period of the Mission’s greatest growth Rancho/Mexican Period: 1822 to 1846 In 1822, Mexico acquired California from Spain and the decline of the Mission system became evident as their support from Spain ended. By 1830, the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was in a sorry state. The earthquake of 1830 ruined much of the buildings that were a part of the extensive mission complex. Fr. Gil gives an account of the time. “The hospital and portions of the neophyte village are in ruins, and the rest of the village threatens to fall into ruins. All the walls of the house at Santa Margarita have been cracked by earthquakes. The ranch and buildings of San Miguelito are destroyed.” (Engelhardt 1963) The report for 1832 continued with the mission buildings “decaying more and more for want of hands sufficient to renovate them” (Engelhardt 1963). The livestock that remained were mostly unattended and free ranged. Conditions were worsened when the secularization of the missions was enacted by Alta California Governor Figueroa under instruction from Mexico in 1834. This caused mission lands to be the property of Mexico and the missions to become parish churches within a pueblo. Eventually, most of the ranchos under the jurisdiction of San Luis Obispo de Tolosa passed into private hands through the process of Mexican land grants (Kocher 1972). The project area was never incorporated into rancho land lying just to the east of the La Laguna Rancho. Early California: 1846 to 1870 The American Flag was raised in 1846 in Monterey, briefly the capitol of California, thus heralding the beginning of the American Period. Last minute grants were suspended ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 217 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 8 and persons other than the priests were ordered off the mission premises by the new government (Kocher 1972). Many of the original rancho grantees began to sell off and lose their land during the long legal process that was necessary to get rancho land patented and thus recognized by the United States government. It was common for the lands to be patented during the 1860s, although some were patented in the 1880s, many years after filing. Many ranchos were in dire straits, the original grantees had died and land was often taken by squatters. This is illustrated in an account from April 1861, when a member of the Whitney Survey party, team, William H. Brewer, entered San Luis Obispo for the first time and recorded his impression of the town. The town looks more South American or Spanish than the others we have seen. It’s a small, miserable place.”(Brewer 1966) In the following years, severe droughts plagued the region. Because of the drought conditions of 1862 to 1864, most of the cattle died. This only hastened the process of the original owners losing their land. Dairy Industry: 1870 to 1942 In the 1870s, the inland valleys became dotted with dairies that were worked by Swiss-Italians, most of whom originated from Canton Ticino in an area known as the Val Maggia in the Lake Maggiore region of Switzerland. They came with a long tradition of butter and cheese making (Raup 1935). Many leased the land until they could purchase property from off-site owners. Portuguese made the next wave of dairy workers, coming exclusively from the Azores. Throughout the remainder of the 1800s, butter and cheese were shipped out of nearby coastal ports to city markets, and for a period of time, dairy became the leading industry in San Luis Obispo County. The dairy industry continued to flourish into the 20th Century but the advent of refrigeration, modernized pasteurization techniques, improved transportation and the rise of large scale industrial dairies in the Central Valley, slowly eroded the economic foundation of this industry in San Luis Obispo County. By the 1950s, dairy production dropped dramatically and most of the creameries in the county had closed their doors. Mining Industry 1870-1950 The hills surrounding project area supported a variety of small to large scale mining enterprises targeting a variety of geological resources. Geologically, this area is built primarily upon the Franciscan Formation which includes large pockets of serpentine. The serpentine rocks contain minerals such as nickel, cobalt, asbestos, mercury and, particularly, chromite. The chromite itself may contain iron, magnesium, chromium, aluminum, manganese, titanium, calcium, silicon, and nickel. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 218 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 9 Numerous chromite mining ventures took place near the project area both to the north, along the southern flanks of the Santa Lucias, and to the south in pockets of the Irish Hills. Even some opportunistic exploration took place on Cheapskate Ridge, immediately south of the project area, for this ore. These activities began in the 1870s and continued through various upswings and downturns until the early 1950s (Bertrando 2002). Rarely a profitable endeavor, chromite mining in California finally gave way to recycled chrome and foreign sources in the 1960s. Nevertheless, it proved to be important to the local economy during latter parts of the 19th Century. Copper was also recovered on a limited basis locally, particularly in the Irish Hills, but was never found in sufficient quantities to support large scale mining (California State Mining Bureau 1906). Rumors of nearby gold and silver mines also exist, although they have never been substantiated (Bertrando and Bertrando 1997). Bridge Street Area Figure 3: Historic Photograph of the Exposition Park Raceway. The approximate location of the project area is indicated by the arrow. The Bride Street area was developed relatively late in San Luis Obispo’s history. The section running past the project area was originally named Short Street and delineated residential areas to the north from agricultural areas to the south, including the project area. Just to the west, running parallel to Higuera Street today, was a portion of the early narrow gauge railway. This track system was first constructed in 1876 connecting San Luis Obispo to Port Harford (Avila Beach) for the purpose of transporting goods to and from the steamships that would visit the harbor. Later, this line was extended south to Santa Barbara County and was important in developing the local economies of that area. The line began to decline in the early 20th century and eventually closed in the 1930s. The cause of the collapse was largely due to the expansion of the large Southern Pacific railroad (SPRR) ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 219 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 10 and, in particular, the introduction by SPRR of refrigerated cars. These cars offered more efficient transport of produce, especially sugar beets, and allowed SPRR to dominate commerce traffic in the early 20the century. A unique development occurred in the project area in 1922. Exposition Park opened just to the east of the project area (Figure 3). Exposition Park stood out as an important race track in the emerging motor racing sport. This one mile dirt track was considered to be the fastest race track in 1923 and attracted many famous early racers. Its success was not based on the quality of the track alone but also on the fact that the early race circuit passed through San Luis Obispo on its way to large races at Los Angeles and San Jose, thus making it a convenient stop-over. The track was partially done in by Cheapskate Hill, the large ridge found just north of the project area. Named for the many visitors that would watch the races without paying, it undermined the revenue potential of the track (Figure 4). The track was closed by the 1930s and Exposition Park became a large open space where events, such as the Barnum and Bailey Circus, would set up through the 1950s. Today, Exposition Park is developed as residential housing and includes all the blocks between South and Bridge Street immediately east of the project area. The project area itself has remained undeveloped although plowing, grading and realignment of the adjacent unnamed drainages have occurred since the closure of the racetrack. METHODS On July 11th, 2014, a Phase I archaeological surface investigation was conducted by Ethan Bertrando on the project parcel. The parcel lies between a serpentine ridge and small creek with a narrow alluvial plain separating them (Figure 5). It is this alluvial plain that makes up the project area. Surface transects were walked spaced on average at 5-3 meters because of the flat and opened nature of the parcel Recent mowing of the property also enhanced the survey quality. No subsurface testing was conducted during this study but rodent tailings, graded areas and the exposed stream bank were inspected when present. A records search was conducted for the property at the Central Coast Information Center at UCSB on May 5th 2014. This office is a clearinghouse facility for the California Office of Historic Preservation and keeps records of all archaeological sites formally recorded in San Luis Obispo County as well as a nearly complete inventory of all cultural resource studies for the county. Also, the San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Library was researched at Cuesta College for information on cultural resource site maps, records and reports. In addition, the archives of Bertrando & Bertrando Research Figure 4: Spectators on Cheapskate Ridge ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 220 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 11 Consultants were reviewed for information on historic maps and documents to determine past land use of the parcel and surrounding area. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Legislation created with the goal of protecting cultural resources originated with the passing of The Antiquities Act of 1906. This act protected and preserved cultural resources on federal lands including Indian Reservations, forest preserves and military reservations. Other acts followed including The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, The Historic Sites Act of 1935, The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, The Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, The American Religious Freedom Act of 1978 and The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (E. Bertrando and B. Bertrando 1996). Any or all of these may be invoked to address cultural resource issues on federal property. Locally, however, the majority of projects subject to cultural resource considerations rely on the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) to provide guidelines regarding determining resource significance and mitigation measures. CEQA was adopted and approved to set forth some basic policies for environmental protection. Historic and prehistoric resources were specifically addressed in Appendix K of CEQA’s definition of environmental resources. In CEQA, Appendix K set forth basic criteria established to determine the potential significance of a cultural resource. The results of this determination subsequently affect how the resource may be treated during future use related impacts. Criteria set forth in Appendix K have been superseded through legislative changes and are now included as stipulations present in the Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4852. The new criteria include the following; Figure 5: Aerial Photograph of the project parcel and the area surveyed (White). ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 221 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 12 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value. 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Cultural resources displaying one or more of these characteristics, or others not mentioned, may be considered significant and thereby subject to special measures of avoidance or evaluation prior to any potential impacts. If impacts cannot be avoided then a mitigation plan is normally developed. Figure 6: Portion of the 1932 Map of the City of San Luis Obispo, California. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 222 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 13 RESULTS Records Search Historic records and maps shed light on the landuse of the area during the late 19th and early 20th century. Most informative was the 1932 map; Map of the City of San Luis Obispo California (Figure 6). It shows the property in relation to nearby developments such as the residential area north of South Street, the Catholic Cemetery to the west and the Exposition Park Raceway to the east. Notably, the parcel appears as undeveloped at this time (Figure 7). Historic photographs confirm the information from the maps and records as no structures on shown on the property into the 1930s although historic structures reference in nearby studies are visible (Figures 8 & 9). The results of the record search from the Information Center indicate that areas surrounding the project area have been surveyed for cultural resources, sometimes on more than one occasion (Bertrando 2005; Conway 2001; Dills 1980; EarthTouch 2005; Gibson 1993; Singer 2001, 2003). No archaeological remains have been identified within the project area. The nearest resource has been identified is an historic structure on the adjacent parcel to the south; P40-041146 (Singer 2003). The nearest archaeological sites are located over ½ a mile away, most along the banks of San Luis Obispo Creek. Figure 7: Close up of the 1932 Map showing the approximate location of the project area. Figure 8: Historic Photograph of the Exposition Park Raceway facing northwest. The project is indicated in white. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 223 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 14 Field Investigation The field survey took place on July 11th, 2014. The creek section provided intermittent surface visibility because of thick leaf litter produced by the trees lining the creek. Portions of the creek bank were visible indicating that intact buried strata occur along this waterway, in some areas in excess of 1 meter in depth. The central portion provided excellent surface visibility but also was the product over several episodes of intensive grading and filling. No prehistoric archaeological remains were identified during the field survey. The likelihood of encountering them on the project parcel is considered to be low. Prehistoric settlements in this area typically are found near reliable water sources, such as San Luis Obispo Creek; important raw material sources, such as chert outcrops; or important food Figure 9: Historic Photograph of the Exposition Park Raceway showing historic buildings identified near the project area. Figure 10: Aerial Photograph of the general project area indicating where the Exposition Park Raceway is located (white) relative to the project parcel (red). ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 224 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 15 resources, such as the serpentine ridge to the south. The low lying floodplain that encompasses the project area does not meet any of these criteria, although it is near to locations that do. Historic remains were also lacking from the project area with the exception of a few pieces of Pismo Clam, a common indicator of late 19th and early 20th century ranching and farming activities on the central coast. Evidence of use as part of the raceway is also absent as the overlay of the track on the current neighborhood indicates (Figure 10). CONCLUSION \ RECOMMENDATIONS The results of this study did not find any evidence of cultural resources on the property. The findings also indicate the likelihood of encountering significant resources on the property is very low. As a result of these findings, it is recommended that no additional cultural resource studies need to be conducted. In the event that unanticipated cultural resources are encountered during construction, all work should cease in the immediate area of the discovery and a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to evaluate the discovery and develop appropriate protection measures. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 225 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 16 REFERENCES CITED Bertrando, Ethan 2002 Nomination Eligibility Evaluation for the Historic Chromium Mines at Camp San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, CA. Report Prepared for Camp San Luis Obispo and the California Army National Guard, Sacramento, CA 2004 Evidence and Models for Late Pleistocene Chronology and S ettlement along California’s Central Coast. In, Emerging from the Ice Age: Early Holocene Occupations on the California Central Coast. A Compilation of Research in Honor of Roberta Greenwood. Occasional Paper No. 17, San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society, San Luis Obispo, CA. pp. 93-105 2005 Cultural Resource Inventory of the Lawrence Drive Subdivision Project APN: 004-931-042, 300 Lawrence Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA. Report Prepared for Michael Hodge, San Luis Obispo, CA. 2006 Xeric Communities a Patch Choice? A Review of the Archaeological Record from the Central Coast. Paper Presented at the Society for California Archaeology Annual Meetings, Ventura, CA. Bertrando, Ethan and Betsy Bertrando 1997 Cultural Resource Investigation of San Luis Obispo City and County Property on and surrounding Bishop Peak, San Luis Obispo, CA. Report Prepared for the County of San Luis Obispo. 1997 Cultural Resource Investigation of San Luis Obispo City and County Property on and surrounding Bishop Peak, San Luis Obispo, CA. Report Prepared for Sandra Zaida, Park Planner County of San Luis Obispo Bertrando, Ethan and Valerie Levulett 2004 Emerging from the Ice Age: Early Holocene Occupations on the California Central Coast. A Compilation of Research in Honor of Roberta Greenwood. Occasional Paper No. 17, San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society, San Luis Obispo, CA. Brewer, Walter W. 1966 Up and Down in California in 1860-1864. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA California State Mining Bureau 1906 Bulletin 38; Structural and Industrial Materials of California, January. Published by the California State Printing Office, Sacramento CA. Chipping, David H. 1987 The Geology of San Luis Obispo County. Published by Kinko's Copies, San Luis Obispo, CA. Clemmer, John 1962 Archaeological Notes on a Chumash House Floor at Morro Bay. Report Prepared for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA. Conway, Thor 2001 An Archaeological Survey of the Alcatel Project Area, South Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Report Prepared for Alcatel, Network Services District, San Diego, CA. Dills, Charles 1980 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Nelson Property on South Street. Letter Report for Meyer, Merriam and Associates on file at the Central Coast Information Center, UCSB. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 226 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 17 Englehardt, Fr. O. F. M. 1963 Mission San Luis Obispo in the Valley of the Bears. W. T. Gennis, Santa Barbara, CA. EarthTouch Inc. 2009 New Tower (“NT”) Submission Packet FCC Form 620. Form prepared for Metro PCS. Form on File at the Central Coast Information Center, UCSB. Erlandson, Jon M. 1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York. Fitzgerald, Richard 2000 Cross Creek; An Early Holocene/Millingstone Site. California State Water Project, Coastal Branch Series Paper Number 12, San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society, San Luis Obispo, CA. Gibson, Robert O. 1991 Indians of North America: The Chumash, Frank W. Porter III, General Editor, Chelsea House Publishers, New York. 1993 Inventory of Cultural Resource for the Water Reclamation Project, City of San Luis Obispo, CA. Prepared for David Zweig, Water Project Manager, City of San Luis Obispo, CA. 1996 Results of Archaeological Monitoring for UNOCAL Soil Testing Program Along Pipelines Near Santa Margarita, San Luis Obispo County, CA. Report Prepared for John Ljung, UNOCAL CERT, San Luis Obispo, CA. Glassow, Michael 1996 Purisimeño Chumash Prehistory: Maritime Adaptations along the Southern California Coast . Harcourt Brace College Publishers, San Diego, CA Greenwood, Roberta S. 1972 9000 Years of Prehistory at Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County, California. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Paper No. 7. 1978 Obispeño and Purisimeño Chumash. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. edited by Robert F. Heizer, Smithsonian Institution Publication, Washington D.C., pp. 520- 524. Heizer, Robert 1974 The Destruction of California Indians. Peregrine Smith Inc. Santa Barbara Ca. Hoover, Robert and Col. William Sawyer 1977 Los Osos Junior High Site: 4-SLO-214. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Paper Number 11, San Luis Obispo, CA. Jones, Terry L., Kathleen Davis, Glenn Farris, Steven D. Grantham, Teresa W. Fung and Betty Rivers 1994 Towards a Prehistory of Morro Bay: Phase II Archaeological Investigations for the Highway 41 Widening Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. Report Prepared for District 05- San Luis Obispo, Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo, CA. Jones, Terry and Georgie Waugh 1995 Central California Coastal Prehistory: A View from Little Pico Creek. In Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 3, Senior Series Editor Jeanne Arnold. Published by the Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 227 Cultural Resource Inventory, 279 Bridge Street, San Luis Obispo, CA Page 18 King, Chester 1990 Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804. New York: Garland, Kocher, Paul H. 1972 Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 1772-1972. Blake Printing & Publishing, Inc. San Luis Obispo, CA. Mikkelsen, Patricia, William Hildebrandt and Deborah Jones 1998 Prehistoric Adaptations on the Shores of Morro Bay Estuary: A Report on Excavations at Site CA-SLO-165, Morro Bay, California. Report Prepared for Caltrans District 5, San Luis Obispo, CA. Page, Benjamin 1972 Oceanic Crust and Mantle Fragment in Subduction Complex near San Luis Obispo, California. Geological Society of America Bulletin. Vol. 83, pp. 957-972, April 1972 Raup, Hallock 1935 The Italian-Swiss dairymen of San Luis Obispo County, California. Yearbook Association Pacific Coast Geography 1:3-8. Rogers, David B. 1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Published by the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, CA Roper, C. Kristina, Ethan Bertrando, Michael Imwalle, Doug Harro, Rebecca McKim, Betsy Bertrando, Carol Denardo and Barry Price 1997 Archaeological Evaluation of Resources along Segment 2 of the Chorro Valley Water Transmission Line. Report Prepared for the Department of General Services, San Luis Obispo, CA and the Environmental Resources Branch of the U.S.A.C.E, Los Angeles District. Singer, Clay 2001 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for a Hilltop Transmission Facility in the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Report Prepared for Tricia Knight, JM Consulting Group, Inc., Goleta CA. 2003 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for a 2.9 Acre Property at 215 Bridge Street in the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California [APN 004-881-024]. Letter Report prepared for Bob Crizer, Crizer Construction, Los Osos, CA. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 228 KEITH V. CROWE, PE, PLS CONSULTING ENGINEER P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Preliminary Hydrologic & Hydraulic Analysis 279 Bridge Street Prepared at the request of Devin Gallagher Prepared by Keith V. Crowe, Consulting Engineer PO Box 832 Atascadero, Ca 93423 9‐15‐14 Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 229 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Introduction and Background This is a preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic report for 279 Bridge Street. The project proposes three buildings totaling 22,758 square feet on a 2.72 acre site zoned “Manufacturing”. The buildings are designed as “shells” to allow a variety of uses that are permitted in the Manufacturing (M) Zone. The project is located in an A0 flood zone with a sheet flow up to 2’ deep. The project is adjacent to Tract 2560 – the Bridge Street subdivision. This report assumes Tract 2560 has been constructed. The site is currently vacant and primarily covered with non‐native annual grasses with an average slope of less than two percent. It is bordered to the north with the Meadow Creek riparian corridor and on the south with an ephemeral swale. There is an existing red bricked parking area on the north section of the site where access is taken from Bridge Street. This parking area is currently leased to the adjacent property owned by King Ventures. Access to the site will be provided via construction of a new bridge over Meadow Creek. This bridge would be accessed from Bridge Street by driving through the existing parking red brick parking lot. There are two drainage related issues covered by this report; on site drainage and mitigation, and the impact of the project on the water surface profile of Meadow Creek. Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 230 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Location Map/Description Site Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 231 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Watershed Description/Delineation Meadow Creek Watershed The Meadow Creek watershed is shown in the figure below. Included in the watershed are portions of developed areas within the city and steep terrain of the mountains east of the city and southerly of the project. Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 232 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Onsite Watersheds The onsite watersheds or drainage management areas, when developed will be a mix of hard surfaced roofs and paving, porous pavers, gravel surface and landscaping. The onsite watersheds are shown in the figure below. Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 233 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Hydrologic Analysis Meadow Creek Watershed The Meadow Creek watershed hydrology has been well documented in the drainage reports for Tract 2560. The flow rates in Meadow Creek are summarized in the table below. Onsite Watershed Because runoff from the onsite watershed must be detained to facilitate mitigation of increased runoff and the potential for increased pollution in the watershed. The computer program HydroCad is used to analyze the runoff as it travels through the various systems. For this analysis the TR‐55 method using the SCS Urban Hydrograph and rainfall hyetographs from the Waterway Management plan are used to develop the results. A range of storms is analyzed…from the 2‐year through the 100‐year storm. Curve numbers (CN’s) are documented in the HydroCad report. The runoff rate from the entire site for the various storms for both the predevelopment and postdevelopment conditions are summarized below. The complete HydroCad report is in the appendix to this report. BMP’s to mitigate the increase in runoff and to remove pollutants include storage basins, porous pavers and bioswales. These are discussed in more detail in the mitigation section of this report. Flow Rate at Bridge Ret freq Q (cfs) 2‐yr 320 10‐yr 586 25‐yr 747 50‐yr 867 100‐yr 972 Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 234 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ It is obvious the proposed BMP’s will adequately mitigate increased runoff. As the site plans are further developed the BMP’s will be optimized to meet the detention requirement and minimize cost. Hydraulic Analysis Onsite Facilities On‐site storm drains are localized as part of the BMP’s and handle minor flows leaving these facilities. The adequacy of the drains are demonstrated in the HydroCad analysis. There are no drains proposed to carry surface water to the BMP’s. No further analysis is necessary. Meadow Creek A ConSpan bridge is proposed to provide site access over Meadow Creek. No further creek improvements are proposed. HEC‐RAS is used to demonstrate the proposed bridge and project development will not adversely impact the flood levels. It is important to note the site is located in an A0 zone with up to 2’ of sheet flow. The rules related to A0 zones apply to flood mitigation requirements. Although the resulting calculated water surface profiles closely reflect the AO flood levels they are not the defining values. With one exception the buildings proposed on the site are built using a flow‐under concept…there is an open path under these buildings to allow the free flow of storm water. For the slab‐on grade building the area is “blocked off” as an ineffective flow area. The figure below shows the comparison of predevelopment and postdevelopment water surface profiles. The complete HEC‐RAS report is in the appendix to this report. Return Freq (yrs) Predevelopment Postdevelopment 2 1.33 0.53 10 1.05 2.51 25 3.2 1.28 50 3.77 1.47 100 4.24 1.66 Runoff (cfs) Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 235 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ 700800900100011001200130014001500156.0156.5157.0157.5158.0158.5159.0159.5160.0160.5161.0161.5162.0162.5163.0163.5164.0164.5165.0165.5166.0166.5167.0167.5168.0Bridge St bigger bridge Plan: 1) Plan 45 9/11/2014 2) Plan 45 9/10/2014 Main Channel Distance (ft)Elevation (ft)LegendWS PF 1 - Plan 45WS PF 1 - Plan 45GroundLOBROBGroundMeadow Creek Bridge St NeighbTract 2560 BridgeProjectBridge.07’ maxAttachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 236 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Geomorphic, Geotechnical and Structural Analysis of Existing and Proposed Drainage Improvements Structural analysis of the ConSpan culvert is premature at this point and will be provided by the manufacturer with project construction plans. There are no geomorphic or geotechnical issues. Risk Assessment/Impacts Discussion There are three obvious potential risks and impacts; the 100‐year flood, the potential increase to flood levels and the potential for pollutants to enter the runoff. These are discussed below. Enhancement/Mitigation BMP’s are proposed to mitigate increased runoff from the site and the potential increase in pollutant load in the runoff. To mitigate the increase in runoff, storm water detention and infiltration are proposed. Water is stored in surface detention ponds located under raised buildings. Infiltration is also achieved with porous pavement located in parking areas and in both the perimeter bioswale and the parking lot bioswale shown on the sheet C1. Storm water runoff is limited to predevelopment values for all “design” storms. We have performed infiltration testing for this site and test results indicated a minimum of 1” per hour – see Infiltration Report prepared by Beacon dated July 25th, 2014 . A Hydrologic Soils Group C was incorporated into the Post‐ Construction Water Balance calculations for this project based on these infiltration test results. For each project watershed area (1 thru 11 per Hydrology Report), a Post‐ Construction Water Balance Calculator spreadsheet is attached and included in the appendix of this report to demonstrate runoff reduction and associated Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 237 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ treatment for the 95th percentile storm. These spreadsheets have been adapted to the 95th percentile storm as indicated in the spreadsheets. A “train” of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) are used to mitigate the potential pollutant load. First, a large fraction of the runoff comes from the building roofs via downspouts. The roof runoff will be released to either the perimeter bioswale or to a shallow detention basin located under the buildings. Buildings have been elevated to address flood issues. This presented an opportunity to use this under‐utilized area of the building for stormwater detention with appropriate considerations for waterproofing and saturated soils conditions. Also due to groundwater levels, large shallow detention basins where necessary to prevent groundwater contamination. Each detention basin contains 12” of clean gravel and 24” of bioretention soil media to facilitate treatment. All walks and decks are elevated and are permeable with the grade underneath designed to either infiltrate naturally or sheet flow to the detentions basins or the perimeter bioswale. The eastern parking area will be treated by a parking lot bioswale and porous pavement with secondary treatment occurring in existing brambles swale. Below are the BMP’s used and their associated effectiveness at addressing pollutants of concern which are primarily sediment and oil/grease: SD‐10 & 12 – Site Design and Efficient Irrigation: 1. Clustered development 2. Preservation of brambles 3. Landscape is Low Water Use 4. Irrigation water provided to landscape is drip irrigation primarily with spray heads only used in small turf area used for recreation. 5. Rain‐Check Sensor provided. SD‐11 – Roof Runoff Controls – a significate portion of roof run‐off is diverted to detention basins with gravel beds and bioretention soil media located under raised structures. Affective at maximizing infiltration, providing retention, slowing runoff and contain pollutants. Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 238 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ SD‐20 ‐ Pervious Pavements with gravel storage bed – 80% TSS Removal – located in areas where the highest pollutant loads will occur. Pervious pavements such as porous concrete pavers, gravel, non‐grouted brick are used in parking stalls and areas where high pollutant load is expected. TC‐11 – Infiltration Basin – Detention Basins under buildings A & B per plans and Hydrology Report. Provide very high removal effectiveness for pollutant removal. Each basin has 12” of gravel and 24” of suitable bioretention soil integrated below the gravel at the bottom of the basin. TC‐30‐ Vegetated Swale – located at the project southern perimeter. Basically intercepts most runoff not infiltrated by either the porous pavement, detention basins or directly to the surface. Unusual or Special Conditions The project is located in an A0 flood zone with a depth up to 2’ and with groundwater encountered at a minimum depth of six feet below the existing grade per project soils report prepared by Beacon Geotechnical, Inc dated April 25, 2014. Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 239 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Conclusions The project as proposed will not adversely impact flood levels in the area. The BMP’s proposed to mitigate the increased pollutant load meet the requirements for these facilities. Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 240 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Appendix I HydroCad Report Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 241 Area 1 Area 1 Area 2 Area 2 Area 3 Area 3 Area 4 Area 4 Area 5 Area 5 Area 6 Area 6 Area 7 Area 7 Area 8 Area 8 Area 9 Area 9 Site Total Total Routing Diagram for Predevelopment Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company, Printed 9/11/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 242 Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 1.558 83 (Area 1, Area 2, Area 3, Area 4, Area 5, Area 6, Area 7, Area 8, Area 9) 1.558 83 TOTAL AREA Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 243 San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30"Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 1: Area 1 Runoff = 0.11 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 0.015 af, Depth> 1.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,015 83 * 1,249 83 5,264 83 Weighted Average 5,264 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 2: Area 2 Runoff = 0.11 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 0.016 af, Depth> 1.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,474 83 * 1,168 83 5,642 83 Weighted Average 5,642 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 3: Area 3 Runoff = 0.10 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 0.014 af, Depth> 1.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,670 83 * 1,326 83 4,996 83 Weighted Average 4,996 100.00% Pervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 244 San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30"Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 4: Area 4 Runoff = 0.08 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 0.012 af, Depth> 1.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,190 83 * 984 83 4,174 83 Weighted Average 4,174 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 5: Area 5 Runoff = 0.22 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 0.031 af, Depth> 1.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 10,786 83 10,786 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 6: Area 6 Runoff = 0.23 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.030 af, Depth> 1.50" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 6,677 83 * 3,610 83 10,287 83 Weighted Average 10,287 100.00% Pervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 245 San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30"Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 7: Area 7 Runoff = 0.21 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.028 af, Depth> 1.50" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 9,612 83 9,612 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 8: Area 8 Runoff = 0.32 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.042 af, Depth> 1.50" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 11,792 83 * 2,646 83 14,438 83 Weighted Average 14,438 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 9: Area 9 Runoff = 0.06 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.008 af, Depth> 1.50" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 2,646 83 2,646 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Pond Site Total: Total Inflow Area = 1.558 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.50" for 2-year event Inflow = 1.33 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.195 af Primary = 1.33 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.195 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 246 San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60"Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 1: Area 1 Runoff = 0.20 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.026 af, Depth> 2.56" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,015 83 * 1,249 83 5,264 83 Weighted Average 5,264 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 2: Area 2 Runoff = 0.21 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.028 af, Depth> 2.56" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,474 83 * 1,168 83 5,642 83 Weighted Average 5,642 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 3: Area 3 Runoff = 0.19 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.024 af, Depth> 2.56" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,670 83 * 1,326 83 4,996 83 Weighted Average 4,996 100.00% Pervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 247 San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60"Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 4: Area 4 Runoff = 0.16 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.020 af, Depth> 2.56" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,190 83 * 984 83 4,174 83 Weighted Average 4,174 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 5: Area 5 Runoff = 0.41 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.053 af, Depth> 2.56" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 10,786 83 10,786 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 6: Area 6 Runoff = 0.43 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.051 af, Depth> 2.57" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 6,677 83 * 3,610 83 10,287 83 Weighted Average 10,287 100.00% Pervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 248 San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60"Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 7: Area 7 Runoff = 0.40 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.047 af, Depth> 2.57" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 9,612 83 9,612 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 8: Area 8 Runoff = 0.60 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.071 af, Depth> 2.57" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 11,792 83 * 2,646 83 14,438 83 Weighted Average 14,438 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 9: Area 9 Runoff = 0.11 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.013 af, Depth> 2.57" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 2,646 83 2,646 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Pond Site Total: Total Inflow Area = 1.558 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.57" for 10-year event Inflow = 2.51 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.333 af Primary = 2.51 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.333 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 249 San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70"Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 1: Area 1 Runoff = 0.25 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.035 af, Depth> 3.48" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,015 83 * 1,249 83 5,264 83 Weighted Average 5,264 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 2: Area 2 Runoff = 0.27 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.038 af, Depth> 3.48" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,474 83 * 1,168 83 5,642 83 Weighted Average 5,642 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 3: Area 3 Runoff = 0.24 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.033 af, Depth> 3.48" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,670 83 * 1,326 83 4,996 83 Weighted Average 4,996 100.00% Pervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 250 San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70"Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 4: Area 4 Runoff = 0.20 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.028 af, Depth> 3.48" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,190 83 * 984 83 4,174 83 Weighted Average 4,174 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 5: Area 5 Runoff = 0.52 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.072 af, Depth> 3.48" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 10,786 83 10,786 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 6: Area 6 Runoff = 0.52 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.069 af, Depth> 3.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 6,677 83 * 3,610 83 10,287 83 Weighted Average 10,287 100.00% Pervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 251 San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70"Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 7: Area 7 Runoff = 0.49 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.064 af, Depth> 3.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 9,612 83 9,612 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 8: Area 8 Runoff = 0.74 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.096 af, Depth> 3.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 11,792 83 * 2,646 83 14,438 83 Weighted Average 14,438 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 9: Area 9 Runoff = 0.13 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.018 af, Depth> 3.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 2,646 83 2,646 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Pond Site Total: Total Inflow Area = 1.558 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.48" for 25-year event Inflow = 3.20 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.452 af Primary = 3.20 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.452 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 252 San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50"Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 1: Area 1 Runoff = 0.30 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.041 af, Depth> 4.11" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,015 83 * 1,249 83 5,264 83 Weighted Average 5,264 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 2: Area 2 Runoff = 0.32 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.044 af, Depth> 4.11" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,474 83 * 1,168 83 5,642 83 Weighted Average 5,642 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 3: Area 3 Runoff = 0.28 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.039 af, Depth> 4.11" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,670 83 * 1,326 83 4,996 83 Weighted Average 4,996 100.00% Pervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 253 San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50"Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 4: Area 4 Runoff = 0.24 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.033 af, Depth> 4.11" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,190 83 * 984 83 4,174 83 Weighted Average 4,174 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 5: Area 5 Runoff = 0.61 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.085 af, Depth> 4.11" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 10,786 83 10,786 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 6: Area 6 Runoff = 0.62 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.081 af, Depth> 4.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 6,677 83 * 3,610 83 10,287 83 Weighted Average 10,287 100.00% Pervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 254 San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50"Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 7: Area 7 Runoff = 0.58 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.076 af, Depth> 4.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 9,612 83 9,612 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 8: Area 8 Runoff = 0.87 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.114 af, Depth> 4.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 11,792 83 * 2,646 83 14,438 83 Weighted Average 14,438 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 9: Area 9 Runoff = 0.16 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.021 af, Depth> 4.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 2,646 83 2,646 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Pond Site Total: Total Inflow Area = 1.558 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.12" for 50-year event Inflow = 3.77 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.535 af Primary = 3.77 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.535 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 255 San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70"Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 1: Area 1 Runoff = 0.33 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.044 af, Depth> 4.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,015 83 * 1,249 83 5,264 83 Weighted Average 5,264 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 2: Area 2 Runoff = 0.36 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.047 af, Depth> 4.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,474 83 * 1,168 83 5,642 83 Weighted Average 5,642 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 3: Area 3 Runoff = 0.32 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.041 af, Depth> 4.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,670 83 * 1,326 83 4,996 83 Weighted Average 4,996 100.00% Pervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 256 San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70"Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 4: Area 4 Runoff = 0.26 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.035 af, Depth> 4.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,190 83 * 984 83 4,174 83 Weighted Average 4,174 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 5: Area 5 Runoff = 0.68 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.089 af, Depth> 4.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 10,786 83 10,786 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 6: Area 6 Runoff = 0.69 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.086 af, Depth> 4.35" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 6,677 83 * 3,610 83 10,287 83 Weighted Average 10,287 100.00% Pervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 257 San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70"Predevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 7: Area 7 Runoff = 0.65 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.080 af, Depth> 4.35" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 9,612 83 9,612 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 8: Area 8 Runoff = 0.97 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.120 af, Depth> 4.35" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 11,792 83 * 2,646 83 14,438 83 Weighted Average 14,438 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 9: Area 9 Runoff = 0.18 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.022 af, Depth> 4.35" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 2,646 83 2,646 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Pond Site Total: Total Inflow Area = 1.558 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.35" for 100-year event Inflow = 4.24 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.564 af Primary = 4.24 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.564 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 258 Area 1 Area 1 Area 2 Area 2 Area 3 Area 3 Area 4 Area 4 Area 5 Area 5 Area 6 Area 6 Area 7 Area 7 Area 8 Area 8 Area 9 Area 9 A BldgA B Bldg B PP2 Porous Pavers area 2PP3 Porous Pavers area 3 PP4 Porous Pavers area 4 PP6 PP6 Site Total Total Routing Diagram for Postdevelopment Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company, Printed 9/11/2014 HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 259 Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 1.050 98 (Area 3, Area 4, Area 5, Area 6, Area 7, Area 8) 0.150 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (Area 1, Area 8, Area 9) 0.103 98 Hard Surface (Area 2) 0.092 98 Paved parking, HSG C (Area 1) 0.030 98 Porous pavement into gravel below (Area 3) 0.027 98 Porous pavement-into gravel below (Area 2) 0.023 98 porous pavement into gravel below (Area 4) 0.083 98 porous pavers to storage (Area 6) 1.558 96 TOTAL AREA Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 260 San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 1: Area 1 Runoff = 0.15 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.025 af, Depth= 2.45" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description 4,015 98 Paved parking, HSG C 1,249 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 5,264 92 Weighted Average 1,249 23.73% Pervious Area 4,015 76.27% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 2: Area 2 Runoff = 0.18 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.033 af, Depth= 3.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,474 98 Hard Surface * 1,168 98 Porous pavement-into gravel below 5,642 98 Weighted Average 5,642 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 3: Area 3 Runoff = 0.16 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.029 af, Depth= 3.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,670 98 * 1,326 98 Porous pavement into gravel below 4,996 98 Weighted Average 4,996 100.00% Impervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 261 San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 4: Area 4 Runoff = 0.13 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.024 af, Depth= 3.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,190 98 * 984 98 porous pavement into gravel below 4,174 98 Weighted Average 4,174 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 5: Area 5 Runoff = 0.34 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.063 af, Depth= 3.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 10,786 98 10,786 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 6: Area 6 Runoff = 0.34 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.060 af, Depth= 3.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 6,677 98 * 3,610 98 porous pavers to storage 10,287 98 Weighted Average 10,287 100.00% Impervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 262 San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 7: Area 7 Runoff = 0.32 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.056 af, Depth= 3.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 9,612 98 9,612 100.00% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 8: Area 8 Runoff = 0.45 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.073 af, Depth= 2.64" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description * 11,792 98 2,646 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 14,438 94 Weighted Average 2,646 18.33% Pervious Area 11,792 81.67% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 9: Area 9 Runoff = 0.04 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af, Depth= 1.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30" Area (sf) CN Description 2,646 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2,646 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Pond A: BldgA Inflow Area = 0.457 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.48" for 2-year event Inflow = 0.32 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.056 af Outflow = 0.19 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.056 af, Atten= 39%, Lag= 3.2 min Discarded = 0.19 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.056 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 162.04' @ 12.25 hrs Surf.Area= 0.191 ac Storage= 0.003 af Plug-Flow detention time= 6.2 min calculated for 0.056 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 6.2 min ( 763.6 - 757.4 ) Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 263 San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 162.00' 0.077 af 91.30'W x 91.30'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid 0.191 af Overall x 40.0% Voids #2 163.00' 0.200 af 91.30'W x 91.30'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=2.0 0.276 af Total Available Storage Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 162.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 162.60'4.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Primary 163.75'40.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.19 cfs @ 12.25 hrs HW=162.04' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.19 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=162.00' (Free Discharge) 2=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond B: Bldg B Inflow Area = 0.708 ac, 95.95% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.31" for 2-year event Inflow = 0.68 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.078 af Outflow = 0.25 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume= 0.078 af, Atten= 63%, Lag= 10.1 min Discarded = 0.07 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 0.061 af Primary = 0.18 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume= 0.017 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 164.35' @ 12.47 hrs Surf.Area= 0.074 ac Storage= 0.010 af Plug-Flow detention time= 14.4 min calculated for 0.077 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 14.4 min ( 785.3 - 770.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 164.00' 0.029 af 56.60'W x 56.60'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid 0.074 af Overall x 40.0% Voids #2 165.00' 0.079 af 56.60'W x 56.60'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=2.0 0.108 af Total Available Storage Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 164.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 164.00'4.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.07 cfs @ 12.47 hrs HW=164.35' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.07 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.18 cfs @ 12.46 hrs HW=164.35' (Free Discharge) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.18 cfs @ 2.06 fps) Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 264 San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond PP2: Porous Pavers area 2 Inflow Area = 0.250 ac, 88.55% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.77" for 2-year event Inflow = 0.32 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.058 af Outflow = 0.39 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.058 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.043 af Primary = 0.36 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.014 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 166.01' @ 12.20 hrs Surf.Area= 0.027 ac Storage= 0.008 af Plug-Flow detention time= 86.0 min calculated for 0.058 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 86.0 min ( 877.3 - 791.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 165.30' 0.008 af 73.00'W x 16.00'L x 0.75'H Prismatoid 0.020 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 165.30'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 166.00'76.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=166.01' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.35 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=166.01' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.35 cfs @ 0.33 fps) Summary for Pond PP3: Porous Pavers area 3 Inflow Area = 0.115 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.07" for 2-year event Inflow = 0.16 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.029 af Outflow = 0.03 cfs @ 13.15 hrs, Volume= 0.029 af, Atten= 81%, Lag= 52.5 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 13.15 hrs, Volume= 0.029 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 166.72' @ 13.15 hrs Surf.Area= 0.030 ac Storage= 0.004 af Plug-Flow detention time= 29.4 min calculated for 0.029 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 29.4 min ( 796.1 - 766.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 166.40' 0.009 af 18.40'W x 72.00'L x 0.75'H Prismatoid 0.023 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 265 San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 166.40'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 167.10'75.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 13.15 hrs HW=166.72' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=166.40' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond PP4: Porous Pavers area 4 Inflow Area = 0.096 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.07" for 2-year event Inflow = 0.13 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.024 af Outflow = 0.02 cfs @ 13.64 hrs, Volume= 0.024 af, Atten= 83%, Lag= 81.4 min Discarded = 0.02 cfs @ 13.64 hrs, Volume= 0.024 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 166.66' @ 13.64 hrs Surf.Area= 0.023 ac Storage= 0.004 af Plug-Flow detention time= 42.5 min calculated for 0.024 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 42.5 min ( 809.2 - 766.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 166.25' 0.007 af 18.00'W x 55.00'L x 0.75'H Prismatoid 0.017 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 166.25'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 166.90'32.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 13.64 hrs HW=166.66' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.02 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=166.25' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond PP6: PP6 Inflow Area = 0.236 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.07" for 2-year event Inflow = 0.34 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.060 af Outflow = 0.08 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume= 0.060 af, Atten= 75%, Lag= 15.6 min Discarded = 0.08 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume= 0.060 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 266 San_Luis_Obispo D 2-year Rainfall=3.30"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 164.19' @ 12.46 hrs Surf.Area= 0.083 ac Storage= 0.006 af Plug-Flow detention time= 12.8 min calculated for 0.060 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 12.8 min ( 770.2 - 757.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 164.00' 0.022 af 60.30'W x 60.30'L x 0.67'H Prismatoid 0.056 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 164.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 164.65'165.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.08 cfs @ 12.46 hrs HW=164.18' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.08 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=164.00' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond Site Total: Total Inflow Area = 1.558 ac, 90.36% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.73" for 2-year event Inflow = 0.53 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.095 af Primary = 0.53 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.095 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 267 San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 1: Area 1 Runoff = 0.25 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.037 af, Depth= 3.70" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description 4,015 98 Paved parking, HSG C 1,249 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 5,264 92 Weighted Average 1,249 23.73% Pervious Area 4,015 76.27% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 2: Area 2 Runoff = 0.28 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.047 af, Depth= 4.36" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,474 98 Hard Surface * 1,168 98 Porous pavement-into gravel below 5,642 98 Weighted Average 5,642 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 3: Area 3 Runoff = 0.25 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.042 af, Depth= 4.36" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,670 98 * 1,326 98 Porous pavement into gravel below 4,996 98 Weighted Average 4,996 100.00% Impervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 268 San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 4: Area 4 Runoff = 0.21 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.035 af, Depth= 4.36" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,190 98 * 984 98 porous pavement into gravel below 4,174 98 Weighted Average 4,174 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 5: Area 5 Runoff = 0.54 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.090 af, Depth= 4.36" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 10,786 98 10,786 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 6: Area 6 Runoff = 0.54 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.086 af, Depth= 4.36" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 6,677 98 * 3,610 98 porous pavers to storage 10,287 98 Weighted Average 10,287 100.00% Impervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 269 San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 7: Area 7 Runoff = 0.51 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.080 af, Depth= 4.36" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 9,612 98 9,612 100.00% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 8: Area 8 Runoff = 0.73 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.108 af, Depth= 3.91" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description * 11,792 98 2,646 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 14,438 94 Weighted Average 2,646 18.33% Pervious Area 11,792 81.67% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 9: Area 9 Runoff = 0.08 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Depth= 2.05" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60" Area (sf) CN Description 2,646 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2,646 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Pond A: BldgA Inflow Area = 0.457 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.11" for 10-year event Inflow = 0.51 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.080 af Outflow = 0.19 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 0.080 af, Atten= 62%, Lag= 5.5 min Discarded = 0.19 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 0.080 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 162.10' @ 12.29 hrs Surf.Area= 0.191 ac Storage= 0.008 af Plug-Flow detention time= 8.6 min calculated for 0.080 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 8.6 min ( 757.2 - 748.6 ) Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 270 San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 162.00' 0.077 af 91.30'W x 91.30'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid 0.191 af Overall x 40.0% Voids #2 163.00' 0.200 af 91.30'W x 91.30'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=2.0 0.276 af Total Available Storage Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 162.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 162.60'4.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Primary 163.75'40.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.19 cfs @ 12.29 hrs HW=162.10' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.19 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=162.00' (Free Discharge) 2=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond B: Bldg B Inflow Area = 0.708 ac, 95.95% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.28" for 10-year event Inflow = 1.17 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.135 af Outflow = 0.42 cfs @ 12.51 hrs, Volume= 0.135 af, Atten= 64%, Lag= 10.5 min Discarded = 0.07 cfs @ 12.51 hrs, Volume= 0.074 af Primary = 0.34 cfs @ 12.51 hrs, Volume= 0.060 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 164.84' @ 12.51 hrs Surf.Area= 0.074 ac Storage= 0.025 af Plug-Flow detention time= 23.8 min calculated for 0.135 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 23.8 min ( 788.2 - 764.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 164.00' 0.029 af 56.60'W x 56.60'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid 0.074 af Overall x 40.0% Voids #2 165.00' 0.079 af 56.60'W x 56.60'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=2.0 0.108 af Total Available Storage Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 164.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 164.00'4.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.07 cfs @ 12.51 hrs HW=164.84' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.07 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.34 cfs @ 12.51 hrs HW=164.84' (Free Discharge) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.34 cfs @ 3.95 fps) Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 271 San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond PP2: Porous Pavers area 2 Inflow Area = 0.250 ac, 88.55% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.04" for 10-year event Inflow = 0.53 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af Outflow = 0.53 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.084 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.1 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.047 af Primary = 0.50 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.037 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 166.02' @ 12.28 hrs Surf.Area= 0.027 ac Storage= 0.008 af Plug-Flow detention time= 70.7 min calculated for 0.084 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 70.7 min ( 848.5 - 777.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 165.30' 0.008 af 73.00'W x 16.00'L x 0.75'H Prismatoid 0.020 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 165.30'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 166.00'76.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=166.02' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.49 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=166.02' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.49 cfs @ 0.37 fps) Summary for Pond PP3: Porous Pavers area 3 Inflow Area = 0.115 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.36" for 10-year event Inflow = 0.25 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.042 af Outflow = 0.09 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 0.042 af, Atten= 65%, Lag= 17.0 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 0.039 af Primary = 0.06 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 0.003 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 167.10' @ 12.55 hrs Surf.Area= 0.030 ac Storage= 0.009 af Plug-Flow detention time= 82.7 min calculated for 0.042 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 82.7 min ( 840.5 - 757.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 166.40' 0.009 af 18.40'W x 72.00'L x 0.75'H Prismatoid 0.023 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 272 San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 166.40'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 167.10'75.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 12.55 hrs HW=167.10' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 12.56 hrs HW=167.10' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.04 cfs @ 0.16 fps) Summary for Pond PP4: Porous Pavers area 4 Inflow Area = 0.096 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.36" for 10-year event Inflow = 0.21 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.035 af Outflow = 0.28 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 0.035 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 4.5 min Discarded = 0.02 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 0.030 af Primary = 0.25 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 0.005 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 166.92' @ 12.35 hrs Surf.Area= 0.023 ac Storage= 0.006 af Plug-Flow detention time= 73.6 min calculated for 0.035 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 73.5 min ( 831.4 - 757.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 166.25' 0.007 af 18.00'W x 55.00'L x 0.75'H Prismatoid 0.017 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 166.25'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 166.90'32.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 12.35 hrs HW=166.92' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.02 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.23 cfs @ 12.35 hrs HW=166.92' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.23 cfs @ 0.39 fps) Summary for Pond PP6: PP6 Inflow Area = 0.236 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.36" for 10-year event Inflow = 0.54 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.086 af Outflow = 0.08 cfs @ 13.54 hrs, Volume= 0.086 af, Atten= 84%, Lag= 80.5 min Discarded = 0.08 cfs @ 13.54 hrs, Volume= 0.086 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 273 San_Luis_Obispo D 10-year Rainfall=4.60"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 164.47' @ 13.54 hrs Surf.Area= 0.083 ac Storage= 0.016 af Plug-Flow detention time= 50.8 min calculated for 0.086 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 50.8 min ( 799.3 - 748.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 164.00' 0.022 af 60.30'W x 60.30'L x 0.67'H Prismatoid 0.056 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 164.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 164.65'165.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.08 cfs @ 13.54 hrs HW=164.47' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.08 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=164.00' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond Site Total: Total Inflow Area = 1.558 ac, 90.36% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.38" for 10-year event Inflow = 1.05 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.179 af Primary = 1.05 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.179 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 274 San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 1: Area 1 Runoff = 0.30 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.048 af, Depth= 4.77" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description 4,015 98 Paved parking, HSG C 1,249 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 5,264 92 Weighted Average 1,249 23.73% Pervious Area 4,015 76.27% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 2: Area 2 Runoff = 0.34 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.059 af, Depth= 5.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,474 98 Hard Surface * 1,168 98 Porous pavement-into gravel below 5,642 98 Weighted Average 5,642 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 3: Area 3 Runoff = 0.30 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.052 af, Depth= 5.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,670 98 * 1,326 98 Porous pavement into gravel below 4,996 98 Weighted Average 4,996 100.00% Impervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 275 San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 4: Area 4 Runoff = 0.25 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.044 af, Depth= 5.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,190 98 * 984 98 porous pavement into gravel below 4,174 98 Weighted Average 4,174 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 5: Area 5 Runoff = 0.64 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.113 af, Depth= 5.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 10,786 98 10,786 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 6: Area 6 Runoff = 0.64 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.107 af, Depth= 5.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 6,677 98 * 3,610 98 porous pavers to storage 10,287 98 Weighted Average 10,287 100.00% Impervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 276 San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 19HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 7: Area 7 Runoff = 0.60 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.100 af, Depth= 5.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 9,612 98 9,612 100.00% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 8: Area 8 Runoff = 0.87 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.138 af, Depth= 5.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 11,792 98 2,646 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 14,438 94 Weighted Average 2,646 18.33% Pervious Area 11,792 81.67% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 9: Area 9 Runoff = 0.11 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.015 af, Depth= 2.93" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70" Area (sf) CN Description 2,646 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2,646 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Pond A: BldgA Inflow Area = 0.457 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.71" for 25-year event Inflow = 0.60 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.103 af Outflow = 0.19 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.103 af, Atten= 68%, Lag= 6.4 min Discarded = 0.19 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.103 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 162.13' @ 12.31 hrs Surf.Area= 0.191 ac Storage= 0.010 af Plug-Flow detention time= 11.0 min calculated for 0.103 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 11.0 min ( 757.1 - 746.1 ) Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 277 San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 20HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 162.00' 0.077 af 91.30'W x 91.30'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid 0.191 af Overall x 40.0% Voids #2 163.00' 0.200 af 91.30'W x 91.30'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=2.0 0.276 af Total Available Storage Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 162.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 162.60'4.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Primary 163.75'40.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.19 cfs @ 12.31 hrs HW=162.13' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.19 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=162.00' (Free Discharge) 2=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond B: Bldg B Inflow Area = 0.708 ac, 95.95% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.15" for 25-year event Inflow = 1.82 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.186 af Outflow = 0.55 cfs @ 12.51 hrs, Volume= 0.186 af, Atten= 70%, Lag= 12.7 min Discarded = 0.15 cfs @ 12.51 hrs, Volume= 0.090 af Primary = 0.40 cfs @ 12.51 hrs, Volume= 0.096 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 165.09' @ 12.51 hrs Surf.Area= 0.148 ac Storage= 0.036 af Plug-Flow detention time= 28.2 min calculated for 0.186 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 28.1 min ( 789.7 - 761.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 164.00' 0.029 af 56.60'W x 56.60'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid 0.074 af Overall x 40.0% Voids #2 165.00' 0.079 af 56.60'W x 56.60'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=2.0 0.108 af Total Available Storage Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 164.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 164.00'4.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.15 cfs @ 12.51 hrs HW=165.09' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.15 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.40 cfs @ 12.51 hrs HW=165.09' (Free Discharge) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.40 cfs @ 4.62 fps) Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 278 San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 21HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond PP2: Porous Pavers area 2 Inflow Area = 0.250 ac, 88.55% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.13" for 25-year event Inflow = 0.63 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.107 af Outflow = 0.63 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.107 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.1 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.051 af Primary = 0.60 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.056 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 166.02' @ 12.28 hrs Surf.Area= 0.027 ac Storage= 0.008 af Plug-Flow detention time= 67.1 min calculated for 0.107 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 67.1 min ( 839.3 - 772.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 165.30' 0.008 af 73.00'W x 16.00'L x 0.75'H Prismatoid 0.020 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 165.30'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 166.00'76.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=166.02' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.59 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=166.02' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.59 cfs @ 0.39 fps) Summary for Pond PP3: Porous Pavers area 3 Inflow Area = 0.115 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.46" for 25-year event Inflow = 0.30 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.052 af Outflow = 0.38 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.052 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 1.8 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.044 af Primary = 0.35 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.008 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 167.11' @ 12.30 hrs Surf.Area= 0.030 ac Storage= 0.009 af Plug-Flow detention time= 79.8 min calculated for 0.052 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 79.8 min ( 833.7 - 753.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 166.40' 0.009 af 18.40'W x 72.00'L x 0.75'H Prismatoid 0.023 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 279 San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 22HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 166.40'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 167.10'75.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 12.30 hrs HW=167.11' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.31 cfs @ 12.31 hrs HW=167.11' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.31 cfs @ 0.32 fps) Summary for Pond PP4: Porous Pavers area 4 Inflow Area = 0.096 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.46" for 25-year event Inflow = 0.25 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.044 af Outflow = 0.28 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.044 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.02 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.034 af Primary = 0.26 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.009 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 166.92' @ 12.20 hrs Surf.Area= 0.023 ac Storage= 0.006 af Plug-Flow detention time= 72.5 min calculated for 0.044 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 72.4 min ( 826.3 - 753.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 166.25' 0.007 af 18.00'W x 55.00'L x 0.75'H Prismatoid 0.017 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 166.25'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 166.90'32.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=166.92' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.02 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.25 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=166.92' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.25 cfs @ 0.40 fps) Summary for Pond PP6: PP6 Inflow Area = 0.236 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.46" for 25-year event Inflow = 0.64 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.107 af Outflow = 0.14 cfs @ 12.86 hrs, Volume= 0.107 af, Atten= 79%, Lag= 39.6 min Discarded = 0.08 cfs @ 12.85 hrs, Volume= 0.105 af Primary = 0.05 cfs @ 12.86 hrs, Volume= 0.003 af Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 280 San_Luis_Obispo D 25-year Rainfall=5.70"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 23HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 164.65' @ 12.85 hrs Surf.Area= 0.083 ac Storage= 0.022 af Plug-Flow detention time= 76.3 min calculated for 0.107 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 76.2 min ( 820.8 - 744.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 164.00' 0.022 af 60.30'W x 60.30'L x 0.67'H Prismatoid 0.056 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 164.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 164.65'165.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.08 cfs @ 12.85 hrs HW=164.65' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.08 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 12.86 hrs HW=164.65' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.02 cfs @ 0.10 fps) Summary for Pond Site Total: Total Inflow Area = 1.558 ac, 90.36% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.92" for 25-year event Inflow = 1.28 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.249 af Primary = 1.28 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.249 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 281 San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 24HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 1: Area 1 Runoff = 0.34 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.056 af, Depth= 5.56" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description 4,015 98 Paved parking, HSG C 1,249 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 5,264 92 Weighted Average 1,249 23.73% Pervious Area 4,015 76.27% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 2: Area 2 Runoff = 0.38 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.068 af, Depth= 6.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,474 98 Hard Surface * 1,168 98 Porous pavement-into gravel below 5,642 98 Weighted Average 5,642 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 3: Area 3 Runoff = 0.34 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.060 af, Depth= 6.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,670 98 * 1,326 98 Porous pavement into gravel below 4,996 98 Weighted Average 4,996 100.00% Impervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 282 San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 25HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 4: Area 4 Runoff = 0.28 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af, Depth= 6.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,190 98 * 984 98 porous pavement into gravel below 4,174 98 Weighted Average 4,174 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 5: Area 5 Runoff = 0.73 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.129 af, Depth= 6.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 10,786 98 10,786 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 6: Area 6 Runoff = 0.73 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.123 af, Depth= 6.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 6,677 98 * 3,610 98 porous pavers to storage 10,287 98 Weighted Average 10,287 100.00% Impervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 283 San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 26HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 7: Area 7 Runoff = 0.68 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.115 af, Depth= 6.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 9,612 98 9,612 100.00% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 8: Area 8 Runoff = 1.00 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.160 af, Depth= 5.79" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description * 11,792 98 2,646 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 14,438 94 Weighted Average 2,646 18.33% Pervious Area 11,792 81.67% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 9: Area 9 Runoff = 0.14 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.018 af, Depth= 3.61" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description 2,646 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2,646 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Pond A: BldgA Inflow Area = 0.457 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.20" for 50-year event Inflow = 0.68 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.122 af Outflow = 0.19 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 0.122 af, Atten= 72%, Lag= 24.0 min Discarded = 0.19 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 0.122 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 162.18' @ 12.60 hrs Surf.Area= 0.191 ac Storage= 0.014 af Plug-Flow detention time= 16.8 min calculated for 0.122 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 16.8 min ( 761.2 - 744.4 ) Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 284 San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 27HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 162.00' 0.077 af 91.30'W x 91.30'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid 0.191 af Overall x 40.0% Voids #2 163.00' 0.200 af 91.30'W x 91.30'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=2.0 0.276 af Total Available Storage Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 162.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 162.60'4.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Primary 163.75'40.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.19 cfs @ 12.60 hrs HW=162.18' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.19 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=162.00' (Free Discharge) 2=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond B: Bldg B Inflow Area = 0.708 ac, 95.95% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.72" for 50-year event Inflow = 2.02 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.220 af Outflow = 0.58 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.220 af, Atten= 71%, Lag= 16.1 min Discarded = 0.15 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.105 af Primary = 0.43 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.114 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 165.19' @ 12.54 hrs Surf.Area= 0.149 ac Storage= 0.044 af Plug-Flow detention time= 30.2 min calculated for 0.219 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 30.1 min ( 793.2 - 763.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 164.00' 0.029 af 56.60'W x 56.60'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid 0.074 af Overall x 40.0% Voids #2 165.00' 0.079 af 56.60'W x 56.60'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=2.0 0.108 af Total Available Storage Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 164.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 164.00'4.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.15 cfs @ 12.54 hrs HW=165.19' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.15 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.43 cfs @ 12.54 hrs HW=165.19' (Free Discharge) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.43 cfs @ 4.88 fps) Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 285 San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 28HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond PP2: Porous Pavers area 2 Inflow Area = 0.250 ac, 88.55% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.92" for 50-year event Inflow = 0.72 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.124 af Outflow = 0.72 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.124 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.055 af Primary = 0.69 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.068 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 166.02' @ 12.28 hrs Surf.Area= 0.027 ac Storage= 0.008 af Plug-Flow detention time= 65.0 min calculated for 0.123 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 65.1 min ( 835.3 - 770.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 165.30' 0.008 af 73.00'W x 16.00'L x 0.75'H Prismatoid 0.020 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 165.30'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 166.00'76.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=166.02' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.68 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=166.02' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.68 cfs @ 0.41 fps) Summary for Pond PP3: Porous Pavers area 3 Inflow Area = 0.115 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.26" for 50-year event Inflow = 0.34 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.060 af Outflow = 0.39 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.060 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 12.25 hrs, Volume= 0.049 af Primary = 0.36 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 167.11' @ 12.25 hrs Surf.Area= 0.030 ac Storage= 0.009 af Plug-Flow detention time= 81.9 min calculated for 0.060 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 81.9 min ( 833.9 - 752.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 166.40' 0.009 af 18.40'W x 72.00'L x 0.75'H Prismatoid 0.023 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 286 San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 29HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 166.40'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 167.10'75.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 12.25 hrs HW=167.11' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.31 cfs @ 12.27 hrs HW=167.11' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.31 cfs @ 0.32 fps) Summary for Pond PP4: Porous Pavers area 4 Inflow Area = 0.096 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.26" for 50-year event Inflow = 0.28 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af Outflow = 0.28 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.2 min Discarded = 0.02 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.038 af Primary = 0.26 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.012 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 166.92' @ 12.28 hrs Surf.Area= 0.023 ac Storage= 0.006 af Plug-Flow detention time= 74.7 min calculated for 0.050 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 74.7 min ( 826.8 - 752.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 166.25' 0.007 af 18.00'W x 55.00'L x 0.75'H Prismatoid 0.017 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 166.25'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 166.90'32.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=166.92' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.02 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.25 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=166.92' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.25 cfs @ 0.39 fps) Summary for Pond PP6: PP6 Inflow Area = 0.236 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.26" for 50-year event Inflow = 0.73 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.123 af Outflow = 0.31 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.123 af, Atten= 58%, Lag= 6.2 min Discarded = 0.08 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.116 af Primary = 0.22 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.007 af Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 287 San_Luis_Obispo D 50-year Rainfall=6.50"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 30HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 164.66' @ 12.30 hrs Surf.Area= 0.083 ac Storage= 0.022 af Plug-Flow detention time= 75.5 min calculated for 0.123 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 75.4 min ( 818.2 - 742.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 164.00' 0.022 af 60.30'W x 60.30'L x 0.67'H Prismatoid 0.056 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 164.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 164.65'165.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.08 cfs @ 12.30 hrs HW=164.66' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.08 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.19 cfs @ 12.30 hrs HW=164.66' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.19 cfs @ 0.21 fps) Summary for Pond Site Total: Total Inflow Area = 1.558 ac, 90.36% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.25" for 50-year event Inflow = 1.47 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.292 af Primary = 1.47 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.292 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 288 San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 31HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 1: Area 1 Runoff = 0.38 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.058 af, Depth= 5.76" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description 4,015 98 Paved parking, HSG C 1,249 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 5,264 92 Weighted Average 1,249 23.73% Pervious Area 4,015 76.27% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 2: Area 2 Runoff = 0.43 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.070 af, Depth= 6.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 4,474 98 Hard Surface * 1,168 98 Porous pavement-into gravel below 5,642 98 Weighted Average 5,642 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 3: Area 3 Runoff = 0.38 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.062 af, Depth= 6.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,670 98 * 1,326 98 Porous pavement into gravel below 4,996 98 Weighted Average 4,996 100.00% Impervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 289 San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 32HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 4: Area 4 Runoff = 0.31 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.052 af, Depth= 6.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 3,190 98 * 984 98 porous pavement into gravel below 4,174 98 Weighted Average 4,174 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 5: Area 5 Runoff = 0.81 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.133 af, Depth= 6.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 10,786 98 10,786 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment Area 6: Area 6 Runoff = 0.81 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.127 af, Depth= 6.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 6,677 98 * 3,610 98 porous pavers to storage 10,287 98 Weighted Average 10,287 100.00% Impervious Area Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 290 San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 33HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Area 7: Area 7 Runoff = 0.76 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.119 af, Depth= 6.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 9,612 98 9,612 100.00% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 8: Area 8 Runoff = 1.12 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.165 af, Depth= 5.99" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description * 11,792 98 2,646 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 14,438 94 Weighted Average 2,646 18.33% Pervious Area 11,792 81.67% Impervious Area Summary for Subcatchment Area 9: Area 9 Runoff = 0.15 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.019 af, Depth= 3.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70" Area (sf) CN Description 2,646 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2,646 100.00% Pervious Area Summary for Pond A: BldgA Inflow Area = 0.457 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.49" for 100-year event Inflow = 1.50 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.133 af Outflow = 0.19 cfs @ 12.82 hrs, Volume= 0.133 af, Atten= 87%, Lag= 36.8 min Discarded = 0.19 cfs @ 12.82 hrs, Volume= 0.133 af Primary = 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0.000 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 162.29' @ 12.82 hrs Surf.Area= 0.191 ac Storage= 0.022 af Plug-Flow detention time= 30.4 min calculated for 0.133 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 30.4 min ( 774.8 - 744.4 ) Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 291 San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 34HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 162.00' 0.077 af 91.30'W x 91.30'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid 0.191 af Overall x 40.0% Voids #2 163.00' 0.200 af 91.30'W x 91.30'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=2.0 0.276 af Total Available Storage Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 162.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 162.60'4.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Primary 163.75'40.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.19 cfs @ 12.82 hrs HW=162.29' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.19 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=162.00' (Free Discharge) 2=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Summary for Pond B: Bldg B Inflow Area = 0.708 ac, 95.95% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.99" for 100-year event Inflow = 2.27 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 0.235 af Outflow = 0.60 cfs @ 12.57 hrs, Volume= 0.235 af, Atten= 73%, Lag= 16.6 min Discarded = 0.15 cfs @ 12.57 hrs, Volume= 0.105 af Primary = 0.45 cfs @ 12.57 hrs, Volume= 0.131 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 165.32' @ 12.57 hrs Surf.Area= 0.150 ac Storage= 0.053 af Plug-Flow detention time= 34.4 min calculated for 0.235 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 34.4 min ( 794.3 - 759.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 164.00' 0.029 af 56.60'W x 56.60'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid 0.074 af Overall x 40.0% Voids #2 165.00' 0.079 af 56.60'W x 56.60'L x 1.00'H Prismatoid Z=2.0 0.108 af Total Available Storage Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 164.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 164.00'4.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.15 cfs @ 12.57 hrs HW=165.32' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.15 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.45 cfs @ 12.57 hrs HW=165.32' (Free Discharge) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.45 cfs @ 5.16 fps) Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 292 San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 35HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond PP2: Porous Pavers area 2 Inflow Area = 0.250 ac, 88.55% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.12" for 100-year event Inflow = 0.81 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.128 af Outflow = 0.80 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.128 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.1 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.054 af Primary = 0.78 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.073 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 166.02' @ 12.28 hrs Surf.Area= 0.027 ac Storage= 0.008 af Plug-Flow detention time= 61.1 min calculated for 0.128 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 61.2 min ( 829.5 - 768.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 165.30' 0.008 af 73.00'W x 16.00'L x 0.75'H Prismatoid 0.020 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 165.30'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 166.00'76.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=166.02' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.76 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=166.02' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.76 cfs @ 0.43 fps) Summary for Pond PP3: Porous Pavers area 3 Inflow Area = 0.115 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.46" for 100-year event Inflow = 0.38 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.062 af Outflow = 0.45 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.062 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Discarded = 0.03 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.048 af Primary = 0.42 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.014 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 167.12' @ 12.20 hrs Surf.Area= 0.030 ac Storage= 0.009 af Plug-Flow detention time= 77.5 min calculated for 0.062 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 77.5 min ( 828.7 - 751.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 166.40' 0.009 af 18.40'W x 72.00'L x 0.75'H Prismatoid 0.023 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 293 San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 36HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 166.40'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 167.10'75.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.03 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=167.12' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.03 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.41 cfs @ 12.20 hrs HW=167.12' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.41 cfs @ 0.35 fps) Summary for Pond PP4: Porous Pavers area 4 Inflow Area = 0.096 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.46" for 100-year event Inflow = 0.31 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.052 af Outflow = 0.31 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.052 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.2 min Discarded = 0.02 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.037 af Primary = 0.29 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.015 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 166.92' @ 12.28 hrs Surf.Area= 0.023 ac Storage= 0.006 af Plug-Flow detention time= 70.5 min calculated for 0.052 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 70.5 min ( 821.7 - 751.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 166.25' 0.007 af 18.00'W x 55.00'L x 0.75'H Prismatoid 0.017 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 166.25'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 166.90'32.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=166.92' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.02 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.28 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=166.92' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.28 cfs @ 0.41 fps) Summary for Pond PP6: PP6 Inflow Area = 0.236 ac,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.46" for 100-year event Inflow = 0.81 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.127 af Outflow = 0.85 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.127 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.7 min Discarded = 0.08 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume= 0.113 af Primary = 0.77 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.014 af Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 294 San_Luis_Obispo D 100-year Rainfall=6.70"Postdevelopment Printed 9/11/2014Prepared by Hewlett-Packard Company Page 37HydroCAD® 10.00-12 s/n 04223 © 2014 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 164.67' @ 12.22 hrs Surf.Area= 0.083 ac Storage= 0.022 af Plug-Flow detention time= 72.7 min calculated for 0.127 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 72.7 min ( 814.7 - 741.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 164.00' 0.022 af 60.30'W x 60.30'L x 0.67'H Prismatoid 0.056 af Overall x 40.0% Voids Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 164.00'1.000 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area Conductivity to Groundwater Elevation = 0.00' #2 Primary 164.65'165.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.08 cfs @ 12.22 hrs HW=164.66' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration ( Controls 0.08 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.67 cfs @ 12.21 hrs HW=164.66' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.67 cfs @ 0.32 fps) Summary for Pond Site Total: Total Inflow Area = 1.558 ac, 90.36% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.43" for 100-year event Inflow = 1.66 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.315 af Primary = 1.66 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.315 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-48.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 295 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Appendix II HEC‐RAS Report Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 296 gallagher.rep HEC-RAS Version 4.1.0 Jan 2010 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center 609 Second Street Davis, California X X XXXXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXX XXXX X XXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXX XXXX X X X X XXXXX********************************************************************************PROJECT DATAProject Title: Bridge St bigger bridgeProject File : gallagher.prjRun Date and Time: 9/11/2014 6:56:48 AMProject in English units********************************************************************************PLAN DATAPlan Title: Plan 48Plan File : C:\!Work\Gallagher\HEC-RAS rev 9-10-14\gallagher.p48 Geometry Title: Ex after bridge street Geometry File : C:\!Work\Gallagher\HEC-RAS rev 9-10-14\gallagher.g04 Flow Title : start at fema bfe at bb st Flow File : C:\!Work\Gallagher\HEC-RAS rev 9-10-14\gallagher.f04Plan Summary Information:Number of: Cross Sections = 13 Multiple Openings = 0 Culverts = 1 Inline Structures = 0 Bridges = 0 Lateral Structures = 0Page 1Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 297 gallagher.repComputational Information Water surface calculation tolerance = 0.01 Critical depth calculation tolerance = 0.01 Maximum number of iterations = 20 Maximum difference tolerance = 0.3 Flow tolerance factor = 0.001 Computation Options Critical depth computed only where necessary Conveyance Calculation Method: At breaks in n values only Friction Slope Method: Average Conveyance Computational Flow Regime: Subcritical Flow********************************************************************************FLOW DATAFlow Title: start at fema bfe at bb stFlow File : C:\!Work\Gallagher\HEC-RAS rev 9-10-14\gallagher.f04Flow Data (cfs)****************************************************************************************************************************** River Reach RS * PF 1 PF 2 PF 3 PF 4 PF 5 ** Meadow Creek Bridge St Neighb1371 * 972 867 747 586 320 ******************************************************************************************************************************Boundary Conditions********************************************************************************************************* River Reach Profile * Upstream Downstream ********************************************************************************************************** Meadow Creek Bridge St NeighbPF 1 * Critical Normal S = 0.007 ** Meadow Creek Bridge St NeighbPF 2 * Critical Normal S = 0.007 *****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************GEOMETRY DATAGeometry Title: Ex after bridge streetPage 2Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 298 gallagher.repGeometry File : C:\!Work\Gallagher\HEC-RAS rev 9-10-14\gallagher.g04CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1371 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 13 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 734 168.3 751 162.3 755 162.2 768 165.3 854 166.3 960 167.3 972 167.3 985 166.3 1000 161.3 1017 162.3 1024 162.3 1040 169.3 1092 169.3Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 734 .04 985 .045 1040 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 985 1040 26 26 26 .1 .3Ineffective Flow num= 1 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 734 742 FCROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 166.88 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.16 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 166.72 * Reach Len. (ft) * 26.00 * 26.00 * 26.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 171.72 * 180.75 * ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.002228 * Area (sq ft) * 173.92 * 180.75 * ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 316.08 * 655.92 * ** Top Width (ft) * 214.71 * Top Width (ft) * 165.60 * 49.10 * ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 2.76 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 1.84 * 3.63 * ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 5.42 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 1.06 * 3.68 * ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 20593.9 * Conv. (cfs) * 6696.7 * 13897.1 * ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 26.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 163.01 * 50.87 * ** Min Ch El (ft) * 161.30 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.15 * 0.49 * ** Alpha * 1.31 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1092.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.11 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 2.30 * 2.64 * 1.12 *Page 3Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 299 gallagher.rep* C & E Loss (ft) * 0.05 * Cum SA (acres) * 1.46 * 0.73 * 1.99 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.Warning: The conveyance ratio (upstream conveyance divided by downstream conveyance) is less than 0.7 or greater than 1.4. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1345 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 14 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 750 167.75 762 165.75 767 162.25 781 165.75 891 166.75 972 167.75 984 167.75 996 161.75 1000 161.25 1006 161.75 1008 162.75 1023 163.75 1035 168.75 1136 168.75Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 750 .04 984 .045 1035 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 984 1035 51 51 51 .1 .3Ineffective Flow num= 1 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 750 762 FCROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 166.72 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.62 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 166.10 * Reach Len. (ft) * 51.00 * 51.00 * 51.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * 165.35 * Flow Area (sq ft) * 46.83 * 122.14 * ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.010355 * Area (sq ft) * 47.21 * 122.14 * ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 151.08 * 820.92 * ** Top Width (ft) * 101.35 * Top Width (ft) * 60.00 * 41.35 * ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 5.75 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 3.23 * 6.72 * *Page 4Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 300 gallagher.rep* Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 4.85 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 0.81 * 2.95 * ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 9552.0 * Conv. (cfs) * 1484.7 * 8067.3 * ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 51.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 59.41 * 43.17 * ** Min Ch El (ft) * 161.25 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.51 * 1.83 * ** Alpha * 1.20 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1136.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.34 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 2.23 * 2.55 * 1.12 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.10 * Cum SA (acres) * 1.40 * 0.70 * 1.99 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.Warning: The conveyance ratio (upstream conveyance divided by downstream conveyance) is less than 0.7 or greater than 1.4. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1294 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 20 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 755 190 755 164 763 162 772 165 780 163.8 785 164.9 875 166 963 167 984 167 988 166 998 162 1000 161.2 1015 162 1026 163 1039 168 1114 169 1154 168 1161 168.3 1161 167.8 1182 168.4Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 755 .04 988 .045 1039 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 988 1039 16 16 16 .1 .3CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 166.28 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.27 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 166.01 * Reach Len. (ft) * 16.00 * 16.00 * 16.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 118.58 * 145.58 * *Page 5Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 301 gallagher.rep* E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.004535 * Area (sq ft) * 118.58 * 145.58 * ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 287.83 * 684.17 * ** Top Width (ft) * 167.00 * Top Width (ft) * 121.17 * 45.83 * ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 3.68 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 2.43 * 4.70 * ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 4.81 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 0.98 * 3.18 * ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 14433.8 * Conv. (cfs) * 4274.1 * 10159.7 * ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 16.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 124.13 * 47.38 * ** Min Ch El (ft) * 161.20 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.27 * 0.87 * ** Alpha * 1.28 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1182.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.07 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 2.14 * 2.39 * 1.12 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.00 * Cum SA (acres) * 1.29 * 0.65 * 1.99 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1278 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 22 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 752 190 752 164 762 162 771 165 783 164.1 788 165 883 166 970 167 977 167 986 166 998 161 1000 161 1002 161 1014 162 1024 163 1034 168 1038 169 1071 169 1153 168 1159 168.2 1159 167.7 1177 168.2Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 752 .04 977 .045 1034 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 977 1034 47 47 47 .1 .3CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 166.21 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.29 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * *Page 6Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 302 gallagher.rep* W.S. Elev (ft) * 165.92 * Reach Len. (ft) * 47.00 * 47.00 * 47.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 113.98 * 144.32 * ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.004640 * Area (sq ft) * 113.98 * 144.32 * ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 270.15 * 701.85 * ** Top Width (ft) * 166.65 * Top Width (ft) * 123.02 * 43.63 * ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 3.76 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 2.37 * 4.86 * ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 4.92 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 0.93 * 3.31 * ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 14270.0 * Conv. (cfs) * 3966.1 * 10303.9 * ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 47.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 125.74 * 45.39 * ** Min Ch El (ft) * 161.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.26 * 0.92 * ** Alpha * 1.32 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1177.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.22 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 2.10 * 2.34 * 1.12 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.03 * Cum SA (acres) * 1.25 * 0.63 * 1.99 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1231 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 20 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 828 190 828 164 833 163 838 162 847 164 852 165 863 163.5 879 165 984 166 997 160 1000 160 1003 160 1007 162 1022 162 1032 165 1044 168 1156 168 1168 167.5 1168 167 1186 167.5Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 828 .04 852 .045 1044 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 852 1044 22 22 22 .1 .3CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 165.95 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB *Page 7Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 303 gallagher.rep* Vel Head (ft) * 0.18 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 165.78 * Reach Len. (ft) * 22.00 * 22.00 * 22.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 59.19 * 243.79 * ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.004586 * Area (sq ft) * 59.19 * 243.79 * ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 255.77 * 716.23 * ** Top Width (ft) * 183.42 * Top Width (ft) * 24.00 * 159.42 * ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 3.21 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 4.32 * 2.94 * ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 5.78 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 2.47 * 1.53 * ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 14353.6 * Conv. (cfs) * 3777.0 * 10576.6 * ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 22.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 26.30 * 161.88 * ** Min Ch El (ft) * 160.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.64 * 0.43 * ** Alpha * 1.10 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1186.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.04 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 2.00 * 2.13 * 1.12 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.03 * Cum SA (acres) * 1.17 * 0.52 * 1.99 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.Warning: The conveyance ratio (upstream conveyance divided by downstream conveyance) is less than 0.7 or greater than 1.4. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1209 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 19 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 722 170.5 737 166.5 782 165.5 793 165 802 164.5 832 163.5 924 164.5 966 164.5 977 163.5 989 159.5 1000 159.5 1004 159.5 1014 164.5 1024 165.5 1138 168.5 1145 170.5 1158 166.5 1203 166 1803 172Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 722 .04 977 .045 1014 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 977 1014 153 153 153 .1 .3Page 8Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 304 gallagher.repIneffective Flow num= 2 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 1247 1417 190.5 T 737 795 190.5 TCROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 165.89 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.08 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 165.81 * Reach Len. (ft) * 153.00 * 153.00 * 153.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 303.64 * 184.49 * 9.94 ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.000852 * Area (sq ft) * 313.71 * 184.49 * 9.94 ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 463.05 * 502.58 * 6.37 ** Top Width (ft) * 267.77 * Top Width (ft) * 208.97 * 37.00 * 21.80 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 1.95 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 1.52 * 2.72 * 0.64 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 6.31 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 1.67 * 4.99 * 0.46 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 33297.3 * Conv. (cfs) * 15862.3 * 17216.7 * 218.3 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 153.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 182.08 * 38.83 * 21.85 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 159.50 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.09 * 0.25 * 0.02 ** Alpha * 1.30 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1803.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.10 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 1.91 * 2.02 * 1.12 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.01 * Cum SA (acres) * 1.11 * 0.48 * 1.99 ************************************************************************************************CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1132 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 19 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 722 170 737 166 782 165 793 164.5 802 164 832 163 924 164 966 164 977 163 989 159 1000 159 1004 159 1014 164 1024 165 1138 168 1145 170 1158 166 1203 165.5 1803 171.5Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 722 .04 977 .045 1014 .04Page 9Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 305 gallagher.repBank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 977 1014 36 36 36 .1 .3Ineffective Flow num= 2 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 1247 1417 190 T 737 802 190 TCROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 165.78 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.05 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 165.73 * Reach Len. (ft) * 36.00 * 36.00 * 36.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 369.01 * 199.96 * 27.34 ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.000514 * Area (sq ft) * 405.02 * 199.96 * 27.34 ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 511.12 * 446.59 * 14.29 ** Top Width (ft) * 345.91 * Top Width (ft) * 227.79 * 37.00 * 81.12 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 1.63 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 1.39 * 2.23 * 0.52 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 6.73 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 2.11 * 5.40 * 0.34 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 42854.5 * Conv. (cfs) * 22534.8 * 19689.8 * 629.9 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 36.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 175.07 * 38.83 * 81.18 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 159.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.07 * 0.17 * 0.01 ** Alpha * 1.24 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1803.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.03 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 0.65 * 1.35 * 1.06 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.01 * Cum SA (acres) * 0.34 * 0.35 * 1.81 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.Warning: The conveyance ratio (upstream conveyance divided by downstream conveyance) is less than 0.7 or greater than 1.4. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1096 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 33 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 763 168.2 784 167.9 789 168.5 789 160.8 802 162.5Page 10Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 306 gallagher.rep 802 164.7 810 165.82 810 167 860 167 869 167 959 167 959 165.8 974 165.8 982 163.2 986 158 995 158 1000 158 1014 158 1017 164 1022 164.7 1040 164.8 1040 166 1090 166 1099 166 1142 166 1142 166.3 1159 167 1172 165.2 1172 164.7 1190 165.2 1208 164.7 1208 165.2 1808 170Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 763 .04 974 .045 1040 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 974 1040 69 69 69 .1 .3CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 165.74 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.13 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 165.62 * Reach Len. (ft) * 69.00 * 69.00 * 69.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * 161.29 * Flow Area (sq ft) * 54.60 * 278.20 * 35.61 ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.001357 * Area (sq ft) * 54.60 * 278.20 * 35.61 ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 120.21 * 825.96 * 25.82 ** Top Width (ft) * 176.29 * Top Width (ft) * 19.56 * 65.44 * 91.29 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 2.64 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 2.20 * 2.97 * 0.73 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 7.62 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 2.79 * 4.25 * 0.39 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 26385.0 * Conv. (cfs) * 3263.2 * 22420.8 * 701.0 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 69.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 26.75 * 72.96 * 92.33 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 158.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.17 * 0.32 * 0.03 ** Alpha * 1.16 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1808.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 0.46 * 1.15 * 1.03 ** C & E Loss (ft) * * Cum SA (acres) * 0.24 * 0.30 * 1.74 ************************************************************************************************CULVERT RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1058 INPUTDescription: Distance from Upstream XS = 13Deck/Roadway Width = 40Page 11Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 307 gallagher.repWeir Coefficient = 2.6Upstream Deck/Roadway Coordinates num= 24 Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord************************************************************************ 753 170 150 773 169.33 150 790 168.45 150 790 167.95 150 830 166.5 150 830 167 150 842 166.9 150 853 167.05 150 853 166.65 150 864 166.85 150 969 166.85 150 989 167.77 150 1000 167.89 150 1018 167.23 150 1032 166.58 150 1053 165.85 150 1203 165.85 150 1219 165.59 150 1229 165.2 150 1229 164.7 150 1247 165.2 150 1265 164.7 150 1265 165.2 150 1865 170 150Upstream Bridge Cross Section DataStation Elevation Data num= 33 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 763 168.2 784 167.9 789 168.5 789 160.8 802 162.5 802 164.7 810 165.82 810 167 860 167 869 167 959 167 959 165.8 974 165.8 982 163.2 986 158 995 158 1000 158 1014 158 1017 164 1022 164.7 1040 164.8 1040 166 1090 166 1099 166 1142 166 1142 166.3 1159 167 1172 165.2 1172 164.7 1190 165.2 1208 164.7 1208 165.2 1808 170Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 763 .04 974 .045 1040 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 974 1040 .1 .3Downstream Deck/Roadway Coordinates num= 26 Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord************************************************************************ 783 167.9 150 802 166.8 150 818 166.2 150 835 166.12 150 836 166.4 150 880 166.4 150 903 166.2 150 969 166.7 150 969 166.7 150 987 167 150 991 167.2 150 1000 167.4 150 1009 167.6 150 1016 167.8 150 1018 168 150 1048 166.3 150 1065 165.8 150 1092 165.7 150Page 12Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 308 gallagher.rep 1138 165.5 150 1187 165.3 150 1197 165.2 150 1197 164.7 150 1215 165.2 150 1233 164.7 150 1233 165.2 150 1833 170 150Downstream Bridge Cross Section DataStation Elevation Data num= 25 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 833 171 854 162 867 161 895 164 901 164.5 941 165 972 165 981 164.7 986 158 994 158 998 158 1000 158 1006 158 1011 158 1014 158 1029 163.5 1046 163 1060 163 1143 164 1159 165 1167 165 1191 165 1236 165 1236.1 165.5 1836 171.5Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 833 .04 981 .045 1029 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 981 1029 .1 .3Upstream Embankment side slope = 1 horiz. to 1.0 verticalDownstream Embankment side slope = 1 horiz. to 1.0 verticalMaximum allowable submergence for weir flow = .95Elevation at which weir flow begins = Energy head used in spillway design = Spillway height used in design = Weir crest shape = Broad CrestedNumber of Culverts = 2 Culvert Name Shape Rise SpanCulvert #2 Box 2.67 3.75FHWA Chart # 8 - flared wingwallsFHWA Scale # 1 - Wingwall flared 30 to 75 deg.Solution Criteria = Highest U.S. EGCulvert Upstrm Dist Length Top n Bottom n Depth Blocked Entrance Loss Coef Exit Loss Coef 15 32 .012 .012 0 .5 1Upstream Elevation = 161.5 Centerline Station = 792 Downstream Elevation = 161.2 Centerline Station = 867 Page 13Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 309 gallagher.repCulvert Name Shape Rise SpanCulvert #1 Conspan Arch 5.1 28FHWA Chart # 61- Span/Rise ratio approximate 4:1FHWA Scale # 2 - 45 degree wing wall angleSolution Criteria = Highest U.S. EGCulvert Upstrm Dist Length Top n Bottom n Depth Blocked Entrance Loss Coef Exit Loss Coef 6 40 .012 .03 0 .2 1Upstream Elevation = 158 Centerline Station = 1000 Downstream Elevation = 158 Centerline Station = 1000 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1027 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 25 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 833 171 854 162 867 161 895 164 901 164.5 941 165 972 165 981 164.7 986 158 994 158 998 158 1000 158 1006 158 1011 158 1014 158 1029 163.5 1046 163 1060 163 1143 164 1159 165 1167 165 1191 165 1236 165 1236.1 165.5 1836 171.5Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 833 .04 981 .045 1029 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 981 1029 11 11 11 .1 .3CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 164.56 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.09 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 164.48 * Reach Len. (ft) * 11.00 * 11.00 * 11.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 102.56 * 252.89 * 124.39 ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.000792 * Area (sq ft) * 102.56 * 252.89 * 124.39 *Page 14Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 310 gallagher.rep* Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 166.00 * 674.02 * 131.98 ** Top Width (ft) * 221.95 * Top Width (ft) * 52.50 * 47.83 * 121.62 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 2.03 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 1.62 * 2.67 * 1.06 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 6.48 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 1.95 * 5.29 * 1.02 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 34541.8 * Conv. (cfs) * 5899.3 * 23952.5 * 4690.0 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 11.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 53.22 * 52.06 * 121.65 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 158.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.10 * 0.24 * 0.05 ** Alpha * 1.35 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1836.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.01 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 0.46 * 0.85 * 1.03 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.01 * Cum SA (acres) * 0.18 * 0.21 * 1.57 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1016 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 20 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 863 173 890 161 896 160 917 161 927 162 967 165 973 165 980 164 991 162 996 158 1000 158 1007 158 1011 162 1023 163 1045 163.5 1075 163 1158 164 1241 164 1241.1 164.5 1840 170.5Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 863 .04 980 .045 1023 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 980 1023 16 16 16 .1 .3CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 164.55 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.07 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 164.48 * Reach Len. (ft) * 16.00 * 16.00 * 16.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 192.70 * 151.64 * 185.17 *Page 15Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 311 gallagher.rep* E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.001042 * Area (sq ft) * 192.70 * 151.64 * 185.17 ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 416.57 * 356.58 * 198.85 ** Top Width (ft) * 342.35 * Top Width (ft) * 81.26 * 43.00 * 218.10 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 1.84 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 2.16 * 2.35 * 1.07 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 6.48 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 2.37 * 3.53 * 0.85 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 30110.4 * Conv. (cfs) * 12904.6 * 11046.0 * 6159.9 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 16.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 82.28 * 46.28 * 218.51 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 158.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.15 * 0.21 * 0.06 ** Alpha * 1.27 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1840.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.01 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 0.42 * 0.80 * 0.99 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.00 * Cum SA (acres) * 0.16 * 0.20 * 1.52 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1000 INPUTDescription: DS LimitStation Elevation Data num= 16 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 865 173 892 161 919 160 925 160 933 162 952 163 974 164.5 988 163 1000 157 1010 158 1017 162 1024 162.5 1060 163 1100 164 1166 164 1251 170Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 865 .04 974 .045 1024 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 974 1024 130 130 130 .1 .3Ineffective Flow num= 2 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 1076 1191 190 T 1336 1516 190 TCROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 Page 16Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 312 gallagher.rep************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 164.53 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.06 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 164.47 * Reach Len. (ft) * 130.00 * 130.00 * 130.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 228.31 * 180.10 * 82.08 ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.000846 * Area (sq ft) * 228.31 * 180.10 * 132.84 ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 457.48 * 394.32 * 120.20 ** Top Width (ft) * 287.62 * Top Width (ft) * 89.31 * 49.69 * 148.61 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 1.98 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 2.00 * 2.19 * 1.46 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 7.47 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 2.56 * 3.62 * 1.58 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 33421.8 * Conv. (cfs) * 15730.3 * 13558.6 * 4132.9 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 130.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 90.39 * 52.32 * 52.01 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 157.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.13 * 0.18 * 0.08 ** Alpha * 1.04 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1251.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.19 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 0.34 * 0.74 * 0.93 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.05 * Cum SA (acres) * 0.13 * 0.18 * 1.46 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.Warning: The velocity head has changed by more than 0.5 ft (0.15 m). This may indicate the need for additional cross sections.Warning: The conveyance ratio (upstream conveyance divided by downstream conveyance) is less than 0.7 or greater than 1.4. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 870 INPUTDescription: thru ironworks bldgStation Elevation Data num= 14 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 984 172.26 997 157.5 1000 157.25 1003 157 1014 161.8 1034 162.6 1075 163.1 1201 163.4 1207 163.35 1207 162.99 1227 163.1 1249 162.44 1249 162.9 1270 163.3Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 984 .04 984 .03 1014 .04Page 17Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 313 gallagher.repBank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 984 1014 131 131 131 .1 .3Ineffective Flow num= 1 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 1124 1209 190 TCROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 164.29 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.58 * Wt. n-Val. * * 0.030 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 163.71 * Reach Len. (ft) * 131.00 * 131.00 * 131.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * 163.71 * Flow Area (sq ft) * * 103.08 * 137.28 ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.003237 * Area (sq ft) * * 103.08 * 171.36 ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * * 722.24 * 249.76 ** Top Width (ft) * 278.47 * Top Width (ft) * * 22.47 * 256.00 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 4.04 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * * 7.01 * 1.82 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 6.71 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * * 4.59 * 0.80 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 17083.2 * Conv. (cfs) * * 12693.6 * 4389.6 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 131.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * * 26.29 * 171.90 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 157.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * * 0.79 * 0.16 ** Alpha * 2.28 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1270.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.45 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * * 0.32 * 0.48 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.03 * Cum SA (acres) * * 0.08 * 0.85 ************************************************************************************************Warning: The energy equation could not be balanced within the specified number of iterations. The program used critical depth for the water surface and continued on with the calculations.Warning: The cross-section end points had to be extended vertically for the computed water surface.Warning: The energy loss was greater than 1.0 ft (0.3 m). between the current and previous cross section. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections.Warning: During the standard step iterations, when the assumed water surface was set equal to critical depth, the calculated water surface came back below critical depth. This indicates that there is not a valid subcritical answer. The program defaulted to critical depth.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 740 Page 18Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 314 gallagher.repINPUTDescription: Cl BeeBee st extendedStation Elevation Data num= 16 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 970 174.9 991 165.2 995 157.2 1000 157.5 1008 157.7 1021 161.9 1051 162.4 1126 162.4 1199 162.3 1211 162.7 1216 162.2 1222 161.99 1222 161.52 1241 161.81 1259 161.11 1341 161.8Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 970 .04 991 .03 1021 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 991 1021 0 0 0 .1 .3CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 162.98 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.49 * Wt. n-Val. * * 0.030 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 162.48 * Reach Len. (ft) * * * ** Crit W.S. (ft) * 162.48 * Flow Area (sq ft) * * 106.57 * 147.25 ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.003599 * Area (sq ft) * * 106.57 * 147.25 ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * * 697.83 * 274.17 ** Top Width (ft) * 339.94 * Top Width (ft) * * 28.64 * 311.30 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 3.83 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * * 6.55 * 1.86 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 5.28 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * * 3.72 * 0.47 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 16201.8 * Conv. (cfs) * * 11631.8 * 4570.0 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * * Wetted Per. (ft) * * 32.58 * 312.50 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 157.20 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * * 0.74 * 0.11 ** Alpha * 2.17 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1341.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * * * ** C & E Loss (ft) * * Cum SA (acres) * * * ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.Warning: Slope too steep for slope area to converge during supercritical flow calculations (normal depth is below critical depth). Water surface set to critical depth.********************************************************************************Page 19Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 315 gallagher.repSUMMARY OF MANNING'S N VALUES River:Meadow Creek ****************************************************************** Reach * River Sta. * n1 * n2 * n3 *******************************************************************Bridge St Neighb* 1371 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1345 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1294 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1278 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1231 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1209 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1132 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1096 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1058 *Culvert * * **Bridge St Neighb* 1027 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1016 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1000 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 870 * .04* .03* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 740 * .04* .03* .04**************************************************************************************************************************************************SUMMARY OF REACH LENGTHSRiver: Meadow Creek ****************************************************************** Reach * River Sta. * Left * Channel * Right *******************************************************************Bridge St Neighb* 1371 * 26* 26* 26**Bridge St Neighb* 1345 * 51* 51* 51**Bridge St Neighb* 1294 * 16* 16* 16**Bridge St Neighb* 1278 * 47* 47* 47**Bridge St Neighb* 1231 * 22* 22* 22**Bridge St Neighb* 1209 * 153* 153* 153**Bridge St Neighb* 1132 * 36* 36* 36**Bridge St Neighb* 1096 * 69* 69* 69**Bridge St Neighb* 1058 *Culvert * * **Bridge St Neighb* 1027 * 11* 11* 11**Bridge St Neighb* 1016 * 16* 16* 16**Bridge St Neighb* 1000 * 130* 130* 130**Bridge St Neighb* 870 * 131* 131* 131*Page 20Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 316 gallagher.rep*Bridge St Neighb* 740 * 0* 0* 0******************************************************************Profile Output Table - Standard Table 1********************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Reach * River Sta * Profile * Q Total * Min Ch El * W.S. Elev * Crit W.S. * E.G. Elev * E.G. Slope * Vel Chnl * Flow Area * Top Width * Froude # Chl ** * * * (cfs) * (ft) * (ft) * (ft) * (ft) * (ft/ft) * (ft/s) * (sq ft) * (ft) * *********************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Bridge St Neighb * 1371 * PF 1 * 972.00 * 161.30 * 166.72 * * 166.88 * 0.002228 * 3.63 * 352.47 * 214.71 * 0.33 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1345 * PF 1 * 972.00 * 161.25 * 166.10 * 165.35 * 166.72 * 0.010355 * 6.72 * 168.97 * 101.35 * 0.69 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1294 * PF 1 * 972.00 * 161.20 * 166.01 * * 166.28 * 0.004535 * 4.70 * 264.17 * 167.00 * 0.46 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1278 * PF 1 * 972.00 * 161.00 * 165.92 * * 166.21 * 0.004640 * 4.86 * 258.31 * 166.65 * 0.47 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1231 * PF 1 * 972.00 * 160.00 * 165.78 * * 165.95 * 0.004586 * 2.94 * 302.98 * 183.42 * 0.42 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1209 * PF 1 * 972.00 * 159.50 * 165.81 * * 165.89 * 0.000852 * 2.72 * 498.06 * 267.77 * 0.21 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1132 * PF 1 * 972.00 * 159.00 * 165.73 * * 165.78 * 0.000514 * 2.23 * 596.30 * 345.91 * 0.17 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1096 * PF 1 * 972.00 * 158.00 * 165.62 * 161.29 * 165.74 * 0.001357 * 2.97 * 368.41 * 176.29 * 0.25 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1058 * * Culvert * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1027 * PF 1 * 972.00 * 158.00 * 164.48 * * 164.56 * 0.000792 * 2.67 * 479.84 * 221.95 * 0.20 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1016 * PF 1 * 972.00 * 158.00 * 164.48 * * 164.55 * 0.001042 * 2.35 * 529.51 * 342.35 * 0.22 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1000 * PF 1 * 972.00 * 157.00 * 164.47 * * 164.53 * 0.000846 * 2.19 * 490.49 * 287.62 * 0.20 ** Bridge St Neighb * 870 * PF 1 * 972.00 * 157.00 * 163.71 * 163.71 * 164.29 * 0.003237 * 7.01 * 240.36 * 278.47 * 0.58 ** Bridge St Neighb * 740 * PF 1 * 972.00 * 157.20 * 162.48 * 162.48 * 162.98 * 0.003599 * 6.55 * 253.82 * 339.94 * 0.60 **********************************************************************************************************************************************************************Profile Output Table - Standard Table 2Page 21Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 317 gallagher.rep***************************************************************************************************************************************************** Reach * River Sta * Profile * E.G. Elev * W.S. Elev * Vel Head * Frctn Loss * C & E Loss * Q Left *Q Channel * Q Right * Top Width ** * * * (ft) * (ft) * (ft) * (ft) * (ft) * (cfs) * (cfs) * (cfs) * (ft) ****************************************************************************************************************************************************** Bridge St Neighb * 1371 * PF 1 * 166.88 * 166.72 * 0.16 * 0.11 * 0.05 * 316.08 * 655.92 * * 214.71 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1345 * PF 1 * 166.72 * 166.10 * 0.62 * 0.34 * 0.10 * 151.08 * 820.92 * * 101.35 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1294 * PF 1 * 166.28 * 166.01 * 0.27 * 0.07 * 0.00 * 287.83 * 684.17 * * 167.00 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1278 * PF 1 * 166.21 * 165.92 * 0.29 * 0.22 * 0.03 * 270.15 * 701.85 * * 166.65 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1231 * PF 1 * 165.95 * 165.78 * 0.18 * 0.04 * 0.03 * 255.77 * 716.23 * * 183.42 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1209 * PF 1 * 165.89 * 165.81 * 0.08 * 0.10 * 0.01 * 463.05 * 502.58 * 6.37 * 267.77 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1132 * PF 1 * 165.78 * 165.73 * 0.05 * 0.03 * 0.01 * 511.12 * 446.59 * 14.29 * 345.91 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1096 * PF 1 * 165.74 * 165.62 * 0.13 * * * 120.21 * 825.96 * 25.82 * 176.29 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1058 * * Culvert * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1027 * PF 1 * 164.56 * 164.48 * 0.09 * 0.01 * 0.01 * 166.00 * 674.02 * 131.98 * 221.95 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1016 * PF 1 * 164.55 * 164.48 * 0.07 * 0.01 * 0.00 * 416.57 * 356.58 * 198.85 * 342.35 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1000 * PF 1 * 164.53 * 164.47 * 0.06 * 0.19 * 0.05 * 457.48 * 394.32 * 120.20 * 287.62 ** Bridge St Neighb * 870 * PF 1 * 164.29 * 163.71 * 0.58 * 0.45 * 0.03 * * 722.24 * 249.76 * 278.47 ** Bridge St Neighb * 740 * PF 1 * 162.98 * 162.48 * 0.49 * * * * 697.83 * 274.17 * 339.94 *****************************************************************************************************************************************************Page 22Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 318 gallagher.rep HEC-RAS Version 4.1.0 Jan 2010 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center 609 Second Street Davis, California X X XXXXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXX XXXX X XXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXX XXXX X X X X XXXXX********************************************************************************PROJECT DATAProject Title: Bridge St bigger bridgeProject File : gallagher.prjRun Date and Time: 9/11/2014 4:48:34 AMProject in English units********************************************************************************PLAN DATAPlan Title: Plan 47Plan File : C:\!Work\Gallagher\HEC-RAS rev 9-10-14\gallagher.p47 Geometry Title: Gallagher with bridge Geometry File : C:\!Work\Gallagher\HEC-RAS rev 9-10-14\gallagher.g01 Flow Title : start at fema bfe at bb st Flow File : C:\!Work\Gallagher\HEC-RAS rev 9-10-14\gallagher.f04Plan Summary Information:Number of: Cross Sections = 13 Multiple Openings = 0 Culverts = 2 Inline Structures = 0 Bridges = 0 Lateral Structures = 0Computational Information Water surface calculation tolerance = 0.01 Critical depth calculation tolerance = 0.01 Maximum number of iterations = 20 Page 1Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 319 gallagher.rep Maximum difference tolerance = 0.3 Flow tolerance factor = 0.001 Computation Options Critical depth computed only where necessary Conveyance Calculation Method: At breaks in n values only Friction Slope Method: Average Conveyance Computational Flow Regime: Subcritical Flow********************************************************************************FLOW DATAFlow Title: start at fema bfe at bb stFlow File : C:\!Work\Gallagher\HEC-RAS rev 9-10-14\gallagher.f04Flow Data (cfs)****************************************************************************************************************************** River Reach RS * PF 1 PF 2 PF 3 PF 4 PF 5 ** Meadow Creek Bridge St Neighb1371 * 972 867 747 586 320 ******************************************************************************************************************************Boundary Conditions********************************************************************************************************* River Reach Profile * Upstream Downstream ********************************************************************************************************** Meadow Creek Bridge St NeighbPF 1 * Critical Normal S = 0.007 ** Meadow Creek Bridge St NeighbPF 2 * Critical Normal S = 0.007 *****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************GEOMETRY DATAGeometry Title: Gallagher with bridgeGeometry File : C:\!Work\Gallagher\HEC-RAS rev 9-10-14\gallagher.g01CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1371 Page 2Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 320 gallagher.repINPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 13 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 734 168.3 751 162.3 755 162.2 768 165.3 854 166.3 960 167.3 972 167.3 985 166.3 1000 161.3 1017 162.3 1024 162.3 1040 169.3 1092 169.3Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 734 .04 985 .045 1040 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 985 1040 26 26 26 .1 .3Ineffective Flow num= 1 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 734 742 FCROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 166.86 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.16 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 166.70 * Reach Len. (ft) * 26.00 * 26.00 * 26.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 168.66 * 179.81 * ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.002282 * Area (sq ft) * 170.79 * 179.81 * ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 313.35 * 658.65 * ** Top Width (ft) * 212.35 * Top Width (ft) * 163.29 * 49.06 * ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 2.79 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 1.86 * 3.66 * ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 5.40 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 1.06 * 3.67 * ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 20345.2 * Conv. (cfs) * 6558.9 * 13786.3 * ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 26.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 160.75 * 50.82 * ** Min Ch El (ft) * 161.30 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.15 * 0.50 * ** Alpha * 1.31 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1092.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.11 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 2.19 * 2.67 * 1.12 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.05 * Cum SA (acres) * 1.46 * 0.74 * 1.98 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.Warning: The conveyance ratio (upstream conveyance divided by downstream conveyance) is less than 0.7 or greater than 1.4. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek Page 3Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 321 gallagher.repREACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1345 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 14 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 750 167.75 762 165.75 767 162.25 781 165.75 891 166.75 972 167.75 984 167.75 996 161.75 1000 161.25 1006 161.75 1008 162.75 1023 163.75 1035 168.75 1136 168.75Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 750 .04 984 .045 1035 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 984 1035 51 51 51 .1 .3Ineffective Flow num= 1 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 750 762 FCROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 166.70 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.64 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 166.06 * Reach Len. (ft) * 51.00 * 51.00 * 51.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * 165.35 * Flow Area (sq ft) * 44.35 * 120.29 * ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.010860 * Area (sq ft) * 44.63 * 120.29 * ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 149.68 * 822.32 * ** Top Width (ft) * 95.94 * Top Width (ft) * 54.79 * 41.16 * ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 5.90 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 3.38 * 6.84 * ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 4.81 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 0.84 * 2.92 * ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 9327.2 * Conv. (cfs) * 1436.3 * 7890.9 * ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 51.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 54.47 * 42.96 * ** Min Ch El (ft) * 161.25 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.55 * 1.90 * ** Alpha * 1.18 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1136.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.36 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 2.13 * 2.58 * 1.12 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.10 * Cum SA (acres) * 1.39 * 0.71 * 1.98 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.Warning: The conveyance ratio (upstream conveyance divided by downstream conveyance) is less than 0.7 or greater than 1.4. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections.CROSS SECTION Page 4Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 322 gallagher.repRIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1294 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 20 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 755 190 755 164 763 162 772 165 780 163.8 785 164.9 875 166 963 167 984 167 988 166 998 162 1000 161.2 1015 162 1026 163 1039 168 1114 169 1154 168 1161 168.3 1161 167.8 1182 168.4Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 755 .04 988 .045 1039 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 988 1039 16 16 16 .1 .3CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 166.23 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.29 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 165.94 * Reach Len. (ft) * 16.00 * 16.00 * 16.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 109.75 * 142.16 * ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.005029 * Area (sq ft) * 109.75 * 142.16 * ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 275.80 * 696.20 * ** Top Width (ft) * 160.40 * Top Width (ft) * 114.92 * 45.48 * ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 3.86 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 2.51 * 4.90 * ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 4.74 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 0.96 * 3.13 * ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 13706.3 * Conv. (cfs) * 3889.1 * 9817.2 * ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 16.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 117.80 * 47.01 * ** Min Ch El (ft) * 161.20 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.29 * 0.95 * ** Alpha * 1.27 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1182.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.05 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 2.04 * 2.43 * 1.12 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.03 * Cum SA (acres) * 1.29 * 0.66 * 1.98 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.Warning: The conveyance ratio (upstream conveyance divided by downstream conveyance) is less than 0.7 or greater than 1.4. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections.CROSS SECTION Page 5Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 323 gallagher.repRIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1278 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 22 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 752 190 752 164 762 162 771 165 783 164.1 788 165 883 166 970 167 977 167 986 161 998 161 1000 161 1002 161 1014 161 1024 163 1034 168 1038 169 1071 169 1153 168 1159 168.2 1159 167.7 1177 168.2Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 752 .04 977 .045 1034 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 977 1034 47 47 47 .1 .3CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 166.15 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.18 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 165.96 * Reach Len. (ft) * 47.00 * 47.00 * 47.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * 163.90 * Flow Area (sq ft) * 119.97 * 205.89 * ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.002172 * Area (sq ft) * 119.97 * 205.89 * ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 196.55 * 775.45 * ** Top Width (ft) * 178.93 * Top Width (ft) * 127.56 * 51.37 * ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 2.98 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 1.64 * 3.77 * ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 4.96 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 0.94 * 4.01 * ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 20856.0 * Conv. (cfs) * 4217.3 * 16638.8 * ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 47.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 130.33 * 53.77 * ** Min Ch El (ft) * 161.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.12 * 0.52 * ** Alpha * 1.33 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1177.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 2.00 * 2.37 * 1.12 ** C & E Loss (ft) * * Cum SA (acres) * 1.25 * 0.64 * 1.98 ************************************************************************************************CULVERT RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1250 Page 6Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 324 gallagher.repINPUTDescription: Distance from Upstream XS = 3Deck/Roadway Width = 32Weir Coefficient = 2.6Upstream Deck/Roadway Coordinates num= 11 Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord************************************************************************ 883 166 160 925 166.2 160 940 167.2 160 962 167.24 160 987 171.63 160 1000 172.5 160 1013 171.63 160 1023 170.52 160 1034 169.52 160 1051 168.7 160 1156 168 160Upstream Bridge Cross Section DataStation Elevation Data num= 22 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 752 190 752 164 762 162 771 165 783 164.1 788 165 883 166 970 167 977 167 986 161 998 161 1000 161 1002 161 1014 161 1024 163 1034 168 1038 169 1071 169 1153 168 1159 168.2 1159 167.7 1177 168.2Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 752 .04 977 .045 1034 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 977 1034 .1 .3Downstream Deck/Roadway Coordinates num= 12 Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord************************************************************************ 863 163.5 160 879 165 160 925 166.2 160 940 167.2 160 962 167.24 160 987 171.63 160 1000 172.5 160 1013 171.63 160 1023 170.52 160 1034 169.52 160 1051 168.7 160 1156 168 160Downstream Bridge Cross Section DataStation Elevation Data num= 20 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 828 190 828 164 833 163 838 162 847 164 852 165 863 163.5 879 165 984 166 986 161 1000 161 1003 161 1007 161 1014 161 1032 165Page 7Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 325 gallagher.rep 1044 168 1156 168 1168 167.5 1168 167 1186 167.5Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 828 .04 852 .045 1044 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 852 1044 .1 .3Upstream Embankment side slope = 0 horiz. to 1.0 verticalDownstream Embankment side slope = 0 horiz. to 1.0 verticalMaximum allowable submergence for weir flow = .98Elevation at which weir flow begins = Energy head used in spillway design = Spillway height used in design = Weir crest shape = Broad CrestedNumber of Culverts = 1 Culvert Name Shape Rise SpanCulvert #1 Conspan Arch 5.75 28FHWA Chart # 60- Span/Rise ratio approximate 2:1FHWA Scale # 1 - 0 degree wing wall angleSolution Criteria = Highest U.S. EGCulvert Upstrm Dist Length Top n Bottom n Depth Blocked Entrance Loss Coef Exit Loss Coef 3 31 .015 .015 0 .3 .6Upstream Elevation = 161.05 Centerline Station = 1000 Downstream Elevation = 161 Centerline Station = 1000 CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1231 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 20 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 828 190 828 164 833 163 838 162 847 164 852 165 863 163.5 879 165 984 166 986 161 1000 161 1003 161 1007 161 1014 161 1032 165 1044 168 1156 168 1168 167.5 1168 167 1186 167.5Page 8Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 326 gallagher.repManning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 828 .04 852 .045 1044 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 852 1044 22 22 22 .1 .3CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 165.97 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.14 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 165.83 * Reach Len. (ft) * 22.00 * 22.00 * 22.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 60.39 * 270.84 * ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.003629 * Area (sq ft) * 60.39 * 270.84 * ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 234.94 * 737.06 * ** Top Width (ft) * 189.26 * Top Width (ft) * 24.00 * 165.26 * ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 2.93 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 3.89 * 2.72 * ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 4.83 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 2.52 * 1.64 * ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 16135.3 * Conv. (cfs) * 3900.0 * 12235.3 * ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 22.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 26.35 * 169.25 * ** Min Ch El (ft) * 161.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.52 * 0.36 * ** Alpha * 1.08 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1186.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.03 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 2.00 * 2.14 * 1.12 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.02 * Cum SA (acres) * 1.17 * 0.53 * 1.98 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.Warning: The conveyance ratio (upstream conveyance divided by downstream conveyance) is less than 0.7 or greater than 1.4. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1209 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 19 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 722 170.5 737 166.5 782 165.5 793 165 802 164.5 832 163.5 924 164.5 966 164.5 977 163.5 989 159.5 1000 159.5 1004 159.5 1014 164.5 1024 165.5 1138 168.5 1145 170.5 1158 166.5 1203 166 1803 172Page 9Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 327 gallagher.repManning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 722 .04 977 .045 1014 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 977 1014 153 153 153 .1 .3Ineffective Flow num= 2 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 1247 1417 190.5 T 737 795 190.5 TCROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 165.92 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.07 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 165.84 * Reach Len. (ft) * 153.00 * 153.00 * 153.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 309.88 * 185.75 * 10.70 ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.000814 * Area (sq ft) * 320.89 * 185.75 * 10.70 ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 468.26 * 496.95 * 6.79 ** Top Width (ft) * 270.61 * Top Width (ft) * 210.51 * 37.00 * 23.10 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 1.92 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 1.51 * 2.68 * 0.63 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 6.34 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 1.70 * 5.02 * 0.46 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 34060.9 * Conv. (cfs) * 16408.8 * 17414.3 * 237.8 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 153.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 182.08 * 38.83 * 23.15 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 159.50 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.09 * 0.24 * 0.02 ** Alpha * 1.29 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1803.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.13 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 1.90 * 2.02 * 1.12 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.00 * Cum SA (acres) * 1.11 * 0.48 * 1.97 ************************************************************************************************CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1132 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 19 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 722 170 737 166 782 165 793 164.5 802 164 832 163 924 164 966 164 977 163 989 159 1000 159 1004 159 1014 164 1024 165 1138 168 1145 170 1158 166 1203 165.5 1803 171.5Manning's n Values num= 3Page 10Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 328 gallagher.rep Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 722 .04 977 .045 1014 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 977 1014 36 36 36 .1 .3Ineffective Flow num= 3 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 1247 1417 190 T 844 911 190 T 737 802 190 TCROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 165.79 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.10 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 165.69 * Reach Len. (ft) * 36.00 * 36.00 * 36.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 215.07 * 198.50 * 24.32 ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.000886 * Area (sq ft) * 396.09 * 198.50 * 24.32 ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 376.25 * 578.94 * 16.81 ** Top Width (ft) * 335.16 * Top Width (ft) * 226.02 * 37.00 * 72.15 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 2.22 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 1.75 * 2.92 * 0.69 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 6.69 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 1.99 * 5.36 * 0.34 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 32657.6 * Conv. (cfs) * 12641.4 * 19451.3 * 564.9 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 36.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 108.06 * 38.83 * 72.21 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 159.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.11 * 0.28 * 0.02 ** Alpha * 1.27 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1803.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.04 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 0.64 * 1.35 * 1.06 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.00 * Cum SA (acres) * 0.34 * 0.35 * 1.80 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1096 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 33 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 763 168.2 784 167.9 789 168.5 789 160.8 802 162.5 802 164.7 810 165.82 810 167 860 167 869 167 959 167 959 165.8 974 165.8 982 163.2 986 158 995 158 1000 158 1014 158 1017 164 1022 164.7Page 11Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 329 gallagher.rep 1040 164.8 1040 166 1090 166 1099 166 1142 166 1142 166.3 1159 167 1172 165.2 1172 164.7 1190 165.2 1208 164.7 1208 165.2 1808 170Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 763 .04 974 .045 1040 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 974 1040 69 69 69 .1 .3CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 165.74 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.13 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 165.62 * Reach Len. (ft) * 69.00 * 69.00 * 69.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * 161.29 * Flow Area (sq ft) * 54.60 * 278.20 * 35.61 ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.001357 * Area (sq ft) * 54.60 * 278.20 * 35.61 ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 120.21 * 825.96 * 25.82 ** Top Width (ft) * 176.29 * Top Width (ft) * 19.56 * 65.44 * 91.29 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 2.64 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 2.20 * 2.97 * 0.73 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 7.62 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 2.79 * 4.25 * 0.39 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 26385.0 * Conv. (cfs) * 3263.2 * 22420.8 * 701.0 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 69.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 26.75 * 72.96 * 92.33 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 158.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.17 * 0.32 * 0.03 ** Alpha * 1.16 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1808.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 0.46 * 1.15 * 1.03 ** C & E Loss (ft) * * Cum SA (acres) * 0.24 * 0.30 * 1.74 ************************************************************************************************CULVERT RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1058 INPUTDescription: Distance from Upstream XS = 13Deck/Roadway Width = 40Weir Coefficient = 2.6Upstream Deck/Roadway Coordinates num= 24 Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord************************************************************************ 753 170 150 773 169.33 150 790 168.45 150 790 167.95 150 830 166.5 150 830 167 150Page 12Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 330 gallagher.rep 842 166.9 150 853 167.05 150 853 166.65 150 864 166.85 150 969 166.85 150 989 167.77 150 1000 167.89 150 1018 167.23 150 1032 166.58 150 1053 165.85 150 1203 165.85 150 1219 165.59 150 1229 165.2 150 1229 164.7 150 1247 165.2 150 1265 164.7 150 1265 165.2 150 1865 170 150Upstream Bridge Cross Section DataStation Elevation Data num= 33 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 763 168.2 784 167.9 789 168.5 789 160.8 802 162.5 802 164.7 810 165.82 810 167 860 167 869 167 959 167 959 165.8 974 165.8 982 163.2 986 158 995 158 1000 158 1014 158 1017 164 1022 164.7 1040 164.8 1040 166 1090 166 1099 166 1142 166 1142 166.3 1159 167 1172 165.2 1172 164.7 1190 165.2 1208 164.7 1208 165.2 1808 170Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 763 .04 974 .045 1040 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 974 1040 .1 .3Downstream Deck/Roadway Coordinates num= 26 Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord Sta Hi Cord Lo Cord************************************************************************ 783 167.9 150 802 166.8 150 818 166.2 150 835 166.12 150 836 166.4 150 880 166.4 150 903 166.2 150 969 166.7 150 969 166.7 150 987 167 150 991 167.2 150 1000 167.4 150 1009 167.6 150 1016 167.8 150 1018 168 150 1048 166.3 150 1065 165.8 150 1092 165.7 150 1138 165.5 150 1187 165.3 150 1197 165.2 150 1197 164.7 150 1215 165.2 150 1233 164.7 150 1233 165.2 150 1833 170 150Downstream Bridge Cross Section DataStation Elevation Data num= 25 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 833 171 854 162 867 161 895 164 901 164.5 941 165 972 165 981 164.7 986 158 994 158 998 158 1000 158 1006 158 1011 158 1014 158Page 13Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 331 gallagher.rep 1029 163.5 1046 163 1060 163 1143 164 1159 165 1167 165 1191 165 1236 165 1236.1 165.5 1836 171.5Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 833 .04 981 .045 1029 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 981 1029 .1 .3Upstream Embankment side slope = 1 horiz. to 1.0 verticalDownstream Embankment side slope = 1 horiz. to 1.0 verticalMaximum allowable submergence for weir flow = .95Elevation at which weir flow begins = Energy head used in spillway design = Spillway height used in design = Weir crest shape = Broad CrestedNumber of Culverts = 2 Culvert Name Shape Rise SpanCulvert #2 Box 2.67 3.75FHWA Chart # 8 - flared wingwallsFHWA Scale # 1 - Wingwall flared 30 to 75 deg.Solution Criteria = Highest U.S. EGCulvert Upstrm Dist Length Top n Bottom n Depth Blocked Entrance Loss Coef Exit Loss Coef 15 32 .012 .012 0 .5 1Upstream Elevation = 161.5 Centerline Station = 792 Downstream Elevation = 161.2 Centerline Station = 867 Culvert Name Shape Rise SpanCulvert #1 Conspan Arch 5.1 28FHWA Chart # 61- Span/Rise ratio approximate 4:1FHWA Scale # 2 - 45 degree wing wall angleSolution Criteria = Highest U.S. EGCulvert Upstrm Dist Length Top n Bottom n Depth Blocked Entrance Loss Coef Exit Loss Coef 6 40 .012 .03 0 .2 1Upstream Elevation = 158 Centerline Station = 1000 Downstream Elevation = 158 Centerline Station = 1000 CROSS SECTION Page 14Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 332 gallagher.repRIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1027 INPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 25 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 833 171 854 162 867 161 895 164 901 164.5 941 165 972 165 981 164.7 986 158 994 158 998 158 1000 158 1006 158 1011 158 1014 158 1029 163.5 1046 163 1060 163 1143 164 1159 165 1167 165 1191 165 1236 165 1236.1 165.5 1836 171.5Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 833 .04 981 .045 1029 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 981 1029 11 11 11 .1 .3CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 164.56 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.09 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 164.48 * Reach Len. (ft) * 11.00 * 11.00 * 11.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 102.56 * 252.89 * 124.39 ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.000792 * Area (sq ft) * 102.56 * 252.89 * 124.39 ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 166.00 * 674.02 * 131.98 ** Top Width (ft) * 221.95 * Top Width (ft) * 52.50 * 47.83 * 121.62 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 2.03 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 1.62 * 2.67 * 1.06 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 6.48 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 1.95 * 5.29 * 1.02 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 34541.8 * Conv. (cfs) * 5899.3 * 23952.5 * 4690.0 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 11.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 53.22 * 52.06 * 121.65 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 158.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.10 * 0.24 * 0.05 ** Alpha * 1.35 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1836.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.01 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 0.46 * 0.85 * 1.03 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.01 * Cum SA (acres) * 0.18 * 0.21 * 1.57 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1016 Page 15Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 333 gallagher.repINPUTDescription: Station Elevation Data num= 20 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 863 173 890 161 896 160 917 161 927 162 967 165 973 165 980 164 991 162 996 158 1000 158 1007 158 1011 162 1023 163 1045 163.5 1075 163 1158 164 1241 164 1241.1 164.5 1840 170.5Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 863 .04 980 .045 1023 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 980 1023 16 16 16 .1 .3CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 164.55 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.07 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 164.48 * Reach Len. (ft) * 16.00 * 16.00 * 16.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 192.70 * 151.64 * 185.17 ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.001042 * Area (sq ft) * 192.70 * 151.64 * 185.17 ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 416.57 * 356.58 * 198.85 ** Top Width (ft) * 342.35 * Top Width (ft) * 81.26 * 43.00 * 218.10 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 1.84 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 2.16 * 2.35 * 1.07 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 6.48 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 2.37 * 3.53 * 0.85 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 30110.4 * Conv. (cfs) * 12904.6 * 11046.0 * 6159.9 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 16.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 82.28 * 46.28 * 218.51 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 158.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.15 * 0.21 * 0.06 ** Alpha * 1.27 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1840.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.01 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 0.42 * 0.80 * 0.99 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.00 * Cum SA (acres) * 0.16 * 0.20 * 1.52 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 1000 INPUTDescription: DS LimitPage 16Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 334 gallagher.repStation Elevation Data num= 16 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 865 173 892 161 919 160 925 160 933 162 952 163 974 164.5 988 163 1000 157 1010 158 1017 162 1024 162.5 1060 163 1100 164 1166 164 1251 170Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 865 .04 974 .045 1024 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 974 1024 130 130 130 .1 .3Ineffective Flow num= 2 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 1076 1191 190 T 1336 1516 190 TCROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 164.53 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.06 * Wt. n-Val. * 0.040 * 0.045 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 164.47 * Reach Len. (ft) * 130.00 * 130.00 * 130.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * * Flow Area (sq ft) * 228.31 * 180.10 * 82.08 ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.000846 * Area (sq ft) * 228.31 * 180.10 * 132.84 ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * 457.48 * 394.32 * 120.20 ** Top Width (ft) * 287.62 * Top Width (ft) * 89.31 * 49.69 * 148.61 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 1.98 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * 2.00 * 2.19 * 1.46 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 7.47 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * 2.56 * 3.62 * 1.58 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 33421.8 * Conv. (cfs) * 15730.3 * 13558.6 * 4132.9 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 130.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * 90.39 * 52.32 * 52.01 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 157.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * 0.13 * 0.18 * 0.08 ** Alpha * 1.04 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1251.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.19 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * 0.34 * 0.74 * 0.93 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.05 * Cum SA (acres) * 0.13 * 0.18 * 1.46 ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.Warning: The velocity head has changed by more than 0.5 ft (0.15 m). This may indicate the need for additional cross sections.Warning: The conveyance ratio (upstream conveyance divided by downstream conveyance) is less than 0.7 or greater than 1.4. This may indicate the need for additional cross sections.CROSS SECTION Page 17Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 335 gallagher.repRIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 870 INPUTDescription: thru ironworks bldgStation Elevation Data num= 14 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 984 172.26 997 157.5 1000 157.25 1003 157 1014 161.8 1034 162.6 1075 163.1 1201 163.4 1207 163.35 1207 162.99 1227 163.1 1249 162.44 1249 162.9 1270 163.3Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 984 .04 984 .03 1014 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 984 1014 131 131 131 .1 .3Ineffective Flow num= 1 Sta L Sta R Elev Permanent 1124 1209 190 TCROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 164.29 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.58 * Wt. n-Val. * * 0.030 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 163.71 * Reach Len. (ft) * 131.00 * 131.00 * 131.00 ** Crit W.S. (ft) * 163.71 * Flow Area (sq ft) * * 103.08 * 137.28 ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.003237 * Area (sq ft) * * 103.08 * 171.36 ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * * 722.24 * 249.76 ** Top Width (ft) * 278.47 * Top Width (ft) * * 22.47 * 256.00 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 4.04 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * * 7.01 * 1.82 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 6.71 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * * 4.59 * 0.80 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 17083.2 * Conv. (cfs) * * 12693.6 * 4389.6 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * 131.00 * Wetted Per. (ft) * * 26.29 * 171.90 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 157.00 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * * 0.79 * 0.16 ** Alpha * 2.28 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1270.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * 0.45 * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * * 0.32 * 0.48 ** C & E Loss (ft) * 0.03 * Cum SA (acres) * * 0.08 * 0.85 ************************************************************************************************Warning: The energy equation could not be balanced within the specified number of iterations. The program used critical depth for the water surface and continued on with the calculations.Warning: The cross-section end points had to be extended vertically for the computed water surface.Warning: The energy loss was greater than 1.0 ft (0.3 m). between the current and previous cross section. Page 18Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 336 gallagher.repThis may indicate the need for additional cross sections.Warning: During the standard step iterations, when the assumed water surface was set equal to critical depth, the calculated water surface came back below critical depth. This indicates that there is not a valid subcritical answer. The program defaulted to critical depth.CROSS SECTION RIVER: Meadow Creek REACH: Bridge St Neighb RS: 740 INPUTDescription: Cl BeeBee st extendedStation Elevation Data num= 16 Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev Sta Elev******************************************************************************** 970 174.9 991 165.2 995 157.2 1000 157.5 1008 157.7 1021 161.9 1051 162.4 1126 162.4 1199 162.3 1211 162.7 1216 162.2 1222 161.99 1222 161.52 1241 161.81 1259 161.11 1341 161.8Manning's n Values num= 3 Sta n Val Sta n Val Sta n Val************************************************ 970 .04 991 .03 1021 .04Bank Sta: Left Right Lengths: Left Channel Right Coeff Contr. Expan. 991 1021 0 0 0 .1 .3CROSS SECTION OUTPUT Profile #PF 1 ************************************************************************************************ E.G. Elev (ft) * 162.98 * Element * Left OB * Channel * Right OB ** Vel Head (ft) * 0.49 * Wt. n-Val. * * 0.030 * 0.040 ** W.S. Elev (ft) * 162.48 * Reach Len. (ft) * * * ** Crit W.S. (ft) * 162.48 * Flow Area (sq ft) * * 106.57 * 147.25 ** E.G. Slope (ft/ft) *0.003599 * Area (sq ft) * * 106.57 * 147.25 ** Q Total (cfs) * 972.00 * Flow (cfs) * * 697.83 * 274.17 ** Top Width (ft) * 339.94 * Top Width (ft) * * 28.64 * 311.30 ** Vel Total (ft/s) * 3.83 * Avg. Vel. (ft/s) * * 6.55 * 1.86 ** Max Chl Dpth (ft) * 5.28 * Hydr. Depth (ft) * * 3.72 * 0.47 ** Conv. Total (cfs) * 16201.8 * Conv. (cfs) * * 11631.8 * 4570.0 ** Length Wtd. (ft) * * Wetted Per. (ft) * * 32.58 * 312.50 ** Min Ch El (ft) * 157.20 * Shear (lb/sq ft) * * 0.74 * 0.11 ** Alpha * 2.17 * Stream Power (lb/ft s) * 1341.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 ** Frctn Loss (ft) * * Cum Volume (acre-ft) * * * *Page 19Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 337 gallagher.rep* C & E Loss (ft) * * Cum SA (acres) * * * ************************************************************************************************Warning: Divided flow computed for this cross-section.Warning: Slope too steep for slope area to converge during supercritical flow calculations (normal depth is below critical depth). Water surface set to critical depth.********************************************************************************SUMMARY OF MANNING'S N VALUES River:Meadow Creek ****************************************************************** Reach * River Sta. * n1 * n2 * n3 *******************************************************************Bridge St Neighb* 1371 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1345 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1294 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1278 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1250 *Culvert * * **Bridge St Neighb* 1231 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1209 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1132 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1096 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1058 *Culvert * * **Bridge St Neighb* 1027 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1016 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 1000 * .04* .045* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 870 * .04* .03* .04**Bridge St Neighb* 740 * .04* .03* .04**************************************************************************************************************************************************SUMMARY OF REACH LENGTHSRiver: Meadow Creek ****************************************************************** Reach * River Sta. * Left * Channel * Right *******************************************************************Bridge St Neighb* 1371 * 26* 26* 26**Bridge St Neighb* 1345 * 51* 51* 51**Bridge St Neighb* 1294 * 16* 16* 16**Bridge St Neighb* 1278 * 47* 47* 47**Bridge St Neighb* 1250 *Culvert * * **Bridge St Neighb* 1231 * 22* 22* 22**Bridge St Neighb* 1209 * 153* 153* 153*Page 20Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 338 gallagher.rep*Bridge St Neighb* 1132 * 36* 36* 36**Bridge St Neighb* 1096 * 69* 69* 69**Bridge St Neighb* 1058 *Culvert * * **Bridge St Neighb* 1027 * 11* 11* 11**Bridge St Neighb* 1016 * 16* 16* 16**Bridge St Neighb* 1000 * 130* 130* 130**Bridge St Neighb* 870 * 131* 131* 131**Bridge St Neighb* 740 * 0* 0* 0******************************************************************Profile Output Table - Standard Table 1************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ Reach * River Sta * Profile * Plan * Q Total * Min Ch El * W.S. Elev * Crit W.S. * E.G. Elev * E.G. Slope * Vel Chnl * Flow Area * Top Width * Froude # Chl ** * * * * (cfs) * (ft) * (ft) * (ft) * (ft) * (ft/ft) * (ft/s) * (sq ft) * (ft) * ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************* Bridge St Neighb * 1371 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 161.30 * 166.70 * * 166.86 * 0.002282 * 3.66 * 348.48 * 212.35 * 0.34 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1371 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 161.30 * 166.72 * * 166.88 * 0.002228 * 3.63 * 352.47 * 214.71 * 0.33 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1345 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 161.25 * 166.06 * 165.35 * 166.70 * 0.010860 * 6.84 * 164.63 * 95.94 * 0.70 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1345 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 161.25 * 166.10 * 165.35 * 166.72 * 0.010355 * 6.72 * 168.97 * 101.35 * 0.69 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1294 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 161.20 * 165.94 * * 166.23 * 0.005029 * 4.90 * 251.92 * 160.40 * 0.49 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1294 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 161.20 * 166.01 * * 166.28 * 0.004535 * 4.70 * 264.17 * 167.00 * 0.46 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1278 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 161.00 * 165.96 * 163.90 * 166.15 * 0.002172 * 3.77 * 325.86 * 178.93 * 0.33 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1278 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 161.00 * 165.92 * * 166.21 * 0.004640 * 4.86 * 258.31 * 166.65 * 0.47 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1250 * * * Culvert * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1231 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 161.00 * 165.83 * * Page 21Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 339 gallagher.rep165.97 * 0.003629 * 2.72 * 331.23 * 189.26 * 0.37 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1231 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 160.00 * 165.78 * * 165.95 * 0.004586 * 2.94 * 302.98 * 183.42 * 0.42 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1209 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 159.50 * 165.84 * * 165.92 * 0.000814 * 2.68 * 506.34 * 270.61 * 0.21 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1209 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 159.50 * 165.81 * * 165.89 * 0.000852 * 2.72 * 498.06 * 267.77 * 0.21 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1132 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 159.00 * 165.69 * * 165.79 * 0.000886 * 2.92 * 437.90 * 335.16 * 0.22 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1132 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 159.00 * 165.73 * * 165.78 * 0.000514 * 2.23 * 596.30 * 345.91 * 0.17 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1096 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 158.00 * 165.62 * 161.29 * 165.74 * 0.001357 * 2.97 * 368.41 * 176.29 * 0.25 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1096 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 158.00 * 165.62 * 161.29 * 165.74 * 0.001357 * 2.97 * 368.41 * 176.29 * 0.25 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1058 * * * Culvert * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1027 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 158.00 * 164.48 * * 164.56 * 0.000792 * 2.67 * 479.84 * 221.95 * 0.20 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1027 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 158.00 * 164.48 * * 164.56 * 0.000792 * 2.67 * 479.84 * 221.95 * 0.20 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1016 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 158.00 * 164.48 * * 164.55 * 0.001042 * 2.35 * 529.51 * 342.35 * 0.22 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1016 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 158.00 * 164.48 * * 164.55 * 0.001042 * 2.35 * 529.51 * 342.35 * 0.22 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1000 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 157.00 * 164.47 * * 164.53 * 0.000846 * 2.19 * 490.49 * 287.62 * 0.20 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1000 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 157.00 * 164.47 * * 164.53 * 0.000846 * 2.19 * 490.49 * 287.62 * 0.20 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 870 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 157.00 * 163.71 * 163.71 * 164.29 * 0.003237 * 7.01 * 240.36 * 278.47 * 0.58 ** Bridge St Neighb * 870 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 157.00 * 163.71 * 163.71 * Page 22Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 340 gallagher.rep164.29 * 0.003237 * 7.01 * 240.36 * 278.47 * 0.58 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 740 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 157.20 * 162.48 * 162.48 * 162.98 * 0.003599 * 6.55 * 253.82 * 339.94 * 0.60 ** Bridge St Neighb * 740 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 972.00 * 157.20 * 162.48 * 162.48 * 162.98 * 0.003599 * 6.55 * 253.82 * 339.94 * 0.60 ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************Profile Output Table - Standard Table 2******************************************************************************************************************************************************************* Reach * River Sta * Profile * Plan * E.G. Elev * W.S. Elev * Vel Head * Frctn Loss * C& E Loss * Q Left * Q Channel * Q Right * Top Width ** * * * * (ft) * (ft) * (ft) * (ft) * (ft) * (cfs) * (cfs) * (cfs) * (ft) ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Bridge St Neighb * 1371 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 166.86 * 166.70 * 0.16 * 0.11 * 0.05 * 313.35 * 658.65 * * 212.35 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1371 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 166.88 * 166.72 * 0.16 * 0.11 * 0.05 * 316.08 * 655.92 * * 214.71 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1345 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 166.70 * 166.06 * 0.64 * 0.36 * 0.10 * 149.68 * 822.32 * * 95.94 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1345 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 166.72 * 166.10 * 0.62 * 0.34 * 0.10 * 151.08 * 820.92 * * 101.35 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1294 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 166.23 * 165.94 * 0.29 * 0.05 * 0.03 * 275.80 * 696.20 * * 160.40 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1294 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 166.28 * 166.01 * 0.27 * 0.07 * 0.00 * 287.83 * 684.17 * * 167.00 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1278 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 166.15 * 165.96 * 0.18 * * * 196.55 * 775.45 * * 178.93 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1278 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 166.21 * 165.92 * 0.29 * 0.22 * 0.03 * 270.15 * 701.85 * * 166.65 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1250 * * * Culvert * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1231 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 165.97 * 165.83 * 0.14 * 0.03 * Page 23Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 341 gallagher.rep 0.02 * 234.94 * 737.06 * * 189.26 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1231 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 165.95 * 165.78 * 0.18 * 0.04 * 0.03 * 255.77 * 716.23 * * 183.42 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1209 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 165.92 * 165.84 * 0.07 * 0.13 * 0.00 * 468.26 * 496.95 * 6.79 * 270.61 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1209 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 165.89 * 165.81 * 0.08 * 0.10 * 0.01 * 463.05 * 502.58 * 6.37 * 267.77 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1132 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 165.79 * 165.69 * 0.10 * 0.04 * 0.00 * 376.25 * 578.94 * 16.81 * 335.16 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1132 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 165.78 * 165.73 * 0.05 * 0.03 * 0.01 * 511.12 * 446.59 * 14.29 * 345.91 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1096 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 165.74 * 165.62 * 0.13 * * * 120.21 * 825.96 * 25.82 * 176.29 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1096 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 165.74 * 165.62 * 0.13 * * * 120.21 * 825.96 * 25.82 * 176.29 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1058 * * * Culvert * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1027 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 164.56 * 164.48 * 0.09 * 0.01 * 0.01 * 166.00 * 674.02 * 131.98 * 221.95 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1027 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 164.56 * 164.48 * 0.09 * 0.01 * 0.01 * 166.00 * 674.02 * 131.98 * 221.95 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1016 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 164.55 * 164.48 * 0.07 * 0.01 * 0.00 * 416.57 * 356.58 * 198.85 * 342.35 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1016 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 164.55 * 164.48 * 0.07 * 0.01 * 0.00 * 416.57 * 356.58 * 198.85 * 342.35 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 1000 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 164.53 * 164.47 * 0.06 * 0.19 * 0.05 * 457.48 * 394.32 * 120.20 * 287.62 ** Bridge St Neighb * 1000 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 164.53 * 164.47 * 0.06 * 0.19 * 0.05 * 457.48 * 394.32 * 120.20 * 287.62 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 870 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 164.29 * 163.71 * 0.58 * 0.45 * 0.03 * * 722.24 * 249.76 * 278.47 ** Bridge St Neighb * 870 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 164.29 * 163.71 * 0.58 * 0.45 * Page 24Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 342 gallagher.rep 0.03 * * 722.24 * 249.76 * 278.47 ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Bridge St Neighb * 740 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 162.98 * 162.48 * 0.49 * * * * 697.83 * 274.17 * 339.94 ** Bridge St Neighb * 740 * PF 1 * Plan 45 * 162.98 * 162.48 * 0.49 * * * * 697.83 * 274.17 * 339.94 *******************************************************************************************************************************************************************Page 25Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 343 P.O. BOX 832 • ATASCADERO CA 93423‐0832 • PHONE (VOICE AND FAX): (805) 464‐0975 E‐MAIL: KVCROWE@CHARTER.NET OR KVCROWE@GROUNDUP.BZ WEB: WWW.GROUNDUP.BZ Appendix III BMP Calculations Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 344 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 AB C D E F G H I J K LN (Step 1a) If you know the 85th percentile storm event for your location enter it in the box below (Step 1b)If you can not answer 1a then select the county where the project is located (click on the cell to the right for drop-down): This will determine the average 85th percentile 24 hr. storm event for your site, which will appear under 2 (Step 1c)If you would like a more percise value select the location closest to your site. If you do not recgonize any of these locations, leave this drop-down menu at location. The average value for the County will be used. Project Name:(Step 2) Indicate the Soil Type (dropdown menu to right): Waste Discharge Identification (WDID): (Step 3)Indicate the existing dominant non-built land Use Type (dropdown menu to right): Date: (Step 4) Indicate the proposed dominant non-built land Use Type (dropdown menu to right): Sub Drainage Area Name (from map): Acres 74 (Step 5) Total Project Site Area: 92 (Step 6) Sub-watershed Area: Percent of total project :Based on the County you indicated above, we have included the 85 percentile average 24 hr event - P85 (in)^ for your area. in The Amount of rainfall needed for runoff to occur (Existing regional curve - P from existing RCN (in)^) In (Step 7) Sub-watershed Conditions P used for calculations (in) (the greater of the above two criteria)In Sub-watershed Area (acres)Acres ^Available at www.cabmphandbooks.com Existing Rooftop Lot Coverage Existing Non-Rooftop Lot Coverage Proposed Rooftop Lot Coverage Proposed Non-Rooftop Lot Coverage Credits Porous Pavement Tree Planting Pre-Project Runoff Volume (cu ft)Cu.Ft. Downspout Disconnection Project-Related Runoff Volume Increase w/o credits (cu ft)Cu.Ft. Impervious Area Disconnection Green Roof Stream Buffer Vegetated Swales Bioretention Area (calculated in step 9) Subtotal Subtotal Runoff Volume Reduction Credit (Step 9) Impervious Volume Reduction Credits Rain Barrels/Cisterns Bioretention Area Soil Quality Cu. Ft. Subtotal Runoff Volume Reduction Total Runoff Volume Reduction Credit 0 558 1,217 871 Cu. Ft. Volume (cubic feet) Cu. Ft. Cu. Ft. 0.02 Precipitation Post-Construction Water Balance Calculator 9% 659 Acres 2.72 0.25 Square Feet 0 8,276 SAN_LUIS_OBISPO Group C Soils User may make changes from any cell that is orange or brown in color (similar to the cells to the immediate right). Cells in green are calculated for you. SAN LUIS OBISPO Low infiltration. Sandy clay loam. Infiltration rate 0.05 to 0.15 inch/hr when wet. Runoff CalculationsProject Information GALLAGHER BRIDGE ST You have achieved your minimum requirements 0.00 0.19 Complete Either 0 8489 0 0 Cu. Ft. Project-Related Volume Increase with Credits (cu ft) 0.71 318 281 Three cheers, you've done it!!Congratulations!!! 2.00 Acres Calculated Acres 0.25Sq Ft 0.00 0.00 0.00 Optional Regional Curve Numbers Existing Pervious Runoff Curve Number Complete EitherWATERSHED 1&2 118608 Sq Ft Open Space: grass cover >75% Solid lawn, grass, pasture or meadow covering the open space9/15/2014 10906Proposed Development Pervious Runoff Curve Number 0.19 558 0 0 8,276 2.00 0.06 0.00 0.19 1,498 Cu.Ft. 0.00 0.49 1,307 2,614 0 21,344 0.03 Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 345 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 AB C D E F G H I J K LN (Step 1a) If you know the 85th percentile storm event for your location enter it in the box below (Step 1b)If you can not answer 1a then select the county where the project is located (click on the cell to the right for drop-down): This will determine the average 85th percentile 24 hr. storm event for your site, which will appear under 2 (Step 1c)If you would like a more percise value select the location closest to your site. If you do not recgonize any of these locations, leave this drop-down menu at location. The average value for the County will be used. Project Name:(Step 2) Indicate the Soil Type (dropdown menu to right): Waste Discharge Identification (WDID): (Step 3)Indicate the existing dominant non-built land Use Type (dropdown menu to right): Date: (Step 4) Indicate the proposed dominant non-built land Use Type (dropdown menu to right): Sub Drainage Area Name (from map): Acres 74 (Step 5) Total Project Site Area: 90 (Step 6) Sub-watershed Area: Percent of total project :Based on the County you indicated above, we have included the 85 percentile average 24 hr event - P85 (in)^ for your area. in The Amount of rainfall needed for runoff to occur (Existing regional curve - P from existing RCN (in)^) In (Step 7) Sub-watershed Conditions P used for calculations (in) (the greater of the above two criteria)In Sub-watershed Area (acres)Acres ^Available at www.cabmphandbooks.com Existing Rooftop Lot Coverage Existing Non-Rooftop Lot Coverage Proposed Rooftop Lot Coverage Proposed Non-Rooftop Lot Coverage Credits Porous Pavement Tree Planting Pre-Project Runoff Volume (cu ft)Cu.Ft. Downspout Disconnection Project-Related Runoff Volume Increase w/o credits (cu ft)Cu.Ft. Impervious Area Disconnection Green Roof Stream Buffer Vegetated Swales Bioretention Area (calculated in step 9) Subtotal Subtotal Runoff Volume Reduction Credit (Step 9) Impervious Volume Reduction Credits Rain Barrels/Cisterns Bioretention Area Soil Quality Cu. Ft. Subtotal Runoff Volume Reduction Total Runoff Volume Reduction Credit 0 2,560 3,111 3,049 Cu. Ft. Volume (cubic feet) Cu. Ft. Cu. Ft. 0.07 Precipitation Post-Construction Water Balance Calculator 17% 551 Acres 2.72 0.46 Square Feet 0 0 SAN_LUIS_OBISPO Group C Soils User may make changes from any cell that is orange or brown in color (similar to the cells to the immediate right). Cells in green are calculated for you. SAN LUIS OBISPO Low infiltration. Sandy clay loam. Infiltration rate 0.05 to 0.15 inch/hr when wet. Runoff CalculationsProject Information GALLAGHER BRIDGE ST You have achieved your minimum requirements 0.00 0.00 Complete Either 6250 8062 0 0 Cu. Ft. Project-Related Volume Increase with Credits (cu ft) 0.71 584 -465 Three cheers, you've done it!!Congratulations!!! 2.00 Acres Calculated Acres 0.46Sq Ft 0.00 0.14 0.00 Optional Regional Curve Numbers Existing Pervious Runoff Curve Number Complete EitherWATERSHEDs 3, 4 & 5 118608 Sq Ft Open Space: grass cover >75% Solid lawn, grass, pasture or meadow covering the open space9/2/2014 19956Proposed Development Pervious Runoff Curve Number 0.19 2,560 0 3,049 8,276 2.00 0.01 0.07 0.19 2,646 Cu.Ft. 0.00 0.39 2,178 436 0 16,988 0.05 Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 346 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 AB C D E F G H I J K LN (Step 1a) If you know the 85th percentile storm event for your location enter it in the box below (Step 1b)If you can not answer 1a then select the county where the project is located (click on the cell to the right for drop-down): This will determine the average 85th percentile 24 hr. storm event for your site, which will appear under 2 (Step 1c)If you would like a more percise value select the location closest to your site. If you do not recgonize any of these locations, leave this drop-down menu at location. The average value for the County will be used. Project Name:(Step 2) Indicate the Soil Type (dropdown menu to right): Waste Discharge Identification (WDID): (Step 3)Indicate the existing dominant non-built land Use Type (dropdown menu to right): Date: (Step 4) Indicate the proposed dominant non-built land Use Type (dropdown menu to right): Sub Drainage Area Name (from map): Acres 74 (Step 5) Total Project Site Area: 83 (Step 6) Sub-watershed Area: Percent of total project :Based on the County you indicated above, we have included the 85 percentile average 24 hr event - P85 (in)^ for your area. in The Amount of rainfall needed for runoff to occur (Existing regional curve - P from existing RCN (in)^) In (Step 7) Sub-watershed Conditions P used for calculations (in) (the greater of the above two criteria)In Sub-watershed Area (acres)Acres ^Available at www.cabmphandbooks.com Existing Rooftop Lot Coverage Existing Non-Rooftop Lot Coverage Proposed Rooftop Lot Coverage Proposed Non-Rooftop Lot Coverage Credits Porous Pavement Tree Planting Pre-Project Runoff Volume (cu ft)Cu.Ft. Downspout Disconnection Project-Related Runoff Volume Increase w/o credits (cu ft)Cu.Ft. Impervious Area Disconnection Green Roof Stream Buffer Vegetated Swales Bioretention Area (calculated in step 9) Subtotal Subtotal Runoff Volume Reduction Credit (Step 9) Impervious Volume Reduction Credits Rain Barrels/Cisterns Bioretention Area Soil Quality Cu. Ft. Subtotal Runoff Volume Reduction Total Runoff Volume Reduction Credit 0 0.26 3,543 Cu.Ft. 0.00 0.92 5,663 3,049 0 40,075 0.13 36066Proposed Development Pervious Runoff Curve Number 0.26 1,217 0 2,614 11,326 2.00 0.07 0.06 Optional Regional Curve Numbers Existing Pervious Runoff Curve Number Complete EitherWATERSHEDs 6, 7 & 8 118608 Sq Ft Open Space: grass cover >75% Solid lawn, grass, pasture or meadow covering the open space9/15/2014 Acres Calculated Acres 0.83Sq Ft 0.00 0.11 0.00 Project-Related Volume Increase with Credits (cu ft) 0.71 1,055 851 Three cheers, you've done it!!Congratulations!!! 2.00 You have achieved your minimum requirements 0.00 0.37 Complete Either 4652 11506 0 0 Cu. Ft. SAN_LUIS_OBISPO Group C Soils User may make changes from any cell that is orange or brown in color (similar to the cells to the immediate right). Cells in green are calculated for you. SAN LUIS OBISPO Low infiltration. Sandy clay loam. Infiltration rate 0.05 to 0.15 inch/hr when wet. Runoff CalculationsProject Information GALLAGHER BRIDGE ST Precipitation Post-Construction Water Balance Calculator 31% 1475 Acres 2.72 0.83 Square Feet 0 16,117 1,217 2,692 1,307 Cu. Ft. Volume (cubic feet) Cu. Ft. Cu. Ft. 0.03 Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 347 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 AB C D E F G H I J K LN (Step 1a) If you know the 85th percentile storm event for your location enter it in the box below (Step 1b)If you can not answer 1a then select the county where the project is located (click on the cell to the right for drop-down): This will determine the average 85th percentile 24 hr. storm event for your site, which will appear under 2 (Step 1c)If you would like a more percise value select the location closest to your site. If you do not recgonize any of these locations, leave this drop-down menu at location. The average value for the County will be used. Project Name:(Step 2) Indicate the Soil Type (dropdown menu to right): Waste Discharge Identification (WDID): (Step 3)Indicate the existing dominant non-built land Use Type (dropdown menu to right): Date: (Step 4) Indicate the proposed dominant non-built land Use Type (dropdown menu to right): Sub Drainage Area Name (from map): Acres 74 (Step 5) Total Project Site Area: 90 (Step 6) Sub-watershed Area: Percent of total project :Based on the County you indicated above, we have included the 85 percentile average 24 hr event - P85 (in)^ for your area. in The Amount of rainfall needed for runoff to occur (Existing regional curve - P from existing RCN (in)^) In (Step 7) Sub-watershed Conditions P used for calculations (in) (the greater of the above two criteria)In Sub-watershed Area (acres)Acres ^Available at www.cabmphandbooks.com Existing Rooftop Lot Coverage Existing Non-Rooftop Lot Coverage Proposed Rooftop Lot Coverage Proposed Non-Rooftop Lot Coverage Credits Porous Pavement Tree Planting Pre-Project Runoff Volume (cu ft)Cu.Ft. Downspout Disconnection Project-Related Runoff Volume Increase w/o credits (cu ft)Cu.Ft. Impervious Area Disconnection Green Roof Stream Buffer Vegetated Swales Bioretention Area (calculated in step 9) Subtotal Subtotal Runoff Volume Reduction Credit (Step 9) Impervious Volume Reduction Credits Rain Barrels/Cisterns Bioretention Area Soil Quality Cu. Ft. Subtotal Runoff Volume Reduction Total Runoff Volume Reduction Credit 0 0.02 571 Cu.Ft. 0.00 0.16 0 1,307 0 6,970 0.00 4430Proposed Development Pervious Runoff Curve Number 0.02 285 0 1,307 871 2.00 0.03 0.03 Optional Regional Curve Numbers Existing Pervious Runoff Curve Number Complete EitherWATERSHED 9 118608 Sq Ft Open Space: grass cover >75% Solid lawn, grass, pasture or meadow covering the open space9/15/2014 Acres Calculated Acres 0.10Sq Ft 0.00 0.05 0.00 Project-Related Volume Increase with Credits (cu ft) 0.71 127 60 Three cheers, you've done it!!Congratulations!!! 2.00 You have achieved your minimum requirements 0.00 0.07 Complete Either 2108 1044 0 0 Cu. Ft. SAN_LUIS_OBISPO Group C Soils User may make changes from any cell that is orange or brown in color (similar to the cells to the immediate right). Cells in green are calculated for you. SAN LUIS OBISPO Low infiltration. Sandy clay loam. Infiltration rate 0.05 to 0.15 inch/hr when wet. Runoff CalculationsProject Information GALLAGHER BRIDGE ST Precipitation Post-Construction Water Balance Calculator 4% 226 Acres 2.72 0.10 Square Feet 0 3,049 285 511 436 Cu. Ft. Volume (cubic feet) Cu. Ft. Cu. Ft. 0.01 Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 348 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 AB C D E F G H I J K LN (Step 1a) If you know the 85th percentile storm event for your location enter it in the box below (Step 1b)If you can not answer 1a then select the county where the project is located (click on the cell to the right for drop-down): This will determine the average 85th percentile 24 hr. storm event for your site, which will appear under 2 (Step 1c)If you would like a more percise value select the location closest to your site. If you do not recgonize any of these locations, leave this drop-down menu at location. The average value for the County will be used. Project Name:(Step 2) Indicate the Soil Type (dropdown menu to right): Waste Discharge Identification (WDID): (Step 3)Indicate the existing dominant non-built land Use Type (dropdown menu to right): Date: (Step 4) Indicate the proposed dominant non-built land Use Type (dropdown menu to right): Sub Drainage Area Name (from map): Acres 74 (Step 5) Total Project Site Area: 79 (Step 6) Sub-watershed Area: Percent of total project :Based on the County you indicated above, we have included the 85 percentile average 24 hr event - P85 (in)^ for your area. in The Amount of rainfall needed for runoff to occur (Existing regional curve - P from existing RCN (in)^) In (Step 7) Sub-watershed Conditions P used for calculations (in) (the greater of the above two criteria)In Sub-watershed Area (acres)Acres ^Available at www.cabmphandbooks.com Existing Rooftop Lot Coverage Existing Non-Rooftop Lot Coverage Proposed Rooftop Lot Coverage Proposed Non-Rooftop Lot Coverage Credits Porous Pavement Tree Planting Pre-Project Runoff Volume (cu ft)Cu.Ft. Downspout Disconnection Project-Related Runoff Volume Increase w/o credits (cu ft)Cu.Ft. Impervious Area Disconnection Green Roof Stream Buffer Vegetated Swales Bioretention Area (calculated in step 9) Subtotal Subtotal Runoff Volume Reduction Credit (Step 9) Impervious Volume Reduction Credits Rain Barrels/Cisterns Bioretention Area Soil Quality Cu. Ft. Subtotal Runoff Volume Reduction Total Runoff Volume Reduction Credit 0 132 470 436 Cu. Ft. Volume (cubic feet) Cu. Ft. Cu. Ft. 0.01 Precipitation Post-Construction Water Balance Calculator 8% 338 Acres 2.72 0.23 Square Feet 3,049 0 SAN_LUIS_OBISPO Group C Soils User may make changes from any cell that is orange or brown in color (similar to the cells to the immediate right). Cells in green are calculated for you. SAN LUIS OBISPO Low infiltration. Sandy clay loam. Infiltration rate 0.05 to 0.15 inch/hr when wet. Runoff CalculationsProject Information GALLAGHER BRIDGE ST You have achieved your minimum requirements 0.07 0.00 Complete Either 3248 0 0 0 Cu. Ft. Project-Related Volume Increase with Credits (cu ft) 0.71 292 284 Three cheers, you've done it!!Congratulations!!! 2.00 Acres Calculated Acres 0.23Sq Ft 0.00 0.07 0.00 Optional Regional Curve Numbers Existing Pervious Runoff Curve Number Complete EitherWATERSHED 10 118608 Sq Ft Open Space: grass cover >75% Solid lawn, grass, pasture or meadow covering the open space9/15/2014 10166Proposed Development Pervious Runoff Curve Number 0.00 132 0 1,742 0 2.00 0.08 0.04 0.00 754 Cu.Ft. 0.00 0.20 0 3,485 0 8,712 0.00 Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 349 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 AB C D E F G H I J K LN (Step 1a) If you know the 85th percentile storm event for your location enter it in the box below (Step 1b)If you can not answer 1a then select the county where the project is located (click on the cell to the right for drop-down): This will determine the average 85th percentile 24 hr. storm event for your site, which will appear under 2 (Step 1c)If you would like a more percise value select the location closest to your site. If you do not recgonize any of these locations, leave this drop-down menu at location. The average value for the County will be used. Project Name:(Step 2) Indicate the Soil Type (dropdown menu to right): Waste Discharge Identification (WDID): (Step 3)Indicate the existing dominant non-built land Use Type (dropdown menu to right): Date: (Step 4) Indicate the proposed dominant non-built land Use Type (dropdown menu to right): Sub Drainage Area Name (from map): Acres 93 (Step 5) Total Project Site Area: 96 (Step 6) Sub-watershed Area: Percent of total project :Based on the County you indicated above, we have included the 85 percentile average 24 hr event - P85 (in)^ for your area. in The Amount of rainfall needed for runoff to occur (Existing regional curve - P from existing RCN (in)^) In (Step 7) Sub-watershed Conditions P used for calculations (in) (the greater of the above two criteria)In Sub-watershed Area (acres)Acres ^Available at www.cabmphandbooks.com Existing Rooftop Lot Coverage Existing Non-Rooftop Lot Coverage Proposed Rooftop Lot Coverage Proposed Non-Rooftop Lot Coverage Credits Porous Pavement Tree Planting Pre-Project Runoff Volume (cu ft)Cu.Ft. Downspout Disconnection Project-Related Runoff Volume Increase w/o credits (cu ft)Cu.Ft. Impervious Area Disconnection Green Roof Stream Buffer Vegetated Swales Bioretention Area (calculated in step 9) Subtotal Subtotal Runoff Volume Reduction Credit (Step 9) Impervious Volume Reduction Credits Rain Barrels/Cisterns Bioretention Area Soil Quality Cu. Ft. Subtotal Runoff Volume Reduction Total Runoff Volume Reduction Credit 0 0 313 0 Cu. Ft. Volume (cubic feet) Cu. Ft. Cu. Ft. 0.00 Precipitation Post-Construction Water Balance Calculator 7% 313 Acres 2.72 0.19 Square Feet 0 0 SAN_LUIS_OBISPO Group D Soils User may make changes from any cell that is orange or brown in color (similar to the cells to the immediate right). Cells in green are calculated for you. SAN LUIS OBISPO Very low infiltration. Clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay, or clay. Infiltration rate 0 to 0.05 inch/hr when wet. Runoff CalculationsProject Information GALLAGHER BRIDGE ST You have achieved your minimum requirements 0.00 0.00 Complete Either 0 7471 0 6034 Cu. Ft. Project-Related Volume Increase with Credits (cu ft) 0.15 1,145 1,006 Three cheers, you've done it!!Congratulations!!! 2.00 Acres Calculated Acres 0.19Sq Ft 0.14 0.00 0.00 Optional Regional Curve Numbers Existing Pervious Runoff Curve Number Complete EitherWATERSHED 11 118608 Sq Ft Open Space: grass cover >75% Solid lawn, grass, pasture or meadow covering the open space9/15/2014 8224Proposed Development Pervious Runoff Curve Number 0.17 0 0 0 7,405 2.00 0.03 0.00 0.17 1,319 Cu.Ft. 0.00 0.26 2,614 1,307 0 11,326 0.06 Attachment 5ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 350 Geotechnical Engineering Report For Proposed Mixed Use Development Bridge Street APN 004-811-036 San Luis Obispo, California April 25, 2012 F-100630 Prepared For Devin Gallagher By Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. P.O. Box 4814 Paso Robles, California 93447 Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 351 April 25, 2012 Devin Gallagher 279 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Project: Proposed Mixed Use Development Bridge Street San Luis Obispo Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report As authorized, we have performed a Geotechnical Study for the above referenced project. The accompanying Geotechnical Engineering Report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory conclusions and recommendations for geotechnical engineering aspects of project design. Our services were performed using the standard of care ordinarily exercised in this locality at the time this report was prepared. Based on our study, it is our opinion that t development from a geotechnical engineering standpoint provided the recommendations of this report are successfully implemented. We have appreciated this opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please call if you have any questions, or if we can be of further service. Respectfully submitted, Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. Josh Cwikla P.G. Project Manager Copies: 3-Devin Gallagher 1-Steve Lachaine 1-File San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Mixed Use Development Bridge Street APN 004-811-036 San Luis Obispo, California chnical Engineering Report As authorized, we have performed a Geotechnical Study for the above referenced project. The accompanying Geotechnical Engineering Report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, laboratory-testing program and ons and recommendations for geotechnical engineering aspects of project design. Our services were performed using the standard of care ordinarily exercised in this locality at the time this report was prepared. Based on our study, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering standpoint provided the recommendations of this report are successfully implemented. We have appreciated this opportunity to be of service to you on this project. if you have any questions, or if we can be of further service. Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. Nicholas A. McClure Civil Engineer F-100630 As authorized, we have performed a Geotechnical Study for the above referenced project. The accompanying Geotechnical Engineering Report presents testing program and ons and recommendations for geotechnical engineering aspects of project design. Our services were performed using the standard of care ordinarily he site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering standpoint provided the We have appreciated this opportunity to be of service to you on this project. if you have any questions, or if we can be of further service. McClure Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 352 F-100630 April 25, 2012 1 _________________________________________________________________ • Description This report presents results of a Geotechnical Engineering Study performed for the proposed mixed use development to be located in San Luis Obispo, California. 1. It should be noted that a grading and foundation plan were not provided for the purpose of this report. Prior to any construction, this firm should review the project plans to verify or modify the recommendations offered herein. 2. We anticipate that the site will be developed by building a new access driveway off of Bridge Street. The driveway will cross the drainage tributary running from east to west. A truss style bridge will be placed on new abutments constructed on both sides of the tributary. The bridge is assumed to span approximately sixty (60) feet. The vacant parcel on the south side of the drainage tributary is assumed to be developed for mixed use, consisting of commercial/manufacturing and residential buildings. Grading is assumed throughout the site to raise buildings above any floodplain elevations. At the time of this report, a conceptual plan had not been developed. 3. The proposed structures are assumed to be one (1), two (2) or three (3) stories of CMU Block, wood or steel framed construction. 4. Structural considerations for maximum wall loads of 1.75 kips per square foot and maximum point loads of 18 kips were used as a basis for the recommendations of this report. If actual loads vary significantly from these assumed loads, Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. should be notified as re- evaluation of the recommendations contained herein may be required. • Purpose and Scope of Work The purpose of the geotechnical investigation that led to this report was to evaluate the soil conditions of the site with respect to the proposed development. These conditions include surface and subsurface soil types, expansion potential, settlement potential, bearing capacity, and presence or absence of subsurface water. The scope of our work included: 1. Reconnaissance of the site. 2. Drilling, sampling and logging of seven (7) borings to investigate soils and groundwater conditions. 3. Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained from subsurface exploration to determine their physical and engineering properties. 4. Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained. 5. Consultation with owner representatives and design professionals. 6. Preparation of this report. PROJECT INTRODUCTION Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 353 F-100630 April 25, 2012 2 Contained in the report are: 1. Discussions on local soil and groundwater conditions. 2. Results of laboratory and field tests. 3. Conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site grading and structural design. • Site Setting 1. The site of the proposed development is located at the far eastern end of Bridge Street and to the south, across the drainage tributary, in the City of San Luis Obispo, California, with the approximate geographical coordinates 35°16’01.28”N and 120°39’57.33”W. See the Vicinity Map in Appendix A. 2. The site is an approximate 2.75 acre vacant parcel located adjacent to a drainage tributary draining from east to west toward San Luis Creek. Topographically, the site is relatively level and located at the base of a hill and situated in an AO Zone on FEMA Flood Zone Maps. 3. The site area for development is currently natural short to tall grasses and weeds. ________________________________________________________ • Evaluation of the subsurface indicates that soils are generally silty sandy clays overlain by silty sandy clay with gravel. • Soils encountered at approximate bearing depths should be designed as Site Classification D in accordance with the local building code. • Expansion determination indicates that the bearing soils lie in the “Medium” range. • Groundwater was encountered at a minimum depth of six (6) feet below the existing grade in our borings. • It should be noted that the groundwater elevation can fluctuate depending upon seasonal changes, rainfall intensity, irrigation practices and other unknown factors. However, based on a study of the surrounding topography and irrigation practices of the existing park and surrounding residential developments, fluctuations in the groundwater elevation is not anticipated. _________________________________________________________________ Seismic Hazards • This portion of Central California is subject to significant seismic hazards from moderate to large earthquake events. Ground shaking resulting from earthquakes is the primary geologic hazard at the project site. Ground displacement resulting from faulting is a potential hazard at or near faults. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS SEISMIC AND LANDSLIDE HAZARDS Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 354 F-100630 April 25, 2012 3 • The site does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone identified on a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone Map. • Faults closest to the site, which would most affect the proposed project: 1. Earthquake-induced vibrations can be the cause of several significant phenomena, including liquefaction in fine sands and silty sands. Liquefaction results in a complete loss of strength and can cause structures to settle or even overturn if it occurs in the bearing zone. If liquefaction occurs beneath sloping ground, a phenomenon known as lateral spreading can occur. Liquefaction is typically limited to the upper 50 feet of the subsurface soils and to soils that have a relative density of less than 70%. 2. Based on the very cohesive nature of native soils found in our boring explorations, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction and/or lateral spreading is low at this site. • Landslide Hazards 1. The site topography and exposed soils types indicate that the potential for landslides is minimal at this site. Furthermore, no evidence of previous landslides was observed at the site. _________________________________________________________________ • Seismic Design Conditions The following estimated ground motion parameters have been established using the methods outlined in the 2010 California Building Code with reference to the acceleration contour maps provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project (NSHMP). These ground motion parameters represent the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) spectral response of seismic events experiencing 5 percent damped acceleration and having a 2 percent probability of exceedance within a 50 year period. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Nearby Active Faults Approximate Distance (km) Magnitude MW Los Osos Fault San Luis Range Fault Rinconada Fault Hosgri Fault San Andreas Fault Zone 2.8 8.6 12.2 23.4 59.5 6.9 7.1 7.5 7.3 8.0 Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 355 F-100630 April 25, 2012 4 _________________________________________________________________ The site is suitable for the proposed development from a geotechnical engineering standpoint provided the recommendations contained herein are properly implemented into the project. • General Grading 1. Grading, at a minimum, should conform to Chapter 18, and any additional locally approved appendices relating to grading, of the 2010 California Building Code. 2. The existing ground surface should be initially prepared for grading by removing all vegetation, trees, large roots, debris, non-complying fill and all other organic material. Voids created by removal of such material should not be backfilled unless the underlying soils have been observed by a representative of this firm. 3. The bottom of all excavations should be observed by a representative of this firm prior to processing or placing fill. 4. Fill and backfill placed at near optimum moisture in layers with loose thickness not greater than eight (8) inches should be compacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM D 1557 Test Method. 5. Import soils used to raise site grade should be equal to or better than on- site soils in strength, expansion and compressibility characteristics. Import soils can be evaluated, but will not be pre-qualified by the geotechnical engineering firm. Final comments on the characteristics of the import soils will be offered after the material is at the project site. 2010 California Building Code Seismic Parameters Parameter Value Seismic Design Category D Site Class D Short Period Spectral Acceleration, Ss 1.415 1-second period spectral acceleration, S1 0.517 Short period site coefficient, Fa 1.000 1-second period site coefficient, Fv 1.500 Adjusted short period spectral acceleration, Sms 1.415 Adjusted 1-second period spectral acceleration, Sm1 0.776 Short period design spectral acceleration, SDS 0.943 1-second period design spectral acceleration, SD1 0.517 DESIGN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 356 F-100630 April 25, 2012 5 6. Roof draining systems should be designed so that water is not discharged onto bearing soils or near structures. 7. Final site grade should be such that all water is permanently diverted away from the structure and is not allowed to pond. The ground immediately adjacent to the building shall be sloped 5% for a minimum of ten (10) feet measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. All diverted water is to be directed to an approved drainage. Alternative grading methods can be found in C.B.C. Section 1804.3. 8. It should be noted that uniform soil moisture conditions around the perimeter of the structure will help decrease the potential for differential swelling and heaving associated with expansive soils. Post-construction care should be taken to create long-term landscaping and irrigation solutions that do not allow for frequent changes in soil moisture content or irregular application of water around the perimeter of the structure. 9. The above referenced site drainage conditions should be maintained over the course of the life of the structure. Proper long term performance of the foundation and building pad may be compromised if the surrounding site drainage and grading is adversely modified. 10. It is recommended that Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. be retained to provide intermittent geotechnical engineering services during site development, grading and foundation construction phases of the work to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. 11. Plans and specifications should be provided to Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. prior to grading. Plans should include the grading plans, and foundation details. Structural loads should be shown on the foundation plans. 12. Should soils become unstable during grading due to excessive subsurface moisture, alternatives to correct instability may include aeration or the use of gravels and/or geotextiles as stabilizing measures. Recommendations for stabilization should be provided by this firm as needed during construction. 13. All water associated with drainage and runoff should not be discharged onto slope faces. All outflow of drainage structures and drainage facilities should be designed by the project Civil Engineer to minimize erosion. • Site Development – Grading Pads & Foundation Excavations Bridge Abutments: 1. In order to provide a stable platform for abutment foundations, soils should be over-excavated to a depth of four (4) feet below existing grade, two (2) feet below the bottom of foundations, or 75% of the deepest fill thickness, Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 357 F-100630 April 25, 2012 6 whichever is deeper. The overexcavation should extend to a distance of four (4) feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed foundation. The resulting surface should be scarified to a depth of one (1) foot, moisture conditioned and recompacted to a minimum of 95% of maximum dry density before installing a layer of Propex GEOTEX 315ST stabilizer fabric, or equivalent, across the entire pad site. The stabilizer fabric overlap should be a minimum of two (2) feet. The remaining soils may then be replaced in thin lifts, moisture conditioned and recompacted to a minimum of 92% of maximum dry density. Care should be taken as not to tear or bunch stabilizer fabric during the soil recompaction process. Buildings: 1. Due to the presence of soft surficial soils at the proposed bearing depths and a high groundwater elevation, soils should be over-excavated to a depth of four (4) feet below existing grade, two (2) feet below the bottom of foundations, or 75% of the deepest fill thickness, whichever is deeper. The overexcavation should extend to a distance of five (5) feet beyond the perimeter of the proposed structures (including covered deck areas). The resulting surface should be scarified to a depth of one (1) foot, moisture conditioned and recompacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum dry density before installing a layer of Propex GEOTEX 315ST stabilizer fabric, or equivalent, across the entire pad site. The stabilizer fabric overlap should be a minimum of two (2) feet. The remaining soils may then be replaced in thin lifts, moisture conditioned and recompacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum dry density. Care should be taken as not to tear or bunch stabilizer fabric during the soil recompaction process. 2. Excavations Note – Any excavated material from foundation or drainage systems should be properly recompacted in accordance with all the recommendations for engineered fill. Alternatively, excavated soil may be hauled off site when adequate placement area is not available at the project location. 3. Areas outside the building area to receive fill, exterior slabs-on-grade, sidewalks and paving should be overexcavated to a depth of one (1) foot. The exposed surface should be scarified, moisture conditioned and recompacted. 4. On-site soils may be used for fill once they are cleaned of all organic material, rock, debris and irreducible material larger than eight (8) inches. 5. Although not encountered in our borings, should any trash, debris or subsurface structures be encountered during grading, removals will be necessary to adequate depths and horizontal limits as recommended by this firm at the time of grading. 6. Grading inspections shall be performed in accordance with the 2010 CBC Tables 1704.7. See Appendix B for project specific grading observation requirements. Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 358 F-100630 April 25, 2012 7 • Paving 1. All finished subgrade soils in areas to be paved should be scarified to a depth of one (1) foot, moisture conditioned and re-compacted to a minimum of 95% of maximum dry density. Any soft or loose areas encountered should be removed to a depth to satisfy the representative of this firm. Finished pavement sections should be composed of Class II Base compacted to a minimum of 95% of maximum dry density overlain by compacted asphalt. The actual Traffic Index should be determined by the project Civil Engineer. Pavement Sections R-Value Traffic Index Class II Base (in.) Asphalt (in.) 16 5.0 9.0 2.5 16 6.0 11.5 3.0 16 7.0 14.0 3.5 • Site Development – Slope Construction 1. All hillside grading and construction of fill slopes should conform to the minimum standards listed in Chapter 18 of the California Building Code. It is recommended that a representative of this firm review the grading plans prior to grading and site development. 2. Fill slopes should be keyed and benched into firm natural ground when the existing slope to receive fill is 10:1, horizontal to vertical, or steeper. The keys should be tilted into the slope, should be a minimum of one equipment width wide, and should extend a minimum of three (3) feet deep at the outside edge. 3. Fill slopes should be overfilled, compacted and cut back to planned configurations. This will yield better compaction on the slope faces than other methods. 4. Lined drainage swales and down drains should be provided at the tops of all cut and fill slopes to divert drainage away from the slope faces. 5. Cut and fill slopes should not be constructed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Setbacks of structures from slopes should be maintained as per the C.B.C. • Site Development – Utility Trenches 1. Utility trench backfill should be governed by the provisions of this report relating to minimum compaction standards. In general, service lines inside of the property lines may be backfilled with native soils and compacted to a minimum of 90% of maximum dry density. Backfill of offsite service lines will be subject to the specifications of the jurisdictional agency or this report, whichever is more stringent. 2. A representative of this firm is to monitor compliance with these recommendations. Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 359 F-100630 April 25, 2012 8 • Structural Design – Foundations 1. Conventional continuous footings may be used for support of the structures. 2. Footings should bear entirely into firm recompacted soils. 3. Based on the project expansive soil conditions, it is assumed that the footings will extend a minimum of twenty-one (21) inches below lowest adjacent grade. The structural engineer of record may incorporate additional and/or alternative means of mitigating the expansive soils and should clearly state the design conditions on the project foundation plans and details. 4. Conventional continuous footings may be designed based on an allowable bearing value of 1750 psf. 5. Allowable bearing values are net (weight of footing and soils surcharge may be neglected) and are applicable for dead plus reasonable live loads. 6. Bearing values may be increased by one-third when transient loads such as wind and/or seismicity are incorporated into designs using the alternate load combinations in 2010 CBC Section 1605.3.2. 7. Lateral loads may be resisted by soils friction on floor slabs and foundations and by passive resistance of the soils acting on foundation stem walls. Lateral capacity is based on the assumption that any required backfill adjacent to foundations and grade beams is properly compacted. 8. For structures to be constructed above slopes, the outside faces at the bottom of footings should provide a minimum horizontal distance of ten (10) feet from the slope face. 9. Conventional continuous footings for buildings where the ground surface slopes at 10:1, horizontal to vertical, or steeper should be stepped so that both top and bottom are level. 10. Reinforcement of footings bottomed in soils in the “Medium” expansion range should be designed by the Project Structural Engineer to properly resist the effects of the expansive soil. Additionally, soils should be presaturated to 130% of optimum moisture content to a depth of twenty-seven (27) inches below lowest adjacent grade. 11. Foundation excavations should be observed by a representative of Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. after excavation, but prior to placing reinforcing steel or forms. • Structural Design – Slab On Grade 1. Concrete slabs should be supported by compacted structural fill as recommended earlier in this report. 2. It is recommended that perimeter slabs (walks, patios, etc.) be designed relatively independent of footing stems (i.e. free floating) so foundation adjustment will be less likely to cause cracking. Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 360 F-100630 April 25, 2012 9 3. Slabs constructed over expansive soil should be underlain with a minimum of ten (10) inches of non-expansive material. The lower six (6) inches is to be of clean ¾” non-spec gravel covered with a layer of 10mil visqueen. The visqueen is then to be covered with four (4) inches of clean and free draining sand. 4. Reinforcement and slab thickness should be determined by the Project Structural Engineer. 5. Soils underlying slabs in the “Medium” expansion range, as a minimum, should be presaturated to 130% of optimum moisture content to a depth of twenty-seven (27) inches below lowest adjacent grade. • Structural Design – Lateral Resistance Parameters 1. Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting on the base of foundations. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be applied to dead load forces. This value does not include a factor of safety. 2. Passive resistance acting on the sides of foundation stems equal to 275 pcf of equivalent fluid weight may be included for resistance to lateral load. This value does not include a factor of safety. However, when passive resistance is used in conjunction with friction, the less significant resistance term should be reduced by one-third in determining the total lateral resistance. 3. A one-third increase in the quoted passive value may be used when considering transient loads such as wind and seismicity. • Structural Design – Settlement Considerations 1. Maximum expected settlements approximately 3/4 inches are anticipated for foundations and floor slabs designed as recommended. 2. Differential settlement between adjacent load bearing members should be less than one-half the total settlement. 3. The majority of settlement should occur during construction. Post construction settlement should be minimal. • Structural Design – Retaining Walls 1. Conventional cantilever retaining walls bearing in soils prepared in accordance with the “Grading Pads – Site Development and Foundation Excavations” section of this report and backfilled with compacted soils may be designed for the lateral pressures listed below: Active Case 45 pcf At Rest Case 75 pcf Passive Case 275 pcf Max. Toe Pressure 1750 psf Coefficient of Sliding Friction 0.30 Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 361 F-100630 April 25, 2012 10 2. Basement and structural retaining walls may be designed based on a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.37 in accordance with the 2010 CBC Section 1803.5.12. For Seismic Design Category D, E or F, the peak ground acceleration value should be incorporated into the design of basement and structural retaining walls and has been taken as SDS/2.5. 3. In addition to the static soil pressures described above, it is important to note that the active pressure condition will only fully develop if the retaining wall structure is allowed to move a sufficient distance. The necessary lateral movements required to establish the active pressure condition are shown below, Non-Expansive Granular Soil 0.001H – 0.004H Expansive Cohesive Soil 0.01H – 0.04H where H represents the height of the wall. At-rest pressures should be used for design purposes where retaining wall systems connected or adjacent to building structures would be adversely affected by the above referenced lateral displacements. 4. Design pressures noted above are applicable to a horizontally retained surface behind the wall. Walls having a retained surface that slopes upward from the wall should be designed for an additional equivalent fluid pressure of 1 pcf for the active case and 1.5 pcf for the at-rest case, for every two degrees of slope inclination. Walls positioned on or near descending slopes should be evaluated by this firm on an individual basis. 5. Retaining wall conditions greater than ten (10) feet in height requiring additional seismic design load values should be reviewed by this firm prior to establishing the appropriate seismic design parameters. 6. The pressures listed above were based on the assumption that backfilled soils will be compacted to 90% of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 Test Method. 7. The lateral earth pressure to be resisted by the retaining walls or similar structures should include the loads from any structures or temporary loads that influence the wall design. 8. A back drain or an equivalent system of backfill drainage should be incorporated into the retaining wall design. Backfill immediately behind the retaining structure should be a free-draining granular material. Alternatively, the back of the wall could be lined with a geodrain system. 9. Compaction on the uphill side of the wall within a horizontal distance equal to one wall height should be performed by hand-operated or other lightweight compaction equipment. This is intended to reduce potential “locked-in” lateral pressures caused by compaction with heavy grading equipment. Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 362 F-100630 April 25, 2012 11 10. Water should not be allowed to pond near the top of the wall. To accomplish this, the final backfill site grade should be such that all water is diverted away from the retaining wall. _________________________________________________________________ USGS, Online, Geologic Hazards Science Center, United States Geological Society, in Cooperation with California Geological Society (CGS), www.geohazards.usgs.gov/qfaults/ca/California.php _________________________________________________________________ This report is based on the assumption that an adequate program of monitoring and testing will be performed by Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. during construction to check compliance with the recommendations given in this report. The recommended tests and observations include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1. Review of the building and grading plans during the design phase of the project. 2. Observation and testing during site preparation, grading, placing of engineered fill, and foundation construction. 3. Consultation as required during construction. _________________________________________________________________ The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from the borings drilled on site. The nature and extent of variations between and beyond the borings may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it may be necessary to re- evaluate the recommendations of this report. The scope of our services did not include environmental assessment or geological study. The scope of services did not include investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air. Any statements in this report or on the soil boring logs regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items or conditions observed are strictly for the information of the client. ADDITIONAL SERVICES PROJECT LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS REFERENCES CITED Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 363 F-100630 April 25, 2012 12 Findings of this report are valid as of this date, however, changes in a condition of a property can occur with passage of time whether they be due to natural processes or works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standard may occur whether they result from legislation or broadening knowledge. Accordingly, findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one (1) year. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the structure and other improvements are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representatives to insure the information and recommendations offered herein are called to the attention of the project architect and engineers. It is also the responsibility of the owner or his representatives to insure the information and recommendations offered herein are incorporated into the project plans and specifications and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the client and authorized agents. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranties, either expressed or implied, are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement. It is recommended that Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. If Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. END OF TEXT Appendices Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 364 _________________________________________________________________ Appendix A – Field Investigation Vicinity Map Site Plan Quaternary Fault Map Investigation Parameters Unified Soil Classification Table Boring Logs Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 365 PROJECT #: F-100630 SITE Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 366 PROJECT #: F-100630 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 = Approximate Boring Location Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 367 PROJECT #: F-100630 QUATERNARY FAULT MAP Map Showing Nearby Quaternary Aged Faults (USGS, Online) SITE Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 368 _________________________________________________________________ • The borings were drilled to a maximum depth of fifty (50) feet below the existing ground surface to observe the soil profile and to obtain samples for laboratory analysis. The borings were drilled on April 19, 2012 using a mobile drill rig and/or hand auguring equipment. The approximate locations of the borings were determined in the field by pacing and sighting, and are shown on the Site Plan in this Appendix. • Blow counts were obtained within the test borings with Standard Penetration Test (S.P.T.) equipment. The blow counts were obtained by driving the sampler with a 140 pound hammer dropping thirty (30) inches in accordance with ASTM D 1586. • Bulk samples of the soils encountered were gathered from the auger cuttings. • The final logs of borings represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and the results of laboratory testing performed on the samples obtained during the subsurface investigation. The final logs are included in this Appendix. Investigation Parameters Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 369 UNITED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D-2487) UNITED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART F-100630 Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 370 LOG OF BORING Bridge Street APN 004-811-036 Site Location: San Luis Obispo, CA F-100630 Driller/Helper: Rig Type: Giddings #10 SCS BORING NO. 1 Auger Diameter: 4” Date: April 19, 2012 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE Time Depth SPT=Standard Penetration Test (uncorrected value, N/corrected value, N) 6.0’ Depth (ft.) Blow Type Blows per ft. Drilling comments Voids Moisture Description USCS Beacon Soil ID 0 Brown silty sandy clay with gravel CL C1 16 +1% Water Light brown silty sandy clay CL C2 5 12 Sat 10 15 Total Depth @ 15’ 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 371 LOG OF BORING Bridge Street APN 004-811-036 Site Location: San Luis Obispo, CA F-100630 Driller/Helper: Rig Type: Giddings #10 SCS BORING NO. 2 Auger Diameter: 4” Date: April 19, 2012 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE Time Depth SPT=Standard Penetration Test (uncorrected value, N/corrected value, N) 6.0’ Depth (ft.) Blow Type Blows per ft. Drilling comments Voids Moisture Description USCS Beacon Soil ID 0 -1% Brown silty sandy clay with gravel CL C1 Water +4% Light brown silty sandy clay CL C2 5 10 Total Depth @ 10’ 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 372 LOG OF BORING Bridge Street APN 004-811-036 Site Location: San Luis Obispo, CA F-100630 Driller/Helper: Rig Type: Giddings #10 SCS BORING NO. 3 Auger Diameter: 4” Date: April 19, 2012 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE Time Depth SPT=Standard Penetration Test (uncorrected value, N/corrected value, N) 6.0’ Depth (ft.) Blow Type Blows per ft. Drilling comments Voids Moisture Description USCS Beacon Soil ID 0 Brown silty sandy clay with gravel CL C1 12 +1% Water Light brown silty sandy clay CL C2 5 14 +3% 10 15 Total Depth @ 15’ 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 373 LOG OF BORING Bridge Street APN 004-811-036 Site Location: San Luis Obispo, CA F-100630 Driller/Helper: Rig Type: Giddings #10 SCS BORING NO. 4 Auger Diameter: 4” Date: April 19, 2012 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE Time Depth SPT=Standard Penetration Test (uncorrected value, N/corrected value, N) 6.0’ Depth (ft.) Blow Type Blows per ft. Drilling comments Voids Moisture Description USCS Beacon Soil ID 0 +1% Brown silty sandy clay with gravel CL C1 17 Water Sat Light brown silty sandy clay CL C2 5 10 Total Depth @ 10’ 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 374 LOG OF BORING Bridge Street APN 004-811-036 Site Location: San Luis Obispo, CA F-100630 Driller/Helper: Rig Type: Giddings #10 SCS BORING NO. 5 Auger Diameter: 4” Date: April 19, 2012 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE Time Depth SPT=Standard Penetration Test (uncorrected value, N/corrected value, N) 6.0’ Depth (ft.) Blow Type Blows per ft. Drilling comments Voids Moisture Description USCS Beacon Soil ID 0 Brown silty sandy clay with gravel CL C1 17 +1% Water Light brown silty sandy clay CL C2 5 10 18 Sat 15 Total Depth @ 15’ 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 375 LOG OF BORING Bridge Street APN 004-811-036 Site Location: San Luis Obispo, CA F-100630 Driller/Helper: Rig Type: Giddings #10 SCS BORING NO. 6 Auger Diameter: 4” Date: April 19, 2012 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE Time Depth SPT=Standard Penetration Test (uncorrected value, N/corrected value, N) 6.0’ Depth (ft.) Blow Type Blows per ft. Drilling comments Voids Moisture Description USCS Beacon Soil ID 0 Brown silty sandy clay with gravel CL C1 12 +1% Water Light brown silty sandy clay CL C2 5 17 Sat 10 19 Sat 15 18 Sat Dark brown silty sandy clay CL C3 20 24 +3% 25 27 +3% 30 32 +2% 35 29 +5% 40 34 +3% 45 37 +4% 50 Total Depth @ 50’ Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 376 LOG OF BORING Bridge Street APN 004-811-036 Site Location: San Luis Obispo, CA F-100630 Driller/Helper: Rig Type: Giddings #10 SCS BORING NO. 7 Auger Diameter: 4” Date: April 19, 2012 GROUNDWATER SAMPLE TYPE Time Depth SPT=Standard Penetration Test (uncorrected value, N/corrected value, N) 6.0’ Depth (ft.) Blow Type Blows per ft. Drilling comments Voids Moisture Description USCS Beacon Soil ID 0 Brown silty sandy clay with gravel CL C1 9 +1% Water Light brown silty sandy clay CL C2 5 19 Sat 10 17 Sat 15 20 Sat +4% Dark brown silty sandy clay CL C3 20 Total Depth @ 20’ 25 30 35 40 45 50 Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 377 _________________________________________________________________ Laboratory Testing Parameters Laboratory Results Bench & Keyway Detail Transition Lot Detail 2010 CBC – Table 1704.4 and 1704.7 Appendix B – Laboratory Investigation Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 378 _________________________________________________________________ • Samples were reviewed along with field logs to determine which would be analyzed further. Those chosen for laboratory analysis were considered representative of soils that would be exposed and/or used during grading, and those deemed to be within the influence of the proposed structure. Test results are presented in this Appendix. • Expansion index test were performed on bulk soil samples in accordance with the C.B.C. The samples were surcharged under 144 pounds per square foot at moisture content of near 50% saturation. Samples were then submerged in water for 24 hours and the amount of expansion was recorded with a dial indicator. • Maximum density was performed to estimate the moisture-density relationship of typical soil materials. The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM designation D 1557-09. LABORATORY TESTING PARAMETERS Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 379 ________________________________________________________ Boring Max. Opt. Depth USCS Density Moisture E.I. P.I. (pcf) (%) Material C1 1@ 0’-4’ CL 112.1 12.6 75 15 Material C2 1@ 5’-15’ CL 107.1 16.8 99 -- Material C3 6@ 18’-50’ CL 110.7 13.9 -- -- LABORATORY RESULTS Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 380 Bridge Street F-100630 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS of SOILS ASTM D 422-02 C2 Gravel = 0%; Sand = 18%; Silt = 39%; Clay = 43% Sieve Size % Retained % Passing 3" (75.0-mm)0 100 1-1/2" (37.5-mm)0 100 3/4" (19.0-mm)0 100 3/8" (9.5-mm)0 100 #4 (4.75-mm)0 100 #8 (2.36-mm)0 100 #16 (1.18-mm)1 99 #30 (600-µm)4 96 #50 (300-µm)9 91 #100 (150-µm)13 87 #200 (75-µm)18 82 Hydrometer Analysis 25-µm 58 16-µm 55 10-µm 53 7-µm 50 5-µm 46 2.7-µm 43 Colloids (<1-µm)38 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110100PERCENT PASSINGGRAIN SIZE, mm U. S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING, in.HYDROMETER ANALYSISU. S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 381 Bridge Street F-100630 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS of SOILS ASTM D 422-02 C3 Gravel = 0%; Sand = 35%; Silt = 29%; Clay = 36% Sieve Size % Retained % Passing 3" (75.0-mm)0 100 1-1/2" (37.5-mm)0 100 3/4" (19.0-mm)0 100 3/8" (9.5-mm)0 100 #4 (4.75-mm)0 100 #8 (2.36-mm)0 100 #16 (1.18-mm)5 95 #30 (600-µm)8 92 #50 (300-µm)14 86 #100 (150-µm)27 73 #200 (75-µm)35 65 Hydrometer Analysis 27-µm 50 18-µm 47 11-µm 43 8-µm 41 6-µm 39 2.8-µm 36 Colloids (<1-µm)31 3 1.5 3/4 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.010.1110100PERCENT PASSINGGRAIN SIZE, mm U. S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING, in.HYDROMETER ANALYSISU. S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 382 PROJECT #: F-100630 Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 383 PROJECT #: F-100630 Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 384 Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 385 Attachment 6ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 386 February 20, 2014 F-100964 1 March 16, 2015 F-100630 Devin Gallagher 279 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Project: Bridge Street APN 004-811-036 Santa Luis Obispo, California Subject: Proposed Caisson Foundation Alternative Reference: 1) Geotechnical Engineering Report dated April 25, 2012 This letter has been prepared to address using cast-in-drilled-hold concrete pile (caisson) foundation systems for the proposed commercial development project. Upon review of the preliminary development designs, it has been determined that the proposed buildings and access bridge may be supported on caisson foundations in lieu of the over-excavated building pads with shallow foundations originally proposed in the above referenced soils report. Although the majority of the proposed buildings are understood to be supported on raised floor systems, where slabs-at-grade are needed, they should be designed by the project engineer-of-record to structurally span between adjacent grade beams and not rely on the surface soils for bearing. If these foundation design alternatives are incorporated into the project, overexcavation and recompaction of the soils below the structures will not be required. It should be noted that due to shallow groundwater conditions, the construction of the caissons will require the use of casing or other similar drilling/construction methods to prevent groundwater from collapsing the sidewalls of drilled piers. If there are any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, Beacon Geotechnical, Inc. Greg McKay Project Manager Nicholas A. McClure Geotechnical Engineer Attachment 7ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 387 279 Bridge Street Narrative for ARC Submittal September 18, 2014 1. Applicant Request: Devin Gallagher, as Trustee of the Koru Living Trust, requests Architectural Review approval to develop a Business Park with light industrial and manufacturing uses on a 2.73 acre site located at 279 Bridge Street. The applicant proposes to develop three buildings totaling 22,758 square feet with 13,525 square feet of coverage. The submittal request includes a bridge over Meadow Creek to provide access to the site. 2. Project Vision: We envision the project to be clean, contemporary and industrial in nature but with an emphasis and leaning towards the new ‘maker’ spirit with multiple smaller shops of craftsmen, artisans, manufacturers, inventors and entrepreneurs focused on creating the future. Complimentary uses such as winery, brewery and coffee roasting business are also envisioned. In addition, a commercial nursery use will be sought to tie the various building areas together. With close proximity to the bike system through Meadow park, bike oriented business will be strongly encouraged. 3. Zoning Information: The Site is zoned Manufacturing (M) and is located in an area with a mix of light industrial, manufacturing, offices, service commercial and residential uses (see Zoning Map and Aerial Map below). There are several zoning designations directly adjacent to the site. These include M (to the north and northwest), R-4-SP (to the northeast), R-2-SP (to the east), C-OS-40-SP (to the southeast), R -2-PD (to the South) and M-PD (to the west). Zoning Map ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 388 4. Existing and Surrounding Uses: There are a variety of uses adjacent to and near the site. These include business parks and a parking lot to the north; an existing office building (owned by King Ventures and often referred to as the glass building) to the northeast; two single family homes (off Exposition Drive) to the east; Meadow Park to the east; the South Hills Open Space to the southeast; a new residential mixed-use development (currently under construction) to the south; Architectural Iron Works (an industrial use) to the northwest; and the Old Mission Cemetery to the west. Aerial Map ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 389 5. Architecture: The architectural style, massing and site layout of the buildings was developed to reflect the industrial history of the property and take advantage of the site features including the topography, views, creek setting and solar orientation. The simple building massing evokes historic industrial buildings but with contemporary details utilizing traditional building materials including metal, glass steel, wood and concrete. These materials compliment both the adjacent Architectural Ironworks building and King Venture’s glass building and will complement the future adjacent development at Tract 2560. The buildings are sited to take advantage of the creek side setting as well as views both to and from the site. The unique nature of this property nestled between the riparian corridor of Meadow Creek and the South hills provides an opportunity to create a development with a distinctive sense of place. The location and placement of the buildings are intended to work the site to create attractive and functional outdoor rooms in which to enjoy and appreciate the natural setting. Building overhangs and patios further enhance the indoor-outdoor connection. Careful consideration was given to building articulation and 4-sided architecture to ensure quality design was given to each façade of the buildings. Building height was also considered in relation to neighboring properties with rooflines stepping or sloping down where close to property lines. The project was conceived and developed to emphasize sustainable design throughout. The following outline summarizes the green features incorporated into the project. Site design • On-site storm water management • Drought tolerant & native landscaping • Parking lot trees to reduce heat island • Rainwater management & low impact development features • Bike friendly setting Water efficiency • Roof water transmitted to groundwater via systems under the buildings • Grey water system Energy efficiency • Passive ventilation • Daylighting • Solar orientation for rooftop photovoltaics • Outdoor patio shading Materials • High recycled content • Durable & low maintenance • Locally sourced building products • Non-toxic & low VOC materials ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 390 6. Proposed Uses: Three buildings are proposed to be developed on the site totaling 22,758 square feet. The buildings are designed as “shells” to allow a variety of uses that are permitted in the Manufacturing (M) Zone. The applicant is considering the following uses which are designated in the Zoning Code as “Allowed” Uses (no Conditional Use Permit required). Bakery (Wholesale) Furniture/Cabinet Shop Laboratory – Medical, analytical, research, testing Laundry/Dry Cleaning Manufacturing – Light (including the possibility of a Brewery) Photo/Film Processing Printing/Publishing Storage Yard Warehousing, indoor storage Wholesaling & Distribution Caretakers Quarters Auto Parts Sales w/Installation Building and Landscape Materials Sales (both indoor and outdoor) Farm Supply/Feed Stores Business Support Services Offices – Accessory to the Primary Uses Catering Copying/Printing Equipment Rental Maintenance Services Repair Services – Equipment, Large Appliances Vehicle Repair & Maintenance Note that the upstairs portion of Building C includes a 1,709 square foot Caretakers Quarters (an Allowed Use) to provide night-time, on-site security for the proposed Business Park. The Caretakers Quarters is intended to help control the transient problem partially caused by the easy access to the site from Meadow Park through the Meadow Creek corridor. The exact hours of operation are not known at this time. However, the hours are likely to be similar to a typical light industrial, business park; which would be from approximately 7am to 6pm. Business may occasionally be conducted outside these hours; however, this would primarily be conducted inside the building and would not result in significant noise or traffic impacts on nearby uses. The Caretakers Quarters is anticipated to be occupied primarily between 6pm and 7am. The goods and services offered would be light industrial or manufacturing in nature and would be consistent with the list of uses noted above. The number of employees is not known at this time. 7. Environmental & Site Characteristics: The site is mostly vacant. On the main southern portion of the site it is primarily covered with non-native annual grasses. It is bordered to the north by the Meadow Creek riparian corridor and to the south by an ephemeral swale. The northern “flag” portion of the site, has an existing parking lot with ten spaces that serve the adjacent “glass building”. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 391 There are a total of five existing trees on the site (outside the creek corridor). These include two trees on the southern part of the site and three trees on the northern, flag portion of the site. These trees are (1) a California Pepper Tree, (2) an Italian Stone Pine (located in the southeast corner of the site), (3) a Coastal Live Oak, (4) a Pepper Tree (both located near the entrance on Bridge Street), and (5) a Chinese Pistache (located between the 10 parking spaces). Proposed tree removal includes the Italian Stone Pine (which appears to be in poor health); the Chinese Pistache; and several trees/willow clusters in the riparian corridor (to allow for the bridge crossing). Refer to the Biological Report and Tree Removal Exhibit for additional information. Note that the botanical surveys resulted in no observations of any rare, threatened, or endangered plant species within the project site. Furthermore, the observable and identifiable plants, habitats, and soils suggest the site does not support habitat for special-status plants. Regarding wildlife, no special status animal species were identified or anticipated to occur on the site. “Given the urban setting with a limited extent of grassland and riparian habitats, and the seasonal nature of Meadow Creek, the project site does not support suitable habitat for any special-status wildlife species (excerpt from Sage Biological Assessment).” Refer to the “Biological Resource Assessment” for additional information on biological resources and proposed vegetation removal. 8. Parking and Access: a. Parking: A total of 67 vehicle spaces, 10 bike spaces and 12 motorcycle spaces are proposed on the site. Note that there are an existing ten spaces provided on the north side of the bridge. These 10 spaces are primarily used by the building immediately to the east of these spaces (the glass building owned by King Ventures). The parking ratio south of the bridge is 1 space per 340 square feet of building. Table 6 of Section 17.16.060 of the Zoning Code primarily requires that light industrial and manufacturing uses provide parking at either 1 space per 300 square feet or 1 space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. The provided ratio of 1 space per 340 square feet should be adequate to provide parking for nearly any mix of light industrial and manufacturing uses. Note that the Zoning Code allows parking reductions (by Administrative Use Permit) for mixed-use, shared parking, and automobile trip reduction programs. Although these may be requested in the future, no reductions are requested at this time. b. Access: Access to the site will be provided via construction of a new bridge over Meadow Creek. This bridge would be accessed from Bridge Street by driving through the existing red brick parking lot used by the adjacent glass building (owned by King Ventures). Note that there are joint access and parking easements for the glass building but the property is actually a “flag” that is owned by the applicant (Devin Gallagher/Koru Trust). The brick parking areas will be reconstructed as part of the development. Most of the parking will remain in brick but the access/drive aisle will be replaced with concrete. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 392 It’s important to note that the site is currently “land locked” and has no vehicular access. In the past, the owner has explored the possibility of joint access over the bridge for the new mixed-use/residential project being constructed south of the site (Tract 2560). However, the adjacent developer was not interested in joint access because they did not want to mix their residential traffic with the industrial traffic of the proposed project. 9. Flood Zone: The site is located in an “AO” flood zone. This zone indicates that there is a potential of flooding up to 2’ over the existing grade during a 100 year storm. This issue has been addressed by elevating the first floor by approximately 3’ above the existing ground. Furthermore, the buildings are designed to allow flood waters to pass underneath the buildings in the event of a flood. This ensures that development on the site does not cause flooding problems for other properties in the vicinity or downstream. Additional detail is provided in the Flood Study. Flood Map Excerpt 10. Signage: A site project sign is proposed on Bridge Street just before you turn into the main entry to the project site. A directory sign is proposed immediately after the bridge crossing. The details of the signs will be provided in a separate submittal at a later date. 11. Art: A proposal for public art is not included at this time and will be submitted at a later date. However, the intention is to incorporate the Art Feature into the bridge surface and/or bridge railing. 12. Energy Conservation: The buildings are sited so that they take advantage of the sun’s rays and include plenty of glass and clerestory windows to maximize the use of natural light. In addition, the roofs of buildings A and B are tilted to the south to maximize solar orientation for solar panels; which will be provided for all the buildings on the site. Shade is provided by incorporating outdoor patios. 13. Affordable Housing: The housing fee will be paid at the appropriate time. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 393 GALLAGHER – BRIDGE STREET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT July 9, 2014 Prepared for: DEVIN GALLAGHER AND J. KNIGHT CONSULTING ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 394 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 1 3.0 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 4.0 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 4.1 PLANT COMMUNITIES ....................................................................................................................................... 2 4.2 WILDLIFE ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 4.3 WATERS OF THE U.S., WATERS OF THE STATE & WETLANDS ................................................................................... 3 4.4 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN ........................................................... 4 4.4.1 Special-Status Botanical Resources.............................................................................................................. 4 4.4.2 Special-Status Wildlife ................................................................................................................................. 4 5.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................................ 5 5.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 5 5.2 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................................................. 5 6.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 7 7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... 7 APPENDIX A – FIGURES FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2: PROJECT SITE HABITAT MAP FIGURE 3: CNDDB OCCURRENCES MAP (FIVE-MILE SEARCH RADIUS) FIGURE 4: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 395 GALLAGHER – BRIDGE STREET PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The proposed Gallagher Bridge Street project includes the construction of a road crossing of Meadow Creek to access and develop an approximately 2.73-acre site for a storage yard and future mixed use development. The purpose of this biological assessment is to document existing conditions of the proposed project site and Meadow Creek crossing to evaluate the potential for any direct or indirect significant impacts on biological resources or adverse effects on any rare, threatened, or endangered plant or wildlife species (special-status species). This report is intended to support the environmental review documentation process for the City of San Luis Obispo. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project site will be accessed off of Bridge Street by easement through existing development located on the south side of Bridge Street approximately 1,400 feet east of South Higuera Street in the City of San Luis Obispo. Figure 1 in Appendix A provided regional and detailed location maps. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes the construction of a bridge crossing of Meadow Creek and development of the 2.73-acre lot into a storage yard and future mixed use development with commercial and residential land uses. The Meadow Creek corridor will remain in open space in accordance with the City of San Luis Obispo creek setback policy. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed project site is predominantly composed of a non-native annual grassland habitat bordered by the Meadow Creek riparian corridor on the north and an ephemeral swale along the southern border of the site. Two existing residences (with more development approved) and an open space hillside are to the south of the site. Commercial and industrial development border Bridge Street extending west to South Higuera Street and east to Meadow Park. Residential development and Meadow Park are to the east along with additional residential development north of Bridge Street and in the neighborhood surrounding the area. The site is zoned M-1 for light industrial use. Figure 2 in Appendix A provides a habitat map of the project site. 3.0 METHODS SII conducted a review of available background information including the proposed project information, and a search and review of the current California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) within an approximate five-mile search radius of the proposed project site. The five-mile radius was used as the typical 10-mile search radius would have included areas well outside of the city limits and would not be relevant to this study in the urbanized City of San Luis Obispo. The CNDDB provided a list with mapped ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 396 locations of special-status plant and wildlife species, as well as natural communities of special concern, that have been recorded within the region of the project site. The CNDDB records help focus the field survey efforts and evaluation of potential project effects on specific species or habitats. The CNDDB occurrence map is included as Figure 3 in Appendix A. SII Principal Ecologist David Wolff conducted field reconnaissance surveys of the proposed project site on November 20, 2013, April 17, 2014, and May 20, 2014. The purpose of the field surveys was to document existing conditions within the study area in terms of habitat for plants and wildlife species, and the potential to support wetland and/or riparian habitats. Plant and wildlife species observed in the field were recorded. The field surveys included a thorough and complete springtime floristic inventory and rare plant survey of observable and identifiable plants. The study area habitat types were described by the aggregation of plants and wildlife based on the composition and structure of the dominant vegetation observed at the time the field reconnaissance was conducted. SII Principal Ecologist David Wolff reviewed the available background information, conducted a field survey, and is primary author and principal in charge of report preparation. The survey data collected on plant and wildlife species and conclusions presented in this biological assessment are based on the methods and field reconnaissance conducted over the project site as described above. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 PLANT COMMUNITIES The plant communities within the study area are generally described by the assemblages of observed plant species that occur together in the same area forming habitat types. Plant community descriptions are generally based on A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Plant names used in this report follow, The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Thoroughly Revised and Expanded (Baldwin et al. 2012). The following describes the plant communities and habitat characteristics observed within the project site. The project site supports three distinct plant communities: 1.) disturbed non-native annual grassland; 2. arroyo willow riparian woodland; and 3.) ephemeral swale. Figure 2 provides a habitat map. Figure 4 provides a set of representative photographs of the existing conditions of the proposed project site. DISTURBED NON-NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLAND – The disturbed annual grassland habitat, is dominated by non- native annual grasses and herbaceous broadleaf plant species, along with a few native forbs and wildflowers. Annual grassland habitat occurs as the dominant habitat type over the entire project site with the exception of the Meadow Creek riparian corridor and small portion of an ephemeral swale that crossed the southeast corner of the site. The approximately 2.09-acres of disturbed annual grassland within the study area was observed to be very low in species diversity and dominated by a near pure stand of wild oats (Avena barbata). Other plant species observed in the non-native grassland habitat include, ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), filaree (Erodium cicutarium), cheeseweed (Sidalcea sp.), vetch (Vicia sp.), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), bur-clover (Medicago polymorpha), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), red fescue (Festuca rubra), nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus), and California poppy (Eschscholzia californica). A few coyote brush shrubs (Baccharis pilularis) are scattered on the site along with one Italian stone pine tree (Pinus pinea) and a pepper tree (Schinus molle) in the southeast corner of the property. A second Italian stone pine is located on the ephemeral swale just south of the property border. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 397 MEADOW CREEK ARROYO WILLOW RIPARIAN WOODLAND – The arroyo willow riparian woodland forms the northern border of the project site along Meadow Creek. This habitat is dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) along with California black walnut (Juglans californica). There are several non-native trees in the corridor including tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), eugenia (Eugenia sp.), and Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis). Understory vegetation is limited to herbaceous plants and includes nasturtium, wild radish, and cheeseweed. Approximately 0.53-acre of riparian habitat falls within the project boundary with additional riparian canopy area on the adjacent parcel to the north. Meadow Creek through the project site is a remnant above ground reach of what is now a mostly urbanized underground system. Just upstream of the project site is a concrete lined channel below the confluence of two tributary channels through residential development and the maintained turf of Meadow Park. The creek remains above ground for approximately 875 feet downstream to where it flows underground before Higuera Street. It appears to daylight through the cemetery to its confluence with San Luis Obispo Creek. EPHEMERAL SWALE – The southeast corner of the property has a portion of an ephemeral swale (drainage) that originates as a narrow channel around the hillside to the south. The swale continues west through the adjacent properties to meet Meadow Creek a short distance downstream of the project site. The swale has a dense cover of non-native Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and poison hemlock. DEVELOPED LAND – Developed areas includes the existing paved parking lot access to the project site off of Bridge Street. There are no biological resource habitat values associated with the approximately 0.15 acre developed parking lot area. 4.2 WILDLIFE The mosaic of remnant patches of habitat within the urbanized landscape around the project area can provide a variety of wildlife species that have become adapted to the urban environment such as raccoons, opossums, rodents, and reptiles. Even in urbanized areas riparian woodlands can provide high quality habitat for a variety of wildlife species that have become adapted to the urban environment but in particular to resident and migratory birds. Common passerines observed during SII field surveys included the pacific slope flycatcher, chestnut-backed chickadee, bushtit, spotted towhee, northern mockingbird, and house finch. Given the undeveloped hillside and surrounding areas, and Meadow Park, other wildlife species likely occur on the site as seasonal migrants and/or residents to the area. 4.3 WATERS OF THE U.S., WATERS OF THE STATE & WETLANDS Meadow Creek is a seasonal creek that has a defined bed, bank, and channel supporting an arroyo willow and California black walnut riparian woodland. The ephemeral swale is vegetated with non-native Himalayan blackberry and poison hemlock and is a tributary to Meadow Creek. As such, the two drainages are likely considered waters of the U.S. subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and waters of the State by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The only access to the site would be by a new bridge crossing of Meadow Creek. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 398 4.4 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN Special-status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); those considered “species of concern” by the USFWS; those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFW; and plants occurring on lists 1B, 2, and 4 of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Natural Communities of Special Concern are habitat types considered rare and worthy of tracking in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) by the CNPS and CDFW because of their limited distribution or historic loss over time. The search and review of the CNDDB revealed numerous historic and extant (presumed existing) occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species within the five-mile search radius of the project site. A five-mile radius was selected as a 10-mile CNDDB search radius would have captured a large amount of area not relevant to the urbanized landscape around the proposed project site. Figure 3 in Appendix A provides a map of the CNDDB special-status plant and wildlife species recorded occurrences falling within the five-miles of the project site. The following briefly describes or summarizes the special- status species issues and observations or potential for occurrence on the project site. 4.4.1 Special-Status Botanical Resources The CNDDB search revealed the recorded occurrences of special-status plant species within a five-mile radius of the project site. While the CNDDB list is exhaustive, most of the species are associated with a specific soil types such as serpentine outcrops or heavy clay soils, or specific habitat characteristics such as seasonal wetlands. The field surveys were conducted during the spring 2014 and represent a floristic inventory and rare plant survey. The botanical surveys resulted in no observations of any rare, threatened, or endangered plant species within the project site. Further, the observable and identifiable plants, habitats, and soils suggest the site does not support habitat for special-status plants. 4.4.2 Special-Status Wildlife The CNDDB search revealed the recorded occurrences of special-status wildlife species within the five- mile search radius of the project site. Special-status wildlife species known from the region evaluated for this study have specific habitat use requirements (i.e. terrestrial or aquatic). Given the urban setting with a limited extent of grassland and riparian habitats, and the seasonal nature of Meadow Creek, the project site does not support suitable habitat for any special-status wildlife species. This conclusion is discussed further below. Aquatic Species – The CNDDB has recorded occurrences of the steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss, California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), and western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) within the five- mile search radius. These are all highly aquatic species and suitable habitat is not represented the small remaining reach of the seasonal Meadow Creek. Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) require static seasonal pools that do not occur within the project site. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 399 Birds – The CNDDB includes occurrences for the ferruginous hawk, a wide ranging winter visitor and a historic occurrence of the western yellow-billed cuckoo that is no longer present. Other resident and migratory birds likely use the riparian corridor for nesting, feeding, and roosting. 5.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES SII reviewed available background information and conducted multiple field surveys of the project site in that included a floristic inventory and rare plant survey. The available data and field surveys provided sufficient information to establish existing conditions of the project site for plant and wildlife species, to evaluate potential project impacts on biological resources, and to identify any potentially significant impacts that may result from project implementation. 5.1 IMPACT ASSESSMENT Implementation of the proposed project would result in impacts to vegetation and wildlife utilizing disturbed non-native annual grassland and willow riparian woodland habitats from the development of the access road crossing to the site and for the storage yard and/or mixed used development. Approximately 1.8 acres of disturbed non-native grassland habitat would be removed for the storage yard and mixed use development with approximately 0.2 acre remaining within the City-required 20- foot creek setback area. Given the small amount of non-native vegetation within the urban landscape, this would be considered a less than significant impact. Approximately 0.08 acre (60’x60’) of willow riparian woodland habitat would be removed for the bridge access across Meadow Creek. Given the value of riparian habitat in all landscape settings, this would be considered a potentially significant impact. 5.2 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are recommended to avoid, minimize and compensate for potentially significant impacts on biological resources. Nesting Birds–The proposed new access road crossing of Meadow Creek and conversion of the annual grassland may impact ground nesting and/or tree nesting bird species if activities are conducted during the nesting season typically February 1st to August 31st. To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures are recommended: MM BIO-1: Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall be conducted between September 1st and January 31st outside of the nesting season for birds. If vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required. 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, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 400 avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level. Ground Dwelling Animal Impacts – While impacts on common ground dwelling wildlife and the loss of less than 2.0 acres of non-native grassland is not considered a significant impact, the following mitigation measure is recommended to further reduce the level of this less-than-significant impact on common ground dwelling wildlife species. BIO MM-2: Prior to ground disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey within 30 days of initial ground disturbance to identify whether any upland wildlife species are using any portion of the project areas where ground disturbance is proposed. If ground dwelling wildlife species are detected, a biological monitor shall be present during initial ground disturbing and/or vegetation removal activities to attempt salvage and relocation efforts for the wildlife that may be present such as common reptiles and small mammals. The salvage and relocation effort for non- listed wildlife species would further reduce the level of this less than significant impact. Riparian Habitat and Waters of the U.S./State Impacts – Approximately 0.08 acre of riparian and creek bed habitat (60’x60’) would be impacted by construction of the new road crossing bridge to access the site. The bridge construction may remove up to two 6-inch diameter at breast height (dbh), four 8-inch dbh, and one 12-inch dbh California black walnut trees, one 4” dbh tree of heaven, and two multiple trunk arroyo willow trees. The dbh of the willow trunks impacted are 1.) 5”, 5” 5”, 6”, 7”, 7”, 8”, 8”, 8”, 11”, and 13”; and 2.) 3”, 4”, 4”, 9”, and seven stems less than 3” dbh. The bridge road crossing may result in fill of waters of the U.S./State and removal of willow and California black walnut riparian habitat that would require regulatory compliance from federal and state agencies. Impacts on seasonal creek and riparian habitat resulting in fill of waters of the U.S./State would be considered a potentially significant impact. To reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S./State to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures are recommended: MM BIO-3: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance in the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps that no permit would be required for the proposed road crossing. Should a permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on aquatic resources. Compliance with Corps permitting would also include obtaining and CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the Corps may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permanent impacts on riparian habitat to achieve the goal of a no net loss of wetland values and functions. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S. to a less-than-significant level. MM BIO-4: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a completed Streambed Alteration Agreement or written documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required for the proposed road crossing. Should an agreement be required, the property owners shall implement all the terms and conditions of the agreement to ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 401 the satisfaction of the CDFG. The CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream zone. In addition, CDFG may require compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on riparian habitat in the form of riparian habitat restoration of disturbed areas to the extent feasible and additional compensatory riparian tree plantings. Using the City- required creek setback area along Meadow Creek for riparian tree replacement would be an appropriate onsite compensatory mitigation approach. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on waters of the state to a less-than- significant level. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings described above establishing the existing conditions of biological resources within the project site and incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial adverse effects on biological, botanical, wetland habitat resources. Therefore, with mitigation measures incorporated into the project, direct and indirect project impacts on biological resources would be considered to be less than significant. 7.0 REFERENCES 1. Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, Editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. UC Press. 2. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2014. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. 3. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, Editors. 1988-1990. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR). California's Wildlife. Vol. I-III. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California. 4. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) of recorded occurrences of special-status species. Accessed May 2014. 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2013. Endangered and Threatened Animals List. The Resources Agency of California, Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, California. 6. Hickman, J.C., Editor. 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. 7. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Nongame-Heritage Program. 8. Holland, V.L., and D.J. Keil. 1990. California Vegetation. Biological Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California. 9. Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California . California Department of Fish and Wildlife Contract # 8023. Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. 10. Mayer, W. and W. Laudenslayer, Editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 11. Peterson, R.T. 1990. A Field Guide to Western Birds, Houghton Mifflin Company. 12. Stebbins, R.C., and McGinnis, S.M. 2012. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California: Revised Edition (California Natural History Guides) University of California Press, 2012 13. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 402 APPENDIX A FIGURES FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2: PROJECT SITE HABITAT MAP FIGURE 3: CNDDB OCCURRENCES MAP (FIVE-MILE SEARCH RADIUS) FIGURE 4: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 403 Gallagher - Bridge Street Project Biological Resources Assessment Site Location Map Figure 1 0 0.1 0.2Miles ¨ updated 06/17/2014 Other Data Source(s):CDFW, CNDDB, May 2014. GF Site Location Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 0 0.75 1.5Miles ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 404 Gallagher - Bridge Street Project Biological Resources Assessment Habitat Map Figure 2 0 75 150Feet ¨ updated 06/17/2014 Approximate Site Boundary Developed (0.15ac) Meadow Creek Riparian Habitat (0.53ac) Non-native Annual Grassland (2.09ac) ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 405 Site Location GF Jones' layia western mastiff bat chaparral ragwort Congdon's tarplant Jones' layia Atascadero June beetle Jones' layia Miles' milk-vetch western yellow-billed cuckoo mouse-gray dudleya mouse-gray dudleya adobe sanicle Jones' layia most beautiful jewelflower San Luis mariposa-lily Blochman's dudleya Cuesta Ridge thistle San Luis Obispo sedge Congdon's tarplant Cambria morning-glory vernal pool fairy shrimp Coast Range newt Eastwood's larkspur mouse-gray dudleya San Luis mariposa-lily prairie falcon Coast Range newt Eastwood's larkspur California red-legged frog San Luis Obispo sedge Serpentine Bunchgrass steelhead - south/central California coast DPS Brewer's spineflower monarch butterfly chaparral ragwort Hoover's button-celery Eastwood's larkspur San Luis mariposa-lily Serpentine Bunchgrass Coast Range newt western pond turtle Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Eastwood's larkspur ferruginous hawk Congdon's tarplant mouse-gray dudleya western pond turtle monarch butterfly California red-legged frog Brewer's spineflower western pond turtle San Luis mariposa-lily pallid bat steelhead - south/central California coast DPS Palmer's monardella San Luis Obispo pyrg Congdon's tarplant San Luis Obispo fountain thistle San Luis Obispo fountain thistle California red-legged frog San Luis Obispo owl's-clover San Luis mariposa-lily steelhead - south/central California coast DPS mouse-gray dudleya San Luis Obispo fountain thistle San Luis mariposa-lily adobe sanicle mouse-gray dudleya Hoover's button-celery adobe sanicle Brewer's spineflower American badger ferruginous hawk Congdon's tarplant Congdon's tarplant western pond turtle mouse-gray dudleya mouse-gray dudleya mouse-gray dudleya western pond turtle Cambria morning-glory most beautiful jewelflower Blochman's dudleya American badger San Luis Obispo fountain thistle Blochman's dudleya Hoover's button-celery Congdon's tarplant steelhead - south/central California coast DPS Congdon's tarplant Congdon's tarplant Hoover's button-celery Congdon's tarplant Congdon's tarplant San Benito fritillary Congdon's tarplant Cambria morning-glory Congdon's tarplant Congdon's tarplant Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Gallagher - Bridge Street Project Biological Resources Assessment CNDDB Occurrences Figure 3 0 0.5 1 Miles ¨ updated 06/17/2014 Other Data Source(s):CDFW, CNDDB, May 2014. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 406 Photo 1: View east across the non-native annual grassland habitat from the northwest edge of the Meadow Creek riparian habitat. 4/17/2014 Photo 2: View northeast across the non-native annual grassland habitat to the Meadow Creek riparian corridor and residential land use to the east of the site. 4/17/2014 Photo 3: View northwest across the non-native annual grassland habitat to the Meadow Creek riparian corridor and adjacent industrial land use to the west of the site. 4/17/2014 Photo 4: View southwest from the southeast corner of the site at ephemeral “bramble” swale, ornamental pine tree, and adjacent residence and open space hillside. 4/17/2014 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 407 Photo 5: View south at developed access point for proposed bridge crossing location of Meadow Creek riparian habitat. 5/20/2014 Photo 6: View west (downstream) from the Meadow Creek channel showing the creek bottom and riparian multi-trunk willows and non-native palm trees. 5/20/2014 Photo 7: View west (downstream) from the Meadow Creek channel showing the creek bottom and riparian multi-trunk willows and limited undestory. 5/20/2014 Photo 8: View east (upstream) from the Meadow Creek channel showing the creek bottom and riparian multi-trunk willows and limited herbaceous undestory. 5/20/2014 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 408