Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Item 4b. 950 & 990 Aero Dr. (ARCH-0165-2020, USE-0294-2019, EID-0650-2020)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A REQUEST FOR A PLANNING COMMISSION USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED 125,500-SQUARE FOOT, THREE-STORY, 204-ROOM, DUAL-BRANDED HOTEL, WITH GUEST AMENITIES AND ON-SITE SURFACE PARKING; PROJECT INCLUDES A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION TO STAN PROJECT ADDRESS: 950 & 990 Aero Dr. BY: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7176 Email: sscott@slocity.org FILE NUMBERS: ARCH-0165-2020, FROM: Tyler Corey, Deputy Director USE-0294-2019, & EID-0650-2020 RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving the Planning Commission Use Permit and design of the proposed Airport Hotel Project, subject to findings and conditions of approval. SITE DATA SUMMARY The applicant, Sanjay Ganpule, Sunsmit, LLC has submitted application s for Major Development Review and a Planning Commission Use Permit to allow the establishment of a dual-brand hotel within the Business Park (BP) zone within the Airport Area Specific Plan area. An Initial Study (IS) has been prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption. 1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW Applicant Sanjay Ganpule, Sunsmit, LLC Representative Pamela Jardini Zoning BP-SP (Business Park, Airport Area Specific Plan) General Plan Business Park Site Area 5.04 acres Environmental Status An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed for adoption. Meeting Date: 7/28/2021 Item Number: 4b Time Estimate: 45 Minutes BP-SP BP-SP PF-SP C-S Page 409 of 1221 ARCH-0165-2020, USE-0294-2019, & EID-0650-2020 Planning Commission Report – July 28, 2021 Page 2 Review the project for consistency with the General Plan, Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines (CDG), and applicable City development standards and guidelines. Planning Commission review is required for projects that include more than 10,000 square feet of nonresidential space (ARCH-0165- 2020) and to allow a hotel within the BP zone , as required by the Airport Area Specific Plan (USE-0294-2019). The Planning Commission’s purview includes consideration of the associated environmental determination (Attachment D, EID-0650-2020). Link to Airport Area Specific Plan Link to Community Design Guidelines Link to Sign Regulations Figure 1. Rendering of Project, Elevation facing Broad Street Page 410 of 1221 ARCH-0165-2020, USE-0294-2019, & EID-0650-2020 Planning Commission Report – July 28, 2021 Page 3 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting Table 1: Site Information Zoning BP-SP (Business Park within the Airport Area Specific Plan Area) Site Size 5.04 acres Present Use & Development Vacant Access New access road connecting to Aero Drive Surrounding Use/Zoning East: Broad Street, commercial uses (C-S) South: San Luis Obispo Regional Airport (Public Facility, County of San Luis Obispo); (Commercial Retail, County of San Luis Obispo) North: The Rock (SLO Brew), offices (BP-SP) West: Overflow parking (PF-SP); San Luis Obispo Regional Airport (Public Facility, County of San Luis Obispo) 2.2 Project Description The proposed project consists of a three-story, 204‐room, dual‐branded hotel, with guest amenities including an outdoor patio and dining area, meeting space, fitness room, breakfast area, bar, and onsite parking. The proposed hotel would be approximately 125,200 square feet with a maximum height of 45 feet for occupied buildings and 52 feet for non‐occupied space. The project includes a request for a Planning Commission Use Permit, which is required for a hotel within the BP zone in the Airport Area Specific Plan area. The project includes a request for an exception to standard loading space requirements (one space requested where three spaces is the standard), an exception to an AASP standard to exceed 40% lot frontage side parking to allow for 67% frontage side parking along Broad Street, and exceptions to sign standards to allow for six wall signs (where four is the standard) and placement of wall signs at the third story, where the uppermost point of the second story is the standard height. In July 2007, a hotel project proposed by a previous applicant was approved on the project site (U-5-07, ARC-5-07); however, the project was never constructed, and the entitlements expired. The initial application submittal for the current project proposed two separate hotels with shared surrounding parking areas. The applicant has since revised the project to avoid and provide a 35-foot setback from a wetland feature located in the southwest corner of the site. The applicant has also identified proposed access from Aero Drive, which would cross an adjacent parcel located between the project site and Aero Drive, and has provided a separate pedestrian site entry that would connect to the existing sidewalk on Aero Drive.1 Additional non-vehicular access (i.e., pedestrian, bicycle) is provided directly to Broad Street. 1 In the past, Aero Drive was located along the project’s southern boundary and has since been realigned by the County, creating a gap between this project site and Aero Drive. Page 411 of 1221 ARCH-0165-2020, USE-0294-2019, & EID-0650-2020 Planning Commission Report – July 28, 2021 Page 4 2.3 Project Statistics Table 2: Project Statistics Item Proposed Standard Setbacks – Parking lot along street 10 feet 10 feet Setbacks – Parking lot between parcels 5 feet 5 feet Setbacks – Buildings along streets 85 feet (Broad) 165 feet (Aero) 16 feet Setbacks – Buildings between parcels 65 – 92 feet 0 feet Maximum Height of Structures 45 feet 52 (non-occupied features) 45 feet 52 (non-occupied features) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.58 0.6 Max Building Coverage (footprint) 70% 80% Minimum Landscaped Space (including pedestrian hardscape) 30% 20% Required Parking Spaces 214 204 Electric Vehicle Parking 20 EV Ready 51 EV Capable 20 EV Ready 51 EV Capable Bicycle Parking Total: 22 Long-term: 11 Short-term: 11 Total: 20 Long-term: 10 Short-term: 10 Wall signs Six wall signs Placement at 3rd story Four wall signs Uppermost point of the second story 3.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project on May 3, 2021, for consistency with the AASP Design Guidelines and Community Design Guidelines. The ARC moved to recommend that the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the AASP Design Guidelines and Community Design Guidelines, and approve the project with the following considerations: Consider pedestrian access to the site, especially from the northern corner of the site near the Broad Street sidewalk, and access to SLO Brew/The Rock to the north. Consider replacing the sine wave corrugated metal with metal that is similar to the other metal siding on the building, and perhaps a different color (6-0-1) (Attachment C, ARC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes). Page 412 of 1221 ARCH-0165-2020, USE-0294-2019, & EID-0650-2020 Planning Commission Report – July 28, 2021 Page 5 The applicant is proposing to remove five trees onsite that are subject to tree removal permitting, including: four Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthefolius) trees, (1) six inches, (1) eight inches, and (2) ten inches in diameter; and one golden wattle/acacia (Acacia longifolia), six inches in diameter (Attachment B, Sheet L1.0, Conceptual Landscape Plan). The Conceptual Landscape Plan includes 93 trees to be planted on site, including the following identified below in Table 3, Proposed Compensatory Planting Plan. Table 3: Proposed Compensatory Planting Plan Tree Type and Quantity Tree Species Street trees along Broad Street (11) London plane tree (Platanus acerifolia) Pin oak (Quercus palustris) Accent trees (11) Golden medallion (Cassia leptophylla) Western redbud (Cercis occidentalis) Chitalpa (multi-trunk) (Chitalpa tashkentensis) Crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica ‘Tuscarora’) Canopy shade trees (16) Bronze loquat (Eriobotrya deflexa) Southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora ‘Majestic Beauty’) Drake evergreen elm (Ulmus parvifolia ‘Drake’) Parking lot trees (31) Strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo) Western redbud (Cercis occidentalis) Crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica ‘Nachez’) Narrow trees near building (18) Chinese fringe flower (Chionanthus retusus) Little gem magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora ‘Little Gem’) Perimeter trees (17) ‘Marina’ arbutus (Arbutus ‘Marina’) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Pin oak (Quercus palustris) The Tree Committee will consider this request on July 26, 2021 and will provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Following the Tree Committee hearing, staff will provide a memorandum to the Planning Commission, which will also be available to the public, that summarizes the Tree Committee’s recommendation. 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The proposed project must conform to the standards and limitations of the Zoning Regulations and Engineering Standards and be consistent with the applicable standards identified in the AASP, and Community Design Guidelines. Staff has evaluated the project’s consistency with relevant requirements and has found the project to be consistent, as discussed in this analysis. Page 413 of 1221 ARCH-0165-2020, USE-0294-2019, & EID-0650-2020 Planning Commission Report – July 28, 2021 Page 6 3.1 Consistency with the General Plan The General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) provides limited policies for the Business Park land use designation other than the intent is to provide for research and development and light manufacturing in a campus setting and should provide high quality design of public and private facilities. Business Park land use designations are typically found within Specific Plans, which offer additional guidance on policy objectives, as described in greater detail below. 3.2 Consistency with the Airport Area Specific Plan The project site is located on Aero Drive, adjacent to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. AASP Chapter 4.0 (Land Use, Special Areas) notes that l and uses in the airport vicinity must be regulated in order to minimize the potential for conflicts between these uses and airport operations. The primary instrument for maintaining compatibility and safety is the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) prepared and maintained by the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). AASP land uses have been planned with thorough consideration given to the ALUP. Specifically, urban uses are not proposed in areas where incompatible levels of noise can be expected, or where there is an unacceptable risk that an accident could occur. The AASP, which was found to be consistent by the ALUC prior to its adoption, requires approval of a Planning Commission Use Permit in order to allow hotel development in the Business Park zone and land use designation. In July 2007, a hotel project proposed by a previous applican t was approved on the project site (U-5-07, ARC-5-07); however, the project was never constructed, and the entitlements expired. AASP Section 4.2.1 (Business Park) states that “areas designated Business Park are primarily for research and development, light manufacturing, and business services that are compatible with each other and with airport operations. Activities that are supportive of, or accessory to, the primary activities may be allowed as well.” The proposed dual - brand hotel is consistent with the AASP and BP zone because it would support the airport by providing proximate lodging, parking, and amenities for guests using the airport as a method of travel, in addition to other visitors to San Luis Obispo. Airport and Transportation Noise AASP Table 4-3 (Allowed Uses) notes that hotel uses in the BP zone are identified in the ALUP as noise sensitive and specific sound-attenuation requirements may apply. The current ALUP identifies a 45 decibel (dB) threshold for interior noise levels for hotels, which is the same as the City’s Noise Element threshold (45 dB, interior noise). Based on the recent updated ALUP, the project site is located outside of the 60 CNEL2 contour line for airport-related noise. As documented in the noise analysis prepared for the project (Attachment D, see attached documents), which considered both airport and roadway noise, existing daytime sound levels within the project site range from 60 to 66 dB. Based 2 CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level: The noise metric adopted by the State of California for land use planning and describing airport noise impacts. This noise metric compensates for the increase in people's sensitivity to noise during evening and nighttime hours. Community Noise Equivalent Levels are typically depicted on maps by a set of contours, each of which represents a series of points having the same CNEL value (ALUP 2021). Page 414 of 1221 ARCH-0165-2020, USE-0294-2019, & EID-0650-2020 Planning Commission Report – July 28, 2021 Page 7 on the site plan, parking areas along the Broad Street frontage would be located within the 60 to 66 dB contour. As noted in the noise analysis, mandatory requirements for acoustical control required by the State Green Building Standards Code3 require that projects located within the 65 CNEL noise contour of an airport or roadway incorporate Sound Transmission Class (STC) 50 for walls and STC 40 for windows, which would reduce interior noise below 45 dB, consistent with the AASP, ALUP, and City Noise Element. Furthermore, at the most conservative level, a typical structure covered with siding will have a STC rating of 39 dBA based on current methods. Basic dual-pane vinyl windows will achieve an STC rating of 28 dBA. Averaged out, this results in a combined STC rating of approximately 33 dBA, meaning a typical exterior wall assembly will reduce 33 dB of sound transfer, resulting in an interior noise level less than 45 dB. The noise analysis also noted that outdoor use areas that face noise sources may experience noise exceeding 60 dB; the applicant has addressed this issue by orienting the hotel building such that the outdoor pool area and patio are internal to the site, and noise generated by transportation sources along Broad Street would be attenuated by the building itself below 60 dB. Therefore, based on the orientation of the building and site amenities, and compliance with exiting Building and Green Code regulations, the project would be consistent with the AASP, ALUP, and City Noise Element. AASP Development Standards As shown in Table 2 above (Project Statistics), the project is consistent with AASP Development Standards (AASP Section 4.4). The proposed project would not exceed the height permitted by the AASP (52 feet). Based on the County of San Luis Obispo’s recent adoption of the updated Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) on May 26, 2021, which included revisions to the ALUP’s safety zones, the project site is located within Zone 6, Traffic Pattern Zone4, which allows for a maximum density of 300 persons per acre. Applying the current ALUP, the maximum allowed density for the site is 1,512 persons; the project would result in a density of 627 persons, less than and consistent with ALUP standards. AASP Community Design Standards The ARC considered AASP Community Design Standards upon their review of the project and did not identify any inconsistencies. As noted above, the ARC provided two considerations to improve pedestrian access to proximate businesses north of the project site, and replacement of one material type on the building. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission support these considerations, which are addressed in proposed conditions of approval #3 and #5. Lot Frontage Side Parking. AASP standard 5.4.1 states that: “parking lots shall be located at the rear or side of buildings, rather than between the front facade of the building and the street. Side parking shall not exceed 40 percent of the frontage of the lot on the primary street.” 3 Title 24, Chapter 6, Article 1 of the California Administrative Code; California Green Building Code (CCR, Title 24, Part 11, Chapter 5) 4 The County ALUP Update can be viewed online: https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Planning- Building/Community-Engagement/Active-Planning-Projects/Airport-Land-Use-Plan-Update.aspx Page 415 of 1221 ARCH-0165-2020, USE-0294-2019, & EID-0650-2020 Planning Commission Report – July 28, 2021 Page 8 The applicant is requesting an exception to an Airport Area Specific Plan Standard 5.4.1 to allow for 67% lot frontage side parking along Broad Street where 40% is the standard for the primary street. The project site is a corner lot, and a majority of the parking spaces are proposed along the northern property boundary and internal to the site. Approximately 270, non-continuous linear feet of parking spaces are provided along the east property boundary, facing Broad Street, with a 10-foot-deep landscape buffer between the parking spaces and the sidewalk. The project’s primary access would be from Aero Drive. Staff Analysis. As noted above, the project was revised since the original application submittal to avoid and provide a minimum 35-foot setback from a wetland feature in the southwest corner of the project site. The project also complies with Code requirements for fire truck access surrounding the structure. The orientation of the building provides an entrance facing Broad Street; however, the primary face of the building is angular and generally faces Aero Drive, the access road to the airport. Due to the prior realignment of Aero Drive, a majority of the project site does not directly front Aero Drive. Therefore, the proposed site plan generally meets the intent of the parking lot standard. Based on the environmental constraints of the site, the applicant’s desire to meet standard parking requirements, compliance with Code requirements for fire safety and emergency access, the proposed 10-foot landscape buffer and tree plantings along Broad Street that will provide some screening of the parking area, the project’s primary access from Aero Drive, and ARC’s recommendation of consistency with the AASP including the requested exception, staff recommends the Planning Commission consider and grant the requested exception for 67% lot frontage side parking along Broad Street based on finding 5 identified in the Draft Resolution. 3.3 Requested Zoning Regulations Exception Loading Space Exception/Waiver Section 17.72.100 (Onsite Loading Standards) states that every new building 10,000 square feet or more occupied by certain uses, including a hotel, shall provide off-street loading and unloading areas. Based on the size of the project, three spaces would be required. Section 17.72.100.B. allows for a waiver of the loading space requirement provided that “the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that, due to the nature of the proposed use, such loading space will not be needed.” The project includes a request for an exception to standard loading space requirements (one space requested where three spaces is the standard). Staff Analysis. The proposed project consists of a dual-branded hotel, with shared lobby, kitchen, laundry, and office areas. Based on the operation of the hotel, which only includes amenities for guests, it is reasonable that no more than one loading space is necessary, and staff recommends the Planning Commission consider and grant the requested exception, based on finding 6 identified in the Draft Resolution. 3.4 Requested Sign Regulations Exception Page 416 of 1221 ARCH-0165-2020, USE-0294-2019, & EID-0650-2020 Planning Commission Report – July 28, 2021 Page 9 Quantity and Placement of Wall Signs Exception The proposed project includes requested exceptions to sign standards to allow for six wall signs (where four is the standard) and placement of wall signs at the third story, where the uppermost point of the second story is the standard height. The applicant’s reason for the request is based on the orientation of the building along Broad Street, and to provide for visibility from both travel lanes of Broad Street and Aero Drive, and identification of the primary entrance as seen from the parking area. Staff Analysis. The ARC considered and recommended approval of the requested exception, based on the orientation of the building relative to Broad Street and Aero Drive. Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider and grant the requested exception, based on findings 7 and 8 identified in the Draft Resolution, as the placement of signage would not create clutter and would improve visual identification of the connected hotels and primary entrance to the shared lobby. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study (IS) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to conduct a project-specific analysis, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment D). The IS/MND identifies that the project would potentially affect the following environmental factors unless mitigated: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, ge ology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these potential impacts to less than significant. A 30-day public review period extended from April 22, 2021 through May 24, 2021. Comments were received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), and the Air Pollution Control District (APCD). All comments have been addressed in the revised IS/MND and are summarized in Attachment D for reference. The modifications to the IS/MND do not require recirculation of the document because the amendments constitute minor modifications and clarifications to an adequate MND and do not include significant new information that would result in a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a significant environmental impact. All new text is indicated by underlined, bold, and italicized text. Deleted text is indicated by strike-through. 6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including Planning, Engineering, Transportation, Building, Utilities, City Attorney, and Fire. Staff has not identified any unusual site conditions or circumstances that would require special conditions. Other comments have been incorporated into the draft resolution as conditions of approval. Page 417 of 1221 ARCH-0165-2020, USE-0294-2019, & EID-0650-2020 Planning Commission Report – July 28, 2021 Page 10 7.0 ALTERNATIVES 7.1 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required. 7.2 Deny the project. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Airport Area Specific Plan and/or other pertinent City standards. This alternative is not recommended, because the project is consistent with the General Plan, AASP, Zoning Regulations, and other policy documents. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Resolution B. Project Plans and Applicant Statements C. ARC Staff Report and Minutes (May 3, 2021) D. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Response to Comments Received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Technical Reports Page 418 of 1221 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE AIRPORT HOTEL PROJECT INCLUDING APPROVAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A HOTEL IN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE, AND ASSOCIATED EXCEPTIONS TO LOT FRONTAGE SIDE PARKING STANDARD, LOADING SPACE STANDARD, AND SIGN REGULATIONS FOR WALL SIGNS AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 28, 2021, AND ADOPTION OF THE ASSOCIATED INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ARCH-0165-2020, USE-0294-2019, and EID-0650-2020; 950 AND 990 AERO DRIVE) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting via teleconference on May 3, 2021, recommending the Planning Commission approve the design of the project based on consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0165- 2020, Sunsmit, LLC, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting on July 26, 2021 at the City’s Corporation Yard, 25 Prado Road, San Luis Obispo, California, recommending the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the Tree Regulations pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0165-2020, Sunsmit, LLC, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a meeting on July 28, 2021 at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis O bispo, California, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0165-2020, USE-0294-2019, and EID-0650-2020, Sunsmit, LLC, applicant; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo to approve the proposed project, consisting of entitlements ARCH-0165-2020, USE-0294-2019, and EID-0650-2020. This resolution is based on the following findings: SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby grants approval of the Airport Hotel project and associated exceptions (ARCH-0165-2020, USE-0294-2019, and EID-0650- 2020) 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 Page 419 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 2 will be compatible with the scale and character of surrounding neighborhoods , which primarily consist of business park, commercial, and airport-related uses. 2. The project conforms to the General Plan, Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), and meets Zoning Regulations requirements for the Business Park Zone. 3. As conditioned, the project is consistent with Airport Area Specific Plan land use policies and the intended development pattern of the Business Park (BP) zone because the hotel will support the adjacent San Luis Obispo Regional Airport by providing lodging and parking for airport users in addition to other travelers to San Luis Obispo. 4. As conditioned, the project design is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines and Chapter 5 (Community Design) of the AASP through its placement of buildings, parking, landscaping, and pedestrian access that are compatible with the design and scale of neighboring structures, and by providing articulation, varied roof heights, and architecturally articulated entry features facing Broad Street and Aero Drive. Lot Frontage Side Parking 5. Granting an exception to strict compliance with lot frontage side parking limitations is consistent with the intent of Airport Area Specific Plan standards because the project site is a corner lot with primary access taken from Aero Drive, and the primary face of the building is angular and generally faces Aero Drive, the access road to the airport. Due to the prior realignment of Aero Drive, a majority of the project site does not directly front Aero Drive and is separated by a vacant parcel. In addition, the project demonstrates compliance with parking requirements, Code requirements for fire and emergency access to the building, and the proposed 10-foot landscape buffer and tree plantings along Broad Street will provide some screening of the parking area. Loading Space Exception/Waiver Finding 6. The proposed project consists of a dual-branded hotel, with shared lobby, kitchen, laundry, and office areas; therefore, only one loading space is necessary to serve operation of the dual- brand hotel. Sign Regulations Exceptions 7. There are unusual circumstances applying to the property which make strict adherence to the Sign Regulations impractical or infeasible, including the location of the corner lot roughly at the intersection of Broad Street and Aero Drive, the building’s primary entrance on Aero Drive and secondary pedestrian/non-vehicular access on Broad Street, and visibility of signage as seen from Broad Street and Aero Drive. 8. As conditioned, the exceptions granting six wall signs, where four signs is the standard in the Business Park (B-P) zone and allowing for the placement of the wall signs at the third floor of the dual-branded hotel is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Sign Page 420 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 3 Regulations and the exceptions are not being granted where alternative options of allowed signage could provide an adequate alternative for sufficient visibility to the public with equal or superior design. Based on the orientation of the building, the proposed signage would be visible from both travel lanes of Broad Street and Aero Drive to allow for sufficient business identification and would not result in visual clutter onsite or in comparison with the surroundings. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The Planning Commission adopts the IS/MND and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, based on incorporation of the following findings and mitigation measures, which will reduce potential environmental impacts to less than significant. CEQA Findings 1. An Initial Study (IS) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in order to conduct a project-specific analysis, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption (Attachment D). The IS/MND identifies that the project would potentially affect the following environmental factors unless mitigated: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these potential impacts to less than significant. 2. A 30-day public review period extended from April 22, 2021 through May 24, 2021. Comments were received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), and the Air Pollution Control District (APCD). All comments have been addressed in the revised IS/MND. The modifications to the IS/MND do not require recirculation of the document because the amendments constitute minor modifications and clarifications to an adequate MND and do not include significant new information that would result in a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a significant environmental impact. AIR QUALITY AQ-1 During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On- and Off-Road Equipment a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors if feasible; b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted; c. Use of alternative fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and Page 421 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 4 d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and enforced at the construction site. 2. California Diesel Idling Regulations. 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: a. 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, b. 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 a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5-minute idling limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf. AQ-2 During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate matter control measures and detail each measure on the project grading and building plans: 1. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. 2. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work. 3. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD. Page 422 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 5 7. 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 or soil binders are used. 8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. 9. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. 10. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. 11. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. 12. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. 13. 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 SLOAPCD 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 SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition. 14. All off-road construction equipment shall be Tier 3 or higher. AQ-3 Prior to initiation of demolition/construction activities, the applicant shall retain a registered geologist to conduct a geologic evaluation of the property including sampling and testing for naturally occurring asbestos in full compliance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105) and SLOAPCD requirements. This geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department upon completion. If the geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have the potential to disturb naturally occurring asbestos (NOA), the applicant must file an Asbestos ATCM exemption request with t he San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). AQ-4 If naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) are determined to be present on-site, proposed earthwork and construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Asbestos Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 Code of Federal Regulations 61, Subpart M – Asbestos; NESHAP). These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD); Page 423 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 6 2. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and, 3. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified NOA. AQ-5 Asbestos Material in Demolition. Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos-containing material (ACM). ACMs could be encountered during demolition or remodeling of existing buildings. Asbestos can also be found in utility pipes/pipelines (transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If utility pipelines are scheduled for removal or relocation or a building(s) is proposed to be removed or renovated, various regulatory requirements may apply, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include but are not limited to: (1) notification to the APCD; (2) an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector; and (3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on asbestos can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php. Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The applicant shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 to the City Community Development Department upon completion. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1 The following measures shall be implemented prior to and during construction to avoid potential direct mortality and loss of California red-legged frogs: 1. Prior to the initial site investigation and subsequent ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist will instruct all project personnel in worker awareness training, including recognition of California red-legged frogs and their habitat. 2. A qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys within the project area no earlier than 2 days before ground-disturbing activities. 3. No activities shall occur after October 15 or the onset of the rainy season, whichever occurs first, until May 1, except for during periods greater than 72 hours without precipitation. Activities can only resume after site inspection by a qualified biologist. The rainy season is defined as a frontal system that results in depositing 0.25 inches or more of precipitation in one event. 4. Vehicles to and from the project site will be confined to existing roadways to minimize disturbance of habitat. 5. Prior to movement of a backhoe in the project area, a qualified biologist will make sure the route is clear of California red-legged frogs. 6. If a California red-legged frog is encountered during excavations, or any project activities, activities will cease until the frog is removed and relocated by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist. Any incidental take will be reported to the USFWS immediately by telephone at (916) 414-6600. Page 424 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 7 BIO-2 The following measures shall be implemented prior to and during construction to avoid impacts to hydrological resources located within and in the vicinity of the project site: 1. The limits of all work areas shall be clearly delineated in the field during construction and personnel shall be informed of the need to avoid impacts to jurisdictional aquatic features (i.e., waters and wetlands). 2. For short-term, temporary stabilization, an erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be developed outlining Best Management Practices (BMPs) and implemented to prevent erosion and sedimentation into the channel during construction. Acceptable stabilization methods include the use of weed-free, natural fiber (i.e., non-monofilament) fiber rolls, jute or coir netting, and/or other industry standards. BMPs shall be installed and maintained for the duration of the construction period. 3. The mapped limits of jurisdictional areas shall be clearly shown on all site plans and flagged prior to the start of any construction activity within 50 feet of the limits of the drainage. 4. All equipment and materials shall be stored a minimum of 35 feet from the edge of the drainage at the end of each working day, and secondary containment shall be used to prevent leaks and spills of potential contaminants from entering the drainage. 5. During construction, washing of concrete, paint, or equipment and refueling and maintenance of equipment shall occur only in designated areas a minimum of 35 feet from all drainages and aquatic features. Sandbags and/or sorbent pads shall be available to prevent any fluid releases from entering the drainage. 6. Construction equipment shall be inspected by the operator on a daily basis to ensure that equipment is in good working order and no fuel or lubricant leaks are present. 7. Where feasible, the project shall incorporate low impact development (LID) features, including bioswales and permeable pavers, into the overall site design to retain runoff on site and avoid increased surface runoff into the drainage. 8. Where feasible, the project shall incorporate vegetated buffers, bioswales, and/or rain gardens on the drainage side of the development. 9. The use of landscaping plants that are known or have potential to become invasive shall be prohibited. BIO-3 If any ground disturbance will occur during the nesting bird season (February 1–September 15), prior to any ground-disturbing activity, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 1 week prior to the start of activities. If nesting birds are located on or near the project site, they shall be avoided until they have successfully fledged, or the nest is no longer deemed active. A non-disturbance buffer of 50 feet will be implemented for non-listed, passerine species and a 250-foot buffer will be implemented for raptor species. No construction activities will be permitted within established nesting bird buffers until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or that proposed construction activities would not cause adverse impacts to the nest, adults, eggs, or young. If special-status avian species are identified, no work shall be conducted until an appropriate buffer is determined in consultation with the City and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 425 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 8 Monitoring Program: The survey requirements of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-3 shall be incorporated into the project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department and verified through submittal of a preconstruction nesting bird survey report to the City Community Development Department. The City Community Development Department shall confirm that all BMPs included in BIO-2 to avoid impacts to aquatic resources are incorporated into the grading plans prior to approval. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. CULTURAL RESOURCES CR-1 Prior to construction activities, a City-qualified archaeologist shall conduct cultural resource awareness training for all construction personnel including the following: 1. Review the types of archaeological artifacts that may be uncovered; 2. Provide examples of common archaeological artifacts to examine; 3. Review what makes an archaeological resource significant to archaeologists and local Native Americans; 4. Describe procedures for notifying involved or interested parties in case of a new discovery; 5. Describe reporting requirements and responsibilities of construction personnel; 6. Review procedures that shall be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries; and 7. Describe procedures that would be followed in the case of discovery of disturbed as well as intact human burials and burial-associated artifacts. CR-2 If cultural resources are encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all ground - disturbing activities within a 25-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a City-qualified archaeologist assesses the find and determines the need for further study. If the find includes Native American- affiliated materials, a local Native American tribal representative will be contacted to work in conjunction with the City-approved archaeologist to determine the need for further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria by a qualified archaeologist. If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s) as necessary, that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. CR-3 In the event that human remains are exposed during earth disturbing activities associated with the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued, and the City Community Page 426 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 9 Development Director and locally affiliated Native American representative(s) (as necessary) shall be notified. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. These requirements shall be printed on all building and grading plans. Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City shall review and approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Monitoring Program: The City Community Development Department shall confirm that all BMPs included in BIO-2 to avoid impacts to aquatic resources are incorporated into the grading plans prior to approval. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, TR-1, and TR-2 in addition to the following measure: GHG-1 A Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) shall be prepared for the proposed project and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The GGRP shall require annual impacts to be quantified over the lift of the project to also account for reduction in project impacts due to future emission reduction technology that is included in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and shall (reduce annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the development by a minimum of 1,367.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalence (MTCO2e) per year over the operational life of the proposed project. GHG emissions may be reduced through the implementation of on-site mitigation measures, off-site mitigation measures, or through the purchase of carbon offsets. It is recommended that the GGRP incorporate GHG-reduction measures identified in the City of San Luis Obispo’s CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist, Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist for New Development, as listed below. In the event that carbon offsets are required, carbon offsets shall be purchased from a validated/verifiable source, such as the California Climate Action Registry, and approved by City Planning staff prior to purchase. 1. The project shall be provided electricity by 3CE. 2. The project shall incorporate a pedestrian and bicycle access network that connects proposed on-site land uses to adjacent existing or planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities contiguous with the project site. 3. The project shall be designed to minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. Page 427 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 10 4. The project shall be designed to provide safe and convenient access to public transit contiguous to the project site. 5. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) reduction measures should be included to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which include but are not limited to: a. Telecommuting; b. Car sharing; c. Shuttle service; d. Carpools; e. Vanpools; f. Participation in the SLO Rideshare Back ‘N’ Forth Club; g. Transit subsidies; and h. Off-site sustainable transportation infrastructure improvements. 6. The project shall provide organic waste pick up and shall provide the appropriate on-site enclosures consistent with the provisions of the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services. Monitoring Program: Measure GHG-1 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The applicant shall submit the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) to the City Community Development Department upon completion. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and BIO-2. Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and BIO-2 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The applicant shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 to the City Community Development Department upon completion. The City Community Development Department shall confirm that all BMPs included in BIO-2 to avoid impacts to aquatic resources are incorporated into the grading plans prior to approval. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Monitoring Program: The City Community Development Department shall confirm that all BMPs included in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to avoid impacts to aquatic resources are incorporated into the grading plans prior to approval. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. Page 428 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 11 TRANSPORTATION TR-1 Trip Reduction Coordinator. The project applicant shall identify a Trip Reduction Coordinator to act as the contact person for the City of San Luis Obispo and SLO Regional Rideshare. The Coordinator shall be responsible for: 1. Implementing an annual vehicle trip survey (can be administered through SLO Regional Rideshare.) 2. Preparing an annual report, subject to the City’s review and approval, on the program’s effectiveness and recommendations for revisions if needed to improve the program’s effectiveness. 3. Providing quarterly information (electronically or hard copy) regarding area transportation services and City and County transit passes. 4. Coordinating employee transportation board meetings. 5. Coordinator will be responsible for establishing the Back ‘N’ Forth Club (for employees sponsored by Rideshare for the complex at a minimum of the Silver level). TR-2 The project applicant shall submit a proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan and Monitoring Program for City review prior to issuance of building permits. City approval of a Final TDM Plan and Monitoring Program is required prior to issuance of occupancy permits. The applicant shall submit a TDM Performance Monitoring Report at 12 months and 24 months after first occupancy and agree to annual TDM compliance inspections by the City Transportation Division. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures shall be implemented to reduce the project’s trip generation by at least 3% and may include, but are not limited to, the measures identified in GHG-1 and the following measures: 1. Shuttle Service. The hotel shall offer a shuttle service to the airport terminal and downtown as requested by the guests. The hotel will also coordinate with local wine tours to encourage guests interested in wine tasting to utilize communal travel options rather than individual vehicles. 2. Community Transportation Board. A group of managers and employees, including the Trip Reduction Coordinator who meets to discuss and implement new ways to encourage employees and guests to participate in the community’s alternative transportation programs. 3. Shared Automobile. On-site accommodations will be made available for a communal short-term rental car to enable guests to utilize a shared vehicle for short errands and other related needs. It is estimated that utilizing a car-sharing program alone will offset up to 10 required parking spaces. One company that offers this service is Zipcar. Information on their services can be found on their website (https://www.zipcar.com/) or similar. 4. Bicycle Repair Station. A convenient station equipped with all of the tools necessary for employees to perform basic bike repairs and maintenance. 5. Long-term Bicycle Parking. The project shall provide adequate, secure long-term bicycle parking for employees. Page 429 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 12 6. Showers and Locker Facilities. The hotel will include shower and locker facilities for employees that bike to work. 7. Shared Bicycles for Guests. The hotel will own and maintain bicycles available for guests to use to as an alternative to using vehicles. 8. SLO Rideshare Back ‘N’ Forth Club. The project shall participate in the SLO Rideshare Back ‘N’ Forth Club. 9. Transit Passes. The project shall provide free or discounted transit passes to employees. 10. Information Packets. Introductory packets, in either electronic or hardcopy form, for new employees with information pertaining to the car-sharing program, bicycle parking, bicycle repair station and a map showing the nearby bus stops. 11. Information Sharing. Management will distribute emails to keep the employees informed of activities. These emails will include up-to-date facts on car sharing availability, bicycle parking locations, alternative transportation programs and transit schedules. These emails will also include maps showing walking and bicycle routes to nearby retail, dining, and service locations. These emails will be distributed to all residents. Plan Requirements and Timing: The Applicant shall submit a proposed TDM Plan and Monitoring Program for City review prior to issuance of building permits. City approval of a Final TDM Plan and Monitoring Program is required prior to issuance of occupancy permits. The applicant shall submit a TDM Performance Monitoring Report at 12 months and 24 months after first occupancy and agree to annual TDM compliance inspections by the City Transportation Division. If the TDM Performance Monitoring Report shows that the targeted trip/VMT reduction has not been achieved, the applicant is responsible for increasing the level of TDM actions to the satisfaction of the City Transportation Division, which may include increasing information, incentives or subsidies to encourage employees to use alternative modes of transportation, or providing a direct fair share financial contribution to the City to be used towards programmed off-site VMT-reducing capital projects. The final approved TDM program shall be implemented in perpetuity as a condition of the use permit for this development, unless otherwise approved by the City Transportation Division. Monitoring Program (TR-1): City staff shall review and approve the final TDM Plan and Monitoring Program. City staff shall work with the applicant to ensure that these strategies are implemented. The City shall conduct annual site visits and/or outreach to the property owners to ensure ongoing compliance. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3. Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City shall review and approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Page 430 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 13 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, BIO-1 through BIO-3, CR-1 through CR-3, GHG-1, and TR-1 and TR-2. Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The applicant shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in Mitigation Measure AQ-3 to the City Community Development Department upon completion. The survey requirements of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 shall be incorporated into the project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department and verified through submittal of a preconstruction nesting bird survey report to the City Community Development Department. The City Community Development Department shall confirm that all BMPs included in BIO-2 to avoid impacts to aquatic resources are incorporated into the grading plans prior to approval. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City shall review and approve the City- qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The applicant shall submit the GGRP to the City Community Development Department upon completion. Compliance shall be verified by the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of any construction permits. Contact information for the Trip Reduction Coordinator identified in Mitigation Measure TR-1 shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department. Compliance with TDM measures identified in TR-2 shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. 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 recommends the City Council approve 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 (ARCH- 0165-2020, USE-0294-2019, and EID-0650-2020). 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 Planning Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. The project shall comply with all adopted mitigation measures included in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (EID-0650-2020). Page 431 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 14 3. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show a pedestrian connection in the northern corner of the project site near Broad Street. If feasible, based on further evaluation of site topography and the agreement of the adjacent property owner, an additional non-vehicular (pedestrian) access shall be provided from the project site to the property located at 855 Aerovista Lane. 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. The applicant shall note the use of smooth finish stucco on the building plans to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 5. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show the replacement of corrugated metal material with metal siding, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. 6. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include recessed window details and all other details including but not limited to awnings, 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. 7. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the location of all required short and long-term bicycle parking for all intended uses, plans submitted for construction permits. Short-term bicycle racks such as " Peak Racks" shall be installed in close proximity to, and visible from, the main entry into the building (inverted " U" rack designs shall not be permitted). Sufficient detail shall be provided about the placement and design of bike racks and lockers to demonstrate compliance with relevant Engineering Standards and Community Design Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development Directors. 8. Plans submitted for building permit shall include a photometric plan, demonstrating compliance with maximum light intensity standards not to exceed a maintained value of 10 foot-candles. 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. 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 Page 432 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 15 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 adequately screen them. 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 11. The storage area for trash and recycling cans shall be screened from the public right - of-way consistent with § 17. 70.200 of the Zoning Regulations. The subject property shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner at all times; free of excessive leaves, branches, and other landscape material. The applicant shall be responsible for the clean- up of any landscape material in the public right-of-way. 10. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan containing an irrigation system plan with submittal of working drawings for a building permit. 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. The landscape plan shall show compensatory tree plantings consistent with the proposed conceptual landscape plan as recommended by the Tree Committee and approved by the Planning Commission. The surfaces and finishes of hardscapes shall be included on the landscaping plan. 11. Plans submitted for construction permits shall include elevation and detail drawings of all walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development standards described in the Zoning Regulations (§ 17. 70. 070 —Fences, Walls, and Hedges). 12. 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. 13. Prior to building permit issuance, each affected parcel shall be made subject to an avigation easement, in a form approved by the County of San Luis Obispo. 14. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit an application and receive approval of a lot merger. 15. Any signage shall be reviewed by the Planning Division to ensure appropriateness for the site and compliance with the Sign Regulations and granted exceptions. Final signage shall coordinate with building architecture. The Community Development Director may refer final signage to the Architectural Review Commission if it seems excessive or out of character with the project. Page 433 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 16 16. All amenities onsite shall be reserved for hotel guests, and shall operate as accessory uses to the hotel. Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development 17. A lot merger or lot line adjustment shall be processed and recorded prior to building permit issuance. 18. The building plan submittal shall show and note all existing and proposed public and private easements. The metes and bounds for the respective easements shall be shown and noted on the plans. A copy of any easement agreements shall be provided with the submittal. 19. The applicant shall clarify whether any relocation of the existing airport monument signage is proposed by the applicant or by the County to maintain sign visibility. The City may consider an encroachment permit with the County for relocation into the unimproved section of the former Aero Drive right-of-way. 20. Any required jurisdictional permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, CDFW, and RWQCB shall be issued prior to City issuance of any permits that authorize ground disturbing activities that could affect the jurisdictional areas. If required, the applicant shall provide a copy of any jurisdictional permits to the City prior to building permit issuance. The plans and any supporting City documents shall include reference to and any pertinent provisions of said permits for reference. 21. A SWPPP will be required and a WDID number issued prior to any ground disturbing activities, grading or construction permit issuance. The WDID number shall be referenced on the cover sheet of the plans, grading plans, and/or erosion control plan sheets. 22. The grading, drainage, erosion control, and utility plans along with the supporting documents shall show and note compliance with the adopted Building Code, City Engineering Standards, Drainage Design Manual, and Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Central Coast Water Board. 23. The architectural site plan, grading, erosion control, utility, and landscape plans shall clearly delineate the limits of the state and federal wetlands. The plans shall show any required temporary construction fencing to delineate any minimum setbacks. The fencing shall be installed and inspected/approved by the City prior to grading and building permit issuance. Said delineation fencing shall be maintained throughout the course of construction and shall be replace with permanent delineation or removed prior to final inspection approvals. 24. The building plan submittal shall show all existing street and utility improvements for reference. The plans shall include utilities and improvements located within the original Aero Drive right-of-way and the relocated section of Aero. City improvement plans are available upon request. Page 434 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 17 25. A separate encroachment permit will be required for any work or construction staging within the Broad Street (former 227) and Aero Drive rights-of-way. 26. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter, or sidewalk shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 27. The conditioned pedestrian walkways to/from Broad Street or the northerly Aerovista parcel and Aero Drive walkway shall comply with City and ADA standards. The grading plans and architectural site plan shall show and note compliance. 28. The pedestrian walkway paralleling the access driveway off of Aero Drive may need to be located to the westerly side of the driveway to better accommodate future pedestrian circulation within the airport campus and to avoid conflicts with any future use of the section of Aero Drive to be abandoned. Final walkway alignment shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 29. A permit will be required from San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health for the proposed water well abandonment. A separate plumbing permit is required from the City of San Luis Obispo for the abandonment. 30. The applicant shall clarify whether the well abandonment or existing water line easement will require separate approvals, quit-claim, or other action from the benefitted party/property. 31. The building plan submittal shall include a complete utility plan for reference. Utility abandonments shall be completed per City Engineering Standards for any utilities/meters that will not be used or will be relocated or upsized. 32. Recycled water shall be used for the landscape irrigation system per City and State Standards, subject to the availability of recycled water and to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director . The applicant shall contact the City Utilities Department to discuss the availability of recycled water, pursuant to implementation of the Recycled Water Master Plan. Backflow prevention shall be provided for both the domestic water supply and the fire service. 33. The final location of the proposed recycle (landscape irrigation) service/meter, domestic service/meter, and fire service shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, Engineering, Utilities Department, and Fire Department. All services may need to be relocated to the westerly side of the entry driveway. 34. The required backflow devices should be located per City Engineering Standard and within 10 feet of the future Aero Drive right-of-way/back of sidewalk. 35. Depending upon the timing of a roadway dedication from the County of San Luis Obispo and abandonment of the existing underlying Aero Drive right-of-way, a separate encroachment agreement may need to be processed and approved by the City of San Luis Obispo for the location of the backflow prevention devices, private utilities, private driveway, pedestrian walkways, landscape improvements, or signage, etc. within the existing public right-of-way. Page 435 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 18 36. Backflow prevention devices shall be painted or screened to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 37. The City supports the extension of the site landscaping and irrigation system along the entry driveway and within the extended parkway area located behind the back of sidewalk to the west of the entry driveway. 38. Any proposed above grade utility infrastructure, backflow devices, landscape improvements, etc. shall consider the line-of-site for vehicles leaving the site. The line-of-site analysis shall be included with the building permit submittal and the resulting site lines shall be shown and noted on the architectural, civil, and landscape plans for reference. 39. The building plans submittal shall show and note compliance with the Parking and Driveway Standards. The parking lot plans shall include any required signage or striping and stop controls needed for internal circulation and for circulation to and from Aero Drive. 40. The City supports the proposed tree removals with the compensatory trees shown on the landscape plans. The tree regulations require the planting of street trees along the street frontage as a condition of development and building permit issuance. 41. Unless otherwise waived or approved for deferral by the Public Works and Community Development departments, street trees shall be planted along the new Aero Drive alignment behind the back of sidewalk/future roadway dedication and within a designated “planting area” in accordance with City Standards and the Tree Regulations. Fire Department 42. Fire sprinkler floor control valves for each floor shall be co-located in the riser room. The Fire Alarm control Panel shall also be located in the riser room. 43. Combination wet standpipes shall be located in each stair well. 44. All interior curbs shall be posted as “NO PARKING-FIRE LANE”. Transportation Division 45. Transportation Impact Fees: The applicant shall pay applicable transportation impact fees prior to issuance of building permits, including participation in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program and the County’s Highway 227 Transportation Impact Fee Program. 46. Broad/Aero Intersection Improvements: The applicant shall be responsible for design and construction of a southbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Broad Street/Aero Drive. Designs shall be prepared per City Engineering Standards and shall include relocation of street signs, traffic signal equipment (signal poles, pull boxes, conduits, etc.), and other utilities as required to accommodate the addition of the right-turn pocket. Designs shall include striping modifications to align the southbound bike lane to the left of the new right-turn lane with the Page 436 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 19 addition of green bike lane markings within the bike lane and continuing through the intersection consistent with City Engineering Standards and the City’s Active Transportation Plan. The storage length of the turn pocket shall be confirmed by the City Transportation Division. Public improvement plans shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits and construction of the improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 47. Broad/Aerovista Signage: Unless otherwise approved by the Transportation Division, the applicant shall install signage at the eastbound approach to the Broad/Aerovista intersection to convey left turn restrictions during the PM peak period. 48. Driveway Line of Sight: To maintain adequate line of sight at the Aero Drive site driveway, improvement plans shall include installation of red curb paint 30 feet on either side of the driveway, and landscaping plans shall specify low-lying vegetation (30” or less) or trees with canopies that are maintained and do not fall below seven feet above the elevation of the roadway within the applicable clear sight distance triangles. 49. Streetlighting: Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, the project’s frontage improvements shall include installation of streetlights per City Engineering Standards. 50. Pedestrian Crossings: On-site pedestrian crossings of driveway aisles shall be marked with high-visibility “ladder-style” crosswalk markings. 51. Bicycle Parking: Short-term bicycle parking shall utilize “peak-style” bike racks or approved equivalent to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 52. Traffic Signal Timing Optimization: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a fee of $10,000 to fund a traffic engineering study to guide traffic signal timing improvements at the following intersections: a. Tank Farm/South Higuera b. Tank Farm/Broad c. Broad/Aero 53. Fair Share Participation in Off-Site Transportation Improvements: The applicant shall provide fair share payment towards the following future off-site transportation improvements through participation in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Program: a. Tank Farm/Santa Fe – Realign intersection and reconstruct as two-lane roundabout b. Broad/Tank Farm – Convert the westbound right-turn lane to a through/shared right-turn lane, add a second southbound left-turn lane, and northbound right-turn lane. Incorporate pedestrian/bicycle crossing enhancements. Indemnification 54. 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 Page 437 of 1221 Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 20 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. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 28th day of July 2021. ____________________________________ Tyler Corey, Secretary Planning Commission Page 438 of 1221 Page 439 of 1221 Page 440 of 1221 Page 441 of 1221 Page 442 of 1221 Page 443 of 1221 Page 444 of 1221 Page 445 of 1221 Page 446 of 1221 Page 447 of 1221 Page 448 of 1221 Page 449 of 1221 Page 450 of 1221 Page 451 of 1221 Page 452 of 1221 Page 453 of 1221 Page 454 of 1221 Page 455 of 1221 Page 456 of 1221 Page 457 of 1221 W M WM WM WM SDSDWM >>>WM SDSDSD(175) (180)(174)(176)(177) (178) (179) (181) (175) (17 5 ) (180) (180) ( 1 7 3 ) (173) (1 7 4 ) (174) (176) (176 ) (177) (177) (177 ) (178) ( 1 7 8 ) (179) (1 7 9 ) (181) (181)(170)(170)(175)(165) (165) (166) (166)(167)(168)(169)2.2%2.4%???2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 3.1%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0% 2.0% 1. 5 % 1. 6 % 5 . 5%0.4%1.6%1.9% 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 4 B R O A D S T R E E T ( H I G H W A Y 2 2 7 ) RIGHT OF WAY N35° 15' 10"W399.20'A E R O D R I V EPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE RIGHT OF WAY N38° 19' 24"W 412.62'N52° 00' 20"E236.75'N52° 00' 20"E315.41'N47° 10' 11 " W 410.03'N50° 30' 32"E231.01'N50° 30' 32"E299.87'HOTEL 176.50 FF 10.0' SLOPE ESMT 48 PM 35 DRAINAGE & ACCESS ESMT 48 PM 35 DRIVEWAY ESMT DOC. NO. 200-036425 1 5 . 0 'WA T E R E S M T 4 8 P M 3 5 20.0'2 0 . 0 ' 22.0' WATER ESMT 48 PM 35 25.0'DEDICATION1593 OR 564SIGN ESMT 3924 OR 63 100.0' ROW (E) PROPERTY LINE 175174170 169 168 167175 176176176 175170 171 171172 171172 169 1.5% 1.6% 1. 5 % 1. 5 % 1. 6 % 1. 6 % 1. 6 %2.1%2.1% 1. 5 %0.5%3.8% 2.0% 2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.9% 2.1% 2.1% 2.2%2.3%2.3%174.50 TC 174.00 FS 174.50 TC 174.00 FS 174.50 TC 174.00 FS 176.00 TC 175.50 FS 176.00 TC 175.50 FS176.35 TC 175.85 FS176.35 TC 175.85 FS 175.49 TC 174.99 FL 174.95 TC 174.45 FL 174.05 TC 173.55 FL 173.50 TC 173.00 FL 174.50 TC 174.00 FS 175.49 TC 174.99 FS 176.35 TC 175.85 FS 178.00 TC 177.50 FS 178.00 TC 177.50 FS 178.00 TC 177.50 FS 11 12 13 13 13 13 1313 13 13 13 14 14 22 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 1920 20 2020 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 14 23 23 23 5 5 6 6 7 7 SLO AIRPORT HOTELSPROJECT NAME:PLANS PREPARED FOR:PROJECT LOCATION:PLANNING SOLUTIONS1360 NEW WINE PLACETEMPLETON, CA 93465950 & 990 AERO DRIVESAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN: 053-412-010053-412-011ENGINEER OF RECORD: REVISIONS: CDS JOB #: SCALE: 19-029 AS SHOWN DATE:May 11, 2020 PREPARED BY:MMM REVIEWED BY:MRS T:\Active Jobs\19-029 SLO Airport Hotels\_Project\2_Prelim_Entitlements\19-029 Grading Plan-Prelim.dwg, May 11, 2020A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SHEET XX OF 2 SHEETSCIVIL ENGINEERING PLANNING PERMITTINGCIVIL DESIGN STUDIOP.O. Box 199 | Cambria | CA 93428805.706.0401 www.civil-studio.comPLAN PREPARED BY:EEN INo. 74736TSCTAEFOIGERAIOFILACLIVNRR ERPSDERETFONOI LAGNE ISSMONTERSOTO P R E L I M I N A R YN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N30 15 0 SCALE: 1" = 30' 30 60 1" = 30' PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN ---- C-1 LEGEND AC PAVING VEHICULAR CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE15 14 13 PROJECT INFORMATION ZONING: BP-SP APN: 053-412-010 & 011 FLOOD ZONE: ZONE X SITE AREA: 5.04 AC AREA DISTURBED: 4.33 AC WDID NUMBER: TBD PRELIMINARY GRADING INFORMATION* CUT QUANTITY: 10,000 CUBIC YARDS FILL QUANTITY: 8,900 CUBIC YARDS NET CUT/FILL: 1,100 CUBIC YARDS EXPORT * EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE PROVIDED FOR PRELIMINARY PERMITTING INFORMATION ONLY. BENCHMARK: THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS PROJECT IS A FOUND CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BENCHMARK NUMBER 369 BEING A LEAD AND TACK AT HE BCR ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY CURB OF BROAD STREET AND EL CAPITAN WAY. ELEVATION = 165.42 (NAVD 88) BASIS OF BEARING: THE COORDINATES AND BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, CCS83, ZONE 5 0405, (1992) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLI8C RESOURCES CODE SECTIONS 8801-8819; SAID COORDINATES AND BEARINGS ARE BASED LOCALLY UPON FILED-OBSERVED TIE TO THE FOLLOWING SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT CONTROL STATION "SLO COUNTY HPO" P.I.D. AA4511 POINT NUMBER 111 MONUMENT TYPE - 2" BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE STAMPED "SLO COUNTY HPO". ORIGIN OF SURVEY INFORMATION: THE TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS AND USED TO DESIGN THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS WAS PERFORMED AND PREPARED BY MBS LAND SURVEYS AND PROVIDED TO CDS ON 4/5/2019 AND 4/15/2019. IF DISCREPANCIES ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION THE SURVEYOR AND CONTRACTOR WILL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD IMMEDIATELY AND PRIOR TO CONTINUING CONSTRUCTION. PROPERTY OWNER/DEVELOPER: SUNSMIT, LLC SANJAY GANPULE 280 FOXTAIL LANE TEMPLETON, CA 93465 805.550.3764 OMKAR1570@YAHOO.COM AGENCY:CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 919 PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 805.781.7170 ARCHITECT:ARRIS STUDIO ARCHITECTS THOM JESS 1327 ARCHER STREET, SUITE 220 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 805.547.2240 TJESS@ARRIS-STUDIO.COM CIVIL ENGINEER: CIVIL DESIGN STUDIO, INC. MONTE SOTO, P.E., QSD P.O. BOX 199 CAMBRIA, CA 93428 805.706.0401 MONTE@CIVIL-STUDIO.COM GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: GEOSOLUTIONS, INC KRAIG CROZIER, PE 220 HIGH STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 805.543.8539 SURVEY NOTES PROJECT PARTICIPANTS PERVIOUS CONCRETE16 PRELIMINARY SITE NOTES 1 EXISTING CURB GUTTER AND SIDEWALK - PROTECT IN PLACE 2 EXISTING SIGN - PROTECT IN PLACE 3 EXISTING RETAINING WALL - PROTECT IN PLACE 4 EXISTING WELL - REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF PER CITY AND COUNTY STANDARDS 5 35' WETLAND SETBACK 6 APPROXIMATE FEDERAL WETLAND BOUNDARY 7 APPROXIMATE STATE WETLAND BOUNDARY NOTES 8 TO 10 NOT USED 11 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY AND VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY OF SLO STANDARDS 12 PROPOSED SIDEWALK PER CITY OF SLO STANDARDS 13 PROPOSED AC PAVING 14 PROPOSED VEHICULAR CONCRETE 15 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE 16 PROPOSED PERVIOUS CONCRETE 17 PROPOSED BUILDING PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 18 PROPOSED BUILDING OVERHANG PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 19 PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB 20 PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB RAMP 21 PROPOSED ADA PARKING STALLS 22 PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE 23 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL (3' MAXIMUM RETAINED HEIGHT) SHEET LIST TABLE SHEET #SHEET TITLE C-1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN C-2 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN Page 458 of 1221 WL WL W M WM WM T T T T T T T T T T T T T T E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEESS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS WLSSSSWM WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL WLWLWLWLWLWL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL WL TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTSDGGGGGGGGGGGGGSDEEEESDSDS S WM >>>SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDF F WM WL WL WL SDSD SD SD SD SD SDSDFFFFFFFFF F F F F F F FB R O A D S T R E E T ( H I G H W A Y 2 2 7 ) ELECTRICAL LINE RIGHT OF WAY N35° 15' 10"W399.20' 12" C900 WL TELECOM LINE A E R O D R I V EPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE RIGHT OF WAY N38° 19' 24"W 412.62'N52° 00' 20"E236.75'N52° 00' 20"E315.41'N47° 10' 11 " W 410.03'N50° 30' 32"E231.01'N50° 30' 32"E299.87'ELECTRICAL LINEELECTRICAL LINE ELECTRICAL LINE12" C900 WL 12" C900 WL 12" C900 WLTELECOM LINE 30" HDP E S D HOTEL 176.50 FF 10.0' SLOPE ESMT 48 PM 35 DRAINAGE & ACCESS ESMT 48 PM 35 DRIVEWAY ESMT DOC. NO. 200-036425 1 5 . 0 'WA T E R E S M T 4 8 P M 3 5 20.0'2 0 . 0 ' 22.0' WATER ESMT 48 PM 35 25.0'DEDICATION1593 OR 564SIGN ESMT 3924 OR 63 100.0' ROW (E) PROPERTY LINE 12" PVC SS 12" PVC SS 6" PVC SS8" PVC WL30" H D P E S D 6" DI RWL 8" DI RWL8" DI RWL 8" DI RWL 2" RWL 4" WL 2" RW L6" WL2" WL2" GAS LINETELECOM LINETELECOM LINE41 WATER POC 170.50 IE SS POC FIRE POC (171.7) TG (172.1) RIM (176.0) TG (168.0) IE 168.0 IE 41 41 42 42 43 61 61 61 62 64 71 71 71 71 71 72 72 727272 73 73 7373 73 73 74 7474 75 79 76 76 76 76 91 73 91 91 91 91 91 92 929292 93 93 94 94 44 44 44 44 44 44 45 45 46 47 47 47 4747 47 47 47 47 48 49 63 64 168.80 IE 77 77 78 78 79 79 80 81 82 83 80 80 78 78 78 78 78 SLO AIRPORT HOTELSPROJECT NAME:PLANS PREPARED FOR:PROJECT LOCATION:PLANNING SOLUTIONS1360 NEW WINE PLACETEMPLETON, CA 93465950 & 990 AERO DRIVESAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN: 053-412-010053-412-011ENGINEER OF RECORD: REVISIONS: CDS JOB #: SCALE: 19-029 AS SHOWN DATE:May 11, 2020 PREPARED BY:MMM REVIEWED BY:MRS T:\Active Jobs\19-029 SLO Airport Hotels\_Project\2_Prelim_Entitlements\19-029 Utility Plan-Prelim.dwg, May 11, 2020A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SHEET XX OF 2 SHEETSCIVIL ENGINEERING PLANNING PERMITTINGCIVIL DESIGN STUDIOP.O. Box 199 | Cambria | CA 93428805.706.0401 www.civil-studio.comPLAN PREPARED BY:EEN INo. 74736TSCTAEFOIGERAIOFILACLIVNRR ERPSDERETFONOI LAGNE ISSMONTERSOTO P R E L I M I N A R YN O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N30 15 0 SCALE: 1" = 30' 30 60 1" = 30' PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN ---- C-2 CONSTRUCTION NOTES 41 EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE 42 EXISTING STORM DRAIN MANHOLE - PROTECT IN PLACE 43 EXISTING STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN - PROTECT IN PLACE 44 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE 45 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN MANHOLE 46 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN JUNCTION BOX WITH ORIFICE PLATE 47 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN 48 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN DETENTION SYSTEM 49 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN FLARED END SECTION NOTES 50 TO 60 NOT USED 61 EXISTING SEWER LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE 62 EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT - PROTECT IN PLACE 63 PROPOSED SEWER LINE (S = 0.005 MINIMUM) 64 PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUT NOTES 65 TO 70 NOT USED 71 EXISTING WATER LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE 72 EXISTING RECYCLED WATER LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE 73 EXISTING WATER VALVE - PROTECT IN PLACE 74 EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT - PROTECT IN PLACE 75 EXISTING WELL - REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF PER CITY AND COUNTY STANDARDS 76 EXISTING WATER METER - RELOCATE 77 PROPOSED WATER LINE 78 PROPOSED FIRE LINE 79 PROPOSED WATER METER 80 PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT 81 PROPOSED POST INDICATOR VALVE 82 PROPOSED FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION 83 PROPOSED DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK ASSEMBLY NOTES 84 TO 90 NOT USED 91 EXISTING ELECTRICAL LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE 92 EXISTING TELECOM LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE 93 EXISTING GAS LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE 94 EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL - PROTECT IN PLACE NOTE: UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS PROVIDED BY FIELD WORK PERFORMED BY MBS LAND SURVEYS AND CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ASBUILT DRAWINGS. ORIFICE PLATE SCALE: 1" = 1' 4.2" Ø 163.75 INV 6.0" Ø 164.25 INV 5.5" Ø 165.00 INV Page 459 of 1221 Page 460 of 1221 Page 461 of 1221 Page 462 of 1221 San Luis Obispo Airport Hotel Hotel Project Statement Prepared for: Sunsmit, LLC Prepared by: Planning Solutions Pamela Jardini J.D. planningsolutions@charter.net 805-801-0453 Revised March 10, 2020 Page 463 of 1221 San Luis Obispo Airport Hotel Hotel Project Statement Site Description The site is comprised of two parcels approximately 2.5 acres each totaling 5.04 acres located at the corner of Aero Drive and Broad Street (Hwy 227). The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport borders the property to the south and west. The property is zoned Business Park, within the Airport Area Specific Plan, and within the Airport Land Use Planning Area zones 4 and 5. The property is vacant but Airport Management leased a portion of the site for parking during construction of the new terminal. Project Description The proposed project consists of developing a three-story dual branded hotel with on- site parking. The hotel will have 204 guest rooms and guest amenities that include outdoor patio/dining areas, meeting space, fitness room, breakfast area and bar. These amenities will be for hotel guest only; they will not be open to the public. The hotel is anticipated to be a trademark hotel although at this time a trademark has not been selected. The project is setback from the state jurisdictional wetlands a minimum of 35 feet to avoid impacts to the wetland area. Project Architecture Contemporary materials, architectural reliefs, and distinguishing color combinations create a high-tech hotel with a warm, inviting impression. The architectural style of the hotel combines the “airport architecture” with hotel architecture harmoniously. Metal awnings, metal trellises and low planter walls create appealing dining and meeting places. An artistic palette of trees, bushes and groundcovers varying in textures, colors, form and height enhance the development and add a lushness to the patio and outdoor areas Page 464 of 1221 The entry point for the project site is located off of Aero Drive creating easy access to the hotel. The hotel has a porte cochere allowing easy traffic flow within the parking area for guest registration and parking. Building Intensity and Coverage Standards (Table 4.5) Criteria Allowed/Required Proposed Gross Floor Area Maximum allowed 0.60 0.58% 127,200 / 219,570 Lot Coverage for hardscape Maximum allowed 80% 70% Lot coverage for landscaping Minimum allowed 20% 30% Height limit 45 feet in height for occupied space 52 feet for non-occupied space 45 feet 52 feet non-occupied space (towers) Loading Spaces 3 spaces 1 spaces (exception request) Setback Requirements (Table 4.7) Setback Distance Required Proposed Buildings and property lines along streets 16 Hotel is greater than 100 feet from Aero Drive ROW Hotel averages more than 70 feet from ROW of Broad Street Parking lots and property lines along streets 10 Parking lot is 10 feet from Broad Street Buildings and property lines between adjacent parcels None Minimum of 40 feet widening to a greater distance Parking lots and property lines between adjacent parcels 5 Not applicable – refer to note below Note: We are requesting that the parcels be merged. Page 465 of 1221 Employee and Customer Concentrations (Table 4.6) Airport Safety Area Maximum number of Employees, Clients or Customers with Long-term Stays On Each Site Proposed Aviation Safety Area S-1c 120 per acre 370.8 (1.8 X 206 guest rooms) Amenities 0 For hotel guest only Total 5.04 acres x 120 per acre equals 604.8 370.8 Parking Requirements Parking for this site is based on one space per room. Based on these calculations the required number of parking spaces is: Type Required Proposed Vehicular parking (1 space per room) 204 214 Accessible parking 7 8 Clean air/van pool 18 18 EV parking 14 14 Motorcycle 11 12 Bicycle (1 per 10 guest rooms- 50% short term and 50% long term) 21 22 Loading 3 1 (exception requested) Page 466 of 1221 Exception Requests This hotel project proposes one loading space. Due to the nature of the hotel business, loading spaces are not critical. An exception to reduce the required 3 loading spaces to 1 spaces is being requested. The signage proposed on the hotel is placed above the architectural reliefs at the entry and in strategic locations. Placing the signage at these locations will require the signage to exceed the 25 foot height limit. The signage is attached to the building, not free standing. An exception to the height limit is being requested for this project. Inclusionary Housing Requirement The inclusionary housing requirement will be fulfilled through the alternative in-lieu payment. Public Art Proposal The developers will include public art in the project valued at one-half of one percent (.5%) of the cost of construction over $100,000 or contribute an amount equal to the value of the required art to the City’s art-in-lieu account or donate a comparably valued piece of art to the City. The estimate public art fee will be $115,00 Architectural Review Committee This project was presented to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) on March 18, 2019. ARC supported the phased project, the site design of the project with a few suggestions and the request for the exception to the signage height limit. Since the ARC meeting. The project has been redesigned to avoid all impacts to the adjacent wetland area. Please refer to report prepared by Terr-Verde. Page 467 of 1221 San Luis Obispo Airport Hotels Airport Specific Plan Requirements Prepared for: Sunsmit, LLC Prepared by: Planning Solutions Pamela Jardini J.D. planningsolutions@charter.net 805-801-0453 Revised March 10, 2020 Page 468 of 1221 Airport Specific Plan Requirements Project Description This project consists of developing a three-story hotel on with on-site parking. The hotel is anticipated to be a trademark hotel although at this time a trademark has not been selected. Please refer to the hotel project statement for a detailed project description. Airport Specific Plan Requirements The following standards are applicable per the Airport Specific Plan. The project’s conformity to the design standards follows each standard in italics. 4.2.1 Business Park Areas designated Business Park are primarily for research and development, light manufacturing, and business services that are compatible with each other and with airport operations. Activities that are supportive of, or accessory to, the primary activities may be allowed as well. The hotel is a good fit for the Business Park zone since it is a complimentary and supportive use to the airport. Its location is convenient for tourists and business visitors. The hotel is located off of Broad Street which provides access to future transit routes and direct access to downtown. The hotel will provide shuttle service to San Luis Obispo’s downtown. The San Luis Obispo Regional Airport partnered with SLO Transit to provide airport customers and employees access to the airport via public transit. The Architectural Review Committee found this use to be appropriate for the site. 5.1.1 Principal buildings shall be oriented parallel to the street. The project is located at the corner of Broad and Aero Street. The hotel is oriented parallel to Broad Street - the public domain. Orienting the hotel parallel to Broad Street is compatible with the neighborhood, positively influences the aesthetic character of the street scape and enhances the entrance to the airport. 5.1.2 No more than one double-loaded parking bay will be allowed between the street and the front of the building. The project proposes one double-loaded parking bay between the hotel and Broad Street. Fire and emergency services require access to all sides of the building and the front parking lot is necessary to accomplish this safety feature. The hotel’s architectural reliefs and landscaping enhance the presence of the hotel and diminish the parking area. Page 469 of 1221 5.1.3 Direct pedestrian access shall be provided from the street serving the project to the main entrance. Direct pedestrian access is provided from Broad Street to the entrance via a path delineated by pavers, framed by landscaping and accented by a metal canopy at the entrance to the hotel. Pedestrian access from Aero Drive is delineated by pavers from the public sidewalk to the hotels’ entries and exterior patio areas. 5.1.4 Buildings shall have architecturally articulated entry features facing the street. The hotel provides an entry and lobby area that face Broad Street. The building is articulated with various materials, colors, off-set façade relief and a prominent covered entrance. Entrance to the hotel is from Aero Drive. The front of the hotel has a porte-cochere facing Aero Street with direct access to the hotel’s lobby. 5.4.1 Parking lots shall be located at the rear or side of buildings, rather than between the front facade of the building and the street. Side parking shall not exceed 40% of the frontage of the lot on the primary street. The parking areas are screened with landscaping and setback from Broad Street and Aero Road. Parking is wrapped around the building and avoids encroaching into the wetland’s jurisdictional limits. Standard 5.1.2 allows one double-loaded parking bay between the front of the building and the street. Fire and emergency services require access to all sides of the building and the front parking lot is necessary to accomplish this safety feature. 5.4.2 Where parking layout exceeds two rows in depth (i.e., one double-loaded parking bay), parking lot aisles shall be oriented perpendicular to the building(s) (i.e., aligned in direction of pedestrian movement) to increase pedestrian safety. The parking area in front of the hotel (facing Aero Street) is oriented perpendicular to the buildings. The parking areas are landscaped and a pedestrian path is delineated with pavers to provide safe pedestrian travel between parking spaces and the hotels. 5.4.4 Parking lots shall be planted with shade trees in a pattern and number that can be reasonably expected to shade at least 50% of the lot surface within ten (10) years of planting, and provide a nearly continuous canopy at maturity The landscaping plan for the parking area show cases a variety of trees, shrubs groundcovers in various textures and seasonal colors. At maturity the landscaping will meet or exceed the 50% shade requirement. Page 470 of 1221 5.4.5 A 10% reduction in the required number of parking spaces may be granted by the Director for development within one-quarter mile of a regularly scheduled transit stop. The San Luis Obispo Regional Airport partnered with SLO Transit to provide airport customers and employees access to the airport via public transit. The project qualifies for a 10% reduction in the required number of parking spaces. The project as proposed does not incorporate the 10% reduction allowance. 5.6.1 Loading docks and refuse collection areas are not permitted in the area between the building and the street. No loading docks are proposed. The trash receptacles are not visible from the street, are enclosed, and located to the side and rear property lines. 5.6.2 Each commercial or industrial loading or outdoor recycling or waste collection area shall be located on the side of a building opposite from parcel lines or street frontages of any land designated for residential use. The property does not border a residential use. 5.6.3 Storage, service, trash and recycling collection areas shall be located either within an enclosure or behind a visual barrier. All storage, service, trash, and recycling collection areas are within a stucco enclosure with metal doors. The enclosures will incorporate the materials and colors of the buildings. 5.6.4 Loading dock areas shall be set back, recessed, and screened from view by walls, berms, or plantings. No loading docks are proposed. 5.6.5 Exterior on-site utilities (including drainage systems, sewers, gas lines, water lines, electrical, telephone, and communications wires and equipment) shall be installed underground except, where required to be above ground by government agencies The project is in compliance with this standard. 5.6.6 Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened by parts of the roof, or architecturally compatible screening features, so the equipment is not visible from the ground outside the site or open space areas to the public. On sites designated Business Park, such screening shall make rooftop equipment not visible from a viewpoint outside the site and at the same height as the equipment. The mechanical equipment is screened from view by parapets at the edge of the roof. Page 471 of 1221 5.10.1 Building facades visible from streets shall vary in modules of 20 meters (66 feet) or less. On any building facade, continuous wall planes longer than 30 meters (100 feet) should be avoided. Where interior functions require longer continuous spaces, exterior walls should have architectural features such as columns or pilasters at least every 20 meters. Such architectural features shall have a depth of at least 3 percent of the length of the facade, and shall extend at least 20 percent of the length of the facade. The project is consistent with this standard 5.10.2 Facades that face public streets shall use elements such as arcades, awnings, entry features, windows, or other such animating features along at least 60 percent of their horizontal length. The façades facing both Broad Street and Aero Drive have metal awnings, canopies over their entry, and metal vine trellises. The various finishes include painted stucco in four complimentary colors, metal siding, and fiber cement siding. This combination of materials spans 100% of the horizontal length and visually reduces the overall building mass, creates interesting shadows and provides visual interest while maintaining a pedestrian scale. A.11.1 Table 4.9 shows building height standards for the planning area. This Business Park Land Use category height limit for occupied space is 45 feet. The height limit for non-occupied space is 52 feet. The project is in compliance with both these height limits. Goal 5.17.1: Development in the Airport Area is subject to the requirements of the City’s Public Art ordinance. The developers will include public art in the project valued at one-half of one percent (.5%) of the cost of construction over $100,000 or contribute an amount equal to the value of the required art to the City’s art-in-lieu account or donate a comparably valued piece of art to the City. The estimated public art fee is $115,000 Goal 5.18.1: Building identity signs shall be limited to major site entries from public roadways. Corporate and business identity signs can be placed on the buildings themselves, as long as they are located near the building entrance and are for identification within the site (i.e., not from public roadways). Hotel Signage is located on the facade of the building above the entries facing Broad Street, the interior entry and on the building side fronting Aero Drive. One monument sign is located at the entry to the site from Aero Drive. We are requesting an exception to the sign height limit so that the signs are placed in a logical and visually noticeable place on the buildings. The Architectural Review Committee supported this exception request. Page 472 of 1221 Goal 5.18.2: Signs on poles or other raised structures are not allowed in the planning area. This project is consistent with this goal. Goal 5.18.3: All signs shall be located on private property. The signs are located on the buildings or on the monument sign; all signs are on private property. Goal 5.18.4: Entry signs shall be externally illuminated. The light source shall be fully shielded from view from roadways and pedestrian walkways. Lighting levels shall be as low as possible while providing adequate illumination for signs to be seen by motorists. All signs are eternally illuminated and the light source is shielded from view. Page 473 of 1221 Page 474 of 1221 Minutes ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Monday, May 3, 2021 Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday, May 3, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair Allen Root. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Michael DeMartini, Ashley Mayou, Brian Pineda, Micah Smith, Vice Chair Christie Withers, and Chair Allen Root Absent: Commissioner Mandi Pickens Staff: Senior Planner Shawna Scott and Deputy City Clerk Megan Wilbanks ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 1.Annual Election of Chair and Vice Chair ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIR ROOT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DEMARTINI, CARRIED 6-0-1 (Commissioner Pickens absent, Vice Chair Withers abstaining), to elect Christie Withers to the position of Chair for a one-year term. ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WITHERS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, CARRIED 6-0-1 (Commissioner Pickens absent, Commissioner Mayou abstaining), to elect Ashley Mayou to the position of Vice Chair for a one-year term. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None End of Public Comment-- CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 2.Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meetings of April 5, 2021. ACTION: MOTION BY CHAIR WITHERS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, CARRIED 6-0-1 (Commissioner Pickens absent), to approve the Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of April 5, 2021. Page 475 of 1221 Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of May 3, 2021 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.Design review of a proposed three-story, 204-room, dual-branded hotel, with guest amenities including an outdoor patio and dining area, meeting space, fitness room, breakfast area, bar, and onsite parking. The proposed hotel would be approximately 125,200 square feet with a maximum height of 45 feet for occupied buildings and 52 feet for non-occupied space. The project includes a request for an exception to standard loading space requirements (one space requested where three spaces is the standard), an exception to an Airport Area Specific Plan standard to exceed 40% lot frontage side parking, and exceptions to sign standards to allow for seven wall signs (where four is the standard) and placement of wall signs at the third story, where the uppermost point of the second story is the standard height. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed for adoption. Project address: 950 & 990 Aero Dr.; Case#: USE-0294-2019 and ARCH-0165-2020; Zone: BP-SP (Airport Area Specific Plan); Sunsmit, LLC, owner/applicant. Senior Planner Shawna Scott presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner inquiries. Applicant representatives, Pamela Jardini and Thom Jess, provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries. Public Comments: None End of Public Comment-- ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER DEMARTINI, CARRIED 6-0-1 (Commissioner Pickens absent), to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project with the following considerations: Consider pedestrian access to the site, especially from the northern corner of the site near the Broad Street sidewalk, and access to SLO Brew/The Rock to the north. Consider replacing the sine wave corrugated metal with metal that is similar to the other metal siding on the building, and perhaps a different color. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 3.Staff Updates Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided a brief agenda forecast. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:08 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission is scheduled for Monday, May 17, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference. APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 06/21/2021 Page 476 of 1221 Meeting Date: May 3, 2021 Item Number: 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING Design review of a proposed three‐story, 204‐room, dual‐branded hotel, with guest amenities including an outdoor patio and dining area, meeting space, fitness room, breakfast area, bar, and onsite parking. The proposed hotel would be approximately 125,200 square feet with a maximum height of 45 feet for occupied buildings and 52 feet for non‐occupied space. The project includes a request for an exception to standard loading space requirements (one space requested where three spaces is the standard), an exception to an Airport Area Specific Plan standard to exceed 40% lot frontage side parking, and exceptions to sign standards to allow for seven wall signs (where four is the standard) and placement of wall signs at the third story, where the uppermost point of the second story is the standard height. General Location: The two‐parcel, 5.04‐acre project site is located on the northern side of Aero Drive, on the west side of Broad Street. Present Use: Vacant Zoning: BP‐SP (Business Park, Airport Area Specific Plan) General Plan: Business Park Surrounding Uses: East: Broad Street, commercial uses (C‐S) West: San Luis Obispo Regional Airport (PF‐SP) North: The Rock (SLO Brew), offices (BP‐SP) South: San Luis Obispo Regional Airport (Public Facility, County of San Luis Obispo) 2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN Architecture: Three stories with flat roofs, presenting a contemporary style. Design details: Architectural reliefs including variation in height and depth of walls to create shadow, use of accent colors, metal awnings and trellises, low planter walls, and porte cochère Materials: smooth stucco, vertical corrugated metal siding, horizontal metal siding, fiber cement siding, aluminum‐framed windows, metal trellis and planter boxes, metal porte cochère Colors: Dark brown, golden yellow, blue, off‐white, and gray; slate and charcoal gray. FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner PROJECT ADDRESS: 950 & 990 Aero Dr. FILE NUMBERS: ARCH 0165‐2020, USE 0294‐2019 APPLICANT: Sunsmit, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Pamela Jardini ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ For more information contact: Shawna Scott at 781‐7176 or sscott@slocity.org BP‐SP PF‐SP BP‐SP CS Page 477 of 1221 ARCH 0165‐2020, USE 0294‐2019 950 & 990 Aero Drive Page 2 3.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW The ARC’s role is to 1) review the proposed hotel project in terms of its consistency with the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) Design Guidelines, Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and Sign Regulations and 2) provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission. Link to Airport Area Specific Plan Link to Community Design Guidelines Link to Sign Regulations 4.0 PROJECT STATISTICS Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required Setbacks – Parking lot along street 10 feet 10 feet Setbacks – Parking lot between parcels 5 feet 5 feet Setbacks – Buildings along streets 85 feet (Broad) 165 feet (Aero) 16 feet Setbacks – Buildings between parcels 65 – 92 feet 0 feet Maximum Height of Structures 45 feet 52 (non‐occupied features) 45 feet 52 (non‐occupied features) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.58 0.6 Max Building Coverage (footprint) 70% 80% Minimum Landscaped Space (including pedestrian hardscape) 30% 20% Required Parking Spaces 214 204 Page 478 of 1221 ARCH 0165‐2020, USE 0294‐2019 950 & 990 Aero Drive Page 3 Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required Electric Vehicle Parking 20 EV Ready 51 EV Capable 20 EV Ready 51 EV Capable Bicycle Parking Total: 22 Long‐term: 11 Short‐term: 11 Total: 20 Long‐term: 10 Short‐term: 10 Wall signs Up to seven wall signs Placement at 3rd story Four wall signs Uppermost point of the second story Environmental Status An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated for public review prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. 5.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS Highlighted Sections Discussion Items AASP Chapter 5, Community Design Standard 5.1.1: Building orientation parallel to the street Standard 5.1.2 No more than one double‐loaded parking bay will be allowed between the street and the front of the building Standard 5.1.3: Pedestrian access from the street to main entrance Standard 5.1.4: Architecturally articulated entry features facing the street The structure is located parallel to Broad Street and the northern property line. One double‐loaded parking bay is proposed between the building and Broad Street. The primary entrance and porte cochere are located internally to the site facing towards Aero Drive, with a pedestrian walkway extending from Aero Drive to the main entrance. A pedestrian side entry is provided on the elevation facing Broad Street, which leads into the lobby on the ground floor. This side entry is accentuated by use of colors and materials (white‐colored stucco extending from the ground to the roofline), an aluminum‐ framed storefront and metal canopy, and the pedestrian access from Broad Street would be delineated with pavers and framed by landscaping. The ARC should discuss if additional articulation is warranted to further accentuate either entrance. Standard 5.4.1: Parking lot location at rear or side of buildings; side parking shall not exceed 40 percent of the lot frontage A majority of the parking is proposed along the northern property boundary and internal to the site. Approximately 270, non‐ continuous linear feet of parking spaces are provided along the east property boundary, facing Broad Street, with a 10‐foot deep landscape buffer between the parking spaces and the sidewalk. The ARC should discuss if an exception to allow for parking spaces along approximately 67% of the Broad Street frontage is appropriate, given the environmental constraints of the site and Code requirements for fire truck access surrounding the structure. Page 479 of 1221 ARCH 0165‐2020, USE 0294‐2019 950 & 990 Aero Drive Page 4 Goal 5.9: Architectural character Guideline A: Building forms should generally be simple and expressive of their function and construction technology Guideline D: Building design should be varied and distinctive, and in harmony with its context The architectural character, building forms, and design of the dual‐ brand hotel are generally simple, and incorporate varied materials, vertical and horizontal off‐sets, and accents including colors, canopies, low walls, trellis features, and accentuated windows. The ARC should discuss the project’s overall consistency with this goal and guidelines. Goal 5.10: Scale and massing Standard 5.10.1: Building facades visible from streets shall vary in modules of 66 feet or less; continuous wall planes longer than 100 feet should be avoided; where interior functions require longer continuous spaces, exterior walls should have architectural features such as columns or pilasters at least every 66 feet. Such architectural features shall have a depth of at least 3 percent of the length of the facade, and shall extend at least 20 percent of the length of the façade. Standard 5.10.2: Facades facing public streets shall use animating features along at least 60 percent of the horizontal length. The façades facing both Broad Street and Aero Drive vary in modules of 66 feet or less, and provide various finishes including painted stucco in four complimentary colors, metal siding, and fiber cement siding. This combination of materials spans the horizontal length, and are intended to visually reduce the overall building mass, create shadows, and provide visual interest. Horizontal trim bands, colored fiber cement panels between windows, vertical fins at the window frames, and inset and pushed out wall planes provide variation in the massing of the structure. Animating features include metal awnings, canopies over entries, and metal vine trellises. The ARC should discuss if any modifications to scale and massing should be provided to further consistency with these standards. Goal 5.12: Architectural façade and treatment Guidelines A‐F: articulation, detailing, human scale, visual interest and distinctiveness, defined entries, and design quality. Please see above regarding architectural features and treatment. The ARC should discuss if any modifications to architectural detailing should be provided to further consistency with this standard. Page 480 of 1221 ARCH 0165‐2020, USE 0294‐2019 950 & 990 Aero Drive Page 5 7.0 ARC CONCEPTUAL REVIEW COMMENTS A previous version of this project was conceptually reviewed by the ARC on March 18, 2019 (Attachment 2, ARC Minutes and previous conceptual plans).1 Since that time, the project has been modified to avoid a wetland feature present within the site, and to also provide a minimum 35‐foot setback from the feature. As a result, the previous concept that showed two separate hotel buildings has been modified to the current proposal, which consists of a connected dual brand hotel, with a shared parking area and lobby. The ARC’s comments are identified below; the ARC should discuss these items while considering the overall changes to the project subsequent to conceptual review. Comment Discussion Items As a hotel and gateway into San Luis Obispo, the Commission would like to see more personality to the structures, including more articulation, variation, and window detail; use less corrugated metal; and, possibly use warmer materials and colors. The façades facing both Broad Street and Aero Drive vary in modules of 66 feet or less, and provide various finishes including painted stucco in four complimentary warmer colors, metal siding, and fiber cement siding. Horizontal trim bands, colored fiber cement panels between windows, and inset and pushed out wall planes provide variation in the massing of the structure. Animating features include metal awnings, canopies over their entry, and metal vine trellises. In addition to the renderings, Sheets A8.0 and A8.1 provide focused drawings of the porte cochere, metal trellis features, and window details. The proposed materials include the use of corrugated metal; the ARC should discuss if the balance of materials and colors is appropriate and generally consistent with the AASP Guidelines and Standards above. Commission recommends maintaining pedestrian appeal per Goal 5.1 of the Airport Area Specific Plan; consider entrance facing Broad Street. The project’s main entrance and porte cohere face Aero Drive, and a covered side entrance and pedestrian walkway are provided facing Broad Street. Refer to discussion item above (Standard 5.1.1 through 5.1.4). Commission is concerned about the roof line on Hotel 2. Commission recommends hotel could have more articulation in the roof line without adding to the overall height as more elements are added to the elevation. “Hotel 2” was previously located in the western portion of the site; the current site plan presents a connected dual‐brand hotel with flat roofs, and some variation in building height, with non‐occupied architectural features extending up to 52 feet in height. Adjust circulation of vehicles and pedestrians around entrances. The entire site plan has been revised as noted above, with only one main entrance and porte cochere to serve both hotels. 1 ARC Agenda Report, March 18, 2019 available here Page 481 of 1221 ARCH 0165‐2020, USE 0294‐2019 950 & 990 Aero Drive Page 6 Comment Discussion Items Consider softening patio walls by material type and additional landscaping. The entire site plan has been revised as noted above, with the patio and pool area located adjacent to the hotel in the western portion of the area to be developed. A variation in solid wall and metal bar fencing is proposed, with landscaping to be located between the walkway and the fence/wall to soften its appearance. Consider location of trash enclosure, including noise generated during trash pick‐up. The site plan currently shows one, screened trash enclosure located in the northeast corner of the property. The location of the trash enclosure was approved by San Luis Garbage. Commission recommends incorporating an accent color into Hotel 1; also consider providing a bigger surface for the green screens. The revised project incorporates wall mounted trellis and climbing vine elements on all elevations of the structure. Accent colors are provided on all facades. Commission recommends activating the entrance and porte cochere. The porte cochere and main entrance are accentuated by decorative pavers and low‐level landscaping, accent trees, and use of color (white‐colored stucco extending from the ground to the roofline). 8.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 8.1 Recommend the Planning Commission approve the project based on consistency with the Design Guidelines, which may include specific conditions of approval or recommendations to be considered by the Planning Commission. 8.2 Continue the project to a hearing date uncertain. An action continuing review of the project should include specific direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 8.3 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, Airport Area Specific Plan, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents. 9.0 ATTACHMENTS 9.1 Project Plans 9.2 Conceptual review ARC Minutes and conceptual plans Page 482 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 483 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 484 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 485 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 486 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 487 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 488 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 489 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 490 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 491 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 492 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 493 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 494 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 495 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 496 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 497 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 498 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 499 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 500 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 501 of 1221 WM WMWMWMSDSDWM > > > WM SDSDSD???1111123334B R O A D S T R E E T ( H I G H W A Y 2 2 7 )RIGHTOF WAYN35° 15' 10"W399.20'A E R O D R I V E PROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINERIGHTOF WAYN38° 19' 24"W412.62'N52° 00' 20"E236.75'N52° 00' 20"E315.41'N47° 10' 11"W410.03'N50° 30' 32"E231.01'N50° 30' 32"E299.87'HOTEL176.50 FF10.0'SLOPE ESMT48 PM 35DRAINAGE &ACCESS ESMT48 PM 35DRIVEWAY ESMTDOC. NO. 200-03642515.0'WATER ES MT 48 PM 3520.0'20.0'22.0'WATER ESMT48 PM 3525.0'DEDICATION1593 OR 564SIGN ESMT3924 OR 63100.0'ROW(E) PROPERTYLINE1112131313131313131313141422151515151616161616161617181919191919191920202020202020202021212114232323556677SLO AIRPORT HOTELSPROJECT NAME:PLANS PREPARED FOR:PROJECT LOCATION:PLANNING SOLUTIONS1360 NEW WINE PLACETEMPLETON, CA 93465950 & 990 AERO DRIVESAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN: 053-412-010053-412-011ENGINEER OF RECORD:REVISIONS:CDS JOB #:SCALE:19-029AS SHOWNDATE:May 11, 2020PREPARED BY:MMMREVIEWED BY:MRST:\Active Jobs\19-029 SLO Airport Hotels\_Project\2_Prelim_Entitlements\19-029 Grading Plan-Prelim.dwg, May 11, 2020ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOABCDEFGHI JKLMNO213456789101112SHEET XX OF 2 SHEETSCIVIL ENGINEERING PLANNING PERMITTINGCIVIL DESIGN STUDIOP.O. Box 199 | Cambria | CA 93428805.706.0401 www.civil-studio.comPLAN PREPARED BY:EENINo. 74736TSCTAEFOIGERAIOFILACLIVNRRERPSDERETFONOILAGNEISSMONTERSOTO30 15 0SCALE: 1" = 30'30 601" = 30'PRELIMINARYGRADING PLAN----C-1LEGENDAC PAVINGVEHICULAR CONCRETEPEDESTRIAN CONCRETE151413PROJECT INFORMATIONZONING: BP-SPAPN: 053-412-010 & 011FLOOD ZONE: ZONE XSITE AREA: 5.04 ACAREA DISTURBED: 4.33 ACWDID NUMBER: TBDPRELIMINARY GRADING INFORMATION*CUT QUANTITY: 10,000 CUBIC YARDSFILL QUANTITY: 8,900 CUBIC YARDSNET CUT/FILL: 1,100 CUBIC YARDS EXPORT* EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE PROVIDED FORPRELIMINARY PERMITTING INFORMATION ONLY.BENCHMARK:THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS PROJECT IS A FOUND CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BENCHMARK NUMBER 369 BEING A LEAD AND TACK AT HEBCR ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY CURB OF BROAD STREET AND EL CAPITAN WAY.ELEVATION = 165.42 (NAVD 88)BASIS OF BEARING:THE COORDINATES AND BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED UPON THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, CCS83, ZONE 50405, (1992) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLI8C RESOURCES CODE SECTIONS 8801-8819; SAID COORDINATES ANDBEARINGS ARE BASED LOCALLY UPON FILED-OBSERVED TIE TO THE FOLLOWING SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT CONTROL STATION "SLOCOUNTY HPO" P.I.D. AA4511 POINT NUMBER 111 MONUMENT TYPE - 2" BRASS CAP IN CONCRETE STAMPED "SLO COUNTY HPO".ORIGIN OF SURVEY INFORMATION:THE TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS AND USED TO DESIGN THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESEDRAWINGS WAS PERFORMED AND PREPARED BY MBS LAND SURVEYS AND PROVIDED TO CDS ON 4/5/2019 AND 4/15/2019. IFDISCREPANCIES ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION THE SURVEYOR AND CONTRACTOR WILL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OFRECORD IMMEDIATELY AND PRIOR TO CONTINUING CONSTRUCTION.PROPERTY OWNER/DEVELOPER: SUNSMIT, LLCSANJAY GANPULE280 FOXTAIL LANETEMPLETON, CA 93465805.550.3764OMKAR1570@YAHOO.COMAGENCY: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO919 PALM STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.781.7170ARCHITECT: ARRIS STUDIO ARCHITECTSTHOM JESS1327 ARCHER STREET, SUITE 220SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.547.2240TJESS@ARRIS-STUDIO.COMCIVIL ENGINEER: CIVIL DESIGN STUDIO, INC.MONTE SOTO, P.E., QSDP.O. BOX 199CAMBRIA, CA 93428805.706.0401MONTE@CIVIL-STUDIO.COMGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: GEOSOLUTIONS, INCKRAIG CROZIER, PE220 HIGH STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.543.8539SURVEY NOTESPROJECT PARTICIPANTSPERVIOUS CONCRETE16PRELIMINARY SITE NOTES 1 EXISTING CURB GUTTER AND SIDEWALK - PROTECT IN PLACE 2 EXISTING SIGN - PROTECT IN PLACE 3 EXISTING RETAINING WALL - PROTECT IN PLACE 4 EXISTING WELL - REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF PER CITY ANDCOUNTY STANDARDS 5 35' WETLAND SETBACK 6 APPROXIMATE FEDERAL WETLAND BOUNDARY 7 APPROXIMATE STATE WETLAND BOUNDARYNOTES 8 TO 10 NOT USED11 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY AND VALLEY GUTTER PER CITY OF SLOSTANDARDS12 PROPOSED SIDEWALK PER CITY OF SLO STANDARDS13 PROPOSED AC PAVING14 PROPOSED VEHICULAR CONCRETE15 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE16 PROPOSED PERVIOUS CONCRETE17 PROPOSED BUILDING PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS18 PROPOSED BUILDING OVERHANG PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS19 PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB20 PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB RAMP21 PROPOSED ADA PARKING STALLS22 PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE23 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL (3' MAXIMUM RETAINED HEIGHT)SHEET LIST TABLESHEET # SHEET TITLEC-1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANC-2 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANATTACHMENT 1Page 502 of 1221 WLWLWM WMWMTTTTTTTTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E E E E E E E E E SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWLSSSSWMWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWT T T T T T T T T T T T T T T S D G G G G G G G G G G G G GSD EEEESDSDSSWM > > >SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDFFWM WLWLWLSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFB R O A D S T R E E T ( H I G H W A Y 2 2 7 )RIGHTOF WAYN35° 15' 10"W399.20'A E R O D R I V E PROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINERIGHTOF WAYN38° 19' 24"W412.62'N52° 00' 20"E236.75'N52° 00' 20"E315.41'N47° 10' 11"W410.03'N50° 30' 32"E231.01'N50° 30' 32"E299.87'HOTEL176.50 FF10.0'SLOPE ESMT48 PM 35DRAINAGE &ACCESS ESMT48 PM 35DRIVEWAY ESMTDOC. NO. 200-03642515.0'WATER ES MT 48 PM 3520.0'20.0'22.0'WATER ESMT48 PM 3525.0'DEDICATION1593 OR 564SIGN ESMT3924 OR 63100.0'ROW(E) PROPERTYLINE41WATERPOC170.50 IESS POCFIREPOC(171.7)TG(172.1)RIM(176.0)TG(168.0)IE168.0IE414142424361616162647171717171727272727273737373737374747475797676767691739191919191929292929393949444444444444445454647474747474747474748496364168.80IE7777787879798081828380807878787878SLO AIRPORT HOTELSPROJECT NAME:PLANS PREPARED FOR:PROJECT LOCATION:PLANNING SOLUTIONS1360 NEW WINE PLACETEMPLETON, CA 93465950 & 990 AERO DRIVESAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401APN: 053-412-010053-412-011ENGINEER OF RECORD:REVISIONS:CDS JOB #:SCALE:19-029AS SHOWNDATE:May 11, 2020PREPARED BY:MMMREVIEWED BY:MRST:\Active Jobs\19-029 SLO Airport Hotels\_Project\2_Prelim_Entitlements\19-029 Utility Plan-Prelim.dwg, May 11, 2020ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOABCDEFGHI JKLMNO213456789101112SHEET XX OF 2 SHEETSCIVIL ENGINEERING PLANNING PERMITTINGCIVIL DESIGN STUDIOP.O. Box 199 | Cambria | CA 93428805.706.0401 www.civil-studio.comPLAN PREPARED BY:EENINo. 74736TSCTAEFOIGERAIOFILACLIVNRRERPSDERETFONOILAGNEISSMONTERSOTO30 15 0SCALE: 1" = 30'30 601" = 30'PRELIMINARYUTILITY PLAN----C-2CONSTRUCTION NOTES41 EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE42 EXISTING STORM DRAIN MANHOLE - PROTECT IN PLACE43 EXISTING STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN - PROTECT IN PLACE44 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE45 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN MANHOLE46 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN JUNCTION BOX WITH ORIFICE PLATE47 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN48 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN DETENTION SYSTEM49 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN FLARED END SECTIONNOTES 50 TO 60 NOT USED61 EXISTING SEWER LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE62 EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT - PROTECT IN PLACE63 PROPOSED SEWER LINE (S = 0.005 MINIMUM)64 PROPOSED SEWER CLEANOUTNOTES 65 TO 70 NOT USED71 EXISTING WATER LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE72 EXISTING RECYCLED WATER LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE73 EXISTING WATER VALVE - PROTECT IN PLACE74 EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT - PROTECT IN PLACE75 EXISTING WELL - REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF PER CITY ANDCOUNTY STANDARDS76 EXISTING WATER METER - RELOCATE77 PROPOSED WATER LINE78 PROPOSED FIRE LINE79 PROPOSED WATER METER80 PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT81 PROPOSED POST INDICATOR VALVE82 PROPOSED FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION83 PROPOSED DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK ASSEMBLYNOTES 84 TO 90 NOT USED91 EXISTING ELECTRICAL LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE92 EXISTING TELECOM LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE93 EXISTING GAS LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE94 EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL - PROTECT IN PLACENOTE:UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWNHEREON WAS PROVIDED BY FIELDWORK PERFORMED BY MBS LANDSURVEYS AND CITY OF SAN LUISOBISPO ASBUILT DRAWINGS.ORIFICE PLATESCALE: 1" = 1'4.2" Ø163.75 INV6.0" Ø164.25 INV5.5" Ø165.00 INVATTACHMENT 1Page 503 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 504 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1Page 505 of 1221 Minutes ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Monday, March 18, 2019 Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday, March 18, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Root. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Brian Rolph, Micah Smith, Christie Withers, Vice-Chair Amy Nemcik, and Chair Allen Root Absent: Commissioners Richard Beller and Angela Soll Staff: Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Senior Planner Shawna Scott, Senior Planner Brian Leveille, and Recording Secretary Summer Aburashed. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None End of Public Comment-- PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 950 Aero Drive. Conceptual architectural review of a proposed project consisting of a 100-room hotel and a 118-room hotel, approximately 63,000 and 66,000 square feet each with surface parking. Case #: ARCH-0084-2019, zone BP-SP; Sanjay Gampule, applicant. Senior Planner Shawna Scott presented the staff report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries. Applicant representatives, Pamela Jardini & Thom Jess, provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries. Page 506 of 1221 Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 18, 2019 Page 2 Public Comments: None End of Public Comment-- Commission provided the following comments: As a hotel and gateway into San Luis Obispo, the Commission would like to see more personality to the structures, including more articulation, variation, and window detail; use less corrugated metal; and, possibly use warmer materials and colors. Commission recommends maintaining pedestrian appeal per Goal 5.1 of the Airport Area Specific Plan; consider entrance facing Broad Street. Commission is concerned about the roof line on Hotel 2. Commission recommends hotel could have more articulation in the roof line without adding to the overall height as more elements are added to the elevation. Adjust circulation of vehicles and pedestrians around entrances. Consider softening patio walls by material type and additional landscaping. Consider location of trash enclosure, including noise generated during trash pick-up. Commission recommends incorporating an accent color into Hotel 1; also consider providing a bigger surface for the green screens. Commission recommends activating the entrance and porte cochere. No Action was taken. STUDY SESSION 2. Sign Regulations Update (Citywide). Community Development Deputy Director Doug Davidson and Senior Planner Brian Leveille presented the staff report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries. Public Comments: Pierre Rademaker End of Public Comment-- Page 507 of 1221 Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 18, 2019 Page 3 The Commission received the staff presentation and had a discussion with staff and Mr. Rademaker. Generally, the Commission thought the Update was headed in the right direction. They cautioned staff about outright prohibitions on some signs, specifically internally illuminated cabinet signs, roof signs, and channel letters. The Commission directed staff to explore ways by which these types of signs could be of quality design and acceptable with certain characteristics. No Action was taken. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 3. Staff Updates a. Discuss adjustment of Architectural Review Commission meeting start time from 5:00 PM current) to 5:30 PM. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Architectural Review Commission is scheduled for Monday, April 1, 2019 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 05/06/2019 Page 508 of 1221 SLO Airrort Hotels San Luis Obispo California SLO Airport Hotels : ·�::·::'.,:" in: ,_ San Luis Obispo, CA AQ.Q Packet Page 8 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 509 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 510 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 511 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 512 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 513 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 514 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 515 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 516 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 517 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 518 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 519 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 520 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 521 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 522 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 523 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 524 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 525 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 526 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 527 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Page 528 of 1221 SLO Airport Hotel Response to Comments California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) – April 29, 2021 Comment Response Undiscovered contaminants of concern, resulting from military or other aeronautical operations, may remain in the Airport’s subsurface. DTSC recommends that additional investigation be conducted prior to any development to evaluate if releases occurred and contamination exists within the project area and surrounding areas. The Initial Study acknowledges the potential for historic, current, and future activities on and near the project site to release hazardous substances on the project site. Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 have been identified to require the applicant to complete a geologic evaluation and follow all applicable protocol and procedures if naturally occurring asbestos or other hazardous materials are determined to be present on-site. The applicant is also required to comply with SLOAPCD regulations related to materials containing asbestos (Mitigation Measure AQ-5). Based on required compliance with state and local regulations regarding construction activities and a search of the Cortese list, no other potentially significant impacts from release of hazardous substances were identified ( refer to Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Impact Discussion d). San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) – May 24, 2021 The APCD supports the project proponents on their use of infill development, as it is consistent with SLOCOG's Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. No revisions to the Initial Study are required in response to this comment. Portable Equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities may require a California statewide portable equipment registration (issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit. The project would be required to obtain all necessary permits from the SLOAPCD prior to construction. No revisions to the Initial Study are required in response to this comment. The APCD recommends updating Question b in Section 3, Air Quality, to reflect the analysis used in the Emissions Modeling Report for the San Luis Obispo Airport Hotels Project, prepared by AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting in January 2021 (Attachment 2 of the project's Initial Study) as this report used CalEEMod to calculate construction emissions. Impact Discussion b in Section 3, Air Quality, in the Initial Study has been revised to reflect the analysis used in the Emissions Modeling Report for the San Luis Obispo Airport Hotels Project, prepared by AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting in January 2021 (Attachment 2 of the Initial Study). Page 529 of 1221 Based on the analysis in Attachment 2, construction impacts would be below APCD thresholds with the assumption that Tier 3 off-road construction equipment would be used. Because of this assumption, the APCD recommends including a mitigation measure that states all off-road construction equipment shall be tier 3 or higher to be consistent with Attachment 2 modeling assumptions and ensure emissions are below APCD thresholds. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 in Section 3, Air Quality, in the Initial Study has been revised to include an additional measure that requires all off-road construction equipment to be Tier 3 or higher. On page 26 of the Initial Study, operational impacts for this project were evaluated using "SLOAPCD's operational screening criteria for air quality analyses" and the "project would not exceed the identified operational thresholds established by the SLOAPCD." According to Table 1-1 in the APCD's 2012 CEQA Handbook, this project would exceed the ROG+NOx 25lbs/day operational threshold as this project would exceed 177 rooms. Based on Table 1-1, this project would require mitigation. However, further analysis used in the Emissions Modeling Report for the San Luis Obispo Airport Hotels Project, prepared by AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting in January 2021 (Attachment 2) conclude the project would below APCD operational thresholds. The APCD recommends updating this section to reflect the analysis used in Attachment 2 as this report used CalEEMod to calculate operational emissions which is a more refined analysis than Table 1-1. Impact Discussion b in Section 3, Air Quality, in the Initial Study has been revised to reflect the analysis used in the Emissions Modeling Report for the San Luis Obispo Airport Hotels Project, prepared by AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting in January 2021 (Attachment 2 of the Initial Study). The Emissions Modeling Report for the San Luis Obispo Airport Hotels Project quantified the GHG emissions for the project in 2023 and 2030 and compared the GHG impacts to the service population threshold in the City of San Luis Obispo's qualified Climate Action Plan. Mitigation measure GHG-1 provides a mechanism for the project to address lifetime GHG impacts in excess of the service population threshold. The APCD recognizes a service population threshold may not be the most applicable threshold choice for projects like hotels that have relatively low numbers of employees relative to project GHG emissions. After GHG reductions are quantified from on-site and other potential mitigation measures, the APCD recommends quantifying annual impacts over the life of the project to also account for reduction in project impacts due to future emission reduction technology that is included in CalEEMod, the emission modelling tool used by AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 in Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in the Initial Study has been revised to require annual impacts to be quantified over the life of the project to also account for reduction in project impacts due to future emission reduction technology that is included in the CalEEMod. Page 530 of 1221 The guidance in the APCD's Interim CEQA GHG document should be used to compare the project to existing applicable plans, policies, or regulations that have been legally adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. In addition to comparing the project to the City of San Luis Obispo's Climate Action Plan, the APCD recommends comparing the project to the: San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategies (RTP/SCS): Project proponents should work with SLOCOG early in the project development process to foster consistency with the land use and transportation policies, goals, action strategies, and preferred growth scenario identified in the current RTP/SCS; and Demonstrate project consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan; all applicable components within the 2017 Scoping Plan should be evaluated for consistency. One such component is transportation: In the GHG section of the project's CEQA evaluation, a project can demonstrate it is consistent with the transportation GHG reduction assumptions in the 2017 Scoping Plan if it can show 15% VMT reduction. Projects which cannot achieve 15% VMT reduction need to demonstrate how they will achieve equivalent GHG reductions by implementing design changes or other offsetting GHG mitigation to comply with the 2017 Scoping Plan. Note: SB 743 recommends a project achieve 15% VMT reduction and is evaluated in the transportation section of a project's CEQA evaluation. The difference between SB 743 and the 2017 Scoping Plan is SB 743 recommendation can only be met by VMT reductions, whereas the 20174 Scoping Plan consistency can be achieved with VMT reductions, whereas the 2017 Scoping Plan consistency can be achieved with VMT reductions and design changes or Impact Discussion b in Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in the Initial Study has been revised to include additional discussion of the project's consistency with the RTP/SCS and 2017 Scoping Plan and incorporates additional VMT discussion and reference to Mitigation Measures TR-1 and TR-2. Page 531 of 1221 other offsetting GHG mitigation equivalent to 15% VMT reduction. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) – May 24, 2021 The Project site contains habitat suitable to support special-status plant species meeting the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 including, but not limited to, CRPR 1B.1 Hoover’s button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri), and the State designated rare and CRPR 1B.1 Adobe sanicle (Sanicula maritima). Although there was a preliminary field study done on October 3rd, 2019 that did not find any rare plants, that study was outside of the blooming period where the plants could have been identified. To evaluate potential impacts to special-status plant species associated with the Project, CDFW recommends conducting the following evaluation of the Project area, editing the MND to include the following additional measures, and including the following mitigation measures as conditions of approval. Recommended Mitigation Measure 1: Special- Status Plant Surveys If suitable habitat is present, CDFW recommends that the Project site be surveyed for special-status plants by a qualified botanist following the “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities” (CDFW 2018). This protocol, which is intended to maximize detectability, includes the identification of reference populations to facilitate the likelihood of field investigations occurring during the appropriate floristic period. In the absence of protocol-level surveys being performed, additional surveys may be necessary. Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: Special- Status Plant Avoidance CDFW recommends that special-status plant species be avoided whenever possible by delineating and observing a no-disturbance buffer of at least 50 feet from the outer edge of the plant population(s) or specific habitat type(s) required by special-status plant species. If buffers cannot be maintained, then consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine appropriate minimization As discussed in Impact Discussion a, b in Section 4, Biological Resources, in the Initial Study, low-suitability habitat is present within the drainage and associated wetland habitat on-site for Congdon’s tarplant, Hoover’s button-celery, and adobe sanicle. If present, Congdon’s tarplant would have been detectable at the time of surveys completed for the project site; therefore, the species is not expected to occur on-site. Though considered unlikely due to degraded site conditions, Hoover’s button-celery and adobe sanicle may be present within the ephemeral drainage and associated wetland habitat located in the southwestern portion of the project site. The project would avoid impacts to the ephemeral drainage and associated wetland habitat present within the project site through project design and the identified setback of 35 feet from State jurisdictional features; therefore, all habitat suitable for special- status plants within the project site would be avoided. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would further ensure direct and indirect impacts to hydrological resources and habitat suitable for special- status plant species are avoided by requiring mapping and delineation of work areas and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Page 532 of 1221 and mitigation measures for impacts to special- status plant species. Recommended Mitigation Measure 3: State- listed Plant Take Authorization If a plant species listed pursuant to CESA or State designated as rare is identified during botanical surveys, consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine if the Project can avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization prior to any ground-disturbing activities may be warranted. Take authorization would occur through issuance of an ITP by CDFW, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) for State listed threatened or endangered plants or pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act and Fish and Game Code section 1900 et seq. for State designated rare plants. The Project contains activities that may result in the Project site being subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake; or (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. “Any river, stream, or lake” includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent, such as the unnamed stream within the Project site, as well as those that are perennial in nature. For additional information on notification requirements, please contact our staff in the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program at (559) 243-4593. It is important to note, CDFW is required to comply with CEQA, as a Responsible Agency, when issuing a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA). If inadequate, or no environmental review, has occurred, for the Project activities that are subject to notification under Fish and Game Code section 1602, CDFW will not be able to issue the Final LSAA until CEQA analysis for the project is complete. This may lead to considerable Project delays. As discussed in Impact Discussion a, b in Section 4, Biological Resources, in the Initial Study, the project would avoid impacts to the ephemeral drainage and associated wetland habitat present within the project site through project design and the identified setback of 35 feet from State jurisdictional features; therefore, no impacts to the ephemeral drainage within the project site would occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would further ensure direct and indirect impacts to hydrological resources are avoided by requiring mapping and delineation of work areas and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a data base which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental No revisions to the Initial Study are required in response to this comment. Page 533 of 1221 environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. No revisions to the Initial Study are required in response to this comment. San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) – May 24, 2021 SLOCOG encourages the City and County to coordinate with regard to the in-progress ICE Step 2 Analysis for the SR 227 intersection at Farmhouse Lane and incorporate the final build alternative into City planning documents. The intersection operational improvement should incorporate safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings that allow access from the bi- directional Class I shared use path on the west side of SR 227 to the northbound Class IV bike lanes on the east side of SR 227. SLOCOG recommends that impacts from this project to the SR 227 corridor are considered. An appropriate payment toward the City’s TIF to construct the operational improvement at Buckley Road/SR 227 and the segment of the Edna- Price Canyon Trail between Buckley Road and Farmhouse Lane should also be considered. As discussed in Impact Discussion a in Section 17, Transportation, in the Initial Study, the project would require the payment of the City’s standard Traffic Impact Fees. No revisions to the Initial Study are required in response to this comment. Page 534 of 1221 Printed on Recycled Paper April 29, 2021 Ms. Shawna Scott Senior Planner City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SScott@slocity.org MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SLO AIRPORT HOTEL PROJECT – DATED APRIL 2021 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2021040586) Ms. Scott: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received an Initial Study for SLO Airport Hotel Project (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because of the Project’s proximity to the San Luis Obispo County Airport (Airport). Use of 218 acres of the Airport by the U.S. Army Air Corps and the California National Guard was initiated in November 1938. On January 4, 1943, the Navy leased 208 acres of the Airport from the County of San Luis Obispo. The use of the Airport property by the Army Air Corps and the National Guard continued until at least November 1941. In May 1946, the Navy abandoned the airport facilities, leaving all improvements to the County of San Luis Obispo. Disposal records were neither complete nor specific. The site has not yet been investigated for environmental concerns. Use of the Airport by the County of San Luis Obispo has continued to the present. (https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=80000759). Undiscovered contaminants of concern, resulting from military or other aeronautical operations, may remain in the Airport’s subsurface. DTSC recommends that additional investigation be conducted prior to any development to evaluate if releases occurred and contamination exists within the Project area and surrounding areas. Should you need any assistance with an environmental investigation, please submit a request for Lead Agency Oversight Application, which can be found at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2018/09/VCP_App-1460.doc. Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/brownfields/. Page 535 of 1221 Ms. Shawna Scott April 29, 2021 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 255-3710 or via email at Gavin.McCreary@dtsc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Gavin McCreary Project Manager Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit Site Mitigation and Restoration Program Department of Toxic Substances Control cc: (via email) Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse State.Clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov Ms. Lora Jameson, Chief Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit Department of Toxic Substances Control Lora.Jameson@dtsc.ca.gov Mr. Dave Kereazis Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis Department of Toxic Substances Control Dave.Kereazis@dtsc.ca.gov Page 536 of 1221 T 805.781.5912 F 805.781.1002 W slocleanair.org 3433 Roberto Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 VIA EMAIL May 24, 2021 Shawna Scott City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 sscott@slocity.org SUBJECT: APCD Comments Regarding the SLO Airport Hotel Project (0650-202) Dear Shawna Scott: Thank you for including the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) in the environmental review process. We have completed our review of the proposed project located at 950 & 990 Aero Drive in San Luis Obispo. The proposed project includes a 125,000-square foot, 204-room three-story hotel on a 5.04-acre site. The property is currently zoned Business Park, within the Airport Area Specific Plan, and within the Airport Land Use Planning Area zones 4 and 5. Project construction would require 4.33 acres of site disturbance and approximately 10,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 8,900 cy of fill. The area is less than 1,000 feet from sensitive receptors and is within a naturally occurring asbestos area. The following comments are formatted into 3 sections. The (1) General Comment Section states information pertinent to the applicant, lead agency, and/or public. The (2) Air Quality and (3) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sections may state mitigation measures and/or rules and requirements in which the APCD recommends be set as conditions of approval for the project. The applicant or agent should contact the APCD Engineering & Compliance Division about permitting requirements stated in the (1) General Comment Section. The lead agency may contact the APCD Planning Division for questions and comments related to proposed conditions of approval in the (2) Air Quality and (3) Greenhouse Gas Emission Sections. Both Divisions can be reached at (805) 781-5912. Please Note: The APCD recently updated the Land Use and CEQA Webpage on the slocleanair.org website. The information on the webpage displays the most up-to-date guidance from the SLO County APCD, including the 2021 Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Guidance, Quick Guide for Construction Mitigation Measures and Quick Guide for Operational Mitigation Measures. Page 537 of 1221 APCD Comments Regarding the SLO Airport Hotel Project May 24, 2021 Page 2 of 4 (1) General Comments Infill within Urban Reserve Lines & Village Reserve Lines The APCD encourages balance of residential and commercial infill within the existing urban reserve lines (URLs) and village reserve lines (VRLs), as this is consistent with the land use goals and policies of the APCD’s Clean Air Plan. Increasing density can reduce emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by minimizing the number of trips and travel distances and encourage active transportation. The APCD supports the project proponents on their use of infill development, as it is consistent with SLOCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. Construction Permit Requirements Based on the information provided, we are unsure of the types of equipment that may be present during the project’s construction phase. Portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities may require a California statewide portable equipment registration (issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit. The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements but should not be viewed as exclusive: • Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater; • Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generators; and • Internal combustion engines. For a more detailed listing, refer to the Technical Appendices, page 4-4, in the APCD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 2012). (2) Air Quality Comments about Question b in Section 3. Air Quality of Initial Study. Construction Impacts On page 25 and 26 of the Initial Study, construction impacts for this project were evaluated using Table 2-2 in the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook. In 2021, the APCD updated their Land Use and CEQA Webpage and concluded the best way to calculate construction impacts, after using Table 1-1, is through the use of the most up-to-date version of CalEEMod. The APCD recommends updating this section to reflect the analysis used in the Emissions Modeling Report for the San Luis Obispo Airport Hotels Project, prepared by AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting in January 2021 (Attachment 2 of the project’s Initial Study) as this report used CalEEMod to calculate construction emissions. Based on the analysis in Attachment 2, construction impacts would be below APCD thresholds with the assumption that Tier 3 off-road construction equipment would be used. Because of this assumption, the APCD recommends including a mitigation measure that states all off-road construction equipment shall be tier 3 or higher to be consistent with the Attachment 2 modeling assumptions and ensure emissions are below APCD thresholds. In addition, to manage fugitive dust emissions, the APCD supports mitigation measure AQ-2 and the APCD supports mitigation measures AQ 1,3,4, and 5 to meet state and federal requirements for this project. Comments about Question b in Section 3. Air Quality of Initial Study. Operational Impacts On page 26 of the Initial Study, operational impacts for this project were evaluated using “SLOAPCD’s operational screening criteria for air quality analyses” and the “project would not exceed the Page 538 of 1221 APCD Comments Regarding the SLO Airport Hotel Project May 24, 2021 Page 3 of 4 identified operational thresholds established by the SLOAPCD”. According to Table 1-1 in the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook, this project would exceed the ROG+NOx 25lbs/day operational threshold as this project would exceed 177 rooms. Based on Table 1-1, this project would require mitigation. However, further analysis used in the Emissions Modeling Report for the San Luis Obispo Airport Hotels Project, prepared by AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting in January 2021 (Attachment 2) conclude the project would be below APCD operational thresholds. The APCD recommends updating this section to reflect the analysis used in Attachment 2 as this report used CalEEMod to calculate operational emissions which is a more refined analysis than Table 1-1. (3) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Comments about Question a in Section 8. GHG Emissions of Initial Study The Emissions Modeling Report for the San Luis Obispo Airport Hotels Project quantified the GHG emissions for the project in 2023 and 2030 and compared the GHG impacts to the service population threshold in the City of San Luis Obispo’s qualified Climate Action Plan. Mitigation measure GHG-1 provides a mechanism for the project to address lifetime GHG impacts in excess of the service population threshold. The APCD recognizes a service population threshold may not be the most applicable threshold choice for projects like hotels that have relatively low numbers of employees relative to project GHG emissions. After GHG reductions are quantified from on-site and other potential mitigation measures, the APCD recommends quantifying annual impacts over the life of the project to also account for reduction in project impacts due to future emission reduction technology that is included in CalEEMod, the emission modeling tool used by AMBIENT Air Qua lity & Noise Consulting. The APCD developed the 2021 Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Guidance document to provide administrative clarification on the SLO County APCD Handbook’s thresholds of significance for GHG emissions and to provide information on current trends, best practices, and legislation. This document includes a hierarchy of GHG mitigation measures the project can consider addressing its excess impacts. If additional GHG emission calculations are to be accomplished, the project may consider using the near-term release of the updated CalEEMod model, using current and future GHG intensity factors from 3CE. Comments about Question b in Section 8. GHG Emissions of Initial Study The guidance in the APCD’s Interim CEQA GHG document should be used to compare the project to existing applicable plans, policies, or regulations that have been legally adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. In addition to comparing the project to the City of San Luis Obispo’s Climate Action Plan, the APCD recommends comparing the project to the: • San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategies (RTP/SCS): Project proponents should work with SLOCOG early in the project development process to foster consistency with the land use and transportation policies, goals, action strategies, and preferred growth scenario identified in the current RTP/SCS; and • Demonstrate project consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan; All applicable components within the 2017 Scoping Plan should be evaluated for consistency. One such component is transportation: Page 539 of 1221 APCD Comments Regarding the SLO Airport Hotel Project May 24, 2021 Page 4 of 4 o In the GHG section of a project’s CEQA evaluation, a project can demonstrate it is consistent with the transportation GHG reduction assumptions in the 2017 Scoping Plan if it can show 15% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction. o Projects which cannot achieve 15% VMT reduction need to demonstrate how they will achieve equivalent GHG reductions by implementing design changes or other offsetting GHG mitigation to comply with the 2017 Scoping Plan. o Note: SB 743 recommends a project achieve 15% VMT reduction and is evaluated in the transportation section of a project’s CEQA evaluation. The difference between SB 743 and the 2017 Scoping Plan is SB 743 recommendation can only be met by VMT reductions, whereas the 2017 Scoping Plan consistency can be achieved with VMT reductions and design changes or other offsetting GHG mitigation equivalent to 15% VMT reduction. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me at (805) 781-5912. Sincerely, JACKIE MANSOOR Air Quality Specialist JNM/jmp cc: Sanjay Ganpule, Applicant Dora Drexler, APCD Page 540 of 1221 State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Central Region 1234 East Shaw Ave Fresno, California 93710 www.wildlife.ca.gov Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870 May 24th, 2021 Shawana Scott Senior Planner City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Subject: SLO Airport Hotel Project MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND) SCH No.: 2021040586 Dear Ms. Scott: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND from City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department for the Project pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildli fe. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code. CDFW ROLE CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statue for all the people of the State (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)). CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on 1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000. DocuSign Envelope ID: C0CEC2EF-72FD-4F71-813E-704A9F6CB1A7 Page 541 of 1221 Shawana Scott, Senior Planner City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department May 24th, 2021 Page 2 projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), related authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code may be required. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Proponent: Sunsmit, LLC Objective: The objective of the Project is to construct a dual-branded hotel in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo Airport, with a total disturbance size of 5.04 acres. Primary Project activities include construction of the hotel which is approximately 125,000 square feet, 214 parking spaces, and 219,570 square feet of landscaping. Location: 950 and 990 Aero Drive, San Luis Obispo, California 93401. APN 053-412- 010 & 053-412-011 Timeframe: Work will begin March 2022, for 20 months. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document. Oct 3, 2019 The unnamed ephemeral drainage and associated wetland habitat has the potential to support species of special concern. These resources may need to be evaluated and addressed prior to any approvals that would allow ground -disturbing activities or land use changes. The MND indicates there is potentially significant impact unless mitigation measures are taken but the measures listed are general and non-specific and/or may be inadequate to reduce impacts to less than significant . CDFW is DocuSign Envelope ID: C0CEC2EF-72FD-4F71-813E-704A9F6CB1A7 Page 542 of 1221 Shawana Scott, Senior Planner City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department May 24th, 2021 Page 3 concerned regarding potential impacts to special-status species including, but not limited to: California Rare Plant Ranked (CRPR) 1B.1 Hoover’s button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri), and the state rare and CRPR 1B.1 Adobe sanicle (Sanicula maritima). In order to adequately assess any potential impacts to biological resources, focused biological surveys should be conducted by a qualified wildlife botanist during the appropriate survey period(s) in order to determine whether any special-status species and/or suitable habitat features may be present within the Project area. Properly conducted biological surveys, and the informat ion assembled from them, are essential to identify any mitigation, minimization, and avoidance measures and/or the need for additional or protocol-level surveys, especially in the areas not in irrigated agriculture, and to identify any Project-related impacts under CESA and other species of concern. I. Environmental Setting and Related Impact Would the Project 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 CDFW or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? COMMENT 1: Special-Status plants Issue: The Project site contains habitat suitable to support special-status plant species meeting the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 including, but not limited to, CRPR 1B.1 Hoover’s button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri), and the State designated rare and CRPR 1B.1 Adobe sanicle (Sanicula maritima). Although there was a preliminary field study done on October 3rd, 2019 that did not find any rare plants, that study was outside of the blooming period where the plants could have been identified. Specific impact: Without appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for special-status plants, potential significant impacts resulting from ground- and vegetation-disturbing activities associated with Project construction include inability to reproduce and direct mortality. Evidence impact would be significant: Special-status plant species known to occur in the vicinity of the Project site are threatened by residential development, road maintenance, vehicles, grazing, trampling, and invasive, non-native plants (CNPS 2021). Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) To evaluate potential impacts to special-status plant species associated with the Project, CDFW recommends conducting the following evaluation of the Project area , DocuSign Envelope ID: C0CEC2EF-72FD-4F71-813E-704A9F6CB1A7 Page 543 of 1221 Shawana Scott, Senior Planner City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department May 24th, 2021 Page 4 editing the MND to include the following additional measures , and including the following mitigation measures as conditions of approval. Recommended Mitigation Measure 1: Special-Status Plant Surveys If suitable habitat is present, CDFW recommends that the Project site be surveyed for special-status plants by a qualified botanist following the “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities” (CDFW 2018). This protocol, which is intended to maximize detectability, includes the identification of reference populations to facilitate the likelihood of field investigations occurring during the appropriate floristic period. In the absence of protocol-level surveys being performed, additional surveys may be necessary. Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: Special-Status Plant Avoidance CDFW recommends that special-status plant species be avoided whenever possible by delineating and observing a no-disturbance buffer of at least 50 feet from the outer edge of the plant population(s) or specific habitat type(s) required by special -status plant species. If buffers cannot be maintained, then consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine appropriate minimization and mitigation measures for impacts to special - status plant species. Recommended Mitigation Measure 3: State-listed Plant Take Authorization If a plant species listed pursuant to CESA or State designated as rare is identified during botanical surveys, consultation with CDFW is warranted to determine if the Project can avoid take. If take cannot be avoided, take authorization prior to any ground-disturbing activities may be warranted. Take authorization would occur through issuance of an ITP by CDFW, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) for State listed threatened or endangered plants or pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act and Fish and Game Code section 1900 et seq. for State designated rare plants. II. Editorial Comments and/or Suggestions Lake and Streambed Alteration: The Project contains activities that may result in the Project site being subject to CDFW’s regulatory authority pursuant Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq. Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may (a) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (b) substantially change or use any material from the bed, bank, or channel of any river, stream, or lake; or (c) deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake. “Any river, stream, or lake” includes those that are ephemeral or intermittent, such as the unnamed stream within the Project site, as well as those that are perennial in nature. DocuSign Envelope ID: C0CEC2EF-72FD-4F71-813E-704A9F6CB1A7 Page 544 of 1221 Shawana Scott, Senior Planner City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department May 24th, 2021 Page 5 For additional information on notification requirements, please contact our staff in the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program at (559) 243 -4593. It is important to note, CDFW is required to comply with CEQA, as a Responsible Agency, when issuing a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA). If inadequate, or no environmental review, has occurred, for the Project activities that are subject to notification under Fish and Game Code section 1602, CDFW will not be able to issue the Final LSAA until CEQA analysis for the project is complete. This may lead to considerable Project delays. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a data base which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB field survey form can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: CNDDB@wildlife.ca.gov. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals. FILING FEES The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary. 4 Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.) CONCLUSION CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. More information on survey and monitoring protocols for sensitive species can be found at CDFW’s website (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols). Please see the enclosed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) table which corresponds with recommended mitigation measures in this comment letter. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Aimee DocuSign Envelope ID: C0CEC2EF-72FD-4F71-813E-704A9F6CB1A7 Page 545 of 1221 Shawana Scott, Senior Planner City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department May 24th, 2021 Page 6 Braddock, Environmental Scientist at (559) 243-4014 extension 243 or aimee.braddock@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, Julie A. Vance Regional Manager Attachments A. MMMRP for CDFW Recommended Mitigation Measures cc: Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento DocuSign Envelope ID: C0CEC2EF-72FD-4F71-813E-704A9F6CB1A7 Page 546 of 1221 Shawana Scott, Senior Planner City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department May 24th, 2021 Page 7 REFERENCES CDFW, 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 20, 2018. CDFW . 2021. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed May 17, 2021. California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org DocuSign Envelope ID: C0CEC2EF-72FD-4F71-813E-704A9F6CB1A7 Page 547 of 1221 Shawana Scott, Senior Planner City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department May 24th, 2021 Page 8 Attachment 1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) PROJECT: SLO Airport Hotel Project SCH No.: 2021040586 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURE STATUS/DATE/INITIALS Before Disturbing Soil or Vegetation Mitigation Measure 1: Special-Status Plant Surveys Mitigation Measure 3: State-listed Plant Take Authorization During Construction Mitigation Measure 2: Special-Status Plant Avoidance DocuSign Envelope ID: C0CEC2EF-72FD-4F71-813E-704A9F6CB1A7 Page 548 of 1221 May 24th, 2021 Shawna Scott City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: NOA/NOI for the SLO Airport Hotel Project Dear Shawna Scott: The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) appreciates the opportunity to review the NOA/NOI for the SLO Airport Hotel project. The State of California and Federal Highways Administration designate SLOCOG as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), respectively, for the region. While SLOCOG does not have permit or regulatory authority for land use proposals, SLOCOG is responsible for planning the long-term viability of the regional surface transportation system and for programming funds to achieve the objectives of the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (2019 RTP/SCS). SLOCOG’s Edna-Price Canyon Trail Feasibility Study and the State Route 227 Operations Study assessed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure concepts and intersection operational improvements at several locations identified in the project’s Multimodal Transportation Impact Study (MMTIS), including Farmhouse Lane, Buckley Road and segments along the SR 227 corridor. The SR 227 Operational Study assessed roundabouts at Farmhouse Lane/SR 227 and Buckley Road/SR 227 to be the preferred intersection controls and the County of San Luis Obispo is conducting an Intersection Control Evaluation Step 2 Analysis to verify the assessment or recommend other alternatives. The intersection of SR 227 and Buckley Road currently operates at unacceptable service levels and construction of an operational improvement is expected within 3-5 years, while improvements at Farmhouse Lane are in subsequent phases. The Edna-Price Canyon Trail Feasibility Study identifies a Class I shared use path on the west side of SR 227 between Los Ranchos Road and Tank Farm Road, a portion of which coincides with Class IV protected bike lanes along Broad Street identified in the City’s Active Transportation Plan. There are no pedestrian facilities on the west side of Broad Street/SR 227 between Airport Drive and Buckley Road and few driveways or potential crossing conflicts. Los Ranchos Elementary School is located less than 2 miles south of the City on the west side of the 227 corridor and serves neighborhoods in southern San Luis Obispo. SLOCOG encourages the City and County to coordinate with regard to the in-progress ICE Step 2 Analysis for the SR 227 intersection at Farmhouse Lane and incorporate the final build alternative into City planning documents. The intersection operational improvement should incorporate safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings that allow access from the bi-directional Class I shared use path on the west side of SR 227 to the northbound Class IV bike lanes on the east side of SR 227. SLOCOG recommends that impacts from this project to the SR 227 corridor are considered. An appropriate payment toward the City’s TIF to construct the operational improvement at Buckley Road/SR 227 and the segment of the Edna-Price Canyon Trail between Buckley Road and Farmhouse Lane should also be considered. Page 549 of 1221 Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input. We wish you and all parties involved continued success in moving the project forward. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Stephen Hanamaikai at (805) 788-2104 or SHanamaikai@slocog.org. Sincerely, Sara Sanders, Transportation Planner San Luis Obispo Council of Governments CC: Stephen Hanamaikai, SLOCOG Jackie Mansoor, APCD Page 550 of 1221 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER # 0650-2020 1. Project Title: SLO Airport Hotel 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 (805) 781-7176 4. Project Location: 950 & 990 Aero Drive (APN 053-412-010 & 053-412-011), San Luis Obispo, CA (project site) 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Sunsmit, LLC Attn: Sanjay Ganpule 280 Foxtail Lane Templeton, CA 93465 6. General Plan Designations: Business Park 7. Zoning: Business Park-Specific Plan (BP-SP) Airport Area Specific Plan, Safety Area S-1C (AASP) 8. Description of the Project: The proposed project includes the construction and operation of a new dual-branded three-story hotel with surface parking on a site comprised of approximately 5.04 acres located at 950 and 990 Aero Drive (APNs 053-412-010 and 053-412-011) in the city of San Luis Obispo, California (Figures 1 and 2). The project site is located at the corner of Aero Drive and Broad Street (Highway 227) and bordered by the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport to the south and west. The property is zoned Business Park (BP), within the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), and within the Airport Land Use Planning Area zones 4 and 5. The new hotel would consist of two buildings (Building A and Building B) with 204 guest rooms, guest amenities such as an outdoor patio and dining area, meeting space, fitness room, breakfast area, and bar. The proposed hotel would be approximately 125,000 square feet with a maximum height of 45 feet for occupied buildings and 52 feet for non-occupied space. The development would provide 214 vehicle parking spaces, including eight accessible parking spaces, 18 clean air/vanpool parking spaces, 20 electric vehicle (EV)-ready parking spaces, 51 EV-capable Page 551 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 parking spaces, 12 motorcycle parking spaces, 22 bicycle parking spaces, and one loading space pursuant to City Zoning Regulations 17.72.040. The project also includes 219,570 square feet of landscaping. Plans for the project are illustrated in Figures 3 through 5. Project construction would require approximately 10,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 8,900 cy of fill for a total of 18,900 cy of earthwork. Construction is anticipated to last approximately 20 months, beginning in March 2022. Construction would result in approximately 4.33 acres of ground disturbance and approximately 1.8 acres of impervious pavement. Construction would require a scraper, water truck, backhoe, compactor, and skip loader for grading activities; a telescopic forklift and skid steer for building construction; and a skip loader, grader, compactor, and asphalt paver for paving activities. The proposed project would result in a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.58 (127,200/219,570). The project site is in the BP zone within the AASP, which allows for a maximum building height of 45 feet for occupied buildings, up to 52 feet for non-occupied architectural features,1 a maximum lot coverage of 75%, and a maximum FAR of 0.6. The proposed three-story hotel would be designed with contemporary materials, architectural reliefs, and distinguishing color combinations. The architectural style of the hotel would combine the “airport architecture” with hotel architecture. Metal awnings, metal trellises, and low planter walls would create appealing dining and meeting places. A mix of trees, bushes, and groundcovers varying in textures, colors, form, and height would enhance the development and patio and outdoor areas. Access to the project site would be provided via a new driveway 300 feet west of the Broad Street/Aero Drive intersection and a porte cochère is proposed to allow traffic flow within the parking area for guest registration and parking. Visual simulations have been prepared by the applicant for the proposed project and are shown on Figures 6a through 6g. The proposed development program details are summarized in Table 1, and the project site plans are included as Attachment 1. Table 1. Project Development Program Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required Setbacks Street to Building Street to Parking Other Property Lines >70 feet 10 feet 40 feet 16 feet 10 feet 0 feet Maximum Height of Structures Occupied Buildings Non-occupied Features 45 feet 52 feet 45 feet 52 feet Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.58 0.6 Building Coverage 70% 90% Public Art Paying In-lieu Fee Provide or Pay In-lieu Fee Total No. Parking Spaces Electric Vehicle Parking Bicycle Parking 214 20 EV Ready, 51 EV Capable 22 204 20EV Ready, 51 EV Capable 21 The project proposes one loading space. Due to the nature of the hotel business, loading spaces are not critical. An exception to City Zoning Regulation 17.72.100 to reduce the required three loading spaces to one space is requested. Additionally, the signage proposed on the hotel would be placed above the architectural reliefs at the entry and in strategic locations (see Figures 6a through 6g). Placing the signage at these locations would require 1 Airport Area Specific Plan Table 4.9: San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan Maximum Building Height Standards Page 552 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 the signage to exceed the 25-foot height limit.2 The signage would be attached to the building, not free standing. An exception to the height limit identified in AASP Sign Standards Goal 5.18.1 is being requested for this project. Water service for the proposed project would be provided by the City’s Utilities Department and the project would require a total annual water demand of approximately (87.72 acre-feet). The project would be served by the City’s sewer system and would include the installation of a new sewer lateral to connect to existing City sewer infrastructure. Estimated average dry weather flow would be 14,280 gallons per day (City of San Luis Obispo 2020). The project site is in the AASP area of the city and is generally surrounded by one- and two-story commercial office uses and a few remaining unimproved parcels. The San Luis Obispo Regional Airport is located less than 500 feet southwest of the project site, and residential subdivisions are prominent northeast of the project site across Broad Street (e.g., along Goldenrod Lane approximately 700 feet northeast). The project site currently consists of one unimproved, unoccupied parcel and a second parcel previously used as an overflow parking area that the project sponsor is requesting to be merged as part of the proposed project. The proposed project site consists of ruderal herbaceous vegetation and non-native trees in the western portion of the site, which has been previously disturbed and consistently mowed since the early 2000s. The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed, approximately 2 miles east of the East Fork of the San Luis Obispo Creek. The project area is characterized by flat to gently sloping land with a steep slope located at the southwest edge of the parcel. There is an unnamed drainage bordering the site that flows generally northwest across the southwestern portion of the project area. The drainage enters the area through a culvert under Aero Drive and flows west along the edge of the project area before making a 90-degree bend and continuing north–northwest for approximately 400 feet, where it flows into a 36-inch culvert in the northwest corner of the project area. The drainage is ephemeral, conveying surface flows from the project parcel and adjacent developments during periods of significant rainfall. The proposed project includes a 35-foot-wide setback from jurisdictional aquatic features located in the southern and western portions of the site. Since the project site is currently unimproved and allows for the infiltration of stormwater at the site, the project would install a storm drain system, including a catch basin and detention system. A water line, water meter, fire line, and fire hydrant are also proposed. During operation, a maximum of 604 people would be on-site. On a typical day, the project would be expected to generate an average of 1,822 daily weekday trips, of which 102 would occur during the a.m. peak hour and 131 during the p.m. peak hour. The proposed project’s potential for cumulatively considerable impacts has been evaluated in Section 21, Mandatory Findings of Significance. 9. Project Entitlements: Major Development Review Conditional Use Permit 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Surrounding uses and stories of surrounding buildings are summarized below: • Northeast: one- and two-story commercial offices and buildings • Northwest: one- and two-story commercial office buildings and restaurant buildings (i.e., SLO Brew Rock) • Southwest: ephemeral drainage, San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and ancillary features (i.e., Airport parking lot, buildings) • Southeast: one- and two-story commercial offices and buildings 2 City Municipal Code 15.40.070.A.1: The maximum height of wall signs on multi-story buildings is the uppermost point of the second story unless additional height is approved through a sign program or exception as provided in Sections 15.40.485 and 15.40.600. Page 553 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? Native American Tribes were notified on December 11, 2020, about the project consistent with City and State of California regulations, including, but not limited to, Assembly Bill 52, and no tribe requested consultation. The Salinan Tribe responded to the consultation invitation with a request that: (1) if any resources are unearthed that all work to stop in the area until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find, and (2) if humans remains are unearthed that all work stop and State law be followed. This request has been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District California Department of Fish and Wildlife Approval of Section 1600 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Minor modifications have been made to this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in response to public comments received from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). These modifications do not require recirculation of this IS/MND because the amendments constitute minor modifications and clarifications to an adequate MND and do not include significant new information that would result in a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a significant environmental impact. All new text is indicated by underlined, bold, and italicized text and deleted text is indicated by strike-through. Page 554 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map Page 555 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Figure 2. Project Location Map. Page 556 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Figure 3. Conceptual Site Plan Page 557 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Figure 4. Proposed First Floor Plan Page 558 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Figure 5. Proposed Second Floor Plan (Third Floor Similar) Page 559 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Figure 6a. Visual Simulations Page 560 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Figure 6b. Visual Simulations Page 561 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Figure 6c. Visual Simulations Page 562 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Figure 6d. Visual Simulations Page 563 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Figure 6e. Visual Simulations Page 564 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Figure 6f. Visual Simulations Page 565 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Figure 6g. Visual Simulations Page 566 of 1221 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☐ Aesthetics ☒ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☒ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Recreation ☒ Air Quality ☒ Hydrology and Water Quality ☒ Transportation ☒ Biological Resources ☒ Land Use and Planning ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☒ Utilities and Service Systems ☐ Energy ☐ Noise ☐ Wildfire ☒ Geology and Soils ☐ Population and Housing ☒ Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND WILDLIFE 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). ☒ The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE ☒ 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)). Page 567 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 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. ☒ 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ☐ April 6, 2021 Signature Date Shawna Scott, Senior Planner For: Michael Codron, Printed Name Community Development Director Page 568 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 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 Page 569 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 1. AESTHETICS Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1, 3 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 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? 2, 4, 8 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? 1, 3, 4, 5 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 5 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation The proposed project site is located in the AASP portion of the city and is surrounded by one- and two-story commercial offices and scattered restaurant buildings in all directions. The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport is located less than 500 feet southwest of the project site. The project site consists of one unimproved, currently unoccupied parcel and a second parcel previously used as a parking lot that are proposed to be merged as part of the proposed project. The area is dominated by ruderal herbaceous vegetation and non-native trees in the western portion of the site. The project site has been previously disturbed and considerably altered through past land conversion. The project area is characterized by flat to gently sloping land with a steep slope located at the southwest edge of the site. There is an unnamed drainage that flows generally northwest across the southwestern portion of the project area. The topography of the city is generally defined by several low hills and ridges, such as Righetti Hill, Bishop Peak, and Cerro San Luis. These are three of the nine peaks known as the Morros and provide scenic focal points for much of the city. The project vicinity exhibits intermittent views of nearby natural landmarks, including Cerro San Luis. The terrain within the project site is relatively flat, with the elevation ranging from 157 to 162 feet above sea level. Based on the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) map of scenic roadways and vistas, Broad Street, located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site, is designated as having high scenic value. The AASP identifies specific goals, policies, and design guidelines and standards intended to protect and enhance the visual quality and character of the AASP area and land uses with the BP land use designation. Policies in the AASP include, but are not limited to, maintaining community character and assuring a desirable setting for the types of businesses that are the primary reason for business parks. The BP land use designation is generally intended for well-designed, master-planned, campus-type developments that will contribute to community character and the City’s objective of attracting jobs that can support households within the city. The AASP Design Guidelines and Standards for the physical development and design of new projects within the Airport Area, include, but are not limited to, the following: • 5.1.1: Principal buildings shall be oriented parallel to the street. • 5.1.4: Buildings shall have architecturally articulated entry features facing the street. • 5.4.1: Parking lots shall be located at the rear or side of buildings, rather than between the front facade of the building and the street. Side parking shall not exceed 40% of the frontage of the lot on the primary street. • 5.4.4: Parking lots shall be planted with shade trees in a pattern and number that can be reasonably expected to shade at least 50% of the lot surface within ten (10) years of planting, and provide a nearly continuous canopy at maturity. • 5.6.1: Loading docks and refuse collection areas are not permitted in the area between the building and the street. Page 570 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 • 5.6.6: Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened by parts of the roof, or architecturally compatible screening features, so the equipment is not visible from the ground outside the site or open space areas to the public. On sites designated Business Park, such screening shall make rooftop equipment not visible from a viewpoint outside the site and at the same height as the equipment. • 5.10.1: Building facades visible from streets shall vary in modules of 20 meters (66 feet) or less. On any building facade, continuous wall planes longer than 30 meters (100 feet) should be avoided. Where interior functions require longer continuous spaces, exterior walls should have architectural features such as columns or pilasters at least every 20 meters. Such architectural features shall have a depth of at least 3 percent of the length of the facade, and shall extend at least 20 percent of the length of the façade. • 5.10.2: Facades that face public streets shall use elements such as arcades, awnings, entry features, windows, or other such animating features along at least 60 percent of their horizontal length. • 5.17.1: Development in the Airport Area is subject to the requirements of the City’s Public Art ordinance. • 5.18.1: Building identity signs shall be limited to major site entries from public roadways. Corporate and business identity signs can be placed on the buildings themselves, as long as they are located near the building entrance and are for identification within the site (i.e., not from public roadways). • 5.19.1: Provide minimum levels of lighting consistent with public safety standards along public roadways. • 5.19.4: To maintain a pedestrian scale and reduce ambient light levels, streetlights shall not exceed 20 feet on all other streets. • 5.19.7: Light fixtures shall be cut-off type fixtures that focus light down toward the ground and shield the light source from surrounding areas not intended to be illuminated. a) A scenic vista is generally defined as a high-quality view displaying good aesthetic and compositional values that can be seen from public viewpoints. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur if the proposed project would significantly degrade the scenic landscape as viewed from public roads or other public areas. The project is located in an urbanized area of the AASP area with intermittent views of the Irish Hills to the west and the San Lucia Mountains and Foothills to the east. According to the AASP, scenic views from major roads within the AASP area should be preserved (Table 5.4, San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan, Roadway View Protection). Broad Street (north of Buckley Road) is identified as the closest roadway from which views should be preserved, though the AASP recognizes that views of the Irish Hills to the west are too distinct for views to be feasibly maintained while allowing reasonable foreground development. Based on the City’s COSE, the project site is not within the viewshed of a designated scenic vista. Views of the project site from Broad Street would be consistent with existing one- and two-story commercial buildings along the frontage of Broad Street. The proposed building would be similar in height and scale as existing adjacent buildings and the proposed building height would be consistent with the maximum building height allowed by the AASP. The project proponent has requested a modification to allow for hotel signage to exceed the 25-foot height limit at the entry and in other strategic locations (see Figures 6a through 6g), which is generally consistent with other hotel developments in the city outside of the Downtown Core. The project would not substantially obstruct views of the Irish Hills or San Lucia Mountains from Broad Street; therefore, potential impacts associated with adverse effects on a scenic vista would be less than significant. b) The project site is located approximately 2.47 miles east of U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101). Based on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highways online mapping tool, this section of U.S. 101 is eligible for State scenic highway designation but is not officially designated. The City’s COSE also identifies Broad Street (approximately 375 feet east of the project site) as having high scenic value (see additional discussion, above [a]). The project site would not be visible to viewers travelling along U.S. 101 due to the distance between U.S. 101 and the project site, as well as the presence of intervening vegetation and development. The project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a local or state scenic highway; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. c) As discussed previously, the project site is located in an urbanized area and is zoned Business Park-Specific Plan (BP-SP) within the AASP. The proposed project must comply with the City’s AASP Design Guidelines and was conceptually reviewed by the City’s ARC on March 18, 2019, for consistency with the AASP Design Guidelines and Community Page 571 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Design Guidelines. The ARC generally supported the phased project and the conceptual site design with a few suggestions for design modifications. Following the ARC meeting and conceptual review of the project design, the project was revised to avoid impacts to wetland resources in the western portion of the project area and the two hotels were combined into one building (dual-brand hotel). The project as currently proposed would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Existing sources of nighttime lighting in the vicinity of the project site include airport-related lighting, spillover parking lot lighting from nearby commercial office buildings, interior lighting emanating from nearby commercial parking lot lighting, and intermittent vehicle lighting from vehicles traveling along Aero Drive, Broad Street, and/or parking at the nearby commercial office buildings. The project is required to comply with the City’s AASP Design Guidelines pertaining to lighting and the Lighting and Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (17.70.100) standards for outdoor lighting and new development, which include, but are not limited to, requirements for new outdoor light sources to be shielded and directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, requirements for minimum levels of lighting consistent with public safety standards, and limits to hours of lighting operation. Therefore, impacts from new sources of light or glare would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are not required. Conclusion The project is not located within a scenic vista or within the viewshed of a designated scenic highway and would not be highly visible from nearby public roadways designated as having high scenic value. The project has been designed to comply with all applicable standards set forth in the AASP and the City’s Community Design Guidelines. No potentially significant impacts associated with aesthetic resources would occur and mitigation measures are not required. 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? 7 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 3, 7, 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Page 572 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? 3, 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 3, 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 3, 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Evaluation The California Department of Conservation (DOC) classifies and maps agricultural lands in the state in the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP identifies five farmland categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Farmland of Local Potential. The project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP. The project site is zoned as BP-SP within the City’s AASP area. The project site is not located within or immediately adjacent to land zoned for agricultural uses, land under an active Williamson Act contract, or land currently supporting agricultural uses. a) According to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 12220(g), forest land is defined as land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. Timberland is defined as land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. The project site does not support any forest land or timberland and is not surrounded by forest land or timberland. According to the FMMP, the project site and surrounding land uses are designated as urban and built-up land (DOC 2020). Since the project site is not located on or adjacent to designated Farmland, the project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use and no impacts would occur. b) The project site is not located within an Agricultural Zone and is not located within or immediately adjacent to land under an active Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract and no impacts would occur. c, d) The project site does not include land use designations or zoning for forest land or timberland. Additionally, the project site does not contain 10% tree cover that would classify the site as forest land. Therefore, the project would not conflict with zoning for, result in the loss of, or result in the conversion of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production and no impacts would occur. e) The project includes construction of a new hotel building and associated parking in the City’s AASP area. The project site is surrounded by urbanized commercial uses. The nearest agricultural uses are approximately 0.75 mile west and southeast of the project site. The proposed project would be consistent with surrounding uses and with existing zoning designated for the project site and would not adversely affect agricultural water supplies or other agricultural support facilities. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial changes in the environment that could result in conversion of nearby agricultural land or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest use and no impacts would occur. Page 573 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are not required. Conclusion The project site is located in an urbanized area and is not within or adjacent to Farmland, land zoned for agricultural or forest land use, or land under a Williamson Act contract. No potentially significant impacts to agriculture or forest land would occur and mitigation measures are not required. 3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2, 9, 10, 11, 12 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) 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? 2, 9, 11 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 2, 11, 14, 15 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? 2, 11, 15 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Evaluation This evaluation is based, in part, on the Emissions Modelling Report for the San Luis Obispo Airport Hotels Project, prepared by AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting in January 2021 (included as Attachment 2). a) The city of San Luis Obispo is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which also includes Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Air quality within the SCCAB is regulated by several jurisdictions, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as “nonattainment” for the state standards for ozone, partial nonattainment (in eastern San Luis Obispo County, outside of the project area) for federal ambient standards for ozone, and nonattainment for the state standards for particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10). The City’s COSE identifies goals and policies to achieve and maintain air quality that supports health and enjoyment for those who live, work, and visit the city. These goals and policies include meeting federal and state air quality standards, reducing dependency on gasoline- or diesel-powered motor vehicles and to encourage walking, biking, and public transit use. The SLOAPCD has developed a CEQA Air Quality Handbook (most recently updated with a November 2017 Clarification Memorandum) to evaluate project-specific impacts and determine if potentially significant impacts could result from a project. To evaluate long-term emissions, cumulative effects, and establish countywide programs to reach acceptable air quality levels, a Clean Air Plan (adopted 2002) has been adopted by the SLOAPCD. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. The CARB has identified the following groups who are most likely to be affected by air pollution (i.e., sensitive receptors): children under 14, the elderly over 65 years of age, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the single-family residences located approximately 540 feet northeast of the project site. Page 574 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the CARB. Any ground disturbance proposed in an area identified as having the potential to contain NOA must comply with the CARB Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. The SLOAPCD Naturally Occurring Asbestos Map indicates that the project site is located within an area identified as having a potential for NOA to occur. In order to be considered consistent with the 2001 San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan (2001 CAP), a project must be consistent with the land use planning and transportation control measures and strategies outlined in the 2001 CAP. The project proposes infill development within the AASP area consistent with existing General Plan land use and zoning designations. The project would be easily accessible by Class II bicycle lanes on Broad Street and would include adequate secure bicycle storage, showers on-site, and posting and distribution of public transportation information (consistent with City regulations) to encourage employees to use alternative modes of transportation. The hotel would also provide a shuttle service for guests to the city’s downtown area to encourage alternate modes of transportation. The project would, therefore, be consistent with the land use policies identified in the 2001 CAP that encourage cities to develop at higher densities and encourage growth within their respective urban reserve lines to reduce overall vehicle trips and travel distances. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are controls implemented at the local or regional level to reduce emissions resulting from the use of motor vehicles. TCMs are primarily intended to reduce vehicle use by promoting and facilitating the use of alternative transportation options. Many of the TCMs identified within the 2001 CAP are not applicable to the project, such as campus trip reduction programs, local and regional public transportation improvements, motor vehicle inspection programs, and maintenance and development of park-and-ride lots throughout the county. The project proposes infill development within the AASP area and would include a variety of features that would be consistent with the TCMs in the 2001 CAP, including pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly site design, compact infill development within the City’s existing urban reserve line, and accessibility to an existing San Luis Obispo Transit stop along Broad Street southbound on Aero Drive, approximately 350 feet east of the project site. The project would be consistent with the 2001 CAP TCM to promote bicycle use through provision of on-site bicycle parking and connectivity to the regional bicycle network, bicycle storage, showers, lockers, and changing room facilities to encourage project employees to bike to and from work. The project site is located within immediate proximity of Class II bicycle lanes on Broad Street, as identified in the City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan. The project would therefore be consistent with the land use policies and TCMs identified in the 2001 CAP that encourage cities to develop at higher densities and encourage growth within their respective urban reserve lines to reduce overall vehicle trips and travel distances. Potential impacts related to a conflict with an air quality plan would be less than significant. b) San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as non-attainment for ozone and PM10 under state ambient air quality standards. Construction of the project would result in emissions of ozone precursors including reactive organic gasses (ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), and fugitive dust emissions (PM10). During operation, the project would result in emissions of ozone precursors associated with mobile source emissions and other stationary sources. Construction Emissions The project would result in the disturbance of approximately 5.04 acres and would require approximately 10,000 cy of cut and 8,900 cy of fill for a total of 18,900 cy of total earthwork. This would result in the generation of construction dust as well as short- and long-term construction vehicle emissions, including diesel particulate matter (DPM), ROG, NOx, and PM10. Based on the screening emission rates for construction operations in the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, as shown in Table 2, and assuming a reasonable worst-case scenario of earth movement for the proposed hotel, the project’s construction emissions would not exceed the SLOAPCD’s applicable threshold for ROG/NOx, DPM, or PM10. Table 2. Screening Emission Rates for Project Construction Criteria Pollutant Total Project Emissions SLOAPCD Threshold Exceeds Threshold? Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) + Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 65.11 lbs/day 137 lbs/day No Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 2.73 lbs/day 7 lbs/day No Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10) 0.22 ton/quarter 2.5 tons/quarter No Page 575 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Short-term construction emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2, computer program (AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting 2021). Emissions were quantified based on the default construction schedules, equipment use, and construction vehicle trips contained in the model. Construction emissions modeling assumptions are summarized in Attachment 2. Construction- generated emissions, without implementation of fugitive dust control measures, are summarized in Table 2 (see Tables 1 through 3 in Attachment 2). Table 2. Construction Emissions Summary Criteria Pollutant Highest Daily/Quarterly Emissions APCD Threshold Exceeds Threshold? Uncontrolled Daily Construction Emissions – Summer Conditions Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) + Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 65.11 lbs/day 137 lbs/day No Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 1.41 lbs/day 7 lbs/day No Uncontrolled Daily Construction Emissions – Winter Conditions Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) + Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 63.22 lbs/day 137 lbs/day No Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 1.29 lbs/day 7 lbs/day No Uncontrolled Quarterly Construction Emissions Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) + Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 0.78 ton/quarter 2.5 tons/quarter No Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.03 ton/quarter 0.13 ton/quarter No Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.15 ton/quarter 2.5 tons/quarter No Notes: Off-site mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Does not include fugitive dust controls. Based on default off-road vehicle fleet. Highest quarterly emissions assumes arch. coating, paving, and building construction activities could potentially overlap during one quarter. Architectural coating includes the use of low-VOC content architectural paints with VOC content of 50 g/L or less. Source: AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting 2021 As shown, estimated daily and quarterly construction emissions would not exceed SLOAPCD’s recommended thresholds of significance.The project does not exceed SLOAPCD screening emission rates for construction activities. However, SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook recognizes special conditions, such as proximity to sensitive receptors, that require implementation of standard construction mitigation measures to reduce diesel idling (DPM) and fugitive dust. Due to the project’s proximity to surrounding residential areas (less than 1,000 feet), standard measures for reducing DPM and fugitive dust are required and have been included as Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. Therefore, potential air quality impacts associated with project construction would be less than significant with mitigation. Operational Impacts Implementation of the project would result in an increase in vehicle trips, energy use, and architectural coating off-gassing that would generate criteria pollutant emissions. Based on the SLOAPCD’s operational screening criteria for air quality analyses, the project would not exceed the identified operational thresholds established by the SLOAPCD (Table 3). Page 576 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Table 3. Screening Emission Rates for Project Operation Criteria Pollutant Total Project Emissions APCD Threshold Exceeds Threshold? Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) + Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 16.12 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.29 lbs/day 1.25 lbs/day No Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10) 9.0 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No Long-term operational emissions were also calculated using the CalEEMod computer program (AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting 2021). Operational emissions modeling assumptions are summarized in Attachment 2. Daily and annual operational emissions of criteria air pollutants are summarized in Table 3 (see Tables 5 and 6, respectively, in Attachment 2). Table 3. Operational Emissions Summary Criteria Pollutant Highest Daily/Annual Emissions (Without TDM) APCD Threshold Exceeds Threshold? Daily Operational Emissions – Summer Conditions Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) + Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 17.58 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No Carbon Monoxide (CO) 27.14 lbs/day 550 lbs/day No Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.26 lb/day 1.25 lbs/day No Fugitive Dust (PM10) 7.10 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No Daily Operational Emissions – Winter Conditions Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) + Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 16.12 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No Carbon Monoxide (CO) 26.69 lbs/day 550 lbs/day No Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.15 lb/day 1.25 lbs/day No Fugitive Dust (PM10) 7.10 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No Annual Operational Emissions – Year 2023 Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) + Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 2.93 tons/year 25 tons/year No Fugitive Dust (PM10) 1.26 tons/year 25 tons/year No Notes: TDM = transportation demand management measures Mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Energy use includes installation of energy-efficient appliances. Includes adjustments to account for current building and renewables portfolio standards. Mobile-source emissions include proposed pedestrian connections. Mobile-source emissions were adjusted to account for implementation of proposed TDM program. Water transmission and conveyance includes installation of water-efficient irrigation systems and low-flow water fixtures. Waste includes minimum diversion rate of 50% for existing conditions. Source: Ambient Air Quality & Noise Consulting 2021 Page 577 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 As shown in Table 3, operational emissions of criteria air pollutants would not exceed SLOAPCD’s recommended thresholds of significanceAs shown in Table 3, the project would not exceed SLOAPCD screening emission rates for operational activities; therefore, impacts from criteria pollutants during project operation would be less than significant. c) The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the single-family residences located approximately 540 feet northeast of the project site, across Broad Street. Construction activities such as excavation, grading, vegetation removal, staging, and building construction would result in temporary construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust that may affect surrounding sensitive receptors. Based on the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, construction activities within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors require standard dust and DPM reduction measures. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 have been identified to reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to adverse construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. d) Construction of the proposed project would generate odors associated with construction smoke, dust, and equipment exhaust and fumes. The proposed construction activities would not differ significantly from those resulting from any other type of construction project. Any effects would be short-term in nature and limited to the construction phase of the proposed project. The SLOAPCD Naturally Occurring Asbestos Map indicates the project site is located within an area identified as having a potential for NOA to be present. The project would include approximately 18,900 cy of total earthwork, removal of low- lying vegetation, and construction of the proposed development. Pursuant to SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105), the applicant is required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any construction activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 have been identified to require the applicant to complete a geologic evaluation and follow all applicable protocol and procedures if NOA is determined to be present on-site. The applicant is also required to comply with SLOAPCD regulations related to materials containing asbestos (Mitigation Measure AQ-5). Based on compliance with identified mitigation and existing regulations, potential impacts associated with other emissions would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On- and Off-Road Equipment a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors if feasible; b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted; c. Use of alternative fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and enforced at the construction site. 2. California Diesel Idling Regulations. 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: a. 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, b. 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 a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5-minute idling limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf. Page 578 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 AQ-2 During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate matter control measures and detail each measure on the project grading and building plans: 1. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. 2. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work. 3. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD. 7. 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 or soil binders are used. 8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. 9. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. 10. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. 11. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. 12. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. 13. 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 SLOAPCD 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 SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition. 13.14. All off-road construction equipment shall be Tier 3 or higher. AQ-3 Prior to initiation of demolition/construction activities, the applicant shall retain a registered geologist to conduct a geologic evaluation of the property including sampling and testing for naturally occurring asbestos in full compliance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105) and SLOAPCD requirements. This geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department upon completion. If the geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have the potential to disturb naturally occurring asbestos (NOA), the applicant must file an Asbestos ATCM exemption request with the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). AQ-4 If naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) are determined to be present on-site, proposed earthwork and construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Asbestos Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 Code of Federal Regulations 61, Subpart M – Asbestos; NESHAP). These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: Page 579 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 1. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD); 2. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and, 3. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified NOA. AQ-5 Asbestos Material in Demolition. Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos-containing material (ACM). ACMs could be encountered during demolition or remodeling of existing buildings. Asbestos can also be found in utility pipes/pipelines (transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If utility pipelines are scheduled for removal or relocation or a building(s) is proposed to be removed or renovated, various regulatory requirements may apply, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include but are not limited to: (1) notification to the APCD; (2) an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector; and (3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on asbestos can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php. Conclusion Standard mitigation measures have been identified above to address potential project impacts associated with sensitive receptors’ exposure to air pollutants and potential impacts associated with NOA and materials containing asbestos. Upon implementation of these measures, residual impacts associated with air quality would be less than significant. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 55, 56 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 55, 56 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 17, 55, 56 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 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? 55, 56 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 3, 16 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 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? 3 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Page 580 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Evaluation This evaluation is based, in part, on the Biological Constraints Memorandum for a Proposed Project at 950 and 990 Aero Drive, San Luis Obispo, California, prepared by Terra Verde Environmental Consulting (Terra Verde) in February 2020 (included as Attachment 3), and the Waters and Wetland Delineation Report for Aero Drive Hotel Project at 950 and 990 Aero Drive, San Luis Obispo, California, prepared by Terra Verde in February 2020 (included as Attachment 4). The city is generally surrounded by open space, rangeland used for grazing, and other agricultural uses that support a variety of natural habitats and plant communities. The city’s many creeks provide sheltered corridors that allow local wildlife to move between habitats and open space areas. The City’s COSE identifies various goals and policies to maintain, enhance, and protect natural communities within the City’s planning area. These policies include, but are not limited to, protection of listed species and species of special concern, preservation of existing wildlife corridors, protection of significant trees, and maintaining development setbacks from creeks. The project site is in a developing portion of the city within the AASP area and is surrounded by commercial office and building uses, roadways, and is located directly northwest of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. The project site currently consists of one unimproved, unoccupied parcel and a second parcel previously used as a parking lot that are proposed to be merged as part of the proposed project. The project area is dominated by ruderal herbaceous vegetation and non-native trees in the western portion of the area. The project site has been previously disturbed and considerably altered through past land conversion. The project area is characterized by flat to gently sloping land with a steep slope located at the southwest edge of the parcel. There is an unnamed drainage and associated wetland bordering the site that extends northwest across the southwestern portion of the project area. The project site is regularly mowed to control the growth of vegetation for fire control, as required by the City. a, b) Although unimproved, the project site is located in the developing AASP area and is largely surrounded by commercial office uses. The topography, soils, and vegetation of the project site and surrounding areas have been altered considerably through past maintenance activities, land conversion, and construction of adjacent commercial developments. The site has been regularly mowed since the early 2000s for fire control, as required by the City. The results of a literature review and observed site conditions indicate that three special-status plant species, two special-status animal species, and migratory nesting birds and raptors have the potential to occur on the project site or within the project vicinity. In addition to these species, jurisdictional aquatic habitat was observed within the southwestern portion of the survey area with marginally suitable habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp (VPFS) (Branchinecta lynchi) and California red-legged frog (CRLF) (Rana draytonii). No special-status species were observed during field surveys conducted in November 2019, which is outside of the appropriate blooming period for most special-status plant species. Special-Status Plant Species Due to the high degree of land manipulation (e.g., placed fill, regular mowing etc.) within the project site, the habitat present is only marginally suitable for supporting special-status plant species. Low-suitability habitat is present within the project site for the following species: • Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi subsp. congdonii), California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.1; • Hoover’s button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri), CRPR 1B.1; and • Adobe sanicle (Sanicula maritima), State Rare / CRPR 1B.1. No special-status plant species were observed during the survey. Low-suitability habitat is present within the drainage and associated wetland habitat on-site for Congdon’s tarplant, Hoover’s button-celery, and adobe sanicle. If present, Congdon’s tarplant would have been detectable at the time of surveys completed for the project site; therefore, the species is not expected to occur on-site. Though considered unlikely due to degraded site conditions, Hoover’s button-celery and adobe sanicle may be present within the ephemeral drainage and associated wetland habitat located in the southwestern portion of the project site. Presence of these species would not have been observed during the field survey conducted in November 2019. As shown on Figure 3, the project would avoid impacts to the ephemeral drainage and associated wetland habitat present within the project site through project design and the identified setback of 35 feet from State jurisdictional features. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would further ensure direct and indirect impacts to hydrological resources and habitat suitable for special-status plant species are avoided by requiring mapping and delineation of work areas and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Page 581 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Special-Status Animal Species The potential for any special-status animal species is considered low due to the disturbed nature of existing habitat within the project area, annual disturbance associated with ongoing site maintenance, and the lack of continuity with areas of adjacent suitable habitat. Special-status animal species determined to have low potential to occur on site include: • Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), Federal Threatened; and • California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), Federal Threatened, State Species of Special Concern (SSC). No special-status animal species were documented during the survey conducted in November 2019. Very low-suitability habitat is present within the ephemeral drainage for VPFS and CRLF. CRLF may temporarily occupy the drainage when water is present; however, the drainage does not provide suitable breeding habitat due to its flashy and ephemeral flows and its lack of protective cover, nor does it maintain natural connection to downstream aquatic features such as the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek. The nearest documented occurrence of CRLF is from 2006, approximately 2 miles from the project site. In addition to the surveys completed by Terra Verde in 2019, wet and dry season protocol surveys were conducted for VPFS by David Wolff Environmental (DWE) in 2007 (DWE 2008b). No VPFS were observed during the protocol wet season surveys. Two intact cysts and one broken cyst identified to the genus Branchinecta were documented by Dr. Marie A. Simovich in the soil samples collected for the protocol dry season surveys. It was Dr. Simovich’s opinion that habitat with viable populations of fairy shrimp contain cysts in much higher densities than that found in the samples from this drainage (DWE 2008b). In addition, the hydroperiod for ponded water within the drainage, based on current site conditions, is not expected to support a breeding population of VPFS. Based on the results of the 2007 protocol-level survey coupled with the 2019 assessment of current site conditions, the likelihood of VPFS occurrence on-site is considered low. The project does not propose work within the ephemeral drainage located in the southwestern portion of the project area and CRLF and VPFS are not expected to be present at the project site based on a field survey and desktop review conducted in November 2019. However, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included in the event that a special-status species is observed during project construction. Suitable habitat for nesting birds and raptors is present within the project area, particularly in the ornamental trees along the northwest corner of the project site. Potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors are considered low because the project site is an infill site located near the airport and experiences a regular level of disturbance from vegetation maintenance and other surrounding land uses. A minimal amount of foraging habitat would be lost as a result of development. Avian species that may occur in or near the project site could be directly impacted if initial clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or construction activities occur during the typical avian nesting season (February 1–September 15), risking the possibility of nest failure. Indirect impacts could include disturbance associated with noise and dust during nesting activities. Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been included to ensure potential impacts would be avoided and/or minimized to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. c) There are no mapped blue line creeks within or immediately adjacent to the proposed area of disturbance. A portion of an unnamed ephemeral drainage extends along the southwestern property boundary. The drainage conveys water from the adjacent parking lot south of Aero Drive across the western portion of the project site before entering a 36-inch culvert in the northwest corner of the project site. The drainage is ephemeral, conveying surface flows from the project site and adjacent developments during periods of significant rainfall. To confirm the presence of wetlands along the ephemeral drainage, a wetland delineation was completed by Terra Verde in October 2019. Prior to the field delineation, a desktop review was conducted for the project site which included a review of current and historical aerial imagery, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, regional weather data, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), and preliminary site development pans. Within the project area, the drainage displayed intermittent evidence of ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) and a clearly defined bed and bank. Portions of the drainage are likely considered non-wetland waters of the United States, based on the presence of a clearly defined OHWM identified by a distinct transition in vegetative cover, debris wracking, scour, and connectivity to traditionally navigable waters (the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek). Areas displaying evidence of OHWM are limited to two sections of the channel: (1) immediately downstream of the culvert under Aero Drive, and (2) in the section downstream of SP-04 until the central wetland (see Figures 3 and 5 in Attachment 4). These areas are connected by areas of federal-defined wetlands and also some transitional Page 582 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 areas where seasonal flows become less concentrated, fanning out into a wide floodplains and in-channel wetlands. These transitional areas did not display evidence of OHWM. The jurisdictional waters identified within the survey area fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as shown in Table 4. Table 4. Extent and Location of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Feature Type Jurisdiction Acres Linear Feet Waters of the United States USACE 0.009 206 Waters/Wetlands of the State CDFW, RWQCB 0.63 650 Federal Wetlands USACE 0.13 N/A The project proposes to create a minimum 35-foot setback from the ephemeral drainage and associated wetland habitat located in the southwestern portion of the project area. The project proposes the construction of a retaining wall to separate the proposed parking lot from the wetland area during project operation. The project is not expected to directly affect any jurisdictional wetlands; however, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been identified to mitigate potential construction-related impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. Therefore, project impacts related to jurisdictional wetlands would be less than significant with mitigation. d) The project is not located within an area designated as a wildlife corridor within the COSE. In general, the project site does not contain habitat features conducive to migratory wildlife species; however, an ephemeral drainage corridor and connectivity with adjacent undeveloped areas may offer limited wildlife movement, particularly when the ephemeral drainage is flowing. Suitable habitat for nesting birds and raptors is present within the project area, particularly in the ornamental trees along the northwest corner of the project site. Potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors are considered low because the project site is an infill site located near the airport and experiences a regular level of disturbance from vegetation maintenance and other surrounding land uses. A minimal amount of foraging habitat would be lost as a result of development. Avian species that may occur in or near the project site could be directly impacted if initial clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or construction activities occur during the typical avian nesting season (February 1–September 15), risking the possibility of nest failure. Indirect impacts could include disturbance associated with noise and dust during nesting activities. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been included to ensure potential impacts to the ephemeral drainage and ornamental trees would be avoided and/or minimized to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. e) The project site does not contain any heritage trees or significant native vegetation. The project site has been regularly mowed for fire control, as required by the City, preventing the growth of protected tree species. The existing mature ornamental trees along the northwestern property boundary would be protected by the proposed 35-foot setback for the wetland habitat and the project would be required to comply with the City’s Tree Ordinance (Chapter 12.24 of the City’s Municipal Code). Additional coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California pepper (Schinus mole), and other ornamental trees would be planted throughout the project site as landscaping. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect any heritage trees designated by the Heritage Tree Program or other protected trees. The COSE includes various goals and policies to maintain, enhance, and protect natural communities within the City’s planning area. These policies include, but are not limited to, protecting listed species and SSC, preserving existing wildlife corridors, protection of significant trees, and maintaining development setbacks from creeks. The project site provides marginal habitat for special-status species and potential impacts to these species would be mitigated with standard avoidance measures. The project site does not provide significant value as a wildlife corridor and does not contain significant mature or native trees. Per the site plans for the proposed project (refer to Attachment 1), the project design includes setback a minimum of 35 feet to avoid impacts to the ephemeral drainage and associated wetland habitat. The project would not result in a conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts; therefore, the potential impacts associated with conflicts with local policies would be less than significant. Page 583 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 34 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 f) The project is not located within an area under an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan and no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 The following measures shall be implemented prior to and during construction to avoid potential direct mortality and loss of California red-legged frogs: 1. Prior to the initial site investigation and subsequent ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist will instruct all project personnel in worker awareness training, including recognition of California red-legged frogs and their habitat. 2. A qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys within the project area no earlier than 2 days before ground-disturbing activities. 3. No activities shall occur after October 15 or the onset of the rainy season, whichever occurs first, until May 1, except for during periods greater than 72 hours without precipitation. Activities can only resume after site inspection by a qualified biologist. The rainy season is defined as a frontal system that results in depositing 0.25 inches or more of precipitation in one event. 4. Vehicles to and from the project site will be confined to existing roadways to minimize disturbance of habitat. 5. Prior to movement of a backhoe in the project area, a qualified biologist will make sure the route is clear of California red-legged frogs. 6. If a California red-legged frog is encountered during excavations, or any project activities, activities will cease until the frog is removed and relocated by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist. Any incidental take will be reported to the USFWS immediately by telephone at (916) 414-6600. BIO-2 The following measures shall be implemented prior to and during construction to avoid impacts to hydrological resources located within and in the vicinity of the project site: 1. The limits of all work areas shall be clearly delineated in the field during construction and personnel shall be informed of the need to avoid impacts to jurisdictional aquatic features (i.e., waters and wetlands). 2. For short-term, temporary stabilization, an erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be developed outlining Best Management Practices (BMPs) and implemented to prevent erosion and sedimentation into the channel during construction. Acceptable stabilization methods include the use of weed-free, natural fiber (i.e., non- monofilament) fiber rolls, jute or coir netting, and/or other industry standards. BMPs shall be installed and maintained for the duration of the construction period. 3. The mapped limits of jurisdictional areas shall be clearly shown on all site plans and flagged prior to the start of any construction activity within 50 feet of the limits of the drainage. 4. All equipment and materials shall be stored a minimum of 35 feet from the edge of the drainage at the end of each working day, and secondary containment shall be used to prevent leaks and spills of potential contaminants from entering the drainage. 5. During construction, washing of concrete, paint, or equipment and refueling and maintenance of equipment shall occur only in designated areas a minimum of 35 feet from all drainages and aquatic features. Sandbags and/or sorbent pads shall be available to prevent any fluid releases from entering the drainage. 6. Construction equipment shall be inspected by the operator on a daily basis to ensure that equipment is in good working order and no fuel or lubricant leaks are present. 7. Where feasible, the project shall incorporate low impact development (LID) features, including bioswales and permeable pavers, into the overall site design to retain runoff on site and avoid increased surface runoff into the drainage. 8. Where feasible, the project shall incorporate vegetated buffers, bioswales, and/or rain gardens on the drainage side of the development. 9. The use of landscaping plants that are known or have potential to become invasive shall be prohibited. BIO-3 If any ground disturbance will occur during the nesting bird season (February 1–September 15), prior to any ground- disturbing activity, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 1 week prior Page 584 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 35 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 to the start of activities. If nesting birds are located on or near the project site, they shall be avoided until they have successfully fledged, or the nest is no longer deemed active. A non-disturbance buffer of 50 feet will be implemented for non-listed, passerine species and a 250-foot buffer will be implemented for raptor species. No construction activities will be permitted within established nesting bird buffers until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or that proposed construction activities would not cause adverse impacts to the nest, adults, eggs, or young. If special-status avian species are identified, no work shall be conducted until an appropriate buffer is determined in consultation with the City and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Conclusion The project site supports marginal habitat for special-status plant and animal species, including Congdon’s tarplant, Hoover’s button celery, adobe sanicle, VPFS, CRLF, and nesting migratory birds. Potential impacts would be avoided through project design and mitigated through standard avoidance measures, BMPs, and regulatory permit requirements. The project would be setback at least 35 feet from the jurisdictional wetland areas and would not conflict with local plans or policies for protection of biological resources. Therefore, potential impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource pursuant to §15064.5? 3, 6, 18, 19, 58 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? 3, 18, 19, 58 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 3, 18, 19, 58 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Evaluation This evaluation is based, in part, on the technical study An Archaeological Survey for the Airport Hotel Project, 950 & 990 Aero Drive, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, prepared by Thor Conway of Heritage Discoveries Inc. in March 2007 (included as Attachment 5). Pre-Historic Setting Archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central Coast for at least 10,000 years. The city of San Luis Obispo is located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash, the northernmost of the Chumash people of California. The Obispeño Chumash occupied much of San Luis Obispo County, and the earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes from archaeological sites along the coast. The project site is not located within a Burial Sensitivity Area as identified in Figure 1: Cultural Resources of the City’s COSE. Historic Setting The City’s COSE establishes various goals and policies to balance cultural and historical resource preservation with other community goals. These policies include, but are not limited to the following: a) Identification, preservation, and rehabilitation of significant historic and architectural resources; b) Prevention of demolition of historically or architecturally significant buildings unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety; c) Consistency in the design of new buildings in historical districts to reflect the form, spacing, and materials of nearby historic structures; and Page 585 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 d) Identification and protection of neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect of Contributing or Master List historic properties. The project site is not located within the Historic Preservation (H) Overlay Zone, nor does it contain any built structures that may be considered potentially eligible historic resources. a) Neither the project site nor immediate vicinity contain buildings or structures that are old enough to qualify as potentially eligible historic resources. The project site and immediate vicinity primarily consist of recent development that has occurred subsequent to the 1980s. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 and potential impacts would be less than significant. b) The Archaeological Evaluation did not identify any previously known archeological sites in the project area, and a field survey of the project site revealed no evidence that further archaeological study is necessary for the project area. The project would include ground disturbance (approximately 10,000 cy of cut and 8,900 cy of fill) on-site associated with site preparation (i.e., grading), the installation of utilities and culverts, and the construction of the proposed hotel and parking lot, for a total net of 18,900 cy of proposed earthwork. The project proposes to disturb approximately 4.33 acres of land. The project site is not located within a Burial Sensitivity Area identified in Figure 1 of the City’s COSE; however, there is a potential to disturb previously unidentified buried cultural materials during subsurface grading and excavation activities. Mitigation Measure CR-1 has been identified to require cultural resource awareness training for all construction personnel. If previously unidentified cultural materials are unearthed during proposed ground-disturbing activities, Mitigation Measure CR-2 has been identified to require work be halted in the area until a City-qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. With implementation of identified measures, impacts related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation. c) The project site is not located within a Burial Sensitivity Area identified in Figure 1 of the City’s COSE. No human remains are known to exist within the project site; however, the discovery of unknown human remains is possible during ground- disturbing activities. Protocol for properly responding to the inadvertent discovery of human remains is identified in the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and would be required to be printed on all building and grading plans per Mitigation Measure CR-3. Potential impacts related to disturbance of human remains would be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure CR-3. Therefore, impacts related to disturbance of human remains would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures CR-1 Prior to construction activities, a City-qualified archaeologist shall conduct cultural resource awareness training for all construction personnel including the following: 1. Review the types of archaeological artifacts that may be uncovered; 2. Provide examples of common archaeological artifacts to examine; 3. Review what makes an archaeological resource significant to archaeologists and local Native Americans; 4. Describe procedures for notifying involved or interested parties in case of a new discovery; 5. Describe reporting requirements and responsibilities of construction personnel; 6. Review procedures that shall be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries; and 7. Describe procedures that would be followed in the case of discovery of disturbed as well as intact human burials and burial-associated artifacts. CR-2 If cultural resources are encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all ground-disturbing activities within a 25-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a City- qualified archaeologist assesses the find and determines the need for further study. If the find includes Native American- affiliated materials, a local Native American tribal representative will be contacted to work in conjunction with the City- approved archaeologist to determine the need for further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Page 586 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria by a qualified archaeologist. If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s) as necessary, that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. CR-3 In the event that human remains are exposed during earth disturbing activities associated with the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued, and the City Community Development Director and locally affiliated Native American representative(s) (as necessary) shall be notified. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. These requirements shall be printed on all building and grading plans. Conclusion With implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3, the project would have a less-than- significant impact on cultural resources. 6. ENERGY Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? 1, 18, 20, 22 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? 1, 18, 20, 22 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) has historically been the primary electricity provider for the City. In October 2018, the City Council committed to joining Central Coast Community Energy (3CE, formerly Monterey Bay Community Power) and, beginning in January 2020, 3CE became the City’s primary electricity provider. 3CE is striving to provide 100% carbon-free electricity to the city by 2030. The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real property. The CBC includes mandatory green building standards for residential and nonresidential structures, the most recent version of which are referred to as the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards focus on four key areas: smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to the exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and non-residential lighting requirements. The City recently developed local amendments to encourage all-electric new buildings. When paired with 3CE’s carbon-free electricity supply, all electric new buildings will be carbon free and would avoid health and safety issues associated with fossil fuels and greenhouse gases (GHGs). At its meeting on September 3, 2019, the City Council adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program. Unlike other cities that are banning natural gas entirely, the proposed Clean Energy Choice Program encourages clean, efficient, and cost-effective all-electric new buildings through incentives, local amendments to the California Energy Code, and implementation of the Carbon Offset Program. New projects wishing to use natural gas will be required to build more efficient Page 587 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 38 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 and higher performing buildings and offset natural gas use by performing retrofits on existing buildings or by paying an in-lieu fee that will be used for the same purpose. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is an internationally recognized green building certification system that provides third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at improving performance metrics in energy savings, water efficiency, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts. LEED provides a point system to score green building design and construction. The system is categorized in nine basic areas: Integrative Process, Location and Transportation, Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, Innovation in Design, and Regional Priority. Buildings are awarded points based on the extent various sustainable strategies are achieved. The more points awarded the higher the level of certification achieved from Certified, Silver, Gold, to Platinum. The City’s COSE establishes goals and policies to achieve energy conservation and increase use of cleaner, renewable, and locally controlled energy sources. These goals include increasing the use of sustainable energy sources and reducing reliance on non-sustainable energy sources to the extent possible and encouraging the provision for and protection of solar access. Policies identified to achieve these goals include, but are not limited to, use of best available practices in energy conservation, procurement, use, and production; energy-efficiency improvements; pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly facility design; fostering alternative transportation modes; compact, high-density housing; and solar access standards. The City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery (2020 CAP) also identifies strategies and policies to increase use of cleaner and renewable energy resources in order to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction target. These strategies include promoting a wide range of renewable energy financing options, incentivizing renewable energy generation in new and existing developments, and increasing community awareness of renewable energy programs. The City’s 2020 CAP was updated in August 2020. a) During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. The energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would be typical of other similar construction activities in the city. State and federal regulations in place require fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles and prohibit wasteful activities, such as diesel idling; therefore, potential impacts associated with construction energy use would be less than significant. Operation of the project would result in an overall increase in consumption of energy resources associated with vehicle trips, electricity, and natural gas usage by project occupants. The project would rely on the local electricity service provider 3CE to supply project electricity needs. 3CE is striving to provide 100% carbon-free electricity to the city by 2030. The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC, including applicable green building standards, which include thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to the exterior and vice versa), nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements. Based on the LEED checklist provided by the applicant, the project would be built to a certified level (included as Attachment 6). Compliance with existing building codes would ensure the project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and through use of 100% GHG-free electricity resources, project energy use would not result in a significant environmental impact; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC including applicable green building standards. The project would be consistent with energy goals and policies in the COSE associated with use of best available practices in energy conservation, encouraging energy-efficient building design and the use of pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly design. The project would not conflict with other goals and policies set forth in the City’s 2020 CAP associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are not required. Page 588 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Conclusion The project has been located and designed in full compliance with applicable energy efficiency standards and would not conflict with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No potentially significant impacts related to energy would occur and mitigation measures are not required. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 23, 24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 24, 25 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iv. Landslides? 26, 27 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 24 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 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? 24, 25 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 24, 27 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 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? 1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 28 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation The City’s Safety Element identifies active, potentially active, and inactive mapped and inferred faults with the potential to affect the city in the event of rupture. The Los Osos Fault, adjacent to the city of San Luis Obispo, is identified under the State of California Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazards Act and is classified as active. The West Huasna, Oceanic, and Edna Faults are considered potentially active and present a moderate fault rupture hazard to developments near them. The San Andreas Fault and offshore Hosgri Fault, which present the most likely source of ground shaking for San Luis Obispo, have a high probability of producing a major earthquake within an average lifespan. The highest risk from ground shaking is found on deep soils that were deposited by water, are geologically recent, and have many pore spaces among the soil grains. These soils are typically found in valleys. Faults capable of producing strong ground-shaking motion in San Luis Obispo include the Los Osos, Point San Luis, Black Mountain, Rinconada, Wilmar, Pecho, Hosgri, La Panza, and San Andreas Faults. Engineering standards and building codes set minimum design and construction methods for structures to resist seismic shaking. Based on the DOC Fault Activity Page 589 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 40 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Map and the City’s Safety Element Earthquake Faults – Local Area map, the project site is not located within or in the immediate vicinity of an active fault zone. Seismic-Related Ground Failure Settlement is defined as the condition in which a portion of the ground supporting part of a structure or facility lowers more than the rest or becomes softer, usually because ground shaking reduces the voids between soil particles, often with groundwater rising in the process. Liquefaction is the sudden loss of the soil’s supporting strength due to groundwater filling and lubricating the spaces between soil particles as a result of ground shaking. Soils with high risk for liquefaction are typically sandy and in creek floodplains or close to lakes. In extreme cases of liquefaction, structures can tilt, break apart, or sink into the ground. The likelihood of liquefaction increases with the strength and duration of an earthquake. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City’s Safety Element, the project site is located within an area with high liquefaction potential. Slope Instability and Landsides Slope instability can occur as a gradual spreading of soil, a relatively sudden slippage, a rockfall, or in other forms. Causes include steep slopes, inherently weak soils, saturated soils, and earthquakes. Improper grading and manmade drainage can be contributing factors. Much of the development in San Luis Obispo is in valleys, where there is low potential for slope instability. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City’s Safety Element, the project site is located within an area with moderate landslide potential. Subsidence Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth’s surface due to subsurface movement of earth materials. Primary causes are groundwater withdrawal, in which water is removed from pore space as the water table drops, causing the ground surface to settle; tectonic subsidence, where the ground surface is warped or dropped lower due to geologic factors such as faulting or folding; and earthquake-induced shaking that causes sediment liquefaction, which in turn can lead to ground- surface subsidence. Based on the USGS Areas of Land Subsidence in California Map, the project site is not located in an area of known subsidence. Soil Limiting Factors The project site is mostly underlain by the Salinas silty clay loam (0–2 percent slopes) soil unit. This very deep, well-drained, gently sloping soil has moderately slow permeability and slow surface runoff. The hazard of water erosion is slight. Many areas underlain by this soil are used for urban development; roads, buildings, and other structures need to be designed with consideration of the soil’s low strength and moderate shrink-swell potential. The project site is also underlain by the Cropley clay (2–9 percent slopes) soil unit. This soil unit is characterized by gentle slopes and medium runoff and is moderately drained. a.i) Based on Figure 3 (Earthquake Faults – Local Area) of the City’s Safety Element and the DOC Fault Activity Map of California, no known fault lines are mapped on or within 0.5 mile of the project site. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to result in substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault and impacts would be less than significant. a.ii) Due to the highly seismic nature of the region, the project would very likely be subject to strong seismic ground shaking at some point(s) during the life of the project. The proposed development would be required to be designed in full compliance with seismic design criteria established in the CBC to adequately withstand and minimize the risk associated with the level of seismic ground shaking expected to occur in the project region; therefore, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. a.iii) Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City’s Safety Element, the project site is located within an area with high liquefaction potential. Development of the project within this area may have the potential to result in adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure. A soils report prepared by a qualified engineer is required upon review of the building permit to address the nature of the subsurface soils in response to liquefaction potential, in accordance with CBC Chapter 18. Any issues identified in the report will be addressed through standard site construction techniques, as required by the CBC. This report would also ensure consistency with Policy 4.7 of the City’s Safety Element, which states proposed development may be located in high liquefaction potential areas only after completion of a site- specific investigation for risk of damage from liquefaction. In addition, the proposed development would be required to be designed in compliance with standard seismic design criteria established in the CBC to reduce risk associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, impacts related to substantial adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant. Page 590 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 41 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 a.iv) Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City’s Safety Element, the project site is located within an area of moderate landslide potential. The project site and surrounding areas are predominantly flat, which further reduces the risk for a landslide to occur. In addition, the proposed development would be required to be designed in compliance with standard seismic design criteria established in the CBC to reduce risk associated with seismic-related ground failure; therefore, the project would not result in significant adverse effects associated with landslides, and impacts would be less than significant. b) The project would require approximately 10,000 cy of cut and 8,900 cy of fill for a net of 18,900 cy of earthwork and a total of 4.33 acres of ground disturbance. The project site is predominantly flat and no substantial vegetation removal or permanent changes in existing topography would occur. Grading permits are required for projects, excavations, or fills exceeding 50 cubic yards in volume and require implementation of standard BMPs to ensure substantial erosion, siltation, and/or sedimentation are avoided. The project is also required to comply with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements set forth in their Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast region. Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s Waterway Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed. Based on the relatively short period of time that soils would be susceptible to erosion, and because construction activities would require implementation of erosion control and water quality measures as required by existing regulations and standard mitigation measures identified in BIO-2, impacts associated with erosion during construction would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Following project completion, the project site would be developed with buildings, hardscapes, and landscaping, precluding the potential for substantial long-term erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant with mitigation. c) Landslides typically occur in areas with steep slopes or in areas containing escarpments. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City’s Safety Element, the project site is located within an area with moderate landslide potential; however, the project site is located on relatively flat land. Based on the City’s Safety Element and USGS data, the project site is not located in an area of historical or current land subsidence. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City Safety Element, the project site is located within an area with high liquefaction potential. A soils report prepared by a qualified engineer is required upon review of the building permit to address the nature of the subsurface soils in response to liquefaction potential, in accordance with the CBC Chapter 18. Any issues identified in the report will be addressed through standard site construction techniques, as required by the CBC. The project would also be required to comply with CBC seismic requirements to address potential seismic-related ground failure, including lateral spread and liquefaction. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts related to location on a geologic unit or soil unit that is unstable would be less than significant. d) Based on the Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County and Web Soil Survey, the project site is located in an area underlain by Salinas silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, and Cropley clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes. Typically, soils that consist of clay or clay materials have a higher shrink-swell potential than soils without clay or clay materials. The soils at the site consist of clay materials and would be considered to have a moderate shrink-well potential. The volume changes that soils undergo in this cyclical pattern can stress and damage slabs and foundations. A soils report prepared by a qualified engineer is required, per the CBC and Policy 4.7 of the City’s Safety Element, upon review of the building permit to evaluate the proposed development activities and provide specific recommendations to adequately protect future proposed development against soil stability hazards, including expansive soils. Typical precautionary measures would likely include premoistening of the underlying soil in conjunction with placement of non-expansive material beneath slabs, and a deepened and more heavily reinforced foundation. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant. e) The proposed project includes a new connection to the City’s sewer system. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater treatment systems are proposed on-site; therefore, no impacts would occur. f) The project site is underlain by Holocene-age alluvial gravel and sand of stream channels. Holocene age units, particularly those younger than 5,000 years old, are generally too young to contain fossilized material. The project would result in approximately 18,900 total cy of earthwork; however, the hotel would be constructed on a concrete slab foundation and does not propose subterranean parking that would require cut activity within the bedrock. Therefore, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. Page 591 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 42 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Conclusion Based on the location of the project site and underlying geologic and soil properties, and compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts related to seismic and other ground failure and damage to paleontological resources would be less than significant. However, earthwork related to project construction has the potential to result in erosive runoff. In addition to compliance with existing regulations, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant. 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2, 12, 21, 53 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 12, 20, 21, 53 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Evaluation This evaluation is based, in part, on the Emissions Modelling Report for the San Luis Obispo Airport Hotels Project, prepared by AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting in January 2021 (included as Attachment 2). GHGs are any gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere, and are different from the criteria pollutants discussed in Section 3, Air Quality. The primary GHGs that are emitted into the atmosphere as a result of human activities are CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. In 2012 the City established a Climate Action Plan that identified measures and implementation strategies in order to achieve the City’s GHG reduction target of 1990 emission levels by 2020. In 2020 the City prepared an updated Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery, which outlines a strategy for achieving carbon neutrality by 2035, adopts sector specific goals, and provides foundational actions to establish a trajectory towards achieving those goals. In 2018 the City prepared a community-wide inventory of GHG emissions for the 2016 calendar year. In 2016 San Luis Obispo’s total GHG emissions were estimated to be 339,290 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalence (MTCO2e). As in 2005, transportation was the largest contributor to the City’s total GHG emissions with an estimated 212,980 MTCO2e or 63% of the City’s total emissions. Commercial and Industrial energy was the second largest sector with GHG emissions of 44,270 MTCO2e or 13% of the City’s total emissions. The sectors of residential energy and solid waste account for the remaining 26% of the City’s total 2016 GHG emissions. Due to lagging data availability, 2016 is the most recent year for complete GHG inventory data. Statewide legislation, rules, and regulations have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions from significant sources. Senate Bill (SB) 32 and Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 extended the State’s GHG reduction goals and required the CARB to regulate sources of GHGs to meet a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Other statewide policies adopted to reduce GHG emissions include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, SB 375, SB 97, Clean Car Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard, California Building Codes, and the California Solar Initiative. Appendix C of the 2020 CAP Update includes thresholds and guidance for the preparation of GHG emissions analysis under CEQA for projects within the city. To support progress toward the City’s long‐term aspirational carbon neutrality goal, plans and projects within the city that undergo CEQA review will need to demonstrate consistency with targets in the CAP, a Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction Plan, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. According to the adopted SLOAPCD guidance, if a project is consistent with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, such as the City’s 2020 CAP, the project would not result in a significant impact. In October 2018, the City Council committed to joining C3E, an existing community choice energy program that serves the counties of Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey and provides 100% carbon-free electricity with a rate savings relative to Page 592 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 43 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 PG&E. Additionally, the City recently adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings, which encourages clean, efficient, and cost-effective all-electric new buildings through incentives and local amendments to the California Energy Code. When paired with cost-comparable modern electric appliances and carbon-free electricity from C3E, all-electric new buildings are operationally GHG emissions-free, cost effective, and help achieve the community’s climate action goals. a) As discussed previously, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s BP land use and zoning designation, pending approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). As such, the project is expected to be consistent with the demographic and land use assumptions used for development of the City’s 2020 CAP. The project’s GHG emissions have been quantified using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2, based on estimated acreage and building square footage provided for the proposed project. The buildout year for this project would be post year 2020. The GHG efficiency threshold was calculated by dividing the GHG emissions inventory goal (allowable emissions), by the estimated service population (SP). The efficiency threshold was calculated based on CARB’s GHG emissions inventory identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. Project-generated GHG emissions that would exceed the efficiency threshold of 7.0 MTCO2e/SP/year would be considered to have a potentially significant impact on the environment that could conflict with GHG-reduction planning efforts. To be conservative, amortized construction-generated GHG emissions were included in annual operational GHG emissions estimates. The project’s short-term emissions were quantified using CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2, based on estimated acreage and building square footage provided for the proposed project. Based on the modeling conducted, construction-related GHG emissions would total approximately 592.28 MTCO2e. Amortized GHG emissions, when averaged over the assumed 25-year life of the project, would total approximately 23.69 MTCO2e/year. Long-term operational GHG emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2. Energy use included emissions associated with natural gas use. Electricity use assumes service would be supplied by 3CE, which provides renewable and carbon-free electricity, per the City’s existing commitment. Mobile-source emissions were based on vehicle trip generation rates for proposed residential land uses derived from the Transportation Impact Study prepared for the project (W-Trans 2020). Estimated long-term increases in GHG emissions associated with the proposed project for buildout year 2023 and future year 2030 are summarized in Table 5. Table 5. GHG Emissions Summary Source Total MTCO2e (Tons/Year) Construction Emissions Total Construction Emissions (2022-2023) 592.28 Amortized Construction Emissions (Over 25 Years) 23.69 Amortized Construction Emissions 23.7 Operational Emissions Annual Operational Emissions – Year 2023 without TDM 1,598.95 Annual Operational Emissions – Year 2023 with TDM 1,561.28 Annual Operational Emissions – Year 2030 without TDM 1,394.5 Annual Operational Emissions – Year 2030 with TDM 1,361.7 Total Operational Emissions with Amortized Construction Emissions without TDM 1,418.2 Total Operational Emissions with Amortized Construction Emissions and TDM 1,385.4 Service Population (Employees) 25 Page 593 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 44 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 MTCO2e / Service Population 55.4 2020 CAP Threshold (per employee) 0.7/employee (17.5) Reduction Required to Meet CAP Threshold (MTCO2e) 1,367.9 Reduction Required to Meet CAP Threshold (MTCO2e/Service Population) 54.7 As depicted in Table 5, operational GHG emissions for the proposed project, with the inclusion of amortized construction GHGs, would total approximately 1,385.4 MTCO2e (1,598.95 MTCO2e/year during the initial year of full operation [year 2023] and 1,418.2 MTCO2e/year for operational year 2030). Based on a service population of 25 employees, the project’s GHG emissions would exceed the GHG threshold of 0.7 MTCO2e per employee (17.5 MTCO2e based on a service population of 25) as established by the 2020 CAP. Therefore, the project would result in a potentially significant impact and would require a reduction of 1,367.9 MTCO2e to be below the City’s threshold. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 have been included to require implementation of measures identified by the SLOAPCD to reduce emissions during project construction. Additionally, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 has been incorporated to increase use of alternative means of transportation, waste reduction, and the use of carbon-free energy through the discouraged installation of natural gas-fired appliances, as well as electricity service provided by 3CE. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and GHG-1, construction and operational GHG emissions would be reduced throughout the project’s lifetime to achieve a total reduction of 1,367.9 MTCO2e (or 54.7 MTCO2e per employee based on a service population of 25). Therefore, potential impacts associated with generation of GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment would be less than significant with mitigation. b) The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) was assigned a GHG-reduction target of 11% from transportation sources by 2035. SLOCOG adopted the 2019 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategies (RTP/SCS) in June 2019, which includes the region’s SCS and meets the requirements of SB 375. In September 2018, the City Council directed City staff to develop a climate action plan with a reduction target of carbon neutrality by 2035. A carbon neutrality by 2035 target would require achieving a far greater reduction than the SB 32 requirements by 2030, as identified in the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan. On July 20, 2020, SLOCOG issued a letter that determined the City’s 2020 CAP was consistent with the GHG reduction noted in the SCS for meeting the State’s 2030 GHG-reduction target. As a result, determination of consistency with the City’s 2020 CAP would ensure consistency with the GHG-reduction targets identified in the RTP/SCS. As discussed previously, tThe City’s recently adopted the 2020 CAP, which identifies six pillars, each of which include long-term goals, measures, and foundational actions for reducing GHG emissions throughout the city. The pillars include: 1. Leading by Example: Create a Municipal Action Plan by 2020 and achieve carbon neutral government operations by 2030. 2. Clean Energy Systems: Achieve 100% carbon-free electricity by 2020. 3. Green Buildings: Generate no net new building emissions from on‐site energy use by 2020 and achieve a 50% reduction in existing building on‐site emissions (after accounting for 3CE) by 2030. 4. Connected Community: Achieve the General Plan mode split objective by 2030 and have 40% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by electric vehicles by 2030. 5. Circular Economy: Achieve 75% diversion of landfilled organic waste by 2025 and 90% by 2035. 6. Natural Solutions: Increase carbon sequestration on the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt and Urban Forest through compost application-based carbon farming activities and tree planting to be ongoing through 2035. Projects that are consistent with the demographic forecasts and land use assumptions used in the 2020 CAP can utilize the City’s CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist to demonstrate consistency with the 2020 CAP’s GHG emissions reduction strategy. The demographic forecasts and land use assumptions of the CAP are based on the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements. If a plan or project is consistent with the existing 2014 General Plan land use and zoning designations of the project site, then the project would be considered consistent with the demographic forecasts and the land uses assumptions of the Climate Action Plan. The project is consistent with the City’s land use and zoning designation and would be consistent with the demographic and land use assumptions used for the development of the 2020 Page 594 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 45 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 CAP. The proposed project would not result in an increase in employment or population estimates that would conflict with those used for development of the City’s CAP or SLOCOG’s RTP/SCS. According to VMT analysis conducted by GHD for the proposed project, the project would result in a net increase of 393 VMT, constituting a 0.005% increase. This increase in traffic generated by the proposed project would exceed the City’s adopted VMT thresholds by the equivalent of approximately 48 daily auto trips, resulting in a significant impact. According to the Multimodal Transportation Impact Study prepared for the project (W-Trans 2020), the project is expected to generate an average of 1,822 daily trips. Based on an assessment of trip lengths from the project’s traffic analysis zone within the model, it is estimated the average project trip length is approximately 8.3 miles. Therefore, approximately 48 project trips are contributing to the net increase in regional VMT. The project will need to implement TDM measures to reduce VMT by 393 or approximately 48 daily trips (3% reduction). Mitigation Measures TR-1 and TR-2 have been included to ensure the project does not result in a net increase in regional VMT. As described in the Recommended Transportation Demand Measures document prepared for the proposed project, the TDM measures would result in a VMT reduction of 4.93%. Further, through compliance with City Zoning Regulations requiring provision of secure bicycle storage, showers, and locker and changing room facilities to encourage project employees to use alternative modes of transportation, as well as being within immediate proximity of the Class II bicycle lane on Broad Street, the project would promote alternate modes of travels that would further reduce VMT. The City has prepared a CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist for plans and projects to ensure that they are consistent with the pillars of the CAP. Based on the analysis provided in Table 6, the project would be consistent with the City’s GHG Emissions Analysis Checklist with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1. Mitigation measures and offsets have been incorporated to ensure consistency with the City’s 2020 CAP, which (in total) would achieve project-level GHG reductions in excess of 90%. For these reasons, with mitigation, the proposed project would not be inconsistent with SLOCOG’s RTP/SCS or the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan. Therefore, potential impacts associated with a conflict with a plan or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions of would be less than significant with mitigation. Table 6. Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan Climate Action Plan Measures Project Consistency Clean Energy Systems Does the Project include an operational commitment to participate in Central Coast Community Energy? Consistent with Mitigation. A mitigation measure has been included to require an operational commitment to participate in 3CE. Green Buildings Does the Project exclusively include “All-electric buildings”? For the purpose of this checklist, the following definitions and exemptions apply: All-electric building. A new building that has no natural gas plumbing installed within the building and that uses electricity as the source of energy for all space heating, water heating, cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances. An All-Electric Building may be plumbed for the use of natural gas as fuel for appliances in a commercial kitchen. Specific exemptions to the requirements for all - electric buildings include: Commercial kitchens a. The extension of natural gas infrastructure into an industrial building for the purpose of supporting manufacturing processes (i.e., not including space conditioning). Consistent. The project would include development of either all electric or mixed-fuel buildings and would be required to be in full compliance with the City’s Energy Reach Code. Additionally, the project proposes a commercial kitchen, which would likely use natural gas; however, this action has been accounted for in the 2020 CAP. Page 595 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 46 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 b. Accessory Dwelling Units that are attached to an existing single-family home. Essential Service Buildings including, but not limited to, public facilities, hospitals, medical centers and emergency operations centers. c. Temporary buildings. d. Gas line connections used exclusively for emergency generators. e. Any buildings or building components exempt from the California Energy Code. f. Residential subdivisions in process of permitting or constructing initial public improvements for any phase of a final map recorded prior to January 1, 2020, unless compliance is required by an existing Development Agreement. If the proposed project falls into an above exemption category, what measures are applicants taking to reduce onside fossil fuel consumption to the maximum extent feasible? If not applicable (N/A), explain why this action is not relevant. Connected Community Does the Project comply with requirements in the City’s Municipal Code with no exceptions, including bicycle parking, bikeway design, and EV charging stations? Consistent. The project has been designed to comply with the requirements in the City’s Municipal Code and would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable Municipal Code requirements related to bicycle parking, bikeway design, and EV charging stations. The project includes 51 EV parking spaces, 22 bicycle parking spaces, and associated lockers and showers for employees. Is the estimated Project-generated Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) within the City’s adopted thresholds, as confirmed by the City’s Transportation Division? Consistent with Mitigation. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) recommendations have been included as Mitigation Measure TR-2. If “No,” does the Project/Plan include VMT mitigation strategies and/or a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan approved by the City’s Transportation Division? Does the Project demonstrate consistency with the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan? Consistent. The project has been designed to include, and would be required to incorporate, features to promote alternative means of transportation, including the installation of bicycle facilities connecting to off-site existing or planned bicycle facilities. Circular Economy Will the Project subscribe all units and/or buildings to organic waste pick up and provide the appropriate on-site enclosures consistent with the provisions of the City of San Luis Obispo Development Standards for Solid Waste Services? Please provide a letter from San Luis Garbage company verifying that the project complies with their Consistent with Mitigation. A mitigation measure has been included to require the project to provide organic waste pick up and provide the appropriate on-site enclosures consistent with the provisions of the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services. Page 596 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 47 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 standards and requirements for organic waste pick up. Natural Solutions Does the Project comply with Municipal Code requirements for trees? Consistent. The project would require removal of four pepper trees and one acacia tree, which would require compensation per Section 12.24.090 (Tree Removal) of the City's Municipal Code. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1, and AQ-2, TR-1, and TR-2 in addition to the following measure. GHG-1 A Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) shall be prepared for the proposed project and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The GGRP shall require annual impacts to be quantified over the life of the project to also account for reduction in project impacts due to future emission reduction technology that is included in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and shall reduce annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the development by a minimum of 1,367.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalence (MTCO2e) per year over the operational life of the proposed project. GHG emissions may be reduced through the implementation of on-site mitigation measures, off-site mitigation measures, or through the purchase of carbon offsets. It is recommended that the GGRP incorporate GHG-reduction measures identified in the City of San Luis Obispo’s CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist, Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist for New Development, as listed below. In the event that carbon offsets are required, carbon offsets shall be purchased from a validated/verifiable source, such as the California Climate Action Registry, and approved by City Planning staff prior to purchase. 1. The project shall be provided electricity by 3CE. 2. The project shall incorporate a pedestrian and bicycle access network that connects proposed on-site land uses to adjacent existing or planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities contiguous with the project site. 3. The project shall be designed to minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. 4. The project shall be designed to provide safe and convenient access to public transit contiguous to the project site. 5. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) reduction measures should be included to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which include but are not limited to: a. Telecommuting; b. Car sharing; c. Shuttle service; d. Carpools; e. Vanpools; f. Participation in the SLO Rideshare Back ‘N’ Forth Club; g. Transit subsidies; and h. Off-site sustainable transportation infrastructure improvements. 6. The project shall provide organic waste pick up and shall provide the appropriate on-site enclosures consistent with the provisions of the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services. Conclusion The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during construction and operation in quantities that exceed the threshold established by the City’s 2020 CAP; therefore, the project would result in a potentially significant impact related to GHG emissions and consistency with the 2020 CAP. Mitigation has been included that would ensure GHG emissions would be reduced below the applicable threshold and ensure the project is consistent with the six pillars of the CAP; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Page 597 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 48 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 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? 1 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 29, 30, 31 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? 32 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? 24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation The Hazardous Waste and Substances Site (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the state, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements related to the disclosure of information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to develop, at least annually, an updated Cortese List. Various state and local government agencies are required to track and document hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database tracks DTSC cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known contamination, such as federal superfund sites, state response sites, voluntary cleanup sites, school cleanup sites, school investigation sites, and military evaluation sites. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database contains records for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water in California, such as Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites, Department of Defense sites, and Cleanup Program Sites. The remaining data regarding facilities or sites identified as meeting the “Cortese List” requirements can be located on the CalEPA website: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Based on a review of the SWRCB GeoTracker database and the DTSC EnviroStor database, the project site is not an active hazardous waste cleanup site. There is one inactive hazardous waste evaluation located within 1,000 feet of the project site at the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. The closest investigation site is located over 1,000 feet away, at 710 Aerovista Place, as discussed below. The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Planning Area and is within Airport Safety Zone S-1C. Based on previous coordination between the City and the DTSC, the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport property is known to have been used by the U.S. Army Air Corps and the California National Guard as early as November 1938 and continued until at least November 1941. In May 1946, the U.S. Navy abandoned the airport facilities, leaving all improvements to the County of San Luis Obispo. Disposal records were neither complete nor specific; therefore, Page 598 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 49 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 undiscovered contaminants of concern, resulting from military or other aeronautical operations, may remain in the airport’s subsurface. a) The project does not propose the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous substances. Any commonly used hazardous substances within the project site (e.g., cleaners, solvents, oils, paints, etc.) during construction would be transported, stored, and used according to regulatory requirements and existing procedures for the handling of hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 reduces the potential for hazardous materials to enter the on-site jurisdictional aquatic features during project construction. Any commonly used hazardous substances utilized during operation of the project (e.g., cleaners, solvents, oils, paints, etc.) would be transported, stored, and used according to regulatory requirements and existing procedures for the handling of hazardous materials. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, project impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous substances would be less than significant with mitigation. b) The project does not propose the handling or use of hazardous materials or volatile substances that would result in a significant risk of upset or accidental release conditions. Construction activities associated with the project are anticipated to require use of limited quantities of hazardous substances, including gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, paints, etc. Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable federal and state environmental and workplace safety laws for the handling of hazardous materials, including the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management Standard (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 29.1910.119), which includes requirements for preventing and minimizing the consequences of accidental release of hazardous materials. Further, as introduced in Section 3, Air Quality, the project site is within an area identified as having a potential for NOA to occur. Pursuant to SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, the applicant is required to provide a geologic evaluation prior to any construction activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 have been identified to require the applicant to complete a geologic evaluation and follow all applicable protocol and procedures if NOA is determined to be present on-site. The applicant is also required to comply with SLOAPCD regulations related to materials containing asbestos (Mitigation Measure AQ-5). Any commonly used hazardous substances utilized during operation of the project (e.g., cleaners, solvents, oils, paints, etc.) would be transported, stored, and used according to regulatory requirements and existing procedures for the handling of hazardous materials. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. c) The project site is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. The closest school is Los Ranchos Elementary School, located approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site. As a result, there would be no impact associated with hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of school facilities. d) Based on a search of the DTSC EnviroStor database, SWRCB GeoTracker database, and CalEPA Cortese List website, one inactive hazardous waste site is under investigation in the project vicinity within the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport at 710 Aerovista Place, located over 1,000 feet south of the project site. In response to growing concern from the public over the presence of halogenated solvents, specifically trichloroethane (TCA) and dichloroethane (DCE) found in nearby drinking water wells, the Central Coast RWQCB submitted a Request for Information to the current owner of the airport property in June 2016 as part of a broader effort to identify the source of the contaminants in the nearby drinking water wells. The property owner submitted a summary of the site history and included two Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) from 1993 and 2001. The only halogenated solvents identified as being used at 710 Aerovista Place were TCA and dichlorofluoroethane, but other hazardous materials identified as being used on the parcel include tin and lead, polyurethane paint, isopropyl alcohol, and an acid solution containing chromium (also known as chromic acid solution, which is hexavalent chromium and water). The Phase I ESAs state that hazardous materials appear to have been properly stored on-site and had retained regulatory approval to transport the waste. The Phase I ESAs further concluded that there was no evidence that the parcel was not in compliance with applicable environmental regulations at the time and that no violations or spills were on-file with state and local regulatory agencies. In a letter dated October 26, 2016, the Central Coast RWQCB requested a workplan to investigate groundwater and soil vapor at the airport property. In December 2016, a consultant for the property owner submitted a workplan for a site investigation to the RWQCB detailing the proposed investigation. As of the most recent EnviroStor update on July 11, Page 599 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 50 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 2018, the workplan is pending review and response by the RWQCB. Thus, although the RWQCB is overseeing the activities at the 710 Aerovista Place property, it is not currently categorized as an active case and, as such, is not listed in the SWRCB GeoTracker database. Project construction would require excavation and ground-disturbing activities associated with site preparation (grading) and the installation of utility connections. Excavation activities are not expected to extend downward to the groundwater table. In addition, a Pre-Screening Assessment prepared for the EPA under Cooperative Agreement with DTSC for the site at 710 Aerovista Place notes that the prevailing groundwater flow in the project vicinity is to the southwest, away from the project site. NOA has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the CARB. Any ground disturbance proposed in an area identified as having the potential to contain NOA must comply with the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. The SLOAPCD Naturally Occurring Asbestos Map indicates that the project site is located within an area identified as having a potential for NOA to occur. The applicant is required to comply with SLOAPCD regulations related to materials containing asbestos (Mitigation Measure AQ-5). As a result, it is unlikely that project construction would create a significant hazard to the public during construction or operation and potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. e) The project site is located approximately 500 feet north of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport and within the airport’s Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Prior to adoption of the AASP by the City, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) reviewed and approved the AASP and determined it was consistent with the ALUP. The project site is in ALUP Safety Zone S-1c and within the projected 60 decibel (dB) airport noise contour. Per ALUP Table 5.3, Land Use Compatibility Table, a hotel building is a compatible use within Safety Zone S-1c, provided that the maximum non- residential density of use is not exceeded. The project would be developed consistent with the height and density limitations of the AASP and the site’s BP zoning designation, and would not exceed the allowable development intensities, densities, or building footprints. Advancements in construction methods, coupled with energy conservation practices, have had a vast performance impact on the way buildings are constructed. Interior noise levels are substantially reduced through compliance with existing CBC requirements. At the most conservative level, a typical structure covered with siding will have a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 39 A-weighted decibels (dBA) based on current methods. Basic dual-pane vinyl windows will achieve an STC rating of 28 dBA. Averaged out, this results in a combined STC rating of approximately 33 dBA, meaning a typical exterior wall assembly will reduce 33 dB of sound transfer. These numbers are based on a 2- by 4-inch wall cavity with insulation and the rating improves with increased wall thickness and/or stucco or other siding materials. In using more current conventional building standards, double, or even triple the noise reduction can be achieved. Therefore, impacts related to the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels would be less than significant with standard construction techniques. Therefore, potential impacts associated with safety hazards or excessive noise from aircraft would be less than significant. f) Project construction would result in periodic restrictions on the use of the roadway shoulder for parking along Aero Drive; however, no full road closures would be necessary. Therefore, project implementation would not result in a significant temporary or permanent impact on any adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Any construction-related temporary lane closures would include proper signage and notification and would be short-term and limited in nature and duration. Emergency vehicles have mechanisms to safely traverse areas of congestion, such as the use of sirens and the ability to travel in opposite lanes of travel. The project design plans will be reviewed and approved by the City’s Fire Marshall prior to the start of construction. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. g) The project site is not located within or adjacent to a wildland area, is located within a developing area of the city, and is currently unimproved and requires routine mowing to prevent the growth of brush that could result in a fire hazard to adjacent properties. The project would improve the site with hotel uses, which may slightly reduce the potential for fire hazard in the immediate project vicinity. The project would be required to comply with all applicable fire safety rules and regulations, including the California Fire Code and Public Resources Code, prior to issuance of building permits; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. Page 600 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 51 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and BIO-2. Conclusion The project does not propose the routine transport, use, handling, or disposal of hazardous substances; however, there is the potential for construction equipment to leak or lead to a hazardous materials spill. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce impacts related to accidental construction-related spills to less than significant. The nearest hazardous materials site is located over 1,000 feet south of the project site and construction activities are not anticipated to encounter hazardous materials. The project site is not within 0.25 mile of existing or proposed school facilities. Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 have been identified to require the applicant to complete a geologic evaluation and follow all applicable protocol and procedures if NOA is determined to be present on-site. The applicant is also required to comply with SLOAPCD regulations related to materials containing asbestos (Mitigation Measure AQ-5). Project implementation would not subject people or structures to substantial risks associated with wildland fires and would not impair implementation of or interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation. 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? 1, 3, 55, 56 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? 1, 34, 35 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; 1, 27, 55, 56 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; 1, 3, 27, 55, 56 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or 1, 3, 27, 55, 56 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? 1, 27, 33 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? 1, 3, 33, 36 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? 1, 3, 35, 37 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Page 601 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 52 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Evaluation The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed and includes an unnamed ephemeral drainage that flows through the southwestern portion of the project area. The San Luis Obispo Creek watershed is an approximately 53,271-acre coastal basin in southern San Luis Obispo County. It rises to an elevation of about 2,500 feet above sea level in the Santa Lucia Range. San Luis Obispo Creek flows to the Pacific Ocean just west of Avila Beach and has six major tributary basins: Stenner Creek, Prefumo Creek, Laguna Lake, East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek, Davenport Creek, and See Canyon. The City is enrolled in the State General Permit NPDES permit program governing stormwater. As part of this enrollment, the City is required to implement the Central Coast RWQCB’s adopted Post-Construction Stormwater Management requirements through the development review process. The primary objective of these post-construction requirements is to ensure that the permittee is reducing pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable and preventing stormwater discharges from causing or contributing to a violation of receiving water quality standards in all applicable development projects that require approvals and/or permits issued. The 100-year flood zone identifies areas that would be subject to inundation in a 100-year storm event, or a storm with a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. Based on the City’s Parcel Viewer Map, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. In 2015, the state legislature approved the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which requires governments and water agencies of high- and medium-priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Under the SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans. a) The project does not include substantial vegetation removal and would result in approximately 18,900 cy of earthwork. The City has adopted additional requirements for projects that are subject to an SWRCB General Permit. Per Chapter 12.08 of the City’s Municipal Code, prior to issuance of City permits, the applicant must submit a SWPPP, which includes detailed information describing the potential sources of pollution from project activities and the recommended BMPs. The SWPPP would be adjusted during project activities to adapt to unforeseen conditions and changes in work. The project proposes to disturb more than 1 acre of land; therefore, the applicant would be required to prepare a detailed SWPPP, including potential pollutant discharges and BMPs, to satisfy City requirements. Following project construction, the project site would be developed with buildings, hardscapes, or otherwise landscaped, precluding the potential for substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. The project is required to comply with the Central Coast RWQCB requirements set forth in the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. Physical improvement of the project site is required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed. As part of these requirements, the City has been mandated to establish a set of minimum designated BMPs and Pollution Prevention Methods (PPMs). BMPs are steps taken to minimize or control the amount of pollutants and runoff. PPMs are strategies to eliminate the use of polluting materials and/or exposure of potential pollutants to rainwater or other runoff. To meet these requirements, the project would protect existing storm drain lines, manholes, and catch basins in place and proposes additional storm drains, manholes, catch basins, and a storm drain detention system and flared end section. The purpose of these features is to create infrastructure capable of capturing pollutants and conveying stormwater runoff from the project site. Implementation of standard requirements, BMPs and PPMs, standard measures identified in Mitigation Measure BIO-2, and compliance with the City’s Engineering Standards and the Waterways Management Plan related to stormwater management would ensure the project would not substantially affect surface water or groundwater quality. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. b) The project would be serviced by the City’s water system, which has four primary water sources, including Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation), with groundwater serving as a fifth supplemental source. The City’s diversification of water sources in the last several decades has allowed the City to maintain sufficient water supplies even following the driest years on record. The total water available for the City in the 2020 water year (October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020) was 10,107 acre-feet per year (AFY), which included 215 AFY of recycled water. As this availability was adjusted following years of drought and updates to the City’s safe annual yield model, the availability is considered a reasonable long-term safe yield value for the purposes of this analysis. The City’s Page 602 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 53 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 water demand for 2020 was 4,730 AF. Stormwater flows within the project site would be contained through the construction of a new stormwater drainage system within the site to allow for percolation back into the groundwater table; therefore, the increase in impervious surface area would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would not deplete groundwater resources, and impacts would be less than significant. c.i-iii) The project, as proposed, would not result in direct impacts to the ephemeral drainage located within the project site. The drainage would be protected by a 35-foot setback during project construction and operation. However, project construction consists of excavation and other ground-disturbing activities that could result in temporary impacts to drainage patterns in the area through erosive runoff. In accordance with the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 12.08), the project must develop and implement a SWPPP that includes BMPs to protect stormwater runoff, including measures to prevent soil erosion. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would be implemented to minimize impacts of erosive runoff resulting from excavation and other groundwork. Following project construction, the project site would be developed with buildings, hardscapes, or otherwise landscaped, precluding the potential for substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. Implementation of the project would result in new impervious surfaces, including paved roads, hardscapes, and buildings that have potential to increase polluted runoff. To meet the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 12.08), the project would protect existing storm drain lines, manholes, and catch basins in place and proposes additional storm drains, manholes, catch basins, and a storm drain detention system and flared end section. The purpose of these features is to create infrastructure capable of conveying stormwater runoff from the project site to the City’s utility connections that can support the additional wastewater. Implementation of a SWPPP and Mitigation Measures BIO-2 would minimize potential impacts to drainages during project construction; therefore, project impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. c. iv) Based on the City’s Parcel Viewer Map, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. Additionally, the drainage located within the project site would be protected by a 35-foot setback during project construction and operation. Therefore, potential impacts associated with impeding or redirection of flood flows would be less than significant. d) Based on the San Luis Obispo County Tsunami Inundation Maps, the project site is not located in an area with potential for inundation by a tsunami. The project site is not located within close proximity to a standing body of water with the potential for a seiche to occur. Therefore, there would be no impacts associated with tsunami, seiche zones, or risk of pollutant release due to project inundation. e) Per the City’s General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element, Policy A2.2.1, the City has four primary water supply sources, including Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water. Groundwater serves as a fifth supplemental source. The City’s diversification of water sources in the last several decades has allowed the City to maintain sufficient water supplies even following the driest years on record. The total water available for the City in the 2020 water year (October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020) was 10,107 AFY, which included 215 AFY of recycled water. As this availability was adjusted following years of drought and updates to the City’s safe annual yield model, the availability is considered a reasonable long-term safe yield value for the purposes of this analysis. The City’s water demand for 2020 was 4,730 AF The project includes stormwater treatment and storage facilities and would not conflict with the City’s Waterways Management Plan or other water quality control plans. The project would not conflict with the SGMA, Central Coast Basin Plan, or other local or regional plans or policies intended to manage water quality or groundwater supplies; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Conclusion Through project design, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, standard BMPs, PPMs, and City Engineering Standards, the project would not substantially impede or redirect flood flows, alter existing drainage patterns, degrade surface water quality, decrease groundwater supplies, or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The project would retain the preconstruction infiltration rates and volume currently occurring on the unimproved project site. Therefore, potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant with mitigation. Page 603 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 54 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1, 3, 6 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Evaluation The project site is comprised of two unoccupied, undeveloped parcels located in the BP zone of the AASP and is generally surrounded by one- and two-story commercial office uses, with a few remaining unimproved parcels, as summarized below: • Northeast: one- and two-story commercial offices and buildings; • Northwest: one- and two-story commercial office buildings and restaurant buildings (i.e., SLO Brew Rock); • Southwest: ephemeral drainage, San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, and ancillary features (i.e., airport parking lot, buildings); and • Southeast: one- and two-story commercial offices and buildings. a) The project would result in the construction and operation of a hotel facility within a currently undeveloped site in the city of San Luis Obispo. The project would be surrounded by other commercial land uses and would not physically divide an established community. The project would be consistent with the general level of development within the project vicinity and would not create, close, or impede any existing public or private roads, or create any other barriers to movement or accessibility within the community. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community and no impacts would occur. b) The project would be consistent with the property’s BP land use designation and the guidelines and policies for development within the applicable zoning designation, AASP, Land Use Element, and COSE. The project is consistent with existing surrounding development and proposes a compatible land use. Hotel uses are permitted in the BP zone in the AASP with approval of a CUP; therefore, the project would be consistent with existing land uses and designations for the project site and, therefore, would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. The COSE includes various goals and policies to maintain, enhance, and protect natural communities within the City’s planning area. These policies include, but are not limited to, protection of listed species and SSC, preservation of existing wildlife corridors, protection of significant trees, and maintaining development setbacks from creeks. The project site is largely disturbed and does not support highly sensitive environmental resources. The unnamed ephemeral drainage and wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site would be retained in place and protected/enhanced to provide a protected seasonal wetland area. The on-site drainage and associated wetland area would be setback 35 feet from project construction and operations, and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would ensure indirect effects to the drainage, special-status species, and nesting migratory birds resulting from construction activities would be avoided and/or minimized and the project would not result in a conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts. Therefore, the project would not conflict with policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3. Page 604 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 55 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Conclusion The proposed project would not physically divide an established community and would be consistent with surrounding land uses. The project would be consistent with the existing BP zoning designation with City approval of a CUP. The proposed 35-foot design setback from the ephemeral channel within the project site, and implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would ensure potential impacts to jurisdictional aquatic habitat, special-status species, and nesting migratory birds would ensure the project would not result in a conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and potential impacts would be less than significant. 12. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? 3 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ 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? 3 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Evaluation Based on the City COSE, mineral extraction is prohibited within city limits. a,b) No known mineral resources are present within the project site and future extraction of mineral resources is very unlikely due to the urbanized nature of the area. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are not required. Conclusion No impacts to mineral resources were identified; therefore, mitigation measures are not required. 13. NOISE Would the project result in: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 6, 38, 39 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 39, 40, 41 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Page 605 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 56 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Would the project result in: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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? 32 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation The City’s Noise Element establishes standards for maximum acceptable noise levels associated with stationery and transportation sources. Noise created by new transportation noise sources are required to be mitigated to not exceed the maximum acceptable noise levels identified in Table 7. Table 7. Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses due to Transportation Noise Sources Noise-Sensitive Use Outdoor Activity Areas1 Indoor Spaces Ldn or CNEL, in dB Ldn or CNEL, in dB Leq in db2 Lmax in dB3 Residences, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes 60 45 -- 60 Theaters, auditoriums, music halls -- -- 35 60 Churches, meeting halls, office building, mortuaries 60 -- 45 -- Schools, libraries, museums -- -- 45 60 Neighborhood parks 65 -- -- -- Playgrounds 70 -- -- -- Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; Ldn = day-night average sound level; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level; Lmax = maximum sound level. 1 If the location of outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at the property line of the receiving land use. 2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use. 3 Lmax indoor standard applies only to railroad noise at locations south of Orcutt Road. Outdoor activity areas are not defined in the City’s Noise Element but are defined in the City of San Luis Obispo, Noise Guidebook, Measurement & Mitigation Techniques. The guidebook states that outdoor activity areas are “patios, decks, balconies, outdoor eating areas, swimming pool areas, yards of dwellings, and other areas commonly used for outdoor activities and recreation.” The City’s Noise Element also identifies Policy 1.4 regarding noise created by new transportation sources, including road, railroad, and airport expansion projects, which states noise from these sources shall be mitigated to not exceed the levels specified in Table 7 for outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise-sensitive land uses. The project site is located in an area where airport operations and roadway traffic dominate the existing noise environment. Hotels are considered a noise-sensitive land use by the City’s Noise Element. Per City Municipal Code Chapter 9.12 Noise Control, operating tools or equipment used in construction between weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or any time on Sundays or holidays is prohibited, except for emergency works of public service utilities or by exception issued by the Community Development Department. The Municipal Code also states that construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner, where technically and economically feasible, that the maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 85 dBA at mixed residential/commercial uses. Based on the City Municipal Code (9.12.050.B.7), operating any device that creates vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond 150 feet from the source if on a public space or right-of-way is prohibited. Page 606 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 57 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 a) The project includes site preparation and construction of the proposed hotel buildings. During project construction, noise from construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area. Typical noise levels produced by equipment commonly used in construction projects are shown in Table 8. Table 8. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels Equipment Type Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 ft From Source Backhoe 80 Compactor 80 Concrete Mixer 85 Concrete Pump 82 Crane, Mobile 83 Dozer 85 Excavator 85 Heavy Truck 84 Jackhammer 85 Man Lift 85 Paver 85 Scraper 85 As shown above, construction equipment that would be utilized during project construction would not exceed 85 dB and would be similar to other construction activity within the city. Further, the nearest sensitive receptors (i.e., the single- family homes across Broad Street) are located approximately 540 feet northeast of the project site, with the direct line of sight obstructed by existing development. Thus, construction noise, which would be short-term, intermittent, and would only occur during daytime hours per the City Municipal Code (when ambient noise levels are higher), would be largely undetectable at proximate sensitive receptors. The project does not include components that would significantly add to long-term ambient noise in the project vicinity. Upon completion of construction activities, the project would include the use of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems that would have the potential to contribute additional noise to the existing noise environment, as well as mobile noise from project-related traffic. The additional noise generated by the project’s HVAC systems would not result in a noticeable increase in ambient noise levels. Relative to vehicular noise, a doubling of traffic is typically needed to produce a noise increase that is audible to the human ear. The project would not result in a doubling of traffic trips; therefore, no substantial increase in mobile source noise would occur. Potential impacts associated with generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity in excess of standards established would be less than significant. b) The project does not propose pile driving or other high-impact activities that would generate substantial noise or groundborne vibration during construction. Use of heavy equipment would generate groundborne noise and vibration; however, there are no buildings that surround the project site (i.e., historical buildings and occupants of surrounding buildings) that would be substantially affected by this groundborne vibration. Based on the proposed construction activities, groundborne vibration is expected to be imperceptible at adjacent properties. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. Page 607 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 58 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 c) The project site is located within the ALUP Safety Zone S-1c, within the projected 60 dB airport noise contour. The project would be consistent with the property’s BP land use designation and the guidelines and policies for development within the applicable zoning designation, AASP, Land Use Element, and COSE. The project is consistent with existing surrounding development and proposes a compatible land use. As discussed above, the project does not include components that would significantly add to long-term ambient noise in the project vicinity. Operational noise is anticipated to be limited to the use of HVAC systems and operational traffic; however, these uses, combined with noise associated with nearby airport operations, are not anticipated to expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are not required. Conclusion The project would not exceed City Municipal Code construction and operational noise standards for commercial development. Further, the project’s proposed hotel uses are consistent with the ALUP allowable uses within the 60 dB noise contour. No potentially significant impacts associated with noise would occur and mitigation measures are not required. 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned 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)? 42, 43 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Evaluation San Luis Obispo is the largest city in terms of population in San Luis Obispo County and has grown from 45,119 in 2010 to approximately 46,802 in 2019 according to the City’s General Plan 2019 Annual Report. The City’s housing tenure is approximately 39% owner-occupied and 61% renter-occupied, which is strongly influenced by California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) and Cuesta College enrollment. Many segments of the city’s population have difficulty finding affordable housing within the city due to their economic, physical, or sociological circumstances. San Luis Obispo contains the largest concentration of jobs in the county and, during workdays, the city’s population increases to an estimated 70,000 persons. The City’s Housing Element identifies various goals, policies, and programs based on an assessment of the City’s housing needs, opportunities, and constraints. The City’s overarching goals for housing include safety, affordability, conservation of existing housing, accommodation for mixed-income neighborhoods, providing housing variety and tenure, planning for new housing, maintaining neighborhood quality, providing special needs housing, encouraging sustainable housing and neighborhood design, maximization of affordable housing opportunities for those who live or work in the City, and developing housing on suitable sites. a) The proposed project is consistent with the project site’s BP land use and zoning designation. Thus, any indirect population growth resulting from an increase in on-site employment has been planned for with the annexation of the area and with the adoption of the AASP. The project would be consistent with the projected population growth for the city. The project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. Page 608 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 59 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 b) The project would not result in the displacement of any existing or proposed housing; therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are not required. Conclusion The project would be consistent with the City’s projected population growth. No potentially significant impacts would occur, and mitigation measures are not required. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 1, 44 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Police protection? 1, 44 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Schools? 1, 44 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Parks? 1, 44, 45 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Other public facilities? 1, 44 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation The project site is located within the existing service area of the City’s Fire Department (SLOFD). The SLOFD deploys resources and personnel from four fire stations in order to maintain the response time goal of 4 minutes travel time to 95% of all emergencies. The nearest City fire station to the project site is City Fire Station 3, located at 1280 Laurel Lane, approximately 2 miles north of the project site. City Fire Station 3 provides primary response to the southern portion of the city. This station is staffed by a three-person paramedic engine company. County Fire Station 21 is located at 4671 Broad Street, approximately 0.4 mile southeast of the project site. County Fire Station 21 provides additional fire protection through an automatic aid agreement with the City. The City’s Police Department (SLOPD) provides public safety services for the city and is comprised of 85.5 employees, 59 of which are sworn police officers. The SLOPD operates out of one main police station, located at 1042 Walnut Street at the intersection of Santa Rosa (Highway 1) and U.S. 101, and emergency response times to the site would be less than 5 minutes. The project site is located within the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD), and public parks and recreation trails within the city are managed and maintained by the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. All new residential and non-residential development within the city is subject to payment of Development Impact Fees, which are administered by and paid through the City’s Community Development Department. Development Impact Fees provide funding for maintaining City emergency services, infrastructure, and facilities. For example, fire protection impact fees provide funding for projects such as the renovation of the City’s fire stations and the replacement of fire service vehicles and equipment. a) Fire protection: The project would be served by the SLOFD; the closest station is Fire Station 3, located at 1280 Laurel Lane. The project proposes a new hotel with surface parking that is consistent with the applicable BP land use and zoning designations within the AASP, and the proposed level of development would be compatible with surrounding commercial Page 609 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 60 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 developments. While the project would not directly result in the need for construction of new fire service facilities, development of a new hotel would result in a marginal cumulative increase in demand on City services, including fire protection. The project would be required to participate in the City’s system of required developer impact fees and dedications established to address direct demand for new facilities associated with new development. Potential increases in property tax revenue associated with valuation of the new businesses and other revenues (e.g., sales tax) would also help offset the increased ongoing cost of provision of public services to the new commercial building. Therefore, impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities would be less than significant. Police protection: The project would be served by the SLOPD. Proposed development of a new hotel would result in a marginal increase in demand on City services, including police protection. The project proposes uses generally consistent with the surrounding AASP area and the proposed level of development would be similar to surrounding commercial development. As discussed above, the project would be subject to required developer impact fees established to address direct demand for new facilities associated with new development. Potential increases in property tax revenue associated with valuation of the new businesses and other revenues (e.g., sales tax) would also help offset the increased ongoing cost of provision of public services to new commercial uses. Therefore, a new or physically altered police protection facility would not be required to accommodate the project and impacts would be less than significant. Schools: The project site is located within the SLCUSD and would be subject to payment of SLCUSD developer fees to offset the potential marginal increase in student attendance in the SLCUSD’s schools as a result of the project. These fees would be directed towards maintaining sufficient service levels, which include incremental increases in school capacities. The proposed project would not induce unplanned population growth because employees are likely to come from the local workforce and the customer base would not affect enrollment at local schools. Through participation in the existing fee program, potential project impacts on schools would be less than significant. Parks: Proposed development of a new hotel may result in an incremental increase of demand on local parks and recreational facilities in the area. Although employees are likely to come from the local workforce, customers at the new hotel facility may visit local parks and recreational facilities. The project would not induce unplanned population growth and is not expected to result in a significant increase in demand on local parks and recreational facilities. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan designation, AASP, and zoning designation; any indirect population growth resulting from the project would be consistent with the projected population growth for the city. Therefore, potential project impacts on parks would be less than significant. Other public facilities: The project would not induce unplanned population growth and would result in a negligible effect on use of other public facilities, such as roadways and public libraries. The project would be subject to the City’s standard development fees, which would offset the project’s marginal contribution to increased use of City facilities. Therefore, potential project impacts on public facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are not required. Conclusion The project would not induce unplanned population growth because employees are likely to come from the local workforce. Operation of the project may result in a marginal cumulative increase in demand on City services and facilities, including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreational facilities, and other public facilities; however, construction of new facilities is not anticipated to be required. The project would be subject to required developer impact fees established to address direct demand for new facilities associated with new development. Potential increases in property tax revenue associated with valuation of the new businesses and other revenues (e.g., sales tax) would also help offset the increased ongoing cost of provision of public services to new commercial uses. The project would not result in significant impacts to public services; therefore, mitigation measures are not required. Page 610 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 61 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 16. RECREATION Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1, 44, 45 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 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? 1, 44, 45 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation Existing City recreational facilities consist of 28 parks and recreational facilities, in addition to 10 designated natural resources and open space areas and two bike trails. The City’s Recreation Element identifies goals, policies, and programs to help plan, develop, and maintain community parks and recreation facilities. The City’s statement of overall department goals is for the City Parks and Recreation facilities and programs to enable all citizens to participate in fun, healthful, or enriching activities, which enhance the quality of life in the community. As demand for recreation facilities and activities grow and change, the City intends to focus its efforts in the following areas: continued development of athletic fields and support facilities, providing parks in underserved neighborhoods, providing a multi- use community center and therapy pool, expanding paths and trails for recreational use, linking recreation facilities, and meeting the special needs of disabled persons, at-risk youth, and senior citizens. City Parks and Recreation Element Policy 3.13.1 establishes the City’s goal to develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, 5 of which shall be dedicated as neighborhood parks. a, b) Proposed development of a new hotel is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in demand on local parks and recreational facilities in the area. Employees for construction and operation of the hotel are anticipated to come from the local workforce; however, customers of the new hotel may result in a marginal increase in the use of local recreational facilities. As the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan designation and underlying zoning, any indirect population growth resulting from the project would be consistent with the projected population growth for the City. Therefore, potential project impacts associated with accelerated deterioration of existing facilities or construction of new park facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are not required. Conclusion The project would not induce unplanned population growth because employees are likely to come from the local workforce. Operation of the project may result in a marginal cumulative increase in demand on City recreational facilities; however, construction of new facilities is not anticipated to be required. The project would not result in significant impacts to recreational facilities; therefore, mitigation measures are not required. Page 611 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 62 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 17. TRANSPORTATION Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? 13, 46 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? 1, 13, 46, 54, 57 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1, 24, 46 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 24, 46 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation This evaluation is based, in part, on the Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project prepared by W-Trans in May 2020 (included as Attachment 7.1), the 950 Aero Hotel VMT Analysis prepared by GHD in December 2020 (included as Attachment 7.2), the Recommended Transportation Demand Measures prepared for the 950 Aero SLO Hotel Project by GHD in December 2020 (included as Attachment 7.3), and the Automobile Trip Reduction Plan prepared for the SLO Airport Hotel Project by Arris Studio Architects in February 2020 (included as Attachment 7.4). The City’s Circulation Element identifies current traffic levels and delays of public roadways and identifies transportation goals and policies to guide development and express the community’s preferences for current and future conditions. Goals included in the plan include, but are not limited to, maintaining accessibility and protecting the environment throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles; reducing use of cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and carpooling; promoting the safe operation of all modes of transportation; and widening and extending streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the projects would cause no significant, long-term environmental problems. Level of Service (LOS) is a term used to describe the operating conditions of an intersection or roadway based on factors such as speed, travel time, queuing time, and safety. LOS designations range between A and F, with A representing the best operating conditions and F the worst. The City’s Circulation Element establishes the minimum acceptable LOS standard for vehicles in the downtown area of the city as LOS E and LOS D for all other areas and states any degradation of the LOS below these standards shall be interpreted as transportation operations deficiency under local policy thresholds. While LOS deficiencies are evaluated for local policy conformity, LOS or other measures of automobile congestion/delay are not applied when evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. The City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan outlines the City’s official policies for the design and development of bikeways within the city and in adjoining territory under County of San Luis Obispo jurisdiction but within the City’s Urban Reserve and includes specific objectives for reducing vehicle use and promoting other modes of transportation. A Class I bike path provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflow by motorists minimized. A Class II bike lane provides an on-street striped lane for one-way bicycle travel on the side of the street adjacent to vehicle traffic. In 2013, SB 743 was signed into law with the intent to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions” and required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within CEQA. As a result, in December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted updates to the State CEQA Guidelines. The revisions included new requirements related to the implementation of SB 743 and identified VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and net VMT as new metrics for transportation Page 612 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 63 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 analysis under CEQA (as detailed in Section 15064.3[b]). In June 2020, the City formally adopted the transition from LOS to VMT for the purposes of CEQA evaluation and also establish local VMT thresholds of significance. The project site would be accessed by Aero Drive, a two-way local roadway that, in combination with Aerovista Place, provides a two-lane loop surrounding the project site and buildings north of the project site, with both the northern and southern termini ending at an intersection with Broad Street. At the project site, the City’s Circulation Element designates Aero Drive as LOS A. LOS A streets are characterized as free-flow travel with excellent level of comfort and convenience. Based on the City’s Traffic County & Speed Surveys Map, the average daily motor vehicle trip volume (ADT) on Aero Drive west of Broad Street is 2,193. Average daily pedestrian volume is six trips, and average daily bicycle volume is seven trips. On Broad Street adjacent to the project site, ADT volume is 19,739, average daily pedestrian volume is 19, and 63 trips for bicycles. On Broad Street southeast of the project site, ADT volume is 18,239 trips for motor vehicles, eight trips for pedestrians, and 54 trips for bicycles. All roadways in the immediate project vicinity have curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and on-street parking. Broad Street in the project vicinity is a north–south roadway designated as a Highway (Highway 227) and provides two lanes of travel in each direction with a center turn lane. The northern intersection of Broad Street and Aerovista Place is a three-way intersection with stop sign control for drivers on Aerovista Place turning onto Broad Street. A dedicated left-turn lane is provided on northbound Broad Street. The southern intersection of Broad Street and Aero Drive is a signalized four-legged intersection that serves as the primary access to the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport terminal. Broad Street has designated Class II bike lanes in both directions. a) The project proposes infill development in the AASP area of the city, in an area surrounded by commercial office and building uses. The project site would be accessed by a new driveway off Aero Drive. The project would be consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the City’s Circulation Element regarding traffic congestion reduction through compliance with City Zoning Regulations requiring provision of secure bicycle storage, showers, and locker and changing room facilities to encourage project employees to use alternative modes of transportation. The project would also be required to reduce traffic congestion by providing guests with alternative modes of transportation such as a shuttle or rideshare service. The project site is located within immediate proximity of Class II bicycle lanes on Broad Street, as identified in the City’s Active Transportation Plan. The project would require the payment of the City’s standard Traffic Impact Fees (TIF). The project does not include any changes to the land use or zoning designation, or associated development standards as identified in the AASP, and is consistent with the AASP Certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Therefore, with the payment of standard TIFs, project impacts associated with conflicts with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transportation facilities would be less than significant. b) VMT is disclosed and assessed in comparison to citywide and countywide averages. Based on the Draft 2016 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Update, total VMT in San Luis Obispo County in 2016 was approximately 8.3 million; VMT in the city in 2016 was approximately 0.5 million. As reported by the City’s Traffic Demand Model, the forecasted 2035 Daily VMT is approximately 12 million miles for the region and approximately 1.5 million miles for the City’s sphere of influence. The average VMT per household is 80 for the region and 54 for the City’s sphere of influence. According to VMT analysis conducted by GHD for the proposed project, the project would result in a net increase of 393 VMT, constituting a 0.005% increase. This increase in traffic generated by the proposed project would exceed the City’s adopted VMT thresholds by the equivalent of approximately 48 daily auto trips, resulting in a significant impact. According to the Multimodal Transportation Impact Study prepared for the project (W-Trans 2020), the project is expected to generate an average of 1,822 daily trips. Based on an assessment of trip lengths from the project’s traffic analysis zone within the model it is estimated the average project trip length is approximately 8.3 miles. Therefore, approximately 48 project trips are contributing to the net increase in regional VMT. The project will need to implement transportation demand management (TDM) measures to reduce VMT by 393 or approximately 48 daily trips (3% reduction). Mitigation Measures TR-1 and TR-2 have been included to ensure the project does not result in a net increase in regional VMT. As described in the Recommended Transportation Demand Measures document prepared for the proposed project, the TDM measures would result in a VMT reduction of 4.93%. Further, through compliance with City Zoning Regulations requiring provision of secure bicycle storage, showers, and locker and changing room facilities to encourage project employees to use alternative modes of transportation, as well as being within immediate proximity of the Class II bicycle lane on Broad Street, the project would promote alternate modes of travels that would further reduce VMT. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the standards set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section15064.3(b) and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Page 613 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 64 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 c) During construction, the project would result in periodic access restrictions along road shoulders and parking areas along Aero Drive. Periodic closures of road shoulders and parking areas and the use and transport of construction vehicles and equipment would not substantially affect local traffic on Aero Drive. The project proposes a driveway entrance on a straight segment of Aero Drive that does not contain dangerous curves, short sight distance, or other dangerous design features. The driveway would be designed in accordance with the City’s Public Works safety design standards, including the use of red “no parking” curb paint on either side of the driveway entrance to allow for safe turning movements and provide motorists an adequate line of sight from the driveway. The project will be reviewed by the Transportation and Engineering Divisions prior to approval of any building permits. Therefore, project impacts associated with increased hazards due to a geometric design feature would be less than significant. d) The project has been designed to comply with the State and City Fire Codes and would be subject to review by the City Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access has been provided. Therefore, potential impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures TR-1 Trip Reduction Coordinator. The project applicant shall identify a Trip Reduction Coordinator to act as the contact person for the City of San Luis Obispo and SLO Regional Rideshare. The Coordinator shall be responsible for: 1. Implementing an annual vehicle trip survey (can be administered through SLO Regional Rideshare.) 2. Preparing an annual report, subject to the City’s review and approval, on the program’s effectiveness and recommendations for revisions if needed to improve the program’s effectiveness. 3. Providing quarterly information (electronically or hard copy) regarding area transportation services and City and County transit passes. 4. Coordinating employee transportation board meetings. 5. Coordinator will be responsible for establishing the Back ‘N’ Forth Club (for employees sponsored by Rideshare for the complex at a minimum of the Silver level). TR-2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures shall be implemented to reduce the project’s trip generation by at least 3% and may include, but are not limited to, the measures identified in GHG-1 and the following measures: 1. Shuttle Service. The hotel shall offer a shuttle service to the airport terminal and downtown as requested by the guests. The hotel will also coordinate with local wine tours to encourage guests interested in wine tasting to utilize communal travel options rather than individual vehicles. 2. Community Transportation Board. A group of managers and employees, including the Trip Reduction Coordinator who meets to discuss and implement new ways to encourage employees and guests to participate in the community’s alternative transportation programs. 3. Shared Automobile. On-site accommodations will be made available for a communal short-term rental car to enable guests to utilize a shared vehicle for short errands and other related needs. It is estimated that utilizing a car-sharing program alone will offset up to 10 required parking spaces. One company that offers this service is Zipcar. Information on their services can be found on their website (https://www.zipcar.com/) or similar. 4. Bicycle Repair Station. A convenient station equipped with all of the tools necessary for employees to perform basic bike repairs and maintenance. 5. Long-term Bicycle Parking. The project shall provide adequate, secure long-term bicycle parking for employees. 6. Showers and Locker Facilities. The hotel will include shower and locker facilities for employees that bike to work. 7. Shared Bicycles for Guests. The hotel will own and maintain bicycles available for guests to use to as an alternative to using vehicles. 8. SLO Rideshare Back ‘N’ Forth Club. The project shall participate in the SLO Rideshare Back ‘N’ Forth Club. 9. Transit Passes. The project shall provide free or discounted transit passes to employees. Page 614 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 65 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 10. Information Packets. Introductory packets, in either electronic or hardcopy form, for new employees with information pertaining to the car-sharing program, bicycle parking, bicycle repair station and a map showing the nearby bus stops. 11. Information Sharing. Management will distribute emails to keep the employees informed of activities. These emails will include up-to-date facts on car sharing availability, bicycle parking locations, alternative transportation programs and transit schedules. These emails will also include maps showing walking and bicycle routes to nearby retail, dining, and service locations. These emails will be distributed to all residents. Conclusion The project would result in a net increase in trips and VMT and would exceed the City’s established thresholds for VMT; therefore, the project would be inconsistent with the City’s Circulation Element and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) regarding VMT. Mitigation has been included to ensure payment of appropriate TIF fees and implementation of Transportation Demand Management measures to reduce VMT by at least 3%. The project would be required to meet City Public Works safety design standards and would maintain adequate emergency access. Therefore, potential impacts associated with transportation would be less than significant with mitigation. 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? 3 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 3 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ Evaluation Approved in 2014, AB 52 added tribal cultural resources to the categories of resources that must be evaluated under CEQA. Tribal cultural resources are defined as either of the following: 1) Sites, features, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following: a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1. 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. Recognizing that tribes have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices, AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if they have requested notice of projects proposed within that area. If the tribe requests consultation within 30 days upon receipt of the notice, the lead Page 615 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 66 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 agency must consult with the tribe regarding the potential for adverse impacts on tribal cultural resources as a result of a project. Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, the presence and/or significance of tribal cultural resources, the level of significance of a project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and available project alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe to avoid or lessen potential impacts on tribal cultural resources. Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with State and City regulations under AB 52. As of January 18, 2021, the City has received one response from Patti Dunton of the Salinas Tribe of San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties. a,b) The City has provided notice of the opportunity to consult to appropriate tribes per the requirements of AB 52 and received one response from Patti Dunton of the Salinas Tribe of San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties, as of January 18, 2021. Ms. Dunton submitted a response via email on January 11, 2021, requesting mitigation measures be included for the project so that, if any resources are unearthed, all work in the area shall stop until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and if any human remains are unearthed, all work shall stop, and state laws shall be adhered to. The project site does not contain any known tribal cultural resources that have been listed or been found eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1. Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3 have been identified to require cultural resource awareness training, and cessation of work if a discovery is made until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. Therefore, impacts related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resource would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3. Conclusion With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on tribal cultural resources. 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? 47, 50, 51 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? 49, 50 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) 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? 47, 50, 57 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? 48, 49, 50 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 3, 49, 50 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Page 616 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 67 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Evaluation The City’s Utilities Department is the sole water provider within the city, provides potable and recycled water to the community, and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) treats all of the wastewater from the city, Cal Poly, and the airport. The facility treats 4.5 million gallons of wastewater per day. The WRRF manages and treats wastewater in accordance with standards established by the SWRCB to remove solids, reduce the amount of nutrients, and eliminate bacteria in treated wastewater. A portion of the treated water is recycled for irrigation use within the city and the remaining flow is discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek. Water service for the project would be provided by the City’s Utilities Department and the project would be served by the City’s sewer system. The project site has existing utility infrastructure on-site, including a storm drain line, a storm drain manhole, a storm drain catch basin, a sewer line located off of Broad Street, a sewer cleanout, a water line, a recycled water line, a water valve, a fire hydrant, a water meter, an electrical line, and a gas line. a) The project includes the installation of new water, wastewater, stormwater, and energy extensions and connections to City infrastructure. Necessary connections would be along the property site frontage and would not require off-site utility extensions or improvements. These components have been evaluated for their potential to result in adverse environmental effects throughout this document. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, BIO-1 through BIO-3, CR-1 through CR-3, GHG-1, and TR-1 and TR-2 would reduce potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from installation and establishment of new utility connections associated with air quality, biological resources, and cultural resources to a less- than-significant level. Therefore, potential environmental impacts associated with construction of utility connections would be less than significant with mitigation. b) The project would require an estimated 87.72 acre-feet of water per year during operation for the interior uses and landscape watering. Per the City’s Water and Wastewater Management Element, Policy A2.2.1, the City has four primary water supply sources, including Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water. Groundwater serves as a fifth supplemental source. The City’s diversification of water sources in the last several decades has allowed the City to maintain sufficient water supplies even following the driest years on record. The total water available for the City in the 2020 water year (October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020) was 10,107 AFY, which included 215 AFY of recycled water. As this availability was adjusted following years of drought and updates to the City’s safe annual yield model, the availability is considered a reasonable long-term safe yield value for the purposes of this analysis. The City’s water demand for 2020 was 4,730 AF. Therefore, based on the project’s consistency with the General Plan and AASP, and the City’s current and projected water availability to serve the project, potential impacts associated with having sufficient water supplies during normal, dry, and multiple dry years would be less than significant. c) The project would be served by the City’s wastewater system and would include the installation of a new wastewater pipe to connect to existing City wastewater infrastructure along Broad Street. Estimated average dry weather flow would be 14,280 gallons per day. Thus, the project would result in an incremental increase in demand on the City’s WRRF and wastewater conveyance infrastructure. The project is consistent with the general level of growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan and AASP and would be required to pay standard development impact fees to offset the project’s incremental contribution to demand on the City’s WRRF. Therefore, impacts associated with the wastewater treatment provider’s capacity to serve the project’s wastewater needs would be less than significant. d) Based on the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the project would result in the generation of approximately 408 pounds of solid waste per day (Table 9). Table 9. Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation Use Generation Rate Project Pounds Solid Waste Per Day Hotel 2 lbs/room/day 204 rooms 408 Total 408 Page 617 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 68 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Project construction and operational solid waste materials would likely be disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill. The Cold Canyon Landfill has approximately 14,500,000 cy of remaining capacity as of March 2020, with a maximum daily permitted intake capacity of 1,650 tons per day. Based on these capacities, the Cold Canyon Landfill is expected to remain operational though at least 2040. Therefore, potential impacts related to solid waste reduction goals and capacity would be less than significant. e) 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. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project, consistent with the City’s COSE policies to coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3), and the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services, recycling facilities have been incorporated into the project design and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials is a submittal requirement with the building permit application. Therefore, the project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, BIO-1 through BIO-3, CR-1 through CR-3, GHG-1, and TR-1 and TR-2. Conclusion With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the project’s potential impacts associated with utilities and service systems would be less than significant. 20. WILDFIRE If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1, 24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? 1, 24, 52 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? 1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? 1, 24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation Urban fire hazards result from the materials, size, and spacing of buildings, and from the materials, equipment, and activities they contain. Additional factors include access, available water volume and pressure, and response time for fire fighters. Based on the City Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the risk of wildland fires is greatest near the City limits where development meets rural areas of combustible vegetation. Most of the community is within one mile of a designated High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, which indicates significant risk to wildland fire. Page 618 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 69 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 The City’s Safety Element identifies four policies to address the potential hazards associated with wildfire, including approving development only when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available, classification of wildland fire hazard severity zones as prescribed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), prohibition of new subdivisions located within “Very High” wildland fire hazard severity zones, and continuation of enhancement of fire safety and construction codes for buildings. a) Implementation of the project would not result in a significant temporary or permanent impact to any adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. No breaks in utility service would occur as a result of project implementation. During operation, the project would result in an increase in the number of employees in the AASP and, therefore, would result in an increase in the number of evacuees traveling on evacuation routes such as Broad Street (Highway 227) and U.S. 101. This increase would be marginal and would not result in substantial impairment of the applicable evacuation plans and/or routes; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. b) The project site is located in a developing area of the city. The project site is currently unimproved and requires routine mowing to prevent the growth of brush that could result in a fire hazard to adjacent properties. The project would not substantially change the existing topography of the project site. The project would result in the conversion of the existing undeveloped site into a fully developed site comprised of a hotel with surface parking and ornamental landscaping, which would reduce wildfire fuels on-site and may marginally reduce the potential for fire hazard in the immediate project vicinity. The project would be required to meet all applicable standards for fire prevention pursuant to the CBC and California Fire Code. For instance, the project would include the installation of a new fire hydrant and fire department connection as well as additional an additional water line. A fire sprinkler system would also be installed within the building. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to substantial pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Potential impacts would be less than significant. c) The project includes the installation of new water, emergency water, wastewater, stormwater, and energy extensions and connections to City infrastructure. These proposed infrastructure components would occur within an urbanized area and would be required to be installed in full compliance with applicable CBC and California Fire Code regulations. As discussed above, construction of this infrastructure would not result in substantial temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment. Therefore, potential impacts associated with exacerbation of fire risk or environmental impacts from installation of new infrastructure would be less than significant. d) The project site is generally flat and is not located near slopes or other areas subject to downstream flooding or landslides. The project does not include any design elements that would expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are not required. Conclusion The project would not expose people or structures to new or exacerbated wildfire risks and would not require the development of new or expanded infrastructure or maintenance to reduce wildfire risks. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wildfire would be less than significant and mitigation measures are not required. Page 619 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 70 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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? 1, 2, 15, 16, 18, 25 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ The project is proposed in the developing AASP area of the city of San Luis Obispo and the project vicinity generally contains low habitat value for protected plant and animal species. Although the project site is unimproved, it is routinely mowed for fire protection, as required by the City. An ephemeral drainage and associated wetland habitat are located in the southwestern portion of the project area and would be avoided and protected by a 35-foot setback during project construction and operation. There is potential for special-status plant and animal species to occur on-site and mitigation measures have been incorporated to avoid and minimize potential impacts to these resources. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 have been identified to avoid potential impacts to CRLF and VPFS should they occur within the ephemeral drainage and Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been identified to avoid impacts to migratory nesting birds if construction activities occur during the typical nesting season. There are no known historic or prehistoric resources within the project site and Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3 would reduce potential inadvertent discovery of these resources to less than significant. With implementation of identified mitigation measures and standard requirements, the project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially 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. Potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? N/A ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ The project proposes the development of a hotel facility that is consistent with the AASP land use designation and the project site’s BP zoning. The AASP area would continue to be developed in accordance with the allowable development permitted in the AASP. When project impacts are considered in combination with other reasonably foreseeable impacts, the project’s potential cumulative impacts may be significant. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce project-related impacts to a less-than- significant level. With the implementation of identified project-specific mitigation measures and payment of the City’s standard Development Impact Fees, the individual effects of the project would be marginal and cumulative effects of the project would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Page 620 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 71 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? N/A ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ The project has the potential to result in significant impacts associated with air quality that, if left unmitigated, could result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Standard mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these potential impacts to less than significant, including, but not limited to, standard idling restrictions, dust control measures, implementation of BMPs, and compliance with the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations to avoid impacts related to naturally occurring asbestos. With incorporation of identified project-specific mitigation and the payment of the City’s standard Development Impact Fees, potential environmental effects of the project would not directly or indirectly result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Page 621 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 72 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 22. 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. The potential environmental effects of developing the project site with uses consistent with the BP zoning designation were previously evaluated in the Certified EIR for the AASP (SCH # 2000051062), which was certified by the City Council in September 2003. The Certified EIR is available on the city’s Community Development Department website at: <https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-online/environmental- review-documents/-folder-719> 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. In general, the Certified EIR adequately analyzed the environmental effects of developing the project site with uses permitted under the BP zoning designation. Section 15152 of the State CEQA Guidelines allows the Lead Agency to “tier” the environmental analysis for separate but related projects. Per Section 15152(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, tiering “can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy, or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or program of lesser scope, or to a site-specific EIR or negative declaration.” Per Section 15152(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, tiering “shall be limited to situations where the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning of the city or county in which the project is located, except that a project requiring a rezone to achieve or maintain conformity with a general plan may be subject to tiering.” The preparation of a Tiered Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for this project, which is consistent with the general plan and zoning, may have been appropriate, except that the existing baseline conditions, regulatory requirements and standard of analysis under CEQA, regulatory planning documents, and standards of mitigation have been improved considerably since the EIR was certified in September 2003. For example, in September 2003, CEQA did not require the evaluation of GHG emissions, energy consumption, VMT, tribal cultural resources, or wildfires. Many of the mitigation requirements listed in the AASP would need to be updated to meet more stringent and performance-oriented standards since the Certified EIR. Further, the existing setting and background conditions within the AASP have changed meaningfully since the AASP EIR was certified. As a result, this IS/MND incorporated information and findings from the Certified EIR where appropriate, but also evaluated the project’s potential environmental impacts at the project level, with project-specific mitigation measures. 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. As discussed above, project-specific mitigation measures have been developed for the project to address a more stringent regulatory environment and more complex analysis methodology. All project-specific mitigation measures recommended in this IS/MND are consistent with and build upon the programmatic mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR. 23. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Planning Solutions. 2020. San Luis Obispo Hotel Project Statement. 2. AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting. 2020. Technical Memorandum for the San Luis Obispo Airport Hotels Project. 3. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation & Open Space Element (COSE), 2006. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6651>. Page 622 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 73 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 4. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104>. 5. California Scenic Highways, February 2017. Available at: <https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=f0259b1ad0fe4093a5604c9b838a486a >. 6. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, May 2019. Available at: <https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code>. 7. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2016. Available at: <https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/>. 8. City of San Luis Obispo Interactive Parcel Viewer, March 2020. Available at: <http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3e0adee3aabd4805bd13f0d4705a4193>. 9. California Air Resources Board Area Designation Maps / State and National, December 2018. Available at: <https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm>. 10. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Board Naturally Occurring Asbestos Mapping Tool, March 2020. Available at: <https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1YAKjBzVkwi1bZ4rQ1p6b2OMyvIM&ll=35.3649868053637 56%2C-120.52563349999997&z=10>. 11. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 2012. Available at: <https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair- org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v2%20%28Updated%20Map2019%29_LinkedwithMemo.pd f>. 12. San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan, December 2001. Available at: <https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair- org/images/cms/upload/files/business/pdf/CAP.pdf>. 13. City of San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan, 2021. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=29123>. 14. Clarification Memorandum for the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 2017. Available at: <https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair- org/images/cms/upload/files/FINAL_Clarification%20Memorandum%2020172.pdf>. 15. Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, California Air Resources Board, 2015. Available at: < https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/asb2atcm.htm>. 16. San Luis Obispo Heritage Trees Map, 2019. Available at: <http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Solutions/s2.html?appid=74e2e5bf9e534eaabf95b0917da8bbc7>. 17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Map, 2020. Available at: <https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html>. 18. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, 2019. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5861>. 19. County of San Luis Obispo Cultural Resource Maps, 2019. 20. City of San Luis Obispo Website Community Choice Energy; Accessed March 3, 2020. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-administration/sustainability/community-choice- energy>. 21. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, June 2020. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=27835>. 22. California Building Code, 2019. Available at: < https://up.codes/viewer/california/ibc-2018>. Page 623 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 74 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 23. California Department of Conservation Fault Activity Map of California, 2010. Available at: <https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/>. 24. City of San Luis Obispo Safety Element, 2014. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6645>. 25. Areas of Land Subsidence in California, USGS, Accessed March 2020. Available at: <https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html>. 26. NRCS Web Soil Survey, 2020. Available at: <https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx>. 27. Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California, 2004. Available at: < https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71738.htm>. 28. Paleontological Resource Assessment for the California Flats Solar Project, Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, California, 2013. Available at: <https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=48222>. 29. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Accessed March 2, 2020. Available at: <https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. 30. State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Accessed March 2, 2020. Available at: <https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/>. 31. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources Accessed March 2, 2020. Available at: <https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/> 32. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan, May 2005. Available at: <https://www.sloairport.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/ALUP_TXT.pdf>. 33. City of San Luis Obispo Flood Preparedness Map, 2019. Available at: <http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=e790e7eb2923499b9ddc91126d6376e0>. 34. SGMA Groundwater Management, California Department of Water Resources Webpage, 2019. Available at: <https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management>. 35. San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin, County of San Luis Obispo Webpage, 2019. Available at: <https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Committees-Programs/Sustainable-Groundwater- Management-Act-(SGMA)/San-Luis-Obispo-Valley-Groundwater-Basin.aspx>. 36. Department of Conservation (DOC) Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Port San Luis Quadrangle, 2009. Available at: <https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/San-Luis-Obispo>. 37. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin, 2019. Available at: <https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/amendment/draft_resol_ attch_a_basin_plan_edits_only.pdf >. 38. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, 1996. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6643>. 39. Construction Noise Handbook: Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges, Federal Highway Administration, September 2017. Available at: <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook00.cfm>. 40. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA). September 2018. Available at: <https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration- impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf>. 41. Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). September 2013. Available at: <http://website.dot.ca.gov/env/noise/docs/tcvgm-sep2013.pdf>. Page 624 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 75 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 42. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Annual Report, 2019. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=27646>. 43. City of San Luis Obispo 2020-2028 General Plan Housing Element, November 2020. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=28839>. 44. Community Development Department Development Impact Fees, 2018. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=20198>. 45. City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element, 2001. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6647>. 46. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, October 2017. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=20412> 47. Wastewater Treatment, City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department Webpage, Accessed March 2020. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/wastewater/wastewater-treatment>. 48. SWIS Facility Detail Cold Canyon Landfill, Inc., California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, Accessed March 5, 2020. Available at: <https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/40-AA- 0004/Detail/>. 49. 2014. City of San Luis Obispo. 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update Draft Program EIR. Table 4.16‐7 Proposed Land Use Element Development Wastewater Generation. 50. 2020 Water Resources Status Report, City of San Luis Obispo Water Division, 2020. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=29191>. 51. 2015. City of San Luis Obispo. Final Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan, Table 4‐2. Existing Water Demand Factors. 52. 2019. City of San Luis Obispo. Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Accessed March 3, 2020. Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=23872. 53. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf 54. GHD. 2020. 950 Aero Hotel VMT Analysis. 55. Terra Verde Environmental Consulting. 2020. Biological Constraints Memorandum for a Proposed Project at 950 and 990 Aero Drive, San Luis Obispo, California. 56. Terra Verde Environmental Consulting. 2020. Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report for the Aero Drive Hotel Project at 950 and 990 Aero Drive, San Luis Obispo, California. 57. W-Trans. 2020. Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project. 58. Heritage Discoveries Inc. An Archaeological Survey for the Airport Hotel Project, 950 & 990 Aero Drive, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. March 16, 2007. 59. City of San Luis Obispo, Wastewater Generation Rates Per Use. Available at: Wastewater Flow Offset Program | City of San Luis Obispo, CA (slocity.org) Page 625 of 1221 Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0650-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 76 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Attachments 1. Arris Studio Architects, SLO Airport Hotel Design Plans (May 2020) 2. AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, Emissions Modelling Report (January 2021) 3. Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, Biological Constraints Memorandum (February 2020) 4. Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report (February 2020) 5. Heritage Discoveries Inc., Archaeological Survey for the Airport Hotel Project (March 2007) 6. LEED Project Checklist (February 2020) 7.1. W-Trans, Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project (May 2020) 7.2. GHD, 950 Aero Hotel VMT Analysis (December 2020) 7.3. GHD, 950 Aero SLO Hotel Project Recommended Transportation Demand Measures (December 2020) 7.4. Arris Studio Architects, 790 Foothill – Automobile Trip Reduction Plan (February 2020) Page 626 of 1221 Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs ER # EID-0055-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 77 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Air Quality AQ-1 During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On- and Off-Road Equipment a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors if feasible; b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted; c. Use of alternative fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and enforced at the construction site. 2. California Diesel Idling Regulations. 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: a. 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, b. 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 a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5-minute idling limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf. AQ-2 During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate matter control measures and detail each measure on the project grading and building plans: 1. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. 2. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work. 3. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD. 7. 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 or soil binders are used. 8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. 9. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. Page 627 of 1221 Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs ER # EID-0055-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 78 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 10. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. 11. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. 12. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. 13. 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 SLOAPCD 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 SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition. 13.14. All off-road construction equipment shall be Tier 3 or higher. AQ-3 Prior to initiation of demolition/construction activities, the applicant shall retain a registered geologist to conduct a geologic evaluation of the property including sampling and testing for naturally occurring asbestos in full compliance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105) and SLOAPCD requirements. This geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department upon completion. If the geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have the potential to disturb naturally occurring asbestos (NOA), the applicant must file an Asbestos ATCM exemption request with the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). AQ-4 If naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) are determined to be present on-site, proposed earthwork and construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Asbestos Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 Code of Federal Regulations 61, Subpart M – Asbestos; NESHAP). These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD); 2. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and, 3. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified NOA. AQ-5 Asbestos Material in Demolition. Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos-containing material (ACM). ACMs could be encountered during demolition or remodeling of existing buildings. Asbestos can also be found in utility pipes/pipelines (transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If utility pipelines are scheduled for removal or relocation or a building(s) is proposed to be removed or renovated, various regulatory requirements may apply, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include but are not limited to: (1) notification to the APCD; (2) an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector; and (3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on asbestos can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php. Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The applicant shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 to the City Community Development Department upon completion. Biological Resources BIO-1 The following measures shall be implemented prior to and during construction to avoid potential direct mortality and loss of California red-legged frogs: Page 628 of 1221 Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs ER # EID-0055-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 79 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 1. Prior to the initial site investigation and subsequent ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist will instruct all project personnel in worker awareness training, including recognition of California red-legged frogs and their habitat. 2. A qualified biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys within the project area no earlier than 2 days before ground-disturbing activities. 3. No activities shall occur after October 15 or the onset of the rainy season, whichever occurs first, until May 1, except for during periods greater than 72 hours without precipitation. Activities can only resume after site inspection by a qualified biologist. The rainy season is defined as a frontal system that results in depositing 0.25 inches or more of precipitation in one event. 4. Vehicles to and from the project site will be confined to existing roadways to minimize disturbance of habitat. 5. Prior to movement of a backhoe in the project area, a qualified biologist will make sure the route is clear of California red-legged frogs. 6. If a California red-legged frog is encountered during excavations, or any project activities, activities will cease until the frog is removed and relocated by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved biologist. Any incidental take will be reported to the USFWS immediately by telephone at (916) 414-6600. BIO-2 The following measures shall be implemented prior to and during construction to avoid impacts to hydrological resources located within and in the vicinity of the project site: 1. The limits of all work areas shall be clearly delineated in the field during construction and personnel shall be informed of the need to avoid impacts to jurisdictional aquatic features (i.e., waters and wetlands). 2. For short-term, temporary stabilization, an erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be developed outlining Best Management Practices (BMPs) and implemented to prevent erosion and sedimentation into the channel during construction. Acceptable stabilization methods include the use of weed-free, natural fiber (i.e., non-monofilament) fiber rolls, jute or coir netting, and/or other industry standards. BMPs shall be installed and maintained for the duration of the construction period. 3. The mapped limits of jurisdictional areas shall be clearly shown on all site plans and flagged prior to the start of any construction activity within 50 feet of the limits of the drainage. 4. All equipment and materials shall be stored a minimum of 35 feet from the edge of the drainage at the end of each working day, and secondary containment shall be used to prevent leaks and spills of potential contaminants from entering the drainage. 5. During construction, washing of concrete, paint, or equipment and refueling and maintenance of equipment shall occur only in designated areas a minimum of 35 feet from all drainages and aquatic features. Sandbags and/or sorbent pads shall be available to prevent any fluid releases from entering the drainage. 6. Construction equipment shall be inspected by the operator on a daily basis to ensure that equipment is in good working order and no fuel or lubricant leaks are present. 7. Where feasible, the project shall incorporate low impact development (LID) features, including bioswales and permeable pavers, into the overall site design to retain runoff on site and avoid increased surface runoff into the drainage. 8. Where feasible, the project shall incorporate vegetated buffers, bioswales, and/or rain gardens on the drainage side of the development. 9. The use of landscaping plants that are known or have potential to become invasive shall be prohibited. BIO-3 If any ground disturbance will occur during the nesting bird season (February 1–September 15), prior to any ground- disturbing activity, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 1 week prior to the start of activities. If nesting birds are located on or near the project site, they shall be avoided until they have successfully fledged, or the nest is no longer deemed active. A non-disturbance buffer of 50 feet will be implemented for non-listed, passerine species and a 250-foot buffer will be implemented for raptor species. No construction activities will be permitted within established nesting bird buffers until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or that proposed construction activities would not cause adverse impacts to the nest, adults, eggs, or young. If special-status avian species are identified, no work shall be conducted until an appropriate buffer is determined in consultation with the City and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 629 of 1221 Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs ER # EID-0055-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 80 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Monitoring Program: The survey requirements of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-3 shall be incorporated into the project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department and verified through submittal of a botanical survey report, CRLF survey report, and preconstruction nesting bird survey report to the City Community Development Department. The City Community Development Department shall confirm that all BMPs included in BIO-2 to avoid impacts to aquatic resources are incorporated into the grading plans prior to approval. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. Cultural Resources CR-1 Prior to construction activities, a City-qualified archaeologist shall conduct cultural resource awareness training for all construction personnel including the following: 1. Review the types of archaeological artifacts that may be uncovered; 2. Provide examples of common archaeological artifacts to examine; 3. Review what makes an archaeological resource significant to archaeologists and local Native Americans; 4. Describe procedures for notifying involved or interested parties in case of a new discovery; 5. Describe reporting requirements and responsibilities of construction personnel; 6. Review procedures that shall be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries; and 7. Describe procedures that would be followed in the case of discovery of disturbed as well as intact human burials and burial-associated artifacts. CR-2 If cultural resources are encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all ground-disturbing activities within a 25-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a City- qualified archaeologist assesses the find and determines the need for further study. If the find includes Native American-affiliated materials, a local Native American tribal representative will be contacted to work in conjunction with the City-approved archaeologist to determine the need for further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria by a qualified archaeologist. If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s) as necessary, that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials. CR-3 In the event that human remains are exposed during earth disturbing activities associated with the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued, and the City Community Development Director and locally affiliated Native American representative(s) (as necessary) shall be notified. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. These requirements shall be printed on all building and grading plans. Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City shall review and approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Geology and Soils Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Page 630 of 1221 Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs ER # EID-0055-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 81 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Monitoring Program: The City Community Development Department shall confirm that all BMPs included in BIO-2 to avoid impacts to aquatic resources are incorporated into the grading plans prior to approval. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1, and AQ-2, TR-1, and TR-2 in addition to the following measure. GHG-1 A Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) shall be prepared for the proposed project and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The GGRP shall reduce annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the development by a minimum of 1,367.9 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalence (MTCO2e) per year over the operational life of the proposed project. GHG emissions may be reduced through the implementation of on-site mitigation measures, off-site mitigation measures, or through the purchase of carbon offsets. It is recommended that the GGRP incorporate GHG-reduction measures identified in the City of San Luis Obispo’s CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist, Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist for New Development, as listed below. In the event that carbon offsets are required, carbon offsets shall be purchased from a validated/verifiable source, such as the California Climate Action Registry, and approved by City Planning staff prior to purchase. 1. The project shall be provided electricity by 3CE. 2. The project shall incorporate a pedestrian and bicycle access network that connects proposed on-site land uses to adjacent existing or planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities contiguous with the project site. 3. The project shall be designed to minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. 4. The project shall be designed to provide safe and convenient access to public transit contiguous to the project site. 5. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) reduction measures should be included to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which include but are not limited to: a. Telecommuting; b. Car sharing; c. Shuttle service; d. Carpools; e. Vanpools; f. Participation in the SLO Rideshare Back ‘N’ Forth Club; g. Transit subsidies; and h. Off-site sustainable transportation infrastructure improvements. 6. The project shall provide organic waste pick up and shall provide the appropriate on-site enclosures consistent with the provisions of the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services. Monitoring Program: Measure GHG-1 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The applicant shall submit the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) to the City Community Development Department upon completion. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and BIO-2. Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and BIO-2 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The applicant shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in measure AQ-3 to the City Community Development Department upon completion. The City Community Development Department shall confirm that all BMPs included in BIO-2 to avoid impacts to aquatic resources are incorporated into the grading plans prior to approval. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. Page 631 of 1221 Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs ER # EID-0055-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 82 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 Hydrology and Water Quality Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Monitoring Program: The City Community Development Department shall confirm that all BMPs included in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to avoid impacts to aquatic resources are incorporated into the grading plans prior to approval. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. Land Use and Planning Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3. Monitoring Program: The survey requirements of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 shall be incorporated into the project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department and verified through submittal of a botanical survey report, CRLF survey report, and preconstruction nesting bird survey report to the City Community Development Department. The City Community Development Department shall confirm that all BMPs included in BIO-2 to avoid impacts to aquatic resources are incorporated into the grading plans prior to approval. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. Transportation TR-1 Trip Reduction Coordinator. The project applicant shall identify a Trip Reduction Coordinator to act as the contact person for the City of San Luis Obispo and SLO Regional Rideshare. The Coordinator shall be responsible for: 1. Implementing an annual vehicle trip survey (can be administered through SLO Regional Rideshare.) 2. Preparing an annual report, subject to the City’s review and approval, on the program’s effectiveness and recommendations for revisions if needed to improve the program’s effectiveness. 3. Providing quarterly information (electronically or hard copy) regarding area transportation services and City and County transit passes. 4. Coordinating employee transportation board meetings. 5. Coordinator will be responsible for establishing the Back ‘N’ Forth Club (for employees sponsored by Rideshare for the complex at a minimum of the Silver level). TR-2 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures shall be implemented to reduce the project’s trip generation by at least 3% and may include, but are not limited to, the measures identified in GHG-1 and the following measures: 1. Shuttle Service. The hotel shall offer a shuttle service to the airport terminal and downtown as requested by the guests. The hotel will also coordinate with local wine tours to encourage guests interested in wine tasting to utilize communal travel options rather than individual vehicles. 2. Community Transportation Board. A group of managers and employees, including the Trip Reduction Coordinator who meets to discuss and implement new ways to encourage employees and guests to participate in the community’s alternative transportation programs. 3. Shared Automobile. On-site accommodations will be made available for a communal short-term rental car to enable guests to utilize a shared vehicle for short errands and other related needs. It is estimated that utilizing a car-sharing program alone will offset up to 10 required parking spaces. One company that offers this service is Zipcar. Information on their services can be found on their website (https://www.zipcar.com/) or similar. 4. Bicycle Repair Station. A convenient station equipped with all of the tools necessary for employees to perform basic bike repairs and maintenance. 5. Long-term Bicycle Parking. The project shall provide adequate, secure long-term bicycle parking for employees. 6. Showers and Locker Facilities. The hotel will include shower and locker facilities for employees that bike to work. 7. Shared Bicycles for Guests. The hotel will own and maintain bicycles available for guests to use to as an alternative to using vehicles. Page 632 of 1221 Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs ER # EID-0055-2020 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 83 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021 8. SLO Rideshare Back ‘N’ Forth Club. The project shall participate in the SLO Rideshare Back ‘N’ Forth Club. 9. Transit Passes. The project shall provide free or discounted transit passes to employees. 10. Information Packets. Introductory packets, in either electronic or hardcopy form, for new employees with information pertaining to the car-sharing program, bicycle parking, bicycle repair station and a map showing the nearby bus stops. 11. Information Sharing. Management will distribute emails to keep the employees informed of activities. These emails will include up-to-date facts on car sharing availability, bicycle parking locations, alternative transportation programs and transit schedules. These emails will also include maps showing walking and bicycle routes to nearby retail, dining, and service locations. These emails will be distributed to all residents. Monitoring Program: Compliance shall be verified by the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of any construction permits. Contact information for the Trip Reduction Coordinator identified in TR-1 shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department. Compliance with TDM measures identified in TR-2 shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. Tribal Cultural Resources Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3. Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City shall review and approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Utilities and Service Systems Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, BIO-1 through BIO-3, CR-1 through CR-3, GHG-1, and TR-1 and TR-2. Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The applicant shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in Mitigation Measure AQ-3 to the City Community Development Department upon completion. The survey requirements of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 shall be incorporated into the project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department and verified through submittal of a botanical survey report, CRLF survey report, and preconstruction nesting bird survey report to the City Community Development Department. The City Community Development Department shall confirm that all BMPs included in BIO-2 to avoid impacts to aquatic resources are incorporated into the grading plans prior to approval. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City shall review and approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The applicant shall submit the GGRP to the City Community Development Department upon completion. Compliance shall be verified by the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of any construction permits. Contact information for the Trip Reduction Coordinator identified in Mitigation Measure TR-1 shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department. Compliance with TDM measures identified in TR-2 shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. Page 633 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 1 SLO Airport Hotel Design Plans Page 634 of 1221 Page 635 of 1221 Page 636 of 1221 Page 637 of 1221 Page 638 of 1221 Page 639 of 1221 Page 640 of 1221 Page 641 of 1221 Page 642 of 1221 Page 643 of 1221 Page 644 of 1221 Page 645 of 1221 Page 646 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 2 Emissions Modelling Report Page 647 of 1221 612 12th Street, Suite 201 Paso Robles, CA 93446 805.226.2727 www.Ambient.Consulting P a g e | 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: January 13, 2021 To: SWCA Environmental Consultants From: Kurt Legleiter, Principal Project: San Luis Obispo Airport Hotels Project Subject: Emissions Modeling Report This memorandum provides a summary of the emissions modeling conducted for the proposed San Luis Obispo Airport Hotels Project. A summary of air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions modeling methodologies and results are provided below. Emissions modeling assumptions and output files are included as an appendix to this memorandum. AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS QUANTIFICATION METHODOLOGY Short-term Construction Short-term construction emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2, computer program. Emissions were quantified based on the default construction schedules, equipment use, and construction vehicle trips contained in the model. Off-site mobile-source emissions were adjusted to account for the SAFE vehicle rule. Emissions were quantified with and without implementation of fugitive dust control measures. For informational purposes, emissions were also quantified assuming the use of newer Tier 3 off-road construction equipment. Emissions associated with the application of architectural coatings assumes the use of low-VOC content (50 g/L, or less) architectural paints. To be conservative, estimated highest daily construction emissions assume that building construction, paving, and architectural coating application could potentially occur on the same day. Construction emissions modeling assumptions are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of Construction Modeling Assumptions CONSTRUCTION START DATE APRIL 2022 AMOUNT OF FILL TO BE IMPORTED/EXPORTED 8,900/10,000 CUBIC YARDS TOTAL SITE ACREAGE 5.04 ACRES TOTAL AREA TO BE PAVED 1.8 ACRES NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES 214 HOTEL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE 125,200 NUMBER OF HOTEL GUEST ROOMS 204 Long-term Operations Long-term operational emissions were also calculated using the CalEEMod computer program. Modeling was conducted based on a daily vehicle trip-generation rate of 8.36 trips/room derived from the multi-modal traffic analysis prepared for this project (W-Trans 2020).1 An average trip distance of 8.3 miles was assumed, derived from the vehicle miles traveled 1 W-Trans. May 18, 2020. Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project. Page 648 of 1221 612 12th Street, Suite 201 Paso Robles, CA 93446 805.226.2727 www.Ambient.Consulting P a g e | 2 (VMT) analysis prepared for the project (GHD 2020).2 Mobile-source emissions were adjusted to account for the SAFE vehicle rule and incorporation of proposed on-site pedestrian improvements. Mobile-source emissions were quantified with and without incorporation of the proposed Transportation Demand Management program, which would result in an estimated reduction of approximately 48 daily trips, which equates to an estimated trip reduction of 3%. The CalEEMod computer program is based on the 2016 building and energy-efficiency standards. These standards were most recently updated in 2018, which took effect January 2019. In comparison to the 2016 standards, these newer standards are projected to achieve additional reductions in energy use of approximately 30 percent for nonresidential buildings (CEC 2018).3 Anticipated reductions in energy use associated with the newer building code are predominantly associated with increases in energy-efficient lighting requirements. The use of water-efficient irrigation systems, water- efficient building fixtures, and energy-efficient appliances is also required by the California building code. Operational emissions were quantified to include reductions in energy and water use, consistent with current building standards. Utility intensity factors were adjusted to reflect compliance with the State’s renewable portfolio standards. GHG emissions associated with exterior water use was based on the project’s estimated MAWA of 746,972 gallons/year. GHG emissions associated with solid waste assumed a waste diversion rate of 50% for opening year 2023 conditions and 75% for future year 2030 conditions. All other assumptions were based on modelled defaults from CalEEMod. Estimated operational GHG emissions for year 2030 conditions, per service population (SP), were calculated based on an average of 25 employees for comparison to the City’s GHG threshold of significance. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS MODELING RESULTS Short-Term Construction Construction generated emissions, without implementation of fugitive dust control measures, are summarized in Tables 1 through 3. As shown, estimated daily and quarterly construction emissions would not exceed SLOAPCD’s recommended thresholds of significance. Annual construction-generated GHG emissions are summarized in Table 4. Amortized construction-generated emissions, assuming a project life of 25 years, was also quantified in accordance with SLOAPCD-recommended guidance. Amortized construction emissions were included with total operational GHG emissions estimated for the project. Long-Term Operations Daily and annual operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and GHGs for opening year conditions are summarized in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. Annual operational emissions for future year 2030 conditions are summarized in Table 7. Operational emissions of criteria air pollutants would not exceed SLOAPCD’s recommended thresholds of significance. However, operational emissions for year 2030 would exceed the City’s GHG threshold of 0.7 MTCO2e/SP. Based on the modeling conducted for year 2030 operational conditions, the project would need to offset annual emissions of 1,367.9 MTCO2e to meet the City’s GHG threshold of 0.7 MTCO2e/SP. 2 GHD. December 2, 2020. 950 Aerio Hotel VMT Analysis. 3 California Energy Commission (CEC). May 9, 2018. Energy Commission Adopts Standards Requiring Solar Systems for New Homes, First in Nation. Available at website url: https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2018-05/energy-commission-adopts-standards-requiring-solar- systems-new-homes-first. Page 649 of 1221 612 12th Street, Suite 201 Paso Robles, CA 93446 805.226.2727 www.Ambient.Consulting P a g e | 3 TABLE 1. UNCONTROLLED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS – SUMMER CONDITIONS CONSTRUCTION PHASE CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (LBS/DAY) ROG NOX ROG+NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 FUG. EXH. TOTAL FUG. EXH. TOTAL GRADING - ONSITE 1.95 20.86 22.80 15.27 0.03 6.29 0.94 7.23 3.34 0.87 4.20 GRADING - OFFSITE 0.50 15.63 16.13 4.13 0.05 1.18 0.06 1.24 0.32 0.06 0.38 GRADING - TOTAL 2.45 36.49 38.93 19.41 0.08 7.47 1.00 8.47 3.66 0.93 4.59 BUILDING 2022 - ONSITE 1.71 15.62 17.32 16.36 0.03 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.76 0.76 BUILDING 2022 - OFFSITE 0.43 3.40 3.83 3.47 0.01 1.04 0.01 1.06 0.28 0.01 0.29 BUILDING 2022 - TOTAL 2.13 19.02 21.15 19.84 0.04 1.04 0.82 1.86 0.28 0.77 1.05 BUILDING 2023 - ONSITE 1.57 14.38 15.96 16.24 0.03 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.66 0.66 BUILDING 2023 - OFFSITE 0.39 2.83 3.21 3.15 0.01 1.04 0.01 1.05 0.28 0.01 0.29 BUILDING 2023 - TOTAL 1.96 17.21 19.17 19.40 0.04 1.04 0.71 1.75 0.28 0.67 0.95 PAVING - ONSITE 1.27 10.19 11.46 14.58 0.02 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.47 0.47 PAVING - OFFSITE 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.41 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.04 PAVING - TOTAL 1.32 10.23 11.55 14.99 0.02 0.15 0.51 0.66 0.04 0.47 0.51 ARCH COATING - ONSITE 30.99 1.30 32.30 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 ARCH COATING - OFFSITE 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.49 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.05 0.00 0.05 ARCH COATING - TOTAL 31.06 1.35 32.40 2.30 0.00 0.18 0.07 0.25 0.05 0.07 0.12 BUILDING, PAVING, ARCH COATING TOTAL: 34.51 30.60 65.11 37.13 0.07 1.37 1.41 2.77 0.37 1.32 1.68 HIGHEST DAILY EMISSIONS: 34.51 36.49 65.11 37.13 0.08 7.47 1.41 8.47 3.66 1.32 4.59 SLOAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS: 137 7 Notes: Off-site mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Does not include fugitive dust controls. Based on CalEEMod default off-road vehicle fleet. Highest daily emissions assumes arch. coating, paving, and building construction could potentially occur on the same day. Architectural coating includes the use of low-VOC content architectural paints with VOC content of 50 g/L, or less. Page 650 of 1221 612 12th Street, Suite 201 Paso Robles, CA 93446 805.226.2727 www.Ambient.Consulting P a g e | 4 TABLE 2. UNCONTROLLED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS – WINTER CONDITIONS CONSTRUCTION PHASE CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (LBS/DAY) ROG NOX ROG+NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 FUG. EXH. TOTAL FUG. EXH. TOTAL GRADING - ONSITE 1.95 20.86 22.80 15.27 0.03 6.37 0.94 7.32 3.35 0.87 4.22 GRADING - OFFSITE 0.52 15.71 16.23 4.34 0.05 1.18 0.06 1.24 0.32 0.06 0.38 GRADING - TOTAL 2.47 36.57 39.04 19.62 0.08 7.55 1.01 8.56 3.67 0.93 4.60 BUILDING 2022 - ONSITE 1.71 15.62 17.32 16.36 0.03 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.76 0.76 BUILDING 2022 - OFFSITE 0.48 3.41 3.90 3.50 0.01 1.04 0.01 1.06 0.28 0.01 0.29 BUILDING 2022 - TOTAL 2.19 19.03 21.22 19.87 0.04 1.04 0.82 1.87 0.28 0.77 1.05 BUILDING 2023 - ONSITE 1.57 14.38 15.96 16.24 0.03 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.66 0.66 BUILDING 2023 - OFFSITE 0.44 2.84 3.28 3.16 0.01 1.04 0.01 1.05 0.28 0.01 0.29 BUILDING 2023 - TOTAL 2.01 17.22 19.23 19.40 0.04 1.04 0.71 1.75 0.28 0.67 0.95 PAVING - ONSITE 1.27 10.19 11.46 14.58 0.02 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.47 0.47 PAVING - OFFSITE 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.39 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.04 PAVING - TOTAL 1.33 10.24 11.56 14.98 0.02 0.15 0.51 0.66 0.04 0.47 0.51 ARCH COATING - ONSITE 30.99 1.30 32.30 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 ARCH COATING - OFFSITE 0.07 0.05 0.13 0.47 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.05 0.00 0.05 ARCH COATING - TOTAL 31.06 1.36 32.42 2.28 0.00 0.18 0.07 0.25 0.05 0.07 0.12 BUILDING 2023, PAVING, ARCH COATING TOTAL: 34.40 28.81 63.22 36.66 0.07 1.37 1.29 2.66 0.37 1.21 1.58 HIGHEST DAILY EMISSIONS: 34.40 36.57 63.22 36.66 0.08 7.55 1.29 8.56 3.67 1.21 4.60 SLOAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS: 137 7 Notes: Off-site mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Does not include fugitive dust controls. Based on CalEEMod default off-road vehicle fleet. Highest daily emissions assumes arch. coating, paving, and building construction could potentially occur on the same day. Architectural coating includes the use of low-VOC content architectural paints with VOC content of 50 g/L, or less. Page 651 of 1221 612 12th Street, Suite 201 Paso Robles, CA 93446 805.226.2727 www.Ambient.Consulting P a g e | 5 TABLE 3. UNCONTROLLED QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS CONSTRUCTION QUARTER/ACTIVITY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (TONS/QTR) ROG NOX ROG+NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 FUG. EXH. TOTAL FUG. EXH. TOTAL 2022 Q2 (APR-JUN) GRADING 0.05 0.73 0.78 0.39 0.00 0.15 0.02 0.17 0.07 0.02 0.09 2022 Q3 (JUL-SEP) BUILDING 0.07 0.63 0.70 0.65 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.03 2022 Q4 (OCT-DEC) BUILDING 0.07 0.63 0.70 0.66 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.03 2023 Q1 (JAN-MAR) BUILDING 0.07 0.57 0.63 0.64 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.03 2023 Q2 (MAR-JUN) BUILDING 0.03 0.28 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 PAVING 0.01 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 ARCH COATING 0.31 0.01 0.32 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 2023 Q2 0.36 0.39 0.75 0.48 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 HIGHEST QUARTERLY EMISSIONS 0.36 0.73 0.78 0.66 0.00 0.15 0.03 0.17 0.07 0.03 0.09 SLOAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS: 2.5 2.5 0.13 Notes: Off-site mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Does not include fugitive dust controls. Based on default off-road vehicle fleet. Highest quarterly emissions assumes arch. coating, paving, and building construction activities could potentially overlap during one quarter. Architectural coating includes the use of low-VOC content architectural paints with VOC content of 50 g/L, or less. Page 652 of 1221 612 12th Street, Suite 201 Paso Robles, CA 93446 805.226.2727 www.Ambient.Consulting P a g e | 6 TABLE 4. CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS CONSTRUCTION YEAR/ACTIVITY GHG EMISSIONS (MTCO2e) CO2 CH4 N2O MTCO2e 2022 GRADING ONSITE 52.11 0.02 0.00 52.53 GRADING OFFSITE 92.01 0.01 0.00 92.14 BUILDING 2022 ONSITE 195.81 0.05 0.00 196.98 BUILDING 2022 OFFSITE 113.83 0.00 0.00 113.95 2023 BUILDING 2023 ONSITE 70.70 0.02 0.00 71.12 BUILDING 2023 OFFSITE 40.34 0.00 0.00 40.38 PAVING ONSITE 20.03 0.01 0.00 20.19 PAVING OFFSITE 1.10 0.00 0.00 1.11 ARCH COATING ONSITE 2.55 0.00 0.00 2.56 ARCH COATING OFFSITE 1.33 0.00 0.00 1.33 TOTAL 2022: 455.60 TOTAL 2023: 136.68 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION: 592.28 AMORTIZATION PERIOD (YEARS): 25 AMORTIZED CONSTRUCTION: 23.69 Note: Off-site mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Page 653 of 1221 612 12th Street, Suite 201 Paso Robles, CA 93446 805.226.2727 www.Ambient.Consulting P a g e | 7 TABLE 5. DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SEASON/SOURCE DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (LBS/DAY) ROG NOX ROG+NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 FUG. EXH. TOTAL FUG. EXH. TOTAL SUMMER AREA 3.52 0.00 3.52 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ENERGY W/ENERGY EFF. APPLIANCES 0.16 1.49 1.65 1.25 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.11 ENERGY ADJUSTED FOR 2019 BLDG. CODE 0.11 1.04 1.16 0.88 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 MOBILE (W/PED. CONNECTIONS) 2.55 8.70 11.25 24.97 0.08 7.10 0.07 7.17 1.90 0.06 1.96 MOBILE ADJUSTED FOR TDM 2.47 8.44 10.91 24.22 0.07 6.89 0.07 6.96 1.84 0.06 1.90 TOTAL WITHOUT TDM 6.35 11.23 17.58 27.14 0.09 7.10 0.26 7.36 1.90 0.26 2.15 TOTAL WITH TDM 6.16 9.93 16.08 25.51 0.08 6.89 0.18 7.07 1.84 0.18 2.02 SLOAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS: 25 550 25 1.25 WINTER AREA 3.52 0.00 3.52 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ENERGY W/ENERGY EFF. APPLIANCES 0.16 1.49 1.65 1.25 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.11 ENERGY ADJUSTED FOR 2019 BLDG. CODE 0.11 1.04 1.16 0.88 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 MOBILE (W/PED. CONNECTIONS) 2.45 9.00 11.45 25.77 0.07 7.10 0.07 7.17 1.90 0.06 1.96 MOBILE ADJUSTED FOR TDM 2.38 8.73 11.10 25.00 0.07 6.89 0.07 6.96 1.84 0.06 1.90 TOTAL WITHOUT TDM 6.09 10.04 16.12 26.69 0.08 7.10 0.15 7.25 1.90 0.14 2.04 TOTAL WITH TDM 6.01 9.77 15.78 25.92 0.08 6.89 0.15 7.04 1.84 0.14 1.98 SLOAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS: 25 550 25 1.25 Notes: Mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Energy use includes installation of energy-efficient appliances. Includes adjustments to account for current building and renewables portfolio standards. Mobile-source emissions include proposed pedestrian connections. Mobile-source emissions were adjusted to account for implementation of proposed TDM program. Water transmission and conveyance includes installation of water-efficient irrigation systems and low-flow water fixtures. Waste includes minimum diversion rate of 50% for existing conditions. Page 654 of 1221 612 12th Street, Suite 201 Paso Robles, CA 93446 805.226.2727 www.Ambient.Consulting P a g e | 8 TABLE 6. ANNUAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS – YEAR 2023 SOURCE ANNUAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (TONS/YR) ROG NOX ROG+NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 MTCO2e FUG. EXH. TOTAL FUG. EXH. TOTAL AREA 0.64 0.00 0.64 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 ENERGY W/ENERGY EFF. APPLIANCES 0.03 0.27 0.30 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 490.13 ENERGY ADJUSTED FOR 2019 BLDG. CODE 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 343.09 MOBILE (W/PED. CONNECTIONS) 0.44 1.64 2.08 4.59 0.01 1.26 0.01 1.27 0.34 0.01 0.35 1,255.85 MOBILE ADJUSTED FOR TDM 0.42 1.59 2.01 4.45 0.01 1.22 0.01 1.23 0.33 0.01 0.34 1,218.17 WASTE W/50% DIVERSION RATE 28.08 WATER W/WATER EFF. FIXTURES 10.10 TOTAL WITHOUT TDM: 1.10 1.83 2.93 4.76 0.01 1.26 0.03 1.29 0.34 0.03 0.36 1,598.95 TOTAL WITH TDM: 1.09 1.78 2.87 4.62 0.01 1.22 0.03 1.25 0.33 0.03 0.35 1,561.28 SLOAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS: 25 25 Notes: Mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Energy use includes installation of energy-efficient appliances. Includes adjustments to account for current building and renewables portfolio standards. Mobile-source emissions include proposed pedestrian connections. Mobile-source emissions were adjusted to account for implementation of proposed TDM program. Water transmission and conveyance includes installation of water-efficient irrigation systems and low-flow water fixtures. Waste includes minimum diversion rate of 50% for existing conditions. Page 655 of 1221 612 12th Street, Suite 201 Paso Robles, CA 93446 805.226.2727 www.Ambient.Consulting P a g e | 9 TABLE 7. ANNUAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS – YEAR 2030 SOURCE ANNUAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (TONS/YR) ROG NOX ROG+NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 MTCO2e FUG. EXH. TOTAL FUG. EXH. TOTAL AREA 0.64 0.00 0.64 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 ENERGY W/ENERGY EFF. APPLIANCES 0.03 0.27 0.30 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 428.78 ENERGY ADJUSTED FOR 2019 BLDG. CODE 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 300.15 MOBILE W/PED. CONNECTIONS 0.28 1.13 1.41 2.88 0.01 1.26 0.01 1.26 0.34 0.01 0.34 1,094.36 MOBILE ADJUSTED FOR TDM 0.27 1.09 1.37 2.79 0.01 1.22 0.01 1.23 0.33 0.01 0.33 1,061.53 WASTE W/75% DIVERSION RATE 14.04 WATER W/WATER EFF. FIXTURES 8.68 TOTAL WITHOUT TDM: 0.94 1.32 2.26 3.04 0.01 1.26 0.02 1.28 0.34 0.02 0.36 1,394.5 TOTAL WITH TDM: 0.94 1.28 2.22 2.96 0.01 1.22 0.02 1.24 0.33 0.02 0.35 1,361.7 AMORTIZED CONST EMISSIONS: 23.7 TOTAL WITH AMORTIZED CONST/WITHOUT TDM: 1,418.2 TOTAL WITH AMORTIZED CONST & TDM: 1,385.4 SERVICE POPULATION (SP): 25 MTCO2e/SP: 55.4 CAP THRESHOLD: 0.7 REDUCTION REQUIRED TO MEET THRESHOLD (MTCO2e): 1,367.9 REDUCTION REQUIRED TO MEET THRESHOLD (MTCO2e/SP): 54.7 Notes: Mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Energy use includes installation of energy-efficient appliances. Energy use was adjusted to account for current building code compliance and renewables portfolio standard. Mobile-source emissions include proposed pedestrian connections. Mobile-source emissions were adjusted to account for implementation of proposed TDM program. Water transmission and conveyance includes installation of water-efficient irrigation systems and low-flow water fixtures. Waste includes State's target diversion rate of 75% by year 2030. Page 656 of 1221 612 12th Street, Suite 201 Paso Robles, CA 93446 805.226.2727 www.Ambient.Consulting P a g e | 10 Appendix A Emissions Modeling Page 657 of 1221 CONSTRUCTION Construction Start Date:2022 Q2 Construction Activities, Periods, Equipment, Vehicle Trips, Area of Disturbance CalEEMod Defaults Exported Imported Amount of Material to be Exported/Imported (cyds):10,000 CY 8,900 CY Total Building Floor Area to be Demolished (SF):none If "yes", has naturally-occurring asbestos been identified at the project site?unknown PROPOSED LAND USE/OPERATIONAL DATA Opening Year:2023 Total Project Site Area (Acres):5.04 (Based on total site acreage) Total Building Floor Area to be Constructed (SF):204 GUEST ROOMS 125200 SQFT 3.24 371 #GUESTS Total Surface Area to be Paved:1.8 PARKING ACRES 214 PARKING SPACES Project Amenities/Features Electricity Electricity Intensity Factors: EIFs 2023 2030 CO2 438.13 298.3 CH4 0.02 0.013 N2O 0.004 0.003 Current 2019 Code Compliance Adjustment:30%(Calculated separately) Central Coast Community Energy 3CE:60% Target Renewable by 2025 3CE: 100% Target Renewable by 2030 https://3cenergy.org/enrollment-slo-mb/ Energy Intensity Factors (below) were adjusted based on existing PG&E rates and projected 2030 rates, with incorporation of State's RPS requirements. Does not include target reductions identified above for C3E. PG&E:39% Renewable Existing (Minimum)/60% by 2030 EMISSIONS MODELING ASSUMPTIONS Free shuttle service (refer to TDM below) Subsidized Employee Transit (refer to TDM below) Rideshare Program (refer to TDM below) Water-Efficient Landscaping (included in CalEEMod) Low-Flow Water Fixtures (included in CalEEMod) Bicycle Parking - Short-/Long-Term (refer to TDM below) Employee Showers & Lockers (refer to TDM below) Clean Air Vehicle/Vanpool Parking (refer to TDM below) Pedestrian Connections On-/Off-Site (included in CalEEMod) Use of Prefinished/Colorized Ext Const Materials Shaded Parking (Not quantifiable) Page 658 of 1221 Transportation Distance to nearest transit station:2.6 miles (Amtrak Station) Daily Trips:1822 (Based on 218 rooms) Trip-Gen Rate:8.36 trips/room/day (as above) Average Trip Length:8.3 Miles (per VMT Analysis) Source: W-Trans 5/18/20; GHD 12/2/20 TDM Program Adjustments Trip Reductions with TDM (Required):-48 Adjusted Daily Trips with TDM:1774 Adjusted Daily Trip Generation Rate with TDM:8.14 trips/room/day TDM Measures:Provide bicycle parking in non-residential projects Provide adequate, secure long-term bicycle parking for employees Provide local shuttle service Provide free shuttle service from hotel to downtown SLO Provide Ride-Sharing Programs Participate in SLO Rideshare Back-N-Forth Club Subsidize Transit Pass for employees Provide free or discounted transit passes to employees Provide end-of-trip facilities Provide shower and changing room facilities for employees Waste 2023 2030 Solid Waste Diversion Rate 50 75 Water MAWA 746972 Greenhouse Gas Construction GHG Amortization Period:25 Years Estimated Number of Employees: per USDOE:111 (1 employee/1124sf; City of SLO Climate Action Plan) per SANDAG:137 (1 employee/917sf; City of SLO Climate Action Plan) Daily Trips (-3%) Calc'd separately Page 659 of 1221 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY - UNCONTROLLED FUG EXH TOT FUG EXH TOT GRADING - ONSITE 1.95 20.86 22.80 15.27 0.03 6.29 0.94 7.23 3.34 0.87 4.20 GRADING - OFFSITE 0.50 15.63 16.13 4.13 0.05 1.18 0.06 1.24 0.32 0.06 0.38 GRADING - TOTAL 40 2.45 36.49 38.93 19.41 0.08 7.47 1.00 8.47 3.66 0.93 4.59 BUILDING 2022 - ONSITE 1.71 15.62 17.32 16.36 0.03 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.76 0.76 BUILDING 2022 - OFFSITE 0.43 3.40 3.83 3.47 0.01 1.04 0.01 1.06 0.28 0.01 0.29 BUILDING 2022 - TOTAL 230 2.13 19.02 21.15 19.84 0.04 1.04 0.82 1.86 0.28 0.77 1.05 BUILDING 2023 - ONSITE 1.57 14.38 15.96 16.24 0.03 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.66 0.66 BUILDING 2023 - OFFSITE 0.39 2.83 3.21 3.15 0.01 1.04 0.01 1.05 0.28 0.01 0.29 BUILDING 2023 - TOTAL 1.96 17.21 19.17 19.40 0.04 1.04 0.71 1.75 0.28 0.67 0.95 PAVING - ONSITE 1.27 10.19 11.46 14.58 0.02 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.47 0.47 PAVING - OFFSITE 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.41 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.04 PAVING - TOTAL 20 1.32 10.23 11.55 14.99 0.02 0.15 0.51 0.66 0.04 0.47 0.51 ARCH COATING - ONSITE 30.99 1.30 32.30 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 ARCH COATING - OFFSITE 0.06 0.05 0.11 0.49 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.05 0.00 0.05 ARCH COATING - TOTAL 20 31.06 1.35 32.40 2.30 0.00 0.18 0.07 0.25 0.05 0.07 0.12 BUILDING, PAVING, ARCH COATING TOTAL:34.51 30.60 65.11 37.13 0.07 1.37 1.41 2.77 0.37 1.32 1.68 HIGHEST DAILY EMISSIONS:34.51 36.49 65.11 37.13 0.08 7.47 1.41 8.47 3.66 1.32 4.59 SLOAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS:137 7 Off-site mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Does not include fugitive dust controls. Based on default off-road vehicle fleet. Highest daily emissions assumes arch. coating, paving, and building construction could potentially occur on the same day. Architectural coating includes the use of low-VOC content architectural paints with VOC content of 50 g/L, or less. CONSTRUCTION PHASE SUMMER DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (LBS/DAY) UNCONTROLLED ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5NUMBER OF DAYS ROG+NOX Notes: Page 660 of 1221 FUG EXH TOT FUG EXH TOT GRADING - ONSITE 1.95 20.86 22.80 15.27 0.03 6.37 0.94 7.32 3.35 0.87 4.22 GRADING - OFFSITE 0.52 15.71 16.23 4.34 0.05 1.18 0.06 1.24 0.32 0.06 0.38 GRADING - TOTAL 2.47 36.57 39.04 19.62 0.08 7.55 1.01 8.56 3.67 0.93 4.60 BUILDING 2022 - ONSITE 1.71 15.62 17.32 16.36 0.03 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.76 0.76 BUILDING 2022 - OFFSITE 0.48 3.41 3.90 3.50 0.01 1.04 0.01 1.06 0.28 0.01 0.29 BUILDING 2022 - TOTAL 2.19 19.03 21.22 19.87 0.04 1.04 0.82 1.87 0.28 0.77 1.05 BUILDING 2023 - ONSITE 1.57 14.38 15.96 16.24 0.03 0.00 0.70 0.70 0.00 0.66 0.66 BUILDING 2023 - OFFSITE 0.44 2.84 3.28 3.16 0.01 1.04 0.01 1.05 0.28 0.01 0.29 BUILDING 2023 - TOTAL 2.01 17.22 19.23 19.40 0.04 1.04 0.71 1.75 0.28 0.67 0.95 PAVING - ONSITE 1.27 10.19 11.46 14.58 0.02 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.47 0.47 PAVING - OFFSITE 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.39 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.04 PAVING - TOTAL 1.33 10.24 11.56 14.98 0.02 0.15 0.51 0.66 0.04 0.47 0.51 ARCH COATING - ONSITE 30.99 1.30 32.30 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 ARCH COATING - OFFSITE 0.07 0.05 0.13 0.47 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.05 0.00 0.05 ARCH COATING - TOTAL 31.06 1.36 32.42 2.28 0.00 0.18 0.07 0.25 0.05 0.07 0.12 BUILDING 2023, PAVING, ARCH COATING TOTAL:34.40 28.81 63.22 36.66 0.07 1.37 1.29 2.66 0.37 1.21 1.58 HIGHEST DAILY EMISSIONS:34.40 36.57 63.22 36.66 0.08 7.55 1.29 8.56 3.67 1.21 4.60 SLOAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS:137 7 Based on default off-road vehicle fleet. Highest daily emissions assumes arch. coating, paving, and building construction could potentially occur on the same day. Architectural coating includes the use of low-VOC content architectural paints with VOC content of 50 g/L, or less. Does not include fugitive dust controls. ROG+NOX Notes: Off-site mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. CONSTRUCTION PHASE WINTER DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (LBS/DAY) UNCONTROLLED ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Page 661 of 1221 FUG EXH TOT FUG EXH TOT 2022 Q2 (APR-JUN) GRADING 40 0.05 0.73 0.78 0.39 0.00 0.15 0.02 0.17 0.07 0.02 0.09 2022 Q3 (JUL-SEP) BUILDING 66 0.07 0.63 0.70 0.65 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.03 2022 Q4 (OCT-DEC) BUILDING 66 0.07 0.63 0.70 0.66 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.03 2023 Q1 (JAN-MAR) BUILDING 66 0.07 0.57 0.63 0.64 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.03 2023 Q2 (MAR-JUN) BUILDING 32 0.03 0.28 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 PAVING 20 0.01 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 ARCH COATING 20 0.31 0.01 0.32 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.39 0.75 0.48 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 HIGHEST QUARTERLY EMISSIONS:0.36 0.73 0.78 0.66 0.00 0.15 0.03 0.17 0.07 0.03 0.09 2.5 2.5 0.13 Notes: Off-site mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Does not include fugitive dust controls. Based on default off-road vehicle fleet. Highest quarterly emissions assumes arch. coating, paving, and building construction activities could potentially overlap during one quarter. Architectural coating includes the use of low-VOC content architectural paints with VOC content of 50 g/L, or less. DAYSCONSTRUCTION QUARTER QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (TONS/QTR) UNCONTROLLED ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 SLOAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS: ROG+NOX Page 662 of 1221 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY - CONTROLLED FUG EXH TOT FUG EXH TOT GRADING - ONSITE 0.73 14.84 20.86 18.99 0.03 2.45 0.76 3.21 1.30 0.76 2.06 GRADING - OFFSITE 0.50 15.63 15.71 4.13 0.05 1.18 0.06 1.24 0.32 0.06 0.38 GRADING - TOTAL 40 1.23 30.47 36.57 23.12 0.08 3.63 0.82 4.45 1.62 0.82 2.44 BUILDING 2022 - ONSITE 0.67 14.23 15.62 17.87 0.03 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.90 BUILDING 2022 - OFFSITE 0.43 3.40 3.41 3.47 0.01 1.04 0.01 1.06 0.28 0.01 0.29 BUILDING 2022 - TOTAL 230 1.10 17.63 19.03 21.35 0.04 1.04 0.92 1.96 0.28 0.92 1.20 BUILDING 2023 - ONSITE 0.67 14.23 14.38 17.87 0.03 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.90 BUILDING 2023 - OFFSITE 0.39 2.83 2.84 3.15 0.01 1.04 0.01 1.05 0.28 0.01 0.29 BUILDING 2023 - TOTAL 1.06 17.05 17.22 21.03 0.04 1.04 0.91 1.96 0.28 0.91 1.19 PAVING - ONSITE 0.80 11.30 10.19 17.30 0.02 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.61 0.61 PAVING - OFFSITE 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.41 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.04 PAVING - TOTAL 20 0.85 11.33 10.24 17.70 0.02 0.15 0.61 0.76 0.04 0.61 0.65 ARCH COATING - ONSITE 30.86 1.36 1.30 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 ARCH COATING - OFFSITE 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.48 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.05 0.00 0.05 ARCH COATING - TOTAL 20 30.92 1.40 1.36 2.31 0.00 0.18 0.10 0.27 0.05 0.10 0.14 BUILDING 2023, PAVING, ARCH COATING TOTAL:32.83 29.79 28.81 41.04 0.07 1.37 1.62 2.99 0.37 1.62 1.98 HIGHEST DAILY EMISSIONS:32.83 30.47 36.57 41.04 0.08 3.63 1.62 4.45 1.62 1.62 2.44 SLOAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS:137 7 Includes use of Tier 3 heavy-duty off-road equipment included for informational purposes. Highest daily emissions assumes arch. coating, paving, and building construction could potentially occur on the same day. Architectural coating includes the use of low-VOC content architectural paints with VOC content of 50 g/L, or less. NUMBER OF DAYS ROG+NOX Off-site mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Notes: Fugitive dust controls includes watering onsite construction-vehicle travel ways and graded surfaces, on-site speed limited to 15 mph. CONSTRUCTION PHASE SUMMER DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (LBS/DAY) CONTROLLED ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Page 663 of 1221 FUG EXH TOT FUG EXH TOT GRADING - ONSITE 0.73 14.84 20.86 18.99 0.03 2.49 0.76 3.24 1.31 0.76 2.06 GRADING - OFFSITE 0.52 15.71 15.71 4.34 0.05 1.18 0.06 1.24 0.32 0.06 0.38 GRADING - TOTAL 1.25 30.55 36.57 23.34 0.08 3.67 0.82 4.49 1.63 0.82 2.44 BUILDING 2022 - ONSITE 0.67 14.23 15.62 17.87 0.03 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.90 BUILDING 2022 - OFFSITE 0.48 3.41 3.41 3.50 0.01 1.04 0.01 1.06 0.28 0.01 0.29 BUILDING 2022 - TOTAL 1.16 17.64 19.03 21.38 0.04 1.04 0.92 1.96 0.28 0.92 1.20 BUILDING 2023 - ONSITE 0.67 14.23 14.38 17.87 0.03 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.90 0.90 BUILDING 2023 - OFFSITE 0.44 2.84 2.84 3.16 0.01 1.04 0.01 1.05 0.28 0.01 0.29 BUILDING 2023 - TOTAL 1.11 17.06 17.22 21.03 0.04 1.04 0.91 1.96 0.28 0.91 1.19 PAVING - ONSITE 0.80 11.30 10.19 17.30 0.02 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.61 0.61 PAVING - OFFSITE 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.39 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.04 PAVING - TOTAL 0.86 11.34 10.24 17.69 0.02 0.15 0.61 0.76 0.04 0.61 0.65 ARCH COATING - ONSITE 30.86 1.36 1.30 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 ARCH COATING - OFFSITE 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.47 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.05 0.00 0.05 ARCH COATING - TOTAL 30.93 1.41 1.36 2.30 0.00 0.18 0.10 0.27 0.05 0.10 0.14 BUILDING 2023, PAVING, ARCH COATING 32.90 29.81 28.81 41.02 0.07 1.37 1.62 2.99 0.37 1.62 1.98 HIGHEST DAILY EMISSIONS:32.90 30.55 36.57 41.02 0.08 3.67 1.62 4.49 1.63 1.62 2.44 SLOAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS:137 7 Includes use of Tier 3 heavy-duty off-road equipment included for informational purposes. Highest daily emissions assumes arch. coating, paving, and building construction could potentially occur on the same day. Architectural coating includes the use of low-VOC content architectural paints with VOC content of 50 g/L, or less. ROG+NOX Notes: Off-site mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Fugitive dust controls includes watering onsite construction-vehicle travel ways and graded surfaces, on-site speed limited to 15 mph. CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 CONSTRUCTION PHASE WINTER DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (LBS/DAY) CONTROLLED ROG NOX Page 664 of 1221 FUG EXH TOT FUG EXH TOT 2022 Q2 (APR-JUN) GRADING 40 0.02 0.61 0.63 0.46 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.05 2022 Q3 (JUL-SEP) BUILDING 66 0.04 0.58 0.62 0.70 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.04 2022 Q4 (OCT-DEC) BUILDING 66 0.04 0.58 0.62 0.71 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.04 2023 Q1 (JAN-MAR) BUILDING 66 0.04 0.56 0.60 0.69 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.04 2024 Q2 (MAR-JUN) BUILDING 32 0.02 0.27 0.29 0.34 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 PAVING 20 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 ARCH COATING 20 0.31 0.01 0.32 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.40 0.74 0.54 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.03 HIGHEST QUARTERLY EMISSIONS:0.34 0.61 0.74 0.71 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.05 2.5 2.5 0.13 Includes use of Tier 3 heavy-duty off-road equipment included for informational purposes. Highest quarterly emissions assumes arch. coating, paving, and building construction activities could potentially overlap during one quarter. Architectural coating includes the use of low-VOC content architectural paints with VOC content of 50 g/L, or less. ROG+NOXDAYSCONSTRUCTION QUARTER ROG NOX CO QUARTERLY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (TONS/QTR) CONTROLLED SOX PM10 PM2.5 Notes: Off-site mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Fugitive dust controls includes watering onsite construction-vehicle travel ways and graded surfaces, on-site speed limited to 15 mph. SLOAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS: Page 665 of 1221 CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS SUMMARY CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e GRADING ONSITE 52.11 0.02 0.00 52.53 GRADING OFFSITE 92.01 0.01 0.00 92.14 BUILDING 2022 ONSITE 195.81 0.05 0.00 196.98 BUILDING 2022 OFFSITE 113.83 0.00 0.00 113.95 BUILDING 2023 ONSITE 70.70 0.02 0.00 71.12 BUILDING 2023 OFFSITE 40.34 0.00 0.00 40.38 PAVING ONSITE 20.03 0.01 0.00 20.19 PAVING OFFSITE 1.10 0.00 0.00 1.11 ARCH COATING ONSITE 2.55 0.00 0.00 2.56 ARCH COATING OFFSITE 1.33 0.00 0.00 1.33 455.6 136.7 592.3 25 23.7 GHG EMISSIONS (MTCO2e) CONSTRUCTION YEAR 2022 2023 Off-site mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. TOTAL 2022: TOTAL 2023: TOTAL CONSTRUCTION: AMORTIZATION PERIOD (YEARS): AMORTIZED CONSTRUCTION: Page 666 of 1221 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY FUG EXH TOT FUG EXH TOT SUMMER AREA 3.52 0.00 3.52 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ENERGY W/ENERGY EFF. APPLIANCES 0.16 1.49 1.65 1.25 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.11 ENERGY ADJUSTED FOR 2019 CODE 0.11 1.04 1.16 0.88 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 MOBILE (W/PED CONNECTIONS)2.55 8.70 11.25 24.97 0.08 7.10 0.07 7.17 1.90 0.06 1.96 MOBILE ADJUSTED FOR TDM 2.47 8.44 10.91 24.22 0.07 6.89 0.07 6.96 1.84 0.06 1.90 TOTAL WITHOUT TDM 6.35 11.23 17.58 27.14 0.09 7.10 0.26 7.36 1.90 0.26 2.15 TOTAL WITH TDM 6.16 9.93 16.08 25.51 0.08 6.89 0.18 7.07 1.84 0.18 2.02 SLOAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS:25 550 25 1.25 WINTER AREA 3.52 0.00 3.52 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ENERGY W/ENERGY EFF. APPLIANCES 0.16 1.49 1.65 1.25 0.01 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.11 ENERGY ADJUSTED FOR 2019 CODE 0.11 1.04 1.16 0.88 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.08 MOBILE (W/PED CONNECTIONS)2.45 9.00 11.45 25.77 0.07 7.10 0.07 7.17 1.90 0.06 1.96 MOBILE ADJUSTED FOR TDM 2.38 8.73 11.10 25.00 0.07 6.89 0.07 6.96 1.84 0.06 1.90 TOTAL WITHOUT TDM 6.09 10.04 16.12 26.69 0.08 7.10 0.15 7.25 1.90 0.14 2.04 TOTAL WITH TDM 6.01 9.77 15.78 25.92 0.08 6.89 0.15 7.04 1.84 0.14 1.98 SLOAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS:25 550 25 1.25 Notes: Mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Energy use includes installation of energy-efficient appliances. Energy use was adjusted to account for current building code compliance and renewables portfolio standard. Mobile-source emissions include proposed pedestrian connections. Mobile-source emissions were adjusted to account for implementation of proposed TDM program. Water transmission and conveyance includes installation of water-efficient irrigation systems and low-flow water fixtures. Waste includes minimum diversion rate of 50% for existing conditions. PM10 PM2.5 CO2COSOX CH4ROG+NOX N20 CO2ESEASON/SOURCE DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (LBS/DAY) ROG NOX Page 667 of 1221 FUG EXH TOT FUG EXH TOT AREA 0.64 0.00 0.64 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 ENERGY W/ENERGY EFF. APPLIANCES 0.03 0.27 0.30 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 487.64 0.01 0.01 490.13 ENERGY ADJUSTED FOR 2019 CODE 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 341.34 0.01 0.01 343.09 MOBILE (W/PED CONNECTIONS)0.44 1.64 2.08 4.59 0.01 1.26 0.01 1.27 0.34 0.01 0.35 1254.22 0.05 0.00 1255.85 MOBILE ADJUSTED FOR TDM 0.42 1.59 2.01 4.45 0.01 1.22 0.01 1.23 0.33 0.01 0.34 1216.59 0.05 0.00 1218.17 WASTE W/50% DIVERSION RATE 11.34 0.67 0.00 28.08 WATER W/WATER EFF. FIXTURES 5.77 0.14 0.00 10.10 TOTAL WITHOUT TDM:1.10 1.83 2.93 4.76 0.01 1.26 0.03 1.29 0.34 0.03 0.36 1595.58 0.06 0.01 1598.95 TOTAL WITH TDM:1.09 1.78 2.87 4.62 0.01 1.22 0.03 1.25 0.33 0.03 0.35 1557.95 0.06 0.01 1561.28 SLOAPCD SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS:25 25 Notes: Mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Energy use includes installation of energy-efficient appliances. Energy use was adjusted to account for current building code compliance and renewables portfolio standard. Mobile-source emissions include proposed pedestrian connections. Mobile-source emissions were adjusted to account for implementation of proposed TDM program. Water transmission and conveyance includes installation of water-efficient irrigation systems and low-flow water fixtures. Waste includes minimum diversion rate of 50% for existing conditions. ROG+NOX CO2SOURCE ANNUAL 2023 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (TONS/YR) ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 CH4 N20 CO2E Page 668 of 1221 FUG EXH TOT FUG EXH TOT AREA 0.64 0.00 0.64 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 ENERGY W/ENERGY EFF. APPLIANCES 0.03 0.27 0.30 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 426.49 0.01 0.01 428.78 ENERGY ADJUSTED FOR 2019 CODE 0.02 0.19 0.21 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 298.54 0.01 0.00 300.15 MOBILE W/PED CONNECTIONS 0.28 1.13 1.41 2.88 0.01 1.26 0.01 1.26 0.34 0.01 0.34 1093.22 0.03 0.00 1094.36 MOBILE ADJUSTED FOR TDM 0.27 1.09 1.37 2.79 0.01 1.22 0.01 1.23 0.33 0.01 0.33 1060.42 0.03 0.00 1061.53 WASTE W/75% DIVERSION RATE 5.67 0.34 0.00 14.04 WATER W/WATER EFF. FIXTURES 4.34 0.14 0.00 8.68 TOTAL WITHOUT TDM:0.94 1.32 2.26 3.04 0.01 1.26 0.02 1.28 0.34 0.02 0.36 1391.78 0.04 0.00 1394.52 TOTAL WITH TDM:0.94 1.28 2.22 2.96 0.01 1.22 0.02 1.24 0.33 0.02 0.35 1358.98 0.04 0.00 1361.69 AMORTIZED CONST EMISSIONS:23.7 TOTAL WITH AMORTIZED CONST/WITHOUT TDM:1418.2 TOTAL WITH AMORTIZED CONST & TDM:1385.4 SERVICE POPULATION (EMPLOYEES):25 MTCO2e/SP 55.4 CAP THRESHOLD: 0.7 REDUCTION REQUIRED TO MEET THRESHOLD (MTCO2e):-1367.88 REDUCTION REQUIRED TO MEET THRESHOLD (MTCO2e/SP):-54.7 Notes: ROG+NOXSOURCE ANNUAL 2030 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (TONS/YR) ROG NOX CO SOX MTCO2E PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N20 Mobile source emissions include EMFAC off-model adjustment factors for SAFE vehicle rule. Energy use includes installation of energy-efficient appliances. Energy use was adjusted to account for current building code compliance and renewables portfolio standard. Mobile-source emissions include proposed pedestrian connections. Mobile-source emissions were adjusted to account for implementation of proposed TDM program. Water transmission and conveyance includes installation of water-efficient irrigation systems and low-flow water fixtures. Waste includes State's target diversion rate of 75% by year 2030. Page 669 of 1221 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN: GHG THRESHOLDS Page 670 of 1221 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Parking Lot 214.00 Space 1.80 85,600.00 0 Hotel 204.00 Room 3.24 125,200.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)3.2 44 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2023Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 438.13 0.02CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.004N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) San Luis Obispo County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 1 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 671 of 1221 Project Characteristics - Includes RPS adjustment. Land Use - Lot acreage: 5.04; 1.8 ac parking, 3.24 ac hotel, hotel: 125,200sf Construction Phase - No demo. Minimal site prep./included with grading phase. Grading:increased from 20 to 40 days. Other phases based on model defaults. Off-road Equipment - Equipment based on model defaults. Trips and VMT - Const trips based on model defaults. On-road Fugitive Dust - Demolition - No demolition required. Grading - 8900cy imported 10000cy exported. Acres graded equivalent based on model default calc./equipment use. Architectural Coating - Arch coating assumes use of low-VOC (50 g/L or less) content architectural paints. Asphalt paint based on model default. Vehicle Trips - Based on trip-gen rate of 8.36 trips/room/day, without TDM. TDM reduction calculated separately. Avg. trip length: 8.3 miles. Vehicle Emission Factors - Emission factors based on model defaults. SAFE off-model adjustments calculated separately. Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Energy Use - Water And Wastewater - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - 50%CE for watering travelways; 61%CE for watering graded surfaces; 15mph onsite speed limit; T3 equipment included for informational purposes. Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Mitigated traffic includes project features for pedestrian connections. 2.6 miles to Amtrak/transit station. Mobile Commute Mitigation - Reductions for TDM program (-3%) calculated separately. Energy Mitigation - Reductions for compliance with current building standards calculated separately. Includes installation of energy-efficient appliances. Water Mitigation - Includes installation of low-flow fixtures per current building standards. Project MAWA: 746972 Waste Mitigation - Includes 50% division of waste per current rate. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250.00 50.00 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 2 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 672 of 1221 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 20.00 10.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 10,000.00 tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 8,900.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 3 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 673 of 1221 2.0 Emissions Summary tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 296,208.00 125,200.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.93 1.80 tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.80 3.24 tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0.02 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 438.13 tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0.004 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 2,363.00 2,362.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 5.00 8.30 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 5.00 8.30 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 13.00 8.30 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 8.36 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 8.36 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 8.36 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 4 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 674 of 1221 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 0.2304 2.3464 2.0635 5.0000e- 003 0.2364 0.0896 0.3260 0.0965 0.0839 0.1804 451.5156 0.0740 0.0000 453.3652 2023 0.3838 0.6420 0.7629 1.5300e- 003 0.0342 0.0275 0.0616 9.1900e- 003 0.0258 0.0350 135.2044 0.0251 0.0000 135.8314 Maximum 0.3838 2.3464 2.0635 5.0000e- 003 0.2364 0.0896 0.3260 0.0965 0.0839 0.1804 451.5156 0.0740 0.0000 453.3652 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 0.1187 2.1087 2.2654 5.0000e- 003 0.1586 0.0939 0.2525 0.0556 0.0938 0.1493 451.5153 0.0740 0.0000 453.3649 2023 0.3504 0.6488 0.8400 1.5300e- 003 0.0342 0.0349 0.0691 9.1900e- 003 0.0349 0.0441 135.2043 0.0251 0.0000 135.8313 Maximum 0.3504 2.1087 2.2654 5.0000e- 003 0.1586 0.0939 0.2525 0.0556 0.0938 0.1493 451.5153 0.0740 0.0000 453.3649 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 23.63 7.73 -9.87 0.00 28.75 -10.03 17.04 38.71 -17.28 10.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 5 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 675 of 1221 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.6420 6.0000e- 005 7.0400e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Energy 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 491.5912 0.0146 7.2100e- 003 494.1056 Mobile 0.4416 1.6736 4.7058 0.0139 1.3065 0.0129 1.3193 0.3497 0.0120 0.3617 1,272.012 2 0.0491 0.0000 1,273.240 0 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 22.6721 1.3399 0.0000 56.1691 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.6064 0.1689 4.0400e- 003 13.0314 Total 1.1135 1.9456 4.9412 0.0155 1.3065 0.0336 1.3400 0.3497 0.0327 0.3824 1,793.895 6 1.5725 0.0113 1,836.560 7 Unmitigated Operational Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 0.8614 0.7132 2 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 0.7784 0.6833 3 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 0.6889 0.6102 4 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 0.6402 0.5911 5 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.6250 0.6204 Highest 0.8614 0.7132 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 6 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 676 of 1221 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.6420 6.0000e- 005 7.0400e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Energy 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 487.6351 0.0144 7.1800e- 003 490.1342 Mobile 0.4368 1.6390 4.5894 0.0134 1.2593 0.0125 1.2717 0.3370 0.0117 0.3487 1,229.387 3 0.0478 0.0000 1,230.582 8 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 11.3360 0.6699 0.0000 28.0845 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.7651 0.1351 3.2300e- 003 10.1040 Total 1.1088 1.9110 4.8249 0.0151 1.2593 0.0332 1.2924 0.3370 0.0324 0.3694 1,734.137 2 0.8673 0.0104 1,758.920 2 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.43 1.78 2.36 2.97 3.62 1.19 3.55 3.61 1.13 3.40 0.00 0.00 3.33 44.85 7.47 4.23 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 7 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 677 of 1221 Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Grading Grading 4/12/2022 6/6/2022 5 40 2 Building Construction Building Construction 5/10/2022 3/27/2023 5 230 3 Paving Paving 3/28/2023 4/24/2023 5 20 4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/25/2023 5/22/2023 5 20 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 187,800; Non-Residential Outdoor: 62,600; Striped Parking Area: 5,136 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 1.8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 8 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 678 of 1221 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Grading 6 15.00 0.00 2,362.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 89.00 35.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 18.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 9 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 679 of 1221 3.2 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1275 0.0000 0.1275 0.0670 0.0000 0.0670 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0390 0.4171 0.3055 5.9000e- 004 0.0188 0.0188 0.0173 0.0173 52.1095 0.0169 0.0000 52.5309 Total 0.0390 0.4171 0.3055 5.9000e- 004 0.1275 0.0188 0.1463 0.0670 0.0173 0.0844 52.1095 0.0169 0.0000 52.5309 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment Use Soil Stabilizer Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 10 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 680 of 1221 3.2 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 8.9600e- 003 0.3173 0.0758 9.0000e- 004 0.0202 1.2500e- 003 0.0214 5.5400e- 003 1.2000e- 003 6.7300e- 003 88.7601 5.2700e- 003 0.0000 88.8920 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.1500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 8.5700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.9100e- 003 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 2.2505 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2520 Total 0.0101 0.3183 0.0844 9.2000e- 004 0.0230 1.2700e- 003 0.0243 6.3100e- 003 1.2200e- 003 7.5100e- 003 91.0106 5.3300e- 003 0.0000 91.1440 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0497 0.0000 0.0497 0.0262 0.0000 0.0262 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0145 0.2968 0.3798 5.9000e- 004 0.0151 0.0151 0.0151 0.0151 52.1095 0.0169 0.0000 52.5308 Total 0.0145 0.2968 0.3798 5.9000e- 004 0.0497 0.0151 0.0648 0.0262 0.0151 0.0413 52.1095 0.0169 0.0000 52.5308 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 11 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 681 of 1221 3.2 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 8.9600e- 003 0.3173 0.0758 9.0000e- 004 0.0202 1.2500e- 003 0.0214 5.5400e- 003 1.2000e- 003 6.7300e- 003 88.7601 5.2700e- 003 0.0000 88.8920 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.1500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 8.5700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.9100e- 003 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 2.2505 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2520 Total 0.0101 0.3183 0.0844 9.2000e- 004 0.0230 1.2700e- 003 0.0243 6.3100e- 003 1.2200e- 003 7.5100e- 003 91.0106 5.3300e- 003 0.0000 91.1440 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1442 1.3195 1.3827 2.2800e- 003 0.0684 0.0684 0.0643 0.0643 195.8078 0.0469 0.0000 196.9806 Total 0.1442 1.3195 1.3827 2.2800e- 003 0.0684 0.0684 0.0643 0.0643 195.8078 0.0469 0.0000 196.9806 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 12 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 682 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.3400e- 003 0.2675 0.0762 5.8000e- 004 0.0134 7.1000e- 004 0.0142 3.8800e- 003 6.8000e- 004 4.5600e- 003 56.1726 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 56.2549 Worker 0.0288 0.0240 0.2148 6.2000e- 004 0.0724 4.5000e- 004 0.0729 0.0192 4.1000e- 004 0.0197 56.4151 1.5900e- 003 0.0000 56.4548 Total 0.0371 0.2915 0.2909 1.2000e- 003 0.0858 1.1600e- 003 0.0870 0.0231 1.0900e- 003 0.0242 112.5877 4.8800e- 003 0.0000 112.7097 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0569 1.2021 1.5103 2.2800e- 003 0.0764 0.0764 0.0764 0.0764 195.8076 0.0469 0.0000 196.9804 Total 0.0569 1.2021 1.5103 2.2800e- 003 0.0764 0.0764 0.0764 0.0764 195.8076 0.0469 0.0000 196.9804 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 13 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 683 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.3400e- 003 0.2675 0.0762 5.8000e- 004 0.0134 7.1000e- 004 0.0142 3.8800e- 003 6.8000e- 004 4.5600e- 003 56.1726 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 56.2549 Worker 0.0288 0.0240 0.2148 6.2000e- 004 0.0724 4.5000e- 004 0.0729 0.0192 4.1000e- 004 0.0197 56.4151 1.5900e- 003 0.0000 56.4548 Total 0.0371 0.2915 0.2909 1.2000e- 003 0.0858 1.1600e- 003 0.0870 0.0231 1.0900e- 003 0.0242 112.5877 4.8800e- 003 0.0000 112.7097 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0480 0.4387 0.4954 8.2000e- 004 0.0213 0.0213 0.0201 0.0201 70.7005 0.0168 0.0000 71.1209 Total 0.0480 0.4387 0.4954 8.2000e- 004 0.0213 0.0213 0.0201 0.0201 70.7005 0.0168 0.0000 71.1209 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 14 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 684 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.3000e- 003 0.0796 0.0242 2.1000e- 004 4.8500e- 003 1.2000e- 004 4.9700e- 003 1.4000e- 003 1.1000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 19.9420 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 19.9685 Worker 9.7600e- 003 7.7900e- 003 0.0708 2.2000e- 004 0.0261 1.6000e- 004 0.0263 6.9400e- 003 1.5000e- 004 7.0900e- 003 19.5992 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 19.6119 Total 0.0121 0.0874 0.0949 4.3000e- 004 0.0310 2.8000e- 004 0.0313 8.3400e- 003 2.6000e- 004 8.6100e- 003 39.5412 1.5700e- 003 0.0000 39.5804 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0206 0.4339 0.5452 8.2000e- 004 0.0276 0.0276 0.0276 0.0276 70.7004 0.0168 0.0000 71.1208 Total 0.0206 0.4339 0.5452 8.2000e- 004 0.0276 0.0276 0.0276 0.0276 70.7004 0.0168 0.0000 71.1208 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 15 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 685 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.3000e- 003 0.0796 0.0242 2.1000e- 004 4.8500e- 003 1.2000e- 004 4.9700e- 003 1.4000e- 003 1.1000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 19.9420 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 19.9685 Worker 9.7600e- 003 7.7900e- 003 0.0708 2.2000e- 004 0.0261 1.6000e- 004 0.0263 6.9400e- 003 1.5000e- 004 7.0900e- 003 19.5992 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 19.6119 Total 0.0121 0.0874 0.0949 4.3000e- 004 0.0310 2.8000e- 004 0.0313 8.3400e- 003 2.6000e- 004 8.6100e- 003 39.5412 1.5700e- 003 0.0000 39.5804 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0103 0.1019 0.1458 2.3000e- 004 5.1000e- 003 5.1000e- 003 4.6900e- 003 4.6900e- 003 20.0269 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1888 Paving 2.3600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0127 0.1019 0.1458 2.3000e- 004 5.1000e- 003 5.1000e- 003 4.6900e- 003 4.6900e- 003 20.0269 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1888 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 16 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 686 of 1221 3.4 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.4000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 3.9100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.0830 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0837 Total 5.4000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 3.9100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.0830 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0837 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 5.6100e- 003 0.1130 0.1730 2.3000e- 004 6.0900e- 003 6.0900e- 003 6.0900e- 003 6.0900e- 003 20.0268 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1888 Paving 2.3600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.9700e- 003 0.1130 0.1730 2.3000e- 004 6.0900e- 003 6.0900e- 003 6.0900e- 003 6.0900e- 003 20.0268 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1888 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 17 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 687 of 1221 3.4 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.4000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 3.9100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.0830 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0837 Total 5.4000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 3.9100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.0830 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0837 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.3080 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9200e- 003 0.0130 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 2.5533 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.5571 Total 0.3099 0.0130 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 2.5533 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.5571 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 18 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 688 of 1221 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.5000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 4.6900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7400e- 003 4.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 1.2996 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3005 Total 6.5000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 4.6900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7400e- 003 4.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 1.2996 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3005 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.3080 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.9000e- 004 0.0136 0.0183 3.0000e- 005 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 2.5533 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.5571 Total 0.3086 0.0136 0.0183 3.0000e- 005 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 2.5533 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.5571 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 19 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 689 of 1221 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Increase Transit Accessibility Improve Pedestrian Network 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.5000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 4.6900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7400e- 003 4.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 1.2996 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3005 Total 6.5000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 4.6900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7400e- 003 4.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 1.2996 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3005 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 20 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 690 of 1221 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.4368 1.6390 4.5894 0.0134 1.2593 0.0125 1.2717 0.3370 0.0117 0.3487 1,229.387 3 0.0478 0.0000 1,230.582 8 Unmitigated 0.4416 1.6736 4.7058 0.0139 1.3065 0.0129 1.3193 0.3497 0.0120 0.3617 1,272.012 2 0.0491 0.0000 1,273.240 0 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Hotel 1,705.44 1,705.44 1705.44 3,480,404 3,354,579 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1,705.44 1,705.44 1,705.44 3,480,404 3,354,579 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Hotel 8.30 8.30 8.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Parking Lot 13.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Hotel 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299 Parking Lot 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 21 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 691 of 1221 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 191.5934 8.7500e- 003 1.7500e- 003 192.3333 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 195.5495 8.9300e- 003 1.7900e- 003 196.3047 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 296.0417 5.6700e- 003 5.4300e- 003 297.8009 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 296.0417 5.6700e- 003 5.4300e- 003 297.8009 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Install Energy Efficient Appliances Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 22 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 692 of 1221 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Hotel 5.54761e +006 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 296.0417 5.6700e- 003 5.4300e- 003 297.8009 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 296.0417 5.6700e- 003 5.4300e- 003 297.8009 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Hotel 5.54761e +006 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 296.0417 5.6700e- 003 5.4300e- 003 297.8009 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 296.0417 5.6700e- 003 5.4300e- 003 297.8009 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 23 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 693 of 1221 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Hotel 954024 189.5955 8.6500e- 003 1.7300e- 003 190.3277 Parking Lot 29960 5.9540 2.7000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 5.9770 Total 195.5495 8.9200e- 003 1.7800e- 003 196.3047 Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Hotel 934117 185.6394 8.4700e- 003 1.6900e- 003 186.3563 Parking Lot 29960 5.9540 2.7000e- 004 5.0000e- 005 5.9770 Total 191.5934 8.7400e- 003 1.7400e- 003 192.3333 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 24 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 694 of 1221 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.6420 6.0000e- 005 7.0400e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Unmitigated 0.6420 6.0000e- 005 7.0400e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.1469 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.4945 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 6.5000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 7.0400e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Total 0.6420 6.0000e- 005 7.0400e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 25 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 695 of 1221 Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Install Low Flow Toilet Install Low Flow Shower Use Water Efficient Landscaping 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.1469 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.4945 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 6.5000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 7.0400e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Total 0.6420 6.0000e- 005 7.0400e- 003 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 26 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 696 of 1221 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 5.7651 0.1351 3.2300e- 003 10.1040 Unmitigated 7.6064 0.1689 4.0400e- 003 13.0314 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Hotel 5.17482 / 0.57498 7.6064 0.1689 4.0400e- 003 13.0314 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.6064 0.1689 4.0400e- 003 13.0314 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 27 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 697 of 1221 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Hotel 4.13986 / 0 5.7651 0.1351 3.2300e- 003 10.1040 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 5.7651 0.1351 3.2300e- 003 10.1040 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 28 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 698 of 1221 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 11.3360 0.6699 0.0000 28.0845 Unmitigated 22.6721 1.3399 0.0000 56.1691 Category/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Hotel 111.69 22.6721 1.3399 0.0000 56.1691 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 22.6721 1.3399 0.0000 56.1691 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 29 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 699 of 1221 11.0 Vegetation 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Hotel 55.845 11.3360 0.6699 0.0000 28.0845 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 11.3360 0.6699 0.0000 28.0845 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 30 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 700 of 1221 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:27 PMPage 31 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 701 of 1221 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Parking Lot 214.00 Space 1.80 85,600.00 0 Hotel 204.00 Room 3.24 125,200.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)3.2 44 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2030Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 298.3 0.013CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.003N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) San Luis Obispo County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 1 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 702 of 1221 Project Characteristics - Includes RPS adjustment. Land Use - Lot acreage: 5.04; 1.8 ac parking, 3.24 ac hotel, hotel: 125,200sf Construction Phase - No demo. Minimal site prep./included with grading phase. Grading:increased from 20 to 40 days. Other phases based on model defaults. Off-road Equipment - Equipment based on model defaults. Grading - Material balanced on site. Acres graded equivalent based on model default calc./equipment use. Demolition - No demolition required. Trips and VMT - Const trips based on model defaults. On-road Fugitive Dust - Architectural Coating - Arch coating assumes use of low-VOC (50 g/L or less) content architectural paints. Asphalt paint based on model default. Vehicle Trips - Based on trip-gen rate of 8.36 trips/room/day, without TDM. TDM reduction calculated separately. Avg. trip length: 8.3 miles. Vehicle Emission Factors - Emission factors based on model defaults. SAFE off-model adjustments calculated separately. Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Energy Use - Water And Wastewater - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - 50%CE for watering travelways; 61%CE for watering graded surfaces; 15mph onsite speed limit; T3 equipment included for informational purposes. Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Mitigated traffic includes project features for pedestrian connections. 2.6 miles to Amtrak/transit station. Mobile Commute Mitigation - Reductions for TDM program (-3%) calculated separately. Energy Mitigation - Reductions for compliance with current building standards calculated separately. Includes installation of energy-efficient appliances. Water Mitigation - Includes installation of low-flow fixtures per current building standards. Project MAWA: 746972 Waste Mitigation - Includes 75% division of waste per regulatory target rate. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 2 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 703 of 1221 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/9/2022 6/6/2022 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 296,208.00 125,200.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.93 1.80 tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.80 3.24 tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0.013 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 298.3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 3 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 704 of 1221 2.0 Emissions Summary tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0.003 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 5.00 8.30 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 5.00 8.30 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 13.00 8.30 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 8.36 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 8.36 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 8.36 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 4 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 705 of 1221 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 0.2214 2.0291 1.9877 4.1000e- 003 0.2198 0.0884 0.3081 0.0912 0.0827 0.1740 362.7555 0.0687 0.0000 364.4732 2023 1.5444 0.6420 0.7629 1.5300e- 003 0.0342 0.0275 0.0616 9.1900e- 003 0.0258 0.0350 135.2044 0.0251 0.0000 135.8314 Maximum 1.5444 2.0291 1.9877 4.1000e- 003 0.2198 0.0884 0.3081 0.0912 0.0827 0.1740 362.7555 0.0687 0.0000 364.4732 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2022 0.1097 1.7914 2.1896 4.1000e- 003 0.1398 0.0926 0.2325 0.0502 0.0926 0.1427 362.7552 0.0687 0.0000 364.4729 2023 1.5110 0.6488 0.8400 1.5300e- 003 0.0342 0.0349 0.0691 9.1900e- 003 0.0349 0.0441 135.2043 0.0251 0.0000 135.8313 Maximum 1.5110 1.7914 2.1896 4.1000e- 003 0.1398 0.0926 0.2325 0.0502 0.0926 0.1427 362.7552 0.0687 0.0000 364.4729 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 8.22 8.65 -10.14 0.00 31.48 -10.13 18.45 40.90 -17.48 10.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 5 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 706 of 1221 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.6420 6.0000e- 005 7.0100e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Energy 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 429.1812 0.0115 6.7700e- 003 431.4845 Mobile 0.2848 1.1459 2.9511 0.0112 1.3039 8.2500e- 003 1.3121 0.3486 7.6800e- 003 0.3563 1,030.432 0 0.0344 0.0000 1,031.290 7 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 22.6721 1.3399 0.0000 56.1691 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.7027 0.1688 4.0200e- 003 11.1214 Total 0.9567 1.4179 3.1866 0.0128 1.3039 0.0289 1.3328 0.3486 0.0284 0.3769 1,488.001 7 1.5546 0.0108 1,530.080 2 Unmitigated Operational Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 0.5752 0.4269 2 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 0.7441 0.6490 3 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 0.6889 0.6102 4 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 0.6402 0.5911 5 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.7856 1.7810 Highest 1.7856 1.7810 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 6 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 707 of 1221 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.6420 6.0000e- 005 7.0100e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Energy 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 426.4877 0.0114 6.7400e- 003 428.7800 Mobile 0.2818 1.1270 2.8757 0.0108 1.2567 8.0000e- 003 1.2647 0.3360 7.4500e- 003 0.3434 996.1923 0.0335 0.0000 997.0287 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.6680 0.3350 0.0000 14.0423 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.3444 0.1350 3.2200e- 003 8.6784 Total 0.9537 1.3990 3.1111 0.0125 1.2567 0.0287 1.2854 0.3360 0.0281 0.3641 1,432.706 0 0.5149 9.9600e- 003 1,448.543 9 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.31 1.33 2.37 2.96 3.61 0.86 3.55 3.61 0.81 3.40 0.00 0.00 3.72 66.88 7.69 5.33 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 7 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 708 of 1221 Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Grading Grading 4/12/2022 6/6/2022 5 20 2 Building Construction Building Construction 5/10/2022 3/27/2023 5 230 3 Paving Paving 3/28/2023 4/24/2023 5 20 4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/25/2023 5/22/2023 5 20 OffRoad Equipment Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 187,800; Non-Residential Outdoor: 62,600; Striped Parking Area: 5,136 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 1.8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 8 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 709 of 1221 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Grading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 89.00 35.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 18.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 9 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 710 of 1221 3.2 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.1311 0.0000 0.1311 0.0674 0.0000 0.0674 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0390 0.4171 0.3055 5.9000e- 004 0.0188 0.0188 0.0173 0.0173 52.1095 0.0169 0.0000 52.5309 Total 0.0390 0.4171 0.3055 5.9000e- 004 0.1311 0.0188 0.1499 0.0674 0.0173 0.0847 52.1095 0.0169 0.0000 52.5309 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment Use Soil Stabilizer Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 10 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 711 of 1221 3.2 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.1500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 8.5700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.9100e- 003 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 2.2505 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2520 Total 1.1500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 8.5700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.9100e- 003 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 2.2505 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2520 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0511 0.0000 0.0511 0.0263 0.0000 0.0263 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0145 0.2968 0.3798 5.9000e- 004 0.0151 0.0151 0.0151 0.0151 52.1095 0.0169 0.0000 52.5308 Total 0.0145 0.2968 0.3798 5.9000e- 004 0.0511 0.0151 0.0662 0.0263 0.0151 0.0414 52.1095 0.0169 0.0000 52.5308 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 11 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 712 of 1221 3.2 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.1500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 8.5700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.9100e- 003 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 2.2505 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2520 Total 1.1500e- 003 9.6000e- 004 8.5700e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.8900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.9100e- 003 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 2.2505 6.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.2520 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.1442 1.3195 1.3827 2.2800e- 003 0.0684 0.0684 0.0643 0.0643 195.8078 0.0469 0.0000 196.9806 Total 0.1442 1.3195 1.3827 2.2800e- 003 0.0684 0.0684 0.0643 0.0643 195.8078 0.0469 0.0000 196.9806 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 12 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 713 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.3400e- 003 0.2675 0.0762 5.8000e- 004 0.0134 7.1000e- 004 0.0142 3.8800e- 003 6.8000e- 004 4.5600e- 003 56.1726 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 56.2549 Worker 0.0288 0.0240 0.2148 6.2000e- 004 0.0724 4.5000e- 004 0.0729 0.0192 4.1000e- 004 0.0197 56.4151 1.5900e- 003 0.0000 56.4548 Total 0.0371 0.2915 0.2909 1.2000e- 003 0.0858 1.1600e- 003 0.0870 0.0231 1.0900e- 003 0.0242 112.5877 4.8800e- 003 0.0000 112.7097 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0569 1.2021 1.5103 2.2800e- 003 0.0764 0.0764 0.0764 0.0764 195.8076 0.0469 0.0000 196.9804 Total 0.0569 1.2021 1.5103 2.2800e- 003 0.0764 0.0764 0.0764 0.0764 195.8076 0.0469 0.0000 196.9804 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 13 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 714 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 8.3400e- 003 0.2675 0.0762 5.8000e- 004 0.0134 7.1000e- 004 0.0142 3.8800e- 003 6.8000e- 004 4.5600e- 003 56.1726 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 56.2549 Worker 0.0288 0.0240 0.2148 6.2000e- 004 0.0724 4.5000e- 004 0.0729 0.0192 4.1000e- 004 0.0197 56.4151 1.5900e- 003 0.0000 56.4548 Total 0.0371 0.2915 0.2909 1.2000e- 003 0.0858 1.1600e- 003 0.0870 0.0231 1.0900e- 003 0.0242 112.5877 4.8800e- 003 0.0000 112.7097 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0480 0.4387 0.4954 8.2000e- 004 0.0213 0.0213 0.0201 0.0201 70.7005 0.0168 0.0000 71.1209 Total 0.0480 0.4387 0.4954 8.2000e- 004 0.0213 0.0213 0.0201 0.0201 70.7005 0.0168 0.0000 71.1209 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 14 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 715 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.3000e- 003 0.0796 0.0242 2.1000e- 004 4.8500e- 003 1.2000e- 004 4.9700e- 003 1.4000e- 003 1.1000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 19.9420 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 19.9685 Worker 9.7600e- 003 7.7900e- 003 0.0708 2.2000e- 004 0.0261 1.6000e- 004 0.0263 6.9400e- 003 1.5000e- 004 7.0900e- 003 19.5992 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 19.6119 Total 0.0121 0.0874 0.0949 4.3000e- 004 0.0310 2.8000e- 004 0.0313 8.3400e- 003 2.6000e- 004 8.6100e- 003 39.5412 1.5700e- 003 0.0000 39.5804 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0206 0.4339 0.5452 8.2000e- 004 0.0276 0.0276 0.0276 0.0276 70.7004 0.0168 0.0000 71.1208 Total 0.0206 0.4339 0.5452 8.2000e- 004 0.0276 0.0276 0.0276 0.0276 70.7004 0.0168 0.0000 71.1208 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 15 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 716 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.3000e- 003 0.0796 0.0242 2.1000e- 004 4.8500e- 003 1.2000e- 004 4.9700e- 003 1.4000e- 003 1.1000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 19.9420 1.0600e- 003 0.0000 19.9685 Worker 9.7600e- 003 7.7900e- 003 0.0708 2.2000e- 004 0.0261 1.6000e- 004 0.0263 6.9400e- 003 1.5000e- 004 7.0900e- 003 19.5992 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 19.6119 Total 0.0121 0.0874 0.0949 4.3000e- 004 0.0310 2.8000e- 004 0.0313 8.3400e- 003 2.6000e- 004 8.6100e- 003 39.5412 1.5700e- 003 0.0000 39.5804 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0103 0.1019 0.1458 2.3000e- 004 5.1000e- 003 5.1000e- 003 4.6900e- 003 4.6900e- 003 20.0269 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1888 Paving 2.3600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0127 0.1019 0.1458 2.3000e- 004 5.1000e- 003 5.1000e- 003 4.6900e- 003 4.6900e- 003 20.0269 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1888 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 16 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 717 of 1221 3.4 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.4000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 3.9100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.0830 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0837 Total 5.4000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 3.9100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.0830 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0837 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 5.6100e- 003 0.1130 0.1730 2.3000e- 004 6.0900e- 003 6.0900e- 003 6.0900e- 003 6.0900e- 003 20.0268 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1888 Paving 2.3600e- 003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 7.9700e- 003 0.1130 0.1730 2.3000e- 004 6.0900e- 003 6.0900e- 003 6.0900e- 003 6.0900e- 003 20.0268 6.4800e- 003 0.0000 20.1888 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 17 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 718 of 1221 3.4 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.4000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 3.9100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.0830 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0837 Total 5.4000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 3.9100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.4500e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.9000e- 004 1.0830 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0837 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 1.4686 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9200e- 003 0.0130 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 2.5533 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.5571 Total 1.4705 0.0130 0.0181 3.0000e- 005 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 2.5533 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.5571 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 18 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 719 of 1221 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.5000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 4.6900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7400e- 003 4.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 1.2996 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3005 Total 6.5000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 4.6900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7400e- 003 4.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 1.2996 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3005 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 1.4686 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.9000e- 004 0.0136 0.0183 3.0000e- 005 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 2.5533 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.5571 Total 1.4692 0.0136 0.0183 3.0000e- 005 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 9.5000e- 004 2.5533 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.5571 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 19 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 720 of 1221 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Increase Transit Accessibility Improve Pedestrian Network 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.5000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 4.6900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7400e- 003 4.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 1.2996 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3005 Total 6.5000e- 004 5.2000e- 004 4.6900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7300e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7400e- 003 4.6000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.7000e- 004 1.2996 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.3005 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 20 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 721 of 1221 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.2818 1.1270 2.8757 0.0108 1.2567 8.0000e- 003 1.2647 0.3360 7.4500e- 003 0.3434 996.1923 0.0335 0.0000 997.0287 Unmitigated 0.2848 1.1459 2.9511 0.0112 1.3039 8.2500e- 003 1.3121 0.3486 7.6800e- 003 0.3563 1,030.432 0 0.0344 0.0000 1,031.290 7 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Hotel 1,705.44 1,705.44 1705.44 3,480,404 3,354,579 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1,705.44 1,705.44 1,705.44 3,480,404 3,354,579 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Hotel 8.30 8.30 8.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Parking Lot 13.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Hotel 0.610645 0.025081 0.199254 0.104456 0.014638 0.004440 0.012550 0.019914 0.002247 0.001059 0.004248 0.000708 0.000759 Parking Lot 0.610645 0.025081 0.199254 0.104456 0.014638 0.004440 0.012550 0.019914 0.002247 0.001059 0.004248 0.000708 0.000759 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 21 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 722 of 1221 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 130.4460 5.6800e- 003 1.3100e- 003 130.9791 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 133.1395 5.8000e- 003 1.3400e- 003 133.6836 NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 296.0417 5.6700e- 003 5.4300e- 003 297.8009 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 296.0417 5.6700e- 003 5.4300e- 003 297.8009 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Install Energy Efficient Appliances Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 22 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 723 of 1221 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Hotel 5.54761e +006 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 296.0417 5.6700e- 003 5.4300e- 003 297.8009 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 296.0417 5.6700e- 003 5.4300e- 003 297.8009 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Hotel 5.54761e +006 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 296.0417 5.6700e- 003 5.4300e- 003 297.8009 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0299 0.2719 0.2284 1.6300e- 003 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 0.0207 296.0417 5.6700e- 003 5.4300e- 003 297.8009 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 23 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 724 of 1221 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Hotel 954024 129.0858 5.6300e- 003 1.3000e- 003 129.6133 Parking Lot 29960 4.0538 1.8000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 4.0704 Total 133.1395 5.8100e- 003 1.3400e- 003 133.6836 Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Hotel 934117 126.3922 5.5100e- 003 1.2700e- 003 126.9087 Parking Lot 29960 4.0538 1.8000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 4.0704 Total 130.4460 5.6900e- 003 1.3100e- 003 130.9791 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 24 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 725 of 1221 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.6420 6.0000e- 005 7.0100e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Unmitigated 0.6420 6.0000e- 005 7.0100e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.1469 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.4945 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 6.4000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 7.0100e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Total 0.6420 6.0000e- 005 7.0100e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 25 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 726 of 1221 Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Install Low Flow Toilet Install Low Flow Shower Use Water Efficient Landscaping 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.1469 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.4945 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 6.4000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 7.0100e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Total 0.6420 6.0000e- 005 7.0100e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0146 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 26 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 727 of 1221 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 4.3444 0.1350 3.2200e- 003 8.6784 Unmitigated 5.7027 0.1688 4.0200e- 003 11.1214 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Hotel 5.17482 / 0.57498 5.7027 0.1688 4.0200e- 003 11.1214 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 5.7027 0.1688 4.0200e- 003 11.1214 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 27 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 728 of 1221 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Hotel 4.13986 / 0 4.3444 0.1350 3.2200e- 003 8.6784 Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 4.3444 0.1350 3.2200e- 003 8.6784 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 28 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 729 of 1221 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 5.6680 0.3350 0.0000 14.0423 Unmitigated 22.6721 1.3399 0.0000 56.1691 Category/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Hotel 111.69 22.6721 1.3399 0.0000 56.1691 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 22.6721 1.3399 0.0000 56.1691 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 29 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 730 of 1221 11.0 Vegetation 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Hotel 27.9225 5.6680 0.3350 0.0000 14.0423 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 5.6680 0.3350 0.0000 14.0423 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 30 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 731 of 1221 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 1:58 PMPage 31 of 31 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2030) - San Luis Obispo County, Annual Page 732 of 1221 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Parking Lot 214.00 Space 1.80 85,600.00 0 Hotel 204.00 Room 3.24 125,200.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)3.2 44 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2023Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 438.13 0.02CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.004N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) San Luis Obispo County, Summer CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 1 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 733 of 1221 Project Characteristics - Includes RPS adjustment. Land Use - Lot acreage: 5.04; 1.8 ac parking, 3.24 ac hotel, hotel: 125,200sf Construction Phase - No demo. Minimal site prep./included with grading phase. Grading:increased from 20 to 40 days. Other phases based on model defaults. Off-road Equipment - Equipment based on model defaults. Trips and VMT - Const trips based on model defaults. On-road Fugitive Dust - Demolition - No demolition required. Grading - 8900cy imported 10000cy exported. Acres graded equivalent based on model default calc./equipment use. Architectural Coating - Arch coating assumes use of low-VOC (50 g/L or less) content architectural paints. Asphalt paint based on model default. Vehicle Trips - Based on trip-gen rate of 8.36 trips/room/day, without TDM. TDM reduction calculated separately. Avg. trip length: 8.3 miles. Vehicle Emission Factors - Emission factors based on model defaults. SAFE off-model adjustments calculated separately. Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Energy Use - Water And Wastewater - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - 50%CE for watering travelways; 61%CE for watering graded surfaces; 15mph onsite speed limit; T3 equipment included for informational purposes. Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Mitigated traffic includes project features for pedestrian connections. 2.6 miles to Amtrak/transit station. Mobile Commute Mitigation - Reductions for TDM program (-3%) calculated separately. Energy Mitigation - Reductions for compliance with current building standards calculated separately. Includes installation of energy-efficient appliances. Water Mitigation - Includes installation of low-flow fixtures per current building standards. Project MAWA: 746972 Waste Mitigation - Includes 50% division of waste per current rate. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250.00 50.00 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 2 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 734 of 1221 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 20.00 10.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 10,000.00 tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 8,900.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 3 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 735 of 1221 2.0 Emissions Summary tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 296,208.00 125,200.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.93 1.80 tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.80 3.24 tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0.02 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 438.13 tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0.004 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 2,363.00 2,362.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 5.00 8.30 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 5.00 8.30 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 13.00 8.30 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 8.36 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 8.36 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 8.36 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 4 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 736 of 1221 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2022 4.5821 55.5031 39.2439 0.1180 8.5961 1.8262 10.4222 3.9541 1.6995 5.6536 11,987.53 10 1.8941 0.0000 12,034.88 36 2023 31.0553 17.2127 19.3960 0.0412 1.0424 0.7087 1.7511 0.2802 0.6668 0.9470 4,022.800 9 0.7172 0.0000 4,039.402 3 Maximum 31.0553 55.5031 39.2439 0.1180 8.5961 1.8262 10.4222 3.9541 1.6995 5.6536 11,987.53 10 1.8941 0.0000 12,034.88 36 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2022 2.3275 48.0982 44.4722 0.1180 4.7078 1.7354 6.4432 1.9094 1.7319 3.6412 11,987.53 10 1.8941 0.0000 12,034.88 36 2023 30.9231 17.0538 21.0258 0.0412 1.0424 0.9125 1.9549 0.2802 0.9119 1.1921 4,022.800 9 0.7172 0.0000 4,039.402 3 Maximum 30.9231 48.0982 44.4722 0.1180 4.7078 1.7354 6.4432 1.9094 1.7319 3.6412 11,987.53 10 1.8941 0.0000 12,034.88 36 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 6.70 10.40 -11.70 0.00 40.34 -4.46 31.01 48.29 -11.73 26.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 5 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 737 of 1221 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 3.5183 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 Energy 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 Mobile 2.5768 8.8750 25.6452 0.0788 7.3690 0.0705 7.4395 1.9681 0.0660 2.0341 7,960.433 4 0.2963 7,967.840 3 Total 6.2590 10.3655 26.9396 0.0878 7.3690 0.1839 7.5529 1.9681 0.1794 2.1475 9,748.635 1 0.3308 0.0328 9,766.673 9 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 3.5183 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 Energy 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 Mobile 2.5505 8.6959 24.9677 0.0762 7.1026 0.0683 7.1709 1.8969 0.0639 1.9609 7,693.704 9 0.2882 7,700.911 0 Total 6.2327 10.1864 26.2620 0.0851 7.1026 0.1817 7.2843 1.8969 0.1773 2.0743 9,481.906 7 0.3228 0.0328 9,499.744 6 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 6 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 738 of 1221 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Grading Grading 4/12/2022 6/6/2022 5 40 2 Building Construction Building Construction 5/10/2022 3/27/2023 5 230 3 Paving Paving 3/28/2023 4/24/2023 5 20 4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/25/2023 5/22/2023 5 20 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.42 1.73 2.52 3.02 3.62 1.19 3.56 3.62 1.15 3.41 0.00 0.00 2.74 2.43 0.00 2.73 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 187,800; Non-Residential Outdoor: 62,600; Striped Parking Area: 5,136 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 1.8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 7 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 739 of 1221 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Grading 6 15.00 0.00 2,362.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 89.00 35.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 18.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 8 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 740 of 1221 3.2 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.3742 0.0000 6.3742 3.3520 0.0000 3.3520 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 0.9409 0.9409 0.8656 0.8656 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Total 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 6.3742 0.9409 7.3150 3.3520 0.8656 4.2176 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment Use Soil Stabilizer Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 9 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 741 of 1221 3.2 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.4427 15.5879 3.6897 0.0455 1.0312 0.0620 1.0932 0.2826 0.0593 0.3418 4,923.732 3 0.2867 4,930.899 4 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0561 0.0430 0.4437 1.3000e- 003 0.1483 8.9000e- 004 0.1492 0.0393 8.2000e- 004 0.0402 129.0740 3.6100e- 003 129.1642 Total 0.4988 15.6309 4.1333 0.0468 1.1795 0.0629 1.2424 0.3219 0.0601 0.3820 5,052.806 3 0.2903 5,060.063 6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.4859 0.0000 2.4859 1.3073 0.0000 1.3073 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.7263 14.8397 18.9906 0.0297 0.7555 0.7555 0.7555 0.7555 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Total 0.7263 14.8397 18.9906 0.0297 2.4859 0.7555 3.2415 1.3073 0.7555 2.0628 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 10 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 742 of 1221 3.2 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.4427 15.5879 3.6897 0.0455 1.0312 0.0620 1.0932 0.2826 0.0593 0.3418 4,923.732 3 0.2867 4,930.899 4 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0561 0.0430 0.4437 1.3000e- 003 0.1483 8.9000e- 004 0.1492 0.0393 8.2000e- 004 0.0402 129.0740 3.6100e- 003 129.1642 Total 0.4988 15.6309 4.1333 0.0468 1.1795 0.0629 1.2424 0.3219 0.0601 0.3820 5,052.806 3 0.2903 5,060.063 6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 11 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 743 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0959 3.1461 0.8419 6.9600e- 003 0.1625 8.1500e- 003 0.1707 0.0468 7.8000e- 003 0.0546 742.5055 0.0416 743.5453 Worker 0.3326 0.2554 2.6326 7.6900e- 003 0.8799 5.2900e- 003 0.8852 0.2334 4.8800e- 003 0.2382 765.8392 0.0214 766.3742 Total 0.4285 3.4015 3.4745 0.0147 1.0424 0.0134 1.0558 0.2802 0.0127 0.2929 1,508.344 7 0.0630 1,509.919 4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 12 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 744 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0959 3.1461 0.8419 6.9600e- 003 0.1625 8.1500e- 003 0.1707 0.0468 7.8000e- 003 0.0546 742.5055 0.0416 743.5453 Worker 0.3326 0.2554 2.6326 7.6900e- 003 0.8799 5.2900e- 003 0.8852 0.2334 4.8800e- 003 0.2382 765.8392 0.0214 766.3742 Total 0.4285 3.4015 3.4745 0.0147 1.0424 0.0134 1.0558 0.2802 0.0127 0.2929 1,508.344 7 0.0630 1,509.919 4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 13 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 745 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0732 2.5982 0.7431 6.8400e- 003 0.1626 3.7900e- 003 0.1664 0.0468 3.6300e- 003 0.0505 730.4838 0.0371 731.4107 Worker 0.3122 0.2296 2.4089 7.4000e- 003 0.8799 5.1600e- 003 0.8850 0.2334 4.7500e- 003 0.2381 737.1072 0.0191 737.5856 Total 0.3853 2.8278 3.1520 0.0142 1.0424 8.9500e- 003 1.0514 0.2802 8.3800e- 003 0.2886 1,467.591 0 0.0562 1,468.996 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 14 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 746 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0732 2.5982 0.7431 6.8400e- 003 0.1626 3.7900e- 003 0.1664 0.0468 3.6300e- 003 0.0505 730.4838 0.0371 731.4107 Worker 0.3122 0.2296 2.4089 7.4000e- 003 0.8799 5.1600e- 003 0.8850 0.2334 4.7500e- 003 0.2381 737.1072 0.0191 737.5856 Total 0.3853 2.8278 3.1520 0.0142 1.0424 8.9500e- 003 1.0514 0.2802 8.3800e- 003 0.2886 1,467.591 0 0.0562 1,468.996 3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.2358 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2685 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 15 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 747 of 1221 3.4 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0526 0.0387 0.4060 1.2500e- 003 0.1483 8.7000e- 004 0.1492 0.0393 8.0000e- 004 0.0401 124.2316 3.2200e- 003 124.3122 Total 0.0526 0.0387 0.4060 1.2500e- 003 0.1483 8.7000e- 004 0.1492 0.0393 8.0000e- 004 0.0401 124.2316 3.2200e- 003 124.3122 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.5609 11.2952 17.2957 0.0228 0.6093 0.6093 0.6093 0.6093 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.2358 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.7967 11.2952 17.2957 0.0228 0.6093 0.6093 0.6093 0.6093 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 16 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 748 of 1221 3.4 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0526 0.0387 0.4060 1.2500e- 003 0.1483 8.7000e- 004 0.1492 0.0393 8.0000e- 004 0.0401 124.2316 3.2200e- 003 124.3122 Total 0.0526 0.0387 0.4060 1.2500e- 003 0.1483 8.7000e- 004 0.1492 0.0393 8.0000e- 004 0.0401 124.2316 3.2200e- 003 124.3122 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 30.8005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 30.9922 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 17 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 749 of 1221 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0631 0.0464 0.4872 1.5000e- 003 0.1780 1.0400e- 003 0.1790 0.0472 9.6000e- 004 0.0482 149.0779 3.8700e- 003 149.1746 Total 0.0631 0.0464 0.4872 1.5000e- 003 0.1780 1.0400e- 003 0.1790 0.0472 9.6000e- 004 0.0482 149.0779 3.8700e- 003 149.1746 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 30.8005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0594 1.3570 1.8324 2.9700e- 003 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 30.8599 1.3570 1.8324 2.9700e- 003 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 18 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 750 of 1221 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Increase Transit Accessibility Improve Pedestrian Network 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0631 0.0464 0.4872 1.5000e- 003 0.1780 1.0400e- 003 0.1790 0.0472 9.6000e- 004 0.0482 149.0779 3.8700e- 003 149.1746 Total 0.0631 0.0464 0.4872 1.5000e- 003 0.1780 1.0400e- 003 0.1790 0.0472 9.6000e- 004 0.0482 149.0779 3.8700e- 003 149.1746 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 19 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 751 of 1221 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 2.5505 8.6959 24.9677 0.0762 7.1026 0.0683 7.1709 1.8969 0.0639 1.9609 7,693.704 9 0.2882 7,700.911 0 Unmitigated 2.5768 8.8750 25.6452 0.0788 7.3690 0.0705 7.4395 1.9681 0.0660 2.0341 7,960.433 4 0.2963 7,967.840 3 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Hotel 1,705.44 1,705.44 1705.44 3,480,404 3,354,579 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1,705.44 1,705.44 1,705.44 3,480,404 3,354,579 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Hotel 8.30 8.30 8.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Parking Lot 13.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Hotel 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299 Parking Lot 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 20 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 752 of 1221 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Install Energy Efficient Appliances Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 21 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 753 of 1221 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Hotel 15198.9 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Hotel 15.1989 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 22 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 754 of 1221 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 3.5183 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 Unmitigated 3.5183 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.8047 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 2.7096 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.9500e- 003 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 Total 3.5183 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 23 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 755 of 1221 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Install Low Flow Toilet Install Low Flow Shower Use Water Efficient Landscaping 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.8047 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 2.7096 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.9500e- 003 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 Total 3.5183 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 24 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 756 of 1221 11.0 Vegetation 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:26 PMPage 25 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Summer Page 757 of 1221 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Parking Lot 214.00 Space 1.80 85,600.00 0 Hotel 204.00 Room 3.24 125,200.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)3.2 44 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2023Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 438.13 0.02CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.004N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) San Luis Obispo County, Winter CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 1 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 758 of 1221 Project Characteristics - Includes RPS adjustment. Land Use - Lot acreage: 5.04; 1.8 ac parking, 3.24 ac hotel, hotel: 125,200sf Construction Phase - No demo. Minimal site prep./included with grading phase. Grading:increased from 20 to 40 days. Other phases based on model defaults. Off-road Equipment - Equipment based on model defaults. Trips and VMT - Const trips based on model defaults. On-road Fugitive Dust - Demolition - No demolition required. Grading - 8900cy imported 10000cy exported. Acres graded equivalent based on model default calc./equipment use. Architectural Coating - Arch coating assumes use of low-VOC (50 g/L or less) content architectural paints. Asphalt paint based on model default. Vehicle Trips - Based on trip-gen rate of 8.36 trips/room/day, without TDM. TDM reduction calculated separately. Avg. trip length: 8.3 miles. Vehicle Emission Factors - Emission factors based on model defaults. SAFE off-model adjustments calculated separately. Vehicle Emission Factors - Vehicle Emission Factors - Energy Use - Water And Wastewater - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - 50%CE for watering travelways; 61%CE for watering graded surfaces; 15mph onsite speed limit; T3 equipment included for informational purposes. Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Mitigated traffic includes project features for pedestrian connections. 2.6 miles to Amtrak/transit station. Mobile Commute Mitigation - Reductions for TDM program (-3%) calculated separately. Energy Mitigation - Reductions for compliance with current building standards calculated separately. Includes installation of energy-efficient appliances. Water Mitigation - Includes installation of low-flow fixtures per current building standards. Project MAWA: 746972 Waste Mitigation - Includes 50% division of waste per current rate. Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 250.00 50.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 250.00 50.00 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 2 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 759 of 1221 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 20.00 10.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 10,000.00 tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 8,900.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 3 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 760 of 1221 2.0 Emissions Summary tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 296,208.00 125,200.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.93 1.80 tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.80 3.24 tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0.029 0.02 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 438.13 tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0.006 0.004 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 2,363.00 2,362.00 tblVehicleTrips CC_TL 5.00 8.30 tblVehicleTrips CNW_TL 5.00 8.30 tblVehicleTrips CW_TL 13.00 8.30 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 8.36 tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 8.36 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 8.36 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 4 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 761 of 1221 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2022 4.6571 55.5976 39.4843 0.1167 8.5961 1.8283 10.4243 3.9541 1.7015 5.6556 11,847.09 94 1.9052 0.0000 11,894.72 86 2023 31.0647 17.2235 19.4025 0.0406 1.0424 0.7089 1.7513 0.2802 0.6670 0.9472 3,965.115 3 0.7171 0.0000 3,981.758 8 Maximum 31.0647 55.5976 39.4843 0.1167 8.5961 1.8283 10.4243 3.9541 1.7015 5.6556 11,847.09 94 1.9052 0.0000 11,894.72 86 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year lb/day lb/day 2022 2.4025 48.1927 44.7125 0.1167 4.7078 1.7375 6.4453 1.9094 1.7339 3.6432 11,847.09 94 1.9052 0.0000 11,894.72 86 2023 30.9324 17.0646 21.0323 0.0406 1.0424 0.9127 1.9551 0.2802 0.9121 1.1923 3,965.115 3 0.7171 0.0000 3,981.758 8 Maximum 30.9324 48.1927 44.7125 0.1167 4.7078 1.7375 6.4453 1.9094 1.7339 3.6432 11,847.09 94 1.9052 0.0000 11,894.72 86 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 6.68 10.39 -11.65 0.00 40.34 -4.46 31.01 48.29 -11.72 26.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 5 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 762 of 1221 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 3.5183 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 Energy 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 Mobile 2.4787 9.1860 26.4068 0.0757 7.3690 0.0709 7.4399 1.9681 0.0663 2.0344 7,642.001 6 0.3015 7,649.540 1 Total 6.1609 10.6765 27.7012 0.0846 7.3690 0.1843 7.5533 1.9681 0.1797 2.1478 9,430.203 3 0.3361 0.0328 9,448.373 7 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Area 3.5183 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 Energy 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 Mobile 2.4526 8.9958 25.7711 0.0732 7.1026 0.0687 7.1713 1.8969 0.0643 1.9612 7,385.173 6 0.2938 7,392.517 6 Total 6.1348 10.4863 27.0655 0.0821 7.1026 0.1821 7.2847 1.8969 0.1777 2.0746 9,173.375 3 0.3283 0.0328 9,191.351 2 Mitigated Operational CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 6 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 763 of 1221 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Grading Grading 4/12/2022 6/6/2022 5 40 2 Building Construction Building Construction 5/10/2022 3/27/2023 5 230 3 Paving Paving 3/28/2023 4/24/2023 5 20 4 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 4/25/2023 5/22/2023 5 20 OffRoad Equipment ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.42 1.78 2.29 3.01 3.62 1.19 3.56 3.62 1.15 3.41 0.00 0.00 2.72 2.32 0.00 2.72 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 187,800; Non-Residential Outdoor: 62,600; Striped Parking Area: 5,136 (Architectural Coating – sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10 Acres of Paving: 1.8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 7 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 764 of 1221 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Grading 6 15.00 0.00 2,362.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 89.00 35.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 18.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 5.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 8 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 765 of 1221 3.2 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 6.3742 0.0000 6.3742 3.3520 0.0000 3.3520 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 0.9409 0.9409 0.8656 0.8656 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Total 1.9486 20.8551 15.2727 0.0297 6.3742 0.9409 7.3150 3.3520 0.8656 4.2176 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment Use Soil Stabilizer Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 9 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 766 of 1221 3.2 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.4551 15.6651 3.9150 0.0448 1.0312 0.0636 1.0948 0.2826 0.0608 0.3434 4,848.329 4 0.2957 4,855.722 0 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0642 0.0488 0.4295 1.2300e- 003 0.1483 8.9000e- 004 0.1492 0.0393 8.2000e- 004 0.0402 123.0317 3.4700e- 003 123.1185 Total 0.5193 15.7140 4.3445 0.0460 1.1795 0.0645 1.2440 0.3219 0.0616 0.3835 4,971.361 1 0.2992 4,978.840 5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 2.4859 0.0000 2.4859 1.3073 0.0000 1.3073 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.7263 14.8397 18.9906 0.0297 0.7555 0.7555 0.7555 0.7555 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Total 0.7263 14.8397 18.9906 0.0297 2.4859 0.7555 3.2415 1.3073 0.7555 2.0628 2,872.046 4 0.9289 2,895.268 4 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 10 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 767 of 1221 3.2 Grading - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.4551 15.6651 3.9150 0.0448 1.0312 0.0636 1.0948 0.2826 0.0608 0.3434 4,848.329 4 0.2957 4,855.722 0 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0642 0.0488 0.4295 1.2300e- 003 0.1483 8.9000e- 004 0.1492 0.0393 8.2000e- 004 0.0402 123.0317 3.4700e- 003 123.1185 Total 0.5193 15.7140 4.3445 0.0460 1.1795 0.0645 1.2440 0.3219 0.0616 0.3835 4,971.361 1 0.2992 4,978.840 5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 1.7062 15.6156 16.3634 0.0269 0.8090 0.8090 0.7612 0.7612 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 11 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 768 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1022 3.1232 0.9555 6.7500e- 003 0.1625 8.6600e- 003 0.1712 0.0468 8.2800e- 003 0.0551 719.3701 0.0446 720.4842 Worker 0.3808 0.2897 2.5482 7.3300e- 003 0.8799 5.2900e- 003 0.8852 0.2334 4.8800e- 003 0.2382 729.9882 0.0206 730.5033 Total 0.4830 3.4129 3.5037 0.0141 1.0424 0.0140 1.0564 0.2802 0.0132 0.2933 1,449.358 3 0.0652 1,450.987 5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Total 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 2,554.333 6 0.6120 2,569.632 2 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 12 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 769 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1022 3.1232 0.9555 6.7500e- 003 0.1625 8.6600e- 003 0.1712 0.0468 8.2800e- 003 0.0551 719.3701 0.0446 720.4842 Worker 0.3808 0.2897 2.5482 7.3300e- 003 0.8799 5.2900e- 003 0.8852 0.2334 4.8800e- 003 0.2382 729.9882 0.0206 730.5033 Total 0.4830 3.4129 3.5037 0.0141 1.0424 0.0140 1.0564 0.2802 0.0132 0.2933 1,449.358 3 0.0652 1,450.987 5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 1.5728 14.3849 16.2440 0.0269 0.6997 0.6997 0.6584 0.6584 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 13 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 770 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0781 2.5782 0.8335 6.6200e- 003 0.1626 3.9900e- 003 0.1666 0.0468 3.8100e- 003 0.0506 707.2936 0.0395 708.2816 Worker 0.3584 0.2604 2.3250 7.0500e- 003 0.8799 5.1600e- 003 0.8850 0.2334 4.7500e- 003 0.2381 702.6118 0.0184 703.0711 Total 0.4365 2.8386 3.1585 0.0137 1.0424 9.1500e- 003 1.0516 0.2802 8.5600e- 003 0.2888 1,409.905 4 0.0579 1,411.352 7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Total 0.6739 14.2261 17.8738 0.0269 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 0.9036 2,555.209 9 0.6079 2,570.406 1 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 14 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 771 of 1221 3.3 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0781 2.5782 0.8335 6.6200e- 003 0.1626 3.9900e- 003 0.1666 0.0468 3.8100e- 003 0.0506 707.2936 0.0395 708.2816 Worker 0.3584 0.2604 2.3250 7.0500e- 003 0.8799 5.1600e- 003 0.8850 0.2334 4.7500e- 003 0.2381 702.6118 0.0184 703.0711 Total 0.4365 2.8386 3.1585 0.0137 1.0424 9.1500e- 003 1.0516 0.2802 8.5600e- 003 0.2888 1,409.905 4 0.0579 1,411.352 7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 1.0327 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.2358 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.2685 10.1917 14.5842 0.0228 0.5102 0.5102 0.4694 0.4694 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 15 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 772 of 1221 3.4 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0604 0.0439 0.3919 1.1900e- 003 0.1483 8.7000e- 004 0.1492 0.0393 8.0000e- 004 0.0401 118.4177 3.1000e- 003 118.4951 Total 0.0604 0.0439 0.3919 1.1900e- 003 0.1483 8.7000e- 004 0.1492 0.0393 8.0000e- 004 0.0401 118.4177 3.1000e- 003 118.4951 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.5609 11.2952 17.2957 0.0228 0.6093 0.6093 0.6093 0.6093 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Paving 0.2358 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.7967 11.2952 17.2957 0.0228 0.6093 0.6093 0.6093 0.6093 2,207.584 1 0.7140 2,225.433 6 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 16 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 773 of 1221 3.4 Paving - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0604 0.0439 0.3919 1.1900e- 003 0.1483 8.7000e- 004 0.1492 0.0393 8.0000e- 004 0.0401 118.4177 3.1000e- 003 118.4951 Total 0.0604 0.0439 0.3919 1.1900e- 003 0.1483 8.7000e- 004 0.1492 0.0393 8.0000e- 004 0.0401 118.4177 3.1000e- 003 118.4951 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 30.8005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 30.9922 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e- 003 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 17 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 774 of 1221 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0725 0.0527 0.4702 1.4300e- 003 0.1780 1.0400e- 003 0.1790 0.0472 9.6000e- 004 0.0482 142.1013 3.7200e- 003 142.1942 Total 0.0725 0.0527 0.4702 1.4300e- 003 0.1780 1.0400e- 003 0.1790 0.0472 9.6000e- 004 0.0482 142.1013 3.7200e- 003 142.1942 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating 30.8005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0594 1.3570 1.8324 2.9700e- 003 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Total 30.8599 1.3570 1.8324 2.9700e- 003 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 0.0951 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 18 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 775 of 1221 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Increase Transit Accessibility Improve Pedestrian Network 3.5 Architectural Coating - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0725 0.0527 0.4702 1.4300e- 003 0.1780 1.0400e- 003 0.1790 0.0472 9.6000e- 004 0.0482 142.1013 3.7200e- 003 142.1942 Total 0.0725 0.0527 0.4702 1.4300e- 003 0.1780 1.0400e- 003 0.1790 0.0472 9.6000e- 004 0.0482 142.1013 3.7200e- 003 142.1942 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 19 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 776 of 1221 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 2.4526 8.9958 25.7711 0.0732 7.1026 0.0687 7.1713 1.8969 0.0643 1.9612 7,385.173 6 0.2938 7,392.517 6 Unmitigated 2.4787 9.1860 26.4068 0.0757 7.3690 0.0709 7.4399 1.9681 0.0663 2.0344 7,642.001 6 0.3015 7,649.540 1 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Hotel 1,705.44 1,705.44 1705.44 3,480,404 3,354,579 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1,705.44 1,705.44 1,705.44 3,480,404 3,354,579 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Hotel 8.30 8.30 8.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Parking Lot 13.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Hotel 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299 Parking Lot 0.582546 0.028575 0.198242 0.117308 0.024121 0.006096 0.012865 0.019735 0.002341 0.001188 0.004913 0.000770 0.001299 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 20 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 777 of 1221 5.0 Energy Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day NaturalGas Mitigated 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy Install Energy Efficient Appliances Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 21 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 778 of 1221 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Hotel 15198.9 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 Unmitigated NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Hotel 15.1989 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.1639 1.4901 1.2517 8.9400e- 003 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 0.1133 1,788.110 2 0.0343 0.0328 1,798.736 1 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 22 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 779 of 1221 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated 3.5183 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 Unmitigated 3.5183 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.8047 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 2.7096 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.9500e- 003 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 Total 3.5183 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 23 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 780 of 1221 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Institute Recycling and Composting Services Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet Install Low Flow Toilet Install Low Flow Shower Use Water Efficient Landscaping 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 8.0 Waste Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory lb/day lb/day Architectural Coating 0.8047 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 2.7096 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 3.9500e- 003 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 Total 3.5183 3.9000e- 004 0.0427 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0915 2.4000e- 004 0.0975 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 24 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 781 of 1221 11.0 Vegetation 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 12/21/2020 4:25 PMPage 25 of 25 Airport Hotel (Operational Year 2023) - San Luis Obispo County, Winter Page 782 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 3 Biological Constraints Memorandum Page 783 of 1221 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 www.terraverdeweb.com February 06, 2020 Dr. Sanjay Ganpule 325 Posada Lane Templeton, CA 93465 Sent via email to Pam Jardini: planningsolutions@charter.net RE: Biological Constraints Memorandum for a Proposed Project at 950 and 990 Aero Drive, San Luis Obispo, California Dear Dr. Ganpule, Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC (Terra Verde) has prepared this memo randum to document the results of a reconnaissance-level biological resources assessment completed in support of a proposed development at 950 and 990 Aero Drive, San Luis Obispo, California (APN 053-412-010 and 053-412-011) (see Attachment A – Figure 1: Project Location and Survey Area Map). The proposed development includes two hotels and associated infrastructure and surface parking on an approximately five-acre lot. Terra Verde completed a desktop literature review and field survey for the site, which focused on the identification of sensitive biological resources that are present or have the potential to occur on or in the vicinity of the proposed project site. In addition, all plant and wildlife species and any other sensitive biological resources observed w hile on site were recorded. This report is intended to provide information about current site conditions in order to inform project planning and may be used to support the environmental review process. Existing Site Conditions The proposed project site is located immediately northwest of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (Airport) at the corner of Broad Street (Highway 227) and Aero Drive in the City of San Luis Obispo, California. A majority of the survey area supports ruderal herbaceous vegetation with a cluster of non-native trees on the western edge of the survey area. The topography, soils and vegetation of the proposed project site and surrounding areas have been altered considerably through past land conversion, construction of the adjacent commercial developments, expansion of the Airport, and realignment of Aero Drive. A review of aerial imagery indicates that the property has been regularly mowed since the early 2000s (Google Earth 1994-2019). Topography on site is gently sloped toward a drainage that borders the southwestern edge of the survey area. Elevations on site range from approximately 157 to 173 Page 784 of 1221 2 feet (48 to 52 meters). Surrounding land uses include the Airport and associated infrastructure, commercial building parks, industrial businesses, rural and suburban residential areas and agriculture (e.g., vineyards). The unnamed drainage bordering the site flows generally northwest across the southwestern edge of the survey area (see Attachment A – Figure 2: Survey Results Map). The drainage enters the survey area through a culvert under Aero Drive and flows west along the edge of the survey area before making a 90-degree bend and continuing north-northwest for approximately 400 feet, where it flows into a 36-inch culvert in the northwest corner of the survey area. This drainage is ephemeral, conveying surface flows from the subject parcel and adjacent developments during periods of significant rainfall. Survey Methodology Prior to conducting field surveys, Terra Verde staff completed a background review of relevant literature pertaining to sensitive resources known to occur in the project vicinity, which included the following: • Aerial photographs of the project site (Google Earth 1998 – 2019) • USGS topographic map for the San Luis Obispo 7.5-minute quadrangle (National Geologic Map Database 2019) • Online Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County, California (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2019) • Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH) online database of plant collections (CCH 2019) • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) list of state and federally listed special - status species documented in the project vicinity (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] 2019) • CNDDB map of special-status species that have been documented within a 5-mile radius of the project site (CDFW 2019) • California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants documented in the project vicinity (CNPS 2019) • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2019a) • USFWS National Wetland Inventory map (NWI) (USFWS 2019b) • David Wolff Environmental (DWE) San Luis Obispo County Airport Rental Car Facility Wetland Delineation & Jurisdictional Determination Report (DWE 2008a) • DWE San Luis Obispo County Airport Rental Car Facility 90 -day Comprehensive Wet and Dry Season Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey Report (DWE 2008b) A list of regionally occurring special-status species was compiled based on records reported in the scientific database queries. This species list was used to inform the field survey effort. Terra Verde botanist Kristen Nelson and biologist Sara Snyder conducted a wetlands and waters delineation on October 03 (Terra Verde 2019) and a reconnaissance-level field survey of the entire project site on November 11, 2019. The survey area included the entire parcel and a visual scan of adjacent parcels (see Attachment A – Figure 1). During the survey, all botanical and Page 785 of 1221 3 wildlife species encountered via direct and indirect (e.g., scat, track, call) observation were recorded (see Attachment B – List of Botanical and Wildlife Species Observed). It is important to note that the survey was conducted outside the appropriate blooming period for the identification of most special-status botanical species with the potential to occur on site. Botanical species identifications and taxonomic nomenclature followed The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd edition (Baldwin et al. 2012), as well as taxonomic updates provided in the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2019). In addition, the field survey included a focused habitat assessment for vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). Survey Results No special-status species were observed during the survey; however, the survey was not conducted during the appropriate blooming period of all regionally occurring special-status botanical species, when plants are most readily identifiable. Based on the results of the background literature review and observations made in the field, it was determined that up to three special-status botanical species, two special-status wildlife species, and migratory nesting birds and raptors have the potential to occur within the survey area. In addition to these resources, jurisdictional aquatic habitat was observed within the survey , including patches of in- channel wetland habitat that temporarily flood following rain events (see Attachment A – Figure 2). A detailed discussion of these resources is included below. Special-status Botanical Species Due to the high degree of land manipulation (e.g., placed fill, regular mowing etc.) within the project site, most of the site does not provide suitable habitat for special-status species. However, habitat within the jurisdictional drainage provides marginally suitable for special-status botanical species. As such, it was determined that low suitability habitat is present within the drainage and associated wetland habitat for the following species: • Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi subsp. congdonii), California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.1 • Hoover’s button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri), CRPR 1B.1 • Adobe sanicle (Sanicula maritima), CRPR 1B.1 No special-status botanical species were documented during the survey. Low suitability habitat is present within the drainage and associated wetland habitat on site for Congdon’s tarplant, Hoover’s button-celery, and adobe sanicle. If present, Congdon’s tarplant would have been detectable at the time of the surveys completed by Terra Verde. As such, this species is not expected to occur on site. Though considered unlikely to occur due to degraded site conditions, Hoover’s button-celery and adobe sanicle may be present within the ephemeral drainage and associated wetland habitat, and would not have been detectable at the time of the surveys. If impacts are proposed to the drainage, appropriately timed surveys (i.e., April – May, and July) would be necessary prior to the start of work to confirm presence or absence of these species. Page 786 of 1221 4 Special-status Wildlife Species The potential for any special-status wildlife species to occur is considered low due to the disturbed nature of existing habitat with in the project area, annual disturbance associated with ongoing site maintenance activities, and the lack of continuity with areas of adjacent suitable habitat. Special-status wildlife species determined to have low potential to occur on site include: • Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), Federal Threatened • California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), Federal Threatened, State Species of Special Concern (CSC) No special-status species were documented during the survey. Low suitability habitat is pr esent within the drainage and associated wetland habitat for California red -legged frog (CRLF). However, the nearest documented occurrence of CRLF is from 2006 approximately two miles from the project site. Further, the drainage does not provide suitable breeding habitat due to its flashy and ephemeral nature and lack of protective cover (e.g., willows, cattails, etc.), nor does it maintain contiguous natural connection to downstream aquatic habitat features, including the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek (i.e., isolated by surrounding development). Therefore, the likelihood of CRLF occurrence on site is considered low. In addition to the surveys completed by Terra Verde in 2019, wet and dry season protocol surveys were conducted for VPFS by David Wolff Environmental in 2007 (DWE 2008b). No VPFS were observed during the protocol wet season surveys. Two intact cysts and one broken cyst identified to the genus Branchinecta were documented by Dr. Marie A. Simovich in the soil samples collect for the protocol dry season surveys. It was Dr. Simovich’s opinion that habitat with viable populations of fairy shrimp contain cysts in much higher densities than that found in the samples from this drainage (DWE 2008b). In addition, the hydroperiod for ponded water within the drainage, based on current site conditions, is not expected to support a breeding population of VPFS. Based on the results of the 2007 protocol-level survey coupled with the 2019 assessment of current site conditions, the likelihood of VPFS occurrence on site is considered low. In addition, suitable habitat for nesting birds and raptors is present within the project area , particularly within the ornamental trees located in the northwest corner of the survey area. Migratory and special-status bird species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. Hydrological Resources As described above, one ephemeral drainage crosses the southwest corner of the project site and continues onto the adjacent parcel, flowing northwest along the southwestern property boundary. At the time of the November 11 survey, ponded water was observed in a scoured pool immediately downstream of the Aero Drive culvert, which appeared to be runoff from landscape irrigation in the parking lot south of Aero Drive. The limits of federal and state jurisdiction associated with the drainage were assessed and mapped by Terra Verde during a waters and wetlands delineation on October 03, 2019 (Terra Verde 2019). Based on the presence of a defined bed and bank, including evidence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM), i t was determined Page 787 of 1221 5 that the drainage likely falls under the jurisdiction of CDFW and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as waters of the state, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) as waters of the U.S. In addition, three in-stream, federal-defined wetlands were delineated in association with the subject drainage feature. Refer to the Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report for further details on the methods and findings of this effort (Terra Verde 2019). Recommendations The proposed project has been designed to avoid impacts to sensitive biological resources to the extent possible. Specifically, the development has been designed to avoid any direct impacts to areas of jurisdictional aquatic habitat and maintain a 35-foot setback from the outer limits of mapped jurisdiction associated with the drainage. The following measures are recommended to protect aquatic resources on site and minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources during and following construction: Measure 1: Protection of Hydrological Resources • The limits of all work areas shall be clearly delineated in the field during construction, and personnel informed of the need to avoid impacts to jurisdictional aquatic features (i.e., waters and wetlands). • For short-term, temporary stabilization, an erosion and sedimentation control plan shall be developed outlining Best Management Practices (BMPs), which shall be implemented to prevent erosion and sedimentation into the channel during construction. Acceptable stabilization methods include the use of weed -free, natural fiber (i.e., non-monofilament) fiber rolls, jute or coir netting, and/or other industry standards. BMPs shall be installed and maintained for the duration of the construction period. • The mapped limits jurisdictional areas shall be clearly shown on all sites plans and flagged prior to the start of any construction activity within 50 feet of the limits of the drainage. • All equipment and materials shall be stored a minimum of 35 feet from the edge of the drainage at the end of each working day, and secondary containment shall be used to prevent leaks and spills of potential contaminants from entering the drainage. • During construction, washing of concrete, paint, or equipment and refueling and maintenance of equipment shall occur only in designated areas a minimum of 35 feet from all drainages and aquatic features. Sandbags and/or sorbent pads shall be available to prevent any fluid releases from entering the drainage. • Construction equipment shall be inspected by the operator on a daily basis to ensure that equipment is in good working order and no fuel or lubricant leaks are present. • Incorporate low impact development (LID) features, including bioswales and permeable pavers, into the overall site design to retain runoff on site and avoid increased surface runoff into the drainage. • Where feasible, establish vegetated buffers, bioswales, and/or rain gardens on the creek-side of the development. Page 788 of 1221 6 • Avoid the use of landscaping plants that are known or have potential to be come invasive. Measure 3: Pre-construction Surveys for Nesting Birds If work is planned to occur between February 1 and September 15, a qualified biologist shall survey the area for nesting birds within one week prior to activity beginning on site. If nesting birds are located on or near the proposed project site, they shall be avoided until they have successfully fledged or the nest is no longer deemed active. A non-disturbance buffer of 50 feet will be placed around non-listed, passerine species, and a 250-foot buffer will be implemented for raptor species. All activity will remain outside of that buffer until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or that proposed construction activities would not cause adverse impacts to the nest, adults, eggs, or young. If special-status avian species are identified, no work will begin until an appropriate buffer is determined in consultation CDFW, and/or the USFWS. Conclusion Current development plans have been modified to avoid direct impacts to the drainage. Sensitive biological resources identified within the survey area include one jurisdictional drainage with three associated in-channel wetlands. Low suitability habitat is present within the drainage for California red-legged frog, Hoover’s button-celery, and adobe sanicle. Suitable habitat for nesting birds and raptors is present within the project site. Should you have any questions regarding any of the information provided, please contact Kristen Nelson at knelson@terraverdeweb.com or (702) 596-5038. Sincerely, Kristen Nelson Sara Snyder Botanist Wildlife Biologist Attachment A – Figures Figure 1: Project Location and Survey Area Map Figure 2: Survey Results Map Attachment B – List of Botanical and Wildlife Species Observed Attachment C – Representative Site Photographs Page 789 of 1221 REFERENCES Baldwin, Bruce G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. California Natural Diversity Database: RareFind 5 Database and GIS spatial data download. Accessible with subscription at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. Accessed November 2019. California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2019. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Available Online at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed November 2019. Consortium of California Herbaria. 2019. Regents of the University of California. Available online at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/. Accessed November 2019. David Wolff Environmental (DWE). 2008a. San Luis Obispo County Airport Rental Car Facilit y Wetland Delineation & Jurisdictional Determination Report. Prepared for San Luis Obispo County Airport. ----------2008b. San Luis Obispo County Airport Rental Car Facility 90-day Comprehensive Wet and Dry Season Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey Report. Prepared for San Luis Obispo County Airport. Google Earth Pro V 7.1.8.3036. 1998-2019. San Luis Obispo County, California. 35.241220, - 120.639658. DigitalGlobe. Accessed October 2019. Jepson eFlora, Jepson Flora Project (eds.). 2019. Regents of the University of California. Available online at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Accessed November 2019. National Geologic Map Database. 2019. TopoView Map Viewer. 35.2421, -120.6437. Available at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/35.2421/-120.6437. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)/U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2019. Available Online at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed November 2019. Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC (Terra Verde). 2019. Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Aero Drive Hotel Project. Prepared for Planning Solutions. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019a. USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Portal. Available online at: http://crithab.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html. Accessed November 2019. ----------2019b. National Wetland Inventory Mapper. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed November 2019. Page 790 of 1221 This page intentionally left blank. Page 791 of 1221 ATTACHMENT A – Figures Figure 1: Project Location and Survey Area Map Figure 2: Survey Results Map Page 792 of 1221 This page intentionally left blank. Page 793 of 1221 San Luis Obispo CountyRegional Airport Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Aero Drive Hotel Bioconstraints Assessment ReportFigure 1: Project Location and Survey Area Map ¯^_Site Location Survey Area 13 Nov 2019 ^_ P a c i f i cOcean San LuisObispo County Santa BarbaraCounty Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,Intermap, increment P Corp.,GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, KadasterNL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,METI, Esri China (Hong Kong),swisstopo, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS User Page 794 of 1221 !. !. !. !. Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User CommunityAero Drive Hotel Bioconstraints Assessment ReportFigure 2: Survey Results Map ¯ Approximate Proje ct Site Survey Area !.Culverts Assumed Culvert Path Ephemeral Swale Wetland (Juris. Bound ary) 05 Dec 201 9 0 250 500125 FeetAero DriveAirport Drive ¬«227 Page 795 of 1221 ATTACHMENT B – List of Botanical and Wildlife Species Observed Page 796 of 1221 This page intentionally left blank. Page 797 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project List of Botanical Species Observed on October 03 and November 11, 2019 Family Scientific Name Common Name Status1 Origin Amaranthaceae, Amaranth Family Amaranthus albus Tumbleweed -- Naturalized Anacardiaceae, Sumac Family Schinus molle Pepper tree -- Naturalized Apiaceae, Carrot Family Conium maculatum Poison hemlock FACW Naturalized Foeniculum vulgare Fennel -- Naturalized Asteraceae, Sunflower Family Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush -- Native Carduus pycnocephalus subsp. pycnocephalus Italian thistle -- Naturalized Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star-thistle -- Naturalized Cichorium intybus Chicory -- Naturalized Erigeron canadensis Horseweed -- Native Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue FAC Naturalized Hemizonia congesta subsp. luzulifolia Woodrush tarweed -- Native Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce -- Naturalized Silybum marianum Milk thistle -- Naturalized Sonchus asper Prickly sow thistle FAC Naturalized Sonchus oleraceus Common sow thistle -- Naturalized Brassicaceae, Mustard Family Brassica nigra Black mustard -- Naturalized Hirschfeldia incana Mediterranean hoary mustard -- Naturalized Raphanus sativus Radish -- Naturalized Convolvulaceae, Morning-glory Family Convolvulus arvensis Bindweed -- Naturalized Cyperaceae, Sedge Family Cyperus eragrostis Tall cyperus FACW Native Eleocharis cf2 macrostachya Spike rush OBL Native Schoenoplectus americanus Olney’s three-square bulrush OBL Native Euphorbiaceae, Spurge Family Croton setiger Doveweed Native Ricinus communis Castor bean -- Naturalized Fabaceae, Legume Family Acacia sp. Wattle -- Ornamental Lotus corniculatus Bird’s-foot trefoil FAC Naturalized Medicago polymorpha California burclover -- Naturalized Trifolium hirtum Rose clover -- Naturalized Vicia villosa Hairy vetch -- Naturalized Geraniaceae, Geranium Family Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree -- Naturalized Page 798 of 1221 Family Scientific Name Common Name Status1 Origin Juncaceae, Rush Family Juncus phaeocephalus Brown headed rush FACW Native Lamiaceae, Mint Family Marrubium vulgare White horehound -- Naturalized Lythraceae, Loosestrife Family Lythrum hyssopifolia Hyssop loosestrife OBL Naturalized Malvaceae, Mallow Family Malva parviflora Cheeseweed -- Naturalized Myrsinaceae, Myrsine Family Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel FAC Naturalized Myrtaceae, Myrtle Family Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum -- Naturalized (Ornamental ) Onagraceae, Evening-primrose Family Epilobium brachycarpum Willow herb -- Native Epilobium ciliatum Slender willow herb FACW Native Plantaginaceae, Plantain Family Plantago coronpus Cut leaf plantain FAC Naturalized Plantago lanceolata English plantain FAC Naturalized Poaceae, Grass Family Avena barbata Slender wild oat -- Naturalized Bromus catharticus Rescue grass -- Naturalized Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome -- Naturalized Bromus rubens Red brome -- Naturalized Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass -- Naturalized Distichlis spicata Salt grass FAC Native Elymus caput-medusae Medusa head -- Naturalized Festuca perennis Rye grass FAC Naturalized Gastridium phleoides Nit grass -- Naturalized Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley FAC Naturalized Polypogon monspeliensis Annual beard grass FACW Naturalized Stipa miliacea Smilo grass -- Naturalized Stipa pulchra Purple needle grass -- Native Polygonaceae, Buckwheat Family Rumex crispus Curly dock FAC Naturalized 1Listing Status: Indicates taxa that are included on the National Wetland Plant List for the Arid West region (USFWS 2016), which are assigned one of the following wetland indicator statuses; species with an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC are noted above: • Obligate (OBL): plants that almost always occur in wetlands. • Facultative Wetland (FACW): plants that usually occur in wetlands, but may occur in non-wetlands. • Facultative (FAC): plants that are equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands. • Facultative Upland (FACU): plants that usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands. • Upland: plants that almost never occur in wetlands. 2cf (=conforms to): indicates provisional species determination based on the observed pheno-phase, but in the absence of diagnostic features (e.g., desiccated or undeveloped reproductive structures). Page 799 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project List of Wildlife Species Observed on October 03 and November 11, 2019 Family Scientific Name Common Name Status / Origin Birds Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk -- Carpodacus mexicanus House finch -- Cathartes aura Turkey vulture -- Charadrius vociferus Killdeer -- Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow -- Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird -- Sayornis nigricans Black phoebe -- Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared dove -- Sturnus vulgaris European starling Non-native Zenaida macroura Mourning dove -- Mammals Thomomys bottae Botta's pocket gopher -- Insects Notonecta sp. Backswimmer -- Page 800 of 1221 This page intentionally left blank. Page 801 of 1221 ATTACHMENT C – Representative Site Photographs Page 802 of 1221 This page intentionally left blank. Page 803 of 1221 Photo 1. Looking northwest across the eastern edge of the survey area at the disturbed annual grassland (11-11-19). Photo 2. Looking west across the disturbed annual grassland toward the drainage along the western edge of the survey area (11-11-19). Page 804 of 1221 Photo 3. Looking west at patch of trees in the northwest corner of the survey area (11-11-19). Photo 4. Looking east at the upstream portion of the drainage where it enters the survey area through a culvert under Aero Drive (11-11-19). Page 805 of 1221 Photo 5. Looking north at the downstream end of the drainage (11-11-19). Photo 6. The culvert under Aero Drive where the drainage enters the survey area. There was water ponded at the outlet. Water appears to be from irrigation of the bioswale plantings in the parking lot south of Aero Drive (9-30-19). Page 806 of 1221 Photo 7. Culvert in the northwest corner of the survey area where the drainage discharges from the site (11-11-19). Photo 8. View west across the drainage at the northwest corner of the site (11-11-19). Page 807 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 4 Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Page 808 of 1221 Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report Aero Drive Hotel Project 950 and 990 Aero Drive, San Luis Obispo, California Prepared for: Pamela Jardini Planning Solutions Prepared by: Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC 3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 February 2020 Page 809 of 1221 This page intentionally left blank. Page 810 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California i DISCLAIMER Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC (hereafter, Terra Verde) has prepared this waters and wetlands delineation report for use by Sanjay Ganpule (owner). The results and conclusions of this report are conditional upon final approval by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Results and conclusions presented in this report are based upon info rmation available in the public domain (e.g., United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps, the Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Surveys, aerial photographs from various sources, etc.), as well as Terra Verde’s on-site reconnaissance, data collection, and analyses, which were completed using standard methods. Results and conclusions presented herein represent the best professional judgment of Terra Verde technical staff. In this context, surveying/boundary locations developed by Terra Verde are assumed to be true and correct. ___ Kristen Nelson Botanist Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC _February 06, 2020____ Date Page 811 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC (Terra Verde) was retained by Sanjay Ganpule (owner) to complete a formal delineation of waters and wetlands under the jurisdiction of federal and state resource agencies in support of the proposed Aero Drive Hotel Project (project). The project site is located 950 and 990 Aero Drive in the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Field surveys included a delineation of all waters and wetlands, as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The survey area encompassed the entire proposed project site and the immediately surrounding wetland and riparian habitats. This report has been developed by Terra Verde using current Corps guidance concern ing waters and wetlands delineations, CDFW guidance on delineating state-defined waters and wetlands, and 2019 field-based observations of site conditions within the project area. Information offered in this report is arranged to describe the delineation objectives, discuss pertinent regulatory contexts, explain the approach and methodology used by Terra Verde in this delineation, and provide a summary of technical results. This report is intended to provide details regarding aquatic resources on site and may be used to support permit application(s) to the Corps, CDFW, the Regional Water Quality and Control Board (RWQCB), and the City of San Luis Obispo for the proposed project Terra Verde delineated approximately 206 linear feet of federal-defined non-wetland waters and 0.13 acre of federal-defined wetlands. Further, Terra Verde delineated approximately 0.63 acre and 650 linear feet of CDFW-defined waters/wetlands. As necessary, this information may be used to support regulatory permits and/or project approvals from the Corps, CDFW, RWQCB, the City of San Luis Obispo and other resource agencies. The results of the delineation, as described in this report, are conditional upon a review and final jurisdictional determination by the Corp s Los Angeles District and regional office of CDFW. Page 812 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California iii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview of Site Characteristics ........................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Current and Historical Land Uses ................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Geomorphology and Landscape Context ....................................................................... 2 1.1.3 Regional Climate ............................................................................................................. 2 REGULATORY CONTEXTS ................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Rationale for the Determination of the Geographic Extent of Waters of th e U.S. .............. 2 2.2 Rationale for the Determination of the Geographic Extent of Waters of the State ............ 3 2.3 Consistency with SWANCC & Rapanos Guidance ................................................................ 4 Field Delineation Methods .............................................................................................. 4 3.1 Overview of Methodology .................................................................................................... 4 3.1.1 Delineation of Wetlands ................................................................................................. 5 3.1.2 Delineation of Non-wetland Waters .............................................................................. 8 Results ........................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Wetlands Determination ...................................................................................................... 8 4.1.1 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.2 Soils ................................................................................................................................. 9 4.1.3 Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Non-Wetland Waters Determination ................................................................................. 10 Summary of Jurisdictional Findings ............................................................................... 10 References ................................................................................................................... 13 Page 813 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California iv LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Report Figures Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2: Project Site and Survey Area Map Figure 3: Hydrologic Connectivity Map Figure 4: Soil Units Map Figure 5: Waters and Wetlands Delineation Map Appendix B – Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix C – Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheets Appendix D – Representative Site Photographs Page 814 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California 1 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND This waters and wetlands delineation report was prepared by Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, LLC (Terra Verde) in support of the proposed Aero Drive Hotel Project (project) located at 950 and 990 Aero Drive, San Luis Obispo, California (APN 053-412-010 and 053-412- 011) (see Appendix A – Figure 1: Project Vicinity and Topographic Map). This report summarizes the regulatory context, methods, and results of field surveys, which focused on the delineation of federal and state wetlands and waters, including those defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (i.e., waters of the U.S.) and those that fall under the jurisdiction of the state of California, as defined by the California Fish and Game Code and the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The survey area included the entire proposed project area, as well as immediately adjacent wetland and riparian habitats (see Appendix A – Figure 2: Project Site and Survey Area Map). Preliminary site plans include the development of two new hotels and associated infrastructure on two undeveloped parcels totaling approximately 5 acres. The survey area encompassed the entirety of both parcels, focusing on one ephemeral drainage bordering the southwestern edge of the lot. This report has been developed following guidance from the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (EPA and Corps 2008) pertaining to wetland delineations, as well as California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidance on delineating state wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979). The results of the delineation are based on field observations made on October 03, 2019 and are subject to final review and approval by the Corps and CDFW. As needed, this report may be used in acquiring regulatory permits and/or project approvals from the Corps, CDFW, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the City of San Luis Obispo (City). 1.1 Overview of Site Characteristics 1.1.1 Current and Historical Land Uses The proposed project site is located northeast of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (Airport) at the southern limits of the City of San Luis Obispo. The site is also located within the Airport Overlay Zone (City 2019) which is zoned for business park development. It is surrounded by commercial developments, and public roadways. As such, the topography, soils, and vegetation of the proposed project site and surrounding areas have been altered considerably through past land conversion, construction of the adjacent commercial developments, expansion of the Airport, and realignment of Aero Drive. A review of historical aerial imagery indicates the Page 815 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California 2 property has been regularly maintained (e.g., mowed) since the early 2000’s (Google Earth 1994- 2018). One unnamed drainage flows generally northwest across the southwestern edge of the survey area. Most of this drainage is located on the adjacent parcel. 1.1.2 Geomorphology and Landscape Context The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed, approximately two miles east of the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek. The San Luis Obispo Creek watershed is a coastal basin that originates in the southern Santa Lucia Range, approximately 2,500 feet above sea level (City/County 2003). Topography within the survey area is mostly flat to gently sloping, except at the southwest edge where it slopes steeply up to a developed lot. Elevations on site range from approximately 164 to 180 feet (50 to 55 meters). The geology of the project site consists of alluvial deposits, comprised primarily of clay and silty clay loam (U.S. Dept. of Ag. 2019). The project site is immediately bordered by Aero Drive to the south, a gravel parking lot to the west, existing commercial developments to the north and State Route 227 to the east . Highway 101 is located approximately 2.25 miles northwest of the project site. 1.1.3 Regional Climate The regional climate is Mediterranean, with mild, rainy winters and hot, dry summers. Heavy marine fog is often present in the late spring and early summer. Historical temperature and precipitation data were acquired from the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) for San Luis Obispo (Station No. 047851). According to available data, average annual precipitation for a 123- year (1893 to 2016) period for the project region is 22.40 inches (WRCC 2019). The average minimum and maximum temperatures calculated for the same time period are 41.3°F in January and 77°F in September (WRCC 2019). REGULATORY CONTEXTS 2.1 Rationale for the Determination of the Geographic Extent of Waters of the U.S. Delineation of the geographic extent of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within the survey area was consistent with definitions provided in 33 CFR 328.3 (a) (1-8), 328.3 (b, c, and e), as well as routine procedures detailed in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) (Corps 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0 (2008 Arid West Regional Supplement) (Corps 2008). As defined in Section 404 of the CWA, the limits of Corps jurisdiction in non -tidal waters extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and includes all adjacent wetlands. The Page 816 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California 3 following definitions are used by the Corps and EPA for the identification of wetlands and, as such, were used for the identification and delineation of wetlands at the project site . Waters of the U.S. are defined in Section 404 of the CWA as: "All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; including all interstate waters including interstate wetlands, all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce." Further, wetlands are considered waters of the U.S., and are identified as: "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas." The Corps uses a three-parameter approach for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands, where a wetland is defined as a feature associated with waters of the U.S., which is characterized by a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. 2.2 Rationale for the Determination of the Geographic Extent of Waters of the State CDFW follows the definition used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for the identification of single-criterion wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979), which requires that only one of the three wetland criteria used by the Corps (i.e., hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrop hytic vegetation) be present in order to define a wetland. In addition, CDFW has jurisdiction over waters of the state, as defined under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. Specifically, CDFW uses the following definition for the identification of wetlands: “Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For the purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following attributes: 1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly Page 817 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California 4 hydrophytes; 2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and 3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season each year.” Based upon the above definitions, all wetlands determined to be under federal jurisdiction on site are also considered CDFW wetlands. 2.3 Consistency with SWANCC & Rapanos Guidance U.S. Supreme Court rulings in two prominent court cases addressing the extent of federal jurisdiction (i.e., Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County [SWANCC] v. Corps et al. [531 U.S. 159, 2001]; and Rapanos et ux., et al. v. United States [547 U.S. 715, 2006]) led to the development of federal guidance that requires careful examination and documentation of the physical location(s) of and hydrologic connections among waters and wetlands. To determine federal jurisdiction, emphasis is given to surface hydrologic connections between a wetland and “navigable waters” or “adjacency” of a wetland to traditionally navigable waters, and, thus, a “significant nexus” to interstate commerce. In addition, waters and wetland features can be determined to be under federal jurisdiction by the Corps or EPA if a significant nexus can be shown between the wetland feature in question and its contribution to the maintenance or restoration of the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of downstream waters that are traditionally navigable. Federal guidance for field delineation procedures that address the Rapanos decision has been offered by the EPA and the Corps in a joint memorandum issued on June 5, 2007 (EPA and Corps 2008). FIELD DELINEATION METHODS 3.1 Overview of Methodology Prior to conducting field surveys, a desktop review was completed, which included a review of current and historical aerial imagery (Google Earth 1994 - 2018), an online Soil Survey for the County of San Luis Obispo (U.S. Dept. of Ag. 2019), USGS topographic maps (USGS 2019), regional weather data (WRCC 2019), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (USFWS 2019), and preliminary site development plans. Terra Verde botanist Kristen Nelson and biologist Sara Snyder completed a formal wetland delineation on October 03, 2019 to identify and map the extent of jurisdictional waters and wetlands on site. Delineation methods followed routine procedures detailed in the 1987 Manual (Corps 1987) and the 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (Corps 2008). In addition, wetlands Page 818 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California 5 were classified based on hydrogeomorphic classes (e.g., riverine, slope, etc.) described by Brinson (1993) and Brinson et al. (1995). Field delineation of wetlands included an assessme nt of the hydrology, soil characteristics, and vegetation at eight sampling points (i.e., SP-01 through SP-08). Data was recorded using the Wetland Determination Data Form provided in the 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (Corps 2008). At each sampling point, a soil test pit was excavated to a depth of at least 15 inches where possible, vegetation was characterized within a 5-foot radius of the excavated soil test pit, and indicators of wetland hydrology were documented (see Appendix B – Wetland Determination Data Forms). In order to delineate the edge of federal wetlands, sampling was conducted in areas that displayed apparent indicators of wetland hydrology and vegetation, as well as adjacent areas where no apparent wetland indicators were present, and transitional areas in between. As stated above, all wetlands determined to be under federal jurisdiction also fall under state jurisdiction. Further, any areas that were determined to meet at least one of the three wetland criteria (i.e., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology) were determined to be CDFW wetlands. The delineation of non-wetland waters included identifying the presence of field indicators for OHWM within the drainage. This assessment followed guidelines provided in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (OHWM Manual) (Lichvar and McColley 2008). In addition, all waters and wetlands were assessed for hydrologic connectivity and/or adjacency to traditionally navigable waters and their tributaries. Connectivity was confirmed by determining that the drainage is hydrologically connected to the traditionally navigable waters of the Pacific Ocean via the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek, and the main stem of San Luis Obispo Creek (see Appendix A – Figure 3). The limits of federal jurisdiction and the northern limits of state jurisdiction were mapped in the field. The southern limits of state jurisdiction were not field mapped. Rather, they were approximated from aerial imagery, as the current project design will not impact the southern limits of the drainage feature. 3.1.1 Delineation of Wetlands Evidence of Wetland Hydrology Consistent with the 1987 Manual (Corps 1987), the 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (Corps 2008), and current regulatory guidance (Corps 1992), wetland hydrology can be identified by evaluating a variety of direct and indirect indicators, including stream gauge or well data, flood predictions (i.e., FEMA maps), historic records pertaining to the study area, and visual observation of field indicators for the identification of jurisdictional waters and wetlands. Field indicators may include inundation and/or saturation, sediment deposition, drainage patterns, Page 819 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California 6 hydric soil characteristics, watermarks, drift lines, presence of oxidized pores associated with living roots and rhizomes (i.e., rhizospheres), and water-stained leaves (Corps 1987). Wetland hydrology is present at a location if field observations indicate the area has a high probability of being periodically inundated or saturated to the soil surface for a sufficient duration during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the surface soil environment (i.e., root zone) (Corps 1987). According to guidance provided in the 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement, if at least one primary indicator or at least two secondary indicators of hydrology are present at a sample point, the wetland hydrology criterion is met (Corps 2008). Observations of wetland hydrology were recorded at each sample point to document evidence of inundation or soil saturation. Several types of evidence were examined to determine whether wetland hydrology previously existed or currently exists. In addition, the type and frequency of site manipulation and anthropogenic disturbances were considered for their potential to impact or alter current and historical site hydrology. Identification of Hydric Soils The presence of hydric soils was assessed based on the criteria outlined in the 1987 Manual (Corps 1987) and the 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (Corps 2008). Hydric soils are defined as soils “that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” (U.S. Dept. of Ag. 1994). Determination of whether or not a soil is hydric is based on the fulfillment of at least one of four technical criteria (U.S. Dept. of Ag. 2002), which can be satisfied using a combination of published soils information and field indicators. Field indicators for determining whether a soil satisfies the hydric soil definition and the technical criteria for hydric soils are listed in Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (U.S. Dept. of Ag. 2006). Following the guidance provided in the above-referenced documents, the presence of hydric soils within the survey area was determined using a combination of direct field observation s and a review of available online resources, including the Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, Web Soil Survey (U.S. Dept. of Ag. 2019) and the USFWS NWI (USFWS 2019). In the field, soil test pits were excavated at each of eight sampling points to examine the upper 15 inches of the soil profile for hydric soil indicators. Specifically, a Munsell Soil Color Book (2000) was used to classify the colors of matrix soils and redoximorphic (redox) concentrations within the matrix. The 2017 Pocket Guide to Hydric Soil Indicators (Wetland Training Institute [WTI] 2017) was used to determine the texture of soils, and to assess the location, type, and extent of matrix soil colors and redox concentrations, to determine whether they qualified as hydric soils. Page 820 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California 7 Dominance of Hydrophytic Vegetation On June 1, 2012, the 2012 National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) (Lichvar et al. 2012) replaced the USFWS 1988 National List of plant species that occur in wetlands for use under the CWA, Swamp Buster, and National Wetland Inventory programs. The NWPL and regional supplements have since been revised with updated plant listings. The Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List (2016 Regional List) (Lichvar et al. 2016) is the most current version available for use in the Arid West region, including coastal areas of California. The updated 2016 Regional List indicates the relative frequency that a species occurs in wetland habitats and is used to determine whether the hydrophytic vegetation parameter is met when conducting wetland delineations under the CWA. Species included on the 2016 Regional List are assigned one of the following wetland indicator statuses (Lichvar et al. 2012): • Obligate (OBL): plants that almost always occur in wetlands. • Facultative Wetland (FACW): plants that usually occur in wetlands but may occur in non- wetlands. • Facultative (FAC): plants that are equally likely to occur in wetlands and non -wetlands. • Facultative Upland (FACU): plants that usually occur in non-wetlands but may occur in wetlands. • Upland (UPL): plants that almost never occur in wetlands; plants not included on the list are considered UPL. Dominance of hydrophytic vegetation is determined by identifying all plant species within a 5- foot radius surrounding each soil excavation pit for herbaceous and shrub cover, and a 30-foot radius for tree and woody vine cover; documenting the absolute percent cover of each species within each stratum (i.e., herb, shrub, tree, and woody vine) for the sampling plot; and noting the indicator status for each (i.e., UPL, FACU, FAC, FACW, or OBL). Dominant species are then determined using the 50/20 rule, as recommended in the 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (Corps 2008). Based on this method, dominant species are those species that individually or collectively constitute more than 50 percent of the total vegetative cover (i.e., relative cover) within each stratum, in addition to those species that individually constitute 20 percent or more of the relative cover within each vegetation stratum. Species identifications and taxonomic nomenclature followed the second edition of The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California (Baldwin et al. 2012), as well as taxonomic updates provided in the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2019). According to both the Corps’ 1987 Manual (Corps 1987) and 2008 Arid West Regional Supplement (Corps 2008), the hydrophytic vegetation parameter for wetlands is met when, under normal Page 821 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California 8 circumstances, more than 50 percent of the dominant species across all strata have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC. Connectivity/Adjacency As noted above, particular emphasis is given to surface hydrologic connectivity of wetlands to traditionally navigable waters, including adjacen cy of wetlands to jurisdictional waters. Connectivity of wetlands was established via field investigations, a review of aerial imagery, and an assessment of site-specific topography. 3.1.2 Delineation of Non-wetland Waters The OHWM Manual (Lichvar and McColley 2008) provides guidance on identifying field indicators of OHWM, including protocols for characterizing the overall system to determine the presence of waters of the U.S. Where apparent indicators of OHWM were observed, data was recorded using the Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (OHWM Data Sheet) (Curtis and Lichvar 2010). Completed data sheets are provided in Appendix C (Arid West Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams OHWM Datasheets). In addition, the lateral limits of waters of the State typically include the bed and bank and may extend to the limits of riparian vegetation if present. Cross-sectional Analysis Cross sectional analyses were conducted at three locations along the drainage where there was a clear change in the limits of either the OHWM or the top of bank. The physical and biological characteristics present at each cross section were documented on OHWM Data Sheets, including a sketch of the site topography at each cross section. Specifically, the floodplain units were described for each cross section through the vegetation cover, sediment texture, and hydrology indicators at that location. The limits of OHWM were determined based on the presence of hydrology indicators such as debris wracking, shelving, scour, and change in sediment texture/substrate. Connectivity/Adjacency Connectivity to traditionally navigable waters was assessed via field investigations, site topography, and a review of aerial imagery (Google Earth 1994 – 2018). RESULTS 4.1 Wetlands Determination Terra Verde completed a wetland delineation on October 03, 2019 and determined that federal wetlands are present within the drainage, which occur in disjunct patches connected by sections Page 822 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California 9 of non-wetland waters of the U.S. (see Appendix A – Figure 5: Waters and Wetlands Delineation Map). Further, all areas meeting at least one of the federal wetland criteria were also ident ified as state wetlands. The results of the federal wetland delineation and sampling point data was documented on Wetland Determination Data Forms (Appendix B) and is detailed below. 4.1.1 Hydrology Within the drainage, field observations of wetland hydrology included primary and secondary indicators. Primary indicators observed included surface soil cracks (B6) and oxidized rhizospheres along living roots (C3). Secondary indicators observed included riverine water marks (B1), riverine sediment deposits (B2), riverine drift deposits (B3), drainage patterns (B10), saturation visible on aerial imagery (C9), and FAC-neutral test (D5). Wetland hydrology was determined to be present at SP-01 through SP-07, but not at SP-08 which was located on an adjacent flood plain outside the channel bottom (see Appendix A – Figure 5). 4.1.2 Soils According to the NRCS online soil survey of San Luis Obispo County, two soil units occur within the survey area (U.S. Dept. of Ag. 2019). These include: Unit 128 (Cropley clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes), and Unit 197 (Salinas silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes) (see Appendix A – Figure 4: Soil Units Map). Unit 128 is listed as partially hydric (U.S. Dept. of Ag. 2019). A summary of the dominant characteristics of these soil types is provided below. Soil Unit 128: Cropley clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes The parent material of this soil type is alluvium derived from calcareous shale. The drainage class of this unit is moderately well drained, and it is composed mostly of clay over sandy clay loam. This soil type tends to occur on alluvial fans and terraces below 2,340 feet. Soil Unit 197: Salinas silty clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes The parent material of this soil type is alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. The drainage class of this unit is well drained, and it is composed mostly of silty clay loam and very fine sandy loam. This soil type tends to occur on alluvial fans and flats, and flood plains. Soil test pits were excavated at each sampling point to classify the color and texture of the soil horizons down to at least 12 inches (except SP-01). Soil textures consisted of clay loam and clay at SP-03, silty loam and sand at SP-01, and clay at the remaining six sampling points (SP-02 and SP-04 through SP-08). Hydric soils were identified at SP-02, SP-03 and SP-05, all of which had a soil matrix of 10YR 2/1 with 2 to 5 percent reddish redox concentrations of 10YR 5/8 (SP-02) , 10YR 3/6 (SP-03) and 10YR 4/6 (SP-05) in the matrix and along pore linings (see Appendix D – Photos 4 through 6). SP-07 had a soil matrix of 10YR 2/1 in the upper 9 inches with 1 percent reddish redox concentrations and a mottled soil matrix of 80 percent 10YR 4/2 and 18 percent Page 823 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California 10 10YR 3/2 below 9 inches with 2 percent reddish redox concentrations (see Appendix D – Photo 7). SP-01 was taken directly downstream of the culvert under Aero Drive and the upper 10 inches consisted of a mix of deposited sand/decomposed granite, landscaping soil , and woodchips that had been deposited from the upstream developed areas (see Appendix D – Photos 8). Below 10 inches was a layer of large rocks/riprap from armoring of the culvert outlet. A soil matrix color of 10YR 2/1 with no redox concentrations was documented at the remaining sampling points, SP- 04, SP-06 and SP-08 (see Appendix D – Photos 9 and 10). 4.1.3 Vegetation Greater than 50 percent relative cover of hydrophytic, herbaceous vegetation was documented at all eight sampling points. None of the sampling points supported tree, shrub, or woody vine cover. Dominant species included tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis; FACW), common spikerush (Eleocharis marcrostachya; OBL), brown headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus; FACW) and bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides; FAC) at SP-01 through SP-07. Vegetation within the flood terrace surrounding SP-08 was dominated by salt grass (Distichlis spicata) and seaside barley (Hordeum marinum). 4.2 Non-Wetland Waters Determination The drainage is ephemeral, conveying water from the adjacent parking lot south of Aero Drive and across the western portion of the survey area before entering a 36-inch culvert in the northwest corner of the survey area. Within the survey area, the drainage displayed intermittent evidence of OHWM and a clearly defined bed and bank. Portions of the drainage are likely considered non-wetland waters of the U.S. based on the presence of a clearly defined OHWM identified by a distinct transition in vegetative cover, debris wracking, scour, and connectivity to traditionally navigable waters. Areas displaying evidence of OHWM are limited to two sections of the channel: 1) immediately downstream of the culvert under Aero Drive, and 2) in the section downstream of SP-04 until the central wetland. These areas are connected by areas of federal- defined wetlands and also some transitional areas where seasonal flows become less concentrated, fanning out into a wide floodplains and in -channel wetlands. These transitional areas did not display evidence of OHWM (see Figure 5). SUMMARY OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS The jurisdictional waters identified within the survey area fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Corps, CDFW, and RWQCB. A summary of the type and extent of jurisdictional waters and wetlands is presented in Table 1 below. Page 824 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California 11 Table 1. Extent and Location of Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Feature Type Jurisdiction Acres Length (feet) Waters of the U.S. Corps 0.009 206 Waters/wetlands of the State CDFW, RWQCB 0.63 650 Federal Wetlands Corps 0.13 N/A Table 2 (Summary of Sampling Point Data for Wetland Delineation ), provides a summary of the data collected at each of the eight sampling points during the wetland delineation. Table 2. Summary of Sampling Point Data for Wetland Delineation Sample Point Wetland Vegetation Hydric Soils Wetland Hydrology Connectivity/ Adjacency Federal Wetland State Wetland1 SP-01 Yes No Yes Yes No Yes SP-02 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SP-03 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SP-04 Yes No Yes Yes No Yes SP-05 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SP-06 Yes No Yes Yes No Yes SP-07 Yes No Yes Yes No Yes SP-08 Yes No No Yes No Yes 1State wetlands are synonymous in area and linear feet as state waters based on the single-criterion parameter. As such, no additional mapping or quantification of state wetlands has been completed as a part of delineation efforts. The geographic extent of waters of the U.S. (all area below the OHWM), totals approximately 206 linear feet and 0.009 acre within the survey area. A total of 0.13 acre of federal wetlands were mapped. The total area of proposed impact within jurisdiction al waters and wetlands will be determined based on final site plans. Section 404 of the CWA requires authorization from the Corps for the discharge of dredged or fill material into all waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The findings of this federal waters and wetlands delineation is subject to review and final concurrence by the Corps. The geographic extent of waters of the state (all area below top of bank or edge of riparian vegetation), including CDFW-defined wetlands, totals approximately 650 linear feet and 0.63 acres within the survey area. These areas may be regulated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), by CDFW under Sections 1600-1607 of the Fish and Game Code, and the RWQCB under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and Section 13260(a) of the California Water Code. Page 825 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California 12 This page intentionally left blank. Page 826 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California 13 REFERENCES Baldwin, Bruce G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. Brinson, M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Brinson, M., F. R. Hauer, L. C. Lee, W. L. Nutter, R. D. Rheinhardt, R. D. Smith, and Whigham, D. 1995. A guidebook for application of hydrogeomorphic assessments to riverine wetlands, Technical Report WRP-DE-11, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. NTIS No. AD A308 365. City of San Luis Obispo (City). 2019. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. A Codification of the General Ordinances of the City of San Luis Obispo, California. Accessed online: https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/. Accessed October 2019. City/County of San Luis Obispo (City/County). 2003. Waterway Management Plan, Volume 1, San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed. San Luis Obispo, CA. Revised February 13, 2003. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wild life Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/index.htm (Version 04DEC1998). Curtis, K.E., and R.W. Lichvar. 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Wetland Regulatory Assistance Program. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Google Earth Pro V 7.1.8.3036 (1994-2018). San Luis Obispo County, California. 35.241270 / -120.639743. Google 2019. Accessed September 2019. Jepson Flora Project, Regents of the University of California. 2019. Jepson eFlora. Available online at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Accessed September through October 2019. Lichvar, R.W. and S.M. McColley. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. A Delineation Manual. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Lichvar, R.W., N.C. Melvin, M.L. Butterwick, and W.N Kirchner. 2012. National Wetland Plant List Indicator Rating Definitions. Cold Regions Research and En gineering Laboratory. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Page 827 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California 14 Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings – Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List. Phytoneuron 2016- 30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. Munsell. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Munsell Color, Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., New Windsor, NY. Rapanos et ux., at al. v. United States. 547 U.S. 715, 2006. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (June 19, 2006). JUSTIA US Supreme Court. Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/715/opinion.html. Accessed September 28, 2017. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) et al. 531 U.S. 15, 2001. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. (January 9, 2001). JUSTIA US Supreme Court. Available online at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/159/case.html. Accessed: September 28, 2017. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. ______. 1992. “Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987 Manual.” 3-92 Memorandum. ______. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Environmental Laboratory, Wetland Regulatory Assistance Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994. Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Federal Register. Washington, D.C. ______. 2002. Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Department of Ag riculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Federal Register. Washington, D.C. ______. 2006. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 6.0. G.W. Hurt, L.M. Vasilas, editors. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resou rces Conservation Service, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX. ______. 2019. Custom Soil Resources Report for San Luis Obispo County, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservat ion Service. United States Department of Agriculture. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. Joint memorandum issued June 5, 2007. Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019. National Wetland Inventory Mapper. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed September 2019. Page 828 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California 15 U.S. Geological Survey. 2019. The National Map. San Luis Obispo County, 35.241 /-120.640. Available online at: https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer/. Accessed September 2019. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2019. San Luis Obispo, California (047851) Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary (02/01/1893 – 06/10/2016). Available online at: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7851. Accessed October 2019. Wetland Training Institute, Inc. 2017. 2017 Pocket Guide to Hydric Soil Field Indicators: Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.0. Page 829 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California This page intentionally left blank. Page 830 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California APPENDIX A: Report Figures Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Figure 2: Project Site and Survey Area Map Figure 3: Hydrologic Connectivity Map Figure 4: Soil Units Map Figure 5: Waters and Wetlands Delineation Map Page 831 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California This page intentionally left blank. Page 832 of 1221 ^_ San Luis Obispo CountyRegional Airport San LuisObispo £¤101 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Aero Drive Hotel Wetland DelineationFigure 1: Site Vicinity Map¯^_Site Location 04 Oct 2019 ^_ P a c i f i cO c e a n San LuisObispo County Santa BarbaraCounty Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User 0 10.5 Miles Page 833 of 1221 !. !. !. !. Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Aero Drive Hotel Wetland DelineationFigure 2: Project Site and Survey Area Map ¯Approximate Project Site Survey Area !.Culverts 15 Oct 2019 0 250 500125 FeetAero DriveAirpo r t D r i v e ¬«227 Page 834 of 1221 San Luis Obispo CreekP a c i f i c O c e a n East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek !. !. !. !.!. !.!. !.East Fork of S a n Luis Obispo Creek Aero Drive Hotel Wetland DelineationFigure 3: Hydrologic Connectivity Map ¯ Survey Area Blue Line Drainage Ephemeral Swale Culvert (Assumed) !.Culvert Inlet/Outlet 06 Feb 2020 0 10.5 Miles 0 1,000500 Feet Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community National Geographic, Esri, Garmin, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp. ¬«227 Page 835 of 1221 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Aero Drive Hotel Wetland DelineationFigure 4: Soils Units Map ¯ Survey Area Soil Unit Cropley clay, 0 - 2% slopes Cropley clay, 2 - 9% slopes Salinas silty clay loam, 0 - 2% slopes Tierra sandy loam, 2 - 9% slopes 15 Oct 2019 0 250 500125 Feet Page 836 of 1221 !. !. !. SP-08 SP-07 SP-06 SP-05 SP-04 SP-03 SP-02 SP-01 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Aero Drive Hotel Wetland DelineationFigure 5: Waters and Wetlands Delineation Map ¯ Survey Area Federal-defined Wetlands* Waters of the U.S.* Approx. Centerline of Waters of the State** Northern Limits of Waters/Wetlands of the State* Approx. Southern Limits of Waters/Wetlands of the State** Assumed Culvert** Wetland Delineation Sampling Points* !.Culvert* 26 Nov 2019 0 10050 Feet Aero DriveAirpor t D r i v e *Mapped in the field by Terra Verde on October 3, 2019.**Approximate locations mapped using aerial imagery. Page 837 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California This page intentionally left blank. Page 838 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California APPENDIX B: Wetland Determination Data Forms Page 839 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California This page intentionally left blank. Page 840 of 1221 Page 841 of 1221 Page 842 of 1221 Page 843 of 1221 Page 844 of 1221 Page 845 of 1221 Page 846 of 1221 Page 847 of 1221 Page 848 of 1221 Page 849 of 1221 Page 850 of 1221 Page 851 of 1221 Page 852 of 1221 Page 853 of 1221 Page 854 of 1221 Page 855 of 1221 Page 856 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California APPENDIX C: Arid West Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams OHWM Datasheets Page 857 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California This page intentionally left blank. Page 858 of 1221 Page 859 of 1221 Page 860 of 1221 Page 861 of 1221 Page 862 of 1221 Page 863 of 1221 Page 864 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California APPENDIX D: Representative Site Photographs Page 865 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo, California This page intentionally left blank. Page 866 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo County, California Photo 1. View east of drainage where it enters the survey area through a culvert (red arrow) under Aero Drive (10-03-19). Photo 2. View north of downstream end of drainage where it flows northwest through the survey area and exits via a culvert (red arrow) (10-03-19). Page 867 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo County, California Photo 3. View of culvert under Aero Drive (red arrow) where drainage enters the survey area, aspect northeast (10-03-19). Photo 4. Soil ped from SP-02, showing redox features as concentrations in the matrix and oxidized pore linings along root channels (05-15-18). Page 868 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo County, California Photo 5. Soil ped from SP-03, showing redox features as oxidized pore linings along root channels (05-15-18). Photo 6. Soil plug from SP-05, showing redox features as oxidized pore linings along root channels (05-15-18). Page 869 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo County, California Photo 7. Soil plug from SP-07, lacking any redox features (10-03-19). Photo 8. Soil plug from SP-01 showing deposited sand/decomposed granite, landscaping soil and woodchips that has runoff from adjacent developed areas (03-23-18). Page 870 of 1221 Aero Drive Hotel Project Waters and Wetlands Delineation Report San Luis Obispo County, California Photo 9. Soil plug from SP-04, lacking any redox features (10-03-19). Photo 10. Soil plug from SP-06, lacking any redox features (10-03-19). Page 871 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 5 Archaeological Survey Report Page 872 of 1221 Page 873 of 1221 Page 874 of 1221 Page 875 of 1221 Page 876 of 1221 Page 877 of 1221 Page 878 of 1221 Page 879 of 1221 Page 880 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 6 LEED Project Checklist Page 881 of 1221 LEED v4 for BD+C: New Construction and Major RenovationProject ChecklistY?NCredit1900 16 400130Credit16 YPrereqRequired0Credit1YPrereqRequired0Credit20Credit52Credit51Credit25Credit51Credit21Credit10CreditBuilding Product Disclosure and Optimization - Material Ingredients 20Credit12Credit21CreditGreen Vehicles 112 0 0 Indoor Environmental Quality16400 10YPrereqRequiredYPrereqRequired YPrereqRequired1Credit11Credit20Credit23Credit30Credit11CreditConstruction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan 12Credit32Credit20Credit21Credit11Credit11Credit21Credit3300 111Credit1YPrereqRequired 1Credit1YPrereqRequiredYPrereqBuilding-Level Water Metering Required1 0 0 Innovation 62Credit20Credit50Credit61Credit10Credit21CreditWater Metering 10 0 0 Regional Priority40CreditRegional Priority: Specific Credit 1900 330CreditRegional Priority: Specific Credit 1YPrereqRequired 0CreditRegional Priority: Specific Credit 1YPrereqRequired 0CreditRegional Priority: Specific Credit 1YPrereqRequiredYPrereqRequired4200TOTALSPossible Points: 1103Credit63Credit180Credit10Credit23Credit30Credit10Credit2Acoustic PerformanceQuality ViewsEnhanced Indoor Air Quality StrategiesLow-Emitting MaterialsIndoor Air Quality AssessmentThermal ComfortCertified: 40 to 49 points, Silver: 50 to 59 points, Gold: 60 to 79 points, Platinum: 80 to 110 Access to Quality TransitReduced Parking FootprintOpen SpaceSite AssessmentInterior LightingDaylightLEED Accredited ProfessionalInnovation Rainwater ManagementLight Pollution ReductionEnvironmental Tobacco Smoke ControlEnergy and AtmosphereMinimum Energy PerformanceFundamental Refrigerant ManagementCooling Tower Water UseGreen Power and Carbon OffsetsHeat Island ReductionOutdoor Water Use ReductionIndoor Water Use ReductionOutdoor Water Use ReductionIndoor Water Use ReductionEnhanced CommissioningBuilding-Level Energy MeteringWater EfficiencyFundamental Commissioning and VerificationDemand ResponseRenewable Energy ProductionEnhanced Refrigerant ManagementOptimize Energy PerformanceAdvanced Energy MeteringConstruction Activity Pollution PreventionHigh Priority SiteSurrounding Density and Diverse UsesSustainable SitesBuilding Life-Cycle Impact ReductionSite Development - Protect or Restore HabitatBuilding Product Disclosure and Optimization - Sourcing of Raw MaterialsSLO Airport Hotel2/20/2020Location and TransportationSensitive Land ProtectionLEED for Neighborhood Development LocationBicycle FacilitiesConstruction and Demolition Waste Management PlanningMaterials and ResourcesStorage and Collection of RecyclablesConstruction and Demolition Waste Management Minimum Indoor Air Quality PerformanceBuilding Product Disclosure and Optimization - Environmental Product DeclarationsIntegrative ProcessPage 882 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 7.1 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Page 883 of 1221 Balancing Functionality and Livability since 1995 w-trans.com T RAFFIC ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATI ON PLANNING 250 Qty. May 18, 2020 Prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo Submitted by W-Trans Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project Source: Arris Studio Architects 3/3/19 Page 884 of 1221 Page 885 of 1221 i Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Transportation Setting ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Capacity Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Access and Circulation .......................................................................................................................................................... 61 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 62 Study Participants and References ................................................................................................................................... 65 Figures 1. Study Area and Existing Lane Configurations .................................................................................................................. 4 2. Existing Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 3. Cumulative Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................................................................. 24 4. Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 5. Existing Project Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................................................... 35 6. Cumulative Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................... 36 7. Existing plus Project Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................. 37 8. Cumulative plus Project Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................... 46 Tables 1. Existing and Cumulative with Project Impacts and Recommended Mitigation ................................................... 1 2. Collision Rates at the Study Intersections .......................................................................................................................... 7 3. Collision Rates for the Study Segments .............................................................................................................................. 8 4. Bicycle Facility Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 5. Automobile Intersection Level of Service Criteria ......................................................................................................... 11 6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Intersection Level of Service Criteria .................................................................................... 12 7. Automobile Level of Service Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 12 8. Level of Service Criteria for Multimodal Segment Analysis ....................................................................................... 13 9. Modal Priorities for Level of Services ................................................................................................................................. 14 10. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Auto Levels of Service .............................................................................................. 15 11. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Pedestrian Levels of Service ................................................................................... 18 12. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Bicycle Levels of Service .......................................................................................... 19 13. Existing Peak Hour Roadway Segment Auto Levels of Service ................................................................................. 20 14. Existing Peak Hour Roadway Segment Pedestrian Levels of Service ..................................................................... 21 15. Existing Peak Hour Roadway Segment Bicycle Levels of Service ............................................................................. 22 16. Existing Peak Hour Roadway Segment Transit Levels of Service ............................................................................. 23 17. Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Auto Levels of Service ....................................................................................... 25 18. Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Pedestrian Levels of Service ............................................................................ 27 19. Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Bicycle Levels of Service ................................................................................... 28 20. Cumulative Peak Hour Roadway Segment Auto Levels of Service ......................................................................... 29 21. Cumulative Peak Hour Roadway Segment Pedestrian Levels of Service .............................................................. 30 22. Cumulative Peak Hour Roadway Segment Bicycle Levels of Service ..................................................................... 31 Page 886 of 1221 ii Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 23. Cumulative Peak Hour Roadway Segment Transit Levels of Service ...................................................................... 32 24. Trip Generation Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 32 25. Existing and Cumulative Trip Distribution Assumptions ............................................................................................ 34 26. Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Auto Levels of Service ............................................. 38 27. Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Pedestrian Levels of Service ................................. 40 28. Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Bicycle Levels of Service ......................................... 41 29. Existing 95th Percentile Queues Exceeding Available Storage .................................................................................. 42 30. Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Auto Levels of Service .............................. 45 31. Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Pedestrian Levels of Service ................... 47 32. Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Bicycle Levels of Service .......................... 49 33. Cumulative 95th Percentile Queues Exceeding Available Storage ........................................................................... 50 34. Existing and Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Roadway Segment Auto Levels of Service ............................... 53 35. Existing and Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Roadway Segment Pedestrian Levels of Service .................... 54 36. Existing and Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Roadway Segment Bicycle Levels of Service ........................... 55 37. Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Roadway Segment Transit Levels of Service ........................... 56 38. Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Auto Levels of Service ...................................... 57 39. Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Pedestrian Levels of Service ........................... 58 40. Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Bicycle Levels of Service .................................. 59 41. Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Transit Levels of Service ................................... 60 Appendices A. Traffic Turning Movement Counts B. Collision Rate Calculations C. Automobile Intersection Level of Service Calculations D. Pedestrian and Bicycle Intersection Level of Service Calculations E. Roadway Segment Level of Service Calculations F. Queuing Calculations G. Mitigation Results Summary Page 887 of 1221 1 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Executive Summary The proposed project consists of two hotels with a combined 218 rooms. The hotels would be located at 950 Aero Drive in the City of San Luis Obispo. Access to the site would be via a new driveway 300 feet west of the Broad Street/Aero Drive intersection. On a typical day the project would be expected to generate an average of 1,822 daily weekday trips, of which 102 would occur during the a.m. peak hour and 131 during the p.m. peak hour. The study area includes 13 existing intersections as well as the future intersection of Buckley Road/South Higuera Street, plus four study segments on Broad Street and Tank Farm Road. At each intersection, the service levels for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists were reviewed as well as the project queuing. For the study roadways, all the previously aforementioned modes of travel were analyzed in addition to transit operations. Conditions during the morning and evening weekday peak period were analyzed for existing and cumulative scenarios. Under the Existing and Cumulative plus Project conditions, the project is expected to result in three project- specific adverse impacts at the following intersections and segments for the indicated mode of travel. Measures recommended to mitigate these impacts are also summarized in Table 1. Table 1 – Existing and Cumulative Plus Project Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Study Facility Mode Adverse Impact Mitigation Measure Existing Plus Project Tank Farm Rd/ Long St Auto The proposed project would increase the V/C on a stop-controlled approach operating unacceptably by more than 0.01 and a peak hour signal warrant is met. Improvements at intersection are included in City’s TIF and will be in place prior to the occupancy of the hotel. Payment towards the TIF would mitigate the adverse impact. Tank Farm Rd/ Santa Fe Rd Auto The proposed project would increase the V/C on a stop-controlled approach operating unacceptably by more than 0.01 and a peak hour signal warrant is met. While long-term improvements at the intersection would be mitigated through the payment of fees, to improve an adverse project impact under the existing conditions, the City should consider restriping the median on the west leg into an acceleration lane. Aerovista Ln/ Broad St Auto The proposed project would increase the V/C on a stop-controlled approach operating unacceptably by more than 0.01 and a peak hour signal warrant is met. To improve the project-specific impact under the existing conditions, the City should consider restricting left-turn maneuvers during the peak periods. Tank Farm Rd/ South Higuera St Auto The NB right-turn queue exceeds storage capacity and project would increase the length by more than one car length. While improvements are slated to be completed by other nearby projects, project specific interim improvements at the intersection would be signal timing optimization. Tank Farm Rd/ Broad St Auto The EB right-turn queue exceeds storage capacity and project would increase the length by more than one car length. To address the project-specific adverse impact, the project should pay towards the planned improvements specifically to convert the westbound right-turn lane to a shared through/right-turn lane. Optimize signal timing splits Page 888 of 1221 2 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 1 – Existing and Cumulative Plus Project Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Study Facility Mode Adverse Impact Mitigation Measure Broad St: Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr (SB) Auto The proposed project would cause the facility to degrade to an unacceptable service level. At the intersection of Broad Street/Aero Drive, the project should install a southbound right-turn lane, southbound right-turn overlap, optimize splits. Cumulative Plus Project Broad St/ Capitolio Way Auto The proposed project would increase the V/C on a stop-controlled approach operating unacceptably by more than 0.01 and a peak hour signal warrant is met for a cumulatively adverse impact. Since this is a cumulatively considered impact and there would be a nearby signalized intersection for driver to reroute, no mitigation is proposed considering that the intersection operates acceptably overall. Broad St: Tank Farm Rd to Industrial Rd (NB) Ped The proposed project would reduce an already cumulatively deficient pedestrian score. A striped bicycle buffer would improve the pedestrian score. It is understood that this improvement is a part of the TIF. Notes: TIF = Traffic Impact Fee Outside of the operational analysis, based on the review of the collisions, a trend in broadside collisions at the intersection of Aerovista Place/Broad Street was identified between northbound and eastbound drivers. There is an existing two-way left-turn lane which, if being properly utilized, would reduce the number of these incidents. At the time of the site visit the striping was recently installed, and this improvement in visibility may contribute to better use of the lane. It is recommended that the City continue to monitor the collisions at this intersection for potential need of additional measures. There is currently a clear line of sight at the project driveway. To maintain sight lines, any landscaping along Aero Drive should be either low-lying vegetation or trees with canopies that are maintained and do not fall below seven feet above the elevation of the roadway. Additionally, parking should be restricted for 30 feet on either side of the driveway. It is understood that parking is currently allowed in the bike lanes on Aero Drive. It is recommended that the City revisit this practice to determine if this is consistent with the City’s policies on bicycle access. Page 889 of 1221 3 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Introduction This report presents an analysis of the potential traffic impacts that would be associated with development of a proposed Airport Hotels project to be located at 950 Aero Drive on the west corner of Broad Street and Aero Drive in the City of San Luis Obispo. The traffic study was completed in accordance with the criteria established by the City of San Luis Obispo and is consistent with standard traffic engineering techniques. Prelude The purpose of a traffic impact study is to provide City staff and policy makers with data they can use to make an informed decision regarding the potential traffic impacts of a proposed project, and any associated improvements that would be required to mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance as defined by the City’s General Plan or other policies. Vehicular traffic impacts are typically evaluated by determining the number of new trips that the proposed use would be expected to generate, distributing these trips to the surrounding street system based on existing travel patterns or anticipated travel patterns specific to the proposed project, then analyzing the impact the new traffic would be expected to have on critical intersections or roadway segments. Impacts relative to access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and to transit are also addressed. Project Profile The proposed project entails two hotels totaling 218 rooms to be located at 950 Aero Drive in the City of San Luis Obispo. The hotels would be constructed in two phases. The first of the hotels to be constructed would have 100 guest rooms and include guest amenities like dining, meeting space, fitness room, breakfast area and bar. The second hotel would consist of 118 rooms and, in addition to the guest amenities listed above (except for the bar), would also include a pool. For both hotels, the guest amenities would be for patrons only and not open to the public. The hotels would be accessed from a single driveway on Aero Drive and would provide a total of 218 parking spaces. The project site is on the west corner of Broad Street and Aero Drive, as shown in Figure 1. Page 890 of 1221 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project slo011-1.ai 1/20 227 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Not to Scale Figure 1 – Study Area and Existing Lane Configurations Existing Intersection Future Intersection Future Street LEGEND 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 Page 891 of 1221 5 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Transportation Setting Operational Analysis Study Area and Periods The study area consists of the following intersections: 1. Capitolio Way/Broad Street (SR 227) 2. Industrial Way/Broad Street (SR 227) 3. Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 South Ramps 4. Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 North Ramps 5. Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street 6. Tank Farm Road/Long Street 7. Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road 8. Tank Farm Road/Mindbody Entrance 9. Tank Farm Road/Broad Street (SR 227) 10. Aerovista Place/Broad Street (SR 227) 11. Aero Drive/Broad Street (SR 227) 12. Airport Drive/Broad Street (SR 227) 13. Buckley Road/Edna Road (SR 227) 14. Buckley Road/South Higuera Street (Cumulative Intersection) Operating conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods were evaluated to capture the highest potential impacts for the proposed project as well as the highest volumes on the local transportation network. The morning peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and reflects conditions during the home to work or school commute, while the p.m. peak hour occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and typically reflects the highest level of congestion during the homeward bound commute. Traffic turning movement counts for all but four of the intersections were obtained from the City. Those that were collected as part of this study are in Appendix A. Study Intersections Capitolio Way/Broad Street (SR 227) is a tee-intersection with stop-control on the east leg. There are no marked crosswalks. Industrial Way/Broad Street (SR 227) is a signalized intersection with protected left-turn phasing on each approach. Bike lanes are present along Broad Street, and there are crosswalks with pedestrian phasing on each leg. Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 South Ramps is a signalized four-legged intersection, with the off- and on-ramp for US 101 South on the north and south leg, respectively. The left-turn movement on westbound Los Osos Valley Road is a protected movement. There are crosswalks with pedestrian phasing on the on- and off-ramps. Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 North Ramps is a signalized tee intersection, with a protected left-turn movement on westbound Los Osos Valley Road and a right-turn overlap on eastbound Los Osos Valley Road. There are striped crosswalks on the US 101 Ramp leg as well as the east leg of the intersection served by an exclusive pedestrian phase where bicyclists or pedestrians can cross to any other corner. Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street is a signalized intersection with protected left-turn phasing in the north and south direction and split phasing in the east and west direction and a right-turn overlap in the northbound Page 892 of 1221 6 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 direction. The westbound channelized right-turn lane is yield-controlled. There are bike lanes on Tank Farm Road and South Higuera Street and crosswalks on each leg served by pedestrian phasing. Tank Farm Road/Long Street is a four-legged intersection with stop-control on Long Street. There are no crosswalks at the intersection but there are bike lanes on Farm Tank Road. Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road is a tee intersection with the northbound approach stop-controlled. There are bike lanes on Tank Farm Road, but no crosswalks. Tank Farm Road/Mindbody Entrance is a three-legged signalized intersection. There are no crosswalks. Tank Farm Road/Broad Street (SR 227) is a four-legged signalized intersection with protected left-turn phasing at all four approaches; southbound Broad Street also has right-turn overlap phasing. There are bike lanes and crosswalks at all four legs of the intersection. Aerovista Place/Broad Street (SR 227) is a tee intersection with the eastbound approach stop-controlled. There are no crosswalks, but there are bike lanes on the north and south legs of the intersection. Aero Drive/Broad Street (SR 227) is a four-legged signalized intersection with protected left-turn phasing on the northbound and southbound approaches. There are bike lanes on the north, south and west legs of the intersection. There are crosswalks on the west and north legs of the intersection. Airport Drive/Broad Street (SR 227) is a tee intersection with the eastbound approach stop-controlled. There are no crosswalks provided. There are bike lanes on the north and south legs of the intersection. Buckley Road/Edna Road (SR 227) is a signalized four-legged intersection with protected left-turn phasing at the northbound, southbound and eastbound approaches. There is also an eastbound right-turn overlap phase. There are crosswalks at the east, west and south legs of the intersection. Buckley Road/South Higuera Street The locations of the study intersections and the existing lane configurations and controls are shown in Figure 1. Study Roadways Broad Street (SR 227) between Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road is a five-lane north-south road with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour (mph). Broad Street (SR 227) between Tank Farm Road and City Limits is a five-lane road oriented north-south. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. Tank Farm Road between Broad Street (SR 227) and South Higuera Street is a two-lane road that is oriented east-west. It has a 50-mph posted speed limit. Tank Farm Road between Broad Street (SR 227) and Orcutt Road is a five-lane east-west road. The posted speed limits are 35 mph between Broad Street and Righetti Ranch Road and 40 mph east of Righetti Road to the eastern limits of the study section. Page 893 of 1221 7 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Collision History The collision history for the study area was reviewed to determine any trends or patterns that may indicate a safety issue. Collision rates were calculated based on records provided from the City for the city intersections as well as the collision records available from the California Highway Patrol as published in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports. The five-year period reviewed was March 1, 2014 through February 28, 2019. As presented in Table 2, the calculated collision rates for the study intersections were compared to average collision rates for similar facilities statewide, as indicated in 2014 Collision Data on California State Highways, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Based on the available collision data, with the exception of Aerovista Place/Broad Street and Buckley Road/Edna Road, all of the study intersections have collision rates lower than the statewide average. The collision rate calculations are provided in Appendix B. Table 2 – Collision Rates at the Study Intersections Study Intersection Number of Collisions (2014-2019) Calculated Collision Rate (c/mve) Statewide Average Collision Rate (c/mve) 1. Capitolio Wy/Broad St (SR 227) 2 0.04 0.14 2. Industrial Wy/Broad St (SR 227 17 0.29 0.43 3. Los Osos Valley Rd/US 101 S Ramps 9 0.14 0.28 4. Los Osos Valley Rd/US 101 N Ramps 7 0.13 0.28 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St 11 0.21 0.43 6. Tank Farm Rd/Long St 6 0.16 0.23 7. Tank Farm Rd/Santa Fe Rd 4 0.10 0.23 8. Tank Farm Rd/Mindbody Entrance 4 0.10 0.28 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St (SR 227) 26 0.34 0.43 10. Aerovista Pl/Broad St (SR 227) 6 0.16 0.14 11. Aero Dr/Broad St (SR 227) 5 0.14 0.43 12. Airport Dr/Broad St (SR 227) 2 0.06 0.16 13. Buckley Rd/Edna Rd (SR 227) 23 0.65 0.58 Note: c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering; bold text = collision rate is higher than the statewide average The collisions records for the intersections of Aerovista Place/Broad Street and Buckley Road/Edna Road were reviewed for any trends. Of the six collisions at Aerovista Place/Broad Street, five were broadside collisions either due to right-of-way violations or improper turning. Of those five, four were eastbound drivers making a left-turn maneuver onto Broad Street. The other collision was a northbound driver making a left turn to Aerovista Place. While broadside collisions are common at two-way stop-controlled intersections, there is a two-way left-turn lane on Broad Street, which allows for a two-stage maneuver to enter the through street. Since four of the six collisions involved northbound through vehicles, this indicates that the drivers may not have been using the two-way left- turn lane. At the time of the site visit, Broad Street had been recently restriped, so the two-way left-turn lane was very visible but based on the available aerials, the striping was faded prior to that time. Though all-way stop controls are not currently warranted as there were no more than two crashes in a single twelve-month period, it is recommended that the City monitor the collision history for this intersection to determine if measures are warranted to potentially reduce the collision rate. Page 894 of 1221 8 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 At the intersection of Buckley Road/Edna Road, 20 of the 23 collisions were rear-end collisions; 17 of which had a primary collision factor of unsafe speeds. Nine of the rear-end collisions were in the southbound direction, six were in the northbound direction, and the remaining two were from the minor approaches. The intersection is known to experience long northbound queues in the morning peak period and southbound queues in the evening peak. There are currently plans to improve the intersection, as well as several to the north and south, by installing roundabouts designed for speeds of 30 miles per hour. With this improvement project, queues and the speed at which drivers travel along the road would be reduced. Based on a review of the collision records provided by the City in conjunction with the rates from the SWITRS database, the collision rates for the study segments are lower compared to statewide averages for similar facilities as shown in Table 3. Table 3 – Collision Rates for the Study Segments Study Roadway Segments Number of Collisions (2014-2019) Calculated Collision Rate (c/mvm) Statewide Average Collision Rate (c/mvm) 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd 48 0.99 1.67 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits 26 0.49 1.67 3. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to S Higuera St 42 0.85 1.03 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd 19 0.80 1.42 Note: c/mvm = collisions per million vehicles miles Alternative Modes Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions, and various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. In general, a network of sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and curb ramps provide access for pedestrians in the study area, except for Tank Farm Road between Windmill Lane and the Mindbody entrance. In the vicinity of the project site, facilities exist where the properties have been developed. Broad Street (SR 227) between Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road – There are discontinuous sidewalks on both sides of this section of Broad Street between Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road. There are marked crosswalks at some intersecting streets with curb ramps present at most intersections. Broad Street (SR 227) between Tank Farm Road and City Limits – There are discontinuous sidewalks and intermittent streetlighting on both sides of this segment of Broad Street. There are crosswalks only at Tank Farm Road and Broad Street, though curb ramps are present at each intersection. Tank Farm Road between Broad Street (SR 227) and South Higuera Street – There are discontinuous sidewalks on both sides of this segment, though there is streetlighting. There are crosswalks present at the two major intersections along the segment. Tank Farm Road between Broad Street (SR 227) and Orcutt Road – There are sidewalks with streetlighting provided on both sides of this segment; the sidewalk on the north side of the segment ends at Righetti Ranch Road. Curb ramps are found at every intersection and there are crosswalks at most intersections. Page 895 of 1221 9 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Bicycle Facilities The Highway Design Manual, Caltrans, 2017, classifies bikeways into four categories: Class I Multi-Use Path – a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized. Class II Bike Lane – a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. Class III Bike Route – signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway. Class IV Bikeway – also known as a separated bikeway, a Class IV Bikeway is for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation between the bikeway and the motor vehicle traffic lane. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking. In the project area, Class II bike lanes exist on Broad Street between Orcutt Road and the city limits as well as Tank Farm Road from South Higuera Street to Orcutt Street. According to the City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2013, there are planned Class II bicycle lanes along Tank Farm Road from Old Windmill Lane to Santa Fe Road. Bicyclists ride in the roadway and/or on sidewalks along all other streets within the project study area. Table 4 summarizes the existing and planned bicycle facilities in the project vicinity. Table 4 – Bicycle Facility Summary Status Facility Class Length (miles) Begin Point End Point Existing Broad St III 0.6 Monterey St High St Broad St II 3.4 High St City Limits Tank Farm Rd II 0.3 S Higuera St Windmill Ln Tank Farm Rd II 1.3 Santa Fe Rd Orcutt St S Higuera St II 3.3 Nipomo St City Limits Planned Tank Farm Rd I 1.17 Old Windmill Ln Santa Fe Rd Buckley Rd II 3.2 Broad St S Higuera St Source: City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, 2013 Transit Facilities The San Luis Obispo Transit provides fixed route bus service in San Luis Obispo. SLO Transit Route 1A provides loop service to destinations throughout the City and connects the Broad Street and Johnson area with to the downtown transit center and the SLO Airport. Route 1A operates Monday through Friday at approximately one- hour headways between 6:15 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday service operates with approximately one- hour headways between 8:15 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Two bicycles can be carried on most SLO Transit buses. Bike rack space is on a first come, first served basis. Additional bicycles are allowed on SLO Transit buses at the discretion of the driver. Dial-a-ride, also known as paratransit, or door-to-door service, is available for those who are unable to independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability. SLO Paratransit is designed to serve the needs of individuals with disabilities within San Luis Obispo and the greater San Luis Obispo area. Page 896 of 1221 10 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Capacity Analysis Intersection Level of Service Methodologies Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of measure that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation. The study intersections were analyzed using methodologies published in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2018. This source contains methodologies for various types of intersection control, all of which are related to a measurement of delay in average number of seconds per vehicle or pedestrian. Automobile Analysis The vehicular Levels of Service for the intersections with side street stop controls, or those which are unsignalized and have one or two approaches stop controlled, were analyzed using the “Two-Way Stop-Controlled” intersection capacity method from the HCM. This methodology determines a level of service for each minor turning movement by estimating the level of average delay in seconds per vehicle. Results are presented for individual movements together with the weighted overall average delay for the intersection. The study intersections that are currently controlled by a traffic signal, or may be in the future, were evaluated using the signalized methodology from the HCM. This methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time for each movement, phasing, whether the signals are coordinated or not, truck traffic, and pedestrian activity. Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology. For purposes of this study, delays were calculated using signal timing from the City’s Synchro model. For the signalized intersections not included in the Synchro model, timing was obtained from the jurisdiction that maintains the intersection. The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 5. Page 897 of 1221 11 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 5 – Automobile Intersection Level of Service Criteria LOS Two-Way Stop-Controlled Signalized Roundabout A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Gaps in traffic are readily available for drivers exiting the minor street. Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase, so do not stop at all. Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. B Delay of 10 to 15 seconds. Gaps in traffic are somewhat less readily available than with LOS A, but no queuing occurs on the minor street. Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, but many drivers still do not have to stop. Delay of 10 to 15 seconds. C Delay of 15 to 25 seconds. Acceptable gaps in traffic are less frequent, and drivers may approach while another vehicle is already waiting to exit the side street. Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, although many still pass through without stopping. Delay of 15 to 25 seconds. D Delay of 25 to 35 seconds. There are fewer acceptable gaps in traffic, and drivers may enter a queue of one or two vehicles on the side street. Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The influence of congestion is noticeable, and most vehicles have to stop. Delay of 25 to 35 seconds. E Delay of 35 to 50 seconds. Few acceptable gaps in traffic are available, and longer queues may form on the side street. Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not all, vehicles must stop, and drivers consider the delay excessive. Delay of 35 to 50 seconds. F Delay of more than 50 seconds or a V/C greater than one. Drivers may wait for long periods before there is an acceptable gap in traffic for exiting the side streets, creating long queues. Delay of more than 80 seconds or a V/C greater than one. Vehicles may wait through more than one cycle to clear the intersection. Delay of more than 50 seconds. Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2018 Non-Automobile Analysis Similar to the automobile analysis methodology, the pedestrian and bicycle Levels of Service at the study intersections were based on the type of control, either for a signalized intersection or a two-way stop-controlled intersection. While the methodology for two-way stop-control is based on control delay, the methodology for signalized intersections is based on perceived service where a wide variety of factors, including the physical features of the facilities as well as the delay experienced, are considered in developing an operational “score”. The expectation for signalized intersections is that they are designed to carry higher traffic volumes and will result in greater pedestrian delay than an unsignalized intersection. Based on direction from the City, the intersections of US 101 Ramps with Los Osos Valley, Buckley Road/Edna Road (SR 227), and the future intersection of Buckley Road/South Higuera Street were not analyzed for alternative mode service levels. The ranges of perceived levels of service for pedestrians and cyclists are indicated in Table 6. Page 898 of 1221 12 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 6 – Pedestrian and Bicycle Intersection Level of Service Criteria LOS Two-Way Stop-Controlled Signalized A Delay of 0 to 5 seconds. Usually no conflicting traffic. < 1.50 B Delay of 5 to 10 seconds. Occasionally some delay due to conflicting traffic. > 1.50 - 2.50 C Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. Delay noticeable to pedestrians, but not inconveniencing. > 2.50 - 3.50 D Delay of 20 to 30 seconds. Delay noticeable and irritating, increased likelihood of risk taking. > 3.50 - 4.50 E Delay of 30 to 45 seconds. Delay approaches tolerance level, risk-taking behavior likely. > 4.50 - 5.50 F Delay of more than 45 seconds. Delay exceed tolerance level, high likelihood of pedestrian risk taking > 5.50 Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2018 Multimodal Roadways Segment Level of Service Methodology The roadway segment Level of Service methodology found in Chapter 18, "Urban Street Segments," of the Highway Capacity Manual is the basis of the automobile LOS analysis. This method does not address the capacity of a facility, but rather determines a Level of Service based the calculated percentage of the street’s base free-flow speed. In essence, congestion occurs as traffic volumes increase, and the overall travel speed is reduced due to increased delay. Therefore, the slower the speed, the lower that speed is as a percentage of free-flow speed, and the lower the Level of Service. The relationship between Level of Service and percentages of free-flow speed is presented in Table 7. Table 7 – Automobile Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Travel Speed as a Percentage of Base Free-Flow Speed (%) A >80 B >67-80 C >50-67 D >40-50 E >30-40 F ≤30 Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2018 The pedestrian, bicycle, and transit roadway segment LOS methodologies from Chapter 18 were also applied. Similar to the methodology for pedestrian facilities at signalized intersections, the LOS is based on perceived service where a wide variety of factors, including the physical features of the facilities as well as the delay experienced, are considered in developing the operational scores. The relationship between the Level of Service and the scores for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit is presented in Table 8. Page 899 of 1221 13 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 8 –Level of Service Criteria for Multimodal Segment Analysis Level of Service Pedestrian LOS Score* Bicycle LOS Score Transit LOS Score A <2.00 <2.00 <2.00 B >2.00-2.75 >2.00-2.75 >2.00-2.75 C >2.75-3.50 >2.75-3.50 >2.75-3.50 D >3.50-4.25 >3.50-4.25 >3.50-4.25 E >4.25-5.00 >4.25-5.00 >4.25-5.00 F >5.00 >5.00 >5.00 Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2018; *For the purposes of the analysis, it was assumed that that pedestrian space was equal to or greater than 60 ft2/person Traffic Operation Standards Caltrans While the intersections that include ramps for interstate facilities, as well as state routes, like Broad Road (SR 227), are often controlled by Caltrans, the City operates and maintains both the US 101 North and South Ramps on Los Osos Valley Road. Of the study intersections located on SR 227, only the intersection with Buckley Road is maintained by Caltrans and therefore their significance thresholds were applied in the analysis for this location only. Caltrans indicates that they endeavor to maintain operation at the transition from LOS C to LOS D. For queuing impacts, Caltrans considers a queueing impact if the project causes the 95th percentile queue to extend past the gore point on the freeway. City of San Luis Obispo With the exception of the SR 227/Buckley Road intersection, all of the study intersections are within the City’s jurisdiction. Based on the City’s Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, the following standards of significance were applied for automobile and non-auto modes of travel at intersections and along the study roadway segments. Intersection Operations Automobile At signalized intersections the City considers acceptable operating conditions to be LOS D or better. Based on City standards, the project is considered to have an adverse impact if: The project causes the intersection to degrade to LOSE or F or further degrade an unacceptable service level and increase the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more, where the V/C ratio reported is the highest V/C reported for the overall intersection. The project causes the 95th percentile turning movement queues to exceed the available turn pocket capacity or increase the queue where the capacity is already exceeded by one vehicle-length (25 feet) or more. The project’s proposed roadway geometry alterations cause an acceptably operating intersection to operate unacceptably or an intersection already operating unacceptably to deteriorate further. At unsignalized intersections the intersection is considered to be operating acceptably if the overall service level is LOS D or better. The proposed project is considered to have an adverse impact if: Page 900 of 1221 14 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 The project causes intersection service level, overall or for a movement, to decrease to an unacceptable LOS E or F or causes it to further degrade, the V/C is increased by 0.01 or more, and the Peak Hour Volume signal warrant is met. The project-added volume causes the 95th percentile turning movement queue to exceed the available turn pocket capacity or increase the already exceeded queue by one vehicles length. The proposed project’s geometry causes an intersection already operating unacceptably to degrade further or fall below the acceptable thresholds. Pedestrian and Bicycle At both unsignalized and signalized intersections, the acceptable service level is LOS D or better. The project is considered to have an adverse impact if: The project causes the service level to degrade to an unacceptable LOS E or F or causes it to further degrade. The proposed project’s geometry causes the minimum LOS standard to be exceeded or further degrades already exceeded LOS standards. Multimodal Segment Analysis For the multimodal segment analysis or for alternative modes at an intersection, as applicable, the minimum acceptable operation is LOS D or better and the project is considered to have an adverse impact if: For automobiles, the segment LOS degrades to LOS E or F or further degrades already exceeded service levels and the speed would decrease by 1 mph or more; For pedestrian facilities, the LOS degrades from acceptable service level to LOS E or F; For bicycle facilities, the LOS degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better to LOS E or F; For transit facilities, the segment’s service level degrades to LOS E or F from an acceptable service level; or, a segment with an already unacceptable service level would degrade further, based on the LOS or engineering judgement, as a result of the proposed project. Modal Priorities As part of the City’s standards, in addition to maintaining minimum levels of services, the City’s General Plan also prioritizes various modes of travel, depending on the type of facility, so that construction, expansion, or alteration of facilities for one mode does not degrade the service level of a higher-priority mode. The priorities based on the General Plan’s Circulation Element are summarized in Table 9. Table 9 – Modal Priorities for Level of Services Priority Residential Corridors and Neighborhoods Commercial Corridors and Areas Regional Arterial and Highway Corridors 1 Pedestrians Vehicles Vehicles 2 Bicycles Bicycles Transit 3 Vehicles Transit Bicycles 4 Transit Pedestrians Pedestrians Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2018 Page 901 of 1221 15 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Existing Conditions The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation based on existing traffic volumes during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This condition does not include project-generated traffic volumes. Volume data was collected while local schools were in session. Intersection Levels of Service Automobile Operations Analysis Under existing conditions, the study intersections are operating acceptably at LOS D or better overall during both peak hours, with the exception of the intersection of Edna Road/Buckley Road during the evening peak hour. Based on the field observations, the capacity of Edna Road, downstream of the intersection, results in southbound queuing. The existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. A summary of the intersection Level of Service calculations is contained in Table 10, and copies of the Level of Service calculations are provided in Appendix C. Table 10 – Existing Peak Hour Intersection Auto Levels of Service Study Intersection Approach AM Peak PM Peak V/C* Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS 1. Capitolio Wy/Broad St (SR 227) 0.20 1.3 A 0.15 1.8 A Westbound (Capitolio Wy) Approach 0.16 17.1 C 0.45 22.8 C 2. Industrial Wy/Broad St (SR 227 0.78 19.2 B 0.96 30.8 C 3. Los Osos Valley Rd/US 101 S Ramps 0.93 15.5 B 1.06 17.0 B 4. Los Osos Valley Rd/US 101 N Ramps 0.67 23.8 C 0.70 16.6 B 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St 0.93 31.5 C 0.94 31.5 C 6. Tank Farm Rd/Long St 0.16 2.5 A 0.16 16.3 C Northbound (Long St) Approach 0.30 21.3 C 0.74 45.5 E Southbound (Long St) Approach 0.14 26.0 D 1.15 ** F 7. Tank Farm Rd/Santa Fe Rd 0.14 2.1 A 0.10 18.8 C Northbound (Santa Fe Rd) Approach 0.23 28.2 D 1.85 ** F Southbound (Santa Fe Rd) Approach 0.07 38.0 E 0.10 102 F 8. Tank Farm Rd/Mindbody Entrance 0.83 7.3 A 0.85 13.4 B 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St (SR 227) 0.91 48.0 D 0.98 37.3 D 10. Aerovista Pl/Broad St (SR 227) 0.10 1.2 A 0.03 3.7 A Eastbound (Aerovista Pl) Approach 0.33 28.2 D 0.68 41.6 E 11. Aero Dr/Broad St (SR 227) 0.78 15.2 B 0.81 19.3 B 12. Airport Dr/Broad St (SR 227) 0.00 0.1 A 0.00 0.7 A Eastbound (Airport Dr) Approach 0.03 14.0 B 0.23 21.0 C 13. Buckley Rd/Edna Rd (SR 227) 0.90 27.7 C 0.94 106 F Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; ** = delay greater than 120 seconds; Bold text = deficient operation; V/C indicated for the worst movements at a signalized intersection or the worst movement of the indicated approach for an unsignalized intersection Page 902 of 1221 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project slo011-1.ai 5/20 Project SiteSHigueraStL os Os os Val leyRdBuckley Rd BroadStE dna RdTank F a rmRdLongSt C api t o lio W y In d u strial W y Santa F e Rd Mi ndbodyAero D r A ero v ista Ln Airport Dr 227 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 North Not to Scale Figure 2 – Existing Traffic Volumes1122(1219)119 (70)62(132) 14(11)(1198)901(17) 371 68(220) 9 (13) 86(178) (70)9 (19)0 (44)552 (98)985(1068)46 (133)(89) 51(1049)810(188)1912 (289)452 (0) 0 (390)231870(1308)37 (61)(908)770(631)3393 436(913) 90 (177) (812)1053 (364) 169 (482)472(110)1554 235(321) 3 (11) 272(558) (9)23 (9)17 (21)207 (18)267(683)252(272)(30) 12(503)365(418)7285 18 (23) 585(1017) 113(131) (64) 58 (615)813 (28) 4718(66)1 (2)5 (12)(12) 6(2) 0(168)626 1 (1) 660(1015) 101(66) (0) 0 (829)767 (24) 471(0)1(1)0(0)(40) 9(1) 1(159)557 761(963) 32 (6) (1019)745 (10) 64 (136)19(33) 68 162(120) 243(194) 225(178) (473)223 (428)149 (260)372331(514)637(673)58 (201)(353)211(636)652(183)1159 213(100)716(956)(102)40 (51) 9 (12) 58(785)114710 33(22) 0 (1) 6 (8) (169)53 (0) 1 (40) 465 (70)596(870)39 (4)(39) 47(712)1139(2) 1611 606(918)(28)8 (753)120012 3(5) 0(0) 2(7) (34) 53 (2) 5 (327)17041 (32)416(957)3 (2)(63) 216(518)1188(3) 313 Existing Intersection Future Intersection Future Street AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume xx (xx) LEGEND Page 903 of 1221 17 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Under the existing conditions, the following intersections operate at unacceptable service levels for vehicles. During the p.m. peak hour, the southbound right-turn movement at Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 South Ramps intersection has a V/C ratio of more than one; however, the intersection is operating at an acceptable LOS B overall. The southbound approach to the intersection of Tank Farm Road and Long Street operates with an unacceptable delay during the morning peak hour. During the p.m. peak hour, both stop-controlled approaches operate at LOS F, with the northbound approach operating with a V/C greater than 1.0. While the intersection of Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road operates acceptably overall, one or both of the minor approaches operate unacceptably during both peak hours. The eastbound approach to the intersection of Aerovista Place and Broad Street operates at an unacceptable delay during the evening peak hour, but the intersection as a whole operates at LOS A. During the p.m. peak hour, the intersection of Buckley Road and Edna Road operates at an unacceptable LOS F. Pedestrian Facility Analysis Under existing conditions all the intersections are operating acceptably except for the two-way stop-controlled intersections of Capitolio Way/Broad Street, Tank Farm Road/Long Street, Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road, Aerovista Place/Broad Street, and Airport Drive/Broad Street, where long delays are encountered by pedestrians crossing the through street. Since each of these crossings is near a signalized intersection with pedestrian crossings that operate acceptably, no deficiencies are reported. As noted previously, the intersections not within the City’s jurisdiction were not reviewed based on direction from the City. The results of the pedestrian analysis are summarized in Table 11 and the pedestrian Level of Service calculations are in Appendix D. Page 904 of 1221 18 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 11 – Existing Peak Hour Intersection Pedestrian Levels of Service Study Intersection Direction AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS 1. Capitolio Wy/Broad St (SR 227) NB ** F ** F SB ** F ** F 2. Industrial Wy/Broad St (SR 227) NB 3.19 C 3.31 C SB 3.07 C 3.18 C EB 2.01 B 2.25 C WB 2.27 B 2.53 B 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St NB 3.27 C 3.57 D SB 2.68 C 2.93 C EB 2.00 B 2.04 B WB 3.02 C 3.32 C 6. Tank Farm Rd/Long St EB ** F ** F WB ** F ** F 7. Tank Farm Rd/Santa Fe Rd EB ** F ** F WB ** F ** F 8. Tank Farm Rd/Mindbody Entrance NB 1.99 B 2.02 B EB 2.70 C 2.99 C WB 2.69 C 3.05 C 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St (SR 227) NB 3.14 C 3.18 C SB 3.27 C 3.46 C EB 3.12 C 3.17 C WB 2.69 C 2.74 C 10. Aerovista Pl/Broad St (SR 227) NB ** F ** F SB ** F ** F 11. Aero Dr/Broad St (SR 227) NB 2.91 C 2.89 C SB 2.98 C 2.98 C EB 2.06 B 2.11 B WB 2.01 B 1.98 B 12. Airport Dr/Broad St (SR 227) NB ** F ** F SB ** F ** F Notes: LOS Score = Level of Service based on HCM 6th Edition pedestrian score. For TWSC intersections, LOS based on delay in seconds; ** = delay greater than 200 seconds; Bold text = deficient operation Bicycle Facility Analysis Under existing conditions all the signalized intersections have bicycle facilities that operate at an acceptable service level. For the unsignalized two-way stop-controlled intersections, the HCM does not have a service level methodology, so these locations were therefore not analyzed and are not included in the table. The results of the bicycle analysis are summarized in Table 12. The bicycle Level of Service calculations are in Appendix D. Page 905 of 1221 19 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 12 – Existing Peak Hour Intersection Bicycle Levels of Service Study Intersection Direction AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS 2. Industrial Wy/Broad St (SR 227) NB 1.77 B 3.29 C SB 1.95 B 3.50 D EB 2.72 C 2.97 C WB 3.07 C 3.47 C 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St NB 2.25 B 1.88 B SB 1.56 B 1.94 B EB 1.55 B 1.49 A WB 3.47 C 4.14 D 8. Tank Farm Rd/Mindbody Entrance NB 1.08 A 1.40 A EB 1.53 B 1.82 B WB 3.76 D 4.07 D 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St (SR 227) NB 2.28 B 2.58 C SB 2.85 C 3.05 C EB 2.29 B 2.62 C WB 3.05 C 2.68 C 11. Aero Dr/Broad St (SR 227) NB 1.86 B 1.55 B SB 1.50 B 1.70 B EB 1.28 A 1.65 B WB 2.63 C 2.57 C Notes: LOS Score = Level of Service based on HCM 6th Edition bicycle score Roadway Segment Levels of Service For each of the study roadway segments, the automobile, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit service levels were analyzed using the McTrans software version 7.8.5 which uses the HCM 6th edition. The segments were analyzed during the same peak periods as the intersection analysis. The Level of Service calculations are provided in Appendix E. Automobile Operations Analysis Under existing conditions, Broad Street between Industrial Road and Tank Farm Road operates at LOS F in the southbound direction during both peaks and LOS E in the northbound direction during the evening peak. Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and Aero Drive operates unacceptably in the northbound direction during both peaks and the segment operates unacceptably between Aero Drive and Buckley Road in the southbound direction during the evening peak hour. The segment levels of service are summarized in Table 13. Page 906 of 1221 20 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 13 – Existing Peak Hour Roadway Segment Auto Levels of Service Study Roadway Segment Direction AM Peak PM Peak Speed PBFFS/LOS Speed PBFFS/LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 42.8 95/A 42.3 94/A SB 31.2 69/B 29.4 65/C B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 18.9 41/D 14.8 32/E SB 13.4 29/F 13.5 29/F 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB 13.0 29/F 14.3 31/E SB 19.3 42/D 18.4 41/D B. Aero Dr to Buckley Rd NB 36.2 78/B 38.0 82/A SB 31.8 69/B 21.2 46/F 3. Tank Farm Rd: S Higuera St to Broad St (SR 227) A. S Higuera St to Mindbody Entrance EB 40.3 88/A 39.9 87/A WB 44.2 96/A 12.0 80/A B. Mindbody Entrance to Broad Street EB 11.6 28/F 12.0 29/F WB 36.8 78.3/B 30.2 64/C 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd EB 39.6 98/A 38.1 94/A WB 31.0 72/B 28.8 67/C Notes: PBFFS = is the percent of “Base Free Flow Speed”; Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation Pedestrian Analysis For several of the study segments, large gaps in the sidewalk exist in one or both directions. Where sidewalks gaps exist in both directions, those segments are not included in the analysis. Of the study segments analyzed, the only segment that operates unacceptably was Broad Street between Industrial Road and Tank Farm Road. The pedestrian levels of service for the segments that were analyzed are summarized in Table 14. The following segments that were not evaluated so are excluded from the table. Broad Street between Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road (#1), southbound Broad Street between Aero Drive and Buckley Road (#2), both directions Tank Farm Road between South Higuera Street and Mindbody Entrance, both directions Tank Farm Road between Mindbody Entrance and Broad Street, westbound Page 907 of 1221 21 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 14 – Existing Peak Hour Roadway Segment Pedestrian Levels of Service Study Roadway Segment Direction AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 3.22 C 3.81 D B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 4.11 D 4.32 E SB 3.79 D 4.23 D 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB 2.99 C 2.63 B SB 3.48 D 3.30 C 3. Tank Farm Rd: S Higuera St to Broad St (SR 227) B. Mindbody Entrance to Broad St EB 3.00 C 3.19 C 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) Orcutt Rd EB 3.39 C 4.12 D WB 4.12 D 3.87 D Notes: Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation Bicycle Analysis All the bicycle facilities within the study area currently operate acceptably. These results are summarized in Table 15. Page 908 of 1221 22 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 15 – Existing Peak Hour Roadway Segment Bicycle Levels of Service Study Roadway Segment Direction AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 2.62 B 2.74 B SB 1.96 A 1.97 A B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 2.27 B 2.40 B SB 2.01 B 2.24 B 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB 1.77 A 1.67 A SB 1.86 A 1.90 A B. Aero Dr to Buckley Rd NB 1.22 A 1.08 A SB 1.15 A 1.32 A 3. Tank Farm Rd: S Higuera St to Broad St (SR 227) A. S Higuera St to Mindbody Entrance EB 2.20 B 2.11 B WB 2.07 B 2.24 B B. Mindbody Entrance to Broad Street EB 1.77 A 1.88 A WB 1.89 A 2.07 B 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd EB 3.39 C 4.12 D WB 4.12 D 3.87 D Notes: Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service Transit Analysis Within the study area, there is a single transit route, 1A, which provides hourly service to the San Luis Obispo Airport. Given the limited service to the area, those segments that have one or more stops the transit facilities operate at unacceptable levels of service. Transit operations were not evaluated for segments that do not have a bus stop, including Broad Street between Aero Drive and Buckley Road, Tank Farm Road between South Higuera Street and Broad Street. The transit service levels for the roadways that were evaluated are summarized in Table 16. Page 909 of 1221 23 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 16 – Existing Peak Hour Roadway Segment Transit Levels of Service Study Roadway Segment Direction AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 4.60 E 4.68 E SB - - - - B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 5.36 F 5.45 F SB - - - - 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB - - - - SB 4.97 E 4.96 E 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd EB - - - - WB 5.15 F 5.13 F Notes: Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation; directions shown without results have no bus stops, so no analysis was performed. Cumulative Conditions Segment volumes for the horizon year of 2040 were obtained from the City’s gravity demand model and translated to turning movement volumes at each of the study intersections using a combination of the “Furness” method and factoring, depending on how the model was configured at each intersection. The Furness method is an iterative process that employs existing turn movement data, existing link volumes and cumulative link volumes to project likely turning cumulative movement volumes at intersections. To be consistent with recently conducted traffic studies for other projects in the study area, the volumes were compared to those used in the Northwest Corner Tank Farm/Broad Mixed-Use Project Traffic Study, 2018, prepared by Central Coast Transportation Consulting. Where those volumes were higher, the higher numbers were used. Additionally, a minimum growth of 0.25 percent per year was applied. For the ramp intersections, very little to no growth is anticipated given the planned new Prado Road interchange to the north that would connect the eastern side of the City with the existing and proposed shopping centers. Additionally, the on- and off-ramp intersection is planned to be relocated from Los Osos Valley Road and onto Calle Joaquin. Since this improvement is not fully funded, the relocation of the southbound ramps was not assumed for the analysis. Per City staff, other infrastructure improvements in the study area expected to be complete by the Cumulative scenario horizon year include the signalization of the Long Street/Tank Farm Road intersection, the TIF or planned improvements at the intersections of Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road/Broad Street, the roundabouts at Tank farm Road/Santa Fe Road and Buckley Road/Broad street, the widening of Tank Farm Road, and extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street. This new intersection would be signalized and was included as a study intersection for the Cumulative scenarios only. Other planned improvements include the widening of Tank Farm Road, a roundabout at Santa Fe Road, and the extension of Santa Fe Road to the Prado Road extension. Because these projects have not been fully designed and the funding is not yet secure, the improvements were not assumed for the analysis. Cumulative volumes are shown in Figure 3. Page 910 of 1221 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project slo011-1.ai 5/20 Project SiteSHiguera StL os Os os Val leyRdBuckley Rd BroadStE dna RdTank F a rmRdLongSt C api t o lio W y In d u strial W y Santa F e Rd Mi ndbodyAero D r A ero v ista Ln Airport Dr 227 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 North Not to Scale Figure 3 – Cumulative Traffic Volumes Existing Intersection Future Intersection Future Street AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume xx (xx) LEGEND1650(1500)140 (90)66 (150) 171(90)(1670)1000(100) 801 78(258) 10(14) 90(190) (100)10 (20)10 (50)10104 (111)1600(1400)90 (140)(94) 54(1600)1150(199) 2022 (306)479 0) 0 (413)245922(1386)39 (65)(962)816(669)3563 462(968) 95 (188) (861)1116 (386) 179 (511)500(117)1644 290(600) 10 (20) 288(600) (20)24 (10)20 (22)3010 (40)450(850)500(450)(32) 20(800)500(443)8805 40 (70) 620(1200) 120(160) (90) 61 (790)1300 (30) 5040(70)10(20)40(40)(20) 20(10) 20(180)1006 0 (30) 1220(1200) 230 (0) (220) 0 (1300)1330 (0) 400(0)0(0)0(0)(40) 20(0) 0(300)1607 1400(1320) 100 (70) (1300)980 (140)380 (250)50(100)208 179(150) 420(290) 300(210) (670)320 (580)210 (319)400800(580)800(860)100(260)(520)340(1000)950(340)1309 226 (106)1000(1300)(120)42 (54)40 (90) 90(1400)152010 130(350) 0 (7) 20 (30) (180)60 (10)10 (46)40120(75)800(1250)50 (100)(41) 59(1000)1440(20) 2011 860(1173)(30)8 (948)151912 3(5) 0(0) 2(7) (86) 74 (2) 5 (347)180162(34)682(1014)3 (2)(67) 229(749)1479(3) 313 358(663)97 (243)158(424) 97 (230)(295)499(241)23514 Page 911 of 1221 25 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Intersection Levels of Service Automobile Operations Analysis Under the anticipated Cumulative volumes, and with the addition of planned improvements at the intersection of Tank Farm Road with Long Street, several of the study intersections are expected to operate with an unacceptable delay and/or v/c ratio. Cumulative operating conditions are summarized in Table 17. Calculations are in Appendix C. Table 17 – Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Auto Levels of Service Study Intersection Approach AM Peak PM Peak V/C* Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS 1. Capitolio Wy/Broad St (SR 227) 0.22 15.4 C 0.26 7.1 A Westbound (Capitolio Wy) Approach 1.35 ** F 1.08 100 F 2. Industrial Wy/Broad St (SR 227 0.84 22.2 C 1.02 45.0 D 3. Los Osos Valley Rd/US 101 S Ramps 0.92 15.1 B 1.08 18.9 B 4. Los Osos Valley Rd/US 101 N Ramps 0.66 23.7 C 0.70 16.3 B 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St 1.05 39.7 D 0.88 42.7 D 6. Tank Farm Rd/Long St 0.81 18.9 B 0.86 25.6 C 7. Tank Farm Rd/Santa Fe Rd 0.64 10.3 B 0.61 10.8 B 8. Tank Farm Rd/Mindbody Entrance 0.97 17.7 B 1.03 32.2 C 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St (SR 227) 1.27 70.0 E 0.90 36.1 D 10. Aerovista Pl/Broad St (SR 227) 0.16 1.2 A 0.19 7.6 A Eastbound (Aerovista Pl) Approach 0.30 27.9 D 1.06 ** F 11. Aero Dr/Broad St (SR 227) 0.79 21.8 C 1.12 43.3 D 12. Airport Dr/Broad St (SR 227) 0.00 0.1 A 0.00 0.3 A Eastbound (Airport Dr) Approach 0.02 15.3 C 0.13 22.8 C 13. Buckley Rd/Edna Rd (SR 227) 0.70 10.1 B 0.43 8.4 A 14. Buckley Rd/S Higuera St 0.76 9.3 A 0.79 15.6 B Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; ** = delay greater than 120 seconds; Bold text = deficient operation; V/C indicated for the worst movements at a signalized intersection or the worst movement of the indicated approach for an unsignalized intersection Under the Cumulative conditions, the following intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable service levels for vehicles based on the City’s standards. The westbound approach of Capitola Way with Broad Street is expected to operate at LOS F during both peak hours. The V/C ratio for the northbound through movement during the p.m. peak hour at the intersection of Industrial Way/Broad Street intersection is greater than one but the intersection delay is still acceptable. During the p.m. peak hour, the southbound right-turn movement at Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 South Ramps intersection has a V/C ratio of more than one; however, the intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS B overall. Page 912 of 1221 26 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 With the improvements at the intersection that are to be made as part of the other nearby projects, Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS though the the northbound right- turn movement would have a V/C of 1.05. The westbound through movement at the intersection of Tank Farm Road/Mindbody entrance has a projected V/C ratio of more than one during the evening peak hour. During the morning peak, the intersection of Tank Farm Road/Broad Street is anticipated to operate at LOS E and have movements with a V/C ratio of more than one. At the intersection of Aerovista Place and Broad Street, during the evening peak hour, the eastbound approach is expected to operate with an unacceptable delay, but the intersection as a whole would operate at LOS A. Pedestrian Facility Analysis Under the cumulative conditions, all the study intersections are expected to operate acceptably except for the two-way stop-controlled intersections. With signalization of the Long Street/Tank Farm Road intersection, acceptable pedestrian service levels at the intersection would be achieved. Since each of these locations are near a signalized crossing that is expected to operate acceptably, no deficiencies within the study area identified. As noted previously, the intersections not within the City’s jurisdiction were not reviewed based on direction from the City. The results of the pedestrian analysis are summarized in Table 18. Calculations are in Appendix D. Page 913 of 1221 27 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 18 – Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Pedestrian Levels of Service Study Intersection Direction AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS 1. Capitolio Wy/Broad St (SR 227) NB ** F ** F SB ** F ** F 2. Industrial Wy/Broad St (SR 227) NB 3.34 C 3.47 C SB 3.24 C 3.35 C EB 2.02 B 2.08 C WB 2.26 B 2.51 B 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St NB 3.34 C 3.63 D SB 2.90 C 3.15 C EB 1.99 B 2.04 B WB 3.07 C 3.44 C 6. Tank Farm Rd/Long St NB 1.85 B 1.89 B SB 1.81 B 1.84 B EB 2.92 C 2.95 C WB 2.92 C 3.02 C 7. Tank Farm Rd/Santa Fe Rd EB ** F ** F WB ** F ** F 8. Tank Farm Rd/Mindbody Entrance NB 2.10 B 2.10 B EB 3.17 C 3.29 C WB 2.95 C 3.15 C 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St (SR 227) NB 3.28 C 3.35 C SB 3.48 C 3.62 D EB 3.26 C 3.26 C WB 2.783 C 2.90 C 10. Aerovista Pl/Broad St (SR 227) NB ** F ** F SB ** F ** F 11. Aero Dr/Broad St (SR 227) NB 3.03 C 3.02 C SB 3.12 C 3.21 C EB 2.08 B 2.08 B WB 2.03 B 2.09 B 12. Airport Dr/Broad St (SR 227) NB ** F ** F SB ** F ** F Notes: LOS Score = Level of Service based on HCM 6th Edition pedestrian score. For TWSC intersections, LOS based on delay in seconds; ** = delay greater than 200 seconds; Bold text = deficient operation Bicycle Facility Analysis Under the cumulative conditions, all the signalized intersections have bicycle facilities that operate at an acceptable service level. Under these conditions, Tank Farm Road would be improved and include either a separated bicycle path or bike lanes on all of the study segment. For the unsignalized, two-way stop-controlled intersections, HCM does not have service level standards and these locations were therefore not analyzed. The results of the bicycle analysis are summarized in Table 19 and the calculations are included in Appendix D. Page 914 of 1221 28 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 19 – Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Bicycle Levels of Service Study Intersection Direction AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS 2. Industrial Wy/Broad St (SR 227) NB 2.01 B 3.70 D SB 2.33 B 3.50 C EB 2.73 C 2.96 C WB 2.98 C 3.46 C 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St NB 2.38 B 2.09 B SB 1.89 B 2.07 B EB 1.71 B 1.68 B WB 3.40 C 3.44 C 6. Tank Farm Rd/Long St NB 2.71 C 2.82 C SB 2.63 C 2.69 C EB 1.81 B 1.39 A WB 1.29 A 1.82 B 8. Tank Farm Rd/Mindbody Entrance NB 1.14 A 1.60 B EB 1.95 B 2.02 B WB 3.65 D 3.47 C 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St (SR 227) NB 2.58 C 2.94 C SB 3.20 C 3.19 C EB 2.37 B 2.90 C WB 3.25 C 2.84 C 11. Aero Dr/Broad St (SR 227) NB 2.08 B 1.71 B SB 1.62 B 2.00 B EB 1.35 A 1.58 B WB 2.76 C 3.14 C Notes: LOS Score = Level of Service based on HCM 6th Edition bicycle score At the intersection of South Higuera Street/Tank farm Road, the eastbound bicycle service level is projected to be at LOS E; however, as part of the improvements to that intersection, a bike box would be installed in the westbound direction. Since the bicycle intersection service level methodology does not consider bike boxes, it would be reasonable that the service level would be better than projected. Roadway Segment Levels of Service For each of the study roadway segments, the automobile, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit service levels were analyzed. Copies of the Level of Service calculations are provided in Appendix E. Automobile Operations Analysis Under the cumulative scenario, several study segments are projected to operate at an unacceptable service level based on the percent of time spent following. The segment Levels of Service are summarized in Table 20. Page 915 of 1221 29 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 20 – Cumulative Peak Hour Roadway Segment Auto Levels of Service Study Roadway Segment Direction AM Peak PM Peak Speed BFFS/LOS Speed BFFS/LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 42.3 94/A 41.9 93/A SB 31.1 69/B 30.4 67/C B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 17.1 37/E 10.4 23/E SB 13.0 28/F 12.1 26/F 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB 11.0 24/F 5.9 13/F SB 18.6 41/D 15.5 34/E B. Aero Dr to Buckley Rd NB 34.8 75/B 29.3 63/C SB 31.1 67/B 18.0 39/F 3. Tank Farm Rd: S Higuera St to Broad St (SR 227) A. S Higuera St to Long St EB 13.6 30/F 11.7 25/F WB 10.1 22/F 11.3 25/F B. Long St to Mindbody Entrance EB 39.7 86/A 36.2 78/B WB 40.3 87/A 10.6 23/F C. Mindbody Entrance to Broad St EB 10.8 26/F 11.8 28/F WB 33.3 71/B 22.1 47/D 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd EB 39.4 97/A 37.6 93/A WB 28.0 65/C 25.7 60/C Notes: BFFS = is the percent of “Base Free Flow Speed”; Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation Pedestrian Analysis In general, where there are pedestrian facilities, they operate at acceptable Levels of Service with the exception of Broad Street between Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road in the northbound direction and between Industrial Road and Tank Farm Road in the southbound direction. Additionally, unacceptable operation is encountered during the morning peak hour in the westbound direction on Tank Farm Road between Broad Street and Orcutt Road. The pedestrian Levels of Service are shown in Table 21. Page 916 of 1221 30 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 21 – Cumulative Peak Hour Roadway Segment Pedestrian Levels of Service Study Roadway Segment Direction AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 3.59 D 4.25 E B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 4.35 E 4.45 E SB 3.97 D 4.50 E 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB 3.33 C 3.46 C SB 3.63 D 3.42 C 3. Tank Farm Rd: S Higuera St to Broad St (SR 227) A. S Higuera St to Long St EB 3.37 C 3.20 C WB 3.41 C 3.31 C B. Mindbody Entrance to Broad St EB 3.12 C 3.50 D 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd EB 3.56 D 4.20 D WB 4.53 E 3.93 D Notes: Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation Bicycle Analysis Under the cumulative conditions, the bicycle facilities are expected to operate acceptably with the exception of the eastbound facilities on Tank Farm Road between the intersection of Broad Street and the City limits during the evening peak hour. These results are summarized in Table 22. Page 917 of 1221 31 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 22 – Cumulative Peak Hour Roadway Segment Bicycle Levels of Service Study Roadway Segment Direction AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 2.72 B 2.80 C SB 1.93 A 1.94 A B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 2.47 B 2.69 B SB 2.21 B 2.29 B 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB 1.86 A 2.06 B SB 1.94 A 2.04 B B. Aero Dr to Buckley Rd NB 1.24 A 1.17 A SB 1.27 A 1.41 A 3. Tank Farm Rd: S Higuera St to Broad St (SR 227) A. S Higuera St to Long St EB 3.37 C 2.22 B WB 2.02 B 1.99 A B. Long St to Mindbody Entrance EB 3.19 C 3.13 C WB 2.97 C 3.27 C C. Mindbody Entrance to Broad Street EB 1.81 A 2.04 B WB 2.45 B 2.36 B 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd EB 3.56 D 4.53 E WB 4.20 D 3.93 D Notes: Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation Transit Analysis For the purposes of the analysis, the existing transit routes were assumed to remain the same under the cumulative scenario. Given the limited service to the area, transit facilities are expected to continue operating at unacceptable service levels. The transit service levels for those roadways with bus stops are summarized in Table 23. Page 918 of 1221 32 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 23 – Cumulative Peak Hour Roadway Segment Transit Levels of Service Study Roadway Segment Direction AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 4.66 E 4.73 E SB - - - - B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 5.43 F 5.48 F SB - - - - 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB - - - - SB 5.01 F 5.06 F 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd EB - - - - WB 5.19 F 5.17 F Notes: Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation; directions shown without results have no bus stops, so no analysis was performed. Project Description The proposed project entails two hotels totaling 218 rooms to be located at 950 Aero Drive in the City of San Luis Obispo. The hotels would be constructed in two phases. The first of the hotels to be constructed would have 100 guest rooms and include guest amenities like dining, meeting space, fitness room, breakfast area and bar. The second hotel would consist of 118 rooms and, in addition to the guest amenities listed above (except for the bar), would also include a pool. For both hotels, the guest amenities would be for patrons only and not open to the public. The hotels would be accessed from a single driveway on Aero Drive and the project site would include a total of 218 parking spaces. The proposed project site plan is shown in Figure 4. Trip Generation The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017 for a Hotel (Land Use #310), as this description most closely matches the proposed project. No reduction is proposed for either “pass-by” trips or internal capture trips. Based on the nature of a hotel, the trips generated by the land use are specific to the location and would not be pulled from the existing traffic on nearby streets. Similarly, while there are facilities on the site that may keep guests on-site, like a gym, pool, or dining options, these types of facilities are common to hotels and therefore already incorporated into ITE’s trip generation rates. Based on application of these assumptions, the proposed two hotel locations are expected to generate an average of 1,822 trips per day, including 102 a.m. peak hour trips and 131 trips during the p.m. peak hour. These results are summarized in Table 24. Table 24 – Trip Generation Summary Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out Hotel 218 rooms 8.36 1,822 0.47 102 60 42 0.60 131 67 64 Page 919 of 1221 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project slo011-1.ai 1/20 227 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Not to Scale Figure 4 – Site Plan Source: Arris Studio Architects, 5/19 Not to Scale Page 920 of 1221 34 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Trip Distribution The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was determined based on the City-Wide Travel Demand Model and engineering judgment as well as local knowledge. Under the cumulative conditions, it is expected that trip distributions would generally be the same as with the existing network, though some shifts would be expected to use the planned new street connections. The distribution assumptions and resulting trips are shown Table 25. Project added volumes under the existing roadway geometry are shown in Figure 5 and the volumes under the cumulative scenario are shown in Figure 6. Table 25 – Existing and Cumulative Trip Distribution Assumptions To/From Route Percentages Trips AM PM AM PM To/From Broad St north of Capitolio Wy 50% 42% 51 54 To/From US 101 north of Los Osos Valley Rd 7% 8% 7 10 To/From Los Osos Valley Rd west of US 101 5% 3% 5 4 To/From the south via US 101 and Los Osos Valley Rd* 8% 8% 8 10 To/From S Higuera St north of Tank Farm Rd 5% 5% 5 7 To/From Tank Farm Rd east of Board St 7% 10% 7 14 To/From Edna Rd south of Buckley Rd 18% 24% 19 32 Total 100% 100% 102 131 Note: * = Under the Cumulative conditions, with the Buckley Road extension to South Higuera Street, the trips would be routed on Buckley Road. Intersection Operation Existing plus Project Conditions Automobile Operations Analysis Upon the addition of project-related traffic to the Existing volumes, the study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably if currently operating at LOS D or better, and at unacceptable service levels if operating at LOS E or F under existing volumes without the project. Project traffic volumes added to the existing volumes are shown in Figure 7. These results are summarized in Table 26. Page 921 of 1221 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project slo011-1.ai 5/20 Project SiteSHiguera StL os Os os Val leyRdBuckley Rd BroadStE dna RdTank F a rmRdLongSt C api t o lio W y In d u strial W y Santa F e Rd Mi ndbodyAero D r A ero v ista Ln Airport Dr 227 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 North Not to Scale Figure 5 – Existing Project Traffic Volumes30(28)0 (0)0(0) 0(0)(28)21(0) 01 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) (0)0 (0)0 (0)00 (0)30(28)0 (0)(0) 0(28)21(0) 02 (5)4 (0)0 (0)02(2)0(0)(2)3(0)03 2(2) 3(5) (7)7 (0)0 (0)0(0)04 2(3) 0(0) 8(12) (0)0 (0)0 (0)00(0)0(0)3(3)(0) 0(0) 0(12)125 0 (0) 10(15) 0 (0) (0) 0 (15)15 (0) 00(0)0(0)0(0)(0)0(0)0(0)06 0 (0) 10(15) 0 (0) (0) 0 (15)15 (0) 00(0)0(0)0(0)(0)0(0)0(0)07 10(15) 0 (0) (15)15 (0) 0 (0)0(0)08 0(0) 0(0) 4(7) (0) 0 (0) 0 (15)150 (0)30(28)0 (0)(15)10(28)21(6) 39 11(12)38(38)(0)0 (0)0 (0) 0(49)3410 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) (49)34 (0) 0 (15) 838(38)0 (0)0 (0)(16)11(0) 0(0) 011 8(15)(0)0 (16)1112 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) (0)0 (0)0 (0)00(0)8(15)0(0)(0) 0(16)11(0) 013 Existing Intersection Future Intersection Future Street AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume xx (xx) LEGEND Page 922 of 1221 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project slo011-1.ai 5/20 Project SiteSHiguera StL os Os os Val leyRdBuckley Rd BroadStE dna RdTank F a rmRdLongSt C api t o lio W y In d u strial W y Santa F e Rd Mi ndbodyAero D r A ero v ista Ln Airport Dr 227 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 North Not to Scale Figure 6 – Cumulative Project Traffic Volumes30(28)0 (0)0(0) 0(0)(28)21(0) 01 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) (0)0 (0)0 (0)00 (0)30(28)0 (0)(0) 0(28)21(0) 02 (5)4 (0)0 (0)02(2)0(0)(2)3(0)03 2(2) 3(5) (7)7 (0)0 (0)0(0)04 2(3) 0(0) 5(7) (0)0 (0)0 (0)00(0)0(0)3(3)(0)0(0)0(7)75 0(0) 7(10) 0(0) (0) 0 (10)10 (0) 00(0)0(0)0(0)(0)0(0)0(0)06 0(0) 7(10) 0(0) (0) 0 (10)10 (0) 00(0)0(0)0(0)(0)0(0)0(0)07 7(10) 0(0) (10)10 (0) 0 (0)0(0)08 0(0) 0(0) 4(7) (0) 0 (0) 0 (10)100 (0)30(28)0 (0)(10) 7(28)21(6) 39 11(12)33(33)(0)0 (0)0 (0) 0(44)3110 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) (44)31 (0) 0 (20)1133(33)0 (0)0 (0)(21)16(0) 0(0) 011 11(20)(0)0 (21)1612 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) (5)5 (0)0 (0)03(5)8(15)0(0)(0) 0(16)11(0) 013 0(0)0(0)0(0) 3(5)(0)0(5)514 Existing Intersection Future Intersection Future Street AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume xx (xx) LEGEND Page 923 of 1221 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project slo011-1.ai 5/20 Project SiteSHigueraStL os Os os Val leyRdBuckley Rd BroadStE dna RdTank F a rmRdLongSt C api t o lio W y In d u strial W y Santa F e Rd Mi ndbodyAero D r A ero v ista Ln Airport Dr 227 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 North Not to Scale Figure 7 – Existing plus Project Traffic Volumes1152(1247)119 (70)62(132) 14(11)(1226)922(17) 371 68(220) 9 (13) 86(178) (70)9 (19)0 (44)552 (98)1015(1096)46 (133)(89) 51(1077)831(188)1912 (294)456 (0) 0 (390)231872(1310)37 (61)(910)773(631)3363 438(915) 93 (182) (819)1060 (364) 169 (482)472(110)1554 237(324) 3 (11) 280(570) (9)23 (9)17 (21)207 (18)267(683)255(275)(30) 12(503)365(430)7405 18 (23) 595(1032) 113(131) (64) 58 (630)828 (28) 4718(66)1 (2)5 (12)(12) 6(2) 0(168)626 1 (1) 670(1030) 101(66) (0) 0 (844)782 (24) 471(0)1(1)0(0)(40) 9(1) 1(159)557 771(978) 32 (6) (1034)760 (10) 64 (136)19(33) 68 162(120) 243(194) 229(185) (473)223 (428)149 (275)387331(514)667(701)58 (201)(368)221(664)673(189)1189 224(112)754(994)(102)40 (51) 9 (12) 58(834)118110 33(22) 0 (1) 6 (8) (218)87 (0) 1 (55)12103(108)596(870)39 (4)(55) 58(712)1139(2) 1611 614(933)(28)8 (769)121112 3(5) 0(0) 2(7) (34) 53 (2) 5 (327)17041 (32)424(972)3 (2)(63) 216(534)1199(3) 313 Existing Intersection Future Intersection Future Street AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume xx (xx) LEGEND Page 924 of 1221 38 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 26 – Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Auto Levels of Service Study Intersection Approach Existing Conditions Existing plus Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak V/C Delay/ LOS V/C LOS V/C Delay/ LOS V/C Delay/ LOS 1. Capitolio Wy/Broad St (SR 227) 0.20 1.3/A 0.15 1.8/A 0.20 1.3/A 0.16 1.8/A WB (Capitolio Wy) Approach 0.16 17.1/C 0.45 22.8/C 0.17 17.4/C 0.46 23.7/C 2. Industrial Wy/Broad St (SR 227) 0.78 19.2/B 0.96 30.8/C 0.78 19.4/B 0.97 32.3/C 3. Los Osos Valley Rd/US 101 S Ramps 0.93 15.5/B 1.06 17.0/B 0.93 15.6/B 1.05 16.6/B 4. Los Osos Valley Rd/US 101 N Ramps 0.67 23.8/C 0.70 16.6/B 0.67 24.0/C 0.71 16.7/B 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St 0.93 31.5/C 0.94 31.5/C 0.95 32.8/C 0.95 44.0/D 6. Tank Farm Rd/Long St 0.16 2.5/A 0.16 16.3/C 0.16 2.5/A 0.16 17.4/C NB (Long St) Approach 0.30 21.3/C 0.74 45.5/E 0.31 21.6/C 0.76 50.3/F SB (Long St) Approach 0.14 26.0/D 1.15 **/F 0.14 26.7/D 1.19 **/F 7. Tank Farm Rd/Santa Fe Rd 0.14 2.1/A 0.10 18.8/C 0.14 2.1/A 0.10 20.5/C NB (Santa Fe Rd) Approach 0.23 28.2/D 1.85 **/F 0.24 29.2/D 2.00 **/F SB (Santa Fe Rd) Approach 0.07 38.0/E 0.10 102/F 0.07 39.3/E 0.10 108/F 8. Tank Farm Rd/Mindbody Entrance 0.83 7.3/A 0.85 13.4/B 0.83 7.3/A 0.86 13.7/B 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St (SR 227) 0.91 48.0/D 0.98 37.3/D 0.93 50.7/D 1.02 40.4/D 10. Aerovista Pl/Broad St (SR 227) 0.10 1.2/A 0.03 3.7/A 0.10 1.2/A 0.03 4.0/A EB (Aerovista Pl) Approach 0.33 28.2/D 0.68 41.6/E 0.35 30.2/D 0.73 47.2/E 11. Aero Dr/Broad St (SR 227) 0.78 15.2/B 0.81 19.3/B 0.77 17.7/B 0.85 23.6/C 12. Airport Dr/Broad St (SR 227) 0.00 0.1/A 0.00 0.7/A 0.00 0.1/A 0.00 0.7/A EB (Airport Dr) Approach 0.03 14.0/B 0.23 21.0/C 0.03 14.1/B 0.23 21.5/C 13. Buckley Rd/Edna Rd (SR 227) 0.90 27.7/C 0.94 106/F 0.94 32.7/C 0.94 109/F Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; ** = delay greater than 120 seconds; Bold text = deficient operation; It should be noted that with the addition of project-related traffic volumes, average delay at the intersection of Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 South Ramps is projected to decrease during the p.m. peak hour. While this is counter-intuitive, this condition occurs when a project adds trips to movements that are currently underutilized or have delays that are below the intersection average, resulting in a better balance between approaches and lower overall average delay. The conclusion could incorrectly be drawn that the project actually improves operation based on this data alone; however, it is more appropriate to conclude that the project trips are expected to make use of excess capacity, so drivers will experience little, if any, change in conditions as a result of the project. The approaches to the intersection of Tank Farm Road and Long Street would continue to operate unacceptably overall; however, the northbound approach would deteriorate from LOS E to F, and based on the peak hour volumes, a signal would be warranted which is considered an impact based on the City’s standards. Because the intersection will be signalized as part of a new development in the area and that improvement would be complete by the time the proposed project is occupied, the intersection’s operation is expected to be acceptable at the time project trips are added. Page 925 of 1221 39 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Similarly, at the intersection of Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road, the V/C for the northbound side-street movement would increase by more than 0.01 and the approach is expected to continue to operate at LOS F with the project. While a roundabout is planned for the intersection, to address the project-considered impact in the short-term, the striped median should be restriped to provide an acceleration lane. With the addition of project-generated trips to the existing volumes, the V/C for the northbound through/right- turn lane at Tank Farm Road/Broad Street is expected to increase from 0.98 to 1.02. Because the intersection operates at LOS D overall, operation with the addition of project trips to the existing volumes would be considered acceptable. While the eastbound Aerovista Place approach to Broad Street is expected to operate at LOS E with and without the project, the signalized intersection of Aero Drive is nearby if the delay is intolerable and individual drivers wish to change their route to avoid this approach. However, as the project causes the V/C ratio to increase more than 0.01, the eastbound approach would continue to operate at LOS E, and the peak hour signal warrant is met, the project is considered to have an adverse impact. Since there is an easily accessible signalized intersection from this area for drivers to make an eastbound left turn on to Broad Street, it is recommended that left turns be restricted at this intersection during the peak hours. The intersection of Buckley Road/Edna Road operates at an unacceptable LOS F with and without the project; however, since the V/C ratio does not change as a result of adding project-generated traffic, the project is considered to have an acceptable impact based on the City’s standards. It should be noted that this intersection is part of a regional route that is known to operate at unacceptable service levels. As discussed in the State Route 227 Operation Study, Kimley-Horn, 2016, installation of roundabouts is recommended for this intersection, as well as Farmhouse Lane, Crescent Drive, and Los Ranchos. The study sets forth short to long-term goals for the implementation of the improvements, as well as the general cost estimates of the improvements. Finding – All of the study intersections, with the exception of the intersection of Buckley Road/Edna Road, are expected to operate acceptably overall with the addition of project traffic. While the addition of the project trips causes an increase in delay at the Buckley Road/Edna Road intersection, the project would be considered to have an acceptable impact since the highest V/C ratio at the intersection would not increase. While expected to operate acceptably overall, the two-way stop-controlled intersections of Tank Farm Road with Long Street and Santa Fe Road as well as Aerovista Place with Broad Street would be expected to experience an increase in the V/C of more than 0.01 for a movement that operates unacceptably, and a signal is warranted. Pedestrian Facility Analysis Under existing conditions with the addition of the project, the pedestrian facilities are expected to continue to operate at the same LOS as without the project. Given that the crossings that operate at unacceptable service levels are near locations that operate acceptably, no impact is identified. The results of the pedestrian analysis are summarized in Table 27. Page 926 of 1221 40 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 27 – Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Pedestrian Levels of Service Study Intersection Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Direction AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Delay LOS 1. Capitolio Wy/Broad St (SR 227) NB ** F ** F ** F ** F SB ** F ** F ** F ** F 2. Industrial Wy/Broad St (SR 227) NB 3.19 C 3.31 C 3.20 C 3.32 C SB 3.07 C 3.18 C 3.08 C 3.19 C EB 2.01 B 2.25 C 2.01 B 2.09 C WB 2.27 B 2.53 B 2.27 B 2.53 B 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St NB 3.27 C 3.57 D 3.28 C 3.58 D SB 2.68 C 2.93 C 2.69 C 2.93 C EB 2.00 B 2.04 B 2.00 B 2.04 B WB 3.02 C 3.32 C 3.03 C 3.33 C 6. Tank Farm Rd/Long St EB ** F ** F ** F ** F WB ** F ** F ** F ** F 7. Tank Farm Rd/Santa Fe Rd EB ** F ** F ** F ** F WB ** F ** F ** F ** F 8. Tank Farm Rd/Mindbody Entrance NB 1.99 B 2.02 B 1.99 B 2.02 B EB 2.70 C 2.99 C 2.71 C 3.06 C WB 2.69 C 3.05 C 2.70 C 3.00 C 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St (SR 227) NB 3.14 C 3.18 C 3.17 C 3.20 C SB 3.27 C 3.46 C 3.29 C 3.48 C EB 3.12 C 3.17 C 3.13 C 3.18 C WB 2.69 C 2.74 C 2.69 C 2.74 C 10. Aerovista Pl/Broad St (SR 227) NB ** F ** F ** F ** F SB ** F ** F ** F ** F 11. Aero Dr/Broad St (SR 227) NB 2.91 C 2.89 C 2.92 C 2.90 C SB 2.98 C 2.98 C 3.01 C 3.01 C EB 2.06 B 2.11 B 2.08 B 2.15 B WB 2.01 B 1.98 B 2.01 B 1.98 B 12. Airport Dr/Broad St (SR 227) NB ** F ** F ** F ** F SB ** F ** F ** F ** F Notes: LOS Score = Level of Service based on HCM 6th Edition pedestrian score. For TWSC intersections, LOS based on delay in seconds; ** = delay greater than 200 seconds; Bold text = deficient operation Finding – The intersection pedestrian facilities that operate acceptably without the project would continue to do so with the addition of the project; similarly, the intersections that operate unacceptably without the project would still operate unacceptably with the project. Since the intersections that operate unacceptably are two-way Page 927 of 1221 41 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 stop-controlled intersections located near study intersections with signalized crossings and acceptable service, no impact is identified. Bicycle Facility Analysis With the addition of the project to the existing conditions, the bicycle service level is expected to continue to operate at the same acceptable levels. The results of the bicycle analysis for those segments that were evaluated are summarized in Table 28. Table 28 – Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Bicycle Levels of Service Study Intersection Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Direction AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS 2. Industrial Wy/Broad St (SR 227) NB 1.77 B 3.29 C 1.79 B 3.31 C SB 1.95 B 3.50 D 1.96 B 3.35 C EB 2.72 C 2.97 C 2.72 C 2.97 C WB 3.07 C 3.47 C 3.07 C 3.50 C 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St NB 2.25 B 1.88 B 2.26 B 1.89 B SB 1.56 B 1.94 B 1.56 B 1.94 B EB 1.55 B 1.49 A 1.55 B 1.49 A WB 3.47 C 4.14 D 3.49 C 4.17 D 8. Tank Farm Rd/Mindbody Entrance NB 1.08 A 1.40 A 1.08 A 1.40 A EB 1.53 B 1.82 B 1.55 B 1.83 B WB 3.76 D 4.07 D 3.78 D 4.10 D 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St (SR 227) NB 2.28 B 2.58 C 2.31 B 2.62 C SB 2.85 C 3.05 C 2.88 C 3.07 C EB 2.29 B 2.62 C 2.30 B 2.64 C WB 3.05 C 2.68 C 3.06 C 2.69 C 11. Aero Dr/Broad St (SR 227) NB 1.86 B 1.55 B 1.87 B 1.56 B SB 1.50 B 1.70 B 1.54 B 1.73 B EB 1.28 A 1.65 B 1.36 A 1.79 B WB 2.63 C 2.57 C 2.63 C 2.57 C Notes: LOS Score = Level of Service based on HCM 6th Edition bicycle score Finding – The study intersections that have bicycle facilities are expected to continue operating acceptably at the same Levels of Service upon the addition of project-generated traffic. Queuing Under the existing conditions with and without the project, the projected 95th percentile queues in left-turn and right-turn pockets at the study intersections were determined using Synchro. Summarized in Table 29 are the predicted queue lengths. Copies of the Synchro output for the signalized intersections are in Appendix F. Queuing for the unsignalized intersections are shown in Appendix C. Page 928 of 1221 42 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 29 – Existing 95th Percentile Queues Exceeding Available Storage Study Intersection Available 95th Percentile Queues Approach Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour E E+P E E+P 1. Capitolio Wy/Broad St WB Right-Turn 100 15 15 58 60 SB Left-Turn 200 18 18 13 15 2. Industrial Wy/Broad St EB Right-Turn 100 0 0 0 0 WB Right-Turn 180 21 21 50 50 NB Left-Turn 150* 96 96 113 113 NB Right-Turn 175 56 57 97 99 SB Left-Turn 150* 64 64 250 250 SB Right-Turn 440 13 13 36 39 3. LOVR/US 101 S Ramps EB Right-Turn 120 6 6 195 195 WB Left-Turn 225 55 55 73 73 SB Thru/Left-Turn 190 446 451 242 247 4. LOVR/US 101 N Ramps EB Right-Turn 135 13 13 17 17 WB Left-Turn 180 117 119 159 173 NB Left-Turn 615 251 251 202 203 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St WB Right-Turn 250 60 60 70 71 NB Left-Turn 140* 28 28 54 54 NB Right-Turn 100 191 220 70 74 SB Left-Turn 165* 252 255 338 342 6. Tank Farm Rd/Long St EB Left-Turn 225 5 5 10 10 WB Left-Turn 175 15 15 15 15 7. Tank Farm Rd/Santa Fe Rd WB Left-Turn 115 13 13 8 8 NB Right-Turn 50 18 18 105 108 8. Tank Farm Rd/Mindbody WB Left-Turn 210 32 32 15 15 NB Right-Turn 125 7 8 17 18 Page 929 of 1221 43 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 29 – Existing 95th Percentile Queues Exceeding Available Storage Study Intersection Available 95th Percentile Queues Approach Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour E E+P E E+P 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St EB Left-Turn 300 137 137 181 181 EB Right-Turn 100 308 335 58 60 WB Left-Turn 150* 328 338 205 217 NB Left-Turn 250 173 185 152 159 SB Left-Turn 250* 115 115 228 228 SB Right-Turn 300 124 125 299 301 10. Aerovista Pl/Broad St EB Right-Turn 50 3 3 13 15 NB Left-Turn 200* 8 8 3 3 11. Aero Dr/Broad St EB Right-Turn 75 0 0 0 6 NB Left-Turn 200* 73 88 71 96 SB Left-Turn 200* 66 68 15 15 12. Airport Dr/Broad St EB Right-Turn - 3 3 20 23 13. Buckley Rd/Edna Rd EB Right-Turn 145 30 30 229 233 NB Left-Turn 360 428 428 124 124 SB Left-Turn 400 17 17 12 12 SB Right-Turn 400 5 5 9 9 14. Buckley Rd/S Higuera St WB Left-Turn 150 - - - - NB Right-Turn 200 - - - - SB Left-Turn 150 - - - - Notes: All distances are measured in feet; E = existing conditions; E+P = existing plus project conditions; Bold text = queue length exceeds available storage; * = Extends into a two-way left-turn lane; LOVR = Los Osos Valley Road; Shaded Cell = Queuing Adverse Impact At the intersection of Industrial Way/Broad Street, the p.m. peak the southbound left-turn lane storage is expected to be exceeded with and without the project. With the addition of the project, the queue length is not expected to increase by more than one vehicle length. It is furt her noted that the storage lane has additional stacking space as vehicles can queue into the two-way left-turn lane. For the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 South ramps intersection, the eastbound right-turn (p.m. peak) and the southbound approach (both peaks) are projected to exceed the available storage. For the eastbound right-turn lane on Los Osos Valley Road, with the project added volumes, the queue length is expected to remain the same. For the off-ramp, the 95th percentile queue is expected to increase by six feet or less. Since that leg of the Page 930 of 1221 44 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 intersection is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, the project is considered to result in a queuing impact if it extends past the gore point. The distance between the stop bar for the intersection and the gore point is about 800 feet so the queue is within the acceptable stacking length. At the intersection of Tank Farm Road and South Higuera Street, the queues are expected to exceed the available storage length in the northbound right-turn lane during the morning peak and in the southbound left-turn lane during both peaks; these queues would increase as a result of the project, though by less than 25 feet except under Existing plus Project a.m. peak hour conditions for the northbound right-turn. As part of the nearby projects of Avila Ranch and San Luis Ranch, the intersection would need to be improved with a second southbound left- turn lane and an extended northbound right-turn lane. With this improvement, the timing would be updated to reflect the additional capacity for that movement. However, since these improvements are not guaranteed to be implemented by the occupancy of the hotel, an interim improvement would be to optimize the signal timing. Under the existing conditions with the project and optimized signal timing, the northbound right-turn queue during the morning peak would be accommodated in the storage lane at an expected length of 50 feet. The northbound right-turn flare lane is expected to be exceeded at the intersection of Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road. While a roundabout is planned at this intersection in the long-term which would accommodate northbound queues, it is recommended that median on the west leg be restriped into an acceleration lane. At the intersection of Tank Farm Road/Broad Street, the eastbound right-turn, westbound left-turn, and southbound right-turn lane storages are expected to be exceeded. With the addition of the project trips, the eastbound right-turn lane queue would increase by more than one vehicle length and the addition of the project trips would cause the southbound right-turn storage lane to be exceeded. While there are currently plans to add a southbound left-turn lane, new northbound right-turn lane, add a second westbound through lane, and prepare time of day plans, the queueing impact for the eastbound right-turn and southbound right-turn is project-specific and would need to be mitigated. The project’s specific adverse queuing impact would be considered mitigated under the existing conditions if the westbound right-turn lane were converted to a shared through/right- movement lane and the signal timing splits optimized. With the additional capacity at the intersection and the optimized signal timing splits, while the eastbound right-turn lane queue would still exceed the available storage during the morning peak hour, the queue length with the addition of the project volumes and these mitigation improvements would increase by less than one car length. As such, the improvement would mitigate the project- specific adverse impact under the existing conditions. The mitigated queue lengths and resulting service level are summarized in Appendix G. At Buckley Road/Edna Road, queues in the eastbound right-turn lane and the northbound left-turn lane are expected to exceed the available storage. Since a roundabout is planned at this intersection, the queues would become a non-issue. Finding – The addition of the project trips to the study intersections under the existing conditions would cause the 95th percentile queues to exceed or exacerbate queues that exceed the available storage space at several intersections. Intersection Operations Recommendations Recommendation – To address the project-specific adverse impact under the existing conditions, the following actions are recommended: Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street – Since the long-term improvements required to be built as part of other projects are not guaranteed to be completed before the hotel is occupied, an interim improvement would be to optimize the signal timing. Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road – to address the project specific adverse impact at the intersection, the City should consider restriping the existing median into an acceleration lane. Page 931 of 1221 45 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Tank Farm Road/Broad Street – To address the project-specific impact, the westbound right-turn lane should be converted to a shared through/right-turn lane. This improvement is part planned improvements at the intersection, but a fee that covers this specific change should be allocated to the project. Aerovista Place/Broad Street – To address the project specific adverse impact at the intersection, the City should consider restricting left-turn movements from the stop-controlled Aerovista Place approach during the peak periods. Cumulative plus Project Conditions Automobile Operations Analysis Upon the addition of project-related traffic to the Cumulative volumes, the study intersections are expected to operate at the same service levels as without the project, with exception of Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street, Tank Farm Road/Broad Street, and Aero Drive/Broad Street. Consideration was given to the signal timing for the Aero Drive intersection and it was updated to reflect the increase in volumes on the minor approach; however, even with optimized splits, the project would cause the overall intersection delay to fall to an unacceptable Level of Service. These results are summarized in Table 26. Project traffic volumes added to the cumulative volumes are shown in Figure 8. The Cumulative plus Project operating conditions are summarized in Table 30. Table 30 – Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Auto Levels of Service Study Intersection Approach Cumulative Conditions Cumulative plus Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak V/C Delay/ LOS V/C LOS V/C Delay/ LOS V/C Delay/ LOS 1. Capitolio Wy/Broad St (SR 227) 0.22 15.4/C 0.26 7.1/A 0.23 16.2/C 0.27 7.4/A WB (Capitolio Wy) Approach 1.35 **/F 1.08 100/F 1.39 **/F 1.11 105/F 2. Industrial Wy/Broad St (SR 227) 0.84 22.2/C 1.02 45.0/D 0.85 22.6/C 1.04 47.5/D 3. Los Osos Valley Rd/101S Ramps 0.92 15.1/B 1.08 18.9/B 0.92 15.2/B 1.07 18.6/B 4. Los Osos Valley Rd/101N Ramps 0.66 23.7/C 0.70 16.3/B 0.67 23.9/C 0.70 16.5/B 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St 1.05 39.7/D 0.88 42.7/D 1.06 40.8/D 0.89 43.0/D 6. Tank Farm Rd/Long St 0.81 18.9/B 0.86 25.6/C 0.81 19.1/B 0.87 25.9/C 7. Tank Farm Rd/Santa Fe Rd 0.64 10.3/B 0.61 10.8/B 0.64 10.4/B 0.62 10.9/B 8. Tank Farm Rd/Mindbody Entrance 0.97 17.7/B 1.03 32.2/C 0.97 17.7/B 1.03 32.2/C 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St (SR 227) 1.27 70.0/E 0.90 36.1/D 1.27 71.6/E 0.90 37.8/D 10. Aerovista Pl/Broad St (SR 227) 0.16 1.2/A 0.19 7.6/A 0.17 1.2/A 0.20 8.3/A EB (Aerovista Pl) Approach 0.30 27.9/D 1.06 **/F 0.31 29.5/D 1.12 **/F 11. Aero Dr/Broad St (SR 227) 0.79 21.8/C 1.12 43.3/D 0.80 24.2/C 1.12 45.7/D 12. Airport Dr/Broad St (SR 227) 0.00 0.1/A 0.00 0.3/A 0.00 0.1/A 0.00 0.3/A EB (Airport Dr) Approach 0.02 15.3/C 0.13 22.8/C 0.02 15.5/C 0.13 23.4/C 13. Buckley Rd/Edna Rd (SR 227) 0.70 10.1/B 0.43 8.4/A 0.71 10.3/B 0.44 8.5/A 14. Buckley Rd/S Higuera St 0.76 9.3/A 0.79 15.6/B 0.76 9.3/A 0.79 15.6/B Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; ** = delay greater than 120 seconds; Bold text = deficient operation Page 932 of 1221 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project slo011-1.ai 5/20 Project SiteSHiguera StL os Os os Val leyRdBuckley Rd BroadStE dna RdTank F a rmRdLongSt C api t o lio W y In d u strial W y Santa F e Rd Mi ndbodyAero D r A ero v ista Ln Airport Dr 227 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 North Not to Scale Figure 8 – Cumulative plus Project Traffic Volumes Existing Intersection Future Intersection Future Street AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume xx (xx) LEGEND1680(1528)140 (90)66 (150) 171(90)(1698)1021(100) 801 78(258) 10(14) 90(190) (100)10 (20)10 (50)10104 (111)1630(1428)90 (140)(94) 54(1628)1171(199) 2022 (311)483 (0) 0 (413)245924(1388)39 (65)(964)819(669)3563 464(970) 98 (193) (868)1123 (386) 179 (511)500(117)1644 292(603) 10 (20) 293(607) (20)24 (10)20 (22)3010 (40)450(850)503(453)(32) 20(800)500(450)8875 40 (70) 627(1210) 120(160) (90) 61 (800)1310 (30) 5040(70)10(20)40(40)(20) 20(10) 20(180)1006 0 (30) 1227(1210) 230 (0) (220) 0 (1310)1340 (0) 400(0)0(0)0(0)(40) 20(0) 0(300)1607 1407(1330) 100 (70) (1310)990 (140)380 (250)50(100)208 179(150) 420(290) 304(217) (670)320 (580)210 (329)410800(580)830(888)100(260)(530)347(1028)971(346)1339 237 (118)1033(1333)(120)42 (54)40 (90) 90(1444)155110 130(350) 0 (7) 20 (30) (224)91 (10)10 (66)51153(108)800(1250)50 (100)(62) 75(1000)1440(20) 2011 871(1193)(30)8 (969)153512 3(5) 0(0) 2(7) (91) 79 (2) 5 (347)180165(39)690(1029)3 (2)(67) 229(765)1490(3) 313 358(663)97 (243)158(424) 100(235)(295)499(246)24014 Page 933 of 1221 47 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Based on the City’s standards, the addition of the project to the cumulative volumes is considered to have an impact at the intersection of Capitolio Way/Broad Street and Aerovista Place/Broad Street. While the project is considered to have an adverse cumulatively considered impact at the intersections of Capitolio Way/Broad Street and Broad Street/Aerovista Place because the minor approaches operate at unacceptable service levels, increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.01, and a peak hour signal warrant is met, the intersections operate acceptably overall. With the planned signalization of the Prado Road/Broad Street intersection nearby, drivers would likely reroute to that intersection to access Broad Street. Similarly, this would occur at the Aerovista Lane intersection though with the left-turn movement restricted during the peak periods, there would be no impact. Based on the City’s standards, the following intersections are considered to operate unacceptably, though no project impact was identified: The V/C ratio for the northbound through movement at the intersection of Industrial Way/Broad Street intersection is greater than one during the p.m. peak hour and with the addition of the project volumes the v/c increase by 0.02; however, the intersection operates acceptably overall based on delay. During the p.m. peak hour, the southbound right-turn movement at Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 South Ramps intersection has a V/C ratio of more than one; however, the intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS B overall. With and without the project, the westbound through movement at the intersection of Tank Farm Road/Mindbody entrance has a v/c ratio of more than one during the evening peak hour. During the p.m. peak hour, the westbound movement is expected to operate with a V/C of more than one. Finding – The project would have a cumulatively considerable adverse vehicular intersection impact at the stop- controlled intersections of Broad Street with Capitolio Way and Aerovista Lane based on the City’s standards. Pedestrian Facility Analysis Under the cumulative scenario, with the addition of the project trips, the pedestrian facilities at the study intersections are expected to operate at the same service levels as without the project. The two-way stop- controlled intersections of Capitolio Way/Broad Street, Aerovista Place/Broad Street, and Airport Drive/Broad Street would operate at unacceptable service levels. Since each of these crossings have a signalized crossing that operated acceptably nearby, no deficiencies are reported. As noted previously, the intersections not within the City’s jurisdiction were not reviewed based on direction from the City. The results of the pedestrian analysis are summarized in Table 31. Table 31 – Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Pedestrian Levels of Service Study Intersection Cumulative Conditions Cumulative plus Project Direction AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Delay LOS 1. Capitolio Wy/Broad St (SR 227) NB ** F ** F ** F ** F SB ** F ** F ** F ** F 2. Industrial Wy/Broad St (SR 227) NB 3.34 C 3.47 C 3.36 C 3.49 C SB 3.24 C 3.35 C 3.26 C 3.36 C EB 2.02 B 2.08 B 2.02 B 2.08 B WB 2.26 B 2.51 C 2.26 B 2.51 C Page 934 of 1221 48 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 31 – Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Pedestrian Levels of Service Study Intersection Cumulative Conditions Cumulative plus Project Direction AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Delay LOS 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St NB 3.34 C 3.63 D 3.35 C 3.64 D SB 2.90 C 3.15 C 2.90 C 3.15 C EB 1.99 B 2.04 B 1.99 B 2.04 B WB 3.07 C 3.44 C 3.08 C 3.45 C 6. Tank Farm Rd/Long St NB 1.85 B 1.89 B 1.85 B 1.89 B SB 1.81 B 1.84 B 1.81 B 1.84 B EB 2.92 C 2.95 C 2.93 C 2.95 C WB 2.92 C 3.02 C 2.96 C 3.02 C 8. Tank Farm Rd/Mindbody Entrance NB 2.10 B 2.10 B 2.10 B 2.10 B EB 3.17 C 3.29 C 3.18 C 3.30 C WB 2.95 C 3.15 C 2.96 C 3.16 C 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St (SR 227) NB 3.28 C 3.35 C 3.29 C 3.37 C SB 3.48 C 3.62 D 3.49 C 3.64 D EB 3.26 C 3.26 C 3.27 C 3.27 C WB 2.83 C 2.90 C 2.83 C 2.90 C 10. Aerovista Pl/Broad St (SR 227) NB ** F ** F ** F ** F SB ** F ** F ** F ** F 11. Aero Dr/Broad St (SR 227) NB 3.03 C 3.02 C 3.04 C 3.03 C SB 3.12 C 3.21 C 3.16 C 3.24 C EB 2.08 B 2.08 B 2.11 B 2.12 B WB 2.03 B 2.09 B 2.03 B 2.09 B 12. Airport Dr/Broad St (SR 227) NB ** F ** F ** F ** F SB ** F ** F ** F ** F Notes: LOS Score = Level of Service based on HCM 6th Edition pedestrian score. For TWSC intersections, LOS based on delay in seconds; ** = delay greater than 200 seconds; Bold text = deficient operation Finding – The study intersections will continue operating acceptably with project traffic added, at the same Levels of Service as without it. At the two-way stop-controlled intersections, the service level is unacceptable with and without the project but since there are acceptable pedestrian facilities at nearby intersections, the impact is considered acceptable. Bicycle Facility Analysis Under the cumulative conditions, with the addition of the project volumes and the Tank Farm Road improvements expected to be complete under the cumulative conditions, the intersections are expected to operate at an unacceptable service level. The results of the bicycle analysis are summarized in Table 32. Page 935 of 1221 49 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 32 – Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Bicycle Levels of Service Study Intersection Cumulative Conditions Cumulative plus Project Direction AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS 2. Industrial Wy/Broad St (SR 227) NB 2.01 B 3.70 D 2.02 B 3.72 D SB 2.33 B 3.50 C 2.35 B 3.52 D EB 2.73 C 2.96 C 2.73 C 2.96 C WB 2.98 C 3.46 C 2.89 C 3.45 C 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St NB 2.38 B 2.09 B 2.39 B 2.10 B SB 1.89 B 2.07 B 1.89 B 2.07 B EB 1.71 B 1.68 B 1.71 B 1.68 B WB 3.40 C 3.44 C 2.41 B 3.46 C 6. Tank Farm Rd/Long St NB 2.71 C 2.82 C 2.71 C 2.82 C SB 2.63 C 2.69 C 2.63 C 2.69 C EB 1.81 B 1.39 A 1.82 B 1.40 A WB 1.29 A 1.82 B 1.29 A 1.83 B 8. Tank Farm Rd/Mindbody Entrance NB 1.14 A 1.60 B 1.14 A 1.60 B EB 1.95 B 2.02 B 1.96 B 2.02 B WB 3.65 D 3.47 C 3.67 B 3.49 C 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St (SR 227) NB 2.79 C 2.94 C 2.81 C 2.98 C SB 3.20 C 3.19 C 3.22 C 3.22 C EB 2.55 B 2.90 C 2.55 C 2.91 C WB 2.52 C 2.84 C 2.52 C 2.85 C 11. Aero Dr/Broad St (SR 227) NB 2.08 B 1.71 B 2.09 B 1.72 B SB 1.62 B 2.00 B 1.69 B 2.06 B EB 1.35 A 1.58 B 1.42 A 1.69 B WB 2.76 C 3.14 C 2.95 C 3.32 C Notes: LOS Score = Level of Service based on HCM 6th Edition bicycle score; Bold text = deficient operation Finding – The study intersections will continue operating acceptably with project traffic added. Queuing The projected 95th percentile queues in left-turn and right-turn pockets at the study intersections under the cumulative conditions are summarized in Table 33. Copies of the output are included in the appendices. Page 936 of 1221 50 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 33 – Cumulative 95th Percentile Queues Exceeding Available Storage Study Intersection Available 95th Percentile Queues Approach Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour C C+P C C+P 1. Capitolio Wy/Broad St WB Right-Turn 100 13 13 73 75 SB Left-Turn 200 20 23 25 28 2. Industrial Wy/Broad St EB Right-Turn 100 0 0 0 0 WB Right-Turn 180 39 39 73 73 NB Left-Turn 150* 93 93 165 165 NB Right-Turn 175 66 67 93 93 SB Left-Turn 150* 121 121 226 226 SB Right-Turn 440 25 25 33 33 3. LOVR/US 101 S Ramps EB Right-Turn 120 6 6 207 207 WB Left-Turn 225 54 54 75 75 SB Thru/Left-Turn 190 437 443 242 246 4. LOVR/US 101 N Ramps EB Right-Turn 135 12 12 17 17 WB Left-Turn 180 114 117 171 179 NB Left-Turn 615 257 257 197 198 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St WB Right-Turn 250 63 63 155 159 NB Left-Turn 140* 34 34 54 54 NB Right-Turn 200 113 131 60 61 SB Left-Turn 250* 250 252 233 235 6. Tank Farm Rd/Long St EB Left-Turn 225 66 66 115 115 WB Left-Turn 175 148 148 149 149 7. Tank Farm Rd/Santa Fe Rd NB Right Lane 115 50 50 100 100 8. Tank Farm Rd/Mindbody WB Left-Turn 210 97 98 78 78 NB Right-Turn 125 20 20 43 43 Page 937 of 1221 51 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 33 – Cumulative 95th Percentile Queues Exceeding Available Storage Study Intersection Available 95th Percentile Queues Approach Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour C C+P C C+P 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St EB Left-Turn 300 163 164 297 297 EB Right-Turn 100 281 300 98 98 WB Left-Turn 150* 429 435 224 233 NB Left-Turn 250 245 251 243 250 SB Left-Turn 250* 93 94 131 143 SB Right-Turn 300 544 553 303 303 10. Aerovista Pl/Broad St EB Right-Turn 50 8 8 13 13 NB Left-Turn 200* 15 15 18 18 11. Aero Dr/Broad St EB Right-Turn 75 0 8 0 1 NB Left-Turn 200* 87 133 68 110 SB Left-Turn 200* 78 97 196 192 SB Right-Turn 150 - 18 - 21 12. Airport Dr/Broad St EB Right-Turn - 3 3 10 13 13. Buckley Rd/Edna Rd NB Left Lane 200 150 150 50 50 SB Left Lane 200 50 50 50 50 14. Buckley Rd/S Higuera St WB Left-Turn 150 74 76 168 171 NB Right-Turn 200 32 32 50 50 SB Left-Turn 150 76 77 180 181 Notes: All distances are measured in feet; C = cumulative conditions; C+P = cumulative plus project conditions; Bold text = queue length exceeds available storage; * = Extends into a two-way left-turn lane; LOVR = Los Osos Valley Road; Shaded Cell = Queuing Adverse Impact Under the cumulative scenario, with and without the addition of the project trips, the following storage facilities are expected to be exceeded though no cumulatively considered impact would occur. Industrial Way/Broad Street during the p.m. peak hour for the northbound and southbound left-turn lanes. Los Osos valley Road and the US 101 South ramp intersection would have queues that exceed the available storage for the eastbound right-turn lane and the southbound approach. At most, these queues would be expected at 437 feet, within the available stacking area for the ramp. The southbound left-turn queue at the Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street intersection, under the cumulative scenario, would extend into the two-way left-turn lane. Page 938 of 1221 52 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 While the increase in projected queues would be less than one car length at the intersection of Broad Street/Tank Farm Road, queues are expected to exceed the available storage for the eastbound right-turn, westbound left-turn, and southbound right-turn lanes. At the intersection of Buckley Road/South Higuera Street, the westbound southbound left-turn lanes would be expected to exceed the storage lanes with and without the proposed project. Finding – The addition of the project trips to the study intersections would increase the projected 95th percentile queues, several of which are projected to exceed the storage capacity. At these intersections, the proposed project would add less than one vehicle length, making the impact acceptable under the criteria applied. Intersection Operations Recommendations Recommendation – Since there were no cumulatively adverse project impacts given that several improvement projects in the area were assumed completed in the cumulative analysis, the project should pay its share of the City’s improvements assumed under the cumulative scenarios. Roadway Segment Operation Existing plus Project Conditions Automobile Operations Analysis Under Existing plus Project volumes, the study roadways segments that currently operate acceptably would continue to do so with the exception of southbound Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and Aero Drive, which would deteriorate to LOS E during the p.m. peak hour with the project. All other segments that currently operate at unacceptable service levels would continue to do so but the speed of the segment would decrease by one mile per hour or less. These results are summarized in Table 34. Page 939 of 1221 53 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 34 – Existing and Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Roadway Segment Auto Levels of Service Study Roadway Direction Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Segment AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Speed BFFS/ LOS Speed BFFS/ LOS Speed BFFS/ LOS Speed BFFS/ LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 42.8 95/A 42.3 94/A 42.8 95/A 42.3 94/A SB 31.2 69/B 29.4 65/C 31.2 69/B 29.3 65/C B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 18.9 41/D 14.8 32/E 18.9 41/D 14.6 32/E SB 13.4 29/F 13.5 29/F 12.9 28/F 13.2 29/F 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB 13.0 29/F 14.3 31/E 12.2 27/F 13.7 30/E SB 19.3 42/D 18.4 41/D 19.0 42/D 18.0 40/E B. Aero Dr to Buckley Rd NB 36.2 78/B 38.0 82/A 35.9 77/B 37.6 81/A SB 31.8 69/B 21.2 46/F 31.9 69/B 21.1 46/F 3. Tank Farm Rd: S Higuera St to Broad St (SR 227) A. S Higuera St to Mindbody Entrance EB 40.3 88/A 39.9 87/A 40.2 88/A 39.6 86/A WB 44.2 96/A 12.0 80/A 36.8 80/A 36.8 80/A B. Mindbody Entrance to Broad St EB 11.6 28/F 12.0 29/F 11.6 28/F 11.9 29/F WB 36.8 78/B 30.2 64/C 36.9 79/B 30.0 64/C 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd EB 39.6 98/A 38.1 94/A 39.6 98/A 38.1 94/A WB 31.0 72/B 28.8 67/C 31.0 72/B 28.9 67/C Notes: BFFS = is the percent of “Base Free Flow Speed”; Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation Under conditions with project volumes added to existing volumes, the southbound segment of Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and Aero Drive would fall to a service level considered unacceptable. Further south on the segment, Broad Street already operates at LOS F. Since this section of Broad Street and the intersection of Buckley Road operate as the choke point for the corridor, the speed and service level must decrease when trips are added. With the planned improvements on this section of Broad Street, including the roundabout at Buckley Road, the affected segments would be expected to have higher average speeds and the travel time through the network would be reduced by up to 74 percent as indicated in the State Route 227 Operation Study, prepared by Kimley-Horn, 2016. To mitigate the project-specific adverse impact under the existing conditions, a dedicated southbound right-turn lane with a programed right-turn overlap should be installed at the intersection with Aero Drive as part of the project’s off-site improvements. With this improvement, the service level for the segment would be LOS D. Mitigated results are summarized in Appendix G. Other segments that have an unacceptable percent BFFS, but the addition of the project trips does not cause a significant impact as it would not decrease the speed by more than one mph are: Page 940 of 1221 54 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Broad Street between Industrial Road to Tank Farm Road in both directions during the a.m. peak and only the northbound direction during the p.m. Northbound Broad Street between Tank Farm and Aero Drive during each peak period. Southbound Broad Street between Aero Drive and Buckley Road during the evening peak hour. Tank Farm Road between Mindbody entrance and Broad Street in the eastbound direction during both peak periods. Finding – With the addition of project trips to the study segment of southbound Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and Aero Drive, the service level would deteriorate from acceptable to unacceptable. With the planned SR 227 improvements, operation of this facility would improve. Recommendation – The proposed project should include installation of a dedicated southbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Broad Street/Aero Drive. Pedestrian Analysis Under Existing plus Project volumes, the study roadway segments are expected to operate acceptably with and without the project. These results are summarized in Table 35. Table 35 – Existing and Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Roadway Segment Pedestrian Levels of Service Study Roadway Direction Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Segment AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 3.22 C 3.81 D 3.24 C 3.85 D SB - - - - - - - - B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 4.11 D 4.00 D 4.12 D 4.03 D SB 3.79 D 4.23 D 3.79 D 4.25 D 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB 2.99 C 2.63 B 3.05 C 2.76 C SB 3.48 D 3.30 C 3.53 D 3.37 C A. Mindbody Entrance to Broad St EB 3.00 C 3.19 C 3.02 C 3.22 C WB - - - - - - - - 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd EB 3.39 C 4.12 D 3.40 C 4.12 D WB 4.12 D 3.87 D 4.12 D 3.87 D Notes: BFFS = is the percent of “Base Free Flow Speed”; Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation Finding – The pedestrian facilities on study roadways are expected to continue to operate acceptably. Bicycle Analysis Under Existing plus Project volumes, bicycle segments on the study roadway are expected to operate at acceptable service levels with the addition of the project volumes. These results are summarized in Table 36. Page 941 of 1221 55 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 36 – Existing and Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Roadway Segment Bicycle Levels of Service Study Roadway Direction Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Segment AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 2.62 B 2.74 B 2.63 B 2.75 B SB 1.96 A 1.97 A 1.96 A 1.97 A B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 2.27 B 2.40 B 2.30 B 2.42 B SB 2.01 B 2.24 B 2.02 B 2.25 B 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB 1.77 A 1.67 A 1.78 A 1.71 A SB 1.86 A 1.90 A 1.88 A 1.92 A B. Aero Dr to Buckley Rd NB 1.22 A 1.08 A 1.22 A 1.08 A SB 1.15 A 1.32 A 1.15 A 1.33 A 3. Tank Farm Rd: S Higuera St to Broad St (SR 227) A. S Higuera St to Mindbody Entrance EB 2.20 B 2.11 B 2.21 B 2.12 B WB 2.07 B 2.24 B 2.07 B 2.25 B B. Mindbody Entrance to Broad St EB 1.77 A 1.88 A 1.77 A 1.88 A WB 1.89 A 2.07 B 1.90 A 2.08 B 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd EB 3.39 C 4.12 D 3.40 C 4.12 D WB 4.12 D 3.87 D 4.12 D 3.87 D Notes: BFFS = is the percent of “Base Free Flow Speed”; Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service Finding – The bicycle facilities on the study segments are expected to continue operating acceptably upon the addition of project-generated traffic. Transit Analysis Under Existing plus Project volumes, the study roadways with transit facilities are expected to continue to operate at unacceptable service levels. With the addition of the volumes, the transit score is expected to degrade more; however, it is likely that the difference in volumes would be imperceptible to transit riders. These results are summarized in Table 37. Page 942 of 1221 56 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 37 – Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Roadway Segment Transit Levels of Service Study Roadway Direction Existing Existing plus Project Segment AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Score/LOS Score/LOS Score/LOS Score/LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 4.60/E 4.68/E 4.60/E 4.69/E SB - - - - B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 5.36/F 5.45/F 5.36/F 5.46/F SB - - - - 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB - - - - SB 4.97/E 4.96/E 4.98/E 4.98/E 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd EB - - - - WB 5.15/F 5.13/F 5.15/F 5.13/F Notes: Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation Finding – The transit facilities in the study area are expected to continue to operate at the same unacceptable service level with the project as without it. Cumulative plus Project Conditions Automobile Operations Analysis Under the Cumulative scenario, with the addition of the project volumes, the study roadway segments are expected to operate at the same service levels. For the segments that operate at unacceptable service levels, the speed is not expected to decrease by more than one mph, indicating an acceptable impact. These results are summarized in Table 38. Page 943 of 1221 57 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 38 – Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Auto Levels of Service Study Roadway Direction Cumulative Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Segment AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Speed BFFS/ LOS Speed BFFS/ LOS Speed BFFS/ LOS Speed BFFS/ LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 42.3 94/A 41.6 92/A 42.3 94/A 41.6 92/A SB 31.1 69/B 30.4 67/C 31.1 69/B 30.3 67/C B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 17.1 37/E 10.4 23/E 17.0 37/E 9.7 22/E SB 13.0 28/F 12.1 26/F 12.8 28/F 11.9 26/F 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB 11.0 24/F 5.9 13/F 10.6 23/F 5.6 12/F SB 18.6 41/D 15.5 34/E 18.3 40/D 15.0 33/E B. Aero Dr to Buckley Rd NB 34.8 75/B 29.3 63/C 34.6 75/B 28.4 61/C SB 31.1 67/B 18.0 39/F 31.1 67/B 18.6 40/F 3. Tank Farm Rd: S Higuera St to Broad St (SR 227) A. S Higuera St to Long St EB 13.6 30/F 11.7 25/F 13.6 30/F 11.6 25/F WB 10.1 22/F 11.3 25/F 10.1 22/F 11.3 25/F B. Long St to Mindbody Entrance EB 39.7 86/A 30.9 67/C 39.7 86/A 30.4 66/D WB 40.3 87/A 10.5 23/F 40.3 87/A 10.4 22/F C. Mindbody Entrance to Broad St EB 10.8 26/F 11.8 28/F 10.8 26/F 11.8 28/F WB 33.3 71/B 22.1 47/D 33.6 72/B 24.6 53/C 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd EB 39.4 97/A 37.6 93/A 39.4 97/A 37.6 93/A WB 28.0 65/C 25.7 60/C 28.1 65/C 25.8 60/C Notes: BFFS = is the percent of “Base Free Flow Speed”; Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation Finding – With the addition of the project trips to the study segments under cumulative conditions, service levels are expected remain the same as without the project and the decrease in speed of 1 mph or less is considered an acceptable impact. Pedestrian Analysis Under Cumulative plus Project volumes, the study roadway segments are expected to operate at the same service levels as without the project. These results are summarized in Table 39. Page 944 of 1221 58 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Table 39 – Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Pedestrian Levels of Service Study Roadway Direction Cumulative Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Segment AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 3.59 D 4.55 E 3.61 D 4.55 E SB - - - - - - - - B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 4.05 D 4.44 E 4.07 D 4.46 E SB 3.98 D 4.62 E 3.98 D 4.62 E 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB 3.33 C 3.46 C 3.37 C 3.50 D SB 3.63 D 3.42 C 3.67 D 3.42 C B. Aero Dr to Buckley Rd NB - - - - - - - - SB - - - - - - - - 3. Tank Farm Rd: S Higuera St to Broad St (SR 227) A. S Higuera St to Long St EB 3.37 C 3.20 C 3.37 C 3.21 C WB 3.41 C 3.31 C 3.41 C 3.31 C B. Long St to Mindbody Entrance EB - - - - - - - - WB - - - - - - - - C. Mindbody Entrance to Broad St EB 3.12 C 3.50 D 3.13 C 3.60 D WB - - - - - - - - 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd EB 3.56 D 4.20 D 3.56 D 4.20 D WB 4.53 E 3.93 D 4.53 E 3.93 D Notes: BFFS = is the percent of “Base Free Flow Speed”; Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation For the pedestrian facilities that were operating at unacceptable service levels without the project, the same condition would continue to with the project. For some of the approaches, the addition of the project would degrade the LOS score further, specifically Broad Street between Industrial Road and Tank Farm Road in the northbound direction. Installing of a striped bicycle buffer would increase the distance between the vehicles and the pedestrians and result in an improved LOS Score; therefore, it is recommended that a striped buffer be installed between on Broad Street between Industrial Road and Capitolio Way. Mitigated results are summarized in Appendix G. Finding – With the addition of project trips to the study segments under the cumulative conditions, service levels for the pedestrian facilities are expected remain the same as without the project and with the exception of Broad Street between Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road, there would be no adverse impact. Recommendation – A stiped bicycle buffer in the northbound direction on Broad Street between Industrial Road and Tank Farm should be considered to mitigate the pedestrian impact. Page 945 of 1221 59 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Bicycle Analysis Upon the addition of project trips to the cumulative scenario, the bicycle facilities on the study segments are expected to operate acceptably with the exception of eastbound Tank Farm Road between Broad Street and Orcutt Road, which is expected to operate at LOS E without or with the project. These results are summarized in Table 40. Table 40 – Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Bicycle Levels of Service Study Roadway Direction Cumulative Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Segment AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 2.72 B 2.85 C 2.73 B 2.85 C SB 1.93 A 1.94 A 1.93 A 1.94 A B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 2.45 B 2.69 B 2.46 B 2.71 B SB 2.21 B 2.29 B 2.22 B 2.30 B 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB 1.86 A 2.06 B 1.87 A 2.10 B SB 1.94 A 2.04 B 1.95 A 2.05 B B. Aero Dr to Buckley Rd NB 1.24 A 1.17 A 1.25 A 1.18 A SB 1.27 A 1.41 A 1.27 A 1.44 A 3. Tank Farm Rd: S Higuera St to Broad St (SR 227) A. S Higuera St to Long St EB 3.37 C 2.22 B 3.37 C 2.23 B WB 2.02 B 1.99 A 2.02 B 2.00 B B. Long St to Mindbody Entrance EB 3.19 C 3.13 C 3.19 C 3.14 C WB 2.97 C 3.27 C 2.97 C 3.27 C C. Mindbody Entrance to Broad St EB 1.81 A 2.04 B 1.81 A 2.05 B WB 2.45 B 2.36 B 2.45 B 2.38 B 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd EB 3.56 D 4.53 E 3.56 D 4.53 E WB 4.20 D 3.93 D 4.20 D 3.93 D Notes: BFFS = is the percent of “Base Free Flow Speed”; Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation Finding – Upon the addition of project trips to cumulative volumes on the study segments, the bicycle facilities are expected to operate acceptably, excluding the segment of Tank Farm Road between Broad Street and Orcutt Road. Because the score for that segment would not be expected to change as a result of adding project- generated traffic, the project is considered to have an acceptable impact. Page 946 of 1221 60 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Transit Analysis With the addition of the project volumes to cumulative volumes, the transit facilities are expected to continue to operate at unacceptable Levels of Service. While the transit score is expected to further degrade more it is likely that the difference in volumes would be imperceptible to transit riders. These results are summarized in Table 41. Table 41 – Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Transit Levels of Service Study Roadway Cumulative Cumulative plus Project Segment Direction AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Score/LOS Score/LOS Score/LOS Score/LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd A. Orcutt Rd to Industrial Rd NB 4.66/E 4.77/E 4.66/E 4.77/E SB - - - - B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 5.38/F 5.48/F 5.38/F 5.48/F SB - - - - 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr NB - - - - SB 5.01/F 5.06/F 5.02/F 5.07/F 4. Tank Farm Rd: Broad St (SR 227) to Orcutt Rd EB - - - - WB 5.19/F 5.17/F 5.19/F 5.17/F Notes: Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation Finding – The transit facilities on the study roadways are expected to continue to operate at the same service levels as without the project, making the project’s impact acceptable. Page 947 of 1221 61 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Access and Circulation Site Access Access to the site would be via a new driveway located on the north side of Aero Drive, about 300 feet west of the signalized intersection with Broad Street. Sight Distance Sight distance along Aero Drive at the proposed project driveway location was evaluated based on sight distance criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans. The recommended sight distance for minor street approaches that are a driveway are based on stopping sight distance which uses the approach travel speeds as the basis for determining the recommended sight distance. Based on a design speed of 25 mph, the minimum stopping sight distance needed is 150 feet. Sight distance at the proposed driveway was field reviewed as well as reviewed with available aerials. At the time of the site visit, sight lines were clear for more than 150 feet in both directions. However, to maintain a clear line of sight, any proposed landscaping along the Aero Drive frontage should be low-lying vegetation with a height of not more than three feet about the elevation of the roadway and any trees should have canopies trimmed to be no less than seven feet above the roadway elevation. Similarly, any signage or landmarks relating to the hotel project should be at an adequate setback so not to obstruct sight lines. Along the frontage of the site, there is currently a bike lane where airport patrons are permitted to park. With the project, parking should be restricted for 30 feet on either side of the driveway. While it is understood that the Airport has an agreement with the City for overflow parking to use the bike lanes, it is not a desirable condition for bicyclist and may conflict with State law. The City may want to revisit this issue and implement parking restrictions to keep the bike lane clear for cyclists. Page 948 of 1221 62 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions The proposed project is expected to generation an average of 1,822 daily trips; of which 102 would occur during the morning peak hour and 131 during the p.m. peak hour. Sight lines at the proposed driveway location are expected to be adequate. Parking is currently allowed in the bike lane on Aero Drive. Based on the collision history for the intersection of Aerovista Place/Broad Street, it was identified that drivers may not be using the two-way left-turn lane. Intersection Operations For automobile operations, under the existing conditions, all of the study intersection except for Buckley Road/Edna Road, are expected to operate acceptably overall with the addition of project traffic. There are project specific adverse impacts at the two-way stop-controlled intersections of Tank Farm Road/Long Street, Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road, Broad Street/Aerovista Way. Under the cumulative conditions, with the addition of the project trips, the proposed project is expected to have a cumulatively adverse automobile operation impacts at the intersections of Capitolio Way/Broad Street, Aerovista Place/Broad Street, and Aero Drive/Broad Street. For the pedestrian facilities under the existing and cumulative conditions, the service level at signalized intersections are expected to operate acceptably with the addition of the project trips. For the two-way stop- controlled intersections, the intersections would continue to operate a LOS F. Under the existing conditions and cumulative conditions which includes the planned improvements in the area, with the addition of the project, the bicycle facilities at intersection are expected to operate acceptably. Under the existing and cumulative conditions, with and without the proposed project, the transit service level is expected to operate at LOS F. The projected queuing at several of the study intersections is expected to exceed the available storage during the existing and cumulative scenarios, with and without the project. Under the existing conditions, with the addition of the project, there would be a project-specific adverse impact at the intersections of Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road/Broad Street. Under the cumulative conditions, the addition of the project trips to the study intersections would not increase the expected 95th percentile queue length by more than one vehicle, making the impact acceptable. Roadway Operations For automobile operations, under the existing conditions, with the addition of project trips to the study segment of southbound Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and Aero Drive, the service level would deteriorate from acceptable to unacceptable. Page 949 of 1221 63 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 The pedestrian segment facilities are expected to operate at the same service level as without the project under both the existing and cumulative scenarios; however, under the cumulative scenario, the already unacceptable pedestrian score decreases for an adverse impact on Broad Street north of Tank Farm Road For the bicycle roadway operations, the study segments are expected to operate acceptably with the addition of the project trips. Under the cumulative scenarios, with and without the project, the segment of Tank Farm Road between Broad Street and Orcutt Road would operate at unacceptable service levels, but the addition of project-generated traffic is considered to have an acceptable impact. Under the existing and cumulative scenarios, with and without the project would be expected to operate at unacceptable service levels. Recommendations It is recommended that the City monitor the reported collisions at the intersection of Aerovista Place/Broad Street. At the time of the site visit, the two-way left-turn lane on Broad Street was recently re-striped which potentially could have addressed a visibility issue with drivers. The City should revisit the practice of allowing parking in the bike lane on Aero Drive to determine if this is consistent with the City’s policies on bicycle access. In order to maintain sight lines at the proposed project driveway, any landscaping along the Aero Drive frontage should be low-lying vegetation with a height of not more than three feet about the elevation of the roadway and any trees should have canopies trimmed to be no less than seven feet above the roadway elevation. Any signage should be placed out of the line of sight. Parking should be restricted for 30 feet on either side of the driveway. Intersection Operations Under the Existing plus Project conditions, to address the project-specific impacts, the following actions are recommended: o The project’s specific adverse impact at the intersection of Tank Farm Road/Long Street could be addressed through payment of the City’s fees since the improvement would be completed as part of another project and would be complete prior to the occupation of the proposed hotel. o At the intersection of Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road, while there are plans to install a roundabout at the intersection that the project should ultimately pay fees towards, to address the project-specific adverse impact, the City could consider having project applicant pay to restripe the existing striped median on the west leg to provide an acceleration lane. o The project’s adverse impact at the intersection of Broad Street/Aerovista Way would be mitigated by restricting left-turn movements during the peak hours if the City concurs with this improvement. o Payment towards the City’s TIF would mitigate the project’s queuing impact at the intersection of Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street. This improvement is expected to be completed before the occupancy of the proposed Airport Hotels. o The project-specific queuing impact at Tank Farm Road/Broad Street would be mitigated by converting the westbound right-turn lane to a shared through/right-turn lane. This improvement is part of several Page 950 of 1221 64 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 planned improvements at the intersection and the project should be conditioned to contribute toward the cost of this improvement. For the cumulatively considerable project impacts on automobile operations, the following actions are recommended: o While there is a cumulatively considerable impact at the intersection of Broad Street/Capitolio Way, under the cumulative scenario, there is planned to be a new signalized intersection nearby that drivers could reroute to in order to access broad Street. o Payment towards the Citywide TIF would include the project’s share of the cost of improvements to the intersections of Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road/Broad Street and mitigate the project’s impacts. Roadway Operations Participation in the San Luis Obispo County’s TIF Program for the SR 227 Corridor will mitigate impacts to the Broad Street (SR 227) segment Under Existing plus Project conditions, to mitigate the project-specific impact to automobile operations on southbound Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and Aero Drive, the project should include installation of a dedicated southbound right-turn lane with a right-turn overlap as part of its off-site improvements. To mitigate the project’s cumulative adverse impacts to pedestrians on northbound Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and Industrial Road, a striped bicycle buffer should be installed in the northbound direction between Industrial Road and Capitolio Way to increase the distance between pedestrians and vehicles. Page 951 of 1221 65 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 18, 2020 Study Participants and References Study Participants Principal in Charge Mark E. Spencer, TE Associate Engineer Briana Byrne, EIT Assistant Planner Andre Huff Graphics Katia Wolfe Editing/Formatting Hannah Yung-Boxdell Quality Control Dalene J. Whitlock, PE, PTOE References 2014 Collision Data on California State Highways, California Department of Transportation, 2017 City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, 2013 Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2018 Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation, 2017 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, City of San Luis Obispo, 2015 Northwest Corner Tank Farm/Broad Mixed-Use Project Traffic Study, Central Coast Transportation Consulting, 2018 San Luis Obispo General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, 2015 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Code Publishing Company, 2017 San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority, http://www.slorta.org/ State Route 227 Operation Study, Kimley-Horn, 2016 Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), California Highway Patrol, 2014-2019 Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017 SLO011-1 Page 952 of 1221 Page 953 of 1221 A Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 2020 Appendix A Traffic Turning Movement Counts Page 954 of 1221 Page 955 of 1221 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement Count Location:Santa Fe Rd & Tank Farm Rd City:San Luis Obispo Project ID:19-02080-001 Control:1-Way Stop(NB)Date: NS/EW Streets: 00.50.50010001001100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 20300000010280238000218 7:15 AM 1116002000105110229200250 7:30 AM 002000000012870 27 133 1 0 316 7:45 AM 20180 0 0 0 0 0 187 14 0 31 179 0 0 431 8:00 AM 0190 0 1 1 0 0 203 12 0 29 169 1 0 426 8:15 AM 5 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 10 0 20 175 00411 8:30 AM 20150000001891102113700375 8:45 AM 6015000000185302212301355 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :1821090031001287 76 0 195 1088 2 1 2782 APPROACH %'s :13.95% 1.55% 84.50%0.00% 0.00% 75.00%25.00% 0.00% 0.00%94.42% 5.58% 0.00% 15.16% 84.60% 0.16% 0.08% PEAK HR :07:45 AM 40 37 44 07:45 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :9155001100767470101660101643 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.450 0.250 0.764 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.945 0.839 0.000 0.815 0.922 0.250 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 00.50.50010001001100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 10028000000 199 7 0 12 237 0 0 493 4:15 PM 11 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 4 0 16 215 0 0 445 4:30 PM 12 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 216 6 0 16 239 0 0 527 4:45 PM 10 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 178 3 0 17 236 1 1 477 5:00 PM 9054000000236601327500593 5:15 PM 9136001000199901926500539 5:30 PM 12020000000176501721000440 5:45 PM 17023000100138501218900385 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :9012600011001511 45 0 122 1866 1 1 3899 APPROACH %'s :25.64% 0.28% 74.07% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 97.11% 2.89%0.00% 6.13% 93.77% 0.05% 0.05% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 291 289 296 05:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :401159001000829240651015 1 1 2136 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.833 0.250 0.736 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.878 0.667 0.000 0.855 0.923 0.250 0.250 0.953 Total 0.9010.881 WESTBOUND 0.939 SOUTHBOUND 0.794 0.250 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM SOUTHBOUNDPM AM 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM NORTHBOUND 0.813 EASTBOUND 10/9/2019 Tank Farm Rd NORTHBOUND Tank Farm Rd 0.907 WESTBOUND Santa Fe Rd Santa Fe Rd 0.250 0.947 EASTBOUND Page 956 of 1221 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement Count Location:Santa Fe Rd & Tank Farm Rd City:San Luis Obispo Project ID:19-02080-001 Control:1-Way Stop(NB)Date: NS/EW Streets: 00.50.50010001001100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 00000000000000000 7:15 AM 00000000000002002 7:30 AM 00000000010000001 7:45 AM 00000000000002002 8:00 AM 0000000001001100 3 8:15 AM 00000000010002003 8:30 AM 00000000000002002 8:45 AM 00000000000000000 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0000000 00300190013 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%10.00% 90.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:45 AM 40 37 44 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :000000000200170010 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.875 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 00.50.50010001001100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 0000000000000000 0 4:15 PM 00000000011000002 4:30 PM 00000000010001002 4:45 PM 00200000020001005 5:00 PM 00000000010000001 5:15 PM 00000000010001002 5:30 PM 00000000000000000 5:45 PM 00000000000000000 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :002000000610030012 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%0.00% 85.71% 14.29% 0.00%0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 291 289 296 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :002000000500030010 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.00 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.625 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.000 Bikes Santa Fe Rd Santa Fe Rd Tank Farm Rd Tank Farm Rd 0.500 1.000 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 10/9/2019 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 0.5000.250 0.625 0.750 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 0.833 Page 957 of 1221 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Santa Fe Rd & Tank Farm Rd Project ID:19-02080-001 City:San Luis Obispo Date:10/9/2019 NS/EW Streets: EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 7:00 AM 000000000 7:15 AM 000000000 7:30 AM 000000000 7:45 AM 000000000 8:00 AM 000000000 8:15 AM 000000000 8:30 AM 000000000 8:45 AM 000000000 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :000000000 APPROACH %'s : PEAK HR :07:45 AM 39 36 43 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :000000000 PEAK HR FACTOR : Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 4:00 PM 000000000 4:15 PM 000000000 4:30 PM 000000000 4:45 PM 100000001 5:00 PM 000000000 5:15 PM 000000000 5:30 PM 000000000 5:45 PM 001000001 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :101000002 APPROACH %'s :100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 288 286 293 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :100000001 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.250 Pedestrians (Crosswalks) WEST LEG 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM Tank Farm Rd 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 0.2500.250 PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG Santa Fe Rd Santa Fe Rd Tank Farm Rd Page 958 of 1221 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services ID:19-02080-001 Day: City:San Luis Obispo Date: AM 1100 AM NOON 0000 NOON PM 0100 PM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0100 0 101 1 1015 0 660 000 0165 0 101 000 0 TEV 1643 0 2136 0 100 767 0 829 1 PHF 0.95 0.90 47024 0 000.50.5 AM NOON PM PM NOON AM PM 0401159PM NOON 0000NOON AM 09155AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Count 90 Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM) Santa Fe Rd & Tank Farm Rd Wednesday 10/09/2019 CONTROL WESTBOUND07:45 AM - 08:45 AM Total Vehicles (Noon) Pedestrians (Crosswalks) Bikes (NOON) 822 COUNT PERIODSBikes (AM)PEAK HOURSTotal Vehicles (AM) NONE 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 2 2 0 1-Way Stop(NB)Tank Farm RdEASTBOUNDSanta Fe Rd 149 0 Santa Fe Rd SOUTHBOUND 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM NORTHBOUND 989 0 Tank Farm Rd07:00 AM - 09:00 AM NONE 670 0 1055 NOONAM PM 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM AM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM AM NOON PM NOON 1 7 0 0 2 0 000000N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A101 660 1 47 767 0 1109155N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A65 1015 1 24 829 0 0104011590 3 0 0 5 0 000002NOONPMAMNOONAMPMNOONAMPMNOONPMAMPage 959 of 1221 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement Count Location:Long St & Tank Farm Rd City:San Luis Obispo Project ID:19-02080-002 Control:2-Way Stop(NB/SB)Date: NS/EW Streets: 00.50.50010012001200 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 011303120311240106425220 7:15 AM 10900030312740168105249 7:30 AM 201303020815040 12 109 4 1 308 7:45 AM 10100 3 0 4 0 13 216 14 0 29 154 3 3 450 8:00 AM 20150 1 1 5 0 18 200 13 0 23 144 6 9 437 8:15 AM 1 0 15 0 0 0 5 0 17 211 10 0 24 155 63447 8:30 AM 2 0 22 0 1 0 4 0 10 186 10 0 19 132 3 3 392 8:45 AM 3 0 10 0 2 0 3 0 16 191 15 1 28 112 1 4 386 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :12 1 107 0 13 2 28 0 88 1393 74 1 161 951 25 33 2889 APPROACH %'s :10.00% 0.83% 89.17%0.00% 30.23% 4.65%65.12% 0.00% 5.66%89.52% 4.76% 0.06% 13.76% 81.28% 2.14% 2.82% PEAK HR :07:45 AM 40 37 44 07:45 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :6 0 62 0 5 1 18 0 58 813 47 0 95 585 18 18 1726 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.750 0.000 0.705 0.000 0.417 0.250 0.900 0.000 0.806 0.941 0.839 0.000 0.819 0.944 0.750 0.500 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 00.50.50010012001200 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 21550306026 153 5 0 32 229 5 1 518 4:15 PM 3 0 34 0 4 0 6 0 17 157 5 0 18 230 4 5 483 4:30 PM 6 0 44 0 2 0 14 0 12 162 9 2 24 247 7 5 534 4:45 PM 1 0 44 1 4 2 15 0 9 140 7 0 28 232 6 6 495 5:00 PM 3 2 48 0 2 0 8 0 19 154 6 0 26 274 7 11 560 5:15 PM 1 0 32 0 4 0 29 0 22 159 6 0 23 264 3 8 551 5:30 PM 2 3 52 0 1 0 18 0 12 124 7 0 26 209 6 5 465 5:45 PM 2 0 23 0 0 0 9 0 21 120 8 1 22 191 8 4 409 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :20 6 332 1 20 2 105 0 138 1169 53 3 199 1876 46 45 4015 APPROACH %'s :5.57% 1.67% 92.48% 0.28% 15.75% 1.57% 82.68% 0.00% 10.12% 85.77% 3.89%0.22% 9.19% 86.61% 2.12% 2.08% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 291 289 296 05:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :11 2 168 1 12 2 66 0 62 615 28 2 101 1017 23 30 2140 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.458 0.250 0.875 0.250 0.750 0.250 0.569 0.000 0.705 0.949 0.778 0.250 0.902 0.928 0.821 0.682 0.959 Total 0.9550.945 WESTBOUND 0.921 SOUTHBOUND 0.858 0.606 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM SOUTHBOUNDPM AM 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM NORTHBOUND 0.708 EASTBOUND 10/9/2019 Tank Farm Rd NORTHBOUND Tank Farm Rd 0.947 WESTBOUND Long St Long St 0.857 0.944 EASTBOUND Page 960 of 1221 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement Count Location:Long St & Tank Farm Rd City:San Luis Obispo Project ID:19-02080-002 Control:2-Way Stop(NB/SB)Date: NS/EW Streets: 00.50.50010012001200 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 00000000000000000 7:15 AM 00000000000011002 7:30 AM 00000000000000000 7:45 AM 00000000000001001 8:00 AM 0000000001000100 2 8:15 AM 00000000001010002 8:30 AM 00000000000000000 8:45 AM 00000000010002003 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0000000 00210250010 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 66.67% 33.33% 0.00%28.57% 71.43% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:45 AM 40 37 44 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :00000000011012005 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.500 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 00.50.50010012001200 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 0000000001000000 1 4:15 PM 00000000000000000 4:30 PM 00000000010001002 4:45 PM 00000000010001002 5:00 PM 10000000000001002 5:15 PM 00000000000000000 5:30 PM 01000000000001002 5:45 PM 00000000010001103 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :110000000400051012 APPROACH %'s :50.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00%0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%0.00% 83.33% 16.67% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 291 289 296 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :10000000020003006 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.25 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.000 Bikes Long St Long St Tank Farm Rd Tank Farm Rd 0.500 0.750 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 10/9/2019 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 0.7500.250 0.500 0.750 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 0.625 Page 961 of 1221 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Long St & Tank Farm Rd Project ID:19-02080-002 City:San Luis Obispo Date:10/9/2019 NS/EW Streets: EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 7:00 AM 000100001 7:15 AM 000000000 7:30 AM 000200002 7:45 AM 000000000 8:00 AM 100000102 8:15 AM 000000000 8:30 AM 000000000 8:45 AM 100000001 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :200300106 APPROACH %'s :100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:45 AM 39 36 43 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :100000102 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.250 0.250 Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 4:00 PM 210000104 4:15 PM 210000003 4:30 PM 000000000 4:45 PM 000000000 5:00 PM 010000001 5:15 PM 000000000 5:30 PM 001000203 5:45 PM 100000001 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :5310003012 APPROACH %'s :62.50% 37.50% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 288 286 293 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :010000001 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.250 Pedestrians (Crosswalks) WEST LEG 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM Tank Farm Rd 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 0.2500.250 PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG 0.2500.250 0.250 AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG Long St Long St Tank Farm Rd Page 962 of 1221 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services ID:19-02080-002 Day: City:San Luis Obispo Date: AM 18 1 5 0 AM NOON 0000 NOON PM 662120 PM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0100 0 23 0 18 2 1017 0 585 002 01101 0 95 58062 1 TEV 1726 0 2140 0 30 0 18 813 0 615 2 PHF 0.96 0.96 47 0 28 0 000.50.5 AM NOON PM PM NOON AM PM 1112168PM NOON 0000NOON AM 06062AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Count 132 Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM) Long St & Tank Farm Rd Wednesday 10/09/2019 CONTROL WESTBOUND07:45 AM - 08:45 AM Total Vehicles (Noon) Pedestrians (Crosswalks) Bikes (NOON) 898 COUNT PERIODSBikes (AM)PEAK HOURSTotal Vehicles (AM) NONE 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 76 87 0 2-Way Stop(NB/SB)Tank Farm RdEASTBOUNDLong St 143 0 Long St SOUTHBOUND 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM NORTHBOUND 825 0 Tank Farm Rd07:00 AM - 09:00 AM NONE 609 0 1096 NOONAM PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PM AM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM AM NOON PM NOON 1 2 0 1 1 0 000000N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A95 585 18 47 813 58 18156062N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A101 1017 23 28 615 62 662121121680 3 0 0 2 0 000100NOONPMAMNOONAMPMNOONAMPMNOONPMAMPage 963 of 1221 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement Count Location:Mindbody Dwy & Tank Farm Rd City:San Luis Obispo Project ID:19-02080-003 Control:Signalized Date: NS/EW Streets: 1010000002001100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 20000000010820510500222 7:15 AM 200000000119120311400250 7:30 AM 10300000014460716400325 7:45 AM 4020 0 0 0 0 0 183 17 0 12 211 0 0 429 8:00 AM 402000000199140420100424 8:15 AM 301000000186110618600393 8:30 AM 8010000001772201016300381 8:45 AM 401000000198110914100364 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :280100000001314 95 0 56 1285 0 0 2788 APPROACH %'s :73.68% 0.00% 26.32% 0.00%0.00% 93.26% 6.74% 0.00%4.18% 95.82% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:45 AM 40 37 44 07:45 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :190600000074564032761001627 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.594 0.000 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.936 0.727 0.000 0.667 0.902 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1010000002001100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 24017000000 231 1 0 3 245 0 0 521 4:15 PM 350800000019440119800440 4:30 PM 410400000025120321200513 4:45 PM 240900000022910022600489 5:00 PM 4701000000029830125900618 5:15 PM 2401000000024140226600547 5:30 PM 230600000020120123500468 5:45 PM 160800000015070017200353 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :2340720000001795 24 0 11 1813 0 0 3949 APPROACH %'s :76.47% 0.00% 23.53% 0.00%0.00% 98.68% 1.32% 0.00%0.60% 99.40% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 291 289 296 05:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :1360330000001019 10 0 6 963 0 0 2167 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.723 0.000 0.825 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.855 0.625 0.000 0.500 0.905 0.000 0.000 0.948 Total 0.8770.855 WESTBOUND 0.904 SOUTHBOUND 0.741 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM SOUTHBOUNDPM AM 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM NORTHBOUND 0.694 EASTBOUND 10/9/2019 Tank Farm Rd NORTHBOUND Tank Farm Rd 0.889 WESTBOUND Mindbody Dwy Mindbody Dwy 0.950 EASTBOUND Page 964 of 1221 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement Count Location:Mindbody Dwy & Tank Farm Rd City:San Luis Obispo Project ID:19-02080-003 Control:Signalized Date: NS/EW Streets: 1010000002001100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 00000000000000000 7:15 AM 00000000000000000 7:30 AM 00000000000000000 7:45 AM 00000000000000000 8:00 AM 0010000000000000 1 8:15 AM 00000000000000000 8:30 AM 00000000000000000 8:45 AM 00100000000000001 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0020000 0000000002 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:45 AM 40 37 44 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :00100000000000001 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1010000002001100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 0060000000100000 7 4:15 PM 00400000000000004 4:30 PM 00100000000000001 4:45 PM 00300000000000003 5:00 PM 00500000000000005 5:15 PM 00400000000000004 5:30 PM 00100000000000001 5:45 PM 00300000000000003 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0027000000010000028 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 291 289 296 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :0013000000000000013 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.00 0.000 0.650 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 RTOR Mindbody Dwy Mindbody Dwy Tank Farm Rd Tank Farm Rd AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 10/9/2019 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 0.6500.650 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 0.2500.250 Page 965 of 1221 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement Count Location:Mindbody Dwy & Tank Farm Rd City:San Luis Obispo Project ID:19-02080-003 Control:Signalized Date: NS/EW Streets: 1010000002001100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 00000000000001001 7:15 AM 00000000010001002 7:30 AM 00000000010000001 7:45 AM 00000000000004004 8:00 AM 0000000002000000 2 8:15 AM 00000000001002003 8:30 AM 00000000000002002 8:45 AM 00000000000000000 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0000000 004100100015 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 0.00%0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:45 AM 40 37 44 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :000000000210080011 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1010000002001100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 0000000000000000 0 4:15 PM 00000000010000001 4:30 PM 10000000020000003 4:45 PM 00000000040001005 5:00 PM 00000000000000000 5:15 PM 00000000010001002 5:30 PM 10000000000000001 5:45 PM 00000000000000000 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :200000000800020012 APPROACH %'s :100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 291 289 296 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :100000000700020010 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.25 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.438 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 Bikes Mindbody Dwy Mindbody Dwy Tank Farm Rd Tank Farm Rd 0.375 0.500 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 10/9/2019 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 0.5000.250 0.438 0.500 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 0.688 Page 966 of 1221 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Mindbody Dwy & Tank Farm Rd Project ID:19-02080-003 City:San Luis Obispo Date:10/9/2019 NS/EW Streets: EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 7:00 AM 000000000 7:15 AM 000000000 7:30 AM 000000000 7:45 AM 000000000 8:00 AM 000000000 8:15 AM 000000000 8:30 AM 000200002 8:45 AM 002000002 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :002200004 APPROACH %'s :50.00% 50.00% PEAK HR :07:45 AM 39 36 43 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :000200002 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.250 Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 4:00 PM 000000000 4:15 PM 000000000 4:30 PM 000000000 4:45 PM 000000000 5:00 PM 000000000 5:15 PM 000000000 5:30 PM 000000000 5:45 PM 001000001 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :001000001 APPROACH %'s :100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:30 PM 288 286 293 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :000000000 PEAK HR FACTOR : Pedestrians (Crosswalks) WEST LEG 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM Tank Farm Rd 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG 0.2500.250 AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG Mindbody Dwy Mindbody Dwy Tank Farm Rd Page 967 of 1221 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services ID:19-02080-003 Day: City:San Luis Obispo Date: AM 0000 AM NOON 0000 NOON PM 0000 PM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 0000 0 000 1 963 0 761 000 016032 000 0 TEV 1627 0 2167 0 000 745 0 1019 2 PHF 0.95 0.88 64 0 10 0 0101 AM NOON PM PM NOON AM PM 01360 33 PM NOON 0000NOON AM 0190 6 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Count 16 Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM) Mindbody Dwy & Tank Farm Rd Wednesday 10/09/2019 CONTROL WESTBOUND07:45 AM - 08:45 AM Total Vehicles (Noon) Pedestrians (Crosswalks) Bikes (NOON) 751 COUNT PERIODSBikes (AM)PEAK HOURSTotal Vehicles (AM) NONE 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM 0 0 0 Signalized Tank Farm RdEASTBOUNDMindbody Dwy 96 0 Mindbody Dwy SOUTHBOUND 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM NORTHBOUND 1052 0 Tank Farm Rd07:00 AM - 09:00 AM NONE 780 0 1099 NOONAM PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM AM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM AM NOON PM NOON 0 8 0 1 2 0 000000N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A32 761 0 64 745 0 0001906N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A6 963 0 10 1019 0 0001360330 2 0 0 7 0 000100NOONPMAMNOONAMPMNOONAMPMNOONPMAMPage 968 of 1221 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement Count Location:Edna Rd/SR 227 & Buckley Rd City:San Luis Obispo Project ID:19-02080-004 Control:Signalized Date: NS/EW Streets: 110011100.50.5100100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 271860017970521400000321 7:15 AM 332074007460511800010349 7:30 AM 60 267 0 0 085150212500000455 7:45 AM 46 316 0 0079501204000010499 8:00 AM 64 289 2 0113780924500010558 8:15 AM 48 293 0 0 1 125 18 0 16 0 57 0 2 0 00560 8:30 AM 58290101751001632800010483 8:45 AM 46267307761201522400100453 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :382 2115 10 0 11 730 81 0 80 11 251 021403678 APPROACH %'s :15.24% 84.36% 0.40%0.00% 1.34% 88.81%9.85% 0.00% 23.39%3.22% 73.39% 0.00% 28.57% 14.29% 57.14% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:45 AM 40 37 44 08:15 AM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :216 1188 3 0 3 416 41 0 53 5 170 020302100 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.844 0.940 0.375 0.000 0.750 0.759 0.569 0.000 0.828 0.417 0.746 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.750 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 110011100.50.5100100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 20 151 1 0 2 235 11 0 12 27302010510 4:15 PM 11133000249110707400020487 4:30 PM 2010710024630608502010471 4:45 PM 1212710022770909503010482 5:00 PM 221040002295011211306250499 5:15 PM 1310410022960918502030453 5:30 PM 91131022561101308101020489 5:45 PM 179700019140606702140389 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :124 936 5 0 4 1862 58 0 73 5 673 0 18 3 19 0 3780 APPROACH %'s :11.64% 87.89% 0.47% 0.00% 0.21% 96.78% 3.01% 0.00% 9.72% 0.67% 89.61%0.00% 45.00% 7.50% 47.50% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:00 PM 289 289 296 04:00 PM TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :63518302957320342327070501950 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.788 0.858 0.750 0.000 0.250 0.961 0.727 0.000 0.708 0.250 0.861 0.000 0.583 0.000 0.625 0.000 0.938 Total 0.9560.873 WESTBOUND 0.750 SOUTHBOUND 0.849 0.953 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM SOUTHBOUNDPM AM 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM NORTHBOUND 0.972 EASTBOUND 10/9/2019 Buckley Rd NORTHBOUND Buckley Rd 0.625 WESTBOUND Edna Rd/SR 227 Edna Rd/SR 227 0.788 0.781 EASTBOUND Page 969 of 1221 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement Count Location:Edna Rd/SR 227 & Buckley Rd City:San Luis Obispo Project ID:19-02080-004 Control:Signalized Date: NS/EW Streets: 110011100.50.5100100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 00000000002000002 7:15 AM 00000000008000109 7:30 AM 00000000003000003 7:45 AM 0000000000100001011 8:00 AM 00000000001100000 11 8:15 AM 0000000000120000012 8:30 AM 00000000005000005 8:45 AM 00000000006000006 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :0000000 000570002059 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:45 AM 40 37 44 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :0000000000380001039 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.792 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 110011100.50.5100100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 0000000000500010 6 4:15 PM 0000000000100001011 4:30 PM 00000000008000109 4:45 PM 0000000000150001016 5:00 PM 0000000000180002020 5:15 PM 000000000090001010 5:30 PM 0000000000150000015 5:45 PM 0000000000110002013 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :00000000009100090100 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00%0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:00 PM 289 289 296 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :0000000000380004042 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.633 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 RTOR Edna Rd/SR 227 Edna Rd/SR 227 Buckley Rd Buckley Rd 0.792 0.250 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 10/9/2019 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM 0.6560.633 1.000 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 0.813 Page 970 of 1221 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement Count Location:Edna Rd/SR 227 & Buckley Rd City:San Luis Obispo Project ID:19-02080-004 Control:Signalized Date: NS/EW Streets: 110011100.50.5100100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 7:00 AM 00000000000000000 7:15 AM 02000000000000002 7:30 AM 02000000000000002 7:45 AM 0100010000000000011 8:00 AM 0000010000000000 1 8:15 AM 00000100000000001 8:30 AM 03000000000000003 8:45 AM 03000000000000003 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :011000120 00000000023 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :07:45 AM 40 37 44 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :0400012000000000016 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.000 0.333 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.300 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 110011100.50.5100100 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL 4:00 PM 0000000000000000 0 4:15 PM 00000000000000000 4:30 PM 00000000000000000 4:45 PM 01000200000000003 5:00 PM 00000300100000004 5:15 PM 00000200000000002 5:30 PM 00000200000000002 5:45 PM 00000000000000000 NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :010009001000000011 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR :04:00 PM 289 289 296 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :01000200000000003 PEAK HR FACTOR :0.00 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Bikes Edna Rd/SR 227 Edna Rd/SR 227 Buckley Rd Buckley Rd 0.300 AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 10/9/2019 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM 0.2500.250 0.250 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM 0.3640.333 Page 971 of 1221 National Data & Surveying Services Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation:Edna Rd/SR 227 & Buckley Rd Project ID:19-02080-004 City:San Luis Obispo Date:10/9/2019 NS/EW Streets: EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 7:00 AM 000000000 7:15 AM 000000000 7:30 AM 000000000 7:45 AM 000000000 8:00 AM 000000000 8:15 AM 000000000 8:30 AM 000000000 8:45 AM 000000000 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :000000000 APPROACH %'s : PEAK HR :07:45 AM 39 36 43 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :000000000 PEAK HR FACTOR : Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL 4:00 PM 000000000 4:15 PM 000000000 4:30 PM 000000000 4:45 PM 000000000 5:00 PM 000000000 5:15 PM 000000000 5:30 PM 000000000 5:45 PM 000000011 EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES :000000011 APPROACH %'s :0.00% 100.00% PEAK HR :04:00 PM 286 286 293 TOTAL PEAK HR VOL :000000000 PEAK HR FACTOR : Pedestrians (Crosswalks) WEST LEG 07:45 AM - 08:45 AM Buckley Rd 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG Edna Rd/SR 227 Edna Rd/SR 227 Buckley Rd Page 972 of 1221 Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services ID:19-02080-004 Day: City:San Luis Obispo Date: AM 41 416 3 0 AM NOON 0000 NOON PM 32 957 2 0 PM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM 1110 0 503 1 000 000 00702 53034 0.5 TEV 2100 0 1950 0 000 502 0.5 PHF 0.94 0.96 170 0 327 1 0110 AM NOON PM PM NOON AM PM 0 63 518 3 PM NOON 0000NOON AM 0 216 1188 3 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Count 1291 Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM) Edna Rd/SR 227 & Buckley Rd Wednesday 10/09/2019 CONTROL WESTBOUND07:45 AM - 08:45 AM Total Vehicles (Noon) Pedestrians (Crosswalks) Bikes (NOON) 11 COUNT PERIODSBikes (AM)PEAK HOURSTotal Vehicles (AM) NONE 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM 1244 557 0 Signalized Buckley RdEASTBOUNDEdna Rd/SR 227 588 0 Edna Rd/SR 227 SOUTHBOUND 04:00 PM - 06:00 PM NORTHBOUND 7 0 Buckley Rd07:00 AM - 09:00 AM NONE 257 0 95 NOONAM PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM AM AM NOON PM PM NOON AM AM NOON PM NOON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0120040N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A2 0 3 170 5 53 41416321611883N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A7 0 5 327 2 34 3295726351830 0 0 0 0 0 020010NOONPMAMNOONAMPMNOONAMPMNOONPMAMPage 973 of 1221 B Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 2020 Appendix B Collision Rate Calculations Page 974 of 1221 Page 975 of 1221 Date of Count: Number of Collisions: 2 Number of Injuries: 0 Number of Fatalities: 0 ADT: 26500 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Intersection Type: Tee Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls Area: Suburban 2x 26,500 x x 5 Study Intersection 0.04 c/mve Statewide Average* 0.14 c/mve c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Date of Count: Number of Collisions: 17 Number of Injuries: 8 Number of Fatalities: 0 ADT: 31700 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Intersection Type: Four-Legged Control Type: Signals Area: Suburban 17 x 31,700 x x 5 Study Intersection 0.29 c/mve Statewide Average* 0.43 c/mve c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans 47.1% Collision Rate Fatality Rate collision rate = 365 2: Number of Collisions x 1 Million 1.2% collision rate = ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years 0.0% 1,000,000 Injury Rate Fatality Rate 0.0% ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years 0.0% ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection 0.4% Collision Rate Injury Rate Intersection Collision Rate Calculations March 1, 2014 February 28, 2019 Intersection #Capitolio Way & Broad St (SR 227) collision rate = 1,000,000 Industrial Way & Broad St (SR 227) 38.2% ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection March 1, 2014 365 Intersection # February 28, 2019 Number of Collisions x 1 Millioncollision rate = 1: Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project Wednesday, November 14, 2018 Wednesday, October 24, 2018 36.1% W-Trans 2/14/2020 Page 1 of 7 Page 976 of 1221 Date of Count: Number of Collisions: 9 Number of Injuries: 4 Number of Fatalities: 0 ADT: 35100 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Intersection Type: Tee Control Type: Signals Area: Suburban 9x 35,100 x x 5 Study Intersection 0.14 c/mve Statewide Average* 0.28 c/mve c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Date of Count: Number of Collisions: 7 Number of Injuries: 0 Number of Fatalities: 0 ADT: 28600 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Intersection Type: Tee Control Type: Signals Area: Suburban 7x 28,600 x x 5 Study Intersection 0.13 c/mve Statewide Average* 0.28 c/mve c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans 37.2% Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project March 1, 2014 37.2% Fatality Rate Injury Rate March 1, 2014 collision rate = Intersection # 0.0% February 28, 2019 collision rate = ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection Intersection Collision Rate Calculaions Intersection # Fatality Rate 365 Collision Rate 3: Los Osos Valley Rd & US 101 South Ramps collision rate = 1,000,000 Number of Collisions x 1 Million ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years Injury Rate February 28, 2019 Los Osos Valley Rd & US 101 North Ramps ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection 0.4% Tuesday, October 9, 2018 44.4% 4: Number of Collisions x 1 Million 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1,000,000 365 ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years Tuesday, October 9, 2018 collision rate = Collision Rate W-Trans 2/14/2020 Page 2 of 7 Page 977 of 1221 Date of Count: Number of Collisions: 11 Number of Injuries: 6 Number of Fatalities: 0 ADT: 28500 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Intersection Type: Four-Legged Control Type: Signals Area: Suburban 11 x 28,500 x x 5 Study Intersection 0.21 c/mve Statewide Average* 0.43 c/mve c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Date of Count: Number of Collisions: 6 Number of Injuries: 3 Number of Fatalities: 0 ADT: 21400 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Intersection Type: Four-Legged Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls Area: Suburban 6x 21,400 x x 5 Study Intersection 0.15 c/mve Statewide Average* 0.23 c/mve c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans March 1, 2014 February 28, 2019 collision rate = Intersection Collision Rate Calculaions Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project March 1, 2014 February 28, 2019 0.0% collision rate = Number of Collisions x 1 Million 50.0% ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years 1.9% 39.0% collision rate = 1,000,000 365 ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection Collision Rate Fatality Rate Injury Rate Tuesday, October 30, 2018 Intersection # 5: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection 0.0% Injury Rate 54.5% ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years collision rate = 1,000,000 365 Collision Rate Fatality Rate 36.1% Intersection # 6: Tank Farm Rd & Long St 0.4% Tank Farm Rd & South Higuera St Number of Collisions x 1 Million W-Trans 2/14/2020 Page 3 of 7 Page 978 of 1221 Date of Count: Number of Collisions: 4 Number of Injuries: 3 Number of Fatalities: 0 ADT: 21400 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Intersection Type: Four-Legged Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls Area: Suburban 4x 21,400 x x 5 Study Intersection 0.10 c/mve Statewide Average* 0.23 c/mve c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Date of Count: Number of Collisions: 4 Number of Injuries: 0 Number of Fatalities: 0 ADT: 21700 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Intersection Type: Tee Control Type: Signals Area: Suburban 4x 21,700 x x 5 Study Intersection 0.10 c/mve Statewide Average* 0.28 c/mve c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Intersection Collision Rate Calculaions Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project Intersection # 7: Tank Farm Rd & Sante Fe Rd Wednesday, October 9, 2019 March 1, 2014 February 28, 2019 collision rate = Number of Collisions x 1 Million ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years collision rate = 1,000,000 365 Collision Rate Fatality Rate Injury Rate 0.0% 75.0% 1.9% 39.0% ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection Intersection # 8: Tank Farm Rd & Mind Body Entrance Wednesday, October 9, 2019 March 1, 2014 February 28, 2019 collision rate = Number of Collisions x 1 Million ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years collision rate = 1,000,000 365 Collision Rate Fatality Rate Injury Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 37.2% ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection W-Trans 2/14/2020 Page 4 of 7 Page 979 of 1221 Date of Count: Number of Collisions: 26 Number of Injuries: 14 Number of Fatalities: 0 ADT: 42100 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Intersection Type: Four-Legged Control Type: Signals Area: Suburban 26 x 42,100 x x 5 Study Intersection 0.34 c/mve Statewide Average* 0.43 c/mve c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Date of Count: Number of Collisions: 6 Number of Injuries: 3 Number of Fatalities: 0 ADT: 20100 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Intersection Type: Tee Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls Area: Suburban 6x 20,100 x x 5 Study Intersection 0.16 c/mve Statewide Average* 0.14 c/mve c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Intersection Collision Rate Calculaions Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project Intersection # 9: Tank Farm Rd & Broad St (SR 227) Tuesday, October 23, 2018 March 1, 2014 February 28, 2019 collision rate = Number of Collisions x 1 Million ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years collision rate = 1,000,000 365 Collision Rate Fatality Rate Injury Rate 0.0% 53.8% 0.4% 36.1% ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection Intersection # 10: Aerovista Pl & Broad St (SR 227) Wednesday, November 14, 2018 March 1, 2014 February 28, 2019 collision rate = Number of Collisions x 1 Million ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years collision rate = 1,000,000 365 Collision Rate Fatality Rate Injury Rate 0.0% 50.0% 1.2% 38.2% ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection W-Trans 2/14/2020 Page 5 of 7 Page 980 of 1221 Date of Count: Number of Collisions: 5 Number of Injuries: 0 Number of Fatalities: 0 ADT: 19400 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Intersection Type: Four-Legged Control Type: Signals Area: Suburban 5x 19,400 x x 5 Study Intersection 0.14 c/mve Statewide Average* 0.43 c/mve c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Date of Count: Number of Collisions: 2 Number of Injuries: 1 Number of Fatalities: 0 ADT: 17000 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Intersection Type: Tee Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls Area: Rural 2x 17,000 x x 5 Study Intersection 0.06 c/mve Statewide Average* 0.16 c/mve c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Intersection Collision Rate Calculaions Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project Intersection # 11: Aero Dr & Broad St (SR 227) Tuesday, October 23, 2018 March 1, 2014 February 28, 2019 collision rate = Number of Collisions x 1 Million ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years collision rate = 1,000,000 365 Collision Rate Fatality Rate Injury Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 36.1% ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection Intersection # 12: Airport Dr & Broad St Tuesday, October 23, 2018 March 1, 2014 February 28, 2019 collision rate = Number of Collisions x 1 Million ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years collision rate = 1,000,000 365 Collision Rate Fatality Rate Injury Rate 0.0% 50.0% 1.8% 39.5% ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection W-Trans 2/14/2020 Page 6 of 7 Page 981 of 1221 Date of Count: Number of Collisions: 23 Number of Injuries: 9 Number of Fatalities: 0 ADT: 19500 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Intersection Type: Four-Legged Control Type: Signals Area: Rural 23 x 19,500 x x 5 Study Intersection 0.65 c/mve Statewide Average* 0.58 c/mve c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Intersection Collision Rate Calculaions Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project Intersection # 13: Buckley Rd & Edna Rd (SR 227) Wednesday, October 9, 2019 March 1, 2014 February 28, 2019 collision rate = Number of Collisions x 1 Million ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years collision rate = 1,000,000 365 Collision Rate Fatality Rate Injury Rate 0.0% 39.1% 1.0% 38.0% ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection W-Trans 2/14/2020 Page 7 of 7 Page 982 of 1221 Location: Date of Count: ADT: Number of Collisions: 48 Number of Injuries: 23 Number of Fatalities: 0 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Highway Type: Undivided 4 lanes Area: Design Speed: ≤55 Segment Length: 1.0 miles Direction: 48 x x365x1x5 Study Segment 0.99 c/mvm Statewide Average* 1.67 c/mvm Location: Date of Count: ADT: Number of Collisions: Number of Injuries: 16 Number of Fatalities: 0 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Highway Type: Undivided 4 lanes Area: Design Speed: ≤55 Segment Length: 1.5 miles Direction: 26 x x 365 x 1.46 x 5 Study Segment 0.49 c/mvm Statewide Average* 1.67 c/mvm c/mvm = collisions per million vehicle miles 31.8% Number of Collisions x 1 Million 47.9% ADT = average daily traffic volume Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project North/South ADT x 365 Days per Year x Segment Length x Number of Years February 28, 2019 1,000,000 20,100 26 1.3% North/South Number of Collisions x 1 Million Wednesday, November 14, 2018 March 1, 2014 Broad St (SR 227) between Tank Farm Rd and City Li Broad St (SR 227) between Orcutt Rd and Tank Farm Wednesday, November 14, 2018 c/mvm = collisions per million vehicle miles Fatality Rate Injury Rate 1.3% * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans Suburban Injury Rate 1,000,000 20,100 Fatality Rate * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans February 28, 2019 Suburban March 1, 2014 Collision Rate Collision Rate ADT x 365 Days per Year x Segment Length x Number of Years SEGMENT COLLISION RATE CALCULATIONS 26,500 26,500 0.0% 0.0% 61.5% 31.8% ADT = average daily traffic volume W-Trans 2/14/2020 Page 1 of 2 Page 983 of 1221 Location: Date of Count: ADT: Number of Collisions: 42 Number of Injuries: 16 Number of Fatalities: 0 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Highway Type: Conventional 3 lanes Area: Segment Length: 1.7 miles Direction: 42 x x 365 x 1.7 x 5 Study Segment 0.85 c/mvm Statewide Average* 1.03 c/mvm c/mvm = collisions per million vehicle miles Location: Date of Count: ADT: Number of Collisions: Number of Injuries: 7 Number of Fatalities: 0 Start Date: End Date: Number of Years: 5 Highway Type: Divided 4 lanes Area: Design Speed: <=55 Segment Length: 1.0 miles Direction: 19 x x365x1x5 Study Segment 0.80 c/mvm Statewide Average* 1.42 c/mvm c/mvm = collisions per million vehicle miles Tank Farm Rd between Broad St (SR227) and South 15,900 March 1, 2014 Suburban Tuesday, October 23, 2018 Tank Farm Rd between Broad St (SR 227) and Orcutt SEGMENT COLLISION RATE CALCULATIONS February 28, 2019 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project Tuesday, October 30, 2018 Fatality Rate East/West ADT x 365 Days per Year x Segment Length x Number of Years Number of Collisions x 1 Million 13,000 19 0.0% 38.1% 1.0% 39.0% Injury Rate 13,000 Number of Collisions x 1 Million 1,000,000 ADT x 365 Days per Year x Segment Length x Number of Years East/West * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans February 28, 2019 Suburban ADT = average daily traffic volume 0.6% 40.4% Fatality Rate Injury Rate 0.0% 36.8% Collision Rate March 1, 2014 ADT = average daily traffic volume * 2013 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans 1,000,000 15,900 Collision Rate W-Trans 2/14/2020 Page 2 of 2 Page 984 of 1221 Page 985 of 1221 C Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 2020 Appendix C Automobile Intersection Level of Service Calculations Page 986 of 1221 Page 987 of 1221 HCM 6th TWSC1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.3Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 14 62 901 37 119 1122Future Vol, veh/h 14 62 901 37 119 1122Conflicting Peds, #/hr 990990Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 100 - - 200 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 79 79 90 90 93 93Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 18 78 1001 41 128 1206 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 1899 539 0 0 1051 0 Stage 1 1031 ----- Stage 2 868 -----Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 61 487 - - 658 - Stage 1 305 ----- Stage 2 371 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 48 479 - - 652 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 158 ----- Stage 1 302 ----- Stage 2 296 ----- Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 17.1 0 1.1HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 158 479 652 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.112 0.164 0.196 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 30.6 14 11.9 -HCM Lane LOS - - D B B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0.6 0.7 -HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 9 0 5 86 9 68 51 810 191 46 985 52Future Volume (veh/h) 9 0 5 86 9 68 51 810 191 46 985 52Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 18 0 10 123 13 60 54 862 164 57 1216 53Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.81 0.81 0.81Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 133 0 113 299 32 274 69 1840 779 73 1848 791Arrive On Green 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.52 0.52 0.04 0.52 0.52Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1509 1618 171 1486 1781 3554 1505 1781 3554 1522Grp Volume(v), veh/h 18 0 10 136 0 60 54 862 164 57 1216 53Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1509 1789 0 1486 1781 1777 1505 1781 1777 1522Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 0.0 0.5 5.9 0.0 3.0 2.6 13.6 5.2 2.8 21.9 1.5Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 0.5 5.9 0.0 3.0 2.6 13.6 5.2 2.8 21.9 1.5Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 133 0 113 330 0 274 69 1840 779 73 1848 791V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.00 0.09 0.41 0.00 0.22 0.78 0.47 0.21 0.78 0.66 0.07Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 709 0 601 652 0 541 81 1840 779 142 1848 791HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.0 0.0 37.9 31.6 0.0 30.5 41.9 13.5 11.5 41.7 15.4 10.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.4 33.6 0.9 0.6 16.1 1.9 0.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.2 2.5 0.0 1.1 1.8 4.9 1.6 1.5 8.0 0.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.5 0.0 38.2 32.5 0.0 30.9 75.4 14.4 12.1 57.9 17.2 10.6LnGrp LOS DADCACEBBEBBApproach Vol, veh/h 28 196 1080 1326Approach Delay, s/veh 38.4 32.0 17.1 18.7Approach LOS D C B BTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 49.5 10.6 7.4 49.7 20.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 45.5 35.0 4.0 28.0 32.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 15.6 2.8 4.6 23.9 7.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.3 0.1 0.0 2.8 1.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.2HCM 6th LOS B Page 988 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary3: LOVR & 101 SB02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 0 770 336 37 870 0 0 0 0 452 0 231Future Volume (veh/h) 0 770 336 37 870 0 0 0 0 452 0 231Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 802 302 43 1012 0 486 0 143Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222Cap, veh/h 0 1925 838 54 2171 0 525 0 463Arrive On Green 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.61 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.29Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1548 1781 3647 0 1781 0 1571Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 802 302 43 1012 0 486 0 143Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1548 1781 1777 0 1781 0 1571Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 13.9 0.0 23.8 0.0 6.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 13.9 0.0 23.8 0.0 6.4Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1925 838 54 2171 0 525 0 463V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.42 0.36 0.79 0.47 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.31Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1925 838 109 2171 0 544 0 480HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.3 9.5 0.0 30.8 0.0 24.6Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.6 1.2 22.0 0.7 0.0 21.7 0.0 0.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 0.2 0.3 1.3 4.9 0.0 13.0 0.0 2.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.6 1.2 65.4 10.2 0.0 52.5 0.0 25.0LnGrp LOS AAAEBA DACApproach Vol, veh/h 1104 1055 629Approach Delay, s/veh 0.8 12.5 46.2Approach LOS A B DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.2 53.7 60.0 30.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s5.5 45.0 54.0 27.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.2 2.0 15.9 25.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.9 9.1 0.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.5HCM 6th LOS BHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: 101 NB & LOVR01/31/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 1053 169 90 436 472 155Future Volume (vph) 1053 169 90 436 472 155Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.0 3.5 6.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1560 1770 3539 3353Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1560 1770 3539 3353Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.85 0.85 0.97 0.97Adj. Flow (vph) 1132 182 106 513 487 160RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 46 0 0 31 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 1132 136 106 513 616 0Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3Turn Type NA pm+ov Prot NA ProtProtected Phases 28168Permitted Phases 2Actuated Green, G (s) 56.1 82.2 14.3 73.9 26.1Effective Green, g (s) 56.1 82.2 14.3 73.9 26.1Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.75 0.13 0.67 0.24Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.0 3.5 6.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1804 1165 230 2377 795v/s Ratio Prot c0.32 0.03 c0.06 0.14 c0.18v/s Ratio Perm 0.06v/c Ratio 0.63 0.12 0.46 0.22 0.77Uniform Delay, d1 19.4 3.8 44.3 6.9 39.2Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.0 1.5 0.2 4.7Delay (s) 21.1 3.9 45.7 7.1 43.9Level of Service C A D A DApproach Delay (s) 18.7 13.7 43.9Approach LOS B B DIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 23.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.1% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupPage 989 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 5Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 23 17 20 272 3 235 12 365 728 252 267 7Future Volume (veh/h) 23 17 20 272 3 235 12 365 728 252 267 7Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 34 25 26 311 0 0 13 410 618 260 275 7Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.97Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222Cap, veh/h 115 85 162 493 0 28 1045 664 313 1607 41Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.45 0.45Sat Flow, veh/h 1048 770 1478 3563 0 1585 1781 3554 1512 1781 3537 90Grp Volume(v), veh/h 59 0 26 311 0 0 13 410 618 260 138 144Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1818 0 1478 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1512 1781 1777 1850Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 0.0 1.3 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 7.5 24.0 11.5 3.7 3.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 1.3 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 7.5 24.0 11.5 3.7 3.8Prop In Lane 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 200 0 162 493 0 28 1045 664 313 807 840V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.00 0.16 0.63 0.00 0.47 0.39 0.93 0.83 0.17 0.17Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 602 0 489 1092 0 175 1045 664 546 807 840HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh33.4 0.0 32.9 33.2 0.0 0.0 39.8 23.0 19.9 32.5 13.2 13.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.5 20.4 6.8 0.2 0.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.1 0.0 0.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.0 15.6 5.2 1.4 1.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.7 0.0 33.1 33.7 0.0 0.0 44.3 23.5 40.3 39.2 13.4 13.4LnGrp LOS CACCA DCDDBBApproach Vol, veh/h 85 311 A 1041 542Approach Delay, s/veh 33.5 33.7 33.8 25.8Approach LOSCCCCTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s19.3 30.0 15.0 6.3 43.1 17.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s25.0 24.0 27.0 8.0 36.0 25.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s13.5 26.0 4.4 2.6 5.8 8.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.0 0.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 31.5HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.HCM 6th TWSC6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 6IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 2.5Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 58 813 47 113 585 18 6 0 62 5 1 18Future Vol, veh/h 58 813 47 113 585 18 6 0 62 5 1 18Conflicting Peds, #/hr 201001200102Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length 225 - - 175--------Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 95 95 95 71 71 71 86 86 86Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 62 865 50 119 616 19 8 0 87 6 1 21 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All 637 0 0 916 0 0 1564 1890 460 1424 1906 322 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1015 1015 - 866 866 - Stage 2 ------549875-5581040 -Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 943 - - 740 - - 75 69 548 96 68 674 Stage 1 - - - - - - 255 314 - 314 369 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 488 365 - 482 306 -Platoon blocked, % - - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 941 - - 739 - - 59 54 547 67 53 671Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------5954-6753- Stage 1 - - - - - - 238 293 - 293 309 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 394 306 - 378 285 - Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0.6 1.7 21.3 26HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 316 941 - - 739 - - 199HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.303 0.066 - - 0.161 - - 0.14HCM Control Delay (s) 21.3 9.1 - - 10.8 - - 26HCM Lane LOS C A - - B - - DHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.2 0.2 - - 0.6 - - 0.5 Page 990 of 1221 HCM 6th TWSC7: Santa Fe Road & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 7IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 2.1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 767 47 101 660 1 9 1 55 0 1 1Future Vol, veh/h 0 767 47 101 660 1 9 1 55 0 1 1Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length - - - 115----50---Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 91 91 91 81 81 81 25 25 25Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 0 807 49 111 725 1 11 1 68 0 4 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All 726 0 0 856 0 0 1784 1780 832 1814 1804 726 Stage 1 - -----832832-948948- Stage 2 - -----952948-866856-Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----6.125.52-6.125.52-Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----6.125.52-6.125.52-Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 877 - - 784 - - 63 82 369 60 79 425 Stage 1 - -----363384-313339- Stage 2 - -----312339-348374-Platoon blocked, % - - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 877 - - 784 - - 53 70 369 43 68 425Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------5370-4368- Stage 1 - -----363384-313291- Stage 2 - -----262291-283374- Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0 1.4 28.2 38HCM LOS D E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 54 369 877 - - 784 - - 117HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.229 0.184 - - - 0.142 - - 0.068HCM Control Delay (s) 90.4 16.9 0 - - 10.3 - - 38HCM Lane LOS F C A - - B - - EHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 0.7 0 - - 0.5 - - 0.2HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 745 64 32 761 19 6Future Volume (veh/h) 745 64 32 761 19 6Initial Q (Qb), veh000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 784 67 36 855 28 9Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.69Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222Cap, veh/h 1839 157 43 1298 59 52Arrive On Green 0.56 0.56 0.02 0.69 0.03 0.03Sat Flow, veh/h 3399 282 1781 1870 1781 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 421 430 36 855 28 9Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1811 1781 1870 1781 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 6.1 0.9 11.3 0.7 0.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 6.1 0.9 11.3 0.7 0.2Prop In Lane 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 989 1008 43 1298 59 52V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.43 0.83 0.66 0.48 0.17Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1938 1976 445 1298 567 504HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.7 5.7 21.4 3.8 20.9 20.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 1.0 14.0 2.2 2.2 0.6Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 1.5 0.5 1.4 0.3 0.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.7 6.7 35.4 6.0 23.1 21.3LnGrp LOS A A D A C CApproach Vol, veh/h 851 891 37Approach Delay, s/veh 6.7 7.2 22.6Approach LOS A A CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.1 31.5 37.6 6.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 48.0 30.0 14.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 8.1 13.3 2.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 16.4 11.1 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.3HCM 6th LOS A Page 991 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 9Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 223 149 372 225 243 162 211 652 115 58 637 331Future Volume (veh/h) 223 149 372 225 243 162 211 652 115 58 637 331Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 251 167 333 278 300 51 227 701 106 72 796 340Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.80 0.80 0.80Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222Cap, veh/h 324 892 392 304 614 516 261 1006 152 92 1072 615Arrive On Green 0.09 0.25 0.25 0.17 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.05 0.30 0.30Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1562 1781 1870 1573 3456 3089 467 1781 3554 1548Grp Volume(v), veh/h 251 167 333 278 300 51 227 403 404 72 796 340Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1777 1562 1781 1870 1573 1728 1777 1779 1781 1777 1548Q Serve(g_s), s 8.5 4.4 24.2 18.3 15.3 2.7 7.8 23.6 23.7 4.8 24.1 20.3Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.5 4.4 24.2 18.3 15.3 2.7 7.8 23.6 23.7 4.8 24.1 20.3Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 324 892 392 304 614 516 261 579 579 92 1072 615V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.19 0.85 0.91 0.49 0.10 0.87 0.70 0.70 0.78 0.74 0.55Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 579 1042 458 313 614 516 261 579 579 104 1072 615HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh52.9 35.1 42.5 48.6 32.1 27.8 54.6 35.1 35.1 55.9 37.5 28.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.0 0.1 12.5 29.4 0.6 0.1 25.8 6.8 6.8 28.3 4.7 3.5Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.8 1.9 10.4 10.4 6.9 1.0 4.2 10.9 10.9 2.8 10.7 7.9Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.8 35.2 55.0 78.0 32.7 27.9 80.3 41.9 41.9 84.3 42.1 31.5LnGrp LOS E D E E C C F D D F D CApproach Vol, veh/h 751 629 1034 1208Approach Delay, s/veh 51.2 52.3 50.4 41.7Approach LOSDDDDTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.6 45.4 25.9 36.5 14.5 42.5 16.7 45.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 * 6.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s7.0 38.0 21.0 35.0 9.0 36.0 20.0 * 33Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s6.8 25.7 20.3 26.2 9.8 26.1 10.5 17.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.8 0.1 1.7 0.0 4.7 0.7 1.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.0HCM 6th LOS DNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.HCM 6th TWSC10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 10IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.2Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 40 9 58 1147 716 213Future Vol, veh/h 40 9 58 1147 716 213Conflicting Peds, #/hr 511005Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 50 200 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 61 61 92 92 90 90Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 66 15 63 1247 796 237 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 1675 523 1038 0 - 0 Stage 1 920 - - - - - Stage 2 755 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 86 499 665 - - - Stage 1 349 - - - - - Stage 2 425 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 77 496 662 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 199 - - - - - Stage 1 314 - - - - - Stage 2 423 - - - - - Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 28.2 0.5 0HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBRCapacity (veh/h) 662 - 199 496 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.095 - 0.33 0.03 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 11 - 31.7 12.5 - -HCM Lane LOS B - D B - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 1.4 0.1 - - Page 992 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 11Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 53146033471139163959665Future Volume (veh/h) 53146033471139163959665Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 62 1 5 11 0 58 49 1186 17 46 701 61Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.85 0.85 0.85Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 93 1 83 90 0 79 63 2300 33 59 2111 184Arrive On Green 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.64 0.64 0.03 0.64 0.64Sat Flow, veh/h 1754 28 1576 1781 0 1566 1781 3585 51 1781 3301 287Grp Volume(v), veh/h 63 0 5 11 0 58 49 588 615 46 377 385Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1783 0 1576 1781 0 1566 1781 1777 1860 1781 1777 1811Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 3.5 2.6 17.2 17.2 2.5 9.4 9.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.4 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 3.5 2.6 17.2 17.2 2.5 9.4 9.4Prop In Lane 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.16Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 94 0 83 90 0 79 63 1140 1193 59 1136 1158V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.00 0.73 0.77 0.52 0.52 0.78 0.33 0.33Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 643 0 569 643 0 565 239 1140 1193 239 1136 1158HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.1 0.0 43.6 44.0 0.0 45.4 46.4 9.3 9.3 46.5 8.0 8.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.9 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 12.2 18.0 1.7 1.6 19.3 0.8 0.8Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.6 1.4 5.9 6.1 1.4 3.2 3.3Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.0 0.0 43.9 44.6 0.0 57.6 64.4 11.0 10.9 65.8 8.8 8.8LnGrp LOS DADDAEEBBEAAApproach Vol, veh/h 68 69 1252 808Approach Delay, s/veh 52.3 55.5 13.0 12.0Approach LOS D E B BTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.2 68.7 10.1 8.4 68.5 9.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 62.0 35.0 13.0 62.0 35.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 19.2 5.4 4.6 11.4 5.5Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.6 0.3 0.1 5.1 0.3Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.2HCM 6th LOS BHCM 6th TWSC12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 12IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.1Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 8 0 1200 606 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 8 0 1200 606 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - 0 - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 67 67 96 96 81 81Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 0 12 0 1250 748 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All - 748 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - -Critical Hdwy - 6.22 - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 - - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 412 0 - - 0 Stage 1 0 - 0 - - 0 Stage 2 0 - 0 - - 0Platoon blocked, % - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 412 - - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 14 0 0HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTEBLn1 SBTCapacity (veh/h) - 412 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.029 -HCM Control Delay (s) - 14 -HCM Lane LOS - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - Page 993 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary13: Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 13Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 53 5 170 2 0 3 216 1188 3 3 416 41Future Volume (veh/h) 53 5 170 2 0 3 216 1188 3 3 416 41Initial Q (Qb), veh000000050000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 6 169 3 0 5 223 1225 3 4 527 52Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.79 0.79 0.79Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 186 16 402 5 0 8 250 1357 3 11 1108 913Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.72 0.72 0.01 0.59 0.59Sat Flow, veh/h 1643 145 1585 620 0 1033 1781 1865 5 1781 1870 1541Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 0 169 8 0 0 223 0 1228 4 527 52Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1788 0 1585 1653 0 0 1781 0 1869 1781 1870 1541Q Serve(g_s), s 4.6 0.0 10.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 63.9 0.3 19.6 1.7Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.6 0.0 10.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 63.9 0.3 19.6 1.7Prop In Lane 0.92 1.00 0.37 0.62 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 203 0 402 13 0 0 250 0 1360 11 1108 913V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.00 0.42 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.90 0.36 0.48 0.06Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 387 0 565 218 0 0 294 0 1681 235 1101 907HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.8 0.0 38.6 61.2 0.0 0.0 52.3 0.0 13.9 61.3 14.3 10.6Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.8 47.2 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 6.7 18.6 0.5 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 0.0 4.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 23.4 0.2 7.5 0.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.1 0.0 39.5 108.4 0.0 0.0 75.1 0.0 21.6 79.8 14.8 10.7LnGrp LOS DADFAAEACEBBApproach Vol, veh/h 243 8 1451 583Approach Delay, s/veh 43.3 108.4 29.8 14.8Approach LOS D F C BTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.3 94.2 17.8 20.7 77.7 4.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 6.4 4.0 3.7 6.4 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 109.0 26.2 20.0 58.0 16.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.3 65.9 12.8 16.9 21.6 2.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 21.9 1.0 0.1 5.3 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.7HCM 6th LOS CHCM 6th TWSC1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.8Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 11 132 1198 17 70 1219Future Vol, veh/h 11 132 1198 17 70 1219Conflicting Peds, #/hr 440440Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 100 - - 200 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 75 75 90 90 91 91Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 15 176 1331 19 77 1340 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 2173 683 0 0 1354 0 Stage 1 1345 - - - - - Stage 2 828 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 40 392 - - 504 - Stage 1 207 - - - - - Stage 2 389 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 34 389 - - 502 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 130 - - - - - Stage 1 206 - - - - - Stage 2 328 - - - - - Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 22.8 0 0.7HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 130 389 502 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.113 0.452 0.153 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 36.2 21.7 13.5 -HCM Lane LOS - - E C B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 2.3 0.5 - Page 994 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 70 19 44 178 13 220 89 1049 188 133 1068 98Future Volume (veh/h) 70 19 44 178 13 220 89 1049 188 133 1068 98Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 25 49 212 15 170 94 1104 146 148 1187 79Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 147 40 164 286 20 253 122 1324 551 154 1462 605Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.37 0.37 0.09 0.39 0.39Sat Flow, veh/h 1415 385 1576 1669 118 1477 1781 3554 1479 1781 3741 1548Grp Volume(v), veh/h 117 0 49 227 0 170 94 1104 146 148 1187 79Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1800 0 1576 1787 0 1477 1781 1777 1479 1781 1870 1548Q Serve(g_s), s 5.0 0.0 2.3 9.8 0.0 8.7 4.2 22.9 5.6 6.7 22.9 2.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.0 0.0 2.3 9.8 0.0 8.7 4.2 22.9 5.6 6.7 22.9 2.6Prop In Lane 0.79 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 187 0 164 306 0 253 122 1324 551 154 1462 605V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.00 0.30 0.74 0.00 0.67 0.77 0.83 0.26 0.96 0.81 0.13Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 779 0 682 508 0 420 242 1604 668 154 1462 605HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.7 0.0 33.5 31.8 0.0 31.4 37.0 23.1 17.7 36.8 22.0 15.8Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.4 0.0 1.0 3.6 0.0 3.1 9.9 3.3 0.3 60.2 3.6 0.1Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 0.0 0.9 4.3 0.0 3.1 2.1 9.0 1.7 5.3 9.5 0.9Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.1 0.0 34.5 35.4 0.0 34.5 46.9 26.4 17.9 97.0 25.6 15.9LnGrp LOS D A C D A C D C B F C BApproach Vol, veh/h 166 397 1344 1414Approach Delay, s/veh 37.1 35.0 26.9 32.5Approach LOS DCCCTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 36.6 13.4 10.5 38.1 18.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 36.5 35.0 11.0 26.5 23.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.7 24.9 7.0 6.2 24.9 11.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.3 0.9 0.1 1.1 1.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.8HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary3: LOVR & 101 SB02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 0 908 631 61 1308 0 0 0 0 289 0 390Future Volume (veh/h) 0 908 631 61 1308 0 0 0 0 289 0 390Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 936 569 63 1348 0 307 0 322Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.94Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222Cap, veh/h 0 2219 967 82 2520 0 350 0 302Arrive On Green 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.71 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1548 1781 3647 0 1781 0 1539Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 936 569 63 1348 0 307 0 322Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1548 1781 1777 0 1781 0 1539Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 16.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 17.7Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 16.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 17.7Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2219 967 82 2520 0 350 0 302V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.42 0.59 0.77 0.53 0.00 0.88 0.00 1.06Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2219 967 188 2520 0 485 0 419HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.5 6.1 0.0 35.1 0.0 36.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.5 2.2 14.2 0.8 0.0 12.7 0.0 59.6Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 0.2 0.6 1.7 4.8 0.0 7.6 0.0 11.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.5 2.2 56.7 7.0 0.0 47.8 0.0 95.8LnGrp LOS AAAEAA DAFApproach Vol, veh/h 1505 1411 629Approach Delay, s/veh 1.2 9.2 72.4Approach LOS A A ETimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.6 61.2 68.8 21.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s9.5 44.0 57.0 24.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.1 2.0 18.0 17.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 13.4 14.0 0.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.0HCM 6th LOS B Page 995 of 1221 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: 101 NB & LOVR01/31/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 812 364 177 913 482 110Future Volume (vph) 812 364 177 913 482 110Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 6.0 3.5 3.5 6.0 3.5Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.97Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1564 1770 3539 3376Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1564 1770 3539 3376Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90Adj. Flow (vph) 837 375 188 971 536 122RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 138 0 0 16 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 837 237 188 971 642 0Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5Turn Type NA pm+ov Prot NA ProtProtected Phases 28168Permitted Phases 2Actuated Green, G (s) 23.8 44.7 12.9 40.2 20.9Effective Green, g (s) 23.8 44.7 12.9 40.2 20.9Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.63 0.18 0.57 0.30Clearance Time (s) 6.0 3.5 3.5 6.0 3.5Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1193 990 323 2015 999v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.07 c0.11 0.27 c0.19v/s Ratio Perm 0.08v/c Ratio 0.70 0.24 0.58 0.48 0.64Uniform Delay, d1 20.3 5.6 26.4 9.0 21.6Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.1 2.7 0.2 1.4Delay (s) 22.2 5.7 29.0 9.2 23.0Level of Service C A C A CApproach Delay (s) 17.1 12.4 23.0Approach LOS B B CIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 16.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.6 Sum of lost time (s) 17.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.1% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupHCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 5Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 9 9 21 558 11 321 30 503 418 272 683 18Future Volume (veh/h) 9 9 21 558 11 321 30 503 418 272 683 18Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.89Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 12 12 5 629 0 0 32 541 247 328 823 21Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.83 0.83Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222Cap, veh/h 166 166 246 734 0 40 750 616 349 1356 35Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.38 0.38Sat Flow, veh/h 912 912 1352 3563 0 1585 1781 3554 1370 1781 3528 90Grp Volume(v), veh/h 24 0 5 629 0 0 32 541 247 328 414 430Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1825 0 1352 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1370 1781 1777 1841Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 0.0 0.3 19.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 15.9 14.4 20.4 21.0 21.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 0.0 0.3 19.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 15.9 14.4 20.4 21.0 21.0Prop In Lane 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 332 0 246 734 0 40 750 616 349 683 708V/C Ratio(X) 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.86 0.00 0.80 0.72 0.40 0.94 0.61 0.61Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 488 0 361 952 0 79 760 620 349 683 708HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh38.0 0.0 37.7 43.0 0.0 0.0 54.6 41.2 23.3 44.4 27.7 27.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 28.8 3.3 0.4 32.8 1.5 1.5Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.6 0.0 0.1 8.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 7.1 6.4 11.8 8.7 9.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.1 0.0 37.7 49.2 0.0 0.0 83.4 44.5 23.7 77.2 29.3 29.2LnGrp LOS D A D D A F D C E C CApproach Vol, veh/h 29 629 A 820 1172Approach Delay, s/veh 38.1 49.2 39.8 42.7Approach LOSDDDDTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s27.0 29.7 26.4 7.5 49.1 29.1Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s22.0 24.0 30.0 5.0 41.0 30.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s22.4 17.9 3.2 4.0 23.0 21.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.4 0.1 0.0 4.7 2.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.3HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.Page 996 of 1221 HCM 6th TWSC6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 6IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 16.3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 64 615 28 131 1017 23 12 2 168 12 2 66Future Vol, veh/h 64 615 28 131 1017 23 12 2 168 12 2 66Conflicting Peds, #/hr 100001000101Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length 225 - - 175--------Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 92 92 92 86 86 86 61 61 61Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 67 647 29 142 1105 25 14 2 195 20 3 108 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All 1131 0 0 676 0 0 1635 2211 339 1863 2213 567 Stage 1 - -----796796-1403 1403 - Stage 2 - -----8391415 - 460 810 -Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----6.545.54-6.545.54-Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----6.545.54-6.545.54-Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 613 - - 911 - - 67 44 657 45 43 467 Stage 1 - -----347397-147205- Stage 2 - -----326202-551391-Platoon blocked, % - - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 612 - - 911 - - 38 33 656 24 32 466Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------3833-2432- Stage 1 - -----309354-131173- Stage 2 - -----207170-342348- Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 1.1 1.1 45.5 202.7HCM LOS E F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 288 612 - - 911 - - 114HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.735 0.11 - - 0.156 - - 1.15HCM Control Delay (s) 45.5 11.6 - - 9.7 - - 202.7HCM Lane LOS E B - - A - - FHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 5.3 0.4 - - 0.6 - - 8.2HCM 6th TWSC7: Santa Fe Road & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 7IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 18.8Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 829 24 66 1015 1 40 1 159 0 1 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 829 24 66 1015 1 40 1 159 0 1 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 100001000101Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length - - - 115----50---Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 94 94 94 79 79 79 25 25 25Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 0 942 27 70 1080 1 51 1 201 0 4 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All 1082 0 0 969 0 0 2180 2178 957 2280 2191 1083 Stage 1 - - - - - - 956 956 - 1222 1222 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 1224 1222 - 1058 969 -Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 645 - - 711 - - ~ 33 46 313 28 45 264 Stage 1 - - - - - - 310 336 - 220 252 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 219 252 - 272 332 -Platoon blocked, % - - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 644 - - 711 - - ~ 28 41 313 9 41 263Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - ~ 28 41 - 9 41 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 310 336 - 220 227 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 194 227 - 97 332 - Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 172.5 102.1HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 28 313 644 - - 711 - - 41HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.854 0.643 - - - 0.099 - - 0.098HCM Control Delay (s) $ 705.2 35.1 0 - - 10.6 - - 102.1HCM Lane LOS F E A - - B - - FHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 6.2 4.2 0 - - 0.3 - - 0.3Notes~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoonPage 997 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 1019 10 6 963 136 33Future Volume (veh/h) 1019 10 6 963 136 33Initial Q (Qb), veh000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1185 12 7 1070 184 45Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.74 0.74Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222Cap, veh/h 2122 21 10 1262 235 209Arrive On Green 0.59 0.59 0.01 0.67 0.13 0.13Sat Flow, veh/h 3697 36 1781 1870 1781 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 584 613 7 1070 184 45Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1863 1781 1870 1781 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 12.5 12.5 0.2 27.0 6.2 1.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.5 12.5 0.2 27.0 6.2 1.6Prop In Lane 0.02 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1047 1097 10 1262 235 209V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.56 0.72 0.85 0.78 0.21Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1371 1438 315 1262 401 357HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.8 7.8 30.9 7.7 26.1 24.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 1.6 30.0 6.7 2.1 0.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 3.9 0.2 8.1 2.7 0.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.5 9.4 60.8 14.4 28.3 24.3LnGrp LOS AAEBCCApproach Vol, veh/h 1197 1077 229Approach Delay, s/veh 9.5 14.7 27.5Approach LOS A B CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.3 43.6 49.0 13.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 48.0 30.0 14.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 14.5 29.0 8.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 22.1 0.9 0.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.4HCM 6th LOS BHCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 9Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 473 428 260 178 194 120 353 636 183 201 673 514Future Volume (veh/h) 473 428 260 178 194 120 353 636 183 201 673 514Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 503 455 225 200 218 111 430 776 185 221 740 443Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.91 0.91 0.91Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222Cap, veh/h 648 777 334 244 314 257 547 793 189 266 967 721Arrive On Green 0.19 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.15 0.27 0.27Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1529 1781 1870 1531 3456 2823 673 1781 3554 1559Grp Volume(v), veh/h 503 455 225 200 218 111 430 488 473 221 740 443Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1777 1529 1781 1870 1531 1728 1777 1720 1781 1777 1559Q Serve(g_s), s 10.3 8.6 10.1 8.2 8.2 4.9 8.9 20.4 20.4 9.0 14.3 16.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.3 8.6 10.1 8.2 8.2 4.9 8.9 20.4 20.4 9.0 14.3 16.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 648 777 334 244 314 257 547 499 483 266 967 721V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.59 0.67 0.82 0.69 0.43 0.79 0.98 0.98 0.83 0.76 0.61Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1017 1141 491 334 400 328 740 499 483 358 967 721HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh28.9 26.2 26.8 31.4 29.3 27.9 30.2 26.6 26.6 30.9 25.0 15.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.7 2.4 11.0 3.6 1.1 4.0 35.2 35.8 11.5 5.7 3.9Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln4.2 3.4 3.6 4.0 3.7 1.7 3.7 12.5 12.2 4.4 6.2 5.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.9 26.9 29.1 42.4 32.9 29.0 34.2 61.8 62.5 42.4 30.7 19.1LnGrp LOS CCCDCCCEEDCBApproach Vol, veh/h 1183 529 1391 1404Approach Delay, s/veh 29.0 35.7 53.5 28.9Approach LOSCDDCTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s15.2 25.0 14.2 20.3 15.8 24.3 18.0 16.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 21.0 14.0 24.0 16.0 20.0 22.0 16.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s11.0 22.4 10.2 12.1 10.9 18.0 12.3 10.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.0 0.2 3.1 0.9 1.3 1.7 0.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.3HCM 6th LOS D Page 998 of 1221 HCM 6th TWSC10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 10IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 3.7Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 102 51 12 785 956 100Future Vol, veh/h 102 51 12 785 956 100Conflicting Peds, #/hr 999009Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 50 200 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 75 75 83 83 91 91Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 136 68 14 946 1051 110 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 1625 599 1170 0 - 0 Stage 1 1115 ----- Stage 2 510 -----Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 93 445 593 - - - Stage 1 275 ----- Stage 2 568 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 89 437 588 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 199 ----- Stage 1 266 ----- Stage 2 563 ----- Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 41.6 0.2 0HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBRCapacity (veh/h) 588 - 199 437 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - 0.683 0.156 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 11.3 - 55 14.8 - -HCM Lane LOS B - F B - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 4.2 0.5 - -Notes~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoonHCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 11Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 169 0 40 8 1 22 39 712 2 4 870 70Future Volume (veh/h) 169 0 40 8 1 22 39 712 2 4 870 70Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 225 0 33 11 1 30 45 818 0 4 978 66Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.89 0.89Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 278 0 246 55 5 52 58 2093 0 7 1892 128Arrive On Green 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.56Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1579 1639 149 1550 1781 3647 0 1781 3373 228Grp Volume(v), veh/h 225 0 33 12 0 30 45 818 0 4 515 529Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1579 1788 0 1550 1781 1777 0 1781 1777 1823Q Serve(g_s), s 12.1 0.0 1.8 0.6 0.0 1.9 2.5 12.2 0.0 0.2 17.7 17.7Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.1 0.0 1.8 0.6 0.0 1.9 2.5 12.2 0.0 0.2 17.7 17.7Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.12Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 278 0 246 60 0 52 58 2093 0 7 997 1023V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.00 0.13 0.20 0.00 0.58 0.78 0.39 0.00 0.53 0.52 0.52Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 540 0 479 542 0 470 144 2093 0 144 997 1023HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.3 0.0 36.0 46.5 0.0 47.1 47.5 10.9 0.0 49.2 13.4 13.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.6 0.0 0.2 1.6 0.0 9.9 20.1 0.6 0.0 48.2 1.9 1.9Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.7 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.9 1.4 4.3 0.0 0.2 6.7 6.9Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.9 0.0 36.2 48.2 0.0 57.0 67.7 11.4 0.0 97.4 15.3 15.3LnGrp LOS DADDAEEBAFBBApproach Vol, veh/h 258 42 863 1048Approach Delay, s/veh 44.7 54.5 14.3 15.6Approach LOS D D B BTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.4 64.8 20.4 8.2 62.0 8.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 55.5 30.0 8.0 55.5 30.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 14.2 14.1 4.5 19.7 3.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.3 1.4 0.0 7.6 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.3HCM 6th LOS B Page 999 of 1221 HCM 6th TWSC12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 12IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.7Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 28 0 753 918 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 28 0 753 918 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 030003Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - 0 - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 43 43 87 87 91 91Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 0 65 0 866 1009 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All - 1012 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - ----- Stage 2 - -----Critical Hdwy - 6.22 - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 - - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 290 0 - - 0 Stage 1 0 - 0 - - 0 Stage 2 0 - 0 - - 0Platoon blocked, % - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 289 - - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - ----- Stage 1 - ----- Stage 2 - ----- Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 21 0 0HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTEBLn1 SBTCapacity (veh/h) - 289 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.225 -HCM Control Delay (s) - 21 -HCM Lane LOS - C -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.8 -HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary13: Edna Rd (SR 227)/Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 13Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 34 2 327 7 0 5 63 518 3 2 957 32Future Volume (veh/h) 34 2 327 7 0 5 63 518 3 2 957 32Initial Q (Qb), veh0000000000750Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 39 2 332 9 0 2 74 609 4 2 1007 34Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 291 15 355 14 0 3 93 1296 9 6 1212 1005Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.59 0.59Sat Flow, veh/h 1698 87 1585 1425 0 317 1781 1856 12 1781 1870 1551Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 0 332 11 0 0 74 0 613 2 1007 34Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1785 0 1585 1742 0 0 1781 0 1868 1781 1870 1551Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 0.0 25.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 22.4 0.1 61.2 1.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 25.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 22.4 0.1 61.2 1.2Prop In Lane 0.95 1.00 0.82 0.18 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 306 0 355 17 0 0 93 0 1304 6 1212 1005V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.00 0.94 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.47 0.35 0.83 0.03Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 361 0 405 215 0 0 275 0 1573 427 1430 1186HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.7 0.0 58.2 75.4 0.0 0.0 71.6 0.0 10.3 76.0 26.9 9.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 27.8 40.3 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.4 33.2 4.1 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 146.6 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 0.0 15.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 8.1 0.1 88.4 0.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.9 0.0 86.0 115.7 0.0 0.0 77.3 0.0 10.7 109.2 177.6 9.7LnGrp LOS DAFFAAEABFFAApproach Vol, veh/h 373 11 687 1043Approach Delay, s/veh 82.5 115.7 17.9 172.0Approach LOS F F B FTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 3.9 90.0 30.2 10.6 83.4 5.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 6.4 4.0 3.7 6.4 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 109.0 26.2 20.0 99.0 16.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 24.4 27.5 7.3 63.2 2.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.1 13.8 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 105.8HCM 6th LOS F Page 1000 of 1221 HCM 6th TWSC1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.3Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 14 62 922 37 119 1152Future Vol, veh/h 14 62 922 37 119 1152Conflicting Peds, #/hr 990990Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 100 - - 200 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 79 79 90 90 93 93Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 18 78 1024 41 128 1239 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 1939 551 0 0 1074 0 Stage 1 1054 ----- Stage 2 885 -----Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 57 478 - - 645 - Stage 1 296 ----- Stage 2 364 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 45 470 - - 639 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 153 ----- Stage 1 293 ----- Stage 2 289 ----- Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 17.4 0 1.1HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 153 470 639 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.116 0.167 0.2 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 31.6 14.2 12 -HCM Lane LOS - - D B B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 0.6 0.7 -HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 9 0 5 86 9 68 51 831 191 46 1015 52Future Volume (veh/h) 9 0 5 86 9 68 51 831 191 46 1015 52Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 18 0 10 123 13 60 54 884 164 57 1253 53Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.81 0.81 0.81Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 133 0 113 299 32 274 69 1840 779 73 1848 791Arrive On Green 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.52 0.52 0.04 0.52 0.52Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1509 1618 171 1486 1781 3554 1505 1781 3554 1522Grp Volume(v), veh/h 18 0 10 136 0 60 54 884 164 57 1253 53Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1509 1789 0 1486 1781 1777 1505 1781 1777 1522Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 0.0 0.5 5.9 0.0 3.0 2.6 14.0 5.2 2.8 23.0 1.5Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 0.5 5.9 0.0 3.0 2.6 14.0 5.2 2.8 23.0 1.5Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 133 0 113 330 0 274 69 1840 779 73 1848 791V/C Ratio(X) 0.14 0.00 0.09 0.41 0.00 0.22 0.78 0.48 0.21 0.78 0.68 0.07Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 709 0 601 652 0 541 81 1840 779 142 1848 791HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.0 0.0 37.9 31.6 0.0 30.5 41.9 13.6 11.5 41.7 15.6 10.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.4 33.6 0.9 0.6 16.1 2.0 0.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.2 2.5 0.0 1.1 1.8 5.1 1.6 1.5 8.4 0.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.5 0.0 38.2 32.5 0.0 30.9 75.4 14.5 12.1 57.9 17.7 10.6LnGrp LOS DADCACEBBEBBApproach Vol, veh/h 28 196 1102 1363Approach Delay, s/veh 38.4 32.0 17.1 19.1Approach LOS D C B BTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.6 49.5 10.6 7.4 49.7 20.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 45.5 35.0 4.0 28.0 32.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 16.0 2.8 4.6 25.0 7.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.5 0.1 0.0 2.2 1.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.4HCM 6th LOS B Page 1001 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary3: LOVR & 101 SB02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 0 773 336 37 872 0 0 0 0 456 0 231Future Volume (veh/h) 0 773 336 37 872 0 0 0 0 456 0 231Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 805 302 43 1014 0 490 0 143Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.93 0.93 0.93Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222Cap, veh/h 0 1919 836 54 2166 0 527 0 465Arrive On Green 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.61 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.30Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1548 1781 3647 0 1781 0 1571Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 805 302 43 1014 0 490 0 143Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1548 1781 1777 0 1781 0 1571Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 14.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 6.3Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 14.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 6.3Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1919 836 54 2166 0 527 0 465V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.42 0.36 0.79 0.47 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.31Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1919 836 109 2166 0 544 0 480HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.3 9.6 0.0 30.8 0.0 24.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.6 1.2 22.0 0.7 0.0 22.2 0.0 0.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 0.2 0.3 1.3 4.9 0.0 13.2 0.0 2.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.6 1.2 65.4 10.3 0.0 53.0 0.0 24.9LnGrp LOS AAAEBA DACApproach Vol, veh/h 1107 1057 633Approach Delay, s/veh 0.8 12.6 46.6Approach LOS A B DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.2 53.6 59.9 30.1Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s5.5 45.0 54.0 27.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.2 2.0 16.0 26.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.9 9.1 0.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.6HCM 6th LOS BHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: 101 NB & LOVR01/31/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 1060 169 93 438 472 155Future Volume (vph) 1060 169 93 438 472 155Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.0 3.5 6.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1560 1770 3539 3353Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1560 1770 3539 3353Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.85 0.85 0.97 0.97Adj. Flow (vph) 1140 182 109 515 487 160RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 47 0 0 31 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 1140 135 109 515 616 0Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3Turn Type NA pm+ov Prot NA ProtProtected Phases 28168Permitted Phases 2Actuated Green, G (s) 55.7 81.8 14.7 73.9 26.1Effective Green, g (s) 55.7 81.8 14.7 73.9 26.1Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.74 0.13 0.67 0.24Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.0 3.5 6.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1792 1160 236 2377 795v/s Ratio Prot c0.32 0.03 c0.06 0.15 c0.18v/s Ratio Perm 0.06v/c Ratio 0.64 0.12 0.46 0.22 0.77Uniform Delay, d1 19.8 4.0 44.0 6.9 39.2Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.0 1.4 0.2 4.7Delay (s) 21.5 4.0 45.4 7.1 43.9Level of Service C A D A DApproach Delay (s) 19.1 13.8 43.9Approach LOS B B DIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 24.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.5% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupPage 1002 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 5Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 23 17 20 280 3 237 12 365 740 255 267 7Future Volume (veh/h) 23 17 20 280 3 237 12 365 740 255 267 7Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 34 25 26 320 0 0 13 410 631 263 275 7Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.97Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222Cap, veh/h 115 84 162 500 0 28 1039 665 316 1606 41Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.45 0.45Sat Flow, veh/h 1048 770 1478 3563 0 1585 1781 3554 1511 1781 3537 90Grp Volume(v), veh/h 59 0 26 320 0 0 13 410 631 263 138 144Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1818 0 1478 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1511 1781 1777 1850Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.0 1.3 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 7.6 24.0 11.7 3.8 3.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.0 1.3 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 7.6 24.0 11.7 3.8 3.8Prop In Lane 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 199 0 162 500 0 28 1039 665 316 807 840V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.00 0.16 0.64 0.00 0.47 0.39 0.95 0.83 0.17 0.17Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 598 0 486 1085 0 174 1039 665 543 807 840HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh33.6 0.0 33.1 33.3 0.0 0.0 40.0 23.2 20.0 32.6 13.3 13.3Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.5 23.6 6.8 0.2 0.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.1 0.0 0.4 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.0 16.5 5.3 1.4 1.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.9 0.0 33.3 33.8 0.0 0.0 44.5 23.7 43.6 39.4 13.5 13.5LnGrp LOS CACCA DCDDBBApproach Vol, veh/h 85 320 A 1054 545Approach Delay, s/veh 33.7 33.8 35.9 26.0Approach LOSCCDCTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s19.5 30.0 15.0 6.3 43.3 17.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s25.0 24.0 27.0 8.0 36.0 25.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s13.7 26.0 4.5 2.6 5.8 9.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.0 0.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.8HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.HCM 6th TWSC6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 6IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 2.5Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 58 828 47 113 595 18 6 0 62 5 1 18Future Vol, veh/h 58 828 47 113 595 18 6 0 62 5 1 18Conflicting Peds, #/hr 201001200102Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length 225 - - 175--------Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 95 95 95 71 71 71 86 86 86Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 62 881 50 119 626 19 8 0 87 6 1 21 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All 647 0 0 932 0 0 1585 1916 468 1442 1932 327 Stage 1 - - - - - - 1031 1031 - 876 876 - Stage 2 ------554885-5661056 -Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 934 - - 730 - - 73 67 542 93 65 669 Stage 1 - - - - - - 249 309 - 310 365 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 484 361 - 476 300 -Platoon blocked, % - - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 932 - - 729 - - 58 52 541 65 51 666Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------5852-6551- Stage 1 - - - - - - 232 288 - 289 305 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 390 301 - 372 280 - Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0.6 1.7 21.6 26.7HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 312 932 - - 729 - - 194HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.307 0.066 - - 0.163 - - 0.144HCM Control Delay (s) 21.6 9.1 - - 10.9 - - 26.7HCM Lane LOS C A - - B - - DHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.3 0.2 - - 0.6 - - 0.5 Page 1003 of 1221 HCM 6th TWSC7: Santa Fe Road & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 7IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 2.1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 782 47 101 670 1 9 1 55 0 1 1Future Vol, veh/h 0 782 47 101 670 1 9 1 55 0 1 1Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length - - - 115----50---Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 91 91 91 81 81 81 25 25 25Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 0 823 49 111 736 1 11 1 68 0 4 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All 737 0 0 872 0 0 1811 1807 848 1841 1831 737 Stage 1 - -----848848-959959- Stage 2 - -----963959-882872-Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----6.125.52-6.125.52-Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----6.125.52-6.125.52-Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 869 - - 773 - - 61 79 361 58 76 418 Stage 1 - -----356378-309335- Stage 2 - -----307335-341368-Platoon blocked, % - - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 869 - - 773 - - 51 68 361 41 65 418Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------5168-4165- Stage 1 - -----356378-309287- Stage 2 - -----257287-276368- Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0 1.4 29.2 39.3HCM LOS D E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 52 361 869 - - 773 - - 113HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.237 0.188 - - - 0.144 - - 0.071HCM Control Delay (s) 94.6 17.3 0 - - 10.4 - - 39.3HCM Lane LOS F C A - - B - - EHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 0.7 0 - - 0.5 - - 0.2HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 760 64 32 771 19 6Future Volume (veh/h) 760 64 32 771 19 6Initial Q (Qb), veh000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 800 67 36 866 28 9Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.69Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222Cap, veh/h 1859 156 43 1305 59 52Arrive On Green 0.56 0.56 0.02 0.70 0.03 0.03Sat Flow, veh/h 3406 277 1781 1870 1781 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 429 438 36 866 28 9Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1812 1781 1870 1781 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 6.2 0.9 11.6 0.7 0.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 6.2 0.9 11.6 0.7 0.2Prop In Lane 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 997 1017 43 1305 59 52V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.43 0.83 0.66 0.48 0.17Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1914 1953 440 1305 560 498HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.7 5.7 21.6 3.8 21.2 20.9Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 1.0 14.2 2.3 2.2 0.6Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.7 6.7 35.8 6.1 23.4 21.5LnGrp LOS A A D A C CApproach Vol, veh/h 867 902 37Approach Delay, s/veh 6.7 7.3 22.9Approach LOS A A CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.1 32.0 38.1 6.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 48.0 30.0 14.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 8.2 13.6 2.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 16.8 11.1 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.3HCM 6th LOS A Page 1004 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 9Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 223 149 387 229 243 162 221 673 118 58 667 331Future Volume (veh/h) 223 149 387 229 243 162 221 673 118 58 667 331Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 251 167 350 283 300 51 238 724 109 72 834 340Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.80 0.80 0.80Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222Cap, veh/h 322 913 402 308 629 529 257 990 149 92 1057 608Arrive On Green 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.34 0.34 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.05 0.30 0.30Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1563 1781 1870 1574 3456 3091 465 1781 3554 1548Grp Volume(v), veh/h 251 167 350 283 300 51 238 416 417 72 834 340Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1777 1563 1781 1870 1574 1728 1777 1779 1781 1777 1548Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 4.4 25.9 18.9 15.3 2.7 8.3 25.1 25.2 4.8 26.1 20.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 4.4 25.9 18.9 15.3 2.7 8.3 25.1 25.2 4.8 26.1 20.8Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 322 913 402 308 629 529 257 569 570 92 1057 608V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.18 0.87 0.92 0.48 0.10 0.93 0.73 0.73 0.79 0.79 0.56Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 571 1028 452 309 629 529 257 569 570 103 1057 608HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh53.6 35.1 43.0 49.2 31.7 27.5 55.7 36.5 36.5 56.7 39.0 28.8Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.1 0.1 15.5 31.1 0.6 0.1 36.8 8.0 8.1 29.1 6.0 3.7Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.9 1.9 11.5 10.9 6.9 1.0 4.8 11.7 11.8 2.9 11.8 8.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.7 35.1 58.6 80.3 32.3 27.6 92.5 44.5 44.6 85.8 45.0 32.5LnGrp LOS E D E F C C F D D F D CApproach Vol, veh/h 768 634 1071 1246Approach Delay, s/veh 53.2 53.3 55.2 43.9Approach LOS D D E DTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s11.7 45.3 26.4 37.6 14.5 42.5 16.8 47.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 * 6.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s7.0 38.0 21.0 35.0 9.0 36.0 20.0 * 33Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s6.8 27.2 20.9 27.9 10.3 28.1 10.6 17.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.7 0.0 1.5 0.0 4.2 0.7 1.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 50.7HCM 6th LOS DNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.HCM 6th TWSC10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 10IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.2Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 40 9 58 1181 754 224Future Vol, veh/h 40 9 58 1181 754 224Conflicting Peds, #/hr 511005Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 50 200 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 61 61 92 92 90 90Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 66 15 63 1284 838 249 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 1741 550 1092 0 - 0 Stage 1 968 - - - - - Stage 2 773 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 78 479 635 - - - Stage 1 329 - - - - - Stage 2 416 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 69 476 632 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 188 - - - - - Stage 1 295 - - - - - Stage 2 414 - - - - - Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 30.2 0.5 0HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBRCapacity (veh/h) 632 - 188 476 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.1 - 0.349 0.031 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 11.3 - 34.1 12.8 - -HCM Lane LOS B - D B - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 1.5 0.1 - - Page 1005 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 11Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 87 1 12 6 0 33 58 1139 16 39 596 103Future Volume (veh/h) 87 1 12 6 0 33 58 1139 16 39 596 103Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 102 1 14 11 0 58 60 1186 17 46 701 106Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.85 0.85 0.85Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 145 1 130 90 0 79 78 2229 32 59 1886 285Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.62 0.62 0.03 0.61 0.61Sat Flow, veh/h 1765 17 1579 1781 0 1566 1781 3585 51 1781 3085 466Grp Volume(v), veh/h 103 0 14 11 0 58 60 588 615 46 403 404Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1782 0 1579 1781 0 1566 1781 1777 1860 1781 1777 1775Q Serve(g_s), s 5.7 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 3.7 3.4 19.0 19.0 2.6 11.6 11.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.7 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 3.7 3.4 19.0 19.0 2.6 11.6 11.6Prop In Lane 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.26Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 147 0 130 90 0 79 78 1105 1156 59 1086 1085V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.00 0.11 0.12 0.00 0.73 0.77 0.53 0.53 0.78 0.37 0.37Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 615 0 545 615 0 541 228 1105 1156 228 1086 1085HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 45.3 0.0 43.1 46.0 0.0 47.5 48.0 10.8 10.8 48.6 9.9 9.9Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.0 12.3 14.6 1.8 1.8 19.1 1.0 1.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.7 1.8 6.8 7.1 1.4 4.1 4.2Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.3 0.0 43.4 46.6 0.0 59.8 62.5 12.7 12.6 67.8 10.9 10.9LnGrp LOS DADDAEEBBEBBApproach Vol, veh/h 117 69 1263 853Approach Delay, s/veh 50.4 57.7 15.0 14.0Approach LOS D E B BTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.4 69.6 13.4 9.4 68.5 10.1Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 62.0 35.0 13.0 62.0 35.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.6 21.0 7.7 5.4 13.6 5.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.6 0.7 0.1 5.5 0.3Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.7HCM 6th LOS BHCM 6th TWSC12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 12IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.1Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 8 0 1211 614 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 8 0 1211 614 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - 0 - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 67 67 96 96 81 81Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 0 12 0 1261 758 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All - 758 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - -Critical Hdwy - 6.22 - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 - - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 407 0 - - 0 Stage 1 0 - 0 - - 0 Stage 2 0 - 0 - - 0Platoon blocked, % - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 407 - - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 14.1 0 0HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTEBLn1 SBTCapacity (veh/h) - 407 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.029 -HCM Control Delay (s) - 14.1 -HCM Lane LOS - B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - Page 1006 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary13: Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 13Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 53 5 170 2 0 3 216 1199 3 3 424 41Future Volume (veh/h) 53 5 170 2 0 3 216 1199 3 3 424 41Initial Q (Qb), veh000000050000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 68 6 169 3 0 5 223 1236 3 4 537 52Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.79 0.79 0.79Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 185 16 400 5 0 8 249 1363 3 11 1114 918Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.73 0.73 0.01 0.59 0.59Sat Flow, veh/h 1643 145 1585 620 0 1033 1781 1865 5 1781 1870 1541Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 0 169 8 0 0 223 0 1239 4 537 52Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1788 0 1585 1653 0 0 1781 0 1869 1781 1870 1541Q Serve(g_s), s 4.7 0.0 11.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 66.0 0.3 20.3 1.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.7 0.0 11.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0 66.0 0.3 20.3 1.8Prop In Lane 0.92 1.00 0.37 0.62 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 202 0 400 13 0 0 249 0 1366 11 1114 918V/C Ratio(X) 0.37 0.00 0.42 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.91 0.36 0.48 0.06Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 380 0 559 214 0 0 289 0 1651 231 1108 913HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.7 0.0 39.4 62.3 0.0 0.0 53.3 0.0 14.1 62.3 14.4 10.6Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.9 47.5 0.0 0.0 23.9 0.0 7.2 18.6 0.5 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.0 4.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 24.5 0.2 7.8 0.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.0 0.0 40.2 109.8 0.0 0.0 77.2 0.0 22.3 80.9 14.9 10.7LnGrp LOS DADFAAEACFBBApproach Vol, veh/h 243 8 1462 593Approach Delay, s/veh 44.1 109.8 30.7 15.0Approach LOS D F C BTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 4.3 96.2 18.0 21.0 79.5 5.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 6.4 4.0 3.7 6.4 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 109.0 26.2 20.0 58.0 16.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.3 68.0 13.0 17.2 22.3 2.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 21.8 1.0 0.1 5.4 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.3HCM 6th LOS CHCM 6th TWSC1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.8Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 11 132 1226 17 70 1247Future Vol, veh/h 11 132 1226 17 70 1247Conflicting Peds, #/hr 440440Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 100 - - 200 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 75 75 90 90 91 91Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 15 176 1362 19 77 1370 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 2219 699 0 0 1385 0 Stage 1 1376 - - - - - Stage 2 843 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 37 382 - - 490 - Stage 1 200 - - - - - Stage 2 382 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 31 379 - - 488 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 125 - - - - - Stage 1 199 - - - - - Stage 2 320 - - - - - Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 23.7 0 0.7HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 125 379 488 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.117 0.464 0.158 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 37.6 22.5 13.8 -HCM Lane LOS - - E C B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.4 2.4 0.6 - Page 1007 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 70 19 44 178 13 220 89 1077 188 133 1096 98Future Volume (veh/h) 70 19 44 178 13 220 89 1077 188 133 1096 98Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.96Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 92 25 49 212 15 170 94 1134 146 148 1218 79Peak Hour Factor 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.90Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 146 40 163 284 20 251 122 1345 560 152 1406 603Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.09 0.40 0.40Sat Flow, veh/h 1415 385 1576 1669 118 1476 1781 3554 1480 1781 3554 1524Grp Volume(v), veh/h 117 0 49 227 0 170 94 1134 146 148 1218 79Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1800 0 1576 1787 0 1476 1781 1777 1480 1781 1777 1524Q Serve(g_s), s 5.1 0.0 2.4 9.9 0.0 8.8 4.3 23.9 5.6 6.8 25.8 2.7Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.1 0.0 2.4 9.9 0.0 8.8 4.3 23.9 5.6 6.8 25.8 2.7Prop In Lane 0.79 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 186 0 163 304 0 251 122 1345 560 152 1406 603V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.00 0.30 0.75 0.00 0.68 0.77 0.84 0.26 0.97 0.87 0.13Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 769 0 674 502 0 415 239 1584 660 152 1406 603HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.2 0.0 34.0 32.3 0.0 31.9 37.5 23.2 17.6 37.3 22.8 15.8Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.5 0.0 1.0 3.7 0.0 3.2 9.9 3.8 0.2 64.3 6.0 0.1Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 0.0 0.9 4.3 0.0 3.2 2.1 9.5 1.8 5.5 10.6 0.9Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.6 0.0 35.0 36.0 0.0 35.0 47.4 27.0 17.8 101.6 28.7 15.9LnGrp LOS D A C D A D D C B F C BApproach Vol, veh/h 166 397 1374 1445Approach Delay, s/veh 37.6 35.6 27.4 35.5Approach LOS DDCDTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 37.5 13.5 10.6 38.9 18.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 36.5 35.0 11.0 26.5 23.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 25.9 7.1 6.3 27.8 11.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 1.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.3HCM 6th LOS CHCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary3: LOVR & 101 SB02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 0 910 631 61 1310 0 0 0 0 294 0 390Future Volume (veh/h) 0 910 631 61 1310 0 0 0 0 294 0 390Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 938 569 63 1351 0 313 0 322Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.94Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222Cap, veh/h 0 2207 962 82 2508 0 356 0 308Arrive On Green 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.71 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1548 1781 3647 0 1781 0 1540Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 938 569 63 1351 0 313 0 322Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1548 1781 1777 0 1781 0 1540Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 16.2 0.0 15.4 0.0 18.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 16.2 0.0 15.4 0.0 18.0Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2207 962 82 2508 0 356 0 308V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.43 0.59 0.77 0.54 0.00 0.88 0.00 1.05Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2207 962 188 2508 0 485 0 419HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.5 6.3 0.0 35.0 0.0 36.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.5 2.3 14.2 0.8 0.0 13.2 0.0 53.5Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 0.2 0.6 1.7 4.9 0.0 7.8 0.0 11.2Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.5 2.3 56.7 7.1 0.0 48.1 0.0 89.5LnGrp LOS AAAEAA DAFApproach Vol, veh/h 1507 1414 635Approach Delay, s/veh 1.2 9.3 69.1Approach LOS A A ETimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.6 60.9 68.5 21.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s9.5 44.0 57.0 24.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.1 2.0 18.2 17.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 13.4 14.0 0.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.6HCM 6th LOS B Page 1008 of 1221 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: 101 NB & LOVR01/31/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 819 364 182 915 482 110Future Volume (vph) 819 364 182 915 482 110Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 6.0 3.5 3.5 6.0 3.5Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.97Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1564 1770 3539 3376Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1564 1770 3539 3376Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90Adj. Flow (vph) 844 375 194 973 536 122RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 138 0 0 16 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 844 237 194 973 642 0Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5Turn Type NA pm+ov Prot NA ProtProtected Phases 28168Permitted Phases 2Actuated Green, G (s) 24.1 45.0 13.1 40.7 20.9Effective Green, g (s) 24.1 45.0 13.1 40.7 20.9Actuated g/C Ratio 0.34 0.63 0.18 0.57 0.29Clearance Time (s) 6.0 3.5 3.5 6.0 3.5Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1199 989 326 2025 992v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.07 c0.11 0.27 c0.19v/s Ratio Perm 0.08v/c Ratio 0.70 0.24 0.60 0.48 0.65Uniform Delay, d1 20.4 5.6 26.6 9.0 21.9Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.9 0.1 2.9 0.2 1.5Delay (s) 22.3 5.8 29.5 9.1 23.3Level of Service C A C A CApproach Delay (s) 17.2 12.5 23.3Approach LOS B B CIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 16.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.1 Sum of lost time (s) 17.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.6% ICU Level of Service BAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupHCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 5Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 9 9 21 570 11 324 30 503 430 275 683 18Future Volume (veh/h) 9 9 21 570 11 324 30 503 430 275 683 18Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.89Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 12 12 5 642 0 0 32 541 260 331 823 21Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.83 0.83Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222Cap, veh/h 166 166 245 745 0 40 747 619 348 1350 34Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.38 0.38Sat Flow, veh/h 912 912 1351 3563 0 1585 1781 3554 1370 1781 3528 90Grp Volume(v), veh/h 24 0 5 642 0 0 32 541 260 331 414 430Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1825 0 1351 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1370 1781 1777 1841Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 0.0 0.3 19.6 0.0 0.0 2.0 16.0 15.3 20.7 21.2 21.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 0.0 0.3 19.6 0.0 0.0 2.0 16.0 15.3 20.7 21.2 21.2Prop In Lane 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 331 0 245 745 0 40 747 619 348 680 705V/C Ratio(X) 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.86 0.00 0.80 0.72 0.42 0.95 0.61 0.61Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 486 0 360 948 0 79 757 623 348 680 705HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh38.3 0.0 37.9 43.0 0.0 0.0 54.8 41.5 23.5 44.9 28.0 28.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 28.8 3.4 0.5 35.8 1.6 1.5Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.6 0.0 0.1 9.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 7.1 6.9 12.3 8.8 9.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.4 0.0 37.9 49.7 0.0 0.0 83.6 44.9 23.9 80.7 29.6 29.6LnGrp LOS D A D D A F D C F C CApproach Vol, veh/h 29 642 A 833 1175Approach Delay, s/veh 38.3 49.7 39.8 44.0Approach LOSDDDDTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s27.0 29.7 26.5 7.5 49.1 29.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s22.0 24.0 30.0 5.0 41.0 30.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s22.7 18.0 3.2 4.0 23.2 21.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.4 0.1 0.0 4.7 2.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.0HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.Page 1009 of 1221 HCM 6th TWSC6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 6IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 17.4Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 64 630 28 131 1032 23 12 2 168 12 2 66Future Vol, veh/h 64 630 28 131 1032 23 12 2 168 12 2 66Conflicting Peds, #/hr 100001000101Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length 225 - - 175--------Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 92 92 92 86 86 86 61 61 61Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 67 663 29 142 1122 25 14 2 195 20 3 108 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All 1148 0 0 692 0 0 1660 2244 347 1888 2246 576 Stage 1 - -----812812-1420 1420 - Stage 2 - -----8481432 - 468 826 -Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----6.545.54-6.545.54-Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----6.545.54-6.545.54-Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 604 - - 899 - - 64 41 649 43 41 460 Stage 1 - -----339390-143201- Stage 2 - -----322198-545385-Platoon blocked, % - - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 603 - - 899 - - 36 31 648 23 31 459Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------3631-2331- Stage 1 - -----301347-127169- Stage 2 - -----203167-336342- Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 1 1.1 50.3 220.4HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 277 603 - - 899 - - 110HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.764 0.112 - - 0.158 - - 1.192HCM Control Delay (s) 50.3 11.7 - - 9.8 - - 220.4HCM Lane LOS F B - - A - - FHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 5.7 0.4 - - 0.6 - - 8.5HCM 6th TWSC7: Santa Fe Road & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 7IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 20.5Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 844 24 66 1030 1 40 1 159 0 1 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 844 24 66 1030 1 40 1 159 0 1 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 100001000101Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop StopRT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - NoneStorage Length - - - 115----50---Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 94 94 94 79 79 79 25 25 25Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222Mvmt Flow 0 959 27 70 1096 1 51 1 201 0 4 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2Conflicting Flow All 1098 0 0 986 0 0 2213 2211 974 2313 2224 1099 Stage 1 - - - - - - 973 973 - 1238 1238 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 1240 1238 - 1075 986 -Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 636 - - 701 - - ~ 31 44 306 27 43 258 Stage 1 - - - - - - 303 330 - 215 248 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 214 248 - 266 326 -Platoon blocked, % - - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 635 - - 701 - - ~ 26 40 306 8 39 258Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - ~ 26 40 - 8 39 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 303 330 - 215 223 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 189 223 - 91 326 - Approach EB WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 190.3 107.6HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1Capacity (veh/h) 26 306 635 - - 701 - - 39HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.996 0.658 - - - 0.1 - - 0.103HCM Control Delay (s) $ 785.4 36.8 0 - - 10.7 - - 107.6HCM Lane LOS F E A - - B - - FHCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 6.3 4.3 0 - - 0.3 - - 0.3Notes~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoonPage 1010 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 1034 10 6 978 136 33Future Volume (veh/h) 1034 10 6 978 136 33Initial Q (Qb), veh000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1202 12 7 1087 184 45Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.90 0.90 0.74 0.74Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222Cap, veh/h 2132 21 10 1266 235 209Arrive On Green 0.59 0.59 0.01 0.68 0.13 0.13Sat Flow, veh/h 3697 36 1781 1870 1781 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 593 621 7 1087 184 45Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1863 1781 1870 1781 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 12.8 12.8 0.2 28.1 6.3 1.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.8 12.8 0.2 28.1 6.3 1.6Prop In Lane 0.02 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1051 1102 10 1266 235 209V/C Ratio(X) 0.56 0.56 0.72 0.86 0.78 0.22Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1359 1425 312 1266 398 354HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.8 7.8 31.1 7.8 26.4 24.3Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 1.6 30.0 7.3 2.2 0.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.9 4.0 0.2 8.5 2.7 0.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.6 9.5 61.2 15.1 28.5 24.5LnGrp LOS AAEBCCApproach Vol, veh/h 1214 1094 229Approach Delay, s/veh 9.5 15.4 27.7Approach LOS A B CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.3 44.1 49.5 13.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 48.0 30.0 14.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 14.8 30.1 8.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 22.3 0.0 0.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.7HCM 6th LOS BHCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 9Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 473 428 275 185 194 120 368 664 189 201 701 514Future Volume (veh/h) 473 428 275 185 194 120 368 664 189 201 701 514Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 503 455 241 208 218 111 449 810 192 221 770 443Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.91 0.91 0.91Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222Cap, veh/h 647 762 328 252 315 258 564 795 188 266 949 713Arrive On Green 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.15 0.27 0.27Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1528 1781 1870 1531 3456 2827 670 1781 3554 1558Grp Volume(v), veh/h 503 455 241 208 218 111 449 509 493 221 770 443Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1777 1528 1781 1870 1531 1728 1777 1720 1781 1777 1558Q Serve(g_s), s 10.4 8.6 11.0 8.5 8.2 4.9 9.4 21.0 21.0 9.0 15.2 16.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.4 8.6 11.0 8.5 8.2 4.9 9.4 21.0 21.0 9.0 15.2 16.2Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 647 762 328 252 315 258 564 499 483 266 949 713V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.60 0.74 0.83 0.69 0.43 0.80 1.02 1.02 0.83 0.81 0.62Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1015 1139 490 333 400 327 738 499 483 357 949 713HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh28.9 26.5 27.4 31.3 29.3 27.9 30.1 26.9 26.9 30.9 25.7 15.6Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.8 3.2 12.1 3.6 1.1 4.6 45.3 46.0 11.6 7.5 4.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln4.2 3.5 4.0 4.3 3.8 1.7 3.9 14.2 13.8 4.4 6.7 5.8Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.0 27.2 30.6 43.3 32.9 29.0 34.7 72.2 72.9 42.6 33.2 19.6LnGrp LOS CCCDCCCFFDCBApproach Vol, veh/h 1199 537 1451 1434Approach Delay, s/veh 29.5 36.1 60.8 30.4Approach LOS C D E CTimer - Assigned Phs 12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s15.2 25.0 14.6 20.1 16.2 24.0 18.0 16.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 21.0 14.0 24.0 16.0 20.0 22.0 16.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s11.0 23.0 10.5 13.0 11.4 18.2 12.4 10.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.0 0.2 3.1 0.9 1.2 1.7 0.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.4HCM 6th LOS D Page 1011 of 1221 HCM 6th TWSC10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 10IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 4Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 102 51 12 834 994 112Future Vol, veh/h 102 51 12 834 994 112Conflicting Peds, #/hr 999009Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 50 200 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 75 75 83 83 91 91Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 136 68 14 1005 1092 123 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 1703 626 1224 0 - 0 Stage 1 1163 ----- Stage 2 540 -----Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 83 427 565 - - - Stage 1 260 ----- Stage 2 548 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 80 420 560 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 187 ----- Stage 1 251 ----- Stage 2 543 ----- Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 47.2 0.2 0HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBRCapacity (veh/h) 560 - 187 420 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - 0.727 0.162 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 11.6 - 63.2 15.2 - -HCM Lane LOS B - F C - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 4.6 0.6 - -Notes~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoonHCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 11Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 218 0 55 8 1 22 55 712 2 4 870 108Future Volume (veh/h) 218 0 55 8 1 22 55 712 2 4 870 108Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 291 0 53 11 1 30 63 818 0 4 978 108Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.89 0.89Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 342 0 303 55 5 52 81 2015 0 7 1691 187Arrive On Green 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 0 1580 1639 149 1547 1781 3647 0 1781 3218 355Grp Volume(v), veh/h 291 0 53 12 0 30 63 818 0 4 540 546Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1580 1788 0 1547 1781 1777 0 1781 1777 1797Q Serve(g_s), s 16.7 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.0 2.0 3.7 13.7 0.0 0.2 21.9 21.9Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.7 0.0 3.0 0.7 0.0 2.0 3.7 13.7 0.0 0.2 21.9 21.9Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.20Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 342 0 303 60 0 52 81 2015 0 7 934 944V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.00 0.17 0.20 0.00 0.58 0.78 0.41 0.00 0.54 0.58 0.58Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 506 0 449 508 0 440 135 2015 0 135 934 944HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.2 0.0 35.7 49.7 0.0 50.3 49.9 12.9 0.0 52.5 17.1 17.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.9 0.0 0.3 1.6 0.0 10.0 14.4 0.6 0.0 48.7 2.6 2.6Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.2 0.0 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.9 1.9 5.0 0.0 0.2 8.7 8.8Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 50.1 0.0 35.9 51.3 0.0 60.3 64.3 13.5 0.0 101.2 19.7 19.7LnGrp LOS DADDAEEBAFBBApproach Vol, veh/h 344 42 881 1090Approach Delay, s/veh 47.9 57.7 17.1 20.0Approach LOS D E B BTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.4 66.4 25.3 9.8 62.0 8.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 55.5 30.0 8.0 55.5 30.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.2 15.7 18.7 5.7 23.9 4.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.2 1.6 0.0 7.9 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.6HCM 6th LOS C Page 1012 of 1221 HCM 6th TWSC12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 12IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.7Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 28 0 769 933 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 28 0 769 933 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 030003Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - 0 - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 43 43 87 87 91 91Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 0 65 0 884 1025 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All - 1028 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - ----- Stage 2 - -----Critical Hdwy - 6.22 - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -----Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 - - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 284 0 - - 0 Stage 1 0 - 0 - - 0 Stage 2 0 - 0 - - 0Platoon blocked, % - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 283 - - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - ----- Stage 1 - ----- Stage 2 - ----- Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 21.5 0 0HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTEBLn1 SBTCapacity (veh/h) - 283 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.23 -HCM Control Delay (s) - 21.5 -HCM Lane LOS - C -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.9 -HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary13: Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 13Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 34 2 327 7 0 5 63 534 3 2 972 32Future Volume (veh/h) 34 2 327 7 0 5 63 534 3 2 972 32Initial Q (Qb), veh0000000000750Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 39 2 332 9 0 2 74 628 4 2 1023 34Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.95Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 291 15 355 14 0 3 93 1296 8 6 1212 1005Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.60 0.60Sat Flow, veh/h 1698 87 1585 1425 0 317 1781 1856 12 1781 1870 1551Grp Volume(v), veh/h 41 0 332 11 0 0 74 0 632 2 1023 34Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1785 0 1585 1742 0 0 1781 0 1868 1781 1870 1551Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.0 26.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 23.4 0.1 63.5 1.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.0 26.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 23.4 0.1 63.5 1.2Prop In Lane 0.95 1.00 0.82 0.18 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 306 0 355 17 0 0 93 0 1305 6 1212 1005V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.00 0.94 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.48 0.35 0.84 0.03Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 355 0 399 211 0 0 270 0 1543 419 1403 1164HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.7 0.0 58.2 75.4 0.0 0.0 71.6 0.0 10.5 76.0 26.9 9.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 28.2 40.3 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.4 33.2 4.7 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 152.6 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 0.0 15.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 8.5 0.1 90.6 0.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.9 0.0 86.5 115.7 0.0 0.0 77.3 0.0 10.9 109.2 184.2 9.7LnGrp LOS DAFFAAEABFFAApproach Vol, veh/h 373 11 706 1059Approach Delay, s/veh 82.9 115.7 17.9 178.4Approach LOS F F B FTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 3.9 92.5 30.2 10.7 85.7 5.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 6.4 4.0 3.7 6.4 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.0 109.0 26.2 20.0 99.0 16.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.1 25.4 28.2 7.4 65.5 2.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.1 13.8 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 108.8HCM 6th LOS F Page 1013 of 1221 HCM 6th TWSC1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 15.4Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 171 66 1000 80 140 1650Future Vol, veh/h 171 66 1000 80 140 1650Conflicting Peds, #/hr 990990Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 100 - - 200 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 171 66 1000 80 140 1650 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 2163 558 0 0 1089 0 Stage 1 1049 ----- Stage 2 1114 -----Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 40 473 - - 636 - Stage 1 298 ----- Stage 2 276 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 31 465 - - 631 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 127 ----- Stage 1 295 ----- Stage 2 213 ----- Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 194.2 0 1HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 127 465 631 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 1.346 0.142 0.222 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 263.8 14 12.3 -HCM Lane LOS - - F B B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 11.2 0.5 0.8 -Notes~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoonHCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 10 10 10 90 10 78 54 1150 202 90 1600 104Future Volume (veh/h) 10 10 10 90 10 78 54 1150 202 90 1600 104Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 10 10 10 90 10 52 54 1150 165 90 1600 95Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 69 69 114 272 30 250 69 1817 769 115 1909 818Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.51 0.51 0.06 0.54 0.54Sat Flow, veh/h 912 912 1509 1611 179 1479 1781 3554 1505 1781 3554 1523Grp Volume(v), veh/h 20 0 10 100 0 52 54 1150 165 90 1600 95Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1825 0 1509 1790 0 1479 1781 1777 1505 1781 1777 1523Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 0.0 0.5 4.4 0.0 2.7 2.7 20.8 5.4 4.4 33.7 2.7Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 0.0 0.5 4.4 0.0 2.7 2.7 20.8 5.4 4.4 33.7 2.7Prop In Lane 0.50 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 138 0 114 302 0 250 69 1817 769 115 1909 818V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.00 0.09 0.33 0.00 0.21 0.78 0.63 0.21 0.78 0.84 0.12Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 718 0 594 644 0 532 80 1817 769 140 1909 818HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.5 0.0 38.3 32.5 0.0 31.9 42.4 15.7 11.9 41.0 17.3 10.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.4 34.2 1.7 0.6 20.5 4.6 0.3Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.9 0.0 1.0 1.8 7.7 1.7 2.5 12.7 0.9Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.9 0.0 38.6 33.2 0.0 32.3 76.6 17.4 12.6 61.5 21.9 10.5LnGrp LOS DADCACEBBECBApproach Vol, veh/h 30 152 1369 1785Approach Delay, s/veh 38.8 32.9 19.2 23.3Approach LOS D C B CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.7 49.5 10.7 7.4 51.8 19.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 45.5 35.0 4.0 28.0 32.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 22.8 2.9 4.7 35.7 6.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.2HCM 6th LOS C Page 1014 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary3: LOVR & 101 SB02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 0 816 356 39 992 0 0 0 0 479 0 245Future Volume (veh/h) 0 816 356 39 992 0 0 0 0 479 0 245Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 816 310 39 992 0 479 0 147Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222Cap, veh/h 0 1945 847 49 2181 0 520 0 458Arrive On Green 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.61 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.29Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1548 1781 3647 0 1781 0 1570Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 816 310 39 992 0 479 0 147Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1548 1781 1777 0 1781 0 1570Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 13.5 0.0 23.4 0.0 6.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 13.5 0.0 23.4 0.0 6.6Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1945 847 49 2181 0 520 0 458V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.42 0.37 0.80 0.45 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.32Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1945 847 109 2181 0 544 0 480HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.5 9.3 0.0 30.9 0.0 24.9Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.6 1.2 24.7 0.7 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 0.2 0.3 1.2 4.7 0.0 12.7 0.0 2.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.6 1.2 68.2 10.0 0.0 51.7 0.0 25.3LnGrp LOS AAAEBA DACApproach Vol, veh/h 1126 1031 626Approach Delay, s/veh 0.8 12.2 45.5Approach LOS A B DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.0 54.3 60.2 29.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s5.5 45.0 54.0 27.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.0 2.0 15.5 25.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.1 8.9 0.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.1HCM 6th LOS BHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: 101 NB & LOVR02/03/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 1116 179 95 462 500 164Future Volume (vph) 1116 179 95 462 500 164Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.0 3.5 6.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1560 1770 3539 3354Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1560 1770 3539 3354Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj. Flow (vph) 1116 179 95 462 500 164RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 42 0 0 31 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 1116 137 95 462 633 0Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3Turn Type NA pm+ov Prot NA ProtProtected Phases 28168Permitted Phases 2Actuated Green, G (s) 57.2 83.9 12.6 73.3 26.7Effective Green, g (s) 57.2 83.9 12.6 73.3 26.7Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.76 0.11 0.67 0.24Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.0 3.5 6.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1840 1189 202 2358 814v/s Ratio Prot c0.32 0.03 c0.05 0.13 c0.19v/s Ratio Perm 0.06v/c Ratio 0.61 0.11 0.47 0.20 0.78Uniform Delay, d1 18.5 3.4 45.6 7.0 38.9Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.5 0.0 1.7 0.2 4.7Delay (s) 20.0 3.4 47.3 7.2 43.6Level of Service C A D A DApproach Delay (s) 17.7 14.1 43.6Approach LOS B B DIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 23.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.2% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupPage 1015 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ 6+LJXHUD6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP05/07/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 24 20 30 288 10 290 20 500 880 500 450 10Future Volume (veh/h) 24 20 30 288 10 290 20 500 880 500 450 10Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 24 20 28 295 0 0 20 500 702 500 450 10Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 108 90 160 480 0 40 1068 668 583 1585 35Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.30 0.30 0.17 0.45 0.45Sat Flow, veh/h 993 828 1477 3563 0 1585 1781 3554 1513 3456 3550 79Grp Volume(v), veh/h 44 0 28 295 0 0 20 500 702 500 225 235Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1821 0 1477 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1513 1728 1777 1852Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 0.0 1.4 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 9.2 24.0 11.2 6.4 6.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 0.0 1.4 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 9.2 24.0 11.2 6.4 6.4Prop In Lane 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 197 0 160 480 0 40 1068 668 583 794 827V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.00 0.18 0.61 0.00 0.50 0.47 1.05 0.86 0.28 0.28Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 615 0 499 981 0 111 1068 668 606 794 827HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.5 0.0 32.4 32.6 0.0 0.0 38.6 22.7 19.5 32.3 14.0 14.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.7 48.9 11.7 0.4 0.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.6 21.5 5.3 2.3 2.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.8 0.0 32.6 33.1 0.0 0.0 42.2 23.4 68.4 44.0 14.4 14.4LnGrp LOS C A C C A D C F D B BApproach Vol, veh/h 72 295 A 1222 960Approach Delay, s/veh 32.7 33.1 49.6 29.8Approach LOS CCDCTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.5 30.0 14.6 6.8 41.7 16.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 24.0 27.0 5.0 33.0 22.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.2 26.0 3.8 2.9 8.4 8.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 5.0 0.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.7HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 6Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 61 1300 50 120 620 40 20 20 100 40 10 40Future Volume (veh/h) 61 1300 50 120 620 40 20 20 100 40 10 40Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 61 1300 50 120 620 40 20 20 100 40 10 40Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222Cap, veh/h 77 1616 62 154 1714 110 27 27 135 55 14 55Arrive On Green 0.04 0.46 0.46 0.09 0.51 0.51 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.07Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3485 134 1781 3384 218 234 234 1172 751 188 751Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61 662 688 120 325 335 140 0 0 90 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1842 1781 1777 1825 1640 0 0 1690 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 19.5 19.5 4.0 6.8 6.8 5.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 19.5 19.5 4.0 6.8 6.8 5.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.12 0.14 0.71 0.44 0.44Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 77 824 854 154 900 924 188 0 0 124 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.78 0.36 0.36 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 233 989 1025 204 960 986 456 0 0 443 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh29.0 14.0 14.0 27.4 9.1 9.1 26.2 0.0 0.0 27.7 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.1 4.1 4.0 13.0 0.2 0.2 5.7 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.1 6.8 7.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.1 18.1 18.1 40.4 9.4 9.4 31.8 0.0 0.0 35.5 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS D B B D A A C A A D A AApproach Vol, veh/h 1411 780 140 90Approach Delay, s/veh 19.3 14.1 31.8 35.5Approach LOS B B C DTimer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 9.3 32.3 8.5 6.7 34.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 7.0 34.0 16.0 8.0 33.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.0 6.0 21.5 5.2 4.1 8.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.0 6.8 0.3 0.0 3.9Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.9HCM 6th LOS B Page 1016 of 1221 +&0WK5RXQGDERXW 6DQWD)H5RDG 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/07/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 10.3Intersection LOS BApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes2222Conflicting Circle Lanes2222Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 1370 1450 180 0Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 1398 1479 183 0Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 235 20 1357 1499Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 1264 1520 276 0Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h0000Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 11.6 8.6 14.1 0.0Approach LOS B A B -Lane Left Right Left Right Left Right Left RightDesignated Moves LT TR LT TR LT R L LTRAssumed Moves LT TR LT TR LT R L LTRRT ChannelizedLane Util 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530 0.109 0.891 0.500 0.500Follow-Up Headway, s 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535Critical Headway, s 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328Entry Flow, veh/h 657 741 695 784 20 163 0 0Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1087 1163 1325 1396 387 448 340 397Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 1.000 0.982 1.000 1.000Flow Entry, veh/h 644 726 681 768 20 160 0 0Cap Entry, veh/h 1066 1140 1299 1368 387 440 340 397V/C Ratio 0.604 0.637 0.524 0.562 0.052 0.364 0.000 0.000Control Delay, s/veh 11.4 11.7 8.4 8.8 10.1 14.6 10.6 9.1LOS BBAABBBA95th %tile Queue, veh 4 5 3 4 0 2 0 0HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 980 380 100 1400 50 20Future Volume (veh/h) 980 380 100 1400 50 20Initial Q (Qb), veh000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 980 380 100 1400 50 20Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222Cap, veh/h 1562 598 129 1448 78 69Arrive On Green 0.63 0.63 0.07 0.77 0.04 0.04Sat Flow, veh/h 2587 955 1781 1870 1781 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 695 665 100 1400 50 20Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1672 1781 1870 1781 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 15.8 16.3 3.6 44.3 1.8 0.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.8 16.3 3.6 44.3 1.8 0.8Prop In Lane 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1113 1047 129 1448 78 69V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.64 0.78 0.97 0.64 0.29Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1292 1215 297 1448 378 336HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.6 7.7 30.1 6.7 31.1 30.6Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 2.4 3.8 16.7 3.2 0.8Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.7 4.6 1.6 11.2 0.8 0.3Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.7 10.0 33.9 23.4 34.3 31.4LnGrp LOS ABCCCCApproach Vol, veh/h 1360 1500 70Approach Delay, s/veh 9.9 24.1 33.5Approach LOS A C CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 48.4 58.1 7.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 48.0 30.0 14.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.6 18.3 46.3 3.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 23.1 0.0 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.7HCM 6th LOS B Page 1017 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ %URDG6WUHHW 65 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/07/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 320 210 400 300 420 179 340 950 130 100 800 800Future Volume (veh/h) 320 210 400 300 420 179 340 950 130 100 800 800Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 320 210 324 300 420 58 340 950 113 100 800 741Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 405 884 388 327 1119 495 387 1167 804 140 913 583Arrive On Green 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.26 0.26Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1562 1781 3554 1573 3456 3554 1563 3456 3554 1545Grp Volume(v), veh/h 320 210 324 300 420 58 340 950 113 100 800 741Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1562 1781 1777 1573 1728 1777 1563 1728 1777 1545Q Serve(g_s), s 10.9 5.7 23.7 19.9 11.1 3.2 11.7 29.6 4.6 3.4 26.0 31.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.9 5.7 23.7 19.9 11.1 3.2 11.7 29.6 4.6 3.4 26.0 31.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 405 884 388 327 1119 495 387 1167 804 140 913 583V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.24 0.83 0.92 0.38 0.12 0.88 0.81 0.14 0.71 0.88 1.27Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 874 1119 492 347 1119 495 387 1167 804 140 913 583HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.8 36.2 43.0 48.4 32.1 29.4 52.8 37.1 15.5 57.2 43.0 37.9Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.5 0.1 9.6 27.7 0.2 0.1 20.1 6.3 0.4 15.6 11.5 135.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.8 2.5 10.0 11.2 4.7 1.2 6.0 13.3 1.7 1.8 12.5 38.3Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 55.3 36.3 52.6 76.0 32.3 29.5 72.8 43.4 15.9 72.7 54.5 173.1LnGrp LOS E D D E C C E D B E D FApproach Vol, veh/h 854 778 1403 1641Approach Delay, s/veh 49.6 49.0 48.3 109.2Approach LOS D D D FTimer - Assigned Phs12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.4 46.1 27.6 36.5 19.0 37.5 19.6 44.5Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 * 6.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.9 39.6 23.5 38.0 13.5 31.0 30.5 * 32Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 31.6 21.9 25.7 13.7 33.0 12.9 13.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.0 0.2 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 70.0HCM 6th LOS ENotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.HCM 6th TWSC10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 10IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.2Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 42 40 90 1520 1000 226Future Vol, veh/h 42 40 90 1520 1000 226Conflicting Peds, #/hr 511005Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 50 200 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 42 40 90 1520 1000 226 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 2063 619 1231 0 - 0 Stage 1 1118 - - - - - Stage 2 945 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 47 432 562 - - - Stage 1 274 - - - - - Stage 2 338 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 39 430 559 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 141 - - - - - Stage 1 229 - - - - - Stage 2 336 - - - - - Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 27.9 0.7 0HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBRCapacity (veh/h) 559 - 141 430 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.161 - 0.298 0.093 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 12.7 - 41 14.2 - -HCM Lane LOS B - E B - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 1.2 0.3 - -Notes~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoonPage 1018 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 11Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 60 10 40 20 0 130 59 1440 20 50 800 120Future Volume (veh/h) 60 10 40 20 0 130 59 1440 20 50 800 120Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 60 10 40 20 0 130 59 1440 20 50 800 107Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 97 16 99 186 0 164 77 2127 30 65 1841 246Arrive On Green 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.59 0.59 0.04 0.59 0.59Sat Flow, veh/h 1537 256 1578 1781 0 1576 1781 3587 50 1781 3141 420Grp Volume(v), veh/h 70 0 40 20 0 130 59 713 747 50 453 454Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1793 0 1578 1781 0 1576 1781 1777 1860 1781 1777 1784Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 0.0 2.6 1.1 0.0 8.5 3.5 28.8 28.9 2.9 15.0 15.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 0.0 2.6 1.1 0.0 8.5 3.5 28.8 28.9 2.9 15.0 15.0Prop In Lane 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.24Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 113 0 99 186 0 164 77 1054 1103 65 1042 1046V/C Ratio(X) 0.62 0.00 0.40 0.11 0.00 0.79 0.77 0.68 0.68 0.77 0.43 0.43Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 594 0 522 590 0 522 219 1054 1103 219 1042 1046HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.3 0.0 47.6 42.9 0.0 46.2 50.1 14.6 14.6 50.5 12.1 12.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.4 0.0 2.6 0.3 0.0 8.2 14.8 3.5 3.4 17.4 1.3 1.3Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.0 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.0 3.7 1.8 11.0 11.5 1.6 5.6 5.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 53.7 0.0 50.2 43.2 0.0 54.4 64.9 18.1 18.0 67.9 13.5 13.5LnGrp LOS DADDADEBBEBBApproach Vol, veh/h 110 150 1519 957Approach Delay, s/veh 52.5 52.9 19.9 16.3Approach LOS D D B BTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 69.2 11.7 9.6 68.5 16.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 62.0 35.0 13.0 62.0 35.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 30.9 6.0 5.5 17.0 10.5Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 12.2 0.6 0.1 6.4 0.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.8HCM 6th LOS CHCM 6th TWSC12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 12IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.1Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 8 0 1519 860 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 8 0 1519 860 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - 0 - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 0 8 0 1519 860 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All - 860 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - -Critical Hdwy - 6.22 - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 - - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 356 0 - - 0 Stage 1 0 - 0 - - 0 Stage 2 0 - 0 - - 0Platoon blocked, % - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 356 - - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 15.3 0 0HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTEBLn1 SBTCapacity (veh/h) - 356 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.022 -HCM Control Delay (s) - 15.3 -HCM Lane LOS - C -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - Page 1019 of 1221 +&0WK5RXQGDERXW (GQD5RDG 65 %XFNOH\5RDG05/07/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 10.1Intersection LOS BApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes2122Conflicting Circle Lanes2222Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 259 5 1711 847Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 264 5 1746 864Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 701 1818 83 236Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 399 11 882 1587Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h0000Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 7.0 12.2 12.1 7.2Approach LOS ABBALane Left Right Left Left Right Left RightDesignated Moves LT R LTR LT TR LT TRAssumed Moves LT R LTR LT TR LT TRRT ChannelizedLane Util 0.303 0.697 1.000 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530Follow-Up Headway, s 2.667 2.535 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535Critical Headway, s 4.645 4.328 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328Entry Flow, veh/h 80 184 5 821 925 406 458Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 708 783 303 1251 1323 1086 1162Entry HV Adj Factor 0.986 0.978 1.000 0.980 0.981 0.981 0.981Flow Entry, veh/h 79 180 5 804 907 398 449Cap Entry, veh/h 699 766 303 1225 1298 1066 1139V/C Ratio 0.113 0.235 0.017 0.656 0.699 0.374 0.394Control Delay, s/veh 6.4 7.3 12.2 11.6 12.4 7.2 7.2LOS AA B BB AA95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 5 6 2 2HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary14: S. Higuera Street & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 14Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 97 158 499 235 97 358Future Volume (veh/h) 97 158 499 235 97 358Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 97 158 499 225 97 358Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, %222222Cap, veh/h 287 256 758 642 127 1117Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.41 0.41 0.07 0.60Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1870 1585 1781 1870Grp Volume(v), veh/h 97 158 499 225 97 358Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1585 1870 1585 1781 1870Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 3.1 7.2 3.3 1.8 3.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 3.1 7.2 3.3 1.8 3.2Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 287 256 758 642 127 1117V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.62 0.66 0.35 0.76 0.32Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 968 861 2202 1867 592 3050HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh12.3 12.9 8.0 6.8 15.1 3.3Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 2.4 1.0 0.3 9.1 0.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.6 1.0 1.5 0.6 0.8 0.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.0 15.4 9.0 7.2 24.2 3.5LnGrp LOS B B A A C AApproach Vol, veh/h 255 724 455Approach Delay, s/veh 14.5 8.4 7.9Approach LOS B A ATimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.4 17.4 23.8 9.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s11.0 39.0 54.0 18.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.8 9.2 5.2 5.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.2 2.2 0.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.3HCM 6th LOS A Page 1020 of 1221 HCM 6th TWSC1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 7.1Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 90 150 1670 100 90 1500Future Vol, veh/h 90 150 1670 100 90 1500Conflicting Peds, #/hr 440440Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 100 - - 200 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 90 150 1670 100 90 1500 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 2658 893 0 0 1774 0 Stage 1 1724 ----- Stage 2 934 -----Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 18 285 - - 347 - Stage 1 129 ----- Stage 2 343 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 13 283 - - 346 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 83 ----- Stage 1 128 ----- Stage 2 253 ----- Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 99.8 0 1.1HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 83 283 346 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 1.084 0.53 0.26 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 214.1 31.2 19 -HCM Lane LOS - - F D C -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 6.3 2.9 1 -Notes~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoonHCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 100 20 50 190 14 258 94 1600 199 140 1400 111Future Volume (veh/h) 100 20 50 190 14 258 94 1600 199 140 1400 111Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.96Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 100 20 43 190 14 181 94 1600 150 140 1400 84Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 151 30 159 250 18 220 112 1563 655 149 1637 704Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.08 0.46 0.46Sat Flow, veh/h 1496 299 1576 1664 123 1465 1781 3554 1491 1781 3554 1528Grp Volume(v), veh/h 120 0 43 204 0 181 94 1600 150 140 1400 84Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1796 0 1576 1787 0 1465 1781 1777 1491 1781 1777 1528Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 0.0 2.4 10.5 0.0 11.4 5.0 42.0 6.0 7.5 33.5 3.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 0.0 2.4 10.5 0.0 11.4 5.0 42.0 6.0 7.5 33.5 3.0Prop In Lane 0.83 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 181 0 159 269 0 220 112 1563 655 149 1637 704V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.00 0.27 0.76 0.00 0.82 0.84 1.02 0.23 0.94 0.86 0.12Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 658 0 577 309 0 253 112 1563 655 149 1637 704HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.4 0.0 39.7 38.9 0.0 39.3 44.3 26.8 16.7 43.5 22.9 14.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.1 0.0 0.9 9.1 0.0 17.1 40.5 29.0 0.2 55.4 4.7 0.1Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 0.0 0.9 5.1 0.0 5.0 3.4 22.1 1.9 5.4 13.5 1.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.5 0.0 40.6 48.0 0.0 56.4 84.8 55.8 16.8 98.9 27.6 14.8LnGrp LOS D A D D A E F F B F C BApproach Vol, veh/h 163 385 1844 1624Approach Delay, s/veh 44.2 52.0 54.1 33.1Approach LOS DDDCTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 48.5 14.6 11.0 50.5 19.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 42.0 35.0 6.0 44.0 16.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.5 44.0 8.2 7.0 35.5 13.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 5.5 0.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.0HCM 6th LOS D Page 1021 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary3: LOVR & 101 SB02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 0 962 669 65 1386 0 0 0 0 306 0 413Future Volume (veh/h) 0 962 669 65 1386 0 0 0 0 306 0 413Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 962 589 65 1386 0 306 0 326Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222Cap, veh/h 0 2216 965 84 2522 0 349 0 301Arrive On Green 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.05 0.71 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1548 1781 3647 0 1781 0 1539Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 962 589 65 1386 0 306 0 326Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1548 1781 1777 0 1781 0 1539Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 6.5 11.8 3.2 16.7 0.0 15.0 0.0 17.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 6.5 11.8 3.2 16.7 0.0 15.0 0.0 17.6Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2216 965 84 2522 0 349 0 301V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.43 0.61 0.77 0.55 0.00 0.88 0.00 1.08Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2216 965 188 2522 0 485 0 419HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 3.4 3.9 42.4 6.2 0.0 35.1 0.0 36.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.5 2.4 13.8 0.9 0.0 12.6 0.0 65.6Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 1.7 2.7 1.7 5.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 11.9Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 4.0 6.3 56.2 7.1 0.0 47.8 0.0 101.7LnGrp LOS AAAEAA DAFApproach Vol, veh/h 1551 1451 632Approach Delay, s/veh 4.9 9.3 75.6Approach LOS A A ETimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.8 61.1 68.9 21.1Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s9.5 44.0 57.0 24.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.2 13.8 18.7 17.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 12.6 14.5 0.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.9HCM 6th LOS BHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: 101 NB & LOVR02/03/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 861 386 188 968 511 117Future Volume (vph) 861 386 188 968 511 117Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 6.0 3.5 3.5 6.0 3.5Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.97Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1563 1770 3539 3375Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1563 1770 3539 3375Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj. Flow (vph) 861 386 188 968 511 117RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 142 0 0 16 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 861 244 188 968 612 0Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5Turn Type NA pm+ov Prot NA ProtProtected Phases 28168Permitted Phases 2Actuated Green, G (s) 24.6 44.7 12.9 41.0 20.1Effective Green, g (s) 24.6 44.7 12.9 41.0 20.1Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.63 0.18 0.58 0.28Clearance Time (s) 6.0 3.5 3.5 6.0 3.5Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1233 989 323 2055 960v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 0.07 c0.11 0.27 c0.18v/s Ratio Perm 0.09v/c Ratio 0.70 0.25 0.58 0.47 0.64Uniform Delay, d1 19.8 5.6 26.4 8.5 22.1Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 0.1 2.7 0.2 1.4Delay (s) 21.6 5.8 29.0 8.7 23.5Level of Service C A C A CApproach Delay (s) 16.7 12.0 23.5Approach LOS B B CIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 16.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.6 Sum of lost time (s) 17.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.1% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupPage 1022 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ 6+LJXHUD6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/07/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 20 10 22 600 20 600 32 800 443 450 850 40Future Volume (veh/h) 20 10 22 600 20 600 32 800 443 450 850 40Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 10 5 614 0 0 32 800 255 450 850 39Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 222 111 249 706 0 40 931 683 510 1330 61Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.39 0.39Sat Flow, veh/h 1207 603 1355 3563 0 1585 1781 3554 1408 3456 3438 158Grp Volume(v), veh/h 30 0 5 614 0 0 32 800 255 450 439 450Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1355 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1408 1728 1777 1819Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.0 0.3 18.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 23.7 13.2 14.1 22.3 22.3Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 0.3 18.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 23.7 13.2 14.1 22.3 22.3Prop In Lane 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 333 0 249 706 0 40 931 683 510 687 704V/C Ratio(X) 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.87 0.00 0.79 0.86 0.37 0.88 0.64 0.64Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 442 0 331 838 0 81 1029 722 531 707 724HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.4 0.0 36.9 42.9 0.0 0.0 53.8 38.9 19.7 46.2 27.6 27.6Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0 28.4 6.9 0.3 15.6 1.9 1.8Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.1 8.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 10.7 6.0 7.0 9.3 9.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.5 0.0 37.0 51.5 0.0 0.0 82.2 45.8 20.0 61.7 29.5 29.4LnGrp LOS D A D D A F D C E C CApproach Vol, veh/h 35 614 A 1087 1339Approach Delay, s/veh 37.4 51.5 40.8 40.3Approach LOS DDDDTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.3 35.0 26.4 7.5 48.8 27.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 32.0 27.0 5.0 44.0 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.1 25.7 3.5 4.0 24.3 20.5Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.3 0.1 0.0 5.3 1.4Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.7HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 6Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 90 790 30 160 1200 70 20 10 180 40 20 70Future Volume (veh/h) 90 790 30 160 1200 70 20 10 180 40 20 70Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 90 790 30 160 1200 70 20 10 180 40 20 70Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222Cap, veh/h 115 1251 48 203 1391 81 25 13 226 54 27 94Arrive On Green 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.41 0.41 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.10Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3487 132 1781 3407 199 154 77 1383 517 258 904Grp Volume(v), veh/h 90 402 418 160 625 645 210 0 0 130 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1843 1781 1777 1829 1614 0 0 1679 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 3.1 11.6 11.6 5.4 19.8 19.8 7.7 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.1 11.6 11.6 5.4 19.8 19.8 7.7 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.11 0.10 0.86 0.31 0.54Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 115 637 661 203 725 746 264 0 0 174 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.63 0.63 0.79 0.86 0.86 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 145 637 661 289 779 802 419 0 0 436 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh28.4 16.4 16.4 26.6 16.6 16.7 24.8 0.0 0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.1 2.0 1.9 9.0 9.3 9.2 5.4 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.8 4.2 4.3 2.5 8.2 8.4 3.2 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.5 18.4 18.3 35.6 25.9 25.9 30.2 0.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS DBBDCCCAACAAApproach Vol, veh/h 910 1430 210 130Approach Delay, s/veh 21.2 27.0 30.2 33.0Approach LOSCCCCTimer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 11.0 26.1 10.4 8.0 29.1Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 10.0 22.0 16.0 5.0 27.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.7 7.4 13.6 6.6 5.1 21.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 0.1 3.1 0.4 0.0 3.3Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.6HCM 6th LOS C Page 1023 of 1221 +&0WK5RXQGDERXW 6DQWD)H5RDG 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 10.8Intersection LOS BApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes2222Conflicting Circle Lanes2222Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 1230 1520 340 0Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 1255 1550 347 0Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 224 41 1224 1591Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 1367 1530 255 0Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h1101Ped Cap Adj 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 9.9 9.4 19.8 0.0Approach LOS A A C -Lane Left Right Left Right Left Right Left RightDesignated Moves LT TR LT TR LT R L LTRAssumed Moves LT TR LT TR LT R L LTRRT ChannelizedLane Util 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530 0.118 0.882 0.500 0.500Follow-Up Headway, s 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535Critical Headway, s 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328Entry Flow, veh/h 590 665 728 822 41 306 0 0Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1098 1174 1300 1371 438 502 312 367Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.981 0.980 0.976 0.980 1.000 1.000Flow Entry, veh/h 578 652 714 806 40 300 0 0Cap Entry, veh/h 1075 1150 1274 1343 427 492 312 367V/C Ratio 0.538 0.567 0.561 0.600 0.094 0.610 0.000 0.000Control Delay, s/veh 9.9 10.0 9.2 9.6 9.8 21.2 11.5 9.8LOS AAAAACBA95th %tile Queue, veh 3 4 4 4 0 4 0 0HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 1300 140 70 1320 250 100Future Volume (veh/h) 1300 140 70 1320 250 100Initial Q (Qb), veh000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1300 140 70 1320 250 100Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222Cap, veh/h 1833 196 90 1277 291 259Arrive On Green 0.57 0.57 0.05 0.68 0.16 0.16Sat Flow, veh/h 3322 346 1781 1870 1781 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 713 727 70 1320 250 100Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1798 1781 1870 1781 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 22.5 22.9 3.0 53.2 10.6 4.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.5 22.9 3.0 53.2 10.6 4.4Prop In Lane 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1009 1021 90 1277 291 259V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.71 0.78 1.03 0.86 0.39Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1095 1108 252 1277 320 285HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.1 12.2 36.5 12.4 31.7 29.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.6 3.6 5.3 34.4 17.6 0.3Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.2 8.4 1.4 26.5 5.9 1.7Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.7 15.8 41.8 46.8 49.3 29.4LnGrp LOS B B D F D CApproach Vol, veh/h 1440 1390 350Approach Delay, s/veh 15.8 46.5 43.6Approach LOS B D DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 51.2 60.2 17.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 48.0 30.0 14.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 24.9 55.2 12.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 19.3 0.0 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.3HCM 6th LOS C Page 1024 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ %URDG6WUHHW 65 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 670 580 319 210 290 150 520 1000 340 260 860 580Future Volume (veh/h) 670 580 319 210 290 150 520 1000 340 260 860 580Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 670 580 270 210 290 129 520 1000 309 260 860 469Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 747 779 335 248 507 217 594 1265 767 338 1001 782Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.28 0.28Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1529 1781 3554 1522 3456 3554 1536 3456 3554 1560Grp Volume(v), veh/h 670 580 270 210 290 129 520 1000 309 260 860 469Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1529 1781 1777 1522 1728 1777 1536 1728 1777 1560Q Serve(g_s), s 16.1 13.0 14.3 9.8 6.5 6.8 12.5 21.5 10.8 6.3 19.5 18.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.1 13.0 14.3 9.8 6.5 6.8 12.5 21.5 10.8 6.3 19.5 18.4Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 747 779 335 248 507 217 594 1265 767 338 1001 782V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.74 0.81 0.85 0.57 0.59 0.88 0.79 0.40 0.77 0.86 0.60Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 771 876 377 293 667 286 608 1265 767 365 1001 782HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.5 31.0 31.5 35.8 34.1 34.2 34.4 24.6 13.6 37.5 29.0 15.4Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.0 3.1 11.0 17.7 1.0 2.6 13.3 5.1 1.6 9.0 9.5 3.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.7 5.6 6.0 5.3 2.7 2.5 6.0 9.0 3.7 2.9 8.9 6.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.5 34.1 42.5 53.4 35.1 36.8 47.7 29.7 15.2 46.5 38.5 18.8LnGrp LOS DCDDDDDCBDDBApproach Vol, veh/h 1520 629 1829 1589Approach Delay, s/veh 40.6 41.6 32.4 34.0Approach LOS DDCCTimer - Assigned Phs12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.3 34.3 15.9 22.7 18.6 28.0 22.4 16.1Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.0 30.0 14.0 21.0 15.0 24.0 19.0 16.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.3 23.5 11.8 16.3 14.5 21.5 18.1 8.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.0 0.2 2.1 0.1 1.7 0.4 1.4Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 36.1HCM 6th LOS DHCM 6th TWSC10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 10IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 7.6Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 120 54 90 1400 1300 106Future Vol, veh/h 120 54 90 1400 1300 106Conflicting Peds, #/hr 999009Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 50 200 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 120 54 90 1400 1300 106 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 2251 721 1415 0 - 0 Stage 1 1362 - - - - - Stage 2 889 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 35 370 478 - - - Stage 1 203 - - - - - Stage 2 362 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 28 364 474 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 113 - - - - - Stage 1 163 - - - - - Stage 2 359 - - - - - Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 125.8 0.9 0HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBRCapacity (veh/h) 474 - 113 364 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.19 - 1.062 0.148 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 14.4 - 175 16.6 - -HCM Lane LOS B - F C - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - 7.2 0.5 - -Notes~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoonPage 1025 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ %URDG6WUHHW 65 $HUR'ULYH05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 180 10 46 30 7 350 41 1000 20 100 1250 75Future Volume (veh/h) 180 10 46 30 7 350 41 1000 20 100 1250 75Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 180 10 31 30 7 250 41 1000 18 100 1250 63Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 211 12 197 206 48 223 52 1752 32 95 1769 89Arrive On Green 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.03 0.49 0.49 0.05 0.51 0.51Sat Flow, veh/h 1692 94 1577 1457 340 1575 1781 3569 64 1781 3438 173Grp Volume(v), veh/h 190 0 31 37 0 250 41 498 520 100 645 668Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1786 0 1577 1797 0 1575 1781 1777 1857 1781 1777 1834Q Serve(g_s), s 11.8 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 16.0 2.6 22.4 22.4 6.0 31.3 31.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.8 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 16.0 2.6 22.4 22.4 6.0 31.3 31.4Prop In Lane 0.95 1.00 0.81 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.09Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 223 0 197 254 0 223 52 872 911 95 914 944V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 0.00 0.16 0.15 0.00 1.12 0.78 0.57 0.57 1.06 0.71 0.71Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 253 0 223 254 0 223 95 872 911 95 914 944HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.5 0.0 44.2 42.6 0.0 48.5 54.5 20.4 20.4 53.5 20.9 21.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 21.7 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 97.0 21.8 2.7 2.6 109.2 4.6 4.5Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.6 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.0 12.3 1.4 9.3 9.6 5.5 13.0 13.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.2 0.0 44.6 42.8 0.0 145.5 76.4 23.1 23.0 162.8 25.5 25.4LnGrp LOS E A D D A F E C C F C CApproach Vol, veh/h 221 287 1059 1413Approach Delay, s/veh 66.6 132.3 25.1 35.2Approach LOS E F C DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 62.0 19.1 8.3 64.7 21.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.0 55.5 16.0 6.0 55.5 16.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.0 24.4 13.8 4.6 33.4 18.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.1 0.3 0.0 9.1 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.3HCM 6th LOS DHCM 6th TWSC12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 12IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.3Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 1 30 0 948 1173 0Future Vol, veh/h 1 30 0 948 1173 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 030003Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - 0 - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 1 30 0 948 1173 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 2121 1176 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 1173 - - - - - Stage 2 948 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 55 233 0 - - 0 Stage 1 294 - 0 - - 0 Stage 2 377 - 0 - - 0Platoon blocked, % - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 55 232 - - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 55 - - - - - Stage 1 294 - - - - - Stage 2 377 - - - - - Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 22.8 0 0HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTEBLn1 SBTCapacity (veh/h) - 232 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.129 -HCM Control Delay (s) - 22.8 -HCM Lane LOS - C -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.4 - Page 1026 of 1221 +&0WK5RXQGDERXW (GQD5RDG 65 %XFNOH\5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 8.4Intersection LOS AApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes2122Conflicting Circle Lanes2222Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 435 12 819 1050Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 444 12 835 1071Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 1043 920 92 75Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 103 7 1395 857Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h0000Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 16.6 5.7 5.9 6.9Approach LOS C A A ALane Left Right Left Left Right Left RightDesignated Moves LT R LTR LT TR LT TRAssumed Moves LT R LTR LT TR LT TRRT ChannelizedLane Util 0.203 0.797 1.000 0.469 0.531 0.470 0.530Follow-Up Headway, s 2.667 2.535 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535Critical Headway, s 4.645 4.328 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328Entry Flow, veh/h 90 354 12 392 443 503 568Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 517 585 650 1240 1313 1260 1332Entry HV Adj Factor 0.977 0.980 1.000 0.982 0.980 0.981 0.979Flow Entry, veh/h 88 347 12 385 434 493 556Cap Entry, veh/h 505 574 650 1218 1287 1236 1305V/C Ratio 0.174 0.605 0.018 0.316 0.337 0.399 0.426Control Delay, s/veh 9.5 18.4 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.8 6.9LOS AC A AA AA95th %tile Queue, veh 1 4 0 1 2 2 2HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary14: S. Higuera Street & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 14Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 230 424 295 241 243 663Future Volume (veh/h) 230 424 295 241 243 663Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 230 424 295 241 243 663Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, %222222Cap, veh/h 601 534 442 375 319 931Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.50Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1870 1585 1781 1870Grp Volume(v), veh/h 230 424 295 241 243 663Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1585 1870 1585 1781 1870Q Serve(g_s), s 4.8 11.7 6.9 6.6 6.3 13.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.8 11.7 6.9 6.6 6.3 13.4Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 601 534 442 375 319 931V/C Ratio(X) 0.38 0.79 0.67 0.64 0.76 0.71Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 991 882 1080 915 845 2121HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh12.2 14.5 16.8 16.7 18.9 9.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 2.7 1.7 1.8 3.8 1.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.7 3.9 2.6 2.1 2.4 3.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.6 17.3 18.5 18.5 22.7 10.5LnGrp LOS B B B B C BApproach Vol, veh/h 654 536 906Approach Delay, s/veh 15.6 18.5 13.8Approach LOS B B BTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s12.7 15.5 28.2 20.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s23.0 28.0 55.0 27.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s8.3 8.9 15.4 13.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 2.5 4.8 2.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.6HCM 6th LOS B Page 1027 of 1221 HCM 6th TWSC1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 16.2Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 171 66 1021 80 140 1680Future Vol, veh/h 171 66 1021 80 140 1680Conflicting Peds, #/hr 990990Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 100 - - 200 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 171 66 1021 80 140 1680 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 2199 569 0 0 1110 0 Stage 1 1070 ----- Stage 2 1129 -----Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 38 465 - - 625 - Stage 1 291 ----- Stage 2 271 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 29 457 - - 620 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 123 ----- Stage 1 288 ----- Stage 2 208 ----- Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 208.4 0 1HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 123 457 620 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 1.39 0.144 0.226 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 283.4 14.2 12.5 -HCM Lane LOS - - F B B -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 11.6 0.5 0.9 -Notes~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoonHCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 10 10 10 90 10 78 54 1171 202 90 1630 104Future Volume (veh/h) 10 10 10 90 10 78 54 1171 202 90 1630 104Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 10 10 10 90 10 52 54 1171 165 90 1630 95Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 69 69 114 272 30 250 69 1817 769 115 1909 818Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.04 0.51 0.51 0.06 0.54 0.54Sat Flow, veh/h 912 912 1509 1611 179 1479 1781 3554 1505 1781 3554 1523Grp Volume(v), veh/h 20 0 10 100 0 52 54 1171 165 90 1630 95Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1825 0 1509 1790 0 1479 1781 1777 1505 1781 1777 1523Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 0.0 0.5 4.4 0.0 2.7 2.7 21.4 5.4 4.4 34.9 2.7Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 0.0 0.5 4.4 0.0 2.7 2.7 21.4 5.4 4.4 34.9 2.7Prop In Lane 0.50 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 138 0 114 302 0 250 69 1817 769 115 1909 818V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.00 0.09 0.33 0.00 0.21 0.78 0.64 0.21 0.78 0.85 0.12Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 718 0 594 644 0 532 80 1817 769 140 1909 818HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.5 0.0 38.3 32.5 0.0 31.9 42.4 15.9 11.9 41.0 17.6 10.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.4 34.2 1.8 0.6 20.5 5.1 0.3Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.9 0.0 1.0 1.8 7.9 1.7 2.5 13.2 0.9Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.9 0.0 38.6 33.2 0.0 32.3 76.6 17.6 12.6 61.5 22.7 10.5LnGrp LOS DADCACEBBECBApproach Vol, veh/h 30 152 1390 1815Approach Delay, s/veh 38.8 32.9 19.3 24.0Approach LOS D C B CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.7 49.5 10.7 7.4 51.8 19.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 45.5 35.0 4.0 28.0 32.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.4 23.4 2.9 4.7 36.9 6.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.6HCM 6th LOS C Page 1028 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary3: LOVR & 101 SB02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 0 819 356 39 924 0 0 0 0 483 0 245Future Volume (veh/h) 0 819 356 39 924 0 0 0 0 483 0 245Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 819 310 39 924 0 483 0 147Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222Cap, veh/h 0 1940 845 49 2175 0 523 0 461Arrive On Green 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.61 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.29Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1548 1781 3647 0 1781 0 1570Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 819 310 39 924 0 483 0 147Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1548 1781 1777 0 1781 0 1570Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 12.3 0.0 23.7 0.0 6.6Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 12.3 0.0 23.7 0.0 6.6Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 1940 845 49 2175 0 523 0 461V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.42 0.37 0.80 0.42 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.32Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 1940 845 109 2175 0 544 0 480HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.5 9.1 0.0 30.8 0.0 24.8Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.6 1.2 24.7 0.6 0.0 21.3 0.0 0.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 0.2 0.3 1.2 4.3 0.0 12.9 0.0 2.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.6 1.2 68.2 9.8 0.0 52.1 0.0 25.2LnGrp LOS AAAEAA DACApproach Vol, veh/h 1129 963 630Approach Delay, s/veh 0.8 12.1 45.8Approach LOS A B DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.0 54.1 60.1 29.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s5.5 45.0 54.0 27.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.0 2.0 14.3 25.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 9.1 8.1 0.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.2HCM 6th LOS BHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: 101 NB & LOVR02/03/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 1123 179 98 464 500 164Future Volume (vph) 1123 179 98 464 500 164Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 6.0 4.0 3.5 6.0 4.0Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.96Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1560 1770 3539 3354Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1560 1770 3539 3354Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj. Flow (vph) 1123 179 98 464 500 164RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 43 0 0 31 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 1123 136 98 464 633 0Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 3Turn Type NA pm+ov Prot NA ProtProtected Phases 28168Permitted Phases 2Actuated Green, G (s) 56.7 83.4 13.1 73.3 26.7Effective Green, g (s) 56.7 83.4 13.1 73.3 26.7Actuated g/C Ratio 0.52 0.76 0.12 0.67 0.24Clearance Time (s) 6.0 4.0 3.5 6.0 4.0Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1824 1182 210 2358 814v/s Ratio Prot c0.32 0.03 c0.06 0.13 c0.19v/s Ratio Perm 0.06v/c Ratio 0.62 0.11 0.47 0.20 0.78Uniform Delay, d1 18.9 3.5 45.2 7.0 38.9Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.2 4.7Delay (s) 20.5 3.6 46.8 7.2 43.6Level of Service C A D A DApproach Delay (s) 18.2 14.1 43.6Approach LOS B B DIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 23.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service CHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67Actuated Cycle Length (s) 110.0 Sum of lost time (s) 17.5Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupPage 1029 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ 6+LJXHUD6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP05/07/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 24 20 30 293 10 292 20 500 887 503 450 10Future Volume (veh/h) 24 20 30 293 10 292 20 500 887 503 450 10Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 24 20 28 300 0 0 20 500 709 503 450 10Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 107 90 160 484 0 40 1065 669 584 1584 35Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.30 0.30 0.17 0.45 0.45Sat Flow, veh/h 993 828 1477 3563 0 1585 1781 3554 1513 3456 3550 79Grp Volume(v), veh/h 44 0 28 300 0 0 20 500 709 503 225 235Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1821 0 1477 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1513 1728 1777 1852Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 0.0 1.4 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 9.2 24.0 11.3 6.4 6.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 0.0 1.4 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 9.2 24.0 11.3 6.4 6.4Prop In Lane 0.55 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 197 0 160 484 0 40 1065 669 584 793 827V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.00 0.18 0.62 0.00 0.50 0.47 1.06 0.86 0.28 0.28Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 614 0 498 979 0 111 1065 669 604 793 827HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.6 0.0 32.5 32.6 0.0 0.0 38.7 22.9 19.5 32.4 14.1 14.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.7 51.9 12.0 0.4 0.4Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.0 0.5 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.6 22.1 5.4 2.3 2.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.9 0.0 32.7 33.1 0.0 0.0 42.3 23.5 71.4 44.4 14.5 14.5LnGrp LOS C A C C A D C F D B BApproach Vol, veh/h 72 300 A 1229 963Approach Delay, s/veh 32.8 33.1 51.4 30.1Approach LOS CCDCTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.5 30.0 14.7 6.8 41.7 16.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 24.0 27.0 5.0 33.0 22.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.3 26.0 3.8 2.9 8.4 8.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 5.0 0.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.8HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 6Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 61 1310 50 120 627 40 20 20 100 40 10 40Future Volume (veh/h) 61 1310 50 120 627 40 20 20 100 40 10 40Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 61 1310 50 120 627 40 20 20 100 40 10 40Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222Cap, veh/h 77 1621 62 154 1720 110 27 27 135 55 14 55Arrive On Green 0.04 0.46 0.46 0.09 0.51 0.51 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.07Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3487 133 1781 3387 216 234 234 1172 751 188 751Grp Volume(v), veh/h 61 667 693 120 329 338 140 0 0 90 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1843 1781 1777 1826 1640 0 0 1690 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 19.7 19.8 4.1 6.9 6.9 5.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 19.7 19.8 4.1 6.9 6.9 5.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.12 0.14 0.71 0.44 0.44Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 77 826 857 154 902 927 188 0 0 124 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.36 0.37 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 232 984 1020 203 955 981 454 0 0 440 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh29.1 14.1 14.1 27.5 9.1 9.1 26.3 0.0 0.0 27.8 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.1 4.3 4.2 13.2 0.2 0.2 5.7 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.2 6.9 7.2 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.2 18.4 18.3 40.7 9.4 9.4 32.0 0.0 0.0 35.6 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS D B B D A A C A A D A AApproach Vol, veh/h 1421 787 140 90Approach Delay, s/veh 19.5 14.2 32.0 35.6Approach LOS B B C DTimer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.1 9.3 32.6 8.5 6.7 35.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 7.0 34.0 16.0 8.0 33.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.1 6.1 21.8 5.2 4.1 8.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.0 6.7 0.3 0.0 3.9Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.1HCM 6th LOS B Page 1030 of 1221 +&0WK5RXQGDERXW 6DQWD)H5RDG 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/07/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 10.4Intersection LOS BApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes2222Conflicting Circle Lanes2222Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 1380 1457 180 0Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 1408 1487 183 0Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 235 20 1367 1507Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 1272 1530 276 0Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h0000Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 11.7 8.6 14.3 0.0Approach LOS B A B -Lane Left Right Left Right Left Right Left RightDesignated Moves LT TR LT TR LT R L LTRAssumed Moves LT TR LT TR LT R L LTRRT ChannelizedLane Util 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530 0.109 0.891 0.500 0.500Follow-Up Headway, s 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535Critical Headway, s 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328Entry Flow, veh/h 662 746 699 788 20 163 0 0Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1087 1163 1325 1396 384 444 337 394Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.981 0.980 0.980 1.000 0.982 1.000 1.000Flow Entry, veh/h 649 732 685 772 20 160 0 0Cap Entry, veh/h 1066 1140 1299 1369 384 436 337 394V/C Ratio 0.609 0.641 0.527 0.564 0.052 0.367 0.000 0.000Control Delay, s/veh 11.5 11.8 8.5 8.8 10.2 14.8 10.7 9.1LOS BBAABBBA95th %tile Queue, veh 4 5 3 4 0 2 0 0HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 990 380 100 1407 50 20Future Volume (veh/h) 990 380 100 1407 50 20Initial Q (Qb), veh000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 990 380 100 1407 50 20Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222Cap, veh/h 1570 595 129 1450 78 69Arrive On Green 0.63 0.63 0.07 0.78 0.04 0.04Sat Flow, veh/h 2595 948 1781 1870 1781 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 700 670 100 1407 50 20Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1673 1781 1870 1781 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 16.0 16.5 3.7 45.2 1.8 0.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.0 16.5 3.7 45.2 1.8 0.8Prop In Lane 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1115 1050 129 1450 78 69V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.64 0.78 0.97 0.64 0.29Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1287 1212 296 1450 376 335HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.6 7.7 30.2 6.8 31.2 30.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 2.4 3.8 17.4 3.2 0.8Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.7 4.6 1.6 11.6 0.8 0.3Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.7 10.1 34.0 24.2 34.4 31.5LnGrp LOS ABCCCCApproach Vol, veh/h 1370 1507 70Approach Delay, s/veh 9.9 24.8 33.6Approach LOS A C CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.8 48.6 58.4 7.9Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 48.0 30.0 14.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.7 18.5 47.2 3.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 23.1 0.0 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.1HCM 6th LOS B Page 1031 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ %URDG6WUHHW 65 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/07/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 320 210 410 304 420 179 347 971 133 100 830 800Future Volume (veh/h) 320 210 410 304 420 179 347 971 133 100 830 800Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 320 210 334 304 420 58 347 971 116 100 830 741Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 403 891 392 330 1135 502 380 1171 809 135 920 585Arrive On Green 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.32 0.32 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.04 0.26 0.26Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1562 1781 3554 1573 3456 3554 1563 3456 3554 1545Grp Volume(v), veh/h 320 210 334 304 420 58 347 971 116 100 830 741Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1562 1781 1777 1573 1728 1777 1563 1728 1777 1545Q Serve(g_s), s 11.1 5.8 25.0 20.6 11.2 3.2 12.2 31.0 4.8 3.5 27.7 31.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.1 5.8 25.0 20.6 11.2 3.2 12.2 31.0 4.8 3.5 27.7 31.8Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 403 891 392 330 1135 502 380 1171 809 135 920 585V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.24 0.85 0.92 0.37 0.12 0.91 0.83 0.14 0.74 0.90 1.27Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 835 1070 471 344 1135 502 380 1171 809 135 920 585HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.8 36.6 43.9 49.2 32.3 29.5 54.1 38.0 15.6 58.4 44.0 38.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.6 0.1 12.2 29.0 0.2 0.1 26.0 6.8 0.4 19.4 13.8 133.5Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.9 2.5 10.8 11.6 4.8 1.2 6.5 14.0 1.7 1.9 13.5 38.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.4 36.8 56.1 78.1 32.5 29.7 80.1 44.8 16.0 77.8 57.8 172.0LnGrp LOS E D E E C C F D B E E FApproach Vol, veh/h 864 782 1434 1671Approach Delay, s/veh 51.5 50.0 51.0 109.6Approach LOS D D D FTimer - Assigned Phs12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.3 47.0 28.2 37.3 19.0 38.3 19.8 45.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 * 6.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.8 40.5 23.7 37.0 13.5 31.8 29.7 * 32Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.5 33.0 22.6 27.0 14.2 33.8 13.1 13.2Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.9 0.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 71.6HCM 6th LOS ENotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.HCM 6th TWSC10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 10IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 1.2Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 42 40 90 1551 1033 237Future Vol, veh/h 42 40 90 1551 1033 237Conflicting Peds, #/hr 511005Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 50 200 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 42 40 90 1551 1033 237 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 2118 641 1275 0 - 0 Stage 1 1157 - - - - - Stage 2 961 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 43 417 540 - - - Stage 1 261 - - - - - Stage 2 332 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 35 415 537 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 134 - - - - - Stage 1 216 - - - - - Stage 2 330 - - - - - Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 29.5 0.7 0HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBRCapacity (veh/h) 537 - 134 415 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.168 - 0.313 0.096 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 13 - 43.7 14.6 - -HCM Lane LOS B - E B - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 - 1.2 0.3 - -Notes~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoonPage 1032 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ %URDG6WUHHW 65 $HUR'ULYH05/07/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 91 10 51 20 0 130 75 1440 20 50 800 153Future Volume (veh/h) 91 10 51 20 0 130 75 1440 20 50 800 153Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 91 10 51 20 0 130 75 1440 20 50 800 140Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 124 14 121 171 0 151 95 2296 32 65 2214 1088Arrive On Green 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.64 0.64 0.04 0.62 0.62Sat Flow, veh/h 1613 177 1579 1781 0 1575 1781 3587 50 1781 3554 1551Grp Volume(v), veh/h 101 0 51 20 0 130 75 713 747 50 800 140Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1790 0 1579 1781 0 1575 1781 1777 1860 1781 1777 1551Q Serve(g_s), s 7.9 0.0 4.4 1.5 0.0 11.6 5.9 34.3 34.4 4.0 15.6 4.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.9 0.0 4.4 1.5 0.0 11.6 5.9 34.3 34.4 4.0 15.6 4.2Prop In Lane 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 137 0 121 171 0 151 95 1137 1190 65 2214 1088V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.42 0.12 0.00 0.86 0.79 0.63 0.63 0.77 0.36 0.13Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 365 0 322 188 0 166 163 1137 1190 125 2214 1088HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.2 0.0 62.6 58.8 0.0 63.4 66.5 15.4 15.4 67.9 13.0 7.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.4 0.0 2.3 0.3 0.0 32.3 13.5 2.6 2.5 17.6 0.5 0.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.9 0.0 1.9 0.7 0.0 6.0 3.0 13.5 14.1 2.1 6.0 1.8Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.6 0.0 64.9 59.1 0.0 95.7 80.1 18.0 17.9 85.5 13.5 7.3LnGrp LOS EAEEAFFBBFBAApproach Vol, veh/h 152 150 1535 990Approach Delay, s/veh 69.4 90.8 21.0 16.3Approach LOS E F C BTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.2 97.5 15.9 12.6 95.1 18.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 91.0 29.0 13.0 88.0 15.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 36.4 9.9 7.9 17.6 13.6Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 14.1 0.7 0.1 7.1 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.6HCM 6th LOS CHCM 6th TWSC12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 12IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.1Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 0 8 0 1535 871 0Future Vol, veh/h 0 8 0 1535 871 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - 0 - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 0 8 0 1535 871 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All - 871 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - -Critical Hdwy - 6.22 - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy - 3.318 - - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 350 0 - - 0 Stage 1 0 - 0 - - 0 Stage 2 0 - 0 - - 0Platoon blocked, % - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 350 - - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 - - - - - - Stage 2 - - - - - - Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 15.5 0 0HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTEBLn1 SBTCapacity (veh/h) - 350 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.023 -HCM Control Delay (s) - 15.5 -HCM Lane LOS - C -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - Page 1033 of 1221 +&0WK5RXQGDERXW (GQD5RDG 65 %XFNOH\5RDG05/07/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 10.3Intersection LOS BApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes2122Conflicting Circle Lanes2222Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 264 5 1722 858Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 270 5 1757 875Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 709 1835 89 236Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 402 11 890 1604Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h0000Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 7.1 12.4 12.4 7.3Approach LOS ABBALane Left Right Left Left Right Left RightDesignated Moves LT R LTR LT TR LT TRAssumed Moves LT R LTR LT TR LT TRRT ChannelizedLane Util 0.319 0.681 1.000 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530Follow-Up Headway, s 2.667 2.535 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535Critical Headway, s 4.645 4.328 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328Entry Flow, veh/h 86 184 5 826 931 411 464Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 703 777 298 1244 1317 1086 1162Entry HV Adj Factor 0.976 0.978 1.000 0.980 0.980 0.981 0.980Flow Entry, veh/h 84 180 5 809 913 403 455Cap Entry, veh/h 686 760 298 1219 1291 1066 1139V/C Ratio 0.122 0.237 0.017 0.664 0.707 0.378 0.399Control Delay, s/veh 6.6 7.4 12.4 11.9 12.7 7.3 7.2LOS AA B BB AA95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 5 6 2 2HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary14: S. Higuera Street & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 14Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 100 158 499 240 97 358Future Volume (veh/h) 100 158 499 240 97 358Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 100 158 499 230 97 358Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, %222222Cap, veh/h 288 257 758 642 127 1117Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.41 0.41 0.07 0.60Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1870 1585 1781 1870Grp Volume(v), veh/h 100 158 499 230 97 358Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1585 1870 1585 1781 1870Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 3.1 7.2 3.4 1.8 3.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 3.1 7.2 3.4 1.8 3.2Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 288 257 758 642 127 1117V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.62 0.66 0.36 0.76 0.32Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 966 859 2197 1862 590 3043HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh12.4 12.9 8.0 6.9 15.1 3.3Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 2.4 1.0 0.3 9.2 0.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.6 1.0 1.5 0.6 0.8 0.1Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.1 15.3 9.0 7.2 24.3 3.5LnGrp LOS B B A A C AApproach Vol, veh/h 258 729 455Approach Delay, s/veh 14.5 8.4 7.9Approach LOS B A ATimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s6.4 17.5 23.8 9.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s11.0 39.0 54.0 18.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.8 9.2 5.2 5.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.3 2.2 0.8Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.3HCM 6th LOS A Page 1034 of 1221 HCM 6th TWSC1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 7.4Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 90 150 1698 100 90 1528Future Vol, veh/h 90 150 1698 100 90 1528Conflicting Peds, #/hr 440440Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 100 - - 200 -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 90 150 1698 100 90 1528 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 2700 907 0 0 1802 0 Stage 1 1752 ----- Stage 2 948 -----Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 - - 4.14 -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 -----Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 -----Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 - - 2.22 -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 17 279 - - 338 - Stage 1 125 ----- Stage 2 337 -----Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 12 277 - - 337 -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 81 ----- Stage 1 125 ----- Stage 2 246 ----- Approach WB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 104.8 0 1.1HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBTCapacity (veh/h) - - 81 277 337 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 1.111 0.542 0.267 -HCM Control Delay (s) - - 225.6 32.3 19.5 -HCM Lane LOS - - F D C -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 6.4 3 1.1 -Notes~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoonHCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 100 20 50 190 14 258 94 1628 199 140 1428 111Future Volume (veh/h) 100 20 50 190 14 258 94 1628 199 140 1428 111Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.96Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 100 20 43 190 14 181 94 1628 150 140 1428 84Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 151 30 159 250 18 220 112 1563 655 149 1637 704Arrive On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.08 0.46 0.46Sat Flow, veh/h 1496 299 1576 1664 123 1465 1781 3554 1491 1781 3554 1528Grp Volume(v), veh/h 120 0 43 204 0 181 94 1628 150 140 1428 84Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1796 0 1576 1787 0 1465 1781 1777 1491 1781 1777 1528Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 0.0 2.4 10.5 0.0 11.4 5.0 42.0 6.0 7.5 34.6 3.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 0.0 2.4 10.5 0.0 11.4 5.0 42.0 6.0 7.5 34.6 3.0Prop In Lane 0.83 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 181 0 159 269 0 220 112 1563 655 149 1637 704V/C Ratio(X) 0.66 0.00 0.27 0.76 0.00 0.82 0.84 1.04 0.23 0.94 0.87 0.12Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 658 0 577 309 0 253 112 1563 655 149 1637 704HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.4 0.0 39.7 38.9 0.0 39.3 44.3 26.8 16.7 43.5 23.2 14.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.1 0.0 0.9 9.1 0.0 17.1 40.5 34.5 0.2 55.4 5.5 0.1Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 0.0 0.9 5.1 0.0 5.0 3.4 23.3 1.9 5.4 14.1 1.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.5 0.0 40.6 48.0 0.0 56.4 84.8 61.2 16.8 98.9 28.7 14.8LnGrp LOS D A D D A E F F B F C BApproach Vol, veh/h 163 385 1872 1652Approach Delay, s/veh 44.2 52.0 58.9 33.9Approach LOS D D E CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 48.5 14.6 11.0 50.5 19.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 42.0 35.0 6.0 44.0 16.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.5 44.0 8.2 7.0 36.6 13.4Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 5.0 0.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 47.5HCM 6th LOS D Page 1035 of 1221 HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary3: LOVR & 101 SB02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 0 964 669 65 1388 0 0 0 0 311 0 413Future Volume (veh/h) 0 964 669 65 1388 0 0 0 0 311 0 413Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1870 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 964 589 65 1388 0 311 0 326Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, %022220 222Cap, veh/h 0 2206 961 84 2512 0 354 0 306Arrive On Green 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.05 0.71 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.20Sat Flow, veh/h 0 3647 1548 1781 3647 0 1781 0 1540Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 964 589 65 1388 0 311 0 326Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1777 1548 1781 1777 0 1781 0 1540Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 6.7 12.1 3.2 16.9 0.0 15.3 0.0 17.9Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 6.7 12.1 3.2 16.9 0.0 15.3 0.0 17.9Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 2206 961 84 2512 0 354 0 306V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.44 0.61 0.77 0.55 0.00 0.88 0.00 1.07Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2206 961 188 2512 0 485 0 419HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 3.6 4.0 42.4 6.3 0.0 35.0 0.0 36.1Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.5 2.5 13.8 0.9 0.0 13.0 0.0 60.1Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 1.8 2.8 1.7 5.1 0.0 7.7 0.0 11.7Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 4.1 6.5 56.2 7.2 0.0 48.0 0.0 96.2LnGrp LOS AAAEAA DAFApproach Vol, veh/h 1553 1453 637Approach Delay, s/veh 5.0 9.4 72.7Approach LOS A A ETimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.8 60.9 68.6 21.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 5.0 5.0 3.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s9.5 44.0 57.0 24.5Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.2 14.1 18.9 17.3Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 12.5 14.5 0.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.6HCM 6th LOS BHCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis4: 101 NB & LOVR02/03/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (vph) 868 386 193 970 511 117Future Volume (vph) 868 386 193 970 511 117Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900Total Lost time (s) 6.0 3.5 3.5 6.0 3.5Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.97Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.97Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (prot) 3539 1563 1770 3539 3375Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Satd. Flow (perm) 3539 1563 1770 3539 3375Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Adj. Flow (vph) 868 386 193 970 511 117RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 141 0 0 16 0Lane Group Flow (vph) 868 245 193 970 612 0Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 5Turn Type NA pm+ov Prot NA ProtProtected Phases 28168Permitted Phases 2Actuated Green, G (s) 25.0 45.2 13.1 41.6 20.2Effective Green, g (s) 25.0 45.2 13.1 41.6 20.2Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.63 0.18 0.58 0.28Clearance Time (s) 6.0 3.5 3.5 6.0 3.5Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1240 990 325 2064 956v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.07 c0.11 0.27 c0.18v/s Ratio Perm 0.09v/c Ratio 0.70 0.25 0.59 0.47 0.64Uniform Delay, d1 19.9 5.7 26.7 8.5 22.4Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.1 2.9 0.2 1.4Delay (s) 21.7 5.8 29.6 8.7 23.8Level of Service C A C A CApproach Delay (s) 16.8 12.2 23.8Approach LOS B B CIntersection SummaryHCM 2000 Control Delay 16.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service BHCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70Actuated Cycle Length (s) 71.3 Sum of lost time (s) 17.0Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.6% ICU Level of Service CAnalysis Period (min) 15c Critical Lane GroupPage 1036 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ 6+LJXHUD6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/07/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 20 10 22 607 20 603 32 800 450 453 850 40Future Volume (veh/h) 20 10 22 607 20 603 32 800 450 453 850 40Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.89Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 20 10 5 621 0 0 32 800 262 453 850 39Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 222 111 249 711 0 40 929 685 512 1331 61Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.39 0.39Sat Flow, veh/h 1207 603 1354 3563 0 1585 1781 3554 1408 3456 3438 158Grp Volume(v), veh/h 30 0 5 621 0 0 32 800 262 453 439 450Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 0 1354 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1408 1728 1777 1819Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.0 0.3 18.8 0.0 0.0 2.0 23.8 13.7 14.3 22.4 22.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.0 0.3 18.8 0.0 0.0 2.0 23.8 13.7 14.3 22.4 22.4Prop In Lane 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 332 0 249 711 0 40 929 685 512 688 704V/C Ratio(X) 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.87 0.00 0.80 0.86 0.38 0.89 0.64 0.64Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 440 0 329 834 0 80 1024 722 529 704 721HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.6 0.0 37.1 43.1 0.0 0.0 54.0 39.1 19.8 46.4 27.7 27.7Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 7.1 0.4 16.0 1.9 1.8Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 0.0 0.1 8.8 0.0 0.0 1.2 10.8 6.3 7.1 9.3 9.5Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.7 0.0 37.2 52.1 0.0 0.0 82.6 46.1 20.2 62.4 29.6 29.6LnGrp LOS D A D D A F D C E C CApproach Vol, veh/h 35 621 A 1094 1342Approach Delay, s/veh 37.7 52.1 41.0 40.7Approach LOS DDDDTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.4 35.0 26.4 7.5 49.0 28.2Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 32.0 27.0 5.0 44.0 26.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.3 25.8 3.5 4.0 24.4 20.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 3.2 0.1 0.0 5.2 1.4Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.0HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 6Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 90 800 30 160 1210 70 20 10 180 40 20 70Future Volume (veh/h) 90 800 30 160 1210 70 20 10 180 40 20 70Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 90 800 30 160 1210 70 20 10 180 40 20 70Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222Cap, veh/h 115 1255 47 203 1395 81 25 13 226 54 27 94Arrive On Green 0.06 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.41 0.41 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.10Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3489 131 1781 3409 197 154 77 1383 517 258 904Grp Volume(v), veh/h 90 407 423 160 630 650 210 0 0 130 0 0Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1843 1781 1777 1829 1614 0 0 1679 0 0Q Serve(g_s), s 3.1 11.8 11.8 5.4 20.1 20.1 7.7 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.1 11.8 11.8 5.4 20.1 20.1 7.7 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0Prop In Lane 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.11 0.10 0.86 0.31 0.54Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 115 639 663 203 727 748 264 0 0 174 0 0V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.64 0.64 0.79 0.87 0.87 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 144 639 663 288 777 800 418 0 0 435 0 0HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh28.5 16.4 16.4 26.6 16.7 16.7 24.8 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 0.0Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.3 2.1 2.0 9.1 9.7 9.7 5.5 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.8 4.3 4.4 2.6 8.4 8.6 3.2 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.7 18.5 18.5 35.8 26.5 26.4 30.4 0.0 0.0 33.1 0.0 0.0LnGrp LOS DBBDCCCAACAAApproach Vol, veh/h 920 1440 210 130Approach Delay, s/veh 21.3 27.5 30.4 33.1Approach LOSCCCCTimer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 11.0 26.2 10.4 8.0 29.3Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 10.0 22.0 16.0 5.0 27.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.7 7.4 13.8 6.6 5.1 22.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.1 3.1 0.4 0.0 3.2Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.9HCM 6th LOS C Page 1037 of 1221 +&0WK5RXQGDERXW 6DQWD)H5RDG 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 10.9Intersection LOS BApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes2222Conflicting Circle Lanes2222Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 1240 1530 340 0Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 1265 1560 347 0Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 224 41 1234 1601Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 1377 1540 255 0Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h1101Ped Cap Adj 0.999 0.999 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 10.0 9.5 20.2 0.0Approach LOS B A C -Lane Left Right Left Right Left Right Left RightDesignated Moves LT TR LT TR LT R L LTRAssumed Moves LT TR LT TR LT R L LTRRT ChannelizedLane Util 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530 0.118 0.882 0.500 0.500Follow-Up Headway, s 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535Critical Headway, s 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328Entry Flow, veh/h 595 670 733 827 41 306 0 0Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1098 1174 1300 1371 434 497 310 364Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.981 0.981 0.980 0.976 0.980 1.000 1.000Flow Entry, veh/h 583 657 719 811 40 300 0 0Cap Entry, veh/h 1075 1150 1274 1343 423 488 310 364V/C Ratio 0.542 0.571 0.565 0.604 0.095 0.615 0.000 0.000Control Delay, s/veh 10.0 10.1 9.2 9.7 9.9 21.5 11.6 9.9LOS ABAAACBA95th %tile Queue, veh 3 4 4 4 0 4 0 0HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 1310 140 70 1330 250 100Future Volume (veh/h) 1310 140 70 1330 250 100Initial Q (Qb), veh000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1310 140 70 1330 250 100Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222Cap, veh/h 1837 195 90 1277 291 259Arrive On Green 0.57 0.57 0.05 0.68 0.16 0.16Sat Flow, veh/h 3325 344 1781 1870 1781 1585Grp Volume(v), veh/h 717 733 70 1330 250 100Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1798 1781 1870 1781 1585Q Serve(g_s), s 22.8 23.2 3.0 53.3 10.7 4.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.8 23.2 3.0 53.3 10.7 4.4Prop In Lane 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1010 1022 90 1277 291 259V/C Ratio(X) 0.71 0.72 0.78 1.04 0.86 0.39Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1092 1106 251 1277 319 284HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.2 12.3 36.6 12.4 31.8 29.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.6 3.7 5.3 36.6 17.7 0.3Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 8.2 8.5 1.4 27.3 5.9 1.7Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.8 16.0 41.9 48.9 49.5 29.5LnGrp LOS B B D F D CApproach Vol, veh/h 1450 1400 350Approach Delay, s/veh 15.9 48.6 43.8Approach LOS B D DTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 51.4 60.3 17.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 7.0 7.0 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 48.0 30.0 14.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.0 25.2 55.3 12.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 19.2 0.0 0.1Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 33.3HCM 6th LOS C Page 1038 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ %URDG6WUHHW 65 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 670 580 329 217 290 150 530 1028 346 260 888 580Future Volume (veh/h) 670 580 329 217 290 150 530 1028 346 260 888 580Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 670 580 280 217 290 129 530 1028 315 260 888 469Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 743 780 335 254 523 224 599 1277 779 321 991 776Arrive On Green 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.28 0.28Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1529 1781 3554 1524 3456 3554 1536 3456 3554 1559Grp Volume(v), veh/h 670 580 280 217 290 129 530 1028 315 260 888 469Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1529 1781 1777 1524 1728 1777 1536 1728 1777 1559Q Serve(g_s), s 16.3 13.1 15.1 10.3 6.5 6.8 12.9 22.5 11.1 6.4 20.7 18.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.3 13.1 15.1 10.3 6.5 6.8 12.9 22.5 11.1 6.4 20.7 18.8Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 743 780 335 254 523 224 599 1277 779 321 991 776V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.74 0.83 0.85 0.55 0.58 0.89 0.80 0.40 0.81 0.90 0.60Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 761 865 372 289 659 283 601 1277 779 321 991 776HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.0 31.4 32.2 36.1 34.2 34.3 34.8 24.9 13.4 38.4 29.9 15.8Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.7 3.2 13.9 19.3 0.9 2.3 14.7 5.5 1.6 14.5 12.3 3.5Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.8 5.7 6.6 5.6 2.8 2.5 6.3 9.5 3.7 3.2 9.8 6.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.7 34.6 46.1 55.4 35.1 36.6 49.5 30.4 15.0 52.9 42.2 19.3LnGrp LOS DCDEDDDCBDDBApproach Vol, veh/h 1530 636 1873 1617Approach Delay, s/veh 42.0 42.3 33.2 37.3Approach LOS DDCDTimer - Assigned Phs12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 35.0 16.3 22.9 18.9 28.1 22.6 16.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 31.0 14.0 21.0 15.0 24.0 19.0 16.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.4 24.5 12.3 17.1 14.9 22.7 18.3 8.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.9 0.3 1.4Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.8HCM 6th LOS DHCM 6th TWSC10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 10IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 8.3Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 120 54 90 1444 1333 118Future Vol, veh/h 120 54 90 1444 1333 118Conflicting Peds, #/hr 999009Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length 0 50 200 - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 120 54 90 1444 1333 118 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 2312 744 1460 0 - 0 Stage 1 1401 - - - - - Stage 2 911 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.94 4.14 - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 3.32 2.22 - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 32 357 459 - - - Stage 1 194 - - - - - Stage 2 352 - - - - -Platoon blocked, % - - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 25 351 455 - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ~ 107 - - - - - Stage 1 154 - - - - - Stage 2 349 - - - - - Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 142.6 0.9 0HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBRCapacity (veh/h) 455 - 107 351 - -HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.198 - 1.121 0.154 - -HCM Control Delay (s) 14.9 - 199.1 17.1 - -HCM Lane LOS B - F C - -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - 7.6 0.5 - -Notes~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoonPage 1039 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ %URDG6WUHHW 65 $HUR'ULYH05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 224 10 66 30 7 350 62 1000 20 100 1250 108Future Volume (veh/h) 224 10 66 30 7 350 62 1000 20 100 1250 108Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 224 10 51 30 7 250 62 1000 18 100 1250 96Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 228 10 210 206 48 223 80 1740 31 104 1781 988Arrive On Green 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.49 0.49 0.06 0.50 0.50Sat Flow, veh/h 1709 76 1578 1457 340 1575 1781 3569 64 1781 3554 1549Grp Volume(v), veh/h 234 0 51 37 0 250 62 498 520 100 1250 96Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1785 0 1578 1797 0 1575 1781 1777 1857 1781 1777 1549Q Serve(g_s), s 15.7 0.0 3.5 2.2 0.0 17.0 4.1 23.9 23.9 6.7 32.5 2.9Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.7 0.0 3.5 2.2 0.0 17.0 4.1 23.9 23.9 6.7 32.5 2.9Prop In Lane 0.96 1.00 0.81 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 238 0 210 255 0 223 80 866 905 104 1781 988V/C Ratio(X) 0.98 0.00 0.24 0.15 0.00 1.12 0.78 0.57 0.57 0.96 0.70 0.10Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 238 0 210 255 0 223 104 866 905 104 1781 988HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.9 0.0 46.6 45.1 0.0 51.5 56.7 21.9 21.9 56.4 23.0 8.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 53.4 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 96.4 23.6 2.8 2.7 76.0 2.3 0.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 10.6 0.0 1.4 1.0 0.0 12.7 2.3 10.0 10.4 5.1 13.2 1.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 105.3 0.0 47.2 45.4 0.0 147.9 80.3 24.7 24.5 132.4 25.4 8.7LnGrp LOS F A D D A F F C C F C AApproach Vol, veh/h 285 287 1080 1446Approach Delay, s/veh 94.9 134.7 27.8 31.7Approach LOS F F C CTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.0 65.0 21.0 10.4 66.6 22.0Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.0 6.5 5.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 58.5 16.0 7.0 58.5 17.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.7 25.9 17.7 6.1 34.5 19.0Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.7HCM 6th LOS DHCM 6th TWSC12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 12IntersectionInt Delay, s/veh 0.3Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Vol, veh/h 1 30 0 969 1193 0Future Vol, veh/h 1 30 0 969 1193 0Conflicting Peds, #/hr 030003Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free FreeRT Channelized - None - None - NoneStorage Length - 0 - - - -Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100Heavy Vehicles, % 222222Mvmt Flow 1 30 0 969 1193 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2Conflicting Flow All 2162 1196 - 0 - 0 Stage 1 1193 - - - - - Stage 2 969 - - - - -Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - - -Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 52 227 0 - - 0 Stage 1 288 - 0 - - 0 Stage 2 368 - 0 - - 0Platoon blocked, % - -Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 52 226 - - - -Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 52 - - - - - Stage 1 288 - - - - - Stage 2 368 - - - - - Approach EB NB SBHCM Control Delay, s 23.4 0 0HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTEBLn1 SBTCapacity (veh/h) - 226 -HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.133 -HCM Control Delay (s) - 23.4 -HCM Lane LOS - C -HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.5 - Page 1040 of 1221 +&0WK5RXQGDERXW (GQD5RDG 65 %XFNOH\5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1IntersectionIntersection Delay, s/veh 8.5Intersection LOS AApproach EB WB NB SBEntry Lanes2122Conflicting Circle Lanes2222Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 440 12 835 1070Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 449 12 851 1092Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 1059 941 97 75Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 108 7 1411 878Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h0000Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Approach Delay, s/veh 17.1 5.8 6.0 7.0Approach LOS C A A ALane Left Right Left Left Right Left RightDesignated Moves LT R LTR LT TR LT TRAssumed Moves LT R LTR LT TR LT TRRT ChannelizedLane Util 0.212 0.788 1.000 0.470 0.530 0.470 0.530Follow-Up Headway, s 2.667 2.535 2.535 2.667 2.535 2.667 2.535Critical Headway, s 4.645 4.328 4.328 4.645 4.328 4.645 4.328Entry Flow, veh/h 95 354 12 400 451 513 579Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 510 577 638 1235 1308 1260 1332Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.980 1.000 0.981 0.981 0.981 0.980Flow Entry, veh/h 93 347 12 392 442 503 567Cap Entry, veh/h 499 566 638 1211 1283 1236 1306V/C Ratio 0.186 0.613 0.019 0.324 0.345 0.407 0.435Control Delay, s/veh 9.8 19.0 5.8 6.0 6.0 6.9 7.0LOS AC A AA AA95th %tile Queue, veh 1 4 0 1 2 2 2HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary14: S. Higuera Street & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 14Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 235 424 295 246 243 663Future Volume (veh/h) 235 424 295 246 243 663Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 235 424 295 246 243 663Peak Hour Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Percent Heavy Veh, %222222Cap, veh/h 601 535 443 375 319 932Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.50Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1585 1870 1585 1781 1870Grp Volume(v), veh/h 235 424 295 246 243 663Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1585 1870 1585 1781 1870Q Serve(g_s), s 4.9 11.8 6.9 6.8 6.3 13.4Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 11.8 6.9 6.8 6.3 13.4Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 601 535 443 375 319 932V/C Ratio(X) 0.39 0.79 0.67 0.66 0.76 0.71Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 990 881 1078 913 843 2117HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh12.3 14.6 16.8 16.8 19.0 9.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 2.7 1.7 1.9 3.8 1.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.7 3.9 2.6 2.2 2.4 3.6Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.7 17.3 18.5 18.7 22.7 10.5LnGrp LOS B B B B C BApproach Vol, veh/h 659 541 906Approach Delay, s/veh 15.6 18.6 13.8Approach LOS B B BTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s12.7 15.5 28.2 20.4Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s23.0 28.0 55.0 27.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s8.3 8.9 15.4 13.8Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 2.6 4.8 2.6Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.6HCM 6th LOS B Page 1041 of 1221 D Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 2020 Appendix D Pedestrian and Bicycle Intersection Level of Service Calculations Page 1042 of 1221 Page 1043 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 1ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 529621.4Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2023Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.96Delay for adq Gap 529623.13Avg Ped Delay (s) 529621.38ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 529621.4Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2023Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.96Delay for adq Gap 529623.13Avg Ped Delay (s) 529621.38HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 36.0 36.1 61.3 62.1Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3366Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 13.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 13.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 42.62 0.62 42.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0811Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h)0726Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 12 1 0 4Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 17 103 277 67Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 1 63 79 2185th percentile speed (mph) 25 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 2552.2 -1.9 2089.2 9.7Right Corner Quality of Service A F A EPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 207.7 366.9 855.3Crosswalk Circulation Code - A A APedestrian Delay (s/p) 60.2 60.2 60.2 60.2Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.01 2.27 3.19 3.07Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B B C C Page 1044 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 54.8 62.3 73.7 62.3Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3465Number of Right-Turn Islands0100Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 11.0 15.0 15.0 12.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 50.62 86.62 86.62 71.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)2621Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 1710Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)3443Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 35 179 885 13Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 8 243 246 085th percentile speed (mph) 25 45 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 5039.4 4300.9 3874.2 9188.9Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 2401.3 320.6 0.0 7968.5Crosswalk Circulation Code A A F APedestrian Delay (s/p) 54.3 54.3 54.3 54.3Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.00 3.02 3.27 2.68Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B C C CHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 10ApproachApproach Direction EBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 3585144.8Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1398Ped Vol Crossed 2Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.97Delay for adq Gap 3585147.25Avg Ped Delay (s) 3585144.75ApproachApproach Direction WBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 36848260.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1398Ped Vol Crossed 3Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 36848264.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 36848260.00 Page 1045 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians7: Santa Fe Road & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 11ApproachApproach Direction EBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 3330.2Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 53Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1427Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 18.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.97Delay for adq Gap 3332.75Avg Ped Delay (s) 3330.24ApproachApproach Direction WBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 9262.8Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 62Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1427Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 20.71Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 9265.37Avg Ped Delay (s) 9262.85HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 12Approach EB WB NBCrosswalk Length (ft) 47.9 48.9 36.5Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed 3 4 3Number of Right-Turn Islands 0 0 0Type of Control None None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase 6 8 2Effective Walk Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 2Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 2Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0 0 0Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 95 0 10Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 0 0 285th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 25Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 7311.4 0.0 7311.4Right Corner Quality of Service A - APed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.1Crosswalk Circulation Code - - FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 45.0 45.0 45.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.70 2.69 1.99Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C B Page 1046 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 14Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 85.6 71.4 72.2 83.5Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed7566Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 12.0 12.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 14.62 35.62 35.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 0 3 11 4Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0000Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0001Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 508 218 189 556Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 144 67 37 14785th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 1127.7 4540.6 2275.2 111.6Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 1309.0 414.1 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code - A A FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 54.8 54.8 54.8 54.8Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 3.15 2.71 3.14 3.27Pedestrian Crosswalk LOSCCCCHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 16ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 212228.1Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1863Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.95Delay for adq Gap 212230.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 212228.06ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) INFLevel of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1863Ped Vol Crossed 3Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap INFAvg Ped Delay (s) INF Page 1047 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 17Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 80.0 40.0 80.0 85.0Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3355Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuated None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0200Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0000Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0000Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 36 36 3 119Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 23 1 0 1885th percentile speed (mph) 25 25 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 0.0 14679.0 14585.0 0.0Right Corner Quality of Service - A A -Ped. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 2252.7 0.0 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code - A - -Pedestrian Delay (s/p) 75.2 75.2 83.0 83.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.06 2.01 2.91 2.98Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B B C CHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 19ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 867.2Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 32Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1806Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 12.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.95Delay for adq Gap 869.21Avg Ped Delay (s) 867.24ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 4904.5Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 44Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1806Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 15.57Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 4906.50Avg Ped Delay (s) 4904.51 Page 1048 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 1ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 5161281.5Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2417Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 5161283.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 5161281.50ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 5161281.5Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2417Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 5161283.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 5161281.50HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 36.0 36.1 61.3 62.1Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed4366Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 13.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 13.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 42.62 0.62 42.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 2 13 0 3Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h)0703Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)3021Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 75 240 245 113Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 15 138 100 085th percentile speed (mph) 25 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 7671.6 -4.4 1703.8 24.7Right Corner Quality of Service A F A CPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 2667.0 0.0 0.0 1069.0Crosswalk Circulation Code A F - APedestrian Delay (s/p) 53.8 53.8 53.8 53.8Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.25 2.53 3.31 3.18Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B C C C Page 1049 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 45.4 50.0 74.0 62.2Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3465Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 11.0 15.0 15.0 12.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 50.62 86.62 86.62 71.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 3 9 20 0Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 6503Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 12 5 17 20Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 13 236 488 34Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 33 362 347 385th percentile speed (mph) 25 45 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 1066.2 3527.4 1516.1 2001.0Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 878.9 93.7 0.0 2669.1Crosswalk Circulation Code A A F APedestrian Delay (s/p) 56.7 56.7 56.7 56.7Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.04 3.32 3.57 2.93Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B C D CHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 10ApproachApproach Direction EBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 9.11981979572375E29Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1632Ped Vol Crossed 5Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap 9.11981979572375E29Avg Ped Delay (s) 9.11981979572375E29ApproachApproach Direction WBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 5.27493957979954E19Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1632Ped Vol Crossed 3Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap 5.27493957979954E19Avg Ped Delay (s) 5.27493957979954E19 Page 1050 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians7: Santa Fe Road & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 11ApproachApproach Direction EBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 21188.7Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 53Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1844Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 18.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 21190.65Avg Ped Delay (s) 21188.71ApproachApproach Direction WBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 8071129071616.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 62Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1844Ped Vol Crossed 1Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 20.71Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap 8071129071616.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 8071129071616.00HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 12Approach EB WB NBCrosswalk Length (ft) 48.1 48.9 36.4Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed 3 4 3Number of Right-Turn Islands 0 0 0Type of Control None None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase 6 8 2Effective Walk Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 1Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 24 72 0Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 1 0 27Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 0 0 085th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 25Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 29301.8 0.0 29358.0Right Corner Quality of Service A - APed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.3Crosswalk Circulation Code - - FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 45.0 45.0 45.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 3.05 2.99 2.02Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C B Page 1051 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 14Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 85.2 71.4 72.3 83.5Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed7566Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control No signalNo signalActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 20.0 21.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 12.0 12.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 14.62 35.62 35.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0122Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 1410Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0 12Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 369 201 297 771Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 94 51 54 20685th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 3258.2 4547.8 3997.4 37.2Right Corner Quality of Service A A A CPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 23261.9 5278.3 2371.3 0.1Crosswalk Circulation Code A A A FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 27.2 26.5 36.5 36.5Pedestrian Compliance Code Fair Fair Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 3.17 2.74 3.18 3.46Pedestrian Crosswalk LOSCCCCHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 16ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 106186.3Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1741Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.93Delay for adq Gap 106188.32Avg Ped Delay (s) 106186.25ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 106186.3Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1741Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.93Delay for adq Gap 106188.32Avg Ped Delay (s) 106186.25 Page 1052 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 17Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 80.0 40.0 80.0 85.0Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3355Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuated None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)1100Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0100Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0100Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 36 36 3 119Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 23 1 0 1885th percentile speed (mph) 25 25 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 29358.0 9759.4 14639.1 29278.3Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 7566.7 3073.5 0.0 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code A A - -Pedestrian Delay (s/p) 63.8 63.8 72.5 72.5Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.11 1.98 2.89 2.98Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B B C CHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 19ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 589.9Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 32Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1671Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 12.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.94Delay for adq Gap 591.96Avg Ped Delay (s) 589.85ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 2949.1Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 44Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1671Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 15.57Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.97Delay for adq Gap 2951.25Avg Ped Delay (s) 2949.10 Page 1053 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 709822.4Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2074Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.96Delay for adq Gap 709824.19Avg Ped Delay (s) 709822.44ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 709822.4Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2074Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.96Delay for adq Gap 709824.19Avg Ped Delay (s) 709822.44HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 36.0 36.1 61.3 62.1Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3366Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 13.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 13.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 42.62 0.62 42.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0811Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h)0726Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 12 1 0 4Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 17 103 277 67Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 1 63 79 2185th percentile speed (mph) 25 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 2552.2 -1.9 2089.2 9.7Right Corner Quality of Service A F A EPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 207.7 366.9 855.3Crosswalk Circulation Code - A A APedestrian Delay (s/p) 60.2 60.2 60.2 60.2Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.01 2.27 3.20 3.08Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B B C C Page 1054 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 54.8 62.3 73.7 62.3Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3465Number of Right-Turn Islands0100Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 11.0 15.0 15.0 12.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 50.62 86.62 86.62 71.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)2621Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 1710Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)3443Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 35 179 885 13Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 8 243 246 085th percentile speed (mph) 25 45 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 5039.4 4300.9 3874.2 9188.9Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 2401.3 320.6 0.0 7968.5Crosswalk Circulation Code A A F APedestrian Delay (s/p) 54.3 54.3 54.3 54.3Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.00 3.03 3.28 2.69Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B C C CHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 10ApproachApproach Direction EBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 10000273.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1423Ped Vol Crossed 2Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 10000275.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 10000273.00ApproachApproach Direction WBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 236237616.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1423Ped Vol Crossed 3Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 236237616.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 236237616.00 Page 1055 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians7: Santa Fe Road & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 11ApproachApproach Direction EBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 3714.8Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 53Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1452Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 18.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.97Delay for adq Gap 3717.25Avg Ped Delay (s) 3714.78ApproachApproach Direction WBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 10514.9Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 62Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1452Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 20.71Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 10517.40Avg Ped Delay (s) 10514.92HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 12Approach EB WB NBCrosswalk Length (ft) 47.9 48.9 36.5Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed 3 4 3Number of Right-Turn Islands 0 0 0Type of Control None None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase 6 8 2Effective Walk Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 2Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 2Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0 0 0Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 95 0 10Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 0 0 285th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 25Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 7311.4 0.0 7311.4Right Corner Quality of Service A - APed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.1Crosswalk Circulation Code - - FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 45.0 45.0 45.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.71 2.70 1.99Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C B Page 1056 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 14Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 85.6 71.4 72.2 83.5Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed7566Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 12.0 12.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 14.62 35.62 35.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 0 3 11 4Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0000Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0001Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 508 218 189 556Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 144 67 37 14785th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 1127.7 4540.6 2275.2 111.6Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 1309.0 414.1 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code - A A FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 54.8 54.8 54.8 54.8Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 3.15 2.71 3.17 3.29Pedestrian Crosswalk LOSCCCCHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 16ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 320010.3Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1935Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.95Delay for adq Gap 320012.19Avg Ped Delay (s) 320010.31ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) INFLevel of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1935Ped Vol Crossed 3Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap INFAvg Ped Delay (s) INF Page 1057 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 17Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 80.0 40.0 80.0 85.0Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3355Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuated None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0200Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0000Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0000Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 36 36 3 119Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 23 1 0 1885th percentile speed (mph) 25 25 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 0.0 14679.0 14585.0 0.0Right Corner Quality of Service - A A -Ped. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 2252.7 0.0 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code - A - -Pedestrian Delay (s/p) 75.2 75.2 83.0 83.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.08 2.01 2.92 3.01Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B B C CHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 19ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 915.8Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 32Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1825Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 12.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.95Delay for adq Gap 917.76Avg Ped Delay (s) 915.81ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 5270.5Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 44Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1825Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 15.57Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 5272.46Avg Ped Delay (s) 5270.49 Page 1058 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 7150417.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2473Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 7150418.50Avg Ped Delay (s) 7150417.00ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 7150417.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2473Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 7150418.50Avg Ped Delay (s) 7150417.00HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 36.0 36.1 61.3 62.1Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3366Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 13.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 13.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 42.62 0.62 42.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 2 13 0 3Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h)0703Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)3021Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 75 240 245 113Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 15 138 100 085th percentile speed (mph) 25 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 7671.6 -4.4 1703.8 24.7Right Corner Quality of Service A F A CPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 2667.0 0.0 0.0 1069.0Crosswalk Circulation Code A F - APedestrian Delay (s/p) 53.8 53.8 53.8 53.8Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.09 2.53 3.32 3.19Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B C C C Page 1059 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 45.4 50.0 74.0 62.2Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3465Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 11.0 15.0 15.0 12.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 50.62 86.62 86.62 71.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 3 9 20 0Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 6503Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 12 5 17 20Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 13 236 488 34Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 33 362 347 385th percentile speed (mph) 25 45 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 1066.2 3527.4 1516.1 2001.0Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 878.9 93.7 0.0 2669.1Crosswalk Circulation Code A A F APedestrian Delay (s/p) 56.7 56.7 56.7 56.7Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.04 3.33 3.58 2.93Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B C D CHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 10ApproachApproach Direction EBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 8.081210679453E34Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1662Ped Vol Crossed 5Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap 8.081210679453E34Avg Ped Delay (s) 8.081210679453E34ApproachApproach Direction WBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 1.89897250663831E23Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1662Ped Vol Crossed 3Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap 1.89897250663831E23Avg Ped Delay (s) 1.89897250663831E23 Page 1060 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians7: Santa Fe Road & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 11ApproachApproach Direction EBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 24255.4Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 53Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1874Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 18.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 24257.36Avg Ped Delay (s) 24255.44ApproachApproach Direction WBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 289486399340544.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 62Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1874Ped Vol Crossed 1Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 20.71Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap 289486399340544.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 289486399340544.00HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 12Approach EB WB NBCrosswalk Length (ft) 48.1 48.9 36.4Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed 3 4 3Number of Right-Turn Islands 0 0 0Type of Control None None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase 6 8 2Effective Walk Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 1Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 24 72 0Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 1 0 27Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 0 0 085th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 25Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 29301.8 0.0 29358.0Right Corner Quality of Service A - APed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.3Crosswalk Circulation Code - - FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 45.0 45.0 45.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 3.06 3.00 2.02Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C B Page 1061 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 14Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 85.2 71.4 72.3 83.5Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed7566Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control No signalNo signalActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 20.0 21.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 12.0 12.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 14.62 35.62 35.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0122Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 1410Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0 12Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 369 201 297 771Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 94 51 54 20685th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 3258.2 4547.8 3997.4 37.2Right Corner Quality of Service A A A CPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 23261.9 5278.3 2371.3 0.1Crosswalk Circulation Code A A A FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 27.2 26.5 36.5 36.5Pedestrian Compliance Code Fair Fair Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 3.18 2.74 3.20 3.48Pedestrian Crosswalk LOSCCCCHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 16ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 173911.4Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1828Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.94Delay for adq Gap 173913.36Avg Ped Delay (s) 173911.39ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 173911.4Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 1828Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.94Delay for adq Gap 173913.36Avg Ped Delay (s) 173911.39 Page 1062 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 17Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 80.0 40.0 80.0 85.0Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3355Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuated None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)1100Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0100Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0100Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 36 36 3 119Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 23 1 0 1885th percentile speed (mph) 25 25 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 29358.0 9759.4 14639.1 29278.3Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 7566.7 3073.5 0.0 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code A A - -Pedestrian Delay (s/p) 63.8 63.8 72.5 72.5Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.15 1.98 2.90 3.01Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B B C CHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 19ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 644.3Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 32Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1702Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 12.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.94Delay for adq Gap 646.34Avg Ped Delay (s) 644.27ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 3313.1Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 44Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 1702Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 15.57Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.97Delay for adq Gap 3315.18Avg Ped Delay (s) 3313.07 Page 1063 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 20101262.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2650Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 20101264.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 20101262.00ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 20101262.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2650Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 20101264.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 20101262.00HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 36.0 36.1 61.3 62.1Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3366Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 13.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 13.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 42.62 0.62 42.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0811Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h)0726Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 12 1 0 4Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 17 103 277 67Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 1 63 79 2185th percentile speed (mph) 25 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 2552.2 -1.9 2089.2 9.7Right Corner Quality of Service A F A EPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 207.7 366.9 855.3Crosswalk Circulation Code - A A APedestrian Delay (s/p) 60.2 60.2 60.2 60.2Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.02 2.26 3.34 3.24Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B B C C Page 1064 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV 6+LJXHUD6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 54.8 62.3 73.7 62.3Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3466Number of Right-Turn Islands0100Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 11.0 15.0 15.0 12.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 50.62 86.62 86.62 71.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)2621Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 1710Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)3443Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 35 179 885 13Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 8 243 246 085th percentile speed (mph) 25 45 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 5042.3 4304.7 3877.2 9191.4Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 2744.9 401.5 0.0 9020.8Crosswalk Circulation Code A A F APedestrian Delay (s/p) 47.3 47.3 47.3 47.3Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 1.99 3.07 3.34 2.90Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B C C C+&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV /RQJ6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 60.2 60.2 24.2 24.2Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed5522Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control None None None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 81.00 81.00 81.00 81.00Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0000Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h)0000Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0000Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 000085th percentile speed (mph) 45 45 25 25Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Quality of Service - - - -Ped. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code - - - -Pedestrian Delay (s/p) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.92 2.96 1.85 1.81Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C B B Page 1065 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians7: Santa Fe Road & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 13ApproachApproach Direction EBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 538204.4Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 53Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2550Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 18.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap 538205.88Avg Ped Delay (s) 538204.44ApproachApproach Direction WBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 3326568.3Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 62Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2550Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 20.71Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap 3326569.75Avg Ped Delay (s) 3326568.25+&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV 0LQGERG\(QWUDQFH 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NBCrosswalk Length (ft) 47.9 48.9 36.5Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed 4 4 3Number of Right-Turn Islands 0 0 0Type of Control None None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase 6 8 2Effective Walk Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 2Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 2Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0 0 0Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 95 0 10Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 0 0 285th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 25Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 7311.4 0.0 7311.4Right Corner Quality of Service A - APed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.1Crosswalk Circulation Code - - FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 45.0 45.0 45.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 3.05 2.95 2.10Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C B Page 1066 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 16Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 85.6 71.4 72.2 83.5Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed7566Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control No signalNo signalActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 31.8 37.4 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 12.0 12.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 14.62 35.62 35.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 0 3 11 4Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0000Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0001Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 508 218 189 556Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 144 67 37 14785th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 1127.7 4540.6 2281.6 111.6Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 11549.0 414.1 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code - A A FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 34.7 30.7 54.8 54.8Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 3.26 2.74 3.24 3.45Pedestrian Crosswalk LOSCCCCHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 18ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 9404250.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2520Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 9404252.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 9404250.00ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) INFLevel of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2520Ped Vol Crossed 3Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap INFAvg Ped Delay (s) INF Page 1067 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 19Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 80.0 40.0 80.0 85.0Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3355Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuated None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0200Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0000Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0000Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 36 36 3 119Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 23 1 0 1885th percentile speed (mph) 25 25 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 0.0 14679.0 14585.0 0.0Right Corner Quality of Service - A A -Ped. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 2252.7 0.0 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code - A - -Pedestrian Delay (s/p) 75.2 75.2 83.0 83.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.08 2.03 3.03 3.12Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B B C CHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 21ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 4608.7Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 32Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2379Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 12.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 4610.21Avg Ped Delay (s) 4608.70ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 44533.2Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 44Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2379Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 15.57Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 44534.66Avg Ped Delay (s) 44533.15 Page 1068 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 428930496.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 3170Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 428930496.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 428930496.00ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 428930496.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 3170Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 428930496.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 428930496.00HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 36.0 36.1 61.3 62.1Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3366Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 13.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 13.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 42.62 0.62 42.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 2 13 0 3Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h)0703Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)3021Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 75 240 245 113Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 15 138 100 085th percentile speed (mph) 25 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 7671.6 -4.4 1703.8 24.7Right Corner Quality of Service A F A CPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 2667.0 0.0 0.0 1069.0Crosswalk Circulation Code A F - APedestrian Delay (s/p) 53.8 53.8 53.8 53.8Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.08 2.51 3.47 3.35Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B C C C Page 1069 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV 6+LJXHUD6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 45.4 50.0 74.0 62.2Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3466Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 11.0 15.0 15.0 12.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 50.62 86.62 86.62 71.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 3 9 20 0Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 6503Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 12 5 17 20Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 13 236 488 34Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 33 362 347 385th percentile speed (mph) 25 45 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 1067.8 3528.0 1516.5 2001.5Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 908.6 113.2 0.0 2763.9Crosswalk Circulation Code A A F APedestrian Delay (s/p) 54.8 54.8 54.8 54.8Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.04 3.44 3.63 3.15Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B C D C+&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV /RQJ6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 60.0 60.0 24.1 24.1Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed5522Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control None None None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 81.00 81.00 81.00 81.00Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0000Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h)0000Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0000Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 000085th percentile speed (mph) 45 45 25 25Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Quality of Service - - - -Ped. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code - - - -Pedestrian Delay (s/p) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.95 3.02 1.89 1.84Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C B B Page 1070 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians7: Santa Fe Road & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 13ApproachApproach Direction EBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 426685.4Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 53Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2500Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 18.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap 426686.84Avg Ped Delay (s) 426685.41ApproachApproach Direction WBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) INFLevel of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 62Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2500Ped Vol Crossed 1Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 20.71Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap INFAvg Ped Delay (s) INF+&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV 0LQGERG\(QWUDQFH 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NBCrosswalk Length (ft) 48.1 48.9 36.4Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed 4 4 3Number of Right-Turn Islands 0 0 0Type of Control None None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase 6 8 2Effective Walk Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 1Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 24 72 0Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 1 0 27Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 0 0 085th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 25Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 29301.8 0.0 29358.0Right Corner Quality of Service A - APed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.3Crosswalk Circulation Code - - FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 45.0 45.0 45.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 3.15 3.15 2.10Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C B Page 1071 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV %URDG6WUHHW 65 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 85.2 71.4 72.3 83.5Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed7677Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control No signalNo signalActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 24.0 30.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 12.0 12.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 14.62 35.62 35.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0122Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 1410Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0 12Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 369 201 297 771Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 94 51 54 20685th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 3259.2 4552.4 3998.4 37.2Right Corner Quality of Service A A A CPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 29200.4 7891.3 2371.3 0.1Crosswalk Circulation Code A A A FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 24.2 20.0 36.5 36.5Pedestrian Compliance Code Fair Fair Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 3.26 2.90 3.35 3.62Pedestrian Crosswalk LOSCCCDHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 18ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 26939644.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2700Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 26939646.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 26939644.00ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 26939644.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2700Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 26939646.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 26939644.00 Page 1072 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV %URDG6WUHHW 65 $HUR'ULYH05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 80.0 40.0 80.0 85.0Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3355Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuated None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)1100Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0100Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0100Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 36 36 3 119Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 23 1 0 1885th percentile speed (mph) 25 25 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 29358.0 9765.6 14648.5 29296.9Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 9714.2 4029.8 0.0 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code A A - -Pedestrian Delay (s/p) 48.9 48.9 57.5 57.5Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.08 2.09 3.02 3.21Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B B C CHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 21ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 2157.7Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 32Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2121Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 12.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.97Delay for adq Gap 2159.43Avg Ped Delay (s) 2157.75ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 16352.8Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 44Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2121Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 15.57Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 16354.53Avg Ped Delay (s) 16352.83 Page 1073 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 27097950.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2701Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 27097952.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 27097950.00ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 27097950.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2701Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 27097952.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 27097950.00HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 36.0 36.1 61.3 62.1Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3366Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 13.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 13.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 42.62 0.62 42.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0811Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h)0726Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 12 1 0 4Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 17 103 277 67Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 1 63 79 2185th percentile speed (mph) 25 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 2552.2 -1.9 2089.2 9.7Right Corner Quality of Service A F A EPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 207.7 366.9 855.3Crosswalk Circulation Code - A A APedestrian Delay (s/p) 60.2 60.2 60.2 60.2Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.02 2.26 3.36 3.26Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B B C C Page 1074 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV 6+LJXHUD6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 54.8 62.3 73.7 62.3Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3466Number of Right-Turn Islands0100Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 11.0 15.0 15.0 12.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 50.62 86.62 86.62 71.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)2621Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 1710Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)3443Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 35 179 885 13Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 8 243 246 085th percentile speed (mph) 25 45 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 5042.3 4304.7 3877.2 9191.4Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 2744.9 401.5 0.0 9020.8Crosswalk Circulation Code A A F APedestrian Delay (s/p) 47.3 47.3 47.3 47.3Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 1.99 3.08 3.35 2.90Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B C C C+&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV /RQJ6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 60.2 60.2 24.2 24.2Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed5522Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control None None None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 81.00 81.00 81.00 81.00Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0000Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h)0000Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0000Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 000085th percentile speed (mph) 45 45 25 25Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Quality of Service - - - -Ped. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code - - - -Pedestrian Delay (s/p) 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.93 2.96 1.85 1.81Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C B B Page 1075 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians7: Santa Fe Road & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 13ApproachApproach Direction EBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 582466.7Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 53Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2567Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 18.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap 582468.06Avg Ped Delay (s) 582466.69ApproachApproach Direction WBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 3644122.5Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 62Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2567Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 20.71Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap 3644123.75Avg Ped Delay (s) 3644122.50+&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV 0LQGERG\(QWUDQFH 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NBCrosswalk Length (ft) 47.9 48.9 36.5Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed 4 4 3Number of Right-Turn Islands 0 0 0Type of Control None None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase 6 8 2Effective Walk Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 2Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 2Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0 0 0Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 95 0 10Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 0 0 285th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 25Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 7311.4 0.0 7311.4Right Corner Quality of Service A - APed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.1Crosswalk Circulation Code - - FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 45.0 45.0 45.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 3.06 2.96 2.10Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C B Page 1076 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV %URDG6WUHHW 65 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 85.6 71.4 72.2 83.5Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed7677Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control No signalNo signalActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 31.8 40.5 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 12.0 12.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 14.62 35.62 35.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 0 3 11 4Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0000Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0001Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 508 218 189 556Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 144 67 37 14785th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 1124.6 4538.8 2281.6 111.6Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 12086.0 384.8 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code - A A FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 37.1 30.8 57.2 57.2Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 3.27 2.83 3.29 3.49Pedestrian Crosswalk LOSCCCCHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 18ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 13664661.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2584Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 13664663.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 13664661.00ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) INFLevel of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2584Ped Vol Crossed 3Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap INFAvg Ped Delay (s) INF Page 1077 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV %URDG6WUHHW 65 $HUR'ULYH05/07/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 80.0 40.0 80.0 85.0Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3356Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuated None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0200Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0000Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0000Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 36 36 3 119Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 23 1 0 1885th percentile speed (mph) 25 25 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 0.0 14679.0 14585.0 0.0Right Corner Quality of Service - A A -Ped. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 2252.7 0.0 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code - A - -Pedestrian Delay (s/p) 75.2 75.2 83.0 83.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.11 2.03 3.04 3.16Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B B C CHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 21ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 4992.6Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 32Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2406Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 12.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.98Delay for adq Gap 4994.12Avg Ped Delay (s) 4992.62ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 49490.1Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 44Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2406Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 15.57Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 49491.63Avg Ped Delay (s) 49490.13 Page 1078 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians1: Broad Street (SR 227) & Capitolio Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 597451968.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 3226Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 597451968.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 597451968.00ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 597451968.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 3226Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 597451968.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 597451968.00HCM 6th Signals-Pedestrians2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 36.0 36.1 61.3 62.1Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3366Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 13.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 13.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 42.62 0.62 42.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 2 13 0 3Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h)0703Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)3021Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 75 240 245 113Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 15 138 100 085th percentile speed (mph) 25 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 7671.6 -4.4 1703.8 24.7Right Corner Quality of Service A F A CPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 2667.0 0.0 0.0 1069.0Crosswalk Circulation Code A F - APedestrian Delay (s/p) 53.8 53.8 53.8 53.8Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.08 2.51 3.49 3.36Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B C C C Page 1079 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV 6+LJXHUD6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 45.4 50.0 74.0 62.2Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3466Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuatedActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 10.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 11.0 15.0 15.0 12.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 50.62 86.62 86.62 71.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 3 9 20 0Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 6503Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 12 5 17 20Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 13 236 488 34Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 33 362 347 385th percentile speed (mph) 25 45 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 1067.8 3528.0 1516.5 2001.5Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 908.6 113.2 0.0 2763.9Crosswalk Circulation Code A A F APedestrian Delay (s/p) 54.8 54.8 54.8 54.8Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.04 3.45 3.64 3.15Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B C D C+&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV /RQJ6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 60.0 60.0 24.1 24.1Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed5522Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control None None None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 81.00 81.00 81.00 81.00Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0000Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h)0000Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0000Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 000085th percentile speed (mph) 45 45 25 25Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Quality of Service - - - -Ped. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code - - - -Pedestrian Delay (s/p) 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.95 3.02 1.89 1.84Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C B B Page 1080 of 1221 HCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians7: Santa Fe Road & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 13ApproachApproach Direction EBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 468191.6Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 53Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2520Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 18.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap 468193.06Avg Ped Delay (s) 468191.63ApproachApproach Direction WBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) INFLevel of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 62Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2520Ped Vol Crossed 1Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 20.71Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 1.00Delay for adq Gap INFAvg Ped Delay (s) INF+&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV 0LQGERG\(QWUDQFH 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NBCrosswalk Length (ft) 48.1 48.9 36.4Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed 4 4 3Number of Right-Turn Islands 0 0 0Type of Control None None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase 6 8 2Effective Walk Time (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 1Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 24 72 0Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 1 0 27Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 0 0 085th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 25Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 29301.8 0.0 29358.0Right Corner Quality of Service A - APed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 0.0 0.0 0.3Crosswalk Circulation Code - - FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 45.0 45.0 45.0Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 3.16 3.16 2.10Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C B Page 1081 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV %URDG6WUHHW 65 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 85.2 71.4 72.3 83.5Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed7677Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control No signalNo signalActuatedActuatedCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 24.0 31.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 12.0 12.0 7.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 14.62 35.62 35.62 0.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)0122Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 1410Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h) 0 0 0 12Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 369 201 297 771Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 94 51 54 20685th percentile speed (mph) 40 40 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 3259.2 4552.9 3998.5 37.2Right Corner Quality of Service A A A CPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 29200.4 8181.7 2371.3 0.1Crosswalk Circulation Code A A A FPedestrian Delay (s/p) 24.2 19.3 36.5 36.5Pedestrian Compliance Code Fair Fair Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 3.27 2.90 3.37 3.64Pedestrian Crosswalk LOSCCCDHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians10: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aerovista Place02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 18ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 42317588.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2777Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 42317592.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 42317588.00ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 42317588.0Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 68Lanes Crossed 4Veh Vol Crossed 2777Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 22.43Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 42317592.00Avg Ped Delay (s) 42317588.00 Page 1082 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV3HGHVWULDQV %URDG6WUHHW 65 $HUR'ULYH05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Approach EB WB NB SBCrosswalk Length (ft) 80.0 40.0 80.0 85.0Crosswalk Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Total Number of Lanes Crossed3356Number of Right-Turn Islands0000Type of Control ActuatedActuated None NoneCorresponding Signal Phase6248Effective Walk Time (s) 9.0 9.0 0.0 0.0Right Corner Size A (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Size B (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0Right Corner Curb Radius (ft) 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0Right Corner Total Area (sq.ft) 32.62 32.62 32.62 32.62Ped. Left-Right Flow Rate (p/h)1100Ped. Right-Left Flow Rate (p/h) 0100Ped. R. Sidewalk Flow Rate (p/h)0100Veh. Perm. L. Flow in Walk (v/h) 0000Veh. Perm. R. Flow in Walk (v/h) 36 36 3 119Veh. RTOR Flow in Walk (v/h) 23 1 0 1885th percentile speed (mph) 25 25 45 45Right Corner Area per Ped (sq.ft) 29358.0 9765.6 14648.5 29296.9Right Corner Quality of ServiceAAAAPed. Circulation Area (sq.ft) 9714.2 4029.8 0.0 0.0Crosswalk Circulation Code A A - -Pedestrian Delay (s/p) 48.9 48.9 57.5 57.5Pedestrian Compliance Code Poor Poor Poor PoorPedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.12 2.09 3.03 3.24Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS B B C CHCM 6th Edition TWSC-Pedestrians12: Edna Road (SR 227)/Broad Street (SR 227) & Airport Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 21ApproachApproach Direction NBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 2432.6Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 32Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2162Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 12.14Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.97Delay for adq Gap 2434.22Avg Ped Delay (s) 2432.56ApproachApproach Direction SBMedian Present? NoApproach Delay(s) 19158.6Level of Service FCrosswalkLength (ft) 44Lanes Crossed 2Veh Vol Crossed 2162Ped Vol Crossed 0Yield Rate(%) 0Ped Platooning NoCritical Headway (s) 15.57Prob of Delayed X-ing 1.00Prob of Blocked Lane 0.99Delay for adq Gap 19160.29Avg Ped Delay (s) 19158.62 Page 1083 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Bicycles2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0 3 8 19Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 28 233 1119 1337Effct. Green for Bike (s) 6.5 11.6 47.8 48.3Cross Street Width (ft) 73.1 73.9 37.5 37.7Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 96 171 703 710Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 61.7 57.0 28.7 28.5Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 2.72 3.07 1.77 1.95Bicycle LOS C C B BHCM 6th Signals-Bicycles5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 9Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 6 4 18 6Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 88 579 1241 542Effct. Green for Bike (s) 7.8 19.0 18.1 40.4Cross Street Width (ft) 73.7 62.3 62.3 54.8Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 126 306 292 652Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 54.6 44.5 45.6 28.3Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Poor FairBicycle LOS Score 1.55 3.47 2.25 1.56Bicycle LOS B C B B Page 1084 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Bicycles8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 13Approach EB WB NBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 5 10 0Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 851 891 37Effct. Green for Bike (s) 35.3 39.1 4.8Cross Street Width (ft) 36.5 47.9 48.9Through Lanes Number 2 1 1Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes No YesOn Street Parking? No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 784 869 107Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 16.7 14.5 40.3Bicycle Compliance Fair Fair PoorBicycle LOS Score 1.53 3.76 1.08Bicycle LOS B D AHCM 6th Signals-Bicycles9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 15Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 2 1 0 10Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 836 778 1052 1282Effct. Green for Bike (s) 24.9 32.1 38.3 36.2Cross Street Width (ft) 72.6 83.8 60.2 85.5Through Lanes Number2122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 398 514 613 579Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 40.1 34.5 30.1 31.7Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Poor PoorBicycle LOS Score 2.29 3.05 2.28 2.85Bicycle LOS B C B C Page 1085 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Bicycles11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 18Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0075Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 68 69 1252 823Effct. Green for Bike (s) 9.2 6.3 68.3 68.1Cross Street Width (ft) 58.5 62.5 36.0 36.0Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 111 76 823 820Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 74.1 76.8 28.9 28.9Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 1.28 2.63 1.86 1.50Bicycle LOS A C B BHCM 6th Signals-Bicycles2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0000Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 175 489 1396 1444Effct. Green for Bike (s) 11.5 17.0 36.7 36.9Cross Street Width (ft) 73.1 72.1 37.5 49.1Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? No No No NoOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 187 276 597 600Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 50.5 45.7 30.3 30.1Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Poor PoorBicycle LOS Score 2.97 3.47 3.29 3.50Bicycle LOS CCCD Page 1086 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Bicycles5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 9Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 1 2 10 11Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 52 989 1022 1173Effct. Green for Bike (s) 6.9 26.1 20.0 42.6Cross Street Width (ft) 74.0 62.2 50.0 45.4Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 107 405 310 660Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 57.8 41.1 46.3 29.1Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Poor FairBicycle LOS Score 1.49 4.14 1.88 1.94Bicycle LOS A D B BHCM 6th Signals-Bicycles8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 13Approach EB WB NBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 8 2 2Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 1197 1077 229Effct. Green for Bike (s) 34.5 36.0 9.8Cross Street Width (ft) 36.4 48.1 48.9Through Lanes Number 2 1 1Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes No YesOn Street Parking? No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 767 800 218Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 17.2 16.2 35.8Bicycle Compliance Fair Fair PoorBicycle LOS Score 1.82 4.07 1.40Bicycle LOS B D A Page 1087 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Bicycles9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 15Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 8050Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 1235 553 1429 1526Effct. Green for Bike (s) 19.4 13.7 21.2 20.5Cross Street Width (ft) 72.9 83.7 60.0 85.1Through Lanes Number2122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 431 304 471 456Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 27.8 32.3 26.4 26.8Bicycle Compliance Fair Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 2.62 2.68 2.58 3.05Bicycle LOS CCCCHCM 6th Signals-Bicycles11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 18Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0062Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 278 43 865 1061Effct. Green for Bike (s) 18.4 6.4 65.5 57.8Cross Street Width (ft) 60.1 61.3 36.5 36.0Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 254 88 903 797Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 55.3 66.2 21.9 26.2Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 1.65 2.57 1.55 1.70Bicycle LOS B C B B Page 1088 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Bicycles2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0 3 8 19Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 28 233 1141 1374Effct. Green for Bike (s) 6.5 11.6 47.8 48.3Cross Street Width (ft) 73.1 73.9 37.5 37.7Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 96 171 703 710Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 61.7 57.0 28.7 28.5Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 2.72 3.07 1.79 1.98Bicycle LOS C C B BHCM 6th Signals-Bicycles5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 9Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 6 4 18 6Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 88 590 1254 545Effct. Green for Bike (s) 7.8 20.4 18.2 40.6Cross Street Width (ft) 73.7 62.3 62.3 54.8Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 126 329 294 655Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 54.6 43.4 45.5 28.1Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Poor FairBicycle LOS Score 1.55 3.49 2.26 1.56Bicycle LOS B C B B Page 1089 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Bicycles8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 13Approach EB WB NBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 5 10 0Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 867 902 37Effct. Green for Bike (s) 35.6 39.4 4.8Cross Street Width (ft) 36.5 47.9 48.9Through Lanes Number 2 1 1Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes No YesOn Street Parking? No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 791 876 107Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 16.5 14.3 40.3Bicycle Compliance Fair Fair PoorBicycle LOS Score 1.55 3.78 1.08Bicycle LOS B D AHCM 6th Signals-Bicycles9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 15Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 2 1 0 10Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 853 783 1089 1320Effct. Green for Bike (s) 26.9 34.1 38.2 36.2Cross Street Width (ft) 72.6 83.8 60.2 85.5Through Lanes Number2122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 430 546 611 579Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 38.5 33.1 30.1 31.7Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Poor PoorBicycle LOS Score 2.30 3.06 2.31 2.88Bicycle LOS B C B C Page 1090 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Bicycles11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 18Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0075Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 117 69 1263 868Effct. Green for Bike (s) 11.7 6.3 66.5 65.7Cross Street Width (ft) 58.5 62.5 36.0 36.0Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 141 76 801 792Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 71.7 76.8 29.9 30.4Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Fair PoorBicycle LOS Score 1.36 2.63 1.87 1.54Bicycle LOS A C B BHCM 6th Signals-Bicycles2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0000Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 175 489 1426 1475Effct. Green for Bike (s) 11.5 17.0 36.7 36.9Cross Street Width (ft) 73.1 73.9 37.5 37.7Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? No No No NoOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 187 276 597 600Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 50.5 45.7 30.3 30.1Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Poor PoorBicycle LOS Score 2.97 3.50 3.31 3.35Bicycle LOS CCCC Page 1091 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Bicycles5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 9Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 1 2 10 11Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 52 1005 1035 1176Effct. Green for Bike (s) 6.9 26.3 20.0 42.5Cross Street Width (ft) 74.0 62.2 50.0 45.4Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 107 408 310 659Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 57.8 40.9 46.3 29.2Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Poor FairBicycle LOS Score 1.49 4.17 1.89 1.94Bicycle LOS A D B BHCM 6th Signals-Bicycles8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 13Approach EB WB NBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 8 2 2Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 1214 1094 229Effct. Green for Bike (s) 34.7 36.3 9.9Cross Street Width (ft) 36.4 48.1 48.9Through Lanes Number 2 1 1Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes No YesOn Street Parking? No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 771 807 220Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 17.1 16.0 35.7Bicycle Compliance Fair Fair PoorBicycle LOS Score 1.83 4.10 1.40Bicycle LOS B D A Page 1092 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Bicycles9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 15Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 8050Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 1251 561 1489 1556Effct. Green for Bike (s) 19.2 13.7 21.2 20.3Cross Street Width (ft) 72.9 83.7 60.0 85.1Through Lanes Number2122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 427 304 471 451Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 28.0 32.3 26.4 27.0Bicycle Compliance Fair Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 2.64 2.69 2.63 3.07Bicycle LOS CCCCHCM 6th Signals-Bicycles11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 18Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0062Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 364 43 883 1103Effct. Green for Bike (s) 23.2 6.4 64.7 56.8Cross Street Width (ft) 60.1 61.3 36.5 36.0Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 320 88 892 783Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 51.2 66.2 22.3 26.9Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 1.79 2.57 1.56 1.73Bicycle LOS B C B B Page 1093 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Bicycles2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0 3 8 19Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 30 178 1406 1794Effct. Green for Bike (s) 6.5 10.0 48.3 51.3Cross Street Width (ft) 73.1 73.9 37.5 37.7Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 96 147 710 754Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 61.7 58.5 28.4 26.6Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 2.73 2.98 2.01 2.33Bicycle LOS C C B B+&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV 6+LJXHUD6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 6 4 18 6Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 74 588 1400 960Effct. Green for Bike (s) 6.8 17.4 18.8 35.2Cross Street Width (ft) 85.8 75.7 62.2 54.0Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 124 316 342 640Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 48.6 39.1 38.1 25.5Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Poor FairBicycle LOS Score 1.71 2.40 2.38 1.89Bicycle LOS BBBB Page 1094 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV /RQJ6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0000Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 1411 780 140 90Effct. Green for Bike (s) 36.5 40.7 7.8 7.9Cross Street Width (ft) 24.2 24.2 60.2 60.2Through Lanes Number2211Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? No No No NoOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 811 904 173 176Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 15.9 13.5 37.5 37.4Bicycle Compliance Fair Fair Poor PoorBicycle LOS Score 1.81 1.29 2.71 2.63Bicycle LOS B A C C+&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV 0LQGERG\(QWUDQFH 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 5 10 0Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 1360 1500 70Effct. Green for Bike (s) 41.4 53.5 5.9Cross Street Width (ft) 36.5 59.2 48.9Through Lanes Number 2 1 1Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes No YesOn Street Parking? No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 920 1189 131Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 13.2 7.4 39.3Bicycle Compliance Fair Good PoorBicycle LOS Score 1.95 3.65 1.14Bicycle LOS B D A Page 1095 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Bicycles9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 17Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 2 1 0 10Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 930 899 1420 1700Effct. Green for Bike (s) 33.6 30.2 37.4 31.8Cross Street Width (ft) 72.6 83.8 60.2 85.5Through Lanes Number2122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 538 483 598 509Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 33.4 36.0 30.7 34.9Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Poor PoorBicycle LOS Score 2.37 3.25 2.58 3.20Bicycle LOS B C C CHCM 6th Signals-Bicycles11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 20Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0075Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 110 150 1519 970Effct. Green for Bike (s) 9.7 7.3 66.0 65.5Cross Street Width (ft) 58.5 62.5 36.0 36.0Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 117 88 795 789Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 73.6 75.9 30.2 30.5Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Poor PoorBicycle LOS Score 1.35 2.76 2.08 1.62Bicycle LOS A C B B Page 1096 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Bicycles2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0000Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 170 462 1893 1651Effct. Green for Bike (s) 12.0 15.5 42.1 44.1Cross Street Width (ft) 73.1 73.9 37.5 37.7Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? No No No NoOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 195 252 685 717Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 50.1 47.0 26.6 25.3Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 2.96 3.45 3.70 3.50Bicycle LOS CCDC+&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV 6+LJXHUD6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 1 2 10 11Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 52 1220 1275 1340Effct. Green for Bike (s) 7.2 25.1 27.5 44.3Cross Street Width (ft) 86.1 75.4 50.1 45.1Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 115 402 440 709Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 55.5 40.0 38.2 26.2Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Poor FairBicycle LOS Score 1.68 3.44 2.09 2.07Bicycle LOS B C B B Page 1097 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV /RQJ6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0000Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 910 1430 210 130Effct. Green for Bike (s) 23.1 27.5 7.8 8.2Cross Street Width (ft) 24.1 24.1 60.0 60.0Through Lanes Number2211Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? No No No NoOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 578 688 195 205Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 20.2 17.2 32.6 32.2Bicycle Compliance Fair Fair Poor PoorBicycle LOS Score 1.39 1.82 2.82 2.69Bicycle LOS A B C C+&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV 0LQGERG\(QWUDQFH 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 8 2 2Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 1440 1390 350Effct. Green for Bike (s) 40.4 50.0 13.3Cross Street Width (ft) 36.3 59.2 48.9Through Lanes Number 2 1 1Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes No YesOn Street Parking? No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 898 1111 296Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 13.7 8.9 32.7Bicycle Compliance Fair Good PoorBicycle LOS Score 2.02 3.47 1.60Bicycle LOS B C B Page 1098 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV %URDG6WUHHW 65 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 8050Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 1569 650 1860 1700Effct. Green for Bike (s) 19.9 14.1 30.0 24.1Cross Street Width (ft) 84.6 84.2 73.6 85.2Through Lanes Number2222Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 442 313 667 536Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 27.4 32.0 20.1 24.1Bicycle Compliance Fair Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 3.08 2.31 3.15 3.19Bicycle LOS C B C C+&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV %URDG6WUHHW 65 $HUR'ULYH05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0062Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 236 387 1061 1425Effct. Green for Bike (s) 15.0 15.7 55.5 60.0Cross Street Width (ft) 60.1 61.3 36.5 36.0Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 261 273 965 1043Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 43.5 42.9 15.4 13.2Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 1.58 3.14 1.71 2.00Bicycle LOS B C B B Page 1099 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Bicycles2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0 3 8 19Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 30 178 1427 1824Effct. Green for Bike (s) 6.5 10.0 48.3 51.3Cross Street Width (ft) 73.1 73.9 37.5 37.7Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 96 147 710 754Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 61.7 58.5 28.4 26.6Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 2.73 2.98 2.02 2.35Bicycle LOS C C B B+&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV 6+LJXHUD6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 6 4 18 6Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 74 595 1407 963Effct. Green for Bike (s) 6.7 18.3 18.9 35.1Cross Street Width (ft) 85.8 75.7 62.2 54.0Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 122 333 344 638Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 48.6 38.3 38.1 25.6Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Poor FairBicycle LOS Score 1.71 2.41 2.39 1.89Bicycle LOS BBBB Page 1100 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV /RQJ6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0000Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 1421 787 140 90Effct. Green for Bike (s) 36.5 40.7 7.8 7.9Cross Street Width (ft) 24.2 24.2 60.2 60.2Through Lanes Number2211Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? No No No NoOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 811 904 173 176Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 15.9 13.5 37.5 37.4Bicycle Compliance Fair Fair Poor PoorBicycle LOS Score 1.82 1.29 2.71 2.63Bicycle LOS B A C C+&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV 0LQGERG\(QWUDQFH 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 5 10 0Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 1370 1507 70Effct. Green for Bike (s) 41.7 53.9 5.9Cross Street Width (ft) 36.5 59.2 48.9Through Lanes Number 2 1 1Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes No YesOn Street Parking? No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 927 1198 131Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 13.0 7.3 39.3Bicycle Compliance Fair Good PoorBicycle LOS Score 1.96 3.67 1.14Bicycle LOS B D A Page 1101 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV %URDG6WUHHW 65 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 2 1 0 10Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 940 903 1451 1730Effct. Green for Bike (s) 26.7 21.7 40.6 31.9Cross Street Width (ft) 84.4 84.1 73.8 85.6Through Lanes Number2222Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 411 334 625 491Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 41.1 45.1 30.7 37.2Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Poor PoorBicycle LOS Score 2.55 2.52 2.81 3.22Bicycle LOS CCCC+&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV %URDG6WUHHW 65 $HUR'ULYH05/07/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0075Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 152 150 1535 1003Effct. Green for Bike (s) 13.6 7.8 93.3 88.8Cross Street Width (ft) 58.5 74.4 36.0 38.4Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 164 94 1124 1070Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 70.0 75.4 16.0 18.0Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 1.42 2.95 2.09 1.69Bicycle LOS A C B B Page 1102 of 1221 HCM 6th Signals-Bicycles2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0000Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 170 462 1921 1679Effct. Green for Bike (s) 12.0 15.5 42.1 44.1Cross Street Width (ft) 73.1 73.9 37.5 37.7Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? No No No NoOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 195 252 685 717Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 50.1 47.0 26.6 25.3Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 2.96 3.45 3.72 3.52Bicycle LOS CCDD+&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV 6+LJXHUD6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 1 2 10 11Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 52 1230 1282 1343Effct. Green for Bike (s) 7.2 25.3 27.5 44.4Cross Street Width (ft) 86.1 75.4 50.1 45.1Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 115 405 440 710Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 55.5 39.8 38.2 26.1Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Poor FairBicycle LOS Score 1.68 3.46 2.10 2.07Bicycle LOS B C B B Page 1103 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV /RQJ6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0000Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 920 1440 210 130Effct. Green for Bike (s) 23.1 27.5 7.8 8.2Cross Street Width (ft) 24.1 24.1 60.0 60.0Through Lanes Number2211Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? No No No NoOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 578 688 195 205Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 20.2 17.2 32.6 32.2Bicycle Compliance Fair Fair Poor PoorBicycle LOS Score 1.40 1.83 2.82 2.69Bicycle LOS A B C C+&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV 0LQGERG\(QWUDQFH 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 8 2 2Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 1450 1400 350Effct. Green for Bike (s) 40.6 50.2 13.3Cross Street Width (ft) 36.3 59.2 48.9Through Lanes Number 2 1 1Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes No YesOn Street Parking? No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 902 1116 296Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 13.6 8.8 32.7Bicycle Compliance Fair Good PoorBicycle LOS Score 2.02 3.49 1.60Bicycle LOS B C B Page 1104 of 1221 +&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV %URDG6WUHHW 65 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 8050Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 1579 657 1904 1728Effct. Green for Bike (s) 19.8 14.1 31.0 24.0Cross Street Width (ft) 84.6 84.2 73.6 85.2Through Lanes Number2222Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 440 313 689 533Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 27.5 32.0 19.4 24.2Bicycle Compliance Fair Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 3.08 2.32 3.18 3.22Bicycle LOS C B C C+&0WK6LJQDOV%LF\FOHV %URDG6WUHHW 65 $HUR'ULYH05/08/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Approach EB WB NB SBBicycle Flow Rate (bike/h) 0062Total Flow Rate (veh/h) 300 387 1082 1458Effct. Green for Bike (s) 16.0 16.0 55.5 57.7Cross Street Width (ft) 60.1 73.2 36.5 38.1Through Lanes Number1122Through Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0Bicycle Lane Width (ft) 6.0 0.0 6.0 6.0Striped Parking Lane Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Paved Shoulder Width (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Curb Is Present? Yes Yes Yes YesOn Street Parking? No No No NoBicycle Lane Capacity (bike/h) 278 278 965 1003Bicycle Delay (s/bike) 42.6 42.6 15.4 14.3Bicycle Compliance Poor Poor Fair FairBicycle LOS Score 1.69 3.32 1.72 2.06Bicycle LOS B C B B Page 1105 of 1221 E Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 2020 Appendix E Roadway Segment Level of Service Calculations Page 1106 of 1221 Page 1107 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodAM ExistingNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Existing_Broad_1.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsOrcutt RoadIndustrial RoadAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 4050 ft45 mph11030 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad Street - Orcutt to Industrial )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB145452240504050928600501000.00.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.3245.091Running Time, s63.9163.231Running Speed, mph43.2143.671Through Delay, s/veh24.551.291Travel Time, s88.4664.521Travel Speed, mph31.2242.801Stop Rate, stops/veh0.760.281Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.990.371Through vol/cap Ratio0.840.391Percent of Base FFS68.8894.931Level of ServiceBA1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.292.19Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOSF3.22C1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.96A2.62B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.68F4.60EFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s140.96101.63Facility Travel Speed, mph24.5734.08Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.4545.24Facility Percent of Base FFS54.0675.34Facility Level of ServiceCBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.382.29Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.40CBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.97A2.55CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.44F4.75ECopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 4:45:57 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodAM ExistingNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Existing_Broad_1.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsIndustrial RoadTank Farm RoadAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 4050 ft45 mph11030 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Industrial to Tank Farm )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB2454522103010308010000701000.00.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652122Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.9945.842Running Time, s17.6517.602Running Speed, mph39.8039.902Through Delay, s/veh34.8519.512Travel Time, s52.5037.112Travel Speed, mph13.3818.922Stop Rate, stops/veh0.800.732Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi4.083.742Through vol/cap Ratio0.760.652Percent of Base FFS29.0941.282Level of ServiceFD2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.802.74Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.79D4.11D2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.01B2.27B2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS5.51F5.36FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s140.96101.63Facility Travel Speed, mph24.5734.08Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.4545.24Facility Percent of Base FFS54.0675.34Facility Level of ServiceCBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.382.29Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.40CBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.97A2.55CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.44F4.75ECopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 4:45:57 PM Page 1108 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodAM ExistingNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Existing_Broad_2.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsTank Farm RoadAero DriveAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 3000 ft45 mph14500 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Tank Farm to Aero )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB1454522300030008080001008045.045.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.3645.461Running Time, s92.6992.621Running Speed, mph22.0722.091Through Delay, s/veh13.5665.201Travel Time, s106.25157.821Travel Speed, mph19.2512.961Stop Rate, stops/veh0.630.971Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi1.111.711Through vol/cap Ratio0.620.961Percent of Base FFS42.4428.511Level of ServiceDF1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.412.51Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.48C2.99C1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.86A1.77A1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS4.97E6.45FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s202.73242.66Facility Travel Speed, mph25.2221.07Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.8646.01Facility Percent of Base FFS55.0045.81Facility Level of ServiceCDFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.372.41Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOSBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.43A1.44ATransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.03F6.58FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 4:51:44 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodAM ExistingNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Existing_Broad_2.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsAero DriveBuckley Analysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 3000 ft45 mph14500 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Aero to Buckley )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB2454512450045005550000200.00.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652122Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph46.1946.382Running Time, s70.5869.332Running Speed, mph43.4744.252Through Delay, s/veh25.8915.512Travel Time, s96.4884.842Travel Speed, mph31.8036.172Stop Rate, stops/veh0.570.632Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.670.742Through vol/cap Ratio0.770.822Percent of Base FFS68.8577.982Level of ServiceBB2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.342.35Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOSFF2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.15A1.22A2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.74F6.67FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s202.73242.66Facility Travel Speed, mph25.2221.07Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.8646.01Facility Percent of Base FFS55.0045.81Facility Level of ServiceCDFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.372.41Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOSBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.43A1.44ATransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.03F6.58FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 4:51:44 PM Page 1109 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodAm Existing Number of Iterations15File NameAM Existing_TF.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsS Higuera St Mindbody EntranceAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels8350 ft45 mph1850 ft40 mph23Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Higuera to MB)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB14545118350835045700020200.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.8645.861Running Time, s132.32128.741Running Speed, mph43.0344.221Through Delay, s/veh9.110.001Travel Time, s141.43128.741Travel Speed, mph40.2544.221Stop Rate, stops/veh0.420.001Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.270.001Through vol/cap Ratio0.880.001Percent of Base FFS87.7796.431Level of ServiceAA1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.322.14Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS4.82E3.56D1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.20B2.07B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.66F6.54FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s191.38144.50Facility Travel Speed, mph32.7843.41Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.4345.96Facility Percent of Base FFS72.1494.46Facility Level of ServiceBAFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.352.14Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS4.65E3.69DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.16B2.05BTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.64F6.55FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 4:53:01 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodAm Existing Number of Iterations15File NameAM Existing_TF.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsMindbody EntranceBroad StreetAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels8350 ft45 mph1850 ft40 mph23Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - MB to Broad)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB2404521850850604565065010000.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement212162Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph41.6046.942Running Time, s16.7615.362Running Speed, mph34.5837.732Through Delay, s/veh33.190.402Travel Time, s49.9515.762Travel Speed, mph11.6036.772Stop Rate, stops/veh0.600.042Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi3.700.232Through vol/cap Ratio0.210.502Percent of Base FFS27.8978.352Level of ServiceFB2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.732.17Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.00C5.04F2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.77A1.89A2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.42F6.70FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s191.38144.50Facility Travel Speed, mph32.7843.41Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.4345.96Facility Percent of Base FFS72.1494.46Facility Level of ServiceBAFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.352.14Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS4.65E3.69DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.16B2.05BTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.64F6.55FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 4:53:01 PM Page 1110 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections2AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments1JurisdictionTime PeriodNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Existing_TF_2.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsBroad StreetUPRRAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 5200 ft35 mph12Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Broad to Orcutt)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB135401152005200786400100600.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph40.6243.161Running Time, s89.2385.671Running Speed, mph39.7341.391Through Delay, s/veh0.2828.591Travel Time, s89.52114.261Travel Speed, mph39.6131.031Stop Rate, stops/veh0.010.651Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.010.661Through vol/cap Ratio0.190.411Percent of Base FFS97.5271.901Level of ServiceAB1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.24Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.39C4.12D1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.27B2.55B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.43F5.15FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s89.52114.26Facility Travel Speed, mph39.6131.03Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph40.6243.16Facility Percent of Base FFS97.5271.90Facility Level of ServiceABFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.24Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.39C4.12DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.27C2.55CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.43F5.15FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/6/2020 11:32:49 AMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodPM ExistingNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Existing_Broad_1.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsOrcutt RoadIndustrial RoadAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 4050 ft45 mph11030 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad Street - Orcutt to Industrial )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB145452240504050928600501000.00.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.3245.091Running Time, s64.0163.971Running Speed, mph43.1443.171Through Delay, s/veh30.061.291Travel Time, s94.0765.261Travel Speed, mph29.3642.311Stop Rate, stops/veh0.820.231Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi1.070.301Through vol/cap Ratio0.820.541Percent of Base FFS64.7893.851Level of ServiceCA1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.302.18Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOSF3.81D1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.97A2.74B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.68F4.68EFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s146.13112.88Facility Travel Speed, mph23.7030.68Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.4545.24Facility Percent of Base FFS52.1567.83Facility Level of ServiceCBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.392.29Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.92DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.02B2.67CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.45F4.84ECopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 4:59:40 PM Page 1111 of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rban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodPM ExistingNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Existing_Broad_2.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsTank Farm RoadAero DriveAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 3000 ft45 mph14500 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Tank Farm to Aero )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB1454522300030008080001008045.045.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.3645.461Running Time, s92.4891.841Running Speed, mph22.1222.271Through Delay, s/veh18.4651.701Travel Time, s110.95143.541Travel Speed, mph18.4414.251Stop Rate, stops/veh0.680.961Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi1.191.681Through vol/cap Ratio0.850.841Percent of Base FFS40.6431.351Level of ServiceDE1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.432.51Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.30C2.63B1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.90A1.67A1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS4.96E6.34FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s255.57224.28Facility Travel Speed, mph20.0122.80Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.8646.01Facility Percent of Base FFS43.6349.56Facility Level of ServiceFDFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.412.40Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOSBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.55A1.31ATransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.07F6.47FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 5:00:51 PM Page 1112 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodPM ExistingNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Existing_Broad_2.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsAero DriveBuckley Analysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 3000 ft45 mph14500 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Aero to Buckley )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB2454512450045005550000200.00.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652122Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph46.1946.382Running Time, s71.6567.982Running Speed, mph42.8245.132Through Delay, s/veh72.9812.762Travel Time, s144.6280.742Travel Speed, mph21.2138.002Stop Rate, stops/veh0.890.562Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi1.040.662Through vol/cap Ratio1.070.392Percent of Base FFS45.9381.942Level of ServiceFA2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.402.34Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOSFF2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.32A1.08A2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.81F6.55FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s255.57224.28Facility Travel Speed, mph20.0122.80Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.8646.01Facility Percent of Base FFS43.6349.56Facility Level of ServiceFDFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.412.40Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOSBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.55A1.31ATransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.07F6.47FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 5:00:51 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodPM Existing Number of Iterations15File NamePM Existing_TF.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsS Higuera St Mindbody EntranceAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 8350 ft45 mph1850 ft40 mph23Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Higuera to MB)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB14545118350835045700020200.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.8645.861Running Time, s129.33132.661Running Speed, mph44.0242.921Through Delay, s/veh13.5121.811Travel Time, s142.85154.471Travel Speed, mph39.8536.861Stop Rate, stops/veh0.500.611Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.320.391Through vol/cap Ratio0.920.021Percent of Base FFS86.9080.371Level of ServiceAA1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.322.20Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS4.19D5.01F1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.11B2.24B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.56F6.84FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s191.20173.68Facility Travel Speed, mph32.8136.12Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.4345.96Facility Percent of Base FFS72.2178.59Facility Level of ServiceBBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.372.20Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS4.10D5.06FBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.09B2.23BTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.55F6.84FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 5:01:51 PM Page 1113 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodPM Existing Number of Iterations15File NamePM Existing_TF.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsMindbody EntranceBroad StreetAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 8350 ft45 mph1850 ft40 mph23Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - MB to Broad)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB2404521850850604565065010000.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement212162Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph41.6046.942Running Time, s16.8015.662Running Speed, mph34.5137.012Through Delay, s/veh31.553.552Travel Time, s48.3519.212Travel Speed, mph11.9930.172Stop Rate, stops/veh0.760.112Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi4.700.702Through vol/cap Ratio0.610.792Percent of Base FFS28.8264.282Level of ServiceFC2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.912.24Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.19C5.62F2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.88A2.07B2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.43F6.80FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s191.20173.68Facility Travel Speed, mph32.8136.12Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.4345.96Facility Percent of Base FFS72.2178.59Facility Level of ServiceBBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.372.20Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS4.10D5.06FBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.09B2.23BTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.55F6.84FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 5:01:51 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections2AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments1JurisdictionTime PeriodNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Existing_TF_2.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsBroad StreetUPRRAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 5200 ft35 mph12Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Broad to Orcutt)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB135401152005200786400100600.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph40.6243.161Running Time, s92.4684.951Running Speed, mph38.3541.741Through Delay, s/veh0.7138.121Travel Time, s93.16123.071Travel Speed, mph38.0628.811Stop Rate, stops/veh0.010.811Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.010.831Through vol/cap Ratio0.480.581Percent of Base FFS93.7066.761Level of ServiceAC1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.26Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS4.12D3.87D1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.62B2.46B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.60F5.13FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s93.16123.07Facility Travel Speed, mph38.0628.81Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph40.6243.16Facility Percent of Base FFS93.7066.76Facility Level of ServiceACFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.26Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS4.12D3.87DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.62C2.46CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.60F5.13FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/6/2020 11:35:43 AM Page 1114 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodAM Existing+PNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Existing+P_Broad_1.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsOrcutt RoadIndustrial RoadAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 4050 ft45 mph11030 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad Street - Orcutt to Industrial )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB145452240504050928600501000.00.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652121Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.3245.091Running Time, s63.9163.271Running Speed, mph43.2143.641Through Delay, s/veh24.671.291Travel Time, s88.5864.561Travel Speed, mph31.1742.771Stop Rate, stops/veh0.760.281Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.990.361Through vol/cap Ratio0.840.401Percent of Base FFS68.7994.871Level of ServiceBA1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.292.19Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOSF3.24C1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.96A2.63B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.68F4.60EFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s142.86101.79Facility Travel Speed, mph24.2534.03Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.4545.24Facility Percent of Base FFS53.3475.22Facility Level of ServiceCBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.382.29Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.42CBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.97A2.56CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.44F4.76ECopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 6:48:56 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodAM Existing+PNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Existing+P_Broad_1.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsIndustrial RoadTank Farm RoadAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 4050 ft45 mph11030 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Industrial to Tank Farm )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB2454522103010308010000701000.00.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652122Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.9945.842Running Time, s17.6517.612Running Speed, mph39.7939.872Through Delay, s/veh36.6319.612Travel Time, s54.2837.232Travel Speed, mph12.9418.862Stop Rate, stops/veh0.800.732Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi4.103.732Through vol/cap Ratio0.780.662Percent of Base FFS28.1441.152Level of ServiceFD2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.802.74Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.79D4.12D2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.02B2.30B2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS5.52F5.36FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s142.86101.79Facility Travel Speed, mph24.2534.03Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.4545.24Facility Percent of Base FFS53.3475.22Facility Level of ServiceCBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.382.29Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.42CBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.97A2.56CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.44F4.76ECopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 6:48:56 PM Page 1115 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodAM Existing+PNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Existing+P_Broad_2.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsTank Farm RoadAero DriveAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 3000 ft45 mph14500 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Tank Farm to Aero )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB1454522300030008080001008045.045.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652121Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.3645.461Running Time, s92.7892.671Running Speed, mph22.0522.071Through Delay, s/veh14.7774.521Travel Time, s107.55167.181Travel Speed, mph19.0212.231Stop Rate, stops/veh0.651.041Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi1.141.831Through vol/cap Ratio0.661.001Percent of Base FFS41.9226.911Level of ServiceDF1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.422.53Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.53D3.05C1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.88A1.78A1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS4.98E6.45FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s203.61252.63Facility Travel Speed, mph25.1120.24Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.8646.01Facility Percent of Base FFS54.7744.00Facility Level of ServiceCDFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.372.42Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOSBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.44A1.44ATransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.04F6.58FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 6:55:08 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodAM Existing+PNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Existing+P_Broad_2.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsAero DriveBuckley Analysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 3000 ft45 mph14500 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Aero to Buckley )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB2454512450045005550000200.00.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652122Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph46.1946.382Running Time, s70.5769.362Running Speed, mph43.4844.242Through Delay, s/veh25.5016.092Travel Time, s96.0685.452Travel Speed, mph31.9435.912Stop Rate, stops/veh0.550.652Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.650.762Through vol/cap Ratio0.760.822Percent of Base FFS69.1477.422Level of ServiceBB2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.342.36Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOSFF2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.15A1.22A2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.74F6.67FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s203.61252.63Facility Travel Speed, mph25.1120.24Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.8646.01Facility Percent of Base FFS54.7744.00Facility Level of ServiceCDFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.372.42Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOSBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.44A1.44ATransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.04F6.58FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 6:55:08 PM Page 1116 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodAm Existing +PNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Existing+P_TF.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsS Higuera St Mindbody EntranceAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels8350 ft45 mph1850 ft40 mph23Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Higuera to MB)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB14545118350835045700020200.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement212161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.8645.861Running Time, s132.45128.821Running Speed, mph42.9844.191Through Delay, s/veh9.1025.901Travel Time, s141.55154.721Travel Speed, mph40.2236.801Stop Rate, stops/veh0.420.731Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.260.461Through vol/cap Ratio0.890.011Percent of Base FFS87.7080.231Level of ServiceAA1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.322.21Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS4.84E3.59D1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.21B2.07B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.67F6.54FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s191.33170.44Facility Travel Speed, mph32.7936.80Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.4345.96Facility Percent of Base FFS72.1680.08Facility Level of ServiceBAFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.352.21Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS4.68E3.72DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.17B2.06BTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.64F6.55FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 7:02:32 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodAm Existing +PNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Existing+P_TF.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsMindbody EntranceBroad StreetAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels8350 ft45 mph1850 ft40 mph23Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - MB to Broad)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB2404521850850604565065010000.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement212162Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph41.6046.942Running Time, s16.7715.372Running Speed, mph34.5637.702Through Delay, s/veh33.010.352Travel Time, s49.7815.722Travel Speed, mph11.6436.872Stop Rate, stops/veh0.580.032Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi3.620.202Through vol/cap Ratio0.200.502Percent of Base FFS27.9978.552Level of ServiceFB2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.722.17Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.02C5.06F2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.77A1.90A2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.42F6.70FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s191.33170.44Facility Travel Speed, mph32.7936.80Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.4345.96Facility Percent of Base FFS72.1680.08Facility Level of ServiceBAFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.352.21Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS4.68E3.72DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.17B2.06BTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.64F6.55FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 7:02:32 PM Page 1117 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections2AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments1JurisdictionTime PeriodAm Existing +PNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Existing+P_TF_2.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsBroad StreetUPRRAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 5200 ft35 mph12Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Broad to Orcutt)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB135401152005200786400100600.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph40.6243.161Running Time, s89.2585.671Running Speed, mph39.7241.391Through Delay, s/veh0.2828.821Travel Time, s89.54114.491Travel Speed, mph39.6030.971Stop Rate, stops/veh0.010.641Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.010.651Through vol/cap Ratio0.190.401Percent of Base FFS97.5071.761Level of ServiceAB1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.24Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.40C4.12D1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.28B2.55B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.43F5.15FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s89.54114.49Facility Travel Speed, mph39.6030.97Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph40.6243.16Facility Percent of Base FFS97.5071.76Facility Level of ServiceABFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.24Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.40C4.12DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.28C2.55CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.43F5.15FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/6/2020 11:34:02 AMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodPM Existing+PNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Existing+P_Broad_1.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsOrcutt RoadIndustrial RoadAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 4050 ft45 mph11030 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad Street - Orcutt to Industrial )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB145452240504050928600501000.00.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652121Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.3245.091Running Time, s64.0164.031Running Speed, mph43.1443.131Through Delay, s/veh30.101.291Travel Time, s94.1065.321Travel Speed, mph29.3442.271Stop Rate, stops/veh0.820.221Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi1.070.291Through vol/cap Ratio0.820.551Percent of Base FFS64.7593.771Level of ServiceCA1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.302.18Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOSF3.85D1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.97A2.75C1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.68F4.69EFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s147.17113.32Facility Travel Speed, mph23.5430.57Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.4545.24Facility Percent of Base FFS51.7867.57Facility Level of ServiceCBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.392.29Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.95DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.03B2.68CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.45F4.84ECopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 7:10:24 PM Page 1118 of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rban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodPM Existing+PNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Existing+P_Broad_2.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsTank Farm RoadAero DriveAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 3000 ft45 mph14500 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Tank Farm to Aero )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB1454522300030008080001008045.045.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652121Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.3645.461Running Time, s92.5791.891Running Speed, mph22.1022.261Through Delay, s/veh20.8657.621Travel Time, s113.43149.521Travel Speed, mph18.0313.681Stop Rate, stops/veh0.721.011Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi1.261.771Through vol/cap Ratio0.870.881Percent of Base FFS39.7530.101Level of ServiceEE1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.442.52Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.37C2.76C1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.92A1.71A1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS4.98E6.35FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s258.65231.15Facility Travel Speed, mph19.7722.12Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.8646.01Facility Percent of Base FFS43.1148.09Facility Level of ServiceFDFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.422.41Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOSBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.56A1.33ATransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.08F6.47FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 7:14:23 PM Page 1119 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodPM Existing+PNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Existing+P_Broad_2.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsAero DriveBuckley Analysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 3000 ft45 mph14500 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Aero to Buckley )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB2454512450045005550000200.00.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652122Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph46.1946.382Running Time, s71.6667.982Running Speed, mph42.8145.132Through Delay, s/veh73.5613.662Travel Time, s145.2281.642Travel Speed, mph21.1337.582Stop Rate, stops/veh0.890.542Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi1.050.632Through vol/cap Ratio1.070.372Percent of Base FFS45.7481.032Level of ServiceFA2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.402.34Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOSFF2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.33A1.08A2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.81F6.55FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s258.65231.15Facility Travel Speed, mph19.7722.12Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.8646.01Facility Percent of Base FFS43.1148.09Facility Level of ServiceFDFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.422.41Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOSBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.56A1.33ATransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.08F6.47FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 7:14:23 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodPM Existing +PNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Existing+P_TF.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsS Higuera St Mindbody EntranceAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 8350 ft45 mph1850 ft40 mph23Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Higuera to MB)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB14545118350835045700020200.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement212161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.8645.861Running Time, s129.46132.831Running Speed, mph43.9742.861Through Delay, s/veh14.2022.111Travel Time, s143.66154.941Travel Speed, mph39.6336.751Stop Rate, stops/veh0.510.611Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.320.391Through vol/cap Ratio0.930.021Percent of Base FFS86.4180.131Level of ServiceAA1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.322.20Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS4.22D5.05F1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.12B2.25B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.56F6.85FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s192.41174.27Facility Travel Speed, mph32.6035.99Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.4345.96Facility Percent of Base FFS71.7678.32Facility Level of ServiceBBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.372.20Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS4.13D5.10FBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.10B2.23BTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.55F6.84FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 7:19:44 PM Page 1120 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodPM Existing +PNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Existing+P_TF.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsMindbody EntranceBroad StreetAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 8350 ft45 mph1850 ft40 mph23Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - MB to Broad)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB2404521850850604565065010000.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement212162Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph41.6046.942Running Time, s16.8015.682Running Speed, mph34.4936.972Through Delay, s/veh31.953.662Travel Time, s48.7519.332Travel Speed, mph11.8929.972Stop Rate, stops/veh0.760.112Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi4.730.682Through vol/cap Ratio0.630.802Percent of Base FFS28.5863.862Level of ServiceFC2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.922.24Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.22C5.65F2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.88A2.08B2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.43F6.80FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s192.41174.27Facility Travel Speed, mph32.6035.99Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.4345.96Facility Percent of Base FFS71.7678.32Facility Level of ServiceBBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.372.20Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS4.13D5.10FBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.10B2.23BTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.55F6.84FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/4/2020 7:19:44 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections2AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments1JurisdictionTime PeriodPM Existing+PNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Existing+P_TF_2.xusAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsBroad StreetUPRRAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 5200 ft35 mph12Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Broad to Orcutt)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB135401152005200786400100600.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph40.6243.161Running Time, s92.4984.951Running Speed, mph38.3341.741Through Delay, s/veh0.7037.901Travel Time, s93.19122.851Travel Speed, mph38.0528.861Stop Rate, stops/veh0.010.811Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.010.821Through vol/cap Ratio0.480.571Percent of Base FFS93.6766.871Level of ServiceAC1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.26Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS4.12D3.87D1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.62B2.46B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.60F5.13FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s93.19122.85Facility Travel Speed, mph38.0528.86Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph40.6243.16Facility Percent of Base FFS93.6766.87Facility Level of ServiceACFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.26Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS4.12D3.87DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.62C2.46CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.60F5.13FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/6/2020 11:36:54 AM Page 1121 of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age 1122 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodAM FutureNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Future_Broad_2.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsTank Farm RoadAero DriveAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 3000 ft45 mph14500 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Tank Farm to Aero )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB1454522300030008080001008045.045.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.3645.461Running Time, s92.9792.881Running Speed, mph22.0022.021Through Delay, s/veh17.2192.831Travel Time, s110.18185.711Travel Speed, mph18.5611.011Stop Rate, stops/veh0.691.171Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi1.222.061Through vol/cap Ratio0.731.061Percent of Base FFS40.9224.231Level of ServiceDF1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.432.57Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.63D3.33C1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.94A1.86A1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS5.01F6.48FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s208.98273.91Facility Travel Speed, mph24.4718.67Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.8646.01Facility Percent of Base FFS53.3640.58Facility Level of ServiceCFFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.372.44Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOSBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.53A1.49ATransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.09F6.60FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 12:46:57 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodAM FutureNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Future_Broad_2.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsAero DriveBuckley Analysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 3000 ft45 mph14500 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Aero to Buckley )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB2454512450045005550000200.00.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652122Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph46.1946.382Running Time, s71.5969.512Running Speed, mph42.8644.142Through Delay, s/veh27.2218.682Travel Time, s98.8088.202Travel Speed, mph31.0534.792Stop Rate, stops/veh0.530.692Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.630.822Through vol/cap Ratio0.800.842Percent of Base FFS67.2275.012Level of ServiceBB2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.342.37Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOSFF2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.27A1.24A2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.81F6.68FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s208.98273.91Facility Travel Speed, mph24.4718.67Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.8646.01Facility Percent of Base FFS53.3640.58Facility Level of ServiceCFFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.372.44Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOSBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.53A1.49ATransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.09F6.60FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 12:46:57 PM Page 1123 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections4AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments3JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodAm FutureNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Future_TF.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsS Higuera St Long StreetAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels650 ft45 mph18350 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Higuera to Long)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB14545216506507575001001000.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.9245.561Running Time, s12.5912.821Running Speed, mph35.1934.571Through Delay, s/veh20.0431.081Travel Time, s32.6343.901Travel Speed, mph13.5810.101Stop Rate, stops/veh0.710.681Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi5.755.511Through vol/cap Ratio0.830.041Percent of Base FFS29.5822.161Level of ServiceFF1Auto Traveler Perception Score3.113.06Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.37C3.41C1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.48B2.02B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.45F6.57FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s229.75202.74Facility Travel Speed, mph29.2333.13Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.9346.41Facility Percent of Base FFS63.6571.38Facility Level of ServiceCBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.462.33Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.90D3.89DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS3.03C2.86CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS1.55A1.43ACopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 12:23:18 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections4AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments3JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodAm FutureNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Future_TF.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsLong StreetMindbody EntranceAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels650 ft45 mph18350 ft45 mph2850 ft40 mph34Basic Segment Information SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB24545128350835050500070700.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216162Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph46.4246.422Running Time, s131.36126.692Running Speed, mph43.3444.942Through Delay, s/veh11.9114.772Travel Time, s143.27141.462Travel Speed, mph39.7440.252Stop Rate, stops/veh0.490.672Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.310.432Through vol/cap Ratio0.900.572Percent of Base FFS85.6086.702Level of ServiceAA2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.392.31Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS4.03D3.70D2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS3.19C2.97C2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS0.67A0.48AFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s229.75202.74Facility Travel Speed, mph29.2333.13Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.9346.41Facility Percent of Base FFS63.6571.38Facility Level of ServiceCBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.462.33Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.90D3.89DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS3.03C2.86CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS1.55A1.43ACopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 12:23:18 PM Page 1124 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections4AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments3JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodAm FutureNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Future_TF.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsMindbody EntranceBroad StreetAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels650 ft45 mph8350 ft45 mph2850 ft40 mph34Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - MB to Broad)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB3404521850850604565065010000.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement212163Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h3Shared Lane Spillback Time, h3Base Free-Flow Speed, mph41.6046.943Running Time, s16.7716.033Running Speed, mph34.5736.163Through Delay, s/veh37.081.363Travel Time, s53.8517.393Travel Speed, mph10.7633.333Stop Rate, stops/veh0.640.033Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi3.970.213Through vol/cap Ratio0.270.893Percent of Base FFS25.8771.013Level of ServiceFB3Auto Traveler Perception Score2.782.17Multimodal Results (Segment)3Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.12C6.20F3Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.81A2.45B3Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.42F6.89FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s229.75202.74Facility Travel Speed, mph29.2333.13Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.9346.41Facility Percent of Base FFS63.6571.38Facility Level of ServiceCBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.462.33Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.90D3.89DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS3.03C2.86CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS1.55A1.43ACopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 12:23:18 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections2AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments1JurisdictionTime PeriodAM FutureNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Future_TF_2.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsBroad StreetUPRRAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 5200 ft35 mph12Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Broad to Orcutt)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB135401152005200786400100600.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph40.6243.161Running Time, s89.7185.891Running Speed, mph39.5241.281Through Delay, s/veh0.3440.961Travel Time, s90.05126.861Travel Speed, mph39.3727.951Stop Rate, stops/veh0.010.731Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.010.741Through vol/cap Ratio0.240.581Percent of Base FFS96.9464.761Level of ServiceAC1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.25Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.56D4.20D1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.34B2.57B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.46F5.19FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s90.05126.86Facility Travel Speed, mph39.3727.95Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph40.6243.16Facility Percent of Base FFS96.9464.76Facility Level of ServiceACFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.25Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.56D4.20DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.34C2.57CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.46F5.19FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/6/2020 11:39:00 AM Page 1125 of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age 1126 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections4AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments3JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodPM FutureNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Future_TF.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsS Higuera St Long StreetAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 650 ft45 mph18350 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Higuera to Long)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB14545216506507575001001000.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.9245.561Running Time, s12.5312.651Running Speed, mph35.3835.031Through Delay, s/veh25.3926.461Travel Time, s37.9239.111Travel Speed, mph11.6911.331Stop Rate, stops/veh0.780.701Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi6.325.681Through vol/cap Ratio0.730.031Percent of Base FFS25.4524.871Level of ServiceFF1Auto Traveler Perception Score3.213.09Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.20C3.31C1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.22B1.99A1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.41F6.48FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s244.29605.09Facility Travel Speed, mph27.4911.10Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.9346.41Facility Percent of Base FFS59.8623.92Facility Level of ServiceCFFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.492.40Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.93D5.36FBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.98C3.11CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS1.65A1.55ACopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 12:05:25 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections4AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments3JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodPM FutureNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Future_TF.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsLong StreetMindbody EntranceAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 650 ft45 mph18350 ft45 mph2850 ft40 mph34Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Long to MB)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB24545118350835050500070700.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement212162Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph46.4246.422Running Time, s129.70134.162Running Speed, mph43.8942.442Through Delay, s/veh54.54405.832Travel Time, s184.24539.982Travel Speed, mph30.9010.542Stop Rate, stops/veh0.942.432Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.591.532Through vol/cap Ratio1.051.842Percent of Base FFS66.5622.712Level of ServiceFF2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.442.37Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS4.03D5.60F2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS3.14C3.27C2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS1.11A0.62AFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s271.04602.12Facility Travel Speed, mph24.7811.15Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.9346.41Facility Percent of Base FFS53.9524.03Facility Level of ServiceFFFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.512.40Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.94D5.49FBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.98C3.11CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS1.92A1.55ACopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 7:56:27 PM Page 1127 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections4AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments3JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodPM FutureNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Future_TF.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsMindbody EntranceBroad StreetAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 650 ft45 mph8350 ft45 mph2850 ft40 mph34Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - MB to Broad)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB3404521850850604565065010000.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement212163Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h3Shared Lane Spillback Time, h3Base Free-Flow Speed, mph41.6046.943Running Time, s16.8315.953Running Speed, mph34.4436.343Through Delay, s/veh32.1610.313Travel Time, s48.9926.263Travel Speed, mph11.8322.073Stop Rate, stops/veh0.710.153Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi4.420.943Through vol/cap Ratio0.550.943Percent of Base FFS28.4447.023Level of ServiceFD3Auto Traveler Perception Score2.862.28Multimodal Results (Segment)3Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.50D6.07F3Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.04B2.36B3Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.44F6.88FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s244.29605.09Facility Travel Speed, mph27.4911.10Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.9346.41Facility Percent of Base FFS59.8623.92Facility Level of ServiceCFFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.492.40Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.93D5.36FBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.98C3.11CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS1.65A1.55ACopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 12:05:25 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections2AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments1JurisdictionTime PeriodPM FutureNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Future_TF_2.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsBroad StreetUPRRAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 5200 ft35 mph12Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Broad to Orcutt)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB135401152005200786400100600.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph40.6243.161Running Time, s93.8585.111Running Speed, mph37.7841.661Through Delay, s/veh0.4352.791Travel Time, s94.28137.901Travel Speed, mph37.6025.711Stop Rate, stops/veh0.000.941Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.000.961Through vol/cap Ratio0.580.791Percent of Base FFS92.5959.571Level of ServiceAC1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.28Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS4.53E3.93D1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.68B2.49B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.66F5.17FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s94.28137.90Facility Travel Speed, mph37.6025.71Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph40.6243.16Facility Percent of Base FFS92.5959.57Facility Level of ServiceACFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.28Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS4.53E3.93DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.68C2.49CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.66F5.17FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/6/2020 11:41:07 AM Page 1128 of 1221 +&68UEDQ6WUHHW6HJPHQW5HSRUW*HQHUDO,QIRUPDWLRQ6WUHHWV,QIRUPDWLRQ$JHQF\1XPEHURI,QWHUVHFWLRQV$QDO\VW:7UDQV$QDO\VLV'DWH1XPEHURI6HJPHQWV-XULVGLFWLRQ7LPH3HULRG$0)XWXUH31XPEHURI,WHUDWLRQV)LOH1DPH$0)XWXUH3B%URDGB[XV$QDO\VLV<HDU6\VWHP&\FOH/HQJWKV,QWHUVHFWLRQV2UFXWW5RDG,QGXVWULDO5RDG$QDO\VLV3HULRG! 3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ6/2$LUSRUW+RWHOVIWPSKIWPSK%DVLF6HJPHQW,QIRUPDWLRQ %URDG6WUHHW 2UFXWWWR,QGXVWULDO 6HJPHQW6SHHG/LPLW7KURXJK/DQHV6HJPHQW/HQJWK,QWHUVHFWLRQ:LG/HQJWKRI503HUFHQW&XUE2WKHU'HOD\6%1%6%1%6%1%6%1%6%1%6%1%6%1% 6RXWKERXQG1RUWKERXQG6HJPHQW2XWSXW'DWD6%/6%76%51%/1%71%56HJPHQW0RYHPHQW%D\/DQH6SLOOEDFN7LPHK6KDUHG/DQH6SLOOEDFN7LPHK%DVH)UHH)ORZ6SHHGPSK 5XQQLQJ7LPHV 5XQQLQJ6SHHGPSK7KURXJK'HOD\VYHK 7UDYHO7LPHV 7UDYHO6SHHGPSK6WRS5DWHVWRSVYHK6SDWLDO6WRS5DWHVWRSVPL7KURXJKYROFDS5DWLR 3HUFHQWRI%DVH))6 /HYHORI6HUYLFH%$$XWR7UDYHOHU3HUFHSWLRQ6FRUH 0XOWLPRGDO5HVXOWV 6HJPHQW 3HGHVWULDQ6HJPHQW/266FRUH/26)'%LF\FOH6HJPHQW/266FRUH/26 $%7UDQVLW6HJPHQW/266FRUH/26)()DFLOLW\2XWSXW'DWD6RXWKERXQG1RUWKERXQG)DFLOLW\7UDYHO7LPHV)DFLOLW\7UDYHO6SHHGPSK)DFLOLW\%DVH)UHH)ORZ6SHHGPSK)DFLOLW\3HUFHQWRI%DVH))6)DFLOLW\/HYHORI6HUYLFH&%)DFLOLW\$XWR7UDYHOHU3HUFHSWLRQ6FRUH 0XOWLPRGDO5HVXOWV )DFLOLW\ 3HGHVWULDQ)DFLOLW\/266FRUH/26'%LF\FOH)DFLOLW\/266FRUH/26 $&7UDQVLW)DFLOLW\/266FRUH/26)(&RS\ULJKW8QLYHUVLW\RI)ORULGD$OO5LJKWV5HVHUYHG +&66WUHHWV9HUVLRQ *HQHUDWHG $0+&68UEDQ6WUHHW6HJPHQW5HSRUW*HQHUDO,QIRUPDWLRQ6WUHHWV,QIRUPDWLRQ$JHQF\1XPEHURI,QWHUVHFWLRQV$QDO\VW:7UDQV$QDO\VLV'DWH1XPEHURI6HJPHQWV-XULVGLFWLRQ7LPH3HULRG$0)XWXUH31XPEHURI,WHUDWLRQV)LOH1DPH$0)XWXUH3B%URDGB[XV$QDO\VLV<HDU6\VWHP&\FOH/HQJWKV,QWHUVHFWLRQV,QGXVWULDO5RDG7DQN)DUP5RDG$QDO\VLV3HULRG! 3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ6/2$LUSRUW+RWHOVIWPSKIWPSK%DVLF6HJPHQW,QIRUPDWLRQ %URDG ,QGXVWULDOWR7DQN)DUP 6HJPHQW6SHHG/LPLW7KURXJK/DQHV6HJPHQW/HQJWK,QWHUVHFWLRQ:LG/HQJWKRI503HUFHQW&XUE2WKHU'HOD\6%1%6%1%6%1%6%1%6%1%6%1%6%1%6RXWKERXQG1RUWKERXQG6HJPHQW2XWSXW'DWD6%/6%76%51%/1%71%56HJPHQW0RYHPHQW%D\/DQH6SLOOEDFN7LPHK6KDUHG/DQH6SLOOEDFN7LPHK%DVH)UHH)ORZ6SHHGPSK 5XQQLQJ7LPHV5XQQLQJ6SHHGPSK 7KURXJK'HOD\VYHK7UDYHO7LPHV 7UDYHO6SHHGPSK6WRS5DWHVWRSVYHK6SDWLDO6WRS5DWHVWRSVPL7KURXJKYROFDS5DWLR3HUFHQWRI%DVH))6/HYHORI6HUYLFH)($XWR7UDYHOHU3HUFHSWLRQ6FRUH0XOWLPRGDO5HVXOWV 6HJPHQW 3HGHVWULDQ6HJPHQW/266FRUH/26 ''%LF\FOH6HJPHQW/266FRUH/26%%7UDQVLW6HJPHQW/266FRUH/26)))DFLOLW\2XWSXW'DWD6RXWKERXQG1RUWKERXQG)DFLOLW\7UDYHO7LPHV)DFLOLW\7UDYHO6SHHGPSK)DFLOLW\%DVH)UHH)ORZ6SHHGPSK)DFLOLW\3HUFHQWRI%DVH))6)DFLOLW\/HYHORI6HUYLFH&%)DFLOLW\$XWR7UDYHOHU3HUFHSWLRQ6FRUH 0XOWLPRGDO5HVXOWV )DFLOLW\ 3HGHVWULDQ)DFLOLW\/266FRUH/26'%LF\FOH)DFLOLW\/266FRUH/26 $&7UDQVLW)DFLOLW\/266FRUH/26)(&RS\ULJKW8QLYHUVLW\RI)ORULGD$OO5LJKWV5HVHUYHG +&66WUHHWV9HUVLRQ *HQHUDWHG $0 Page 1129 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodAM Future+PNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Future+P_Broad_2.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsTank Farm RoadAero DriveAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 3000 ft45 mph14500 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Tank Farm to Aero )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB1454522300030008080001008045.045.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652121Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.3645.461Running Time, s93.0592.911Running Speed, mph21.9822.011Through Delay, s/veh18.47100.561Travel Time, s111.51193.471Travel Speed, mph18.3410.571Stop Rate, stops/veh0.701.221Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi1.242.151Through vol/cap Ratio0.771.081Percent of Base FFS40.4323.261Level of ServiceDF1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.432.58Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.67D3.37C1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.95A1.87A1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS5.02F6.48FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s210.19282.17Facility Travel Speed, mph24.3318.12Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.8646.01Facility Percent of Base FFS53.0539.39Facility Level of ServiceCFFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.372.45Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOSBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.54A1.50ATransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.10F6.60FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 5:54:39 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodAM Future+PNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Future+P_Broad_2.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsAero DriveBuckley Analysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 3000 ft45 mph14500 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Aero to Buckley )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB2454512450045005550000200.00.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652122Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph46.1946.382Running Time, s71.6069.522Running Speed, mph42.8544.132Through Delay, s/veh27.0819.172Travel Time, s98.6888.702Travel Speed, mph31.0934.592Stop Rate, stops/veh0.540.702Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.630.822Through vol/cap Ratio0.800.842Percent of Base FFS67.3174.592Level of ServiceBB2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.342.37Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOSFF2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.27A1.25A2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.81F6.69FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s210.19282.17Facility Travel Speed, mph24.3318.12Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.8646.01Facility Percent of Base FFS53.0539.39Facility Level of ServiceCFFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.372.45Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOSBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.54A1.50ATransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.10F6.60FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 5:54:39 PM Page 1130 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections4AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments3JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodAm Future+PNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Future+P_TF.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsS Higuera St Long StreetAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels650 ft45 mph18350 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Higuera to Long)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB14545216506507575001001000.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.9245.561Running Time, s12.5912.821Running Speed, mph35.1934.571Through Delay, s/veh20.0031.171Travel Time, s32.5943.991Travel Speed, mph13.6010.071Stop Rate, stops/veh0.710.681Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi5.755.511Through vol/cap Ratio0.830.041Percent of Base FFS29.6122.111Level of ServiceFF1Auto Traveler Perception Score3.113.06Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.37C3.41C1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.49B2.02B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.45F6.57FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s229.84202.70Facility Travel Speed, mph29.2233.13Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.9346.41Facility Percent of Base FFS63.6271.40Facility Level of ServiceCBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.462.33Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.91D3.89DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS3.03C2.86CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS1.55A1.43ACopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 5:59:56 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections4AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments3JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodAm Future+PNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Future+P_TF.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsLong StreetMindbody EntranceAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels650 ft45 mph18350 ft45 mph2850 ft40 mph34Basic Segment Information SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB24545128350835050500070700.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216162Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph46.4246.422Running Time, s131.38126.682Running Speed, mph43.3344.942Through Delay, s/veh11.9814.772Travel Time, s143.36141.452Travel Speed, mph39.7140.252Stop Rate, stops/veh0.490.672Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.310.432Through vol/cap Ratio0.900.572Percent of Base FFS85.5586.702Level of ServiceAA2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.392.31Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS4.03D3.70D2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS3.19C2.97C2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS0.67A0.48AFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s229.84202.70Facility Travel Speed, mph29.2233.13Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.9346.41Facility Percent of Base FFS63.6271.40Facility Level of ServiceCBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.462.33Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.91D3.89DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS3.03C2.86CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS1.55A1.43ACopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 5:59:56 PM Page 1131 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections4AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments3JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodAm Future+PNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Future+P_TF.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsMindbody EntranceBroad StreetAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels650 ft45 mph8350 ft45 mph2850 ft40 mph34Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - MB to Broad)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB3404521850850604565065010000.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement212163Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h3Shared Lane Spillback Time, h3Base Free-Flow Speed, mph41.6046.943Running Time, s16.7716.023Running Speed, mph34.5636.173Through Delay, s/veh37.131.233Travel Time, s53.8917.253Travel Speed, mph10.7533.603Stop Rate, stops/veh0.630.033Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi3.930.193Through vol/cap Ratio0.260.893Percent of Base FFS25.8571.583Level of ServiceFB3Auto Traveler Perception Score2.772.17Multimodal Results (Segment)3Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.13C6.20F3Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.81A2.45B3Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.42F6.89FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s229.84202.70Facility Travel Speed, mph29.2233.13Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.9346.41Facility Percent of Base FFS63.6271.40Facility Level of ServiceCBFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.462.33Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.91D3.89DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS3.03C2.86CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS1.55A1.43ACopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 5:59:56 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections2AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments1JurisdictionTime PeriodAM FutureNumber of Iterations15File NameAM Future+P_TF_2.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsBroad StreetUPRRAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 5200 ft35 mph12Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Broad to Orcutt)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB135401152005200786400100600.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph40.6243.161Running Time, s89.7285.891Running Speed, mph39.5241.281Through Delay, s/veh0.3440.441Travel Time, s90.06126.341Travel Speed, mph39.3728.061Stop Rate, stops/veh0.010.721Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.010.731Through vol/cap Ratio0.240.571Percent of Base FFS96.9365.031Level of ServiceAC1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.25Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.56D4.20D1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.34B2.57B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.46F5.19FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s90.06126.34Facility Travel Speed, mph39.3728.06Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph40.6243.16Facility Percent of Base FFS96.9365.03Facility Level of ServiceACFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.25Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.56D4.20DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.34C2.57CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.46F5.19FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/6/2020 11:40:14 AM Page 1132 of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age 1133 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodPM Future+PNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Future+P_Broad_2.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsTank Farm RoadAero DriveAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 3000 ft45 mph14500 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Tank Farm to Aero )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB1454522300030008080001008045.045.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652121Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.3645.461Running Time, s92.6492.621Running Speed, mph22.0822.081Through Delay, s/veh43.98275.941Travel Time, s136.62368.561Travel Speed, mph14.975.551Stop Rate, stops/veh0.782.151Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi1.373.781Through vol/cap Ratio0.931.501Percent of Base FFS33.0012.211Level of ServiceEF1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.452.87Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.42C3.50D1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.05B2.10B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS5.07F6.45FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s301.47476.60Facility Travel Speed, mph16.9610.73Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.8646.01Facility Percent of Base FFS36.9923.32Facility Level of ServiceFFFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.442.55Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOSBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.68A1.55ATransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.13F6.53FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 6:18:39 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodPM Future+PNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Future+P_Broad_2.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsAero DriveBuckley Analysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 3000 ft45 mph14500 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Aero to Buckley )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB2454512450045005550000200.00.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652122Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph46.1946.382Running Time, s72.0068.422Running Speed, mph42.6144.852Through Delay, s/veh92.8539.632Travel Time, s164.85108.042Travel Speed, mph18.6128.402Stop Rate, stops/veh1.050.712Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi1.230.842Through vol/cap Ratio1.120.692Percent of Base FFS40.2961.232Level of ServiceFC2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.432.37Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOSFF2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.44A1.18A2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.83F6.59FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s301.47476.60Facility Travel Speed, mph16.9610.73Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.8646.01Facility Percent of Base FFS36.9923.32Facility Level of ServiceFFFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.442.55Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOSBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.68A1.55ATransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.13F6.53FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 6:18:39 PM Page 1134 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections4AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments3JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodPM Future+PNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Future+P_TF.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsS Higuera St Long StreetAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 650 ft45 mph18350 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Higuera to Long)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB14545216506507575001001000.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.9245.561Running Time, s12.5312.651Running Speed, mph35.3735.031Through Delay, s/veh25.5726.561Travel Time, s38.1039.211Travel Speed, mph11.6311.301Stop Rate, stops/veh0.780.701Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi6.325.681Through vol/cap Ratio0.730.021Percent of Base FFS25.3324.811Level of ServiceFF1Auto Traveler Perception Score3.223.09Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.21C3.31C1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.23B2.00B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.41F6.48FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s274.59609.97Facility Travel Speed, mph24.4611.01Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.9346.41Facility Percent of Base FFS53.2523.73Facility Level of ServiceFFFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.512.40Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.95D5.51FBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.99C3.11CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS1.95A1.55ACopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 6:24:06 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections4AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments3JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodPM Future+PNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Future+P_TF.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsLong StreetMindbody EntranceAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 650 ft45 mph18350 ft45 mph2850 ft40 mph34Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Long to MB)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB24545118350835050500070700.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216162Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h2Shared Lane Spillback Time, h2Base Free-Flow Speed, mph46.4246.422Running Time, s129.79134.282Running Speed, mph43.8642.402Through Delay, s/veh57.41412.962Travel Time, s187.21547.242Travel Speed, mph30.4110.402Stop Rate, stops/veh0.962.442Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.611.542Through vol/cap Ratio1.061.852Percent of Base FFS65.5122.412Level of ServiceFF2Auto Traveler Perception Score2.442.37Multimodal Results (Segment)2Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS4.04D5.62F2Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS3.14C3.27C2Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS1.15A0.63AFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s274.59609.97Facility Travel Speed, mph24.4611.01Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.9346.41Facility Percent of Base FFS53.2523.73Facility Level of ServiceFFFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.512.40Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.95D5.51FBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.99C3.11CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS1.95A1.55ACopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 6:24:06 PM Page 1135 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections4AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/3/2020Number of Segments3JurisdictionCity of SLOTime PeriodPM Future+PNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Future+P_TF.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s124IntersectionsMindbody EntranceBroad StreetAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 650 ft45 mph8350 ft45 mph2850 ft40 mph34Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - MB to Broad)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB3404521850850604565065010000.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement212163Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h3Shared Lane Spillback Time, h3Base Free-Flow Speed, mph41.6046.943Running Time, s16.8815.963Running Speed, mph34.3336.313Through Delay, s/veh32.407.563Travel Time, s49.2823.523Travel Speed, mph11.7624.643Stop Rate, stops/veh0.710.113Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi4.390.683Through vol/cap Ratio0.580.923Percent of Base FFS28.2752.493Level of ServiceFC3Auto Traveler Perception Score2.852.24Multimodal Results (Segment)3Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.60D6.09F3Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.05B2.38B3Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.46F6.88FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s274.59609.97Facility Travel Speed, mph24.4611.01Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.9346.41Facility Percent of Base FFS53.2523.73Facility Level of ServiceFFFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.512.40Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS3.95D5.51FBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.99C3.11CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS1.95A1.55ACopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/5/2020 6:24:06 PMHCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections2AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments1JurisdictionTime PeriodPM FutureNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Future+P_TF_2.xusAnalysis Year2040System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsBroad StreetUPRRAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 5200 ft35 mph12Basic Segment Information (Tank Farm - Broad to Orcutt)SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelayEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWBEBWB135401152005200786400100600.00.0EastboundWestboundSegment Output DataEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSegmentMovement521216161Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph40.6243.161Running Time, s93.8485.111Running Speed, mph37.7841.661Through Delay, s/veh0.3852.141Travel Time, s94.22137.251Travel Speed, mph37.6325.831Stop Rate, stops/veh0.000.941Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi0.000.951Through vol/cap Ratio0.580.781Percent of Base FFS92.6559.861Level of ServiceAC1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.28Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS4.53E3.93D1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS2.68B2.49B1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS6.66F5.17FFacility Output DataEastboundWestboundFacility Travel Time, s94.22137.25Facility Travel Speed, mph37.6325.83Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph40.6243.16Facility Percent of Base FFS92.6559.86Facility Level of ServiceACFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.142.28Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOS4.53E3.93DBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS2.68C2.49CTransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.66F5.17FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated: 2/6/2020 11:42:18 AM Page 1136 of 1221 Page 1137 of 1221 F Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 2020 Appendix F Queuing Calculations Page 1138 of 1221 Page 1139 of 1221 Queues2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 18 10 136 97 54 862 203 57 1216 64v/c Ratio 0.13 0.05 0.53 0.32 0.61 0.41 0.23 0.38 0.57 0.07Control Delay 39.9 0.6 40.9 10.8 70.1 11.5 4.7 45.4 12.4 2.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 39.9 0.6 40.9 10.8 70.1 11.5 4.7 45.4 12.4 2.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 0 60 0 26 103 11 26 147 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 0 97 21 #96 223 56 64 277 13Internal Link Dist (ft) 288 473 1028 1931Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 180 150 175 150 440Base Capacity (vph) 783 723 721 665 89 2112 892 156 2171 918Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.15 0.61 0.41 0.23 0.37 0.56 0.07Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues3: LOVR & 101 SB02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 802 350 43 1012 486 248v/c Ratio 0.41 0.35 0.40 0.47 0.93 0.46Control Delay 11.3 1.6 51.9 10.7 57.2 16.0Queue Delay 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 11.6 1.9 51.9 10.7 57.2 16.0Queue Length 50th (ft) 155 0 24 155 263 56Queue Length 95th (ft) 153 6 55 187 #446 125Internal Link Dist (ft) 236 227 198Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225Base Capacity (vph) 1944 1007 108 2157 540 555Starvation Cap Reductn 507 2430000Spillback Cap Reductn000000Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.46 0.40 0.47 0.90 0.45Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1140 of 1221 Queues4: 101 NB & LOVR02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBLLane Group Flow (vph) 1132 182 106 513 647v/c Ratio 0.63 0.15 0.46 0.22 0.78Control Delay 22.5 0.7 51.0 7.8 43.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 22.5 0.7 51.0 7.8 43.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 288 0 70 65 208Queue Length 95th (ft) 428 13 117 100 251Internal Link Dist (ft) 191 529 142Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200Base Capacity (vph) 1806 1283 229 2378 938Starvation Cap Reductn00000Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.14 0.46 0.22 0.69Intersection SummaryQueues5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 4Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 59 29 154 158 267 13 410 818 260 282v/c Ratio 0.36 0.10 0.41 0.42 0.49 0.11 0.54 0.85 0.67 0.17Control Delay 48.7 0.7 35.3 35.4 7.7 48.1 35.3 15.2 42.7 15.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 48.7 0.7 35.3 35.4 7.7 48.1 35.3 15.2 42.7 15.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 32 0 77 81 0 7 110 65 136 44Queue Length 95th (ft) 60 0 156 161 60 28 180 191 252 97Internal Link Dist (ft) 109 777 1054 1668Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 140 100 165Base Capacity (vph) 626 635 538 540 669 181 1088 1063 567 1941Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.40 0.07 0.38 0.77 0.46 0.15Intersection SummaryPage 1141 of 1221 Queues8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 5Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBRLane Group Flow (vph) 851 36 855 28 9v/c Ratio 0.31 0.19 0.53 0.15 0.05Control Delay 5.9 23.3 4.8 23.2 14.0Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 5.9 23.3 4.8 23.2 14.0Queue Length 50th (ft)09070Queue Length 95th (ft) 138 32 230 21 7Internal Link Dist (ft) 429 239 814Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 125Base Capacity (vph) 3367 443 1863 564 502Starvation Cap Reductn00000Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.08 0.46 0.05 0.02Intersection SummaryQueues9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 6Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 251 167 418 278 300 200 227 825 73 796 414v/c Ratio 0.59 0.22 0.89 0.88 0.58 0.35 0.84 0.71 0.68 0.71 0.50Control Delay 53.8 36.7 46.2 75.9 40.7 7.3 79.7 38.3 85.1 40.4 10.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 53.8 36.7 46.2 75.9 40.7 7.3 79.7 38.3 85.1 40.4 10.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 92 53 185 205 191 6 88 281 55 280 80Queue Length 95th (ft) 137 82 308 #328 260 44 #173 393 #115 332 124Internal Link Dist (ft) 390 770 1836 1028Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 150 125 250 250 300Base Capacity (vph) 601 1085 594 325 606 632 270 1157 108 1116 894Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.42 0.15 0.70 0.86 0.50 0.32 0.84 0.71 0.68 0.71 0.46Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1142 of 1221 Queues11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 7Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 63 5 11 58 49 1203 46 777v/c Ratio 0.40 0.02 0.10 0.33 0.35 0.52 0.33 0.34Control Delay 55.1 0.2 51.8 9.4 54.6 14.6 54.5 12.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 55.1 0.2 51.8 9.4 54.6 14.6 54.5 12.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 42 0 7 0 32 260 31 141Queue Length 95th (ft) 83 0 17 0 73 381 66 198Internal Link Dist (ft) 310 100 211 1092Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 75 200 200Base Capacity (vph) 605 597 602 589 223 2319 223 2281Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.22 0.52 0.21 0.34Intersection SummaryQueues13: Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 74 218 8 223 1228 4 527 52v/c Ratio 0.45 0.38 0.05 0.85 0.82 0.05 0.44 0.05Control Delay 68.5 6.3 0.6 85.4 16.1 69.3 14.5 1.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 68.5 6.3 0.6 85.4 16.1 69.3 14.5 1.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 61 0 0 185 391 3 200 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 109 30 0 #428 #1582 17 332 5Internal Link Dist (ft) 1017 1172 826 2818Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 360 400 400Base Capacity (vph) 345 579 274 261 1501 209 1444 1209Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.38 0.03 0.85 0.82 0.02 0.36 0.04Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1143 of 1221 Queues2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 117 58 227 262 94 1104 198 148 1198 98v/c Ratio 0.53 0.20 0.70 0.55 0.53 0.80 0.32 1.12 0.90 0.16Control Delay 48.7 1.5 48.9 9.2 52.7 32.1 11.6 157.1 40.9 5.3Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 48.7 1.5 48.9 9.2 52.7 32.1 11.6 157.1 40.9 5.3Queue Length 50th (ft) 66 0 128 0 53 299 32 ~102 ~388 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 106 0 199 50 113 #486 97 #250 #657 36Internal Link Dist (ft) 288 473 1028 1931Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 180 150 175 150 440Base Capacity (vph) 671 659 438 552 208 1382 617 132 1328 607Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.09 0.52 0.47 0.45 0.80 0.32 1.12 0.90 0.16Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues3: LOVR & 101 SB02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 936 651 63 1348 307 415v/c Ratio 0.49 0.59 0.40 0.59 0.67 0.93Control Delay 19.4 8.6 45.7 10.7 37.5 56.1Queue Delay 1.5 0.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.6Total Delay 20.9 9.4 45.7 11.6 37.5 57.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 184 35 34 215 154 194Queue Length 95th (ft) 288 195 73 275 242 #368Internal Link Dist (ft) 236 227 198Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225Base Capacity (vph) 1898 1105 186 2283 481 465Starvation Cap Reductn 728 1950000Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 584 0 10Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.80 0.72 0.34 0.79 0.64 0.91Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1144 of 1221 Queues4: 101 NB & LOVR02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBLLane Group Flow (vph) 837 375 188 971 658v/c Ratio 0.70 0.32 0.59 0.48 0.65Control Delay 24.1 1.1 36.7 10.1 25.2Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 24.1 1.1 36.7 10.1 25.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 172 0 79 127 125Queue Length 95th (ft) 231 17 #159 168 202Internal Link Dist (ft) 191 529 142Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200Base Capacity (vph) 2080 1201 342 2927 1105Starvation Cap Reductn00000Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.31 0.55 0.33 0.60Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 4Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 24 28 316 316 357 32 541 449 328 845v/c Ratio 0.18 0.11 0.68 0.67 0.53 0.33 0.72 0.52 0.76 0.53Control Delay 49.0 0.9 39.8 39.6 6.4 57.7 41.3 5.4 50.0 23.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 49.0 0.9 39.8 39.6 6.4 57.7 41.3 5.4 50.0 23.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 0 193 192 0 21 176 33 212 238Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 0 309 309 70 54 241 70 #338 280Internal Link Dist (ft) 109 670 1054 1668Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 140 100 165Base Capacity (vph) 601 563 556 558 740 97 936 938 429 1613Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.05 0.57 0.57 0.48 0.33 0.58 0.48 0.76 0.52Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1145 of 1221 Queues8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 5Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBRLane Group Flow (vph) 1197 7 1070 184 45v/c Ratio 0.57 0.06 0.93 0.62 0.15Control Delay 9.7 29.2 26.8 32.1 9.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0Total Delay 9.7 29.2 27.1 32.1 9.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 101 2 268 51 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 245 15 #678 110 17Internal Link Dist (ft) 372 258 540Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 125Base Capacity (vph) 2970 341 1813 434 422Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 240 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.40 0.02 0.68 0.42 0.11Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 6Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 503 455 277 200 218 135 430 999 221 740 565v/c Ratio 0.66 0.55 0.49 0.74 0.71 0.35 0.73 1.12 0.76 0.85 0.72Control Delay 34.5 30.9 6.7 52.6 47.5 6.8 41.1 100.1 52.8 42.6 19.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 34.5 30.9 6.7 52.6 47.5 6.8 41.1 100.1 52.8 42.6 19.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 129 114 0 105 112 0 114 ~342 116 207 179Queue Length 95th (ft) 181 161 58 #205 190 35 152 #421 #228 #332 299Internal Link Dist (ft) 429 770 2199 1028Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 150 125 250 250 300Base Capacity (vph) 917 1031 639 301 362 421 667 891 322 871 849Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.44 0.43 0.66 0.60 0.32 0.64 1.12 0.69 0.85 0.67Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1146 of 1221 Queues11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 7Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 225 53 12 31 45 820 4 1057v/c Ratio 0.72 0.15 0.11 0.16 0.37 0.37 0.04 0.54Control Delay 55.1 1.1 53.8 1.8 59.2 12.4 53.2 19.0Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 55.1 1.1 53.8 1.8 59.2 12.4 53.2 19.0Queue Length 50th (ft) 152 0 8 0 31 140 3 268Queue Length 95th (ft) 193 0 23 0 71 263 15 384Internal Link Dist (ft) 498 322 255 729Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 75 200 200Base Capacity (vph) 518 528 521 526 138 2225 138 1940Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.10 0.02 0.06 0.33 0.37 0.03 0.54Intersection SummaryQueues13: Edna Rd (SR 227)/Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 41 376 16 74 613 2 1007 34v/c Ratio 0.21 0.72 0.08 0.34 0.41 0.02 0.87 0.03Control Delay 57.0 25.7 0.8 59.8 7.1 67.0 27.4 1.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 57.0 25.7 0.8 59.8 7.1 67.0 27.4 1.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 93 0 46 87 1 423 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 76 229 0 124 348 12 1104 9Internal Link Dist (ft) 2049 536 742 3252Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 360 400 400Base Capacity (vph) 547 675 385 415 1675 644 1732 1444Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.56 0.04 0.18 0.37 0.00 0.58 0.02Intersection SummaryPage 1147 of 1221 Queues2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 18 10 136 97 54 884 203 57 1253 64v/c Ratio 0.13 0.05 0.53 0.32 0.61 0.42 0.23 0.38 0.59 0.07Control Delay 39.9 0.6 40.9 10.8 70.1 11.6 4.9 45.4 12.7 2.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 39.9 0.6 40.9 10.8 70.1 11.6 4.9 45.4 12.7 2.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 8 0 60 0 26 106 11 26 155 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 17 0 97 21 #96 230 57 64 289 13Internal Link Dist (ft) 288 473 1028 1931Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 180 150 175 150 440Base Capacity (vph) 783 723 721 665 89 2112 891 156 2171 918Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.02 0.01 0.19 0.15 0.61 0.42 0.23 0.37 0.58 0.07Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues3: LOVR & 101 SB02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 805 350 43 1014 490 248v/c Ratio 0.41 0.35 0.40 0.47 0.94 0.46Control Delay 11.4 1.6 51.9 10.7 58.1 16.0Queue Delay 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 11.7 1.9 51.9 10.7 58.1 16.0Queue Length 50th (ft) 156 0 24 155 266 56Queue Length 95th (ft) 154 6 55 188 #451 125Internal Link Dist (ft) 236 227 198Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225Base Capacity (vph) 1942 1006 108 2154 540 555Starvation Cap Reductn 505 2430000Spillback Cap Reductn000000Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.46 0.40 0.47 0.91 0.45Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1148 of 1221 Queues4: 101 NB & LOVR02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBLLane Group Flow (vph) 1140 182 109 515 647v/c Ratio 0.64 0.15 0.46 0.22 0.78Control Delay 23.0 0.7 50.5 7.8 43.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 23.0 0.7 50.5 7.8 43.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 294 0 72 65 208Queue Length 95th (ft) 434 13 119 101 251Internal Link Dist (ft) 191 529 142Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200Base Capacity (vph) 1792 1278 236 2378 938Starvation Cap Reductn00000Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.64 0.14 0.46 0.22 0.69Intersection SummaryQueues5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 4Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 59 29 159 162 269 13 410 831 263 282v/c Ratio 0.36 0.10 0.40 0.41 0.48 0.11 0.55 0.86 0.68 0.17Control Delay 49.5 0.7 34.9 35.0 7.4 48.6 36.1 15.9 43.7 16.0Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 49.5 0.7 34.9 35.0 7.4 48.6 36.1 15.9 43.7 16.0Queue Length 50th (ft) 34 0 82 84 0 8 116 73 145 48Queue Length 95th (ft) 60 0 162 164 60 28 180 #220 255 97Internal Link Dist (ft) 109 777 1054 1668Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 140 100 165Base Capacity (vph) 611 624 526 527 661 177 1062 1051 553 1905Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.05 0.30 0.31 0.41 0.07 0.39 0.79 0.48 0.15Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1149 of 1221 Queues8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 5Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBRLane Group Flow (vph) 867 36 866 28 9v/c Ratio 0.32 0.19 0.54 0.15 0.05Control Delay 5.9 23.5 4.9 23.4 14.0Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 5.9 23.5 4.9 23.4 14.0Queue Length 50th (ft)09070Queue Length 95th (ft) 142 32 236 21 8Internal Link Dist (ft) 429 239 814Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 125Base Capacity (vph) 3358 441 1863 561 500Starvation Cap Reductn00000Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.08 0.46 0.05 0.02Intersection SummaryQueues9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 6Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 251 167 435 283 300 200 238 851 73 834 414v/c Ratio 0.59 0.21 0.90 0.90 0.55 0.34 0.90 0.75 0.69 0.76 0.51Control Delay 54.8 36.2 48.0 80.4 39.7 7.3 89.1 40.6 87.6 43.1 11.0Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 54.8 36.2 48.0 80.4 39.7 7.3 89.1 40.6 87.6 43.1 11.0Queue Length 50th (ft) 95 53 206 216 191 7 95 304 56 307 85Queue Length 95th (ft) 137 82 335 #338 260 46 #185 408 #115 350 125Internal Link Dist (ft) 390 770 1836 1028Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 150 125 250 250 300Base Capacity (vph) 590 1064 583 319 601 627 265 1135 106 1094 880Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.16 0.75 0.89 0.50 0.32 0.90 0.75 0.69 0.76 0.47Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1150 of 1221 Queues11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 7Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 103 14 11 58 60 1203 46 822v/c Ratio 0.54 0.06 0.11 0.34 0.41 0.56 0.35 0.40Control Delay 58.4 0.4 54.3 9.5 57.7 16.5 57.2 14.2Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 58.4 0.4 54.3 9.5 57.7 16.5 57.2 14.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 70 0 8 0 41 277 32 165Queue Length 95th (ft) 123 0 17 0 88 410 68 233Internal Link Dist (ft) 310 100 211 1092Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 75 200 200Base Capacity (vph) 569 567 568 560 211 2142 211 2074Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.28 0.56 0.22 0.40Intersection SummaryQueues13: Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 74 218 8 223 1239 4 537 52v/c Ratio 0.45 0.38 0.05 0.85 0.83 0.05 0.45 0.05Control Delay 68.5 6.3 0.6 85.4 16.5 69.3 14.6 1.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 68.5 6.3 0.6 85.4 16.5 69.3 14.6 1.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 61 0 0 185 402 3 206 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 109 30 0 #428 #1606 17 339 5Internal Link Dist (ft) 1017 1172 826 2818Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 360 400 400Base Capacity (vph) 345 579 274 261 1501 209 1444 1209Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.38 0.03 0.85 0.83 0.02 0.37 0.04Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1151 of 1221 Queues2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/12/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 117 58 227 262 94 1134 198 148 1218 109v/c Ratio 0.53 0.20 0.70 0.55 0.53 0.82 0.32 1.12 0.88 0.17Control Delay 48.7 1.5 48.9 9.2 52.7 33.1 11.9 157.1 38.4 5.9Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 48.7 1.5 48.9 9.2 52.7 33.1 11.9 157.1 38.4 5.9Queue Length 50th (ft) 66 0 128 0 53 312 33 ~102 371 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 106 0 199 50 113 #508 99 #250 #622 39Internal Link Dist (ft) 288 473 1028 1931Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 180 150 175 150 440Base Capacity (vph) 671 659 438 552 208 1382 615 132 1388 646Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.09 0.52 0.47 0.45 0.82 0.32 1.12 0.88 0.17Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues3: LOVR & 101 SB02/12/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 938 651 63 1351 313 415v/c Ratio 0.49 0.59 0.40 0.59 0.68 0.93Control Delay 19.4 8.7 45.7 10.7 38.1 56.1Queue Delay 1.5 0.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.6Total Delay 20.9 9.4 45.7 11.6 38.1 57.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 184 35 34 215 157 194Queue Length 95th (ft) 288 194 73 275 247 #368Internal Link Dist (ft) 236 227 198Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 225Base Capacity (vph) 1898 1105 186 2283 481 465Starvation Cap Reductn 727 1950000Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 582 0 10Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.80 0.72 0.34 0.79 0.65 0.91Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1152 of 1221 Queues4: 101 NB & LOVR02/12/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBLLane Group Flow (vph) 844 375 194 973 658v/c Ratio 0.71 0.32 0.60 0.48 0.65Control Delay 24.3 1.1 37.4 10.0 25.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 24.3 1.1 37.4 10.0 25.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 174 0 82 127 126Queue Length 95th (ft) 234 17 #173 169 203Internal Link Dist (ft) 191 529 142Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200Base Capacity (vph) 2062 1198 339 2917 1095Starvation Cap Reductn00000Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.31 0.57 0.33 0.60Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road02/12/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 4Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 24 28 323 322 360 32 541 462 331 845v/c Ratio 0.18 0.11 0.69 0.68 0.53 0.33 0.72 0.53 0.78 0.53Control Delay 49.1 0.9 40.2 39.9 6.4 57.8 41.5 5.7 50.8 23.2Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 49.1 0.9 40.2 39.9 6.4 57.8 41.5 5.7 50.8 23.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 0 198 197 0 21 176 37 215 238Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 0 316 315 71 54 241 74 #342 280Internal Link Dist (ft) 109 670 1054 1668Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 140 100 165Base Capacity (vph) 599 562 554 556 741 97 933 936 427 1608Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.05 0.58 0.58 0.49 0.33 0.58 0.49 0.78 0.53Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1153 of 1221 Queues8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/12/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 5Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBRLane Group Flow (vph) 1214 7 1087 184 45v/c Ratio 0.58 0.06 0.94 0.62 0.15Control Delay 9.7 29.3 28.7 32.3 9.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0Total Delay 9.7 29.3 29.0 32.3 9.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 103 2 280 51 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 249 15 #698 111 18Internal Link Dist (ft) 372 258 540Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 125Base Capacity (vph) 2958 339 1810 432 420Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 236 0 0Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.02 0.69 0.43 0.11Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/12/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 6Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 503 455 293 208 218 135 449 1040 221 770 565v/c Ratio 0.66 0.56 0.51 0.76 0.71 0.35 0.75 1.17 0.76 0.89 0.73Control Delay 34.5 31.1 6.8 54.0 47.5 6.8 42.0 117.1 52.8 46.6 19.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 34.5 31.1 6.8 54.0 47.5 6.8 42.0 117.1 52.8 46.6 19.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 129 114 0 110 112 0 120 ~367 116 218 181Queue Length 95th (ft) 181 161 60 #217 190 35 159 #446 #228 #352 301Internal Link Dist (ft) 429 770 2199 1028Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 150 125 250 250 300Base Capacity (vph) 917 1031 650 301 362 421 667 892 322 863 845Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.55 0.44 0.45 0.69 0.60 0.32 0.67 1.17 0.69 0.89 0.67Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1154 of 1221 Queues11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/12/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 7Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 291 73 12 31 63 820 4 1099v/c Ratio 0.77 0.18 0.11 0.16 0.50 0.39 0.04 0.60Control Delay 55.3 4.0 56.4 1.9 67.2 14.6 55.8 22.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 55.3 4.0 56.4 1.9 67.2 14.6 55.8 22.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 206 0 9 0 46 161 3 316Queue Length 95th (ft) 246 6 24 0 #96 277 15 428Internal Link Dist (ft) 498 322 255 729Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 75 200 200Base Capacity (vph) 503 515 506 514 134 2116 134 1828Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.14 0.02 0.06 0.47 0.39 0.03 0.60Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues13: Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road02/12/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 41 376 16 74 632 2 1023 34v/c Ratio 0.22 0.74 0.08 0.35 0.42 0.02 0.87 0.03Control Delay 59.9 28.1 0.9 62.5 7.0 70.0 26.7 1.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 59.9 28.1 0.9 62.5 7.0 70.0 26.7 1.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 101 0 48 91 1 445 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 76 233 0 124 364 12 1145 9Internal Link Dist (ft) 2049 536 742 3252Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 360 400 400Base Capacity (vph) 525 655 373 399 1664 619 1697 1416Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.57 0.04 0.19 0.38 0.00 0.60 0.02Intersection SummaryPage 1155 of 1221 Queues2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 20 10 100 78 54 1150 202 90 1600 104v/c Ratio 0.14 0.05 0.47 0.31 0.64 0.56 0.24 0.61 0.74 0.11Control Delay 39.9 0.5 42.1 12.3 74.6 13.9 6.2 57.1 15.9 3.0Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 39.9 0.5 42.1 12.3 74.6 13.9 6.2 57.1 15.9 3.0Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 0 51 0 29 208 24 47 325 2Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 0 100 39 #93 308 66 #121 483 25Internal Link Dist (ft) 288 473 1028 1931Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 180 150 175 150 440Base Capacity (vph) 763 689 684 624 85 2037 851 148 2165 925Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.01 0.15 0.13 0.64 0.56 0.24 0.61 0.74 0.11Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues3: LOVR & 101 SB02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 816 356 39 992 479 245v/c Ratio 0.42 0.35 0.36 0.46 0.92 0.45Control Delay 11.4 1.6 50.3 10.5 55.6 15.2Queue Delay 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 11.7 1.9 50.3 10.5 55.6 15.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 158 0 22 151 258 52Queue Length 95th (ft) 162 6 54 195 #437 119Internal Link Dist (ft) 236 227 422Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 150Base Capacity (vph) 1948 1011 108 2161 540 559Starvation Cap Reductn 502 2410000Spillback Cap Reductn000000Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.46 0.36 0.46 0.89 0.44Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1156 of 1221 Queues4: 101 NB & LOVR02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBLLane Group Flow (vph) 1116 179 95 462 664v/c Ratio 0.61 0.14 0.47 0.20 0.78Control Delay 21.7 0.6 52.8 7.9 43.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 21.7 0.6 52.8 7.9 43.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 283 0 64 60 212Queue Length 95th (ft) 416 12 114 98 257Internal Link Dist (ft) 191 529 142Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200Base Capacity (vph) 1838 1298 203 2357 944Starvation Cap Reductn00000Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.61 0.14 0.47 0.20 0.70Intersection SummaryQueues5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm02/13/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 44 30 150 148 290 20 500 880 500 460v/c Ratio 0.34 0.11 0.39 0.38 0.51 0.22 0.65 0.94 1.05 0.26Control Delay 52.4 0.9 37.9 37.7 7.8 53.6 39.4 28.4 91.4 15.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 52.4 0.9 37.9 37.7 7.8 53.6 39.4 28.4 91.4 15.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 27 0 86 85 0 12 153 166 ~357 78Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 0 161 158 72 39 214 #404 #610 141Internal Link Dist (ft) 109 777 1054 1668Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 140 100 165Base Capacity (vph) 508 546 384 386 572 91 955 934 478 1788Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.05 0.39 0.38 0.51 0.22 0.52 0.94 1.05 0.26Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1157 of 1221 Queues6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 5Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 61 1350 120 660 140 90v/c Ratio 0.35 0.77 0.71 0.34 0.53 0.41Control Delay 37.9 20.9 58.2 12.4 19.2 25.7Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 37.9 20.9 58.2 12.4 19.2 25.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 25 253 53 95 17 21Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 #470 #148 168 68 65Internal Link Dist (ft) 777 787 603 450Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 175Base Capacity (vph) 194 1754 169 1945 465 403Starvation Cap Reductn000000Spillback Cap Reductn000000Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.77 0.71 0.34 0.30 0.22Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 6Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBRLane Group Flow (vph) 1360 100 1400 50 20v/c Ratio 0.61 0.49 0.89 0.31 0.12Control Delay 10.8 37.5 18.8 36.1 17.3Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 10.8 37.5 18.8 36.1 17.3Queue Length 50th (ft) 183 36 ~590 18 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 310 97 #1024 58 20Internal Link Dist (ft) 429 239 814Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 125Base Capacity (vph) 2656 317 1739 403 370Starvation Cap Reductn00500Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.51 0.32 0.81 0.12 0.05Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1158 of 1221 Queues9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 7Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 320 210 400 300 420 179 340 1080 100 800 800v/c Ratio 0.46 0.22 0.73 1.01 0.92 0.35 0.93 1.02 0.93 0.88 1.00Control Delay 46.0 35.1 30.3 106.1 72.0 7.2 88.1 75.0 128.0 56.1 57.3Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 46.0 35.1 30.3 106.1 72.0 7.2 88.1 75.0 128.0 56.1 57.3Queue Length 50th (ft) 118 68 163 ~258 328 0 143 ~490 82 329 ~529Queue Length 95th (ft) 165 101 286 #440 #509 56 #236 #627 #195 #437 #592Internal Link Dist (ft) 390 770 1836 1028Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 150 125 250 250 300Base Capacity (vph) 699 1016 571 297 483 534 364 1059 107 913 802Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.21 0.70 1.01 0.87 0.34 0.93 1.02 0.93 0.88 1.00Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 70 40 20 130 59 1460 50 920v/c Ratio 0.44 0.18 0.17 0.58 0.40 0.68 0.36 0.44Control Delay 57.2 1.8 53.1 19.5 57.1 18.9 56.8 14.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 57.2 1.8 53.1 19.5 57.1 18.9 56.8 14.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 0 14 0 40 367 34 184Queue Length 95th (ft) 99 0 40 60 87 568 78 296Internal Link Dist (ft) 310 100 211 1092Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 75 200 200Base Capacity (vph) 583 576 578 597 214 2158 214 2103Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.22 0.28 0.68 0.23 0.44Intersection SummaryPage 1159 of 1221 Queues13: Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 9Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 79 180 5 229 1482 3 682 162v/c Ratio 0.53 0.33 0.04 0.85 0.95 0.05 0.55 0.15Control Delay 85.7 6.4 0.6 93.5 27.7 83.0 18.7 2.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 85.7 6.4 0.6 93.5 27.7 83.0 18.7 2.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 80 0 0 234 867 3 339 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 152 55 0 365 #2276 17 700 36Internal Link Dist (ft) 1017 1172 826 2818Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 360 400 400Base Capacity (vph) 241 639 125 396 1553 65 1245 1082Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.28 0.04 0.58 0.95 0.05 0.55 0.15Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues14: S. Higuera Street & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 10Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 97 158 499 235 97 358v/c Ratio 0.29 0.37 0.47 0.23 0.29 0.27Control Delay 22.7 7.7 12.2 2.4 23.2 4.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 22.7 7.7 12.2 2.4 23.2 4.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 23 0 105 0 23 31Queue Length 95th (ft) 74 44 224 32 76 73Internal Link Dist (ft) 1596 529 1539Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200 150Base Capacity (vph) 774 781 1537 1347 472 1784Starvation Cap Reductn000000Spillback Cap Reductn000000Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.20 0.32 0.17 0.21 0.20Intersection SummaryPage 1160 of 1221 Queues2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 120 50 204 258 94 1600 199 140 1400 111v/c Ratio 0.56 0.17 0.73 0.58 0.88 1.06 0.30 0.98 0.89 0.15Control Delay 51.4 1.3 57.1 10.9 108.1 71.9 10.9 118.8 34.5 4.2Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 51.4 1.3 57.1 10.9 108.1 71.9 10.9 118.8 34.5 4.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 73 0 124 0 61 ~601 36 91 423 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 130 0 #234 73 #165 #792 93 #226 #618 33Internal Link Dist (ft) 288 473 1028 1931Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 180 150 175 150 440Base Capacity (vph) 632 630 297 455 107 1503 658 143 1574 720Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.08 0.69 0.57 0.88 1.06 0.30 0.98 0.89 0.15Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues3: LOVR & 101 SB02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 962 669 65 1386 306 413v/c Ratio 0.51 0.60 0.41 0.61 0.67 0.92Control Delay 19.4 9.0 46.1 11.0 37.5 55.7Queue Delay 1.7 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.5Total Delay 21.1 9.8 46.1 12.0 37.5 57.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 191 40 35 225 153 192Queue Length 95th (ft) 295 207 75 287 242 #366Internal Link Dist (ft) 236 227 198Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 1000Base Capacity (vph) 1900 1106 186 2285 481 465Starvation Cap Reductn 720 1910000Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 586 0 10Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.82 0.73 0.35 0.82 0.64 0.91Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1161 of 1221 Queues4: 101 NB & LOVR02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBLLane Group Flow (vph) 861 386 188 968 628v/c Ratio 0.70 0.33 0.58 0.47 0.64Control Delay 23.7 1.1 37.1 9.6 25.6Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 23.7 1.1 37.1 9.6 25.6Queue Length 50th (ft) 176 0 79 124 120Queue Length 95th (ft) 238 17 #171 167 197Internal Link Dist (ft) 191 529 142Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200Base Capacity (vph) 2088 1217 343 2919 1108Starvation Cap Reductn00000Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.41 0.32 0.55 0.33 0.57Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road02/13/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 30 22 312 308 600 32 800 443 450 890v/c Ratio 0.25 0.09 0.90 0.89 0.76 0.33 0.86 0.56 0.94 0.49Control Delay 53.2 0.7 72.3 69.6 10.4 59.7 49.2 8.5 67.8 19.3Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 53.2 0.7 72.3 69.6 10.4 59.7 49.2 8.5 67.8 19.3Queue Length 50th (ft) 20 0 227 224 0 22 284 58 311 226Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 0 #413 #406 118 56 #403 114 #527 299Internal Link Dist (ft) 109 670 1054 1668Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 140 100 165Base Capacity (vph) 456 468 346 348 788 99 928 795 481 1819Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.05 0.90 0.89 0.76 0.32 0.86 0.56 0.94 0.49Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1162 of 1221 Queues6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 5Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 90 820 160 1270 210 130v/c Ratio 0.62 0.63 0.60 0.82 0.58 0.47Control Delay 53.0 20.8 38.0 23.4 14.1 20.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 53.0 20.8 38.0 23.4 14.1 20.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 34 134 57 213 11 23Queue Length 95th (ft) #115 242 #149 #442 67 72Internal Link Dist (ft) 747 867 410 362Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 175Base Capacity (vph) 144 1307 288 1548 560 489Starvation Cap Reductn000000Spillback Cap Reductn000000Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.56 0.82 0.38 0.27Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 6Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBRLane Group Flow (vph) 1440 70 1320 250 100v/c Ratio 0.77 0.45 1.07 0.80 0.28Control Delay 18.2 44.5 62.8 53.6 9.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 18.2 44.5 62.9 53.6 9.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 280 32 ~710 114 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 403 78 #1032 #280 43Internal Link Dist (ft) 372 258 540Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 125Base Capacity (vph) 2269 263 1572 335 381Starvation Cap Reductn00500Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.27 0.84 0.75 0.26Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1163 of 1221 Queues9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 7Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 670 580 319 210 290 150 520 1340 260 860 580v/c Ratio 1.17 0.82 0.62 0.84 0.89 0.39 0.87 1.12 1.10 0.80 0.76Control Delay 128.1 45.1 13.4 67.2 66.9 9.0 52.2 92.4 126.0 35.5 23.2Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 128.1 45.1 13.4 67.2 66.9 9.0 52.2 92.4 126.0 35.5 23.2Queue Length 50th (ft) ~236 167 28 118 162 0 148 ~456 ~170 236 211Queue Length 95th (ft) #344 #247 112 #236 #304 50 #231 #591 #319 310 338Internal Link Dist (ft) 429 770 2199 1028Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 150 125 250 250 300Base Capacity (vph) 574 710 513 256 332 393 612 1201 237 1077 762Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 1.17 0.82 0.62 0.82 0.87 0.38 0.85 1.12 1.10 0.80 0.76Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 190 46 37 350 41 1020 100 1325v/c Ratio 0.71 0.14 0.15 0.86 0.39 0.62 0.85 0.77Control Delay 65.2 0.9 46.9 38.7 70.1 28.8 107.7 32.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 65.2 0.9 46.9 38.7 70.1 28.8 107.7 32.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 141 0 25 97 31 304 78 451Queue Length 95th (ft) 245 0 60 227 79 506 #221 #785Internal Link Dist (ft) 498 322 255 729Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 75 200 200Base Capacity (vph) 446 467 449 558 118 1639 118 1727Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.10 0.08 0.63 0.35 0.62 0.85 0.77Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1164 of 1221 Queues13: Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 9Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 88 347 12 67 752 2 1014 34v/c Ratio 0.40 0.63 0.07 0.42 0.55 0.02 0.88 0.03Control Delay 60.1 20.1 0.8 67.0 9.7 69.5 28.9 1.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 60.1 20.1 0.8 67.0 9.7 69.5 28.9 1.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 52 65 0 41 149 1 469 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 144 210 0 122 524 12 1105 10Internal Link Dist (ft) 2049 536 742 3252Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 360 400 400Base Capacity (vph) 464 704 340 353 1655 548 1695 1415Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.49 0.04 0.19 0.45 0.00 0.60 0.02Intersection SummaryQueues14: S. Higuera Street & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative Synchro 10 ReportPage 10Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 230 424 295 241 243 663v/c Ratio 0.52 0.60 0.58 0.40 0.56 0.60Control Delay 25.2 6.6 24.5 5.4 26.4 10.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 25.2 6.6 24.5 5.4 26.4 10.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 61 0 80 0 66 112Queue Length 95th (ft) 168 66 203 50 180 274Internal Link Dist (ft) 1771 1152 2493Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200 150Base Capacity (vph) 922 1027 1006 966 785 1682Starvation Cap Reductn000000Spillback Cap Reductn000000Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.25 0.41 0.29 0.25 0.31 0.39Intersection SummaryPage 1165 of 1221 Queues2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 20 10 100 78 54 1171 202 90 1630 104v/c Ratio 0.14 0.05 0.47 0.31 0.64 0.57 0.24 0.61 0.75 0.11Control Delay 39.9 0.5 42.1 12.3 74.6 14.1 6.3 57.1 16.4 3.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 39.9 0.5 42.1 12.3 74.6 14.1 6.3 57.1 16.4 3.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 0 51 0 29 214 24 47 336 2Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 0 100 39 #93 316 67 #121 500 25Internal Link Dist (ft) 288 473 1028 1931Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 180 150 175 150 440Base Capacity (vph) 763 689 684 624 85 2037 850 148 2165 924Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.03 0.01 0.15 0.13 0.64 0.57 0.24 0.61 0.75 0.11Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues3: LOVR & 101 SB02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 819 356 39 924 483 245v/c Ratio 0.42 0.35 0.36 0.43 0.93 0.44Control Delay 11.5 1.6 50.3 10.2 56.4 13.2Queue Delay 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 11.8 1.9 50.3 10.2 56.4 13.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 160 0 22 137 261 42Queue Length 95th (ft) 164 6 54 178 #443 107Internal Link Dist (ft) 236 227 422Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 150Base Capacity (vph) 1946 1010 108 2158 540 573Starvation Cap Reductn 501 2410000Spillback Cap Reductn000600Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.57 0.46 0.36 0.43 0.89 0.43Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1166 of 1221 Queues4: 101 NB & LOVR02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBLLane Group Flow (vph) 1123 179 98 464 664v/c Ratio 0.62 0.14 0.47 0.20 0.78Control Delay 22.1 0.6 52.3 7.9 43.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 22.1 0.6 52.3 7.9 43.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 287 0 65 61 212Queue Length 95th (ft) 422 12 117 98 257Internal Link Dist (ft) 191 529 142Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200Base Capacity (vph) 1824 1292 210 2357 944Starvation Cap Reductn00000Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.62 0.14 0.47 0.20 0.70Intersection SummaryQueues5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm02/13/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 44 30 152 151 292 20 500 887 503 460v/c Ratio 0.31 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.48 0.20 0.63 0.88 0.70 0.29Control Delay 50.2 0.8 31.2 31.2 6.4 51.9 36.8 16.4 42.8 19.5Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 50.2 0.8 31.2 31.2 6.4 51.9 36.8 16.4 42.8 19.5Queue Length 50th (ft) 26 0 77 76 0 12 141 84 147 83Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 0 145 143 62 39 217 #212 #261 164Internal Link Dist (ft) 109 777 1054 1668Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 140 100 165Base Capacity (vph) 568 591 605 608 736 102 1028 1120 717 1632Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.08 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.40 0.20 0.49 0.79 0.70 0.28Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1167 of 1221 Queues6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 5Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 61 1360 120 667 140 90v/c Ratio 0.35 0.78 0.71 0.34 0.53 0.41Control Delay 37.9 21.1 58.2 12.4 19.2 25.7Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 37.9 21.1 58.2 12.4 19.2 25.7Queue Length 50th (ft) 25 256 53 96 17 21Queue Length 95th (ft) 66 #475 #148 171 68 65Internal Link Dist (ft) 777 787 603 450Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 175Base Capacity (vph) 194 1754 169 1945 465 403Starvation Cap Reductn000000Spillback Cap Reductn000000Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.31 0.78 0.71 0.34 0.30 0.22Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 6Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBRLane Group Flow (vph) 1370 100 1407 50 20v/c Ratio 0.62 0.49 0.90 0.31 0.12Control Delay 10.8 37.8 19.1 36.3 17.2Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 10.8 37.8 19.1 36.3 17.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 185 36 ~598 18 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 314 98 #1036 59 20Internal Link Dist (ft) 429 239 814Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 125Base Capacity (vph) 2646 316 1773 402 369Starvation Cap Reductn00500Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.32 0.80 0.12 0.05Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1168 of 1221 Queues9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 7Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 320 210 410 304 420 179 347 1104 100 830 800v/c Ratio 0.46 0.22 0.75 1.02 0.92 0.35 0.95 1.04 0.93 0.91 1.00Control Delay 46.0 35.3 32.2 107.0 72.0 7.2 91.8 81.0 128.0 59.5 57.3Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 46.0 35.3 32.2 107.0 72.0 7.2 91.8 81.0 128.0 59.5 57.3Queue Length 50th (ft) 118 68 175 ~262 328 0 146 ~511 82 345 ~529Queue Length 95th (ft) 165 101 302 #444 #509 56 #242 #649 #195 #465 #592Internal Link Dist (ft) 390 770 1836 1028Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 150 125 250 250 300Base Capacity (vph) 699 1010 567 299 483 534 364 1059 107 913 802Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.21 0.72 1.02 0.87 0.34 0.95 1.04 0.93 0.91 1.00Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 101 51 20 130 75 1460 50 953v/c Ratio 0.54 0.21 0.17 0.58 0.47 0.71 0.37 0.48Control Delay 59.5 4.2 55.0 20.0 60.5 21.3 58.8 16.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 59.5 4.2 55.0 20.0 60.5 21.3 58.8 16.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 70 0 14 0 52 387 35 208Queue Length 95th (ft) 134 11 41 61 109 602 80 328Internal Link Dist (ft) 310 100 211 1092Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 75 200 200Base Capacity (vph) 564 561 560 582 208 2045 208 1965Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.09 0.04 0.22 0.36 0.71 0.24 0.48Intersection SummaryPage 1169 of 1221 Queues13: Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 9Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 84 180 5 229 1493 3 690 165v/c Ratio 0.56 0.33 0.04 0.84 0.96 0.05 0.56 0.15Control Delay 86.5 6.4 0.6 93.4 29.5 83.0 19.0 2.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 86.5 6.4 0.6 93.4 29.5 83.0 19.0 2.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 86 0 0 234 927 3 350 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 159 55 0 365 #2304 17 713 36Internal Link Dist (ft) 1017 1172 826 2818Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 360 400 400Base Capacity (vph) 240 642 125 395 1549 65 1242 1081Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.28 0.04 0.58 0.96 0.05 0.56 0.15Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues14: S. Higuera Street & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 10Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 100 158 499 240 97 358v/c Ratio 0.30 0.37 0.47 0.24 0.29 0.27Control Delay 22.9 7.7 12.2 2.4 23.4 4.1Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 22.9 7.7 12.2 2.4 23.4 4.1Queue Length 50th (ft) 25 0 106 0 24 31Queue Length 95th (ft) 76 44 224 32 77 74Internal Link Dist (ft) 1596 529 1539Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200 150Base Capacity (vph) 769 777 1526 1340 470 1780Starvation Cap Reductn000000Spillback Cap Reductn000000Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.20 0.33 0.18 0.21 0.20Intersection SummaryPage 1170 of 1221 Queues2: Broad Street (SR 227) & Industrial Way02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 120 50 204 258 94 1628 199 140 1428 111v/c Ratio 0.56 0.17 0.73 0.58 0.88 1.08 0.30 0.98 0.91 0.15Control Delay 51.4 1.3 57.1 10.9 108.1 78.5 10.9 118.8 36.1 4.2Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 51.4 1.3 57.1 10.9 108.1 78.5 10.9 118.8 36.1 4.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 73 0 124 0 61 ~621 36 91 437 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 130 0 #234 73 #165 #812 93 #226 #640 33Internal Link Dist (ft) 288 473 1028 1931Turn Bay Length (ft) 100 180 150 175 150 440Base Capacity (vph) 632 630 297 455 107 1503 658 143 1574 720Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.08 0.69 0.57 0.88 1.08 0.30 0.98 0.91 0.15Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues3: LOVR & 101 SB02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 2Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 964 669 65 1388 311 413v/c Ratio 0.51 0.61 0.41 0.61 0.68 0.92Control Delay 19.4 9.0 46.1 11.0 38.0 55.7Queue Delay 1.7 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.5Total Delay 21.1 9.9 46.1 12.0 38.0 57.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 191 40 35 225 156 192Queue Length 95th (ft) 295 207 75 287 246 #366Internal Link Dist (ft) 236 227 198Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 1000Base Capacity (vph) 1900 1105 186 2285 481 465Starvation Cap Reductn 719 1910000Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 586 0 10Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.82 0.73 0.35 0.82 0.65 0.91Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1171 of 1221 Queues4: 101 NB & LOVR02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 3Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBLLane Group Flow (vph) 868 386 193 970 628v/c Ratio 0.70 0.33 0.60 0.47 0.65Control Delay 23.7 1.1 37.9 9.6 26.0Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 23.7 1.1 37.9 9.6 26.0Queue Length 50th (ft) 178 0 81 124 120Queue Length 95th (ft) 241 17 #179 167 198Internal Link Dist (ft) 191 529 142Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200Base Capacity (vph) 2065 1216 340 2902 1097Starvation Cap Reductn00000Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.42 0.32 0.57 0.33 0.57Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues5: S. Higuera Street & Tank Farm Road02/13/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 30 22 316 311 603 32 800 450 453 890v/c Ratio 0.25 0.09 0.91 0.89 0.76 0.33 0.86 0.57 0.94 0.49Control Delay 53.2 0.7 74.2 70.9 10.5 59.7 49.2 8.8 69.0 19.3Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 53.2 0.7 74.2 70.9 10.5 59.7 49.2 8.8 69.0 19.3Queue Length 50th (ft) 20 0 230 226 0 22 284 61 314 226Queue Length 95th (ft) 51 0 #422 #410 119 56 #403 117 #533 299Internal Link Dist (ft) 109 670 1054 1668Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 140 100 165Base Capacity (vph) 456 468 346 348 791 99 928 795 481 1819Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.05 0.91 0.89 0.76 0.32 0.86 0.57 0.94 0.49Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1172 of 1221 Queues6: Long Street & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 5Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 90 830 160 1280 210 130v/c Ratio 0.62 0.64 0.60 0.83 0.58 0.47Control Delay 53.0 21.0 38.0 23.7 14.1 20.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 53.0 21.0 38.0 23.7 14.1 20.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 34 136 57 215 11 23Queue Length 95th (ft) #115 246 #149 #447 67 72Internal Link Dist (ft) 747 867 410 362Turn Bay Length (ft) 225 175Base Capacity (vph) 144 1307 288 1548 560 489Starvation Cap Reductn000000Spillback Cap Reductn000000Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.63 0.64 0.56 0.83 0.38 0.27Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues8: Mindbody Entrance & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 6Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL NBRLane Group Flow (vph) 1450 70 1330 250 100v/c Ratio 0.77 0.45 1.08 0.80 0.28Control Delay 18.3 44.6 65.3 53.9 9.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 18.3 44.6 65.4 53.9 9.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 284 32 ~722 115 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 406 78 #1043 #280 43Internal Link Dist (ft) 372 258 540Turn Bay Length (ft) 210 125Base Capacity (vph) 2266 263 1568 335 380Starvation Cap Reductn00500Spillback Cap Reductn00000Storage Cap Reductn00000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.64 0.27 0.85 0.75 0.26Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1173 of 1221 Queues9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 7Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 670 580 329 217 290 150 530 1374 260 888 580v/c Ratio 1.17 0.82 0.63 0.86 0.89 0.39 0.88 1.15 1.10 0.83 0.76Control Delay 128.1 45.5 13.5 70.1 66.9 9.0 53.4 103.9 126.0 37.1 23.3Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 128.1 45.5 13.5 70.1 66.9 9.0 53.4 103.9 126.0 37.1 23.3Queue Length 50th (ft) ~236 167 28 122 162 0 152 ~478 ~170 247 212Queue Length 95th (ft) #344 #247 114 #245 #304 50 #239 #614 #319 #330 339Internal Link Dist (ft) 429 770 2199 1028Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 150 125 250 250 300Base Capacity (vph) 574 710 520 256 332 393 612 1200 237 1074 760Starvation Cap Reductn00000000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 1.17 0.82 0.63 0.85 0.87 0.38 0.87 1.15 1.10 0.83 0.76Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Queues11: Broad Street (SR 227) & Aero Drive02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 8Lane Group EBT EBR WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 234 66 37 350 62 1020 100 1358v/c Ratio 0.83 0.18 0.14 0.90 0.68 0.65 0.65 0.81Control Delay 80.0 1.1 50.9 52.4 99.8 34.1 81.3 36.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 80.0 1.1 50.9 52.4 99.8 34.1 81.3 36.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 206 0 29 155 57 396 89 561Queue Length 95th (ft) #333 0 63 #307 #140 510 157 707Internal Link Dist (ft) 498 322 255 729Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 75 200 200Base Capacity (vph) 329 402 358 457 92 1563 183 1673Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.71 0.16 0.10 0.77 0.67 0.65 0.55 0.81Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.Page 1174 of 1221 Queues13: Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 9Lane Group EBT EBR WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 93 347 12 67 768 2 1029 39v/c Ratio 0.42 0.64 0.07 0.43 0.56 0.02 0.88 0.04Control Delay 61.1 20.9 0.8 68.3 9.9 70.0 29.2 2.3Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 61.1 20.9 0.8 68.3 9.9 70.0 29.2 2.3Queue Length 50th (ft) 58 71 0 43 158 1 491 0Queue Length 95th (ft) 151 213 0 122 544 12 1143 12Internal Link Dist (ft) 2049 536 742 3252Turn Bay Length (ft) 145 360 400 400Base Capacity (vph) 450 691 332 342 1654 532 1694 1414Starvation Cap Reductn00000000Spillback Cap Reductn00000000Storage Cap Reductn00000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.50 0.04 0.20 0.46 0.00 0.61 0.03Intersection SummaryQueues14: S. Higuera Street & Buckley Road02/05/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Cumulative plus Project Synchro 10 ReportPage 10Lane Group WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 235 424 295 246 243 663v/c Ratio 0.53 0.59 0.58 0.40 0.56 0.60Control Delay 25.5 6.6 24.5 5.4 26.7 10.2Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 25.5 6.6 24.5 5.4 26.7 10.2Queue Length 50th (ft) 65 0 81 0 69 114Queue Length 95th (ft) 171 67 205 50 181 277Internal Link Dist (ft) 1771 1152 2493Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 200 150Base Capacity (vph) 913 1022 997 962 778 1679Starvation Cap Reductn000000Spillback Cap Reductn000000Storage Cap Reductn000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.26 0.41 0.30 0.26 0.31 0.39Intersection SummaryPage 1175 of 1221 G Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 2020 Appendix G Mitigation Results Summary Page 1176 of 1221 Page 1177 of 1221 Multimodal Transportation Impact Study for the SLO Airport Hotels Project May 2020 Mitigation Summary Intersection Operation Existing plus Project Conditions Queuing Table 1 – Existing 95th Percentile Queues Exceeding Available Storage Study Intersection Available 95th Percentile Queues Approach Storage AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour E E+P Prj Mit (+/-)** E E+P Mit (+/-)** 5. Tank Farm Rd/S Higuera St WB Right-Turn 250 60 60 60 - 70 71 - - NB Left-Turn 140* 28 28 28 - 54 54 - - NB Right-Turn 100 191 220 194 +3 70 74 - - SB Left-Turn 165* 252 255 258 +6 338 342 - - 9. Tank Farm Rd/Broad St EB Left-Turn 300 137 137 139 +2 181 181 179 -2 EB Right-Turn 100 308 335 331 +23 58 60 60 +2 WB Left-Turn 150* 328 338 321 -7 205 217 217 +12 NB Left-Turn 250 173 185 167 -6 152 159 159 +7 SB Left-Turn 250* 115 115 121 +6 228 228 228 - SB Right-Turn 300 124 125 116 +8 299 301 299 - Notes: All distances are measured in feet; E = existing conditions; E+P = existing plus project conditions; Bold text = queue length exceeds available storage; * = Extends into a two-way left-turn lane; ** = Net increase and decrease compared to the exiting without project conditions; Shaded Cell = Queuing Adverse Impact Page 1178 of 1221 Roadway Segment Operation Existing plus Project Conditions Automobile Operations Analysis Table 2 – Mitigation for Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Roadway Segment Auto Levels of Service Study Roadway Direction Existing Conditions Mitigation Segment PM Peak PM Peak with Project PM Peak with Project Speed BFFS/ LOS Speed BFFS/ LOS Speed (+/-)* BFFS/ LOS 2. Broad St (SR 227): Tank Farm Rd to City Limits A. Tank Farm Rd to Aero Dr SB 18.4 41/D 18.0 40/E 18.2 +0.2 41/D Notes: BFFS = is the percent of “Base Free Flow Speed”; Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation; * = Net increase is compared to the plus project conditions Cumulative plus Project Conditions Pedestrian Analysis Table 3 – Mitigation for Cumulative Plus Project Roadway Segment Pedestrian Levels of Service Study Roadway Direction Cumulative Conditions Mitigation Segment PM Peak PM Peak with Project PM Peak with Project Score LOS Score LOS Score (+/-) LOS 1. Broad St (SR 227): Orcutt Rd to Tank Farm Rd B. Industrial Rd to Tank Farm Rd NB 4.44 E 4.46 E 4.43 -0.03 E Notes: BFFS = is the percent of “Base Free Flow Speed”; Speed is measured in miles per hour; LOS = Level of Service; Bold text = deficient operation; * = Net increase is compared to the plus project conditions Page 1179 of 1221 4XHXHV 6+LJXHUD6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP05/15/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Mitigation Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBTLane Group Flow (vph) 59 29 159 162 269 13 410 831 263 282v/c Ratio 0.36 0.10 0.41 0.42 0.48 0.11 0.54 0.86 0.68 0.17Control Delay 49.3 0.7 35.3 35.4 7.5 48.4 35.6 15.9 43.5 15.8Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 49.3 0.7 35.3 35.4 7.5 48.4 35.6 15.9 43.5 15.8Queue Length 50th (ft) 34 0 83 84 0 7 114 74 143 46Queue Length 95th (ft) 60 0 162 164 60 28 177 194 258 97Internal Link Dist (ft) 109 777 1054 1668Turn Bay Length (ft) 250 140 100 165Base Capacity (vph) 615 627 529 530 664 178 1114 1056 534 1917Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.10 0.05 0.30 0.31 0.41 0.07 0.37 0.79 0.49 0.15Intersection Summary+&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ 6+LJXHUD6WUHHW 7DQN)DUP05/15/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Mitigation Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 23 17 20 280 3 237 12 365 740 255 267 7Future Volume (veh/h) 23 17 20 280 3 237 12 365 740 255 267 7Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 34 25 26 320 0 0 13 410 631 263 275 7Peak Hour Factor 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.97 0.97 0.97Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 114 84 161 497 0 28 1065 675 314 1628 41Arrive On Green 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.30 0.30 0.18 0.46 0.46Sat Flow, veh/h 1048 770 1477 3563 0 1585 1781 3554 1513 1781 3537 90Grp Volume(v), veh/h 59 0 26 320 0 0 13 410 631 263 138 144Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1818 0 1477 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1513 1781 1777 1850Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.0 1.3 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 7.6 25.0 11.9 3.8 3.8Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.0 1.3 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 7.6 25.0 11.9 3.8 3.8Prop In Lane 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 198 0 161 497 0 28 1065 675 314 818 851V/C Ratio(X) 0.30 0.00 0.16 0.64 0.00 0.47 0.39 0.94 0.84 0.17 0.17Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 588 0 478 1067 0 171 1065 675 512 818 851HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.2 0.0 33.7 33.9 0.0 0.0 40.7 23.1 20.1 33.2 13.2 13.2Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.5 20.9 7.5 0.2 0.2Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 0.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.0 16.3 5.4 1.4 1.4Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.6 0.0 33.9 34.5 0.0 0.0 45.2 23.6 41.0 40.7 13.4 13.4LnGrp LOS CACCA DCDDBBApproach Vol, veh/h 85 320 A 1054 545Approach Delay, s/veh 34.4 34.5 34.3 26.6Approach LOS CCCCTimer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.7 31.0 15.1 6.3 44.4 17.7Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 24.0 25.0 27.0 8.0 36.0 25.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.9 27.0 4.5 2.6 5.8 9.1Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.0 0.7Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.2HCM 6th LOS CNotesUser approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.Unsignalized Delay for [WBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.Page 1180 of 1221 Queues9: Broad Street (SR 227) & Tank Farm Road03/10/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Mitigation Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 251 167 435 283 500 238 851 73 834 414v/c Ratio 0.60 0.21 0.89 0.87 0.46 0.77 0.76 0.73 0.82 0.52Control Delay 55.1 36.0 47.0 73.8 25.0 70.4 41.3 94.6 47.4 10.4Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 55.1 36.0 47.0 73.8 25.0 70.4 41.3 94.6 47.4 10.4Queue Length 50th (ft) 94 53 202 211 115 93 306 56 318 71Queue Length 95th (ft) 139 82 331 #321 146 #167 414 #121 363 116Internal Link Dist (ft) 390 770 1836 1028Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 150 250 250 300Base Capacity (vph) 555 1078 591 346 1242 313 1121 100 1021 855Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn 0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.15 0.74 0.82 0.40 0.76 0.76 0.73 0.82 0.48Intersection Summary# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.+&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ %URDG6WUHHW 65 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/15/2020SLO Airport Hotel Project 8:00 am 08/11/2016 AM Existing plus Project Mitigation Synchro 10 ReportPage 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 223 149 387 229 243 162 221 673 118 58 667 331Future Volume (veh/h) 223 149 387 229 243 162 221 673 118 58 667 331Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 251 167 350 283 300 51 238 724 109 72 834 340Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.80 0.80 0.80Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 322 920 405 311 1035 174 294 965 145 92 991 579Arrive On Green 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.34 0.34 0.08 0.31 0.31 0.05 0.28 0.28Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1563 1781 3040 511 3456 3090 465 1781 3554 1546Grp Volume(v), veh/h 251 167 350 283 174 177 238 416 417 72 834 340Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1563 1781 1777 1774 1728 1777 1779 1781 1777 1546Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 4.3 25.3 18.5 8.5 8.7 8.0 24.9 24.9 4.7 26.2 21.0Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 4.3 25.3 18.5 8.5 8.7 8.0 24.9 24.9 4.7 26.2 21.0Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 322 920 405 311 605 604 294 555 555 92 991 579V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.18 0.86 0.91 0.29 0.29 0.81 0.75 0.75 0.78 0.84 0.59Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 543 1050 462 338 605 604 306 555 555 98 991 579HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.5 34.1 41.9 48.0 28.6 28.6 53.3 36.6 36.6 55.5 40.3 29.9Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.1 0.1 14.3 26.3 0.3 0.3 14.6 9.0 9.0 31.6 8.6 4.3Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 1.9 11.1 10.3 3.6 3.7 4.0 11.8 11.8 2.9 12.2 8.2Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 56.6 34.2 56.2 74.3 28.8 28.9 67.9 45.6 45.6 87.2 48.9 34.3LnGrp LOS E C E E C C E D D F D CApproach Vol, veh/h 768 634 1071 1246Approach Delay, s/veh 51.5 49.1 50.6 47.1Approach LOS DDDDTimer - Assigned Phs12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 43.5 26.2 37.2 15.6 39.5 16.6 46.8Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 6.5 5.5 * 6.5Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.5 37.0 22.5 35.0 10.5 33.0 18.6 * 40Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.7 26.9 20.5 27.3 10.0 28.2 10.4 10.7Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.5 0.2 1.6 0.0 2.8 0.6 2.0Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.4HCM 6th LOS DNotes* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.Page 1181 of 1221 4XHXHV %URDG6WUHHW 65 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/15/2020Scenario 1 SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 11 ReportPage 1Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT SBRLane Group Flow (vph) 503 455 293 208 353 449 1040 221 770 565v/c Ratio 0.64 0.60 0.53 0.74 0.61 0.73 1.14 0.75 0.87 0.72Control Delay 33.0 32.5 7.3 51.7 25.9 40.4 105.9 50.5 43.2 18.9Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total Delay 33.0 32.5 7.3 51.7 25.9 40.4 105.9 50.5 43.2 18.9Queue Length 50th (ft) 124 114 0 104 57 113 ~343 110 207 172Queue Length 95th (ft) 179 161 60 #217 103 159 #446 #228 #352 299Internal Link Dist (ft) 429 770 2199 1028Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 100 150 250 250 300Base Capacity (vph) 982 1057 659 308 716 683 913 330 886 877Starvation Cap Reductn0000000000Spillback Cap Reductn0000000000Storage Cap Reductn0000000000Reduced v/c Ratio 0.51 0.43 0.44 0.68 0.49 0.66 1.14 0.67 0.87 0.64Intersection Summary~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.+&0WK6LJQDOL]HG,QWHUVHFWLRQ6XPPDU\ %URDG6WUHHW 65 7DQN)DUP5RDG05/15/2020Scenario 1 SLO Airport Hotel Project 5:00 pm 08/11/2016 PM Existing plus Project Synchro 11 ReportPage 1Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBRLane ConfigurationsTraffic Volume (veh/h) 473 428 275 185 194 120 368 664 189 201 701 514Future Volume (veh/h) 473 428 275 185 194 120 368 664 189 201 701 514Initial Q (Qb), veh000000000000Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Work Zone On Approach No No No NoAdj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 503 455 241 208 218 111 449 810 192 221 770 443Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.91 0.91 0.91Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222Cap, veh/h 651 762 328 252 384 187 564 795 188 266 949 715Arrive On Green 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.28 0.28 0.15 0.27 0.27Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1528 1781 2288 1113 3456 2827 670 1781 3554 1558Grp Volume(v), veh/h 503 455 241 208 167 162 449 509 493 221 770 443Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1528 1781 1777 1624 1728 1777 1720 1781 1777 1558Q Serve(g_s), s 10.4 8.6 11.0 8.5 6.5 6.9 9.4 21.0 21.0 9.0 15.2 16.2Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.4 8.6 11.0 8.5 6.5 6.9 9.4 21.0 21.0 9.0 15.2 16.2Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 0.39 1.00 1.00Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 651 762 328 252 298 272 564 499 483 266 949 715V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.60 0.74 0.83 0.56 0.60 0.80 1.02 1.02 0.83 0.81 0.62Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1061 1139 490 333 356 325 738 499 483 357 949 715HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.9 26.5 27.4 31.3 28.6 28.8 30.1 26.9 26.9 30.9 25.7 15.5Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.8 3.2 12.1 1.7 2.1 4.6 45.3 46.0 11.6 7.5 4.0Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.2 3.5 4.0 4.3 2.7 2.7 3.9 14.2 13.8 4.4 6.7 5.7Unsig. Movement Delay, s/vehLnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.9 27.2 30.6 43.3 30.3 30.9 34.7 72.2 72.9 42.6 33.2 19.5LnGrp LOS CCCDCCCFFDCBApproach Vol, veh/h 1199 537 1451 1434Approach Delay, s/veh 29.4 35.5 60.8 30.4Approach LOS C D E CTimer - Assigned Phs12345678Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.2 25.0 14.6 20.1 16.2 24.0 18.1 16.6Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 21.0 14.0 24.0 16.0 20.0 23.0 15.0Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.0 23.0 10.5 13.0 11.4 18.2 12.4 8.9Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.0 0.2 3.1 0.9 1.2 1.7 0.9Intersection SummaryHCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.3HCM 6th LOS DNotesUser approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.Page 1182 of 1221 HCS7 Urban Street Segment ReportGeneral InformationStreets InformationAgencyNumber of Intersections3AnalystW-TransAnalysis Date2/4/2020Number of Segments2JurisdictionTime PeriodPM Existing+PNumber of Iterations15File NamePM Existing+P_Broad_2_mitigatAnalysis Year2020System Cycle Length, s120IntersectionsTank Farm RoadAero DriveAnalysis Period1> 7:00Project DescriptionSLO Airport Hotels 3000 ft45 mph14500 ft45 mph23Basic Segment Information (Broad - Tank Farm to Aero )SegmentSpeed LimitThrough LanesSegment LengthIntersection WidLength of RMPercent CurbOther DelaySBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNBSBNB1454522300030008080001008045.045.0SouthboundNorthboundSegment Output DataSBLSBTSBRNBLNBTNBRSegmentMovement161652121Bay/Lane Spillback Time, h1Shared Lane Spillback Time, h1Base Free-Flow Speed, mph45.3645.461Running Time, s92.5791.891Running Speed, mph22.1022.261Through Delay, s/veh19.9357.531Travel Time, s112.50149.421Travel Speed, mph18.1813.691Stop Rate, stops/veh0.711.011Spatial Stop Rate, stops/mi1.241.771Through vol/cap Ratio0.840.881Percent of Base FFS40.0830.111Level of ServiceDE1Auto Traveler Perception Score2.432.52Multimodal Results (Segment)1Pedestrian Segment LOS Score / LOS3.37C2.73B1Bicycle Segment LOS Score / LOS1.92A1.71A1Transit Segment LOS Score / LOS4.97E6.35FFacility Output DataSouthboundNorthboundFacility Travel Time, s258.61231.25Facility Travel Speed, mph19.7722.11Facility Base Free Flow Speed, mph45.8646.01Facility Percent of Base FFS43.1248.07Facility Level of ServiceFDFacility Auto Traveler Perception Score2.422.41Multimodal Results (Facility)Pedestrian Facility LOS Score / LOSBicycle Facility LOS Score / LOS1.57A1.33ATransit Facility LOS Score / LOS6.08F6.47FCopyright © 2020 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 7.8.5 Generated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age 1183 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 7.2 VMT Analysis Page 1184 of 1221 Memorandum GHD 943 Reserve Drive Roseville California 95678 United States T +1 916 782 8688 F +1 916 782 8689 W www.ghd.com December 2nd, 2020 To: Jennifer Rice, Trans. Plnr/Engr. Project: Airport Hotel SB 743 From: Jake Hudson, Senior Trans. Eng/Pln GHD Ref/Job No.: 11219667 Subject: 950 Aerio Hotel VMT Analysis 1. Introduction A 218 room hotel is proposed on Aero Drive adjacent to the San Luis Obispo Regional airport. This technical memo provides an assessment of the project’s impact on regional Vehicle Miles of Travel under SB 743 and the new CEQA guidelines published by the California Office of Planning & Research as well the City’s adopted Multimodal Traffic Impact Study Guidelines as they relate to VMT Thresholds. California Senate Bill 743 was adopted in 2013 fundamentally changing transportation analysis under CEQA by replacing automobile congestion as expressed in delay and level of service with Vehicle Miles of Travel as the official CEQA metric for Transportation Impact Analysis. However, SB 743 specifically allowed public agencies to retain Automobile Delay & level of service as local policy thresholds. The City of San Luis Obispo adopted its CEQA Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) thresholds of significance follow California Office of Planning & Research guidance and updated its Traffic Impact Study Guidelines retaining level of service as local policy metric consistent with its general plan and impact fee programs in June of 2020. The results of this analysis shows a net increase in regional VMT as a result of the project which classifies as a significant impact under CEQA and the City’s Adopted Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. Page 1185 of 1221 Draft 950 Aerio VMT.docx 2 2. Methodology 2.1 Landuse Types & Significance Thresholds For the purposes of VMT analysis the City has adopted three categories for analysis: I. Residential: Any home based land use including single and multifamily projects. Projects under this category are evaluated using the percent difference in VMT per Capita of the project versus the Region. Projects are considered to have a significant impact if the VMT per capita is above the regional average less 15%. II. Work: Any project where the majority of trips are made by employees. Projects under this category are evaluated using the percent difference in VMT per employee of the project versus the Region. Projects are considered to have a significant impact if the VMT per capita is above the regional average less 15%. III. Retail & Other: Any project where the majority of trips are made by customers or patrons, this category also includes any type of non-residential and non-work based projects such as infrastructure projects or unique/unusual landuse types. Projects under this category are evaluated using the net change in VMT. Projects are considered to have a significant impact if they result in a net increase in regional VMT. For mixed use projects each individual landuse type within the project is evaluated independently, however, trip reduction characteristics of mixed use projects such as internal capture are accounted for. The proposed project classifies as a Retail / Other landuse because the primary trip making characteristics are non-residential and non-work based. Therefore, the project was evaluated based on its net change to regional VMT. 2.2 City Travel Demand Model As part of the City adoption of its VMT Thresholds various methodologies were considered including the City Travel Demand Model, SLOCOG Travel Demand Model, & Big Data Resources. The City ultimately adopted the use of its own travel demand model for the purposes of VMT analysis. A key criteria for any VMT calculation tool is that the tool must account for the full trip length of project trips. It was determined that the City’s travel demand model meets this criteria because the model boundaries extend regionally and the volume of trip production/attraction to the model boundaries are insignificant. Page 1186 of 1221 Draft 950 Aerio VMT.docx 3 To assess the project’s effect on net regional VMT the San Luis Obispo’s baseline Travel Demand Model was run with and without the proposed project landuse with its respective model traffic analysis zone (558) as shown to the right in Figure 1. Findings & Results The analysis shows that the project resulted in a minor increase in regional VMT as shown in the comparison table below. Although, minor the increase in net regional VMT is still considered a significant impact under both the California Office of Planning & Research as well as the City’s Adopted VMT Thresholds. Table 1: San Luis Obispo City Travel Demand Model VMT Results Area NET VMT Regional Baseline - Without Project 8,533,187 Regional Baseline - With Project 8,533,580 Net Change 393 % Change 0.005% Based on an assessment of trip lengths from the project’s traffic analysis zone within the model it’s estimated the average project trip length is approximately 8.3 miles. Therefore, approximately 48 project trips are contributing to the net increase in regional VMT. Figure 1 Project Model TAZ Buckley Tank Farm Page 1187 of 1221 Draft 950 Aerio VMT.docx 4 Although the average trip length is approximately 8.3 miles, modeled trip lengths ranged from 0 to 100 miles. As show in in table 1 to the right, trips in excess of 30 miles are projected to be infrequent. As shown in Figure 2, person trips within the immediate area of the project including the airport are estimated to account for approximately 15% to 20% of project traffic. The predominant travel pattern to and from the project is projected to be the City’s downtown core at 3 miles which accounts for approximately 30% to 35% of the project traffic. Figure1 Project TAZ Trip Length Distribution F Figure 2 Project TAZ Trip Distribution 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%0-24-68-1012-1416-1820-2224-2628-3032-3436-3840-4246-4850-5254-5658-6062-6466-6872-7482-8496-98% of Project TripsDistance (miles) Project Trip Length Distribution Page 1188 of 1221 Draft 950 Aerio VMT.docx 5 Mitigation The project will need to implement measures to reduce VMT by 393 or approximately 48 daily trips. The project can accomplish this reduction in three ways: 1. Modification of project description or construction of non-auto infrastructure that inherently reduces trip generation and VMT without the need for an on-going implementation effort and monitoring. However modification of the project description to the extent needed may not be feasible due to zoning limitations. Also construction of non-auto infrastructure solely funded by the project to the extent needed may not be feasible due to costs relative to the cost of the project itself. 2. The project can establish a peer to peer cap and trade or exchange with another property or development in process. This trade would result in lowering the significance threshold for the other property/development by 8.3 VMT and raising the significance threshold for this project by 8.3 VMT to achieve an overall no net increase in VMT. This would require an agreement between property owners and the modified thresholds to be recorded on the property deeds. This method would also not require an on-going implementation effort and monitoring. 3. The project can implement a programmatic trip reduction plan. CAPCOA’s “Quantifying Green House Gas Mitigation Measures” is currently one of the most widely used tool boxes of VMT mitigation measures, Attachment A to this report is a summary of the VMT reduction strategies reported by CAPCOA. Programmatic measures require active and on-going implementation by property occupants/owners in perpetuity as well as monitoring to ensure those measures are being implemented and are achieving the intended effect. Programmatic monitoring also imposes an on-going cost to the City. If a trip reduction plan is the adopted as the mitigation method; it’s recommended that the plan be recorded as a deed restriction or other similar means to ensure that future occupants/owners are aware of the requirement and are obligated to the on-going implementation of VMT reduction strategies. An on-going mitigation monitoring program should be included within the plan to ensure programs are being implemented by the occupants/owners and those programs are achieving their intent. The City should consider including requirements for the occupants/owners to fund costs associated with mitigation monitoring. Page 1189 of 1221 Draft 950 Aerio VMT.docx 6 ATTACHMENT A Page 1190 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 7.3 Recommended Transportation Demand Measures Page 1191 of 1221 950 Aero: SLO Hotel Project Recommended Transportation Demand Measures On December 2, 2020 GHD completed a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis for the 950 Aero Drive, SLO Hotel Project. The VMT analysis found that the traffic generated by the proposed project would exceed the City’s adopted VMT thresholds by the equivalent of approximately 48 daily auto trips, therefore resulting in a significant transportation impact under CEQA. In order to reduce the impact to a less than significant level, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures are recommended to reduce the total VMT generated by the project. Per the Transportation Impact Study dated May 18, 2020, the project generated an average of 1,822 daily trips. A reduction of 48 daily trips represents a reduction of 3%. The following TDM measures are recommended in order to reduce the project auto traffic generation by at least 3%. TDM measures and anticipated trip reduction effectiveness are referenced from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) “Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures.” Evaluation of Potential TDM Strategies TDM Strategy Description of Proposed Measure CAPCOA Code Estimated Trip/VMT Reduction 1 Provide bicycle parking in non- residential projects Provide adequate, secure long-term bicycle parking for employees SDT-6 0.63% 2 Provide local shuttle service Provide free shuttle service from hotel to downtown SLO TST-6 2.00% 3 Provide Ride- Sharing Programs Participate in SLO Rideshare Back-N-Forth Club TRT-3 1.00% 4 Subsidize Transit Pass for employees Provide free or discounted transit passes to employees TRT-4 0.30% 5 Provide end-of- trip facilities Provide shower and changing room facilities for employees TRT-5 1.00% Page 1192 of 1221 Mitigation Summary Category Anticipated VMT Reduction Percentage Reduction in VMT Required to Shift Project to Below Threshold -3.00% VMT Reduction with TDM Measures 1 Provide bicycle parking in non-residential projects -0.63% 2 Provide local shuttle -2.00% 3 Provide Ride-Sharing Programs -1.00% 4 Subsidize Transit Pass for employees -0.30% 5 Provide end of trip facilities -1.00% Total 4.93% Finding: VMT reduction impact achieves the required 3% reduction in VMT. Page 1193 of 1221 ATTACHMENT 7.4 Automobile Trip Reduction Plan Page 1194 of 1221 1327 ARCHER STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 P: 805/547.2240 ARRIS-STUDIO.com THOMAS E. JESS, ARCHITECT #C27608 STEPHEN A. RIGOR, ARCHITECT #C33672 February 19, 2020 Brian Leveille City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: 790 Foothill - Automobile Trip Reduction Plan Dear Brian: This Trip Reduction Plan (TRP) outlines the measures that will be implemented in an effort to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by employees and guests at the SLO Airport Hotel project. The proposed project’s location, directly adjacent to the airport and an Highwy 226 (Broad Street) will allow for multiple options beyond the single passenger vehicle Project Proposal The SLO Airport Hotel project includes 204 guest rooms. The focus of the TRP is the reduction of vehicle trips associated with travel to and from this project site. Trip Reduction Plan (TRP) measured proposed for this project: Reducing the negative environmental impact of our automobile traffic is a goal of this project and below is a list of automobile trip reduction measures that have been incorporated into the design. 1. Trip Reduction Coordinator A Trip Reduction Coordinator shall be appointed within the ownership/property management firm and act as the contact person for the City of San Luis Obispo and SLO Regional Rideshare. The coordinator shall be responsible for: Implementing an annual vehicle trip survey (can be administered through SLO Regional Rideshare.) Preparing an annual report, subject to the City’s review and approval, on the program’s effectiveness and recommendations for revisions if needed to improve the program’s effectiveness. Providing quarterly information (electronically or hard copy) regarding area transportation services and City and County transit passes. Coordinating employee transportation board meetings Coordinator will be responsible for establishing the Back ‘n’ Forth Club (for employees sponsored by Rideshare for the complex at a minimum of the Silver level. 2. Shuttle Service The hotel will offer a shuttle service to the airport terminal and downtown as requested by the guests. The hotel will also coordinate with local wine tours to encourage guests interested in wine tasting to utilize communal travel options rather than individual vehicles. Page 1195 of 1221 1327 ARCHER STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 P: 805/547.2240 ARRIS-STUDIO.com THOMAS E. JESS, ARCHITECT #C27608 STEPHEN A. RIGOR, ARCHITECT #C33672 3. Community Transportation Board – A group of managers and employees, including the Trip Reduction Coordinator who meets to discuss and implement new ways to encourage employees and guests to participate in the community’s alternative transportation programs. 4. Shared Automobile – Onsite accommodations will be made available for a communal short-term rental car to enable guests to utilize a shared vehicle for short errands and other related needs. It is estimated that utilizing a car-sharing program alone will offset up to 10 required parking spaces. One company that offers this service is Zipcar. Information on their services can be found on their website https://www.zipcar.com/ or similar. 5. Bicycle Repair Station – A convenient station equipped with all of the tools necessary for employees to perform basic bike repairs and maintenance. 6. Showers and Locker Facilities The Hotel will include shower and locker facilities for employees that bike to work. 7. Shared Bicycles for Guests – The hotel will own and maintain bicylces available for guests to use to as an alternative to using vehicles. 8. Information Packets – Introductory packets, in either electronic or hardcopy form, for new employees with information pertaining to the car-sharing program, bicycle parking, bicycle repair station and a map showing the nearby bus stops. 9. Information Sharing – Management will distribute emails to keep the employees informed of activities. These emails will include up-to-date facts on car sharing availability, bicycle parking locations, alternative transportation programs and transit schedules. These emails will also include maps showing walking and bicycle routes to nearby retail, dining and service locations. These emails will be distributed to all residents. The Automobile Trip Reduction Program will be developed during the design phase of the project by the property owner. The responsibility for monitoring and reporting the progress of the program will be transferred to hotel management once the hotel is operational. Hotel management will be responsible to coordinating annual surveys, reporting to the city, and providing current and up to date program information to employees and guests. In coordination with RideShare, or a similar company, an annual survey of employees and guests will be conducted to gather information on travel patterns, program effectiveness, and resultant additional recommendations. In conjunction with the survey, an annual program report will be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Transportation Planner. The report will include a history of the project’s trip reduction efforts to date, the most recent resident survey results and any proposed modifications to the trip reduction plan. Thank you and please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions, comments or require additional information. Sincerely, Thom Jess Page 1196 of 1221 Page 1197 of 1221 Page 1198 of 1221 Page 1199 of 1221 Page 1200 of 1221 Page 1201 of 1221 Page 1202 of 1221 Page 1203 of 1221 Page 1204 of 1221 Page 1205 of 1221 Page 1206 of 1221 Page 1207 of 1221 Page 1208 of 1221 Page 1209 of 1221 Page 1210 of 1221 Page 1211 of 1221 Page 1212 of 1221 Page 1213 of 1221 Page 1214 of 1221 Page 1215 of 1221 Page 1216 of 1221 Page 1217 of 1221 Page 1218 of 1221 Page 1219 of 1221 Page 1220 of 1221 Page 1221 of 1221 ARCH-0165-2020, USE-0294-2020, EID-0650-2020 950 & 990 Aero Drive Airport Hotel Project Review of Use Permit and design of proposed 125,200-sf, 204-room, dual-branded hotel, including requests for tree removals, identified exceptions related to loading spaces, lot frontage side parking, and sign standard exceptions July 28, 2021 Applicant: Sunsmit, LLC Representative: Pamela Jardini and Thom Jess 2 Planning Commission Purview Review the project for consistency with the General Plan, Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines (CDG), and applicable City development standards and guidelines. Planning Commission review includes a requested Planning Commission (Conditional) Use Permit to allow a hotel within the BP zone, Major Development design review, and the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff Recommendation 3 Adopt a resolution (Attachment A): ▪Adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, including proposed clarifications ▪Approving a Planning Commission Use Permit to allow for a hotel within the BP zone ▪Approving the design of the project,including identified requested exceptions ▪Subject to findings and conditions of approval Project Site 4 ▪Site: 5.04 acres ▪Airport Area Specific Plan ▪Business Park ▪Surrounding uses: -Regional Airport -Commercial -Offices ▪Hotel project approved 2007; expired BP-SP BP-SP Site Plan Changes 5 Currently proposedPrevious concept Proposed Site Plan 6 ▪Avoids wetland feature ▪Access and parking (214 spaces) along all sides of the building ▪Bicycle parking near Broad Street pedestrian entrance ▪Long-term bicycle storage near employee lockers/showers ▪Pedestrian and bicycle access to Aero Dr. and Broad St. ▪Shared main entrance, lobby, and guest amenities ▪Landscaping including 93 trees Rendering: Broad Street 7 East Elevation (facing Broad Street) 8 South Elevation 9 West Elevation 10 North Elevation 11 ARC Recommendation: Consistent with AASP, CDG, Sign Regulations (6-0-1) (Attachment C) 12 ▪Consider pedestrian access to the site,especially from the northern corner of the site near the Broad Street sidewalk,and access to SLO Brew/The Rock to the north ▪Recommended COA #3 (page 436):Plans submitted for a building permit shall show a pedestrian connection in the northern corner of the project site near Broad Street.If feasible,based on further evaluation of site topography and the agreement of the adjacent property owner,an additional non- vehicular (pedestrian)access shall be provided from the project site to the property located at 855 Aerovista Lane. ARC Recommendation: Consistent with AASP, CDG, Sign Regulations (6-0-1) (Attachment C) 13 ▪Consider replacing the sine wave corrugated metal with metal that is similar to the other metal siding on the building,and perhaps a different color (6-0-1) ▪Recommended COA #5 (page 436):Plans submitted for a building permit shall show the replacement of corrugated metal material with metal siding,subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. ARC Recommendation: Material modification 14 Proposed: Previous:Previous: Colors and Materials 15 Proposed: Tree Committee Recommendation: Conditionally consistent with Tree Regulations 16 ▪TC recommends approval of tree removals and plantings,as conditioned: ▪Clarify species,number of trees,and size ▪Provide 24-inch box sized canopy and shade trees ▪Provide 36-inch box perimeter and street trees (along Broad Street) ▪Use engineered soil for the parking lot trees ▪The final mix of tree plantings shall include a minimum of 30%native tree species ▪Group of pepper and acacia trees in northwest corner ▪Includes clustered and individual trees (11 )proposed for removal ▪Project includes 93 tree plantings (8:1 replacement ratio) Tree Committee Recommendation: Conditionally consistent with Tree Regulations 17 ▪Clarifications regarding trees (refer to Staff Agenda Correspondence) ▪Recommended condition of approval: Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall submit a final landscape plan showing 24-inch box canopy and shade trees,36-inch box perimeter and street trees along Broad Street,and the use of engineered soil for the parking lot trees.The final mix of trees shall include a minimum of 30%native tree species.Final size,location, and species of trees shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Arborist,who may approve alternative tree box sizes if necessary. Staff Evaluation: Consistent with General Plan, AASP, CDG, and Zoning Regulations 18 ▪Project complies with setbacks,height (45 feet,occupied, 52 feet,non-occupied features),floor area ratio,building coverage,landscaping,vehicle and EV parking,bicycle parking ▪Airport and roadway noise would not exceed standard thresholds due to site design and compliance with mandatory Code requirements ▪Project consistent with current Airport Land Use Plan Staff Evaluation: Exceptions Finding #5 (page 424) 19 ▪Parking surrounding building, 67% lot frontage side parking where 40% is the standard (AASP 5.4.1) ▪Building orientation, angled towards Aero Drive, physical separation between Aero Drive and site ▪10-foot landscape buffer and street trees (Broad Street) Staff Evaluation: Exception/waiver Finding #6 (page 424) 20 ▪One loading space where three is the standard (ZR Section 17.72.100) ▪Nature of proposed use (dual brand hotel,shared lobby,kitchen,laundry,office areas) Staff Evaluation: Sign Regulations Findings #7 and #8 (pages 424-425) 21 ▪Six wall signs requested,where four is the standard (two per tenant),placement at third story ▪Dual-brand hotel identification ▪Visibility from Broad Street and Aero Drive ▪Identification of primary entrance ▪Placement of signage would not create clutter ▪Would improve visual identification of the hotels and primary entrance Environmental Review (CEQA) (Attachment D, RTC and IS/MND) 22 ▪Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ▪Circulated April 22 –May 24,2021 ▪Comments received addressed in Response to Comments and minor modifications to Initial Study ▪Minor clarifications regarding tree removals ▪Recirculation not required: ▪Minor modifications and clarifications to adequate IS/MND ▪No new significant environmental impact ▪No increase in the severity of environmental impact ▪No additional mitigation required Staff Recommendation 23 Adopt a resolution,including findings and conditions of approval (Attachment A): ▪Adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, including proposed clarifications ▪Approving a Planning Commission Use Permit to allow for a hotel within the BP zone ▪Approving the design of the project,including identified requested exceptions Background 24 ▪July 2007: previous hotel project was approved on this site but not constructed ▪Aero Drive was rerouted by the County ▪Project access to Aero Drive would cross City public right-of-way (Aero Drive), requiring an encroachment permit East Elevation –Comparison 25 North Elevation –Comparison 26 West Elevation –Comparison 27 South Elevation –Comparison 28 Design Details 29 ▪xx Design Details 30 Ground Floor Plan 31 Upper Floor Plan 32 Main Entry 33 Pool and patio area 34 ARC Recommendation: Material modification 35 ARC Recommendation: Material modification 36 Airport Hotel Entrance to hotel from Aero Drive Dual brand provides efficiency in land use Wetland area protected Fire access provided Pedestrian connection to local businesses Pedestrian connection to airport terminal SLO Airport Hotel •Entrance •Porte cochere SLO Airport Hotel •View from Broad Street •Mix of materials, colors, and façade articulation •Public Art Landscaping Plan ؞Mix of textures, colors, and height. ؞Provides tiered landscaping with trees, shrubs and groundcover SLO AIRPORT HOTEL Bird’s eye view