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. Review the establishment of a school and daycare at 3450 Broad Street. The project is exempt from Environmental Review (ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024,
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: REVIEW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SCHOOL AND DAYCARE AT 3450 BROAD STREET. THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. BY: Hannah Hanh, Associate Planner FROM: Rachel Cohen, Principal Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7432 Phone Number: (805) 781-7574 Email: hhanh@slocity.org Email: rcohen@slocity.org PROJECT ADDRESS: 3450 Broad Street APPLICATION NUMBERS: ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, and TREE-0033-2025 APPLICANT: San Luis Obispo Classical Academy (SLOCA) REPRESENTATIVE: Tim Ronda, SDG Architects RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution , based on the findings and subject to the conditions, to approve the project, which consists of four (4) accompanying applications and includes two (2) requests: 1. Approve the Moderate Development Review (ARCH-0672-2024) to allow the proposed building, site, and sign improvements; 2. Approve the Planned Development Amendment (PDEV-0673-2024) to allow the proposed change in use at the project site; 3. Approve the Conditional Use Permit (USE-0674-2024) to allow establishment and operation of the proposed school and daycare with reduced outdoor recreational area; 4. Approve the Tree Removal Application (TREE-0033-2025) to allow the proposed removal of 20 existing trees; 5. Approve the creek setback exception to allow installation of mechanical equipment within portions of the creek setback area; and 6. Allow the proposed fencing within the Open Space Easement area. Meeting Date: 6/11/2025 Item Number: 4b Time Estimate: 60 minutes Page 57 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY San Luis Obispo Classical Academy (SLOCA, Applicant) has applied for a Moderate Development Review (ARCH-0672-2024), Planned Development Amendment (PDEV- 0673-2024), Conditional Use Permit (USE-0674-2024), and Tree Removal Application (TREE-0033-2025) to establish and operate a private elementary school and daycare (i.e., infant childcare through eighth grade), including various building and site improvements, at 3450 Broad Street (Attachment B, Attachment C). The project is intended to relocate and consolidate existing SLOCA students and staff from three (3) separate locations, including (1) the K-8 school site at 165 Grand Avenue, (2) the preschool and infant care site at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Slack Street, and (3) staff offices at 1880 Santa Barbara Avenue. The school would consist of seven (7) preschool and infant rooms; 19 classrooms and educational flex spaces; a gymnasium; a library; a kitchen and breakroom; admi nistration offices and meeting rooms; storage rooms; and an outdoor field with various recreational activity areas. To serve different types of students, the school would offer a full-time program (traditional classroom setting during the entire school week) and a hybrid program (alternate between traditional classroom and at-home learning during the school week). As proposed, the project focuses on providing small class sizes and a maximum of 372 students would attend in-person classes at any one time at the project site. 2.0 PROJECT SITE INFORMATION Site Data Location 3450 Broad Street Land Use Designation Services and Manufacturing (SM) Zone Service Commercial Zone with Special Considerations Overlay and Planned Development Overlay (C-S-S-PD) Site Area Approximately 3.5 acres Surrounding Uses North: Single-family residences South: Vehicle repair, single-family residence, etc. East: Manufacturing, distribution, wholesale, etc. West: Vacant, open space Page 58 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 Figure 1 – Project Site Special Considerations (S) Overlay The project site is located in a S Overlay that requires the processing of an Administrative Use Permit (which is now referred to as a Minor Use Permit) with proposed development to ensure that particular special considerations associated with the site are addressed. The special considerations1 for this site include (a) its location along Highway 227 (Broad Street) and concerns for areawide circulation impacts; (b) the need for various frontage improvements (which have been addressed as part of the original site development and is further described in the proceeding sections); and (c) the location of a portion of the riparian corridor of Acacia Creek within the site. Planned Development (PD) Overlay The project site is located in a PD Overlay that allows use of the existing building for large professional offices. On April 6, 1999, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1351 (1999 Series) amending the zoning map from C-S-S to C-S-S-PD at 3450 Broad Street to allow large professional office uses for the property. At that time, Land Use Element Policy 3.3.2.E2 stated that large offices, with no single tenant space less than 2,500 square feet, 1 Identified in Finding No. 3 of Use Permit, A 88-97, Approval Letter (Attachment F). 2 Implemented by requirements described in Ordinance No. 1087 (1987 Series). Page 59 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 and having no substantial public visitation or need for access to downtown government services, may be located in the Services and Manufacturing district (i.e., land use designation), subject to approval of a PD Overlay. 3.0 PROJECT SITE BACKGROUND Original Site Development On November 17, 1997, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved a development project (ARC and ER 78-97) for a 52,000 square foot commercial building with supporting site improvements such as parking, access, and landscaping, including a creek setback exception along portions of the creek to accommodate an asphalt bike path, at 3450 Broad Street. This approval sustained when the City Council denied an appeal of, and upheld, the ARC’s approval of the Acacia Creek Commercial Center (which is now referred to as the Acacia Creek Business Park) on January 6, 1998 (Attachment D) To address special considerations related to frontage improvements and Acacia Creek, public improvements and enhancement of the riparian corridor (located to the north side of the existing bike path) were required as part of the original site development. To protect the riparian corridor, an Open Space Easement, which details allowable uses and structures within this area, was dedicated to the City (Attachment E). Master Use Permit3 3 Master Use Permits are intended for placemaking and identify a range or combination of allowable and conditionally allowable uses determined to be appropriate and/or compatible given the existing or proposed development and any site considerations or constraints (i.e., immediate project and site context). The review process of a Master Use Permit includes the evaluation of uses that are typically allowed or conditionally allowed in the underlying zone, and determines whether, and how, those uses can be allowed given the immediate project and site context. A Master Use Permit may: a. Continue to permit uses as allowed per the underlying zone (i.e., allow by right, with Minor Use Permit approval, or with Conditional Use Permit approval); b. Streamline or reduce permitting requirements of an allowable use (e.g., reduce the discretionary review requirement from a Conditional Use Permit to a Minor Use Permit, eliminate the need for discretionary review and allow a use by-right, etc.); and/or c. Prohibit uses that would have otherwise been allowed in the underlying zone but would raise issues given the immediate project and site context. Note – This review process evaluates uses that are allowed and conditionally allowed in the underlying zone at that time. Therefore, any subsequent changes (e.g., changes to allowable uses in the underlying zone, etc.) or new information (e.g., subsequent reviews and approvals) may not be reflected in a prior Master Use Permit approval. Page 60 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 To address special considerations related to the location and circulation concerns of the site, the Hearing Officer approved a Master Use Permit (A 88 -97) on December 9, 1997 (Attachment F). The approval identified an initial range of allowable and conditionally allowable uses based on the environmental analysis conducted at that time. This Master Use Permit4 approval was later modified when the large professional office use was evaluated and subsequently approved as part of the PD overlay for the site in 1999. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION To facilitate the proposed school and daycare use at the project site , the Applicant has applied for four (4) applications that affect different elements of the overall project scope. Summarized below are the various requests associated with each application type. Moderate Development Review Building and site improvements are proposed in order to accommodate the school and daycare at the existing development (Attachment C). Proposed building improvements include (a) an approximate 4,300 square foot addition (i.e., enclose loading dock to accommodate gymnasium and construct second floor offices and library mezzanine) to the existing approximate 50,800 square foot building and produce an approximate 55,100 square foot building; (b) tenant improvements to create classrooms, of fices, library, gymnasium, etc.; (c) a façade refresh with new exterior colors and finishes; and (d) establishment of a new sign program. Proposed site improvements include (a) removal of the north parking lot and replacement with an outdoor field and vari ous activity areas; (b) design revisions to the south parking lot to accommodate new access and circulation improvements; and (c) landscaping upgrades. Creek Setback Exception As part of the building improvements, new mechanical equipment is proposed along the building exterior to the northwest. A creek setback exception is requested to allow the installation of new equipment within the creek setback5 (delineated as a dashed blue line on the Project Plans, Attachment C) adjacent to the bike path. 4 Because of parking concerns specific to the large office use, Condition No.1 of Use Permit, A 88-97, was nullified and superseded by Condition No. 5 of the PD approval to restrict the office use to the current floor area and prohibited the construction of additional mezzanine areas (Ordinance No. 1351 [1999 Series]). 5 Creek setbacks are measured from the top of bank or edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is further away from the creek channel. However, the creek setback was measured from the top of bank at the time of original site development as a flexibility in exchange for riparian enhancements on the north side of the creek. Subsequent growth in the riparian vegetation (towards the bike path) has shifted the measurement of the creek setback closer to the existing development and resulted in minor encroachments of the creek setback into the existing building and hardscape footprints as shown on the plans. It should also be noted that a creek setback exception was previously approved to accommodate the asphalt bike path as part of the original site development to provide a community benefit. Page 61 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 Page 62 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 Fencing in the Open Space Easement As part of the site improvements, fencing is proposed along the site perimeter to provide security and create separate spaces between the public bike path and private uses. Six - foot-high (6’0”) see-through black aluminum fencing (identified as Fence, F1 on Sheet L1.0 of the Project Plans, Attachment C) is proposed within the Open Space Easement6 (delineated as an orange dashed line on the Project Plans) between the public bike path and the private school, outdoor field, and parking area. Planned Development Amendment Since the PD overlay is specific to allowing large office use at the project site, an amendment to the PD is requested to change the use and allow building and site improvements that accommodate the proposed school and daycare at the project site. Conditional Use Permit As proposed, the project includes the establishment and operation of a private elementary school and daycare (i.e., infant childcare through eighth grade) (Attachment B). The project would provide (a) full-time programs, where students attend classes five (5) days a week and learn in traditional classrooms and other flexible study spaces, and (b) hybrid programs, where students alternate between traditional classrooms and at -home learning with parents and guardians during the week. Class schedules would therefore be staggered and designed to serve different students on different days between the hours of 7:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Attachment G). As proposed, the project emphasizes the provision of small class sizes (maximum of 16 students per class), and a maximum of 372 students would attend classes at the project site at any given time. Tree Removal Application There are 40 existing trees at the project site. To accommodate the site improvements (i.e., outdoor field, recreational activity areas, decks for outdoor classroom areas, and seating area), 20 existing trees (i.e., 19 trees and one [1] stump7) would be removed (Attachment H). To compensate for these removals, the project includes the planting of 45 replacement trees on the perimeter of the outdoor field, along Sacramento Drive, and throughout the south parking area. The 20 existing trees to remain would be protected during project construction. 6 Approved plans for the original site development were hand drawn in the late 1990s. Based on more recent surveying and mapping tools available, the Open Space Easement is shown on this plan set with increased accuracy and thus indicates that the easement extends into the existing building and hardscape envelopes at some minor portions. 7 Identified as Tree No. 8 on the landscape plans. It is unknown when this tree was cut and may have previously been a plum tree. The stump is to be removed as part of the site improvements and is accounted for as part of the compensatory plantings. Page 63 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 4.0 PLANNING COMMISSION’S PURVIEW As part of this review, the Planning Commission (PC) would take action on all four (4) accompanying project applications. The required findings and criteria for approval of each application type are described below along with the recommendations from t he prior Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and Tree Committee (TC) reviews. Moderate Development Review Since the project includes an addition of approximately 4,300 square feet (interior to the building footprint), approval of a Moderate Development Review application is required. On April 7, 2025, the ARC reviewed the project and unanimously recommended the PC approve the proposed building, site, and sign improvements based on consistency with design principles and objectives in the Community Design Guidelines, Sign Regulations, and applicable City standards per the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) Section 17.106.050. No design changes were included as part of their recommendation. It should also be noted that this application is elevated to PC review (where normally the Community Development Director would review a Moderate Development Review) because the project includes other applications that require PC review and approval (i.e., PD Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, and Tree Removal Application). Planned Development Amendment Per SLOMC Section 17.48.090(D) and SLOMC Section 17.48.090(B), amendments to large office PD ordinances approved by the City Council prior to 2003 (such as Ordinance No. 1351) to allow changes to the proposed use and the final development plan (i.e., building and site) may be approved by the PC. An amendment may be approved if the PC determines the proposed uses to be consistent with the General Plan. If the proposed amendment is approved, the PC resolution and its updated findings and conditions would supersede findings and conditions of Ordinance No. 1351 for the project site and allow the proposed school and daycare. Conditional Use Permit Per Table 2-1 of the SLOMC, approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required to establish and operate a school in the C-S zone. While daycares typically require approval of a Minor Use Permit in the C-S zone, both uses are evaluated in this CUP application because the project includes the operation of both uses as one establishment. Approval of a CUP is subject to requirements outlined in SLOMC Section 17.110.060 and SLOMC Section 17.110.070. Additionally, to ensure that special considerations associated with the site are addressed, the S overlay requires use permit review for proposed development at the project site. Page 64 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 Tree Removal Application Per SLOMC Section 12.24.090(F)(4) , a Tree Removal Application is required for any tree removals for a discretionary application. On March 24, 2025, the TC reviewed the project and unanimously recommended the PC approve the requested tree removals based on consistency with the policies and standards set forth in SLOMC Section 12.24.090(G) and SLOMC Section 12.24.090(J). No design changes were included as part of their recommendation. 5.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS Staff has evaluated the project against applicable policies and standards and found it to be in compliance as discussed in the following analysis. Moderate Development Review and PD Amendment Change in the Use Per SLOMC Section 17.48.090(D), the PC may approve an amendment to the large office PD ordinance for a change in use, if the proposed school and daycare uses are consistent with the General Plan. Per Table 1 of the Land Use Element (LUE), the project site is located in the Services and Manufacturing (SM) land use designation, which is intended to provide a wide range of service uses that meet the needs of the City and some demands of the region. Listed examples of appropriate uses include public and quasi - public uses such as schools and da ycares. LUE Goals No. 26 and 27 also state that the City would support high quality education and serve as the County’s hub for education. As proposed, the project would be consistent with the intent of the SM land use designation and facilitate these preceding goals to support education in the City. Change in the Final Development Plan (Building, Site, and Signs) To accommodate the change in proposed use, the project includes minor changes to the final development plan as described in SLOMC Section 17.48.090(B). The project includes a gross floor area increase of approximately 4,300 square feet consisting of the (1) enclosure of the loading dock to create the gym and gym lobby, (2) addition of second floor offices, and (3) addition of a library mezzanine. While the project results in a gross floor area increase, these improvements are limited to the interior of the building (i.e., new second floor offices and library mezzanine to be created within the existing building space without increasing its height) and the only exterior building wall change is to enclose the loading dock (located on the north elevation) and create a gym lobby without altering the footprint of the existing loading dock area. Accompanying site improvements would remove hardscape (i.e., existing north parking lot) and replace with outdoor recreational and landscaping areas (i.e., outdoor field and activity areas). Additional native trees would also be planted throughout the site (around the outdoor field, along the side yard on Sacramento Drive, and in the south parking lot). Page 65 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 As proposed, the building improvements include a limited change to its existing form (i.e., one new wall to enclose the loading dock) and an overall façade refresh with a consistent use of new paint colors in a muted color palette and complementary metal/wood materials and detailing throughout all elevations of the existing metal building. The accompanying site improvements would also introduce outdoor spaces and additional landscaping and native trees to soften the overall appearance of the development. As proposed, the ARC unanimously found the project consistent with the Community Design Guidelines for the consistent muted use of colors, materials, and detailing throughout all elevations, and integration of landscaping to define new outdoor spaces and the addition of pedestrian amenities and native trees throughout the project site. The project also includes a new sign program for the proposed tenant. The sign program includes a variety of eight (8) signs throughout the building and site that are primarily oriented at the street frontages to provide visibility (i.e., awning, monument, and wall signs to indicate SLOCA as the tenant) and at select building entries to indicate changes in the use of different rooms and areas (i.e., wall and projecting signs t o indicate the gym, little wonders, and den). As proposed, the ARC found the project consistent with the Sign Regulations because the sign program provides sufficient visibility and information (i.e., scale and readability) while remaining well integrated with the project building and site (i.e., compatible with the building architecture and facade details and site features). Deviation from Development Standards The PD overlay is also intended to provide flexibility in the application of development standards and allow for more effective designs in response to site features, adjacent land uses, and potential environmental impacts. To facilitate specific proposed improvements, the following exceptions are requested as described below: Creek Setback Exception8 – New mechanical equipment9 is proposed in three (3) areas between the existing bike path and development (labeled as Reference Note C on Sheet A3 of the Project Plans, Attachment C). One (1) new equipment area would be installed where hardscape e xists near the motorcycle parking spaces, and two (2) new equipment areas would be installed along the building wall exterior where shrubs and mechanical equipment (to be removed and replaced) are currently located. 8 The exception request is specific to allowing new mechanical equipment and associated hardscape. Other minor new encroachments (e.g., fencing, pervious walkways/surfaces, decks, etc.) are allowable features and improvements in the creek setback as detailed in SLOMC Section 17.70.030(G)(2). 9The location of mechanical equipment would encroach into the creek setback but is outside of the Open Space Easement to comply with terms of the Open Space Easement Agreement. Page 66 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 Per SLOMC Section 17.70.030(G), an exception is required to locate mechanical equipment (and any associated hardscape) within the creek setback area. While creek setbacks are intended to protect scenic resources, water qua lity, and natural creekside habitat (SLOMC Section 17.70.030(A)), approval of the original site development included an exception to accommodate the bike path and required an Open Space Easement instead because the pertinent creek habitat was recognized to be on the northwesterly side of the bike path and not on the side where the building, parking lots, etc. are located. The Open Space Easement primarily overlaps with the creek setback, but there are minor discrepancies as shown by the orange and blue delineations on the plans (Figure 2 – Excerpt of the Proposed Site Plan). New (replacement) mechanical equipment would be installed in areas where shrubs, mechanical equipment (to be removed and replaced), and hardscape exist. As such, the new equipment would be placed in areas that have previously been disturbed and improved, and do not have value as riparian habitat. Figure 2 – Excerpt of the Proposed Site Plan (Attachment C) Page 67 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 Fencing in the Open Space Easement10 – See-through black aluminum fencing is proposed in the Open Space Easement along the site perimeter between the existing public bike path and the proposed private school, outdoor field, and parking area. As described in the Open Space, Drainage, and Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Easement Agreement (Open Space Easement Agreement), fencing may be permitted in the easement, if appropriate for open space preservation. On April 7, 2025, the ARC reviewed the request per Condition 3.a. of the Agreement (Figure 3 – Excerpt of the Open Space Easement Agreement) and unanimously recommended the PC allow the fencing. The fencing would create separate spaces and allow the protection of different uses and features, including open space preservation. In addition, the City Biologist has reviewed and does not have any concerns related to natural resources regarding the proposed fencing. Should there be any future improvements in the Open Space Easement by the City, the Applicant shall remove or relocate the fencing outside of the easement area as needed (Condition No. 11). Figure 3 – Excerpt of the Open Space Easement Agreement (Attachment E) Conditional Use Permit School Use SLOMC Section 17.86.240(B) states that no school shall be located: 1. Within 1,000 feet of any business licensed for retail sale of cannabis or cannabis products; or Currently, there are only two (2) cannabis retail storefronts in the City – Megan’s Organic Market at 280 Higuera Street and SLO CAL Roots at 3535 S. Higuera Street – and both businesses are located over 1,000 feet away from the project site at 3450 Broad Street. If the project is approved, a 1,000 -foot buffer would be created for this site on the City’s cannabis overlay zone map to ensure compliance with SLOMC Section 17.86.080(E)(10)(b)(iii). 10 The exception request is specific to allowing fencing in the Open Space Easement. Other minor new improvements (e.g., landscaping/pervious surface changes) have been verified for compliance with terms in the Open Space Easement Agreement. Page 68 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 2. Within 1,000 feet of any business which, as determined by the review authority (i.e., Planning Commission), would pose a significant health risk to the school due to the presence of hazard materials or conditions; or EnviroStor is an online data management system, provided and managed by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), for tracking cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known or suspected contamination issues. Currently, there are no known or suspected sites of hazardous materials or conditions within 1,000 feet of the project site at 3450 Broad Street. 3. Any area identified in the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) as prohibiting such school use. As proposed, the project would not conflict with the use, safety/density, height, use, or noise criteria established in the ALUP: Use – Per the ALUP, the project site is within Safety Zone 6 of the Airport Influence Area as shown in Figure 2-2 (SLO County Airport Safety Zones), and schools (and daycares) are identified as compatible uses within Safety Zone 6 under Table 4 -5 (Airport Land Use Compatibility Table). Safety/Density – As proposed, the school and daycare have a staggered class schedule and a maximum number of 442 people (372 students and 70 staff members) would be present at any one time, which is under the maximum nonresidential intensity of 1,200 people per acre. Height – While the project would result in an increase to the gross floor area, all improvements are located to the interior of the building footprint (i.e., enclose loading dock area on the ground floor and construct second floor offices and library mezzanine within the existing building space without increasing its height). As proposed, the project building would remain at approximately 33 -feet, 9-inches in height and not result in an obstruction to air navigation (i.e., a height that is 200 feet above ground level [AGL] or is above 409 feet mean sea level [MSL], whichever is greater). Noise – While schools and daycares are identified as moderately noise sensitive land uses, the project site is located outside of all noise contours identified in Figure 4-1 (SLO County Regional Airport Noise Contours). Therefore, users located at 3450 Broad Street would not be disrupted by aviation noise and noise attenuation measures are not necessary. SLOMC Section 17.86.240(C) states that the following regulations shall apply to private primary and secondary schools, unless otherwise regulated in the CUP (see open space discussion below): Page 69 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 Pick-Up/Drop-Off Plan – A plan and schedule for the pick-up and drop-off of children or clients shall be provided for review and approval by the Director. The plan shall demonstrate that adequate parking and loading are provided on site to minimize congestion and conflict points on travel aisles and public streets. The plan shall also demonstrate that increased traffic will not cause traffic levels to exceed those levels customary in residential neighborhoods except for somewhat higher traffic levels during the morning and evening commute. The plan shall include an agreement for each parent or client to sign which includes, at minimum: o A scheduled time for pick-up and drop-off with allowances for emergencies. o Prohibitions of double-parking, blocking driveways of neighboring houses, or using driveways of neighboring houses to turn around. As proposed, the project would provide staggered class schedules with drop -off and pick-up times starting between 7:45 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays. The Applicant shall submit a Pick-Up and Drop-Off Plan to the Community Development Department for review and approval. This Plan shall be consistent with all recommendations of the Final TIS (Conditions No. 28-34) (e.g., location and number of queuing/loading spaces and areas, one -way westbound only access for the parking lot, number of staff members during drop -off and pick-up times, etc.) and include a copy of the agreement form that each parent or client will need to sign regarding pick-up and drop-off times and prohibited, illegal, and unsafe behaviors. This Plan shall be approved by the Director prior to building permit final and occupancy of the building (Condition No. 15). If there are any subsequent operational changes based on the results and recommendations of the School Circulation and Safety Monitoring Plan (Condition No. 33), the Pick-Up and Drop-off Plan shall be revised as necessary for consistency and re-reviewed for approval and implementation. Recreational Open Space – If open space is not required as part of the minimum requirements of the zone in which a private school of general education is located, private schools of general education shall provide the following recreation areas, unless other regulated by the CUP: o 200 square feet of usable outdoor recreation area for each child in grades K-3 that may use the space at any one time o 430 square feet of usable outdoor recreation area for each child in grades 4-12 that may use the space at any one time Page 70 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 Instead of providing these minimum outdoor recreation areas (identified above), the Applicant is requesting to provide reduced outdoor recreation area as part of the CUP application. As proposed, the project would provide approximately 20,056 square feet of outdoor recreational area – of which 4,408 square feet would be for pre-school and kindergarten children and 15,648 square feet would be for grades 1-8 students,11. As proposed, there is a total of 32 kindergarten students that would be divided into two (2) classes with 16 each (Attachment B). Since access to the 4,408 square feet of outdoor area12 would be shared and staggered between classes, each student would have approximately 275 square feet of recreational space, which complies with the minimum requirement of 200 square feet for kindergarten students. While there would be a total of 272 students for grades 1 -8, a maximum 176 of these students would be on break at the same time based on the proposed class schedule, which is staggered by in-person classes, time, and grade (Attachment G). In addition to the 15,648 square feet of outdoor recreational space, grades 1- 8 students may occupy approximately 9,000 square feet of indoor recreational spaces, including the gym, library, and den, during breaks. This results in approximately 140 square feet of recreational space per grade 1-8 student. Noise – Compliance with SLOMC Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control) shall be required for zone in which the school is located. The project shall comply with exterior noise limits established in the City’s Noise Ordinance (Informational Note No. 41). Daycare Use Per SLOMC Section 17.86.100 (Daycare), the following performance standards shall apply to daycares that serve more than eight (8) children: Noise – The day care facility shall be subject to all appl icable provisions of the City’s Noise Regulations (SLOMC Chapter 9.12). Where the day care facility is adjacent to housing in a residential zone, outdoor play and a ctivities shall be prohibited prior to nine a.m. 11 To illustrate how much open space would typically be required based on minimum requirements, the proposed amount of open space area would allow at most 47 students (rounded up from 46.6 = 20,056 square of recreational area / 430 square of recreational area per grades 4-12 student). 12 This outdoor space would be shared with 32 preschool students, which do not have minimum open recreation area requirements. Page 71 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 The project site is adjacent (i.e., having a common property or zone line, or separated only by an alley, path, private street, or easement) to a property in the C-S zone to the north and Manufacturing (M) zone to the south. Therefore, the project is not adjacent to a residential zone and would comply with exterior noise limits established in the City’s Noise Ordinance (Informational Note No. 41). Traffic – Designated delivery and pick-up areas shall not pose any traffic or safety hazards. Operators of day care facilities shall provide carpool-matching services to all clients. To address traffic or safety hazard concerns, all recommendations of the Final TIS, including the location and number of queuing/loading spaces and areas for drop- off and pick-up (Conditions No. 28-34), shall be implemented. The Applicant shall also submit a Pick-Up and Drop-Off Plan, consistent with the Final TIS, to the Community Development Department for review and approval (Condition No. 15). This Plan may be revised as needed based on any new results and recommendations of the School Circulation and Safety Monitoring Program (Conditions No. 33). Lastly, the Applicant shall provide carpool-matching services for all clients (Condition No. 16). S Overlay Based on the proposed project and to address special considerations related to the location and circulation concerns of the site, a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was prepared for the project by a professional transportation engineering consulting firm, Advanced Mobility Group (AMG) (Attachment I, Attachment J). Per the City’s Multimodal TIS Guidelines, development projects are evaluated based on the CEQA Guidelines (Attachment I) and for consistency with local transportation policy (Attachment J). The TIS evaluated project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT), site circulation and safety, parking demand management, and off -site multimodal transportation operations, including vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian and transit considerations. Recommendations from the TIS informed the recommended conditions for the project as summarized below. Per the TIS, the project is anticipated to generate 206 net new daily, 283 net new AM peak hour, and three (3) net new PM peak hour vehicle trips. The project is also expected to generate 14 net new pedestrian trips, nine (9) net new bicycle trips, and two (2) net new transit trips during the highest peak hour period. The TIS concluded that the project would have a less than significant impact on VMT, and adequate site circulati on and safety with implementation of the following (Conditions No. 29-33): 1. Construct new sidewalk to close the existing pedestrian connectivity gap on the west side of Sacramento Drive just south of the project site. 2. Install signage and curb markings as needed to designate the parking lane on the west side of Sacramento Drive fronting the project site for passenger loading only during drop-off/pick-up periods. Page 72 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 3. Construct pedestrian crossing safety upgrades at the intersection of Sacramento Drive and Via Esteban, including high-visibility school crosswalk markings, advance warning signage and pavement markings, and a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) system for the Sacramento Drive pedestrian crosswalk. 4. Install green bike lane markings along the projec t frontage and site driveway on Sacramento Drive to increase visibility the existing bike lane and conflict points. 5. Install traffic calming elements along Sacramento Drive approaching the project site, including addition of radar speed feedback signs and school zone reduced speed limit signage. 6. Implement School Access and Parking Management strategies, including staggered pick-up/drop-off times, configuring the on-site driveway to one-way westbound only, providing staff/parent volunteers to he lp direct responsible user behaviors during pick-up/drop-off times, and designating on-site parking stalls for carpool/short-term parking/passenger loading only, etc., to maximize efficient parking and passenger loading. 7. Implement a School Circulation and Monitoring Program, which will include conducting data collection and observations of traffic operations in the vicinity of the school several months after first occupancy to identify potential concerns, such as double parking, vehicles blocking traffic/bike lanes o n Sacramento Drive, vehicle speeds approaching the campus, and observations of any bicycle or pedestrian safety problems or nuisance concerns. The Monitoring Study would identify further actions needed to address safety concerns (if any) and require the Applicant to correct these issues in a timely manner and continue monitoring until concerns have been adequately addressed. Additionally, the Director reserves the discretion to require that the Project return to the Planning Commission for consideration of further conditions of approval if safety or nuisance concerns remain unresolved. Further, the TIS confirmed that the project would not result in significant impacts to off - site vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit transportation operations, as conditioned: 1. Project-generated traffic would contribute to the already deficient vehicle level of service (LOS) at the intersections of Broad Street (SR 227) & Farmhouse Lane, Enda Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road, and Edna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road. To address this concern, the Applicant must pay the applicable San Luis Obispo County State Route 227 Corridor Mitigation Fees to satisfy the project’s fair contribution towards planned improvements at these intersections, which includes the construction of roundabouts at Buckley and Los Ranchos (currently in design) and a future signal or roundabout at Farmhouse Lane (Condition No. 28). 2. Project-generated traffic would contribute to deficient vehicle LOS at the intersection of Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way under future conditions (Year 2045), thus exceeding the City’s adopted impact thresholds. Page 73 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 To address this concern, the School Circulation and Monitoring Program would evaluate whether warrants for an all-way stop-control are met at this intersection following occupancy of the campus. If warrants are met, the Applicant must install the all-way stop control. If warrants are not yet met following occupancy of the campus, the Applicant must provide fair share mitigation fee to City for future implementation of all-way stop control, when warranted (Condition No. 34). While not directly related to the project, it should also be noted that the City has a paving project planned for Sacramento Drive starting fall of 2025, which also includes measures that will improve safety, bicycle and pedestrian conditions along Sacramento Drive. Improvements include pavement repairs, ADA pedestrian ramp upgrades, addition of traffic calming measures, including speed reduction measures along the curvature in the road north of the project site, buffered bike lanes (where width allows) and green bike lane markings in intersection conflict areas. Tree Removal Application The Applicant is requesting to remove 20 existing trees, as follows: To accommodate a new outdoor field and various recreational activity areas, nine (9) trees located in the north parking lot (identified as Trees No. 2-6, 8, 30-31) would be removed; o Note – Tree No. 8 has been cut (may have previously been a plum tree), and its stump is to be removed as part of the project. To accommodate new decks for outdoor classroom areas and a seating area, ten (10) trees located in the side yard along Sacramento Drive (identified as Trees No. 9-16, 32, 36) would be removed; and To accommodate a new parking design, one (1) tree located in the south parking lot (identified as Tree No. 37) would be removed. To compensate for these removals, the project includes 45 replacement plantings consisting of Chitalpas (Chitalpa tashkentensis), Brisbane box trees (Lophostemon confertus), coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia), Engelmann oaks (Quercus engelmannii), island oaks (Quercus tomentella), water gum (Tristaniopsis laurina), and Chinese elms (Ulmus parvifolia) (Sheet L1.2C of Project Plans). The TC unanimously supported these replacements because the compensatory trees would (a) range from 24 -inch to 60-inch box replacements; (b) be planted on the perimeter of the outdoor field, along Sacramento Drive, and throughout the south parking area; and (c) result in larger and more visually prominent trees at maturity for a majority of the selected species. Page 74 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 While all 20 tree removal requests are located outside of the Open Space Easement and creek setback, there are six (6) compensatory coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) plantings proposed within the Open Space Easement and creek setback (identified as Trees No. 12, 14-18 on Sheet L1.2C of the Project Plans). The City Arborist and City Biologist are supportive of these plantings because coast live oaks are an appropriate native species for riparian corridor restoration, erosion control, and soil stabilization. These plantings would comply with terms in the Open Space Easement Agreement and be consistent with the intent of the creek setback to protect and further restore natural creekside habitat. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt under Section 15332 (In -Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines because it is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and Zoning Regulations; is located on a site that is less than five (5) acres in size (approximately 3.5 acres); is surrounded by other urban uses (light manufacturing, distribution, storage, office, and residential uses); and is not a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species as it is a developed property that is currently used for offices. As conditioned, approval of project will not result in any significant effects related to (a) traffic because the project does not conflict with applicable transportation plans, programs or policies, is anticipated to generate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the City’s adopted thresholds, and is not anticipated to substantially increase transportation hazards or safety concerns; (b) noise because the project would comply with exterior and interior noise limits outlined in Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control); (c) air quality because construction - related emissions for the building and site improvements are temporary; or (d) water quality because the project would not result in impacts to onsite, or impact offsite, creeks or wetlands. Lastly, the project will continue to be served by all required utilities and public services. 6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The project has been reviewed by the Building Division, City Arborist, City Biologist, Engineering Division – Development Review, Fire Department, Transportation Division, and Utilities Department for concurrence. Any recommended conditions of approval have been incorporated into the Draf t Resolution (Attachment A) as appropriate. 7.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue review of the project. This action would require that the Planning Commission provide staff and the applicant with clear direction on the additional information or analysis required to make a decision. 2. Deny the project. An action denying the project would require findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and/or other policy documents. Page 75 of 309 Item 4b ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025 Planning Commission Report – June 11, 2025 8.0 ATTACHMENTS A. Draft PC Resolution B. SLOCA Project Description C. SLOCA Project Plans D. Resolution No. 8753 (1998 Series) E. Open Space, Drainage, and Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Easement Agreement F. Use Permit, A 88-97, Approval Letter G. Transportation/Parking Demand Management Plan and Daily Schedule H. Tree Removal Application I. Final Transportation Impact Study – Phase 1 (CEQA Analysis) J. Final Transportation Impact Study – Phase 2 (Multimodal Transportation Operations Analysis) Page 76 of 309 RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A PROJECT TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF A SCHOOL AND DAYCARE AT 3450 BROAD STREET. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE THE USE WITH REDUCED OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL AREA AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE LARGE OFFICE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY TO ALLOW A CHANGE IN USE AND VARIOUS SUPPORTING BUILDING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING TREE REMOVALS AND EXCEPTIONS RELATED TO THE CREEK SETBACK AND OPEN SPACE EASEMENT. THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 15332 (IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JUNE 11, 2025 (ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674- 2024, AND TREE-0033-2025) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, on November 17, 1997, for the review and approval of a 52,000 square foot commercial building with supporting site improvements such as parking, access, and landscaping, including a creek setback exception along portions of the creek to accommodate an asphalt bike path, at 3450 Broad Street , pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARC and ER 78-97; Acacia Creek, LLC, applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, on January 6, 1998, for the review of, and denied, an appeal of the Architectural Review Commission’s approval of the 52,000 square foot commercial building and supporting site improvements at 3450 Broad Street, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARC and ER 78 -97; Acacia Creek, LLC, applicant; and WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo and Acacia Creek, LLC execu ted an Open Space, Drainage, and Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Easement Agreement (Recorded Document No. 1998-065558) on September 15, 1998 , for the irrevocable offer of dedication of an open space easement, including the provision for non-vehicular access to accommodate a bicycle path and pedestrian access, as required per the City’s approval of Acacia Creek Commercial Center instituted under ARC and ER 78-97; and Page 77 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, on April 6, 1999, for the review and approval of rezoning property from Service-Commercial with Special Considerations Overlay (C-S-S) to Service-Commercial with Special Considerations and Planned Development Overlays (C-S-S-PD) to allow large professional office use at 3450 Broad Street, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under PD 201-98; Acacia Creek, LLC, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, on March 24, 2025, for the review and recommended approval of 20 tree removals at 3450 Broad Street, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under TREE-0033-2025; San Luis Obispo Classical Academy, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, on April 7, 2025, for the review and recommended approval of various building, site, and sign improvements at 3450 Broad Street, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH - 0672-2024; San Luis Obispo Classical Academy, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, on June 11, 2025, for the establishment and operation of a school and daycare, including a Conditional Use Permit to operate the use with reduced outdoor recreational area and an Amendment to the Planned Development Overlay to allow the change in use and various supporting building and site improvements, at 3450 Broad Street, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, and TREE-0033-2025; San Luis Obispo Classical Academy, applicant; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conditionally approved the project (ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, and TREE- 0033-2025) after duly considering all evidence, including testimony of the applicant and general public and evaluation, and recommendations by staff presented at said hearing; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Page 78 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 3 SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby approves the project (ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, and TREE-0033-2025), based on the following findings: Development Review and Conditional Use Permit 1. As proposed, the project is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, particularly Community Goals No. 26 and 27, because it would advance the City’s goals of supporting high quality education and being the County’s hub for education. In addition, public and quasi-public uses such as schools and daycares are identified as permitted uses in Table 1 of the Services and Manufacturing Land Use Designation. 2. As conditioned, the project conforms to applicable property development standards, set forth in the Zoning Regulations, for the Service Commercial (C-S) zone, except as modified by the PD overlay for the creek setback exception to accommodate mechanical equipment. 3. As proposed, the project includes allowable school and daycare uses in the C-S zone and would be compatible with established residential and nonresidential uses by providing complementary educational and daycare services for children in proximity. The reduction in outdoor recreational area requirements per student is allowable due to limited outdoor site area and the availability of indoor recreational areas within the building. 4. On March 24, 2025, the Tree Committee reviewed the project and recommended the Planning Commission approve the proposed tree removals based on consistency with the policies and standards set forth in the Tree Regulations. As proposed, the project includes the planting of 45 replacement trees throughout the entirety of project site. No design changes were included as part of their recommendation. 5. On April 7, 2025, the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the project and recommended the Planning Commission approve the proposed building, site, and sign improvements, including the requested see-through fencing in the open space easement, based on consistency with design principles and objectives in the Community Design Guidelines, Sign Regulations, applicable City standards, and the Open Space, Drainage, and Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Easement Agreement. As proposed, the project includes building and site improvements to provide a refreshed contemporary façade with consistent pedestrian-oriented design elements, additional landscaping areas, and fencing that would provide for open space preservation. No design changes were included as part of their recommendation. Page 79 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 4 6. The site is physically suitable in terms of (a) its design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the project; (b) traffic generation and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access; (c) public protection services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.); and (d) the provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.). The project site is surrounded by other developed properties, has access to the City’s circulation system, and would continue to be served by City utilities. As proposed, the project utilizes an existing developed property and does not include activities that would generate service or utility demands beyond those anticipated with uses permitted in the vicinity. 7. As conditioned, the project provides adequate consideration of, and measures to, address any potential adverse effects on surrounding properties such as traffic, vehicular and pedestrian safety, visual, and scale, because it would implement all recommendations of the Final Transportation Impact Study, including (a) off-site improvements that consist of the construction of sidewalk along the property to the immediate south; installation of a loading zone along Sacramento Drive; installation of traffic calming measures along Sacramento Drive; installation of measures to increase visibility of bicycle conflicts, and installation of pedestrian crossing improvements at Sacramento Drive and Via Esteban; and (b) on-site access and parking management strategies. In addition, the building and site improvements would utilize a contemporary design that is compatible with the industrial neighborhood and incorporate consistent articulation, material, and color changes with pedestrian-scale elements such as outdoor spaces, awnings, signage, and landscaping throughout the building elevations. 8. As conditioned, the establishment and subsequent operation or conduct of the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because it has been conditioned to limit and address potential traffic and safety hazards to neighboring properties. The project will be compatible with the existing site constraints and the character of the neighborhood. Planned Development Amendment 9. As proposed, the amendment to the large office PD ordinance would faciliate school and daycare uses, which are public and quasi-public uses allowed in the Services and Manufacturing land use designation and Service-Commerical zone. 10. As conditioned, the project complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations, except as modified by the PD amendment for the creek setback exception to accomodate the mechanical equipment and the Conditional Use Permit for reduced outdoor recreational space per student. Page 80 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 5 11. As proposed, the modifications to the specific development standards in the Zoning Regulations are necessary and appropriate to accommodate the superior design of the proposed project, its compatibility with adjacent land uses, and its successful mitigation of environmental impacts. 12. As proposed, the building, site, and sign improvements comply with all applicable design guidelines in the City’s Community Design Guidelines. 13. All affected public facilities, services, and utilities are adequate to serve the project. 14. The location, size, site planning, building design features, and operating characteristics of the project are highly suited to the characteristics of the site and surrounding neighborhood, and will be compatible with the cha racter of the site and the land uses and development intended for the surrounding neighborhood by the General Plan. 15. The site is adequate for the project in terms of size, configuration, topography, and other applicable features. 16. As proposed, the community benefits of a school and daycare directly implement objectives of the General Plan for supporting education in the City. 17. As proposed, the community benefits of a school and daycare do not principally benefit the project or occupants of the project, but rather provide a district and area-wide benefit within San Luis Obispo. 18. As conditioned, the site has appropriate access to public streets with adequate capacity to accommodate the quantity and type of traffic expected to be generated by the use. 19. As conditioned, the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the project will not, in the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. Creek Setback Exception 20. As proposed, the location and design of the mechanical equipment receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement , because the equipment would be located in areas where shrubs, mechanical equipment (to be removed and replaced) and hardscape exist. As proposed, the equipment would be located in areas that have previously been disturbed and improved, and do not have value as riparian habitat. Page 81 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 6 21. As proposed, the exception for the mechanical equipment would not limit the City’s design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies because the equipment would be located outside of Open Space Easement, which has specific provisions for drainage over the pertinent creek habitat area. 22. As proposed, the exception for the mechanical equipment would not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans, because the equipment would be located outside of the Open Space Easement, which has specific provisions for open space protection, drainage, and maintenance of pedestrian and access for the project site. 23. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape, or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning. While the project site is relatively large, the site is constrained by limited circulation access and contains a portion of Acacia Creek, thus limiting the development envelope and use of the building and site. 24. As proposed, the exception for the mechanical equipment would not constitute a grant of special privilege – an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning – because the equipment would be located in areas where shrubs (no trees), mechanical equipment (to be removed and replaced), and hardscape already exist. 25. As proposed, the exception for the mechanical equipment will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream because the equipment would be located in areas adjacent to the project building or hardscape and not impact the creek corridor, riparian habitat, nesting birds, or other wildlife. 26. Redesign of the project to locate the mechanical equipment outside of the creek setback would impede functionality of the existing building and site due to required walkways, entries and exits, outdoor areas, and other supporting site features of the project. 27. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property because the mechanical equipment would only support a change in use of the project building and does not include increase the existing development’s scale, design, or density. Page 82 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 7 SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines because it is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and Zoning Regulations; is located on a site that is less than five (5) acres in size (approximately 3.5 acres); is surround ed by other urban uses (light manufacturing, distribution, storage, office, and residential uses); and is not a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species as it is a developed property that is currently used for offices. As conditioned, approval of project will not result in any significant effects related to (a) traffic because the project does not conflict with applicable transportation plans, programs or policies, is anticipated to generate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the City’s adopted thresholds, and is not anticipated to substantially increase transportation hazards or safety concerns; (b) noise because the project would comply with exterior and interior noise limits outlined in Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control); (c) air quality because construction-related emissions for the building and site improvements are temporary; or (d) water quality because the project would not result in impacts to onsite, or impact offsite, creeks or wetlands. Lastly, the project will continue to be served by all required utilities and public services. SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby approves the project based on the following conditions of approval: Planning Division – Community Development Department 1. The project design and construction drawings submitted for the building permit shall be in substantial compliance with plans submitted for the project entitlement applications. A separate, full-sized sheet shall be included in the working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of approval and applicable code requirements for the project as Sheet No. 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of the listed items as to where these requirements are addressed in the plans. Any change to the approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director and may be subject to review by the Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 2. Plans submitted for the building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all existing and proposed building surfaces and improvements. The colors and materials shall be consistent with colors and materials shown in plans submitted for the project entitlement applications to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. Plans submitted for the building permit shall include the locations of all exterior lighting, including landscape lighting such as bollard style or path lighting. All wall- mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly labeled on building elevations and complement the building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut sheets in the submitted plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with standards outlined in Municipal Code Section 17.70.100 (Lighting and Night Sky Preservation). Page 83 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 8 4. All ducts, meters, air conditioning equipment, and other mechanical equipment, whether located on the ground, roof, or elsewhere on the building or property, shall be screened from public view with materials that are architecturally compatible with the project building to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Public view includes existing views from all public streets, sidewalks, and the bike path. Gas and electric meters, electric transformers, and large water piping systems (e.g., backflow prevention devices) shall be completely screened from public view with approved architectural features and/or landscaping or located to the interior of the property. This screening requirement applies to any subsequent improvements. 5. Plans submitted for the building permit shall include landscape and irrigation plans. 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. Details on the proposed surfaces and finishes of hardscapes shall be included in the landscaping plan. 6. Plans submitted for the building permit shall include elevations and detail drawings of all proposed fences and/or walls. All fences and walls shall be of high -quality materials. For the life of the fence and/or wall, the owner shall conduct necessary repairs and maintenance to ensure the fence and associated landscaping, located between the fence and property line, remain in a high-quality and orderly condition to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. All proposed fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with standards outlined in Municipal Code Section 17.70.070 (Fences, Walls, and Hedges). Fencing located within the Open Space Easement shall also comply with requirements in Condition No. 11 and terms of the Open Space, Drainage, and Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Easement. 7. 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 a pproval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors. 8. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the Applicant shall pay for the public art in-lieu fees or apply for a Director’s Action application for the proposed onsite public art. If public art is to be provided onsite, the application submitted for review shall include all requirements outlined in Section 17.70.140(E) (Application and Review Procedures for Placement of Required Public Art on Private Property). Page 84 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 9 9. Plans submitted for a sign permit shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Sign Program. Modifications to the Sign Program or a request for additional signage may require review by the Architectural Review Commission or Community Development Director, as deemed appropriate. 10. Plans submitted for the building permit shall clearly indicate the three (3) new mechanical equipment areas that encroach into the creek setback area. The creek setback exception is limited to the installation of these mechanical equipment areas as shown in plans submitted for the project entitlement applications. 11. Plans submitted for the building permit shall clearly indicate the proposed six-foot- high (6’-0”) see-through black aluminum fencing within the Open Space Easement area as shown in plans submitted for the project entitlement applications. The fencing shall be removed and/or relocated by the Applicant, if there are any future public improvements to the Open Space Easement area by the City. The Applicant shall be responsible for all efforts and costs associated with fencing removal and/or relocation. Conditional approval of the fence shall not be construed as a waiver of the City’s rights under the Open Space Easement nor as approval for any other or different structures to be placed within this easement area. 12. The site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner at all times to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 13. The project shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director for compliance with the conditions of approval, or to determine whether a modification of the Use Permit is necessary upon significant change to the project as represented in the Staff Report dated June 11, 2025, or in the event of a change in ownership which may result in deviation from the project description or approved plans. 14. The project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission if the City receives substantiated written complaints from any citizen, Code Enforcement Officer, or regulatory agency, which contain information and/or evidence supporting a conclusion that a violation of these project conditions, or of City Ordinances or regulations has occurred. At the time of the project review, conditions of approval may be added, modified, or removed, or the Use Permit may be revoked to ensure ongoing compatibility with nearby uses. Page 85 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 10 15. The Applicant shall submit a Pick-Up and Drop-Off Plan to the Community Development Department for review and approval. This Plan shall be consistent with all recommendations of the Final Transportation Impact Study and include an agreement for each parent or client regarding allowable pick-up and drop-off times and prohibited, illegal, and unsafe behaviors. This Plan shall be approved by the Director prior to building permit final and occupancy o f the building. If there are any subsequent operational changes based on the results and recommendations of the School Circulation and Safety Monitoring Plan, the Pick-Up and Drop-off Plan shall be revised as necessary for consistency and re-reviewed for approval and implementation. 16. Carpool-matching services shall be provided to all clients. Urban Forestry Services – Community Development Department 17. Tree removals are limited to the 20 trees (19 Pyrus calleryana [Callery Pear] and one [1] Prunus cerasifera [Purple-leaf Plum]) identified in the Tree Protection Plan prepared by The Oakley Group, dated February 7, 2025. The remaining 20 trees onsite shall be protected in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan. 18. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall include 45 replacement tree plantings to compensate for the 20 tree removals. Adjustments to tree species, size, and location are subject to City Arborist review and approval. 19. An ISA Certified Arborist (Landscape Contractor/Project Arborist) shall be onsite to monitor all work within or adjacent to the critical root zones of trees to be retained; shall source healthy compensatory trees (in accordance with Appendix I in the City’s Engineering Standards) that have good structure, appropriate trunk taper for tree species and box size, and ensure that they are not root -bound; and shall supervise the installation of trees and ensure that the root balls of the trees have sufficient moisture prior to installation, inspect the root balls of the trees and loosen or shave all sides of the root system and cleanly cut girdling roots, if necessary. 20. The compensatory trees shall be planted per the City’s Engineering Standards for Tree Planting prior to building permit final inspection. All trees planted as part of a compensatory plan shall survive and be retained. Any trees that do not survive or establish in good health, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, shall be replanted. Page 86 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 11 21. California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1972 prevents the removal of trees with active nests. To account for most nesting birds, removal of trees should be scheduled to occur in the fall and winter (between September 1st and January 31st) and after the young have fledged. If removing trees during the nesting season (February 1st to August 31st), a qualified biologist shall inspect any trees marked for removal that contain nests to determine if the nests are active. If there are active nests, trees shall not be removed and may only be removed once a qualified biologist provides a confirmation memo that breeding / nesting is completed, and young have fledged the nest prior to removal of the tree to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or City Biologist. Engineering Development Review – Community Development Department 22. An operations and maintenance manual will be required for applicable stormwater improvements which are constructed to comply with Post Construction Requirements. The manual shall be submitted for review prior to building permit issuance and shall be recorded as an exhibit to the Private Stormwater Conveyance Agreement prior to request for final inspection for the project. The manual shall include narrative about all stormwater facilities at the property and shall provide maintenance procedures and inspection forms for all facilities. 23. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, or his designee, all stormwater best management practices (BMPs) shall be located on private property and not within the public right-of-way. If allowed within the right-of-way, a separate encroachment agreement will be required. 24. Improvements located in the public right-of-way shall require a separate encroachment permit and associated fees based on the fee schedule in effect at the time of permit issuance. Public improvement plans are not separately required where the scope of work within the public right-of-way or areas of dedications is limited to curb ramp, curb, gutter, sidewalk, bus stop upgrades, and driveway approach repairs or replacements, and for utility abandonments or new utility construction or connections. If the proposed public improvements are within this limited scope of work, the improvements may be shown on plans submitted f or the building permit. 25. Any sections of damaged or displaced curb, gutter & sidewalk or driveway approach shall be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to final inspection approvals. 26. The project shall show compliance with the Open Space, Drainage, and Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Easement agreement, including landscaping restrictions within the Open Space Easement. At the time of building permit submittal, the Natural Resource Manager or Comm unity Development Director shall review any landscaping proposed within the Open Space Easement. Page 87 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 12 27. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with detention requirements of the original entitlement for site development in a ddition to compliance with post construction requirements triggered by the proposed project. Transportation Division – Public Works Department 28. Transportation Impact Fees (TIF): The Project Applicant must pay the following fees prior to issuance of building permits, unless otherwise approved for deferral to prior to occupancy by the Community Development Director: a. Citywide Transportation Impact Fees (paid to City) b. San Luis Obispo County’s State Route 227 Corridor Mitigation Fees (paid directly to County) The TIF fees will be adjusted to reflect credits from the previous occupancy of the project site, applying fees only to the net new increase in trips generated by the project. 29. Sidewalk Gap Closure: The Project Applicant must construct a sidewalk along the west side of Sacramento Drive between the project site driveway and the terminus of the existing sidewalk approximately 200 feet to the south. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, this sidewalk may be constructed using asphalt concrete in lieu of Portland cement concrete, as typically required per City Engineering Standards. A design exception application must be approved for non - standard sidewalk materials. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, the sidewalk must be constructed prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 30. School Drop-Off/Pick-Up Loading Zone: Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Applicant must install curb paint and signage along the project frontage along the west side of Sacramento Drive to designate the on -street parking as “passenger loading only” during school pick-up and drop-off periods. Curb markings and signage shall be designed and installed to the approval of the City Parking Manager and Transportation Engineering Division. The Project Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining school loading zone curb markings and signage at no cost to the City. 31. Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Improvements: Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Applicant must install pedestrian crossing improvements at the intersection of Sacramento Drive and Via Esteban, including the following features unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director: a. Install yellow high-visibility “ladder-style” crosswalk markings per City Engineering Standards at the north and east legs of the intersection. Page 88 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 13 b. Install a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) system at the north leg of the crosswalk, with equipment specifications and details to be approved to the satisfaction of the City Transportation Engineering Division. c. Install ADA-compliant curb ramp upgrades at each corner where new crosswalk markings are installed, unless curb ramp upgrades are completed sooner as part of the City’s planned 2025 Paving Project. d. Install red curb paint and/or signage to restrict on-street parking as needed to maintain the required line-of-sight at the new school crosswalk per City Engineering Standards. e. Install advance warning signage and pavement markings on Sacramento Drive approaching the school crosswalk from both directions to provide advanced notice of pedestrian crossing. Pavement markings and signage details to be approved to the satisfaction of the City Transportation Engineering Division. f. Install green bike lane markings within the southbound bike lane on Sacramento Drive along the frontage of the school, including dashed green bike lane markings through the project access driveway. g. Install two “25 MPH SCHOOL ZONE” signs and two radar speed feedback signs on Sacramento Drive approaching the new school crossing: one sign to be located north of the school facing southbound traffic, and one sign located south of the school facing northbound traffic. Radar sign specifications and placement to be approved to the satisfaction of the City Transportation Engineering Division. 32. School Access and Parking Management: Unless otherwise approved by the City Transportation Division, the Project Applicant must implement the following Site Access and Parking Management strategies, as recommended in the Project’s Transportation Impact Study: a. Configure the on-site parking drive aisle to one-way westbound only access. b. Install pavement markings and signage at the intersection of the Project site driveway with Broad Street to convey the driveway as “EXIT ONLY”. Install a stop sign, “STOP” pavement legend, and “RIGHT TURN ONLY” sign for the driveway exiting to Broad Street. c. Assign on-site parking stalls as follows: i. 10-20 short-term walk-in parking stalls near the main entrance and western portion of parking lot ii. 10-20 designated staff-only or general parking stalls on the south side of the parking lot iii. 3-5 parking stalls near the main entrance for carpool vehicles, vans or shuttles d. Consider staggering start/end school times to encourage dispersed vehicle arrivals and reduce congestion/queuing. Page 89 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 14 e. Consider allowing older students who are being picked up or dropped off along the Sacramento Drive passenger loading zone to enter/exit campus near the playground area to the north of the site. f. Provide 2-4 staff or parent volunteers to help guide efficient drop -off/pick- up activity and discourage unsafe behaviors during school start and end periods. g. If the proposed parking lot vehicle security gate is omitted from the final site design or removed at a future date, install speed humps or other City- approved traffic calming within the on-site parking aisle to discourage cut- through traffic and speeding. h. Provide advanced communication to student families and guardians upon enrollment and prior to each academic year regarding recommended school access routes, pick-up/drop-off areas, and safe practices when accessing the campus. 33. School Circulation & Safety Monitoring Program : To ensure that the recommended site access, safety and parking management strategies are achieving their intended effectiveness, the Project Applicant must commission a qualified transportation planning/engineering professional to conduct a School Circulation & Safety Monitoring Study (referred to herein as “study”). The study must evaluate and report on the following: a. Observations of vehicle queuing during school drop -off/pick-up periods, including instances of vehicles double-parking, blocking the bike lane, traffic lane or crosswalks on Sacramento Drive. b. Observations of wrong-way circulation within the one-way on-site parking aisle. c. Observations of driver behavior and conflicts with pedestrians crossing Sacramento Drive near the campus. d. General observations of any illegal or unsafe behavior by drivers, pedestrians, or cyclists accessing the campus. e. Vehicle speed survey data on Sacramento Drive, to be collected in the vicinity of the campus during morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up periods. Compare prevailing (85th percentile) speeds to the posted speed limit (25 mph on Sacramento between Orcutt and Capitolio). f. Summary of any traffic collisions reported within the vicinity of the school following occupancy of the campus (Applicant may request this data from the City). g. Summary of nuisance parking or safety complaints reported to the school or City following occupancy (Applicant may contact the City for any reports/complaints). h. Collect traffic count data at the intersection of Sacramento Drive & Capitolio and evaluate whether conditions warrant installation of all-way stop control Page 90 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 15 pursuant to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Data shall include monitoring pedestrian crossing activity at this intersection to guide whether marked crosswalks or other features should be installed. i. Documentation of communications to parents/guardians of students conveying required circulation, parking and safety policies , including pick- up/drop-off policies and carpool-matching opportunities. j. Identify recommendations to address safety concerns or undesirable circulation and parking issues observed during monitoring efforts , as appropriate. Data collection and observations for the study shall be performed on days with typical school activities and attendance, outside of holidays or other dates of lower-than-typical attendance. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the study must be initiated within two (2) months of start of the first school academic year, with documentation of findings and recommendations submitted to the Community Development Department no later than six (6) months following start of the first school academic year. The Project Applicant shall make good faith effort to implement recommendations presented in the study as expeditiously as practical, but no later than the beginning of the second school academic year. If safety or nuisance concerns related to the Project are identified in the initial monitoring study, a follow-up monitoring study shall be conducted by the Applicant following the start of the second school academic year to confirm if these concerns have been resolved. If a follow-up study is required, it must be initiated within two (2) months of start of the second school academic year, with documentation of findings and recommendations submitted to the City Community Development Department no later than six (6) months following start of the second school academic year. If highlighted safety or nuisance concerns have not been resolved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director by the end of the second school academic year, the Director reserves the discretion to require that the Project return to the Planning Commission for consideration of further conditions of approval to address these concerns. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Applicant shall post a bond or deposit as a faithful performance security in the amount of $100,000 to ensure completion of the required School Circulation & Safety Monitoring Program, and implementation of any resulting measures recommended in the monitoring study to address reported safety issues. This surety will be released when all obligations established under this condition of approval have been satisfied. Page 91 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 16 34. Sacramento & Capitolio Intersection: If the required School Circulation & Safety Monitoring Study concludes that warrants for all-way stop control are met at the Sacramento/Capitolio intersection following occupancy of the school, the Project Applicant must design and install the traffic signage and roadway strip ing improvements needed to implement all-way stop control at this intersection prior to the start of the second school academic year. If the Monitoring Study indicates that warrants for all-way stop control are not yet met, the Project Applicant must pay a fair share mitigation fee to the City for future installation of all-way stop control, with the fee to be determined based on an engineer’s estimate of the required improvements. Unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director, this fair share fee shall be paid in advance prior to the issuance of building permits, and shall be refunded to the Project Applicant if an all-way stop control is warranted and installed by the Applicant. Utilities Department 35. Plans submitted for the building permit shall identify the size of existing and proposed water services, water meters, sewer lateral, sewer services, and fire services for the project and shall include a licensed engineer’s design narrative and supportive engineering calculations. The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design standards effective at the time the building permit is obtained and shall have reasonable alignments needed for maintenance of public infrastructure. 36. Prior to issuance of the building permit, to ensure the integrity of the water main in Sacramento Drive is not adversely affected, the Applicant shall submit offsite improvement plans for the replacement of up to 160 feet of the 12-inch water main in Sacramento Drive, or the Applicant shall submit revised building permit utility plans, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director. 37. Plans submitted for the building permit shall include a final landscape design plan, irrigation plan, and completed Maximum Applied Water Allowa nce (MAWA) form based on the final landscape design plan and a hydrozone table with a summary of Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) and the corresponding irrigation window. The project’s ETWU to support new ornamental landscaping and active turf area shall not exceed the project’s MAWA. a. If the final landscape plan includes one thousand square feet of landscaping or greater a separate city-owned landscape water meter is required. Page 92 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 17 b. On the final landscape plan, if turf grass is proposed it shall be classified as high water use. Turf used on playing fields and playground areas can be classified as Special Landscape Areas (SLA) and will be considered as functional turf; allowed under the new State non-functional turf regulations. Non-functional turf will not be allowed. 38. The project includes food preparation; therefore, a grease interceptor is required, and provisions for grease interceptors and FOG (fats, oils, and grease) storage within solid waste enclosure(s) shall be provided with the plans submitted for a building permit. These types of facilities shall also provide an area inside to wash floor mats, equipment, and trash cans. The wash area shall be drained to the sanitary sewer. 39. The project shall comply with the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services. Plans submitted for the building permit shall show the location and size of the bin enclosure(s) that can store the required containers for waste, recycling, and organics for the proposed use. Plans shall show the location of the discarded materials containers during pickup if different than the location of the proposed enclosure(s). The plan review letter from San Luis Garbage shall be included in the plans submitted for a building permit. 40. In order to be reused, any existing sewer laterals proposed to serve the project must pass a video inspection, including repair or replacement, as part of the project. The CCTV inspection shall be submitted during the building permit review process for review and approval by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Existing laterals that are not proposed to be reused shall be abandoned at the City main consistent with City standards. Applicable Application and Code Requirements or Informational Notes Planning Division – Community Development Department 41. The project shall comply with exterior noise limits established in the City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.12 Noise Control). 42. The Applicant shall comply with all terms of the Open Space, Drainage, and Bicycle/Pedestrian Access Easement Agreement. Engineering Development Review – Community Development Department 43. Plans for the building permit shall show and label all existing easements that encumber or benefit this property. The plans shall show and label the limits of any driveway/access easement, blanket easements, utility easements, or shared parking areas. Page 93 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 18 44. The building permit submittal shall include a complete site utility plan showing all existing City mainlines, private services, and proposed utilities. 45. Plans for the building permit submittal shall show and note compliance with the Parking and Driveway Standards. Any exceptions shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division. 46. The building permit submittal shall include a complete grading and drainage plan, erosion and sediment control plan, and supporting reports. The drainage report shall clarify how compliance with the City Drainage Design Manual (DDM) and Post Construction Regulations (PCR’s) will be achieved. 47. The building permit submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for redeveloped sites. As part of the building permit submittal, include a completed Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan; a template of this plan is available on the City’s Website. Indemnification 48. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review (“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. Page 94 of 309 Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 19 Notice of Opportunity to Protest 49. The Applicant acknowledges and agrees that the project conditions of approval stated herein provide adequate and proper notice pursuant to Government Code 66020 of Applicant’s right to protest any requirement for fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions, and that any protest in compliance with Section 66020 must be made within ninety (90) day sof the date that notice was given. On motion by Commissioner ______, seconded by Commissioner ______, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: RECUSED: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 1 1th day of June 2025. ___________________ Rachel Cohen, Secretary Planning Commission Page 95 of 309 Page 96 of 309 3450 Broad Street Campus Proposal Overview SLOCA is proposing improvements and an approximately 4,352 s.f. addition to the existing 50,802 s.f. office building at 3450 Broad Street to be used for a private, non-sectarian elementary school, with infant child care through 8th grade (55,154 s.f. total). SLOCA’s high school students will meet at another campus. The project will consolidate current SLOCA students and staff from three separate locations in town: the current K through 8th grade site at 165 Grand Avenue, which is the San Luis Coastal Unified School District’s Old Pacheco school; a preschool and infant care site located across the street at Grand and Slack, which is owned by the Cal Poly Corporation; and staff offices at 1880 Santa Barbara Avenue. SLOCA’s privately funded school is organized around three core principles: • Classical Education (focus on virtue and wisdom) • Small class sizes (16 per class) • Hybrid / Home option for Learning (represents two thirds of students K-8) In an age that suffers from the splintering of families, SLOCA brings families together. The school’s emphasis on classical education in conjunction with family involvement provides students with the academic challenges and supportive environment necessary to become truly ready for life beyond high school. SLOCA’s collaborative approach provides families with options for a hybrid program or a full-time program. For the former program, students are at home 2-3 days per week, learning with parents or other adults working under the school's guidance. This allows parents to take part in learning, to contribute to their student's education and to integrate learning with daily life and family values. One third of SLOCA families opt for the full-time program, attending classes 5 days per week, but their time on campus is staggered between traditional classrooms and other flexible student study and workspaces. For building and program design, this hybrid home and classroom model means that many of the classrooms designed for students will serve different students on different days, with some students working from home on the off days. SLOCA’s maximum number of students served across both the hybrid and full-time options will be 372 students from 264 families attending classes at the facility at any one time. ATTACHMENT B Page 97 of 309 SLOCA 3450 Broad Street Campus Proposal 2 Proposed Campus Improvements The school’s campus plan includes the following spaces: ● 5 classroom spaces for infant through pre-school learning ● 2 classrooms for kinder and flex programs for young students ● 19 classrooms dedicated to traditional learning, flex labs, and maker’s spaces, (Each classroom serves no more than 16 students in SLOCA’s model) ● A school library ● A junior-high sized gymnasium/multi-purpose assembly area ● Meeting room ● A school kitchen for event and teaching use ● A staff kitchen, break rooms, and work room. ● Student community and study areas ● A reception lobby and school store The existing single-story building footprint is 50,802 sf. The original building was designed to allow a partial second floor within the building envelope and the project includes 2,968 sf of second floor improvements for administration offices. A 688 sf mezzanine is proposed in the Library. In addition, the existing 696 sf loading dock will be infilled to accommodate a lobby for the gymnasium/multi- purpose space. The exterior building envelope will not be altered but some architectural improvements are proposed including: ● Replacing sloped metal canopies with horizontal trellis/canopies ● Adding horizontal canopies with wood soffits at the tall gable-end windows ● Window screening from spaced 2x6 Kebony or wood finished aluminum ● Color and façade material changes ● New signage and graphics Site improvements proposed include: ● The north parking lot will be replaced with outdoor playground, activity, and gathering spaces. ● Some parking spaces in the south parking lot will be replaced with a combination of time- limited drop-off and compact spaces. Refer to the attached Traffic and Parking Plan. ● Classroom patios are proposed along the south parking lot side with landscaped fencing ● Decks are proposed at the Break Room and Wonders classrooms along the east side of the building. Decks are also shown at the UMS classrooms on the west side of the building supported by structure located in the creek setback and cantilevered over the bike path easement. The cantilevered portion of the deck can be removed in the future if necessary to accommodate future improvements to the bike path. ● Site landscaping will be upgraded. ● ATTACHMENT B Page 98 of 309 SLOCA 3450 Broad Street Campus Proposal 3 ● 6 bicycle parking spaces near the main entrance, 10 bicycle spaces within the fenced yard near the bike path, and 2 long-term bicycle spaces inside are proposed. Proposed Traffic & Parking Plan SLOCA has been working with Central Coast Transportation Consulting. Joe Fernandez and his team have put together a design and summary with traffic and drop-off plans that circulate one way through the site, and allow for sufficient parking during the rest of the school day and for after school events. A summary of his plan is attached. Refer also to the attached Transportation/Parking Management Plan by SLOCA for additional information. Planning and Zoning The zoning for the site is C-S-S-PD established by Ordinance No. 1351 for a planned development (PD 201-98) approved by the City Council in 1999 (attached). The purpose of the PD rezoning was to allow some large offices on the site in addition to the uses already allowed by Use Permit A 88-97 approved in 1997. Condition 2 in the PD Ordinance states that “all requirements included in the zoning regulations for the C-S zone shall apply. The list of uses approved through Use Permit A 88- 97 shall continue to apply…” The uses listed in Use Permit A 88-97 were based on those allowed at the time for CS zoning that did not include schools (primary and secondary). However, the current Zoning Ordinance does allow schools with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). SLOCA is proposing an amendment to the PD Zoning to allow the school use consistent with the current Zoning Ordinance for the CS Zone. The proposed design includes 3,656 s.f. of second floor and mezzanine improvements within the existing building envelope as noted above. Although Use Permit A 88-97 allowed “mezzanine” improvements with Use Permit approval (Condition 1), the subsequent PD rezoning nullified this condition based on a concern that the balance between the floor area and the parking would not be met. Since the SLOCA school proposal includes a complete re-evaluation of the parking demand that balances the parking for a fixed school use (instead of unknown future tenants), the reason for the PD nullification of Condition 1 does not seem to apply. Therefore, SLOCA is requesting that the “mezzanine” improvements be approved as part of the PD amendment requested. The project site is within Safety Zone 6 of the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Based on recent changes to the ALUP, schools - pre-school through high school - are currently a compatible use in Zone 6. The existing public bike/pedestrian easement and 20-foot creek setback are shown on all site plans. Some play equipment and decking is proposed in the easement that can be removed in the future if necessary to accommodate future improvements to the bike path. Since there is no riparian habitat in the creek setback east of the paved bike path, SLOCA is seeking approval to locate some mechanical equipment in this area. Refer to the Site and Landscape Plans. ATTACHMENT B Page 99 of 309 SLOCA 3450 Broad Street Campus Proposal 4 The outdoor recreation area for grades 1st through 8th is approximately 20,056 sf. (a separate fenced play area of approximately 4,408 sf. is proposed for pre-school and kindergarten children). Section 17.86.240 in the Zoning Regulations allocates 430 sf. of outdoor recreation area for each child that may use the space at any one time which would normally limit the number of children to 47 (20,050/430). However, the use of the outdoor recreation area during lunch or recess will be staggered by education stage with the largest number of students in the LMS/UMS middle school stage (176) having breaks at the same time. In addition, not all the LMS/UMS students will be engaged in outdoor recreation at the same time as some will be gathered for lunch and others will be active in the 5,835 sf gymnasium. The library and den will also be available for student gathering. We are requesting that the project be approved with the outdoor recreation area shown since 17.86.240 allows this requirement to be regulated through a CUP. Attachments: Preliminary Transportation Analysis by Central Coast Transportation Consulting dated 10/18/2024 Transportation/Parking Demand Management Plan and Daily Schedule by SLOCA Airport Land Use Compatibility Table 4-5 pages 4-29 and 4-30 Airport Land Use Map Use Permit A 88-97 for 3450 Broad Street Ordinance 1351 for PD 201-98 City Zoning Regulations Table 2-1 pages 2-7 and 2-9 ATTACHMENT B Page 100 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 101 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 102 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 103 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 104 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 105 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 106 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 107 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 108 of 309 S A C R A M E N T O D R I V E EXISTING BUILDING 200.50 FF (APPROXIMATE) 200.60 - 200.43 FF RANGE RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE S A C R A M E N T O D R I V E ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT 10 . 0 0 ' PG E EA S E M E N T V I A E S T E B A N A C A C I A C R E E K 60.0' R I G H T O F W A Y 8.1' 21.8' 20.4' 9.7' /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// NO PARKING NO PA R K I N G COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT WM IRR 1 1 1 1 2 TYP 2 TYP 2 TYP 2 TYP 2 TYP 2 TYP 2 TYP 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 TYP 5 TYP 5 TYP 5 TYP 6 7 7 7 777 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 25 5.00' ASPHA L T SIDEW A L K 26 27 26 26 28 28 28 28 28 60 . 1 0 ' F U L L B A Y D I M E N S I O N 2. 5 0 ' O V E R H A N G 18 . 4 0 ' S T A L L 2. 5 0 ' O V E R H A N G 18 . 4 0 ' S T A L L 60.10' FULL BAY DIMENSION 2.50' OVERHANG 18.40' STALL 2.50' OVERHANG 18.40' STALL 18.00'9. 0 0 ' 5. 0 0 ' 9. 0 0 ' 57 . 7 0 ' B A Y D I M E N S I O N A T C O M P A C T P A R K I N G 2. 5 0 ' O V E R H A N G 18 . 4 0 ' S T A L L 2. 5 0 ' O V E R H A N G 16 . 0 0 ' S T A L L 60 . 1 0 ' F U L L B A Y D I M E N S I O N 2. 5 0 ' O V E R H A N G 18 . 4 0 ' S T A L L 2. 5 0 ' O V E R H A N G 18 . 4 0 ' S T A L L 9.00'8.00'9.00' 18 . 0 0 ' 29 29 29 29 31 31 TYPTYP 31 TYP 32 32 33 33 33 34 TYP 34 TYP 34 TYP 34 TYP 30 30 30 30 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 ADD "RIGHT TURN ONLY" TO EXISTING SIGN 22 34 TYP 34 TYP 37 37 2 0 . 0 0 ' 20.00' 2 0 . 0 0 ' 38 38 38 SL O C L A S S I C A L A C A D E M Y BR O A D S T R E E T C A M P U S PR O J E C T N A M E : PL A N S P R E P A R E D F O R : PR O J E C T L O C A T I O N : SL O C L A S S I C A L A C A D E M Y 16 5 G R A N D A V E SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 5 34 5 0 B R O A D S T SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 AP N : 0 5 3 - 2 2 1 - 0 3 5 ENGINEER OF RECORD: REVISIONS: CDS JOB #: SCALE: 24-078 AS SHOWN DATE:March 28, 2025 PREPARED BY:MRS REVIEWED BY:MRS z: \ S h a r e d \ C D S D a t a \ a c t i v e j o b s \ 2 4 - 0 7 8 s l o c l a s s i c a l a c a d e m y \ _ P r oj e c t \ 2 _ P r e l i m _ E n t i t l e m e n t s \ C 1 - P r e l i m S i t e P l a n . d w g , M a r c h 2 8 , 2 0 2 5 A B C DEFGHI JKL MNO A B C DEFG HIJKLMNO 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CI V I L E N G I N E E R I N G P L A N N I N G P E R M I T T I N G CIV I L DES I G N STU D I O P. O . B o x 1 9 9 | C a m b r i a | C A 9 3 4 2 8 80 5 . 7 0 6 . 0 4 0 1 w w w . c i v i l - s t u d i o . c o m EEN I No . 7 4 7 3 6 TS C TAE FO I GE R AI O F I L A C L I V N R R E R P S D ERET F O NO I LA GNE ISS M O N T E R S O T O SHEET XX OF 3 SHEETS CONSTRUCTION NOTES LEGEND 21 PROPOSED ASPHALT OR ASPHALT GRIND AND OVERLAY 22 PROPOSED CONCRETE FLATWORK 23 PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB 24 PROPOSED REMOVAL OF DRIVEWAYS AND CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARDS 25 PROPOSED PUBLIC ASPHALT SIDEWALK TO CONNECT AS SHOWN FROM PUBLIC ROAD ADA RAMP AT EASTERN CORNER OF SITE, EXTENDING TO EXISTING SIDEWALK APPROXIMATELY 200' TO THE SOUTH (NOT SHOWN) 26 STANDARD ACCESSIBLE STALL WITH STRIPING AND SIGNAGE. PAVEMENT MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION SHALL NOT EXCEED 2% 27 VAN ACCESSIBLE STALL WITH STRIPING AND VAN ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE. PAVEMENT MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION SHALL NOT EXCEED 2% 28 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE (TRUNCATED DOMES) 29 PROPOSED PARKING BAY DIMENSIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING STANDARDS 2230 - 2240 30 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL 31 PROPOSED 4" WIDE WHITE PARKING STRIPE PER CITY REQUIREMENTS 32 PROPOSED STAIRS (WOOD OR CONCRETE) 33 PROPOSED DECK OVER EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE BASINS. BOTTOM OF DECK SHALL BE LOCATAED 6" MIN ABOVE SPILLWAY ELEVATION 34 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE FEATURE 35 PROPOSED FENCE WITH GATES 36 EXISTING BUILDING 37 PROPOSED DECOMPOSED GRANITE 38 PROPOSED DECK. FOUNDATION SHALL BE OUTSIDE OF OPEN SPACE EASEMENT ASPHALT CONCRETE IN PEDESTRIAN AREA DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE28 22 21 20 10 015 SCALE: 1" = 20' 20 40 C1 PRELIMINARY CIVIL SITE PLAN 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS NOTES 1 EXISTING ASPHALT PATH, PROTECT IN PLACE 2 EXISTING TREE, PROTECT IN PLACE 3 EXISTING PARKING LOT ASPHALT, PROTECT IN PLACE 4 EXISTING CONCRETE CURB, PROTECT IN PLACE 5 EXISTING PARKING LOT STRIPING, PROTECT IN PLACE 6 EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE, PROTECT IN PLACE 7 EXISTING SPEED BUMP OR SPEED TABLE, PROTECT IN PLACE 8 ACACIA CREEK FLOWLINE, APPROXIMATE LOCATION 9 LOCATION OF TOP OF CREEK BANK AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION 10 LOCATION OF EXISTING 20' CREEK SETBACK DECK3338 ATTACHMENT C Page 109 of 309 S A C R A M E N T O D R I V E EXISTING BUILDING 200.50 FF (APPROXIMATE) 200.60 - 200.43 FF RANGE RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE S A C R A M E N T O D R I V E V I A E S T E B A N A C A C I A C R E E K 60.0' R I G H T O F W A Y 8.1' 21.8' 20.4' 9.7' /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// NO PARKING NO PA R K I N G COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT WM IRR 200.51 FS (199) (19 9 ) (1 9 7 ) (1 9 8 ) (1 9 9 ) (199) (200) (1 9 8 ) ( 1 9 9 ) (2 0 1 ) (2 0 2 ) ( 2 0 3 ) (2 0 4 ) ( 2 0 4 ) ( 2 0 5 ) (19 6 ) (19 7 ) (19 8 ) (1 9 9 ) (19 5 ) (19 6 ) (19 7 ) (19 8 ) (19 9 ) (20 1 ) ( 2 0 2 ) ( 2 0 3 ) (2 0 0 ) (2 0 0 ) (199) ( 2 0 1 ) ( 2 0 2 ) (202) 199.4 EG 199.4 EG (199.6) EG (199.2) EG (199.3) EG (199.4) EG (199.4) EG (199.3) EG (199.4) EG (199.4) EG (199.3) EG (199.3) EG (199.3) EG (199.5) EG (199.5) EG (199.4) EG (199.4) EG (199.4) EG (199.5) EG (199.6) EG (201.3) EG (199.4) EG (198.7) EG (198.4) EG (198.6) EG (198.7) EG (198.8) EG (198.6) EG (198.5) EG (198.5) EG (198.6) EG (198.7) EG (198.9) EG (198.8) EG (198.7) EG (198.5) EG (198.3) EG (198.6) EG (198.9) EG (199.3) EG (199.8) EG (200.7) EG (199.3) EG 200.10 TC 199.60 FS 200.2 EG 200.10 TC 199.60 FS 200.00 TC 199.50 FS 200.00 TC 199.50 FS 200.08 TC 199.58 FS 200.08 TC 199.58 FS 200.56 FS (200.56) FF (200.49) FF (200.49) FF (200.50) FF (200.50) FF (200.51) FF (200.49) FF (200.51) FF (200.49) FF (200.60) FF (200.58) FF (200.43) FF (200.49) FF (200.51) FF (200.45) FF (200.48) FF (200.46) FF 199.3 EG 199.3 EG 199.60 FS 199.70 FS 200.20 FS 200.10 TC 199.60 FS 197.5 EG 200.00 FS 199.70 FS 5% M A X 5 % M A X 200.10 TC 199.60 FS 200.90 TC 200.40 FS 201.90 TC 201.40 FS 200.35 FS 200.70 FS200.25 FS 200.10 TC 199.60 FS 201.58 FS (203.2) EG (204.3) EG 8 . 3 % M A X 200.36 FS 200.33 FS 200.36 FS 201.20 FS 205.00 FS 205.00 FS 200.87 FS200.87 FS 200.00 FS 199.70 FS 200.50 FS 5% MAX 5% M A X 200.58 FS 200.60 FS 199.00 TG 199.80 FS 200.0 FG 200.00 FS 201.0 FG 202.1 FG 203.1 FG 200.40 FS 200.50 FS (200.8) EG 200.55 FS 201.20 TC 200.70 FS 200.20 FS 3 STEPS AT 6.5" 200.65 FS 199.95 FS 200.80 TC 200.30 FS 5% M A X 5% M A X SL O C L A S S I C A L A C A D E M Y BR O A D S T R E E T C A M P U S PR O J E C T N A M E : PL A N S P R E P A R E D F O R : PR O J E C T L O C A T I O N : SL O C L A S S I C A L A C A D E M Y 16 5 G R A N D A V E SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 5 34 5 0 B R O A D S T SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 AP N : 0 5 3 - 2 2 1 - 0 3 5 ENGINEER OF RECORD: REVISIONS: CDS JOB #: SCALE: 24-078 AS SHOWN DATE:March 28, 2025 PREPARED BY:MRS REVIEWED BY:MRS z: \ S h a r e d \ C D S D a t a \ a c t i v e j o b s \ 2 4 - 0 7 8 s l o c l a s s i c a l a c a d e m y \ _ P r oj e c t \ 2 _ P r e l i m _ E n t i t l e m e n t s \ C 2 - P r e l i m G r a d i n g P l a n . d w g , M a r c h 2 8 , 2 0 2 5 A B C DEFGHI JKL MNO A B C DEFG HIJKLMNO 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CI V I L E N G I N E E R I N G P L A N N I N G P E R M I T T I N G CIV I L DES I G N STU D I O P. O . B o x 1 9 9 | C a m b r i a | C A 9 3 4 2 8 80 5 . 7 0 6 . 0 4 0 1 w w w . c i v i l - s t u d i o . c o m EEN I No . 7 4 7 3 6 TS C TAE FO I GE R AI O F I L A C L I V N R R E R P S D ERET F O NO I LA GNE ISS M O N T E R S O T O SHEET XX OF 3 SHEETS 20 10 015 SCALE: 1" = 20' 20 40 C2 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 2 NOTE: ALL PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKWAYS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH ACCESSIBLE SLOPES. 1.5% CROSS SLOPE AND 4.5% MAXIMUM RUNNING SLOPE. NOTE: CONCRETE POURED ADJACENT TO BUILDING DOORS SHALL PROVIDE AN ACCESSIBLE FLUSH TRANSITION FROM EXTERIOR FLATWORK TO THE BUILDING FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION. ATTACHMENT C Page 110 of 309 S A C R A M E N T O D R I V E EXISTING BUILDING 200.50 FF (APPROXIMATE) 200.60 - 200.43 FF RANGE RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE S A C R A M E N T O D R I V E ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT 10 . 0 0 ' PG E EA S E M E N T V I A E S T E B A N A C A C I A C R E E K 60.0' R I G H T O F W A Y 8.1' 21.8' 20.4' 9.7' SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L WL WL WL SD SD G G G G G G G G G S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SS SS G G G G SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD WLWLWLWLWLWL SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD S D WLS D S D S D SD SD SD SD WLWL WM IRR WL WL 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 51 51 51 52 52 53 51 41 61 62 62 63 6465 81 81 81 82 83 83838383 83 83 54 66 66 81 81 SL O C L A S S I C A L A C A D E M Y BR O A D S T R E E T C A M P U S PR O J E C T N A M E : PL A N S P R E P A R E D F O R : PR O J E C T L O C A T I O N : SL O C L A S S I C A L A C A D E M Y 16 5 G R A N D A V E SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 5 34 5 0 B R O A D S T SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 AP N : 0 5 3 - 2 2 1 - 0 3 5 ENGINEER OF RECORD: REVISIONS: CDS JOB #: SCALE: 24-078 AS SHOWN DATE:March 28, 2025 PREPARED BY:MRS REVIEWED BY:MRS z: \ S h a r e d \ C D S D a t a \ a c t i v e j o b s \ 2 4 - 0 7 8 s l o c l a s s i c a l a c a d e m y \ _ P r oj e c t \ 2 _ P r e l i m _ E n t i t l e m e n t s \ C 3 - P r e l i m U t i l i t y P l a n . d w g , M a r c h 2 8 , 2 0 2 5 A B C DEFGHI JKL MNO A B C DEFG HIJKLMNO 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CI V I L E N G I N E E R I N G P L A N N I N G P E R M I T T I N G CIV I L DES I G N STU D I O P. O . B o x 1 9 9 | C a m b r i a | C A 9 3 4 2 8 80 5 . 7 0 6 . 0 4 0 1 w w w . c i v i l - s t u d i o . c o m EEN I No . 7 4 7 3 6 TS C TAE FO I GE R AI O F I L A C L I V N R R E R P S D ERET F O NO I LA GNE ISS M O N T E R S O T O SHEET XX OF 3 SHEETS 20 10 015 SCALE: 1" = 20' 20 40 C3 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 3 NOTE: STORM DRAINAGE PIPING AND CATCH BASINS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED ON A COMBINATION OF RECENT TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY INFORMATION AS WELL AS RECORD INFORMATION FROM ORIGINAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PLANS. UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 41 EXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPE, PROTECT IN PLACE 42 EXISTING STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN, ADJUST TO GRADE IF NECESSARY 43 LOCATION OF EXISTING STORMWATER BASIN, NO MODIFICATION PROPOSED. DECK ABOVE WILL NOT AFFECT STORAGE CAPACITY NOTES 44 TO 50 NOT USED 51 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE 52 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE - PROTECT IN PLACE 53 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT - PROTECT IN PLACE 54 PROPOSED GREASE INTERCEPTOR NOTE 55 TO 60 NOT USED 61 SIX EXISTING WATER LATERALS AND METERS - ABANDON LATERALS IN PLACE, REMOVE METERS AND RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK, CAP AT CORPORATION STOP. 62 EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT - PROTECT IN PLACE 63 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL WATER SERVICE, METER, AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION PER CITY STANDARDS 64 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE WATER SERVICE, METER, AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION (IRRIGATION POINT OF CONNECTION) PER CITY STANDARDS 65 EXISTING 6" DOUBLE CHECK DETECTOR WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC) 66 PROPOSED PUBLIC HYDRANT ASSEMBLY TO BE INSTALLED NOTES 67 TO 80 NOT USED 81 PROPOSED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 82 EXISTING GAS METERS, PROTECT IN PLACE 83 EXISTING SITE LIGHT, PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING SITE STORMWATER CONTROL NARRATIVE: THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN APPROXIMATELY 1998. DRAINAGE FOR THE PROPERTY IS COLLECTED INTO THREE SURFACE STORAGE BASINS AND DRAINAGE INLETS IN THE PARKING LOT WHICH FLOW TO A JUNCTION BOX WITH ORIFICE PLATE TO MITIGATE PEAK FLOW DISCHARGE. PROPOSED STORMWATER CONTROL NARRATIVE: EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE MODIFIED FROM THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF IMPERVIOUS AREA FOR THE PROJECT SITE DUE TO THE REMOVAL OF THE PARKING LOT ON THE NORTH SIDE. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE WILL RESULT IN A REDUCTION IN STORMWATER RUNOFF. PROPOSED WATER DESIGN NARRATIVE: WATER SERVICE TO THE REMODELED BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE RECONSTRUCTED INTO ONE PROPERLY SIZED WATER METER. THERE ARE CURRENTLY 6 EXISTING WATER METERS FOR THE PROPERTY, WHICH WILL BE REMOVED WITH THIS PROJECT. PROPOSED WATER SERVICE FIXTURE UNITS TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 220 WSFU. THE PROPOSED WATER METER WILL BE PROPERLY SIZED TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW DEMAND. PROPOSED FIRE DESIGN NARRATIVE: THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS AN EXISTING 6" DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE INSTALLED. NO MODIFICATION TO THIS SYSTEM IS PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. THE CITY WATER MAIN CAN PROVIDE 2500GPM WITH A RESIDUAL PRESSURE OF 79PSI PER WATER MODEL PROVIDED BY WALLACE GROUP. PROPOSED SEWER DESIGN NARRATIVE: THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS AN EXISTING 6" SEWER LATERAL AND SEWER PIPE INSTALLED. NO MODIFICATION TO THIS SYSTEM IS PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. PROPOSED DRAINAGE FIXTURE UNITS TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 220 DFU. THEREFORE, PER CPC TABLE 702.1, A 6" SEWER LATERAL IS SUFFICIENT. ATTACHMENT C Page 111 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 112 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 113 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 114 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 115 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 116 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 117 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 118 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 119 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 120 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 121 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 122 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 123 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 124 of 309 ATTACHMENT C Page 125 of 309 Page 126 of 309 l 1 t_= RESOLUTION NO. 8753(1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSIONS ACTION, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE DECISION TO G_ RANT FINAL APPROVAL TO THE ACACIA CREEK COMMERCIAL CENTER AT 3450 BROAD STREET (ARC 88 -97) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 6, 1998, and has considered testimony of interested parties including the appellant, the records of the Architectural Review Commission's action of November 17, 1997, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures (ER 88 -97) as prepared by staff, reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission, and approved by the Administrative Hearing Officer. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Fes. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed project ARC 88 -97), the appellant's statement, staff recommendations and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed project as designed and conditioned is consistent with the general criteria contained in the City's architectural review guidelines. 2. Project approval by the ARC included a creek setback exception for portions of a required City bicycle path through the site in accordance with the findings included in the ARC action letter per SLO Municipal Code Section 17.16.025 G. 3. The building scale and amount of parking provided are appropriate for a project developed in the C -S zone. SECTION 2. Action. The appeal is hereby denied, and the action of the ARC to grant final approval to the project is upheld. At+aCKrner1 1 R 8751 ATTACHMENT D Page 127 of 309 Resolution No.8 11998 Series) Page 2 On motion of Council Member Romero , seconded by Council Member Williams , and on the.following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Romero, Williams, Smith and Mayor Settle NOES' None ABSENT: Council Member Roalman the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 6' day of January, 1998. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: I ii l- Cle rk 5,,, APPROVED: rcskarc 88 -97 (Acacia Ck. - deny) ATTACHMENT D Page 128 of 309 r Doc No : 1991,65558 Rpt No : 0008286 7 Official Records NF -1 0 .00 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AN D WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO : City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Co .Julie L .Rodewal dRecorder Oct 09,199 8 City Clerk's Office Time :11 :2 8 990 Palm Stree t San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 [11];TOTAL 0 .00 OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE AND BICYCLE/PEDESTRIA N ACCESS EASEMEN T This indenture, made and entered into this 15th day of September 1 9 98 , by and between Acacia Creek, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company ,hereinafter called "owner", and the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipa l corporation of the State of California, hereinafter called "City". WITNESSET H WHEREAS, Owner possesses certain property situated within the City of Sa n Luis Obispo, as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part of thi s easement by reference, commonly known as 3450 Broad Street (Assessors Parce l Number :053-221-026). WHEREAS, the subject property has certain natural scenic beauty and existin g openness, as well as public value for non-vehicular access, more particularl y described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part of this easement b y reference ; an d WHEREAS, an irrevocable offer of dedication of an open space easement , including provision for non-vehicular access to accommodate a bicycle path an d pedestrian access, was required as a condition of the City's approval of the Acaci a Creek Commercial Center ; an d WHEREAS, both Owner and City desire to preserve, conserve, and enhance fo r the public benefit and the natural scenic beauty and existing openness, natura l condition and present state of use of the subject property ; an d WHEREAS, both owner and City wish to make available the public values o f the site for non-vehicular access ; an d WHEREAS, the Owner has offered to dedicate the subject easement t o preserve the site's scenic beauty and existing openness by restricting Owner's use o f and activities on subject property through the imposition of a perpetual open spac e and non-vehicular access easement with conditions hereinafter expressed ; an d WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to grant said easement on the subjec t property, as part of a development approval . h/z/87 ATTACHMENT E Page 129 of 309 Open Space Easement and Agreemen t Page 2 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the subject property and in complianc e with Chapter 6 .6 of Part I of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code of th e State of California commencing with Section 51070, and in further consideration o f the mutual promises, covenants and the conditions herein contained and of th e substantial public benefits to be derived therefrom, the parties agree as follows : 1.Owner hereby grants to City, an open space, drainage and bicycle/pedestria n access easement over the subject property . Said grant of easement convey s to City, an estate and interest in the subject property . The nature, characte r and the extent of the open space easement is as described below, and result s from the restrictions hereby imposed upon the use of the subject property b y Owner . To that end, and for the purpose of accomplishing the intent of th e parties hereto, Owner covenants on behalf of itself, its heirs, successors an d assigns, with the City, its heirs, successors and assigns, to do and refrain fro m doing severally and collectively upon the subject property, the various act s hereinafter mentioned . 2.The bicycle/pedestrian access referenced in this easement includes a 10-foo t (3 .3 meters) wide Class I bicycle path along the southeastern edge of Acaci a Creek to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians . 3.The restrictions hereby imposed upon the use of the open space portion of th e subject property by Owner and the acts which owner shall refrain from doin g upon the subject property are, and shall be, as follows : a.No structures will be placed or erected upon said premises . If desired , see-through fencing appropriate to open space preservation may b eallowed if approved by the city's Architectural Review Commission . b.No signs, billboards, similar structures or devices, or advertising of an y kind or nature shall be located on or within the subject property . c.Owners shall not plant nor permit to be planted any vegetation upon th e subject property, except as may be associated with riparian corrido r restoration, erosion control, fire protection, soil stabilization, or a s allowed and approved by the City's Community Development Directo r and Natural Resources Manager . Any such vegetation shall be native riparian . d.Except for the construction and maintenance of the proposed bicycl e path and any future planned and City-endorsed trails within the ope n space area, the general topography of the subject property shall b epreserved in its natural condition . e.No extraction of surface or subsurface natural resources shall b e allowed . f .No removal of natural vegetation shall be allowed except for fire ATTACHMENT E Page 130 of 309 Open Space Easement and Agreemen t Page 3 protection, elimination of dead growth or riparian corridor restoration a s directed and approved by the Community Development Director an d Natural Resources Manager . g .No use of said described premises which will or does materially alter th e landscape or other attractive scenic features of said premises other the n those above specified shall be done or suffered . 4.This easement shall remain in effect in perpetuity . 5.The City shall have the right to construct, or reconstruct, public trails an d related improvements reasonably necessary for the public use an d consignment of the open space easement, and be responsible for th e maintenance thereof . 6.This grant may not be abandoned by the City except pursuant to all of th e provisions of Section 51093 of the Government Code of the State o f California . 7.This grant of open space easement, as specified in Section 51096 of th eGovernment Code of the State of California, upon execution and acceptance i n accordance with Chapter 6 .6 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of th e Government Code of the State of California commencing with Section 51070 , shall be deemed to be an enforceable restriction within the meaning of Articl e XIII, Section 8 of the Constitution of the State of California . 8.Land uses permitted or reserved to the owner by this grant shall be subject t o the ordinances of City regulating the use of land . 9.The City shall have the right of access to remove any drainage obstructions a s needed to provide for the conveyance of creek flows, subject to the revie wand approval of other agencies with regulatory control over work done in th e riparian corridor, specifically the State Department of Fish and Game and th e U .S . Army Corps of Engineers . 10.The terms contained herein shall be binding on the parties hereto and thei r heirs, successors and assigns . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this document o n the day and year first above written . ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED ATTACHMENT E Page 131 of 309 Capacity claimed by signers): ( ) individual(s) ( ) corporation (4 partnership ( ) attorney-in-fact ( ) political agenc y SANDRA L NAUMAN N Commission #1115957 •;~:: '.San Luis Obhpo Carty My Comm. Expires Nov 29.2000 I I Open Space Easement and Agreemen t Page 4 7 9/22/98 Owner ]trick N . Smith dat e Manage r Community Develop t Directo r State of California } County of San Luis Obispo } On September 22,,79 98 ,before me,Sandra L . Naumann ,Notary Public, personall y appeared Patrick N . Smith (x )personally known to m e - or -( ) proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons$ whose namet$ is/at e subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/ske/#kerycexecuted the same i n his/keylTeircapacity(tes), and that by his/kes tttttsignature(s) on the instrument the person(t), o r the entity upon behalf of which the person(s$acted, executed the instrument . Witness my hand and official seal . ATTACHMENT E Page 132 of 309 FROM .SMITH AND CO • 09 .15 .1998 011 P .6 Open Space Easement and Agreemen t Page 5 Santa Barbara Bank &Trust By : Bruce I . Wennerstro m Its : Senior Vice Presiden t STATE OF S•28L 1 r t I' ) COUNTY OF ?TY~e`on-b4e/)8s . on1,S,ct:51 ..~, before me,.aiPt tDC A 1 A V fl , Notary Public, personally appeared .a' > rsonally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person% whose name(s) Is/tg subscribed t o the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sj4'tlllfy executed the same in his/Iplrltltett authorized capacity(ip), and that by his/her/their signature(g on the instrument the person(%or the entity upon behalf of which the person(%)acted,executed the instrument . WITNESS my hand and official seal . i t1ak-2t-tThd Signature ofNotary BLANCA RNA SCommission#1068188Notary Ptak — CaliforniaSanta Barbara County ;My Comm . Expires Aug 6.1999 ATTACHMENT E Page 133 of 309 State of California } County of San Luis Obispo } On October 2, 1998, before me, Diane R . Stuart, Notary Public, personally appeare d Arnold B . Jonas,personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed t o the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity , and that by his signature on the instrument the person or the entity upon behalf of whic h the person acted, executed the instrument . OFFICIAL. SEALDIANE R . STUART NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA -COMMISSION 01142689 C SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNT YMr Commtsatoe F+I . June 20, 2001 Witness my hand and official seal . Diane R . Stuart, Notary Publi c Capacity claimed by signer(s):Political Agenc y Open Space, Drainage and Bicycle/PedestrianAccess Easement at 3450 Broad Stree t ATTACHMENT E Page 134 of 309 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOIPACKNOWLEDGMENT No . 5907 State of Californi a County of Santa Barbar a On September 25, 1998 before me,Sandra L .Naumann,Notary Publi c DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G ., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC " personally appeared Alex N .Pananide s CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER q INDIVIDUAL q CORPORATE OFFICE R TITLE(S) q PARTNER(S)q LIMITED q GENERAL q ATTORNEY-IN-FAC T q TRUSTEE(S ) q GUARDIAN/CONSERVATO R ® OTHER :Manager (LLC) NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) personally known to me -OR -q proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidenc e to be the person( whose name( iskara subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that heAeba/Ai rrep execute d the same in his/hst tz tK authorize d LNA capacity(tiee and that by hishhs dthab rSANDRA UMANN co o11it 1115957 signature(s) on the instrument the person(9 ,Notary Publi cSSoo o Courtly or the entity upon behalf of which th e My Comm . Expires Nov 29.11D3 person( acted, executed the instrument . WITNESS my hand and official seal . SI=': URE OF NOTARY OPTIONA L Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could preven tfraudulent reattachment of this form . DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT Open Space, Drainage and Bicycle / Pedestrian Access Easemen t TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES September 15, 199 8 DATE OF DOCUMEN T SIGNER IS REPRESENTING : NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES ) Acacia Creek, LLC Patrick N . Smith and the City o f San Luis Obispo Community Devi . Dir . SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOV E ©1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION • 8236 Remmet Ave ., P .O . Box 7184 •Canoga Park,CA 91309-7184 ATTACHMENT E Page 135 of 309 Exhibit "A " Open Space and Bikeway Easemen tFile no : 273 .05 September 16, 199 8 An Open Space and bikeway easement over a portion of Lot 88 of San Luis Obispo Suburba n Tract in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, as show n on the map filed in Book 1 of Licensed Surveys at page 92 in the County Recorders Office o f said County, also being the land described in the deed recorded in Volume 2862 of Officia l Records at Page 567 in said County Recorders Office, described as follows : Commencing at a 2" iron pipe tagged "RCE 30412" at the southwest corner of said land, a s shown on the Record of Survey filed in Book 75 of Licensed Surveys at page 58 in said Count y Recorders, said point being on the easterly right of way of California State Highway 227 a s shown on said Record of Survey ; thence along said easterly right of way, north 17° 26' 45" wes t 69 .34 feet to the True Point of Beginning ; thence leaving said easterly right of way,the following courses : north 05° 16' 55" east 58 .25 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the eas t having a radius of 22 .00 feet and a central angle of 11 ° 53' 47"; northerly along the arc of said curve 4 .57 feet ; north 17° 10' 42" east 71 .46 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the eas t having a radius of 24 .00 feet and a central angle of 5° 25' 33"; northerly along the arc of said curve 2.27 feet; north 22° 36' 15" east 93 .51 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the eas t having a radius of 24 .00 feet and a central angle of 7° 46' 04"; northeasterly along the arc of said curve 3 .25 feet ; north 30° 22' 19" east 17 .35 feet ; north 24° 02' 08" east 8 .94 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the wes t having a radius of 44 .00 feet and a central angle of 15° 44' 47"; northerly along the arc of said curve 12 .09 feet ; north 08° 17' 21" east 42 .32 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the wes t having a radius of 25 .00 feet and a central angle of 27° 35' 34 ; northerly along the arc of said curve 12 .04 feet ; north 19° 18' 13" west 38 .91 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to th e southeast having a radius of 24 .00 feet and a central angle of 54° 57' 22"; northeasterly along the arc of said curve 23 .02 feet ; north 35° 39' 09" east 17 .56 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the sout h having a radius of 24 .00 feet and a central angle of 23° 46' 32"; easterly along the arc of said curve 9 .96 feet ; north 59° 25' 41" east 35 .61 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the north having a radius of 36 .00 feet and a central angle of 5° 50' 32"; easterly along the arc of said curve 3 .67 feet ; north 53° 35' 09" east 47 .97 feet to a point on the westerly right of way of th e Pacific Coast Railroad also being 30 feet westerly of the center line of Sacramento Drive ATTACHMENT E Page 136 of 309 S Exhibit "A " File no : 273 .05 Open Space and Bikeway Easement September 16, 199 8 as shown on said Record of Survey ; thence along said westerly line, north 46° 05' 25" west 74 .39 feet to a point on the northerly line of said land ; thence along said northerly line the following courses : south 23 ° south 58 ° south 46 ° south 37 ° south 01 ° thence along said right of way south 17° 26' 45" east 204 .60 feet ; to the True Point o f Beginning . Containing 0 .8 acres more or less . Tom Mastin LS 4819 Exp9/2000 Said ease~tneiyt is shown on the attached exhibit "B " 23'23" west 82 .54 feet ; 23'23" west 61 .41 feet ; 12'18" west 11 .47 feet; 53'23" west 128 .10 feet ; 39'30" west 78 .42 feet a point on said easterly highway right of way ; page 2 ATTACHMENT E Page 137 of 309 Exhibit "B" #Delta Radius Arc Lengt h ___________________________________ Cl 11°53'47"22 .00 4 .57 C2 5°25'33"24 .00 2 .27 C3 7°46'04"24 .00 3 .2 5 C4 15°44'47"44 .00 12 .09 C5 27°35'34"25 .00 12 .04 C6 54°57'22"24 .00 23 .02 C7 23°46'32"24 .00 9 .9 6 C8 5°50'32 36 .00 3 .6 7 No .Bearing Distanc e _____________________________ L1 N30°22'19"E 17 .35 ' L2 N24°02'08"E 8 .94 ' L3 N35°39'09"E 17 .56 ' L4 S46°12'18"W 11 .47' 273.05 27305ex2 .dwg 10 =60'9/15/90 ATTACHMENT E Page 138 of 309 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANC E ***************************** THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property conveyed by the OPEN SPACE, DRAINAGE AND BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT date d September 15, 1998 from Acacia creek, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company , to the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a Political Corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the City Council pursuant to authority conferre d by Resolution No . 5370 (1984 Series) recorded June 15, 1984 in Volume 2604, Official Records, Page 878, San Luis Obispo County, California and the Grante e consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer or his agent . Date : October 7, 1998 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O END OF DOCUMEN T ATTEST : By: Lee Pre, CMC City Clerk r Allen By. ATTACHMENT E Page 139 of 309 Page 140 of 309 __ , city o~ san lu1s OBISPO December 9, 1997 Acacia Creek, LLC Hamish Marshall 555 Ramona Drive 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 88-97 3450 Broad Street Dear Mr. Marshall: On Friday, December 5, 1997, I conducted a public hearing on your request to allow a commercial development in the Special Considerations zone, at the above location. After reviewing the information presented, I approved your request, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed project, as conditioned by this use permit, and with development in accordance with plans approved by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) on 11-17-97 (ARC 88-97), is appropriate at this location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses. 3. The proposed use conforms with the general plan and meets zoning ordinance requirements with restrictions on the range of allowed and conditionally allowed uses permitted at the site in accordance with the Special Considerations "S" overlay zoning of the site. The special considerations with this site include: its location along Highway 227 and concerns for area-wide circulation impacts; the need for various frontage improvements with development; and the location of a portion of the riparian corridor of Acacia Creek within the site. 4. Approval of the project design by the ARC included approval of a creek setback exception to allow portions of a planned Class I bicycle path through the site to encroach into portions of the required creek setback, finding that its development would not adversely impact resources of the riparian corridor and was consistent with adopted City plans. rrl The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. IQ) Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. ATTACHMENT F Page 141 of 309 A 88-97 Page 2 5. The special considerations of the site related to the need for circulation issues and frontage improvements have been adequately addressed by adopted mitigation measures and conditions of ARC approval. 6. A Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures was prepared by the Community Development Department on October 28, 1997, which describes significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Negative Declaration concludes that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into the project: a. Consistent with the recommendations included in the Seismic Safety Element, a detailed soils engineering report needs to be submitted at the time of building permit which considers special grading and construction techniques necessary to address the potential for liquefaction. It shall identify the soil profile on site and provide site preparation recommendations to ensure against unstable soil conditions. Grading and building must be designed and performed in compliance with the soils engineering report. b. Oil and sand separators or other filtering media shall be installed at each drain inlet intercepting runoff as a means of filtering toxic substances from run off before it enters the creek directly or through the storm water system. The separator must be regularly maintained to ensure efficient pollutant removal. c. The applicant shall submit hydraulic calculations indicating the added storm water run-off anticipated by proposed development and any needed drainage improvements to mitigate any rise in the 100-year storm water surface elevation. Improvements to mitigate impacts may include, but are not limited to, detention facilities. d. The project shall include: • bicycle parking and shower and locker facilities for employee use; • continued sidewalk along the property; • outdoor employee rest area to encourage employees to stay on site during the lunch hour; • extensive tree planting in the parking areas to help reduce evaporative emissions from automobiles; and • provision of a bus stop and shelter on Broad Street, if feasible and supported by the City. e. The applicant shall install speed humps designed to effectively limit speeds to 7.5 mph on the southern parking aisle between Sacramento Drive and Broad Street. ATTACHMENT F Page 142 of 309 A 88-97 Page 3 f. The basis for determining projected traffic levels was an average of the City's allowable and conditionally allowable uses in the C-S zone utilizing Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) traffic generation rates. The required use permit for the project should look at the range of allowable uses at this project with traffic generation impacts as a consideration, not to exceed the ITE traffic generation rates studied. g. The applicant shall install a short stretch of pavement for a deceleration lane within Caltrans right-of-way at the Broad Street (State Route 227) driveway with a radius type drive approach. h. To mitigate potential safety hazards along Broad Street (State Route 227) caused by cars being slowed or stopped by left turn queues extending out into adjacent through lanes, the applicant shall extend the southbound left turn pocket on Broad Street at Capitolio Way by 80 feet. The pocket extension would require the reconstruction of the existing raised median. The median/left turn pocket reconfiguration shall meet applicable City and Caltrans standards. 1. The applicant shall submit a landscaping/creek restoration plan along with plans submitted for final review and approval by the Architectural Review Commission. The plan shall incorporate the recommendations of the botanical survey prepared by V.L. Holland, Ph.D. dated May 1997, as modified by the 11-12-97 memorandum from the Natural Resources Manager, and incorporated into this study by reference. Along with working drawings submitted for a building permit, a more detailed creek restoration plan, including creek bank stabilization proposals, shall be routed to the City Engineer, the City's Natural Resource Manager and the Community Development Director for review and comment. This plan will also require the review and approval of other agencies with regulatory control over work done in the riparian corridor of Acacia Creek, specifically the State Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The plan shall contain a specific schedule for long-term monitoring of plantings. J. The bicycle path shall either be located entirely outside of the creek setback area or an exception requested to allow portions of the path within the required creek setback. The project landscaping creek/restoration plan shall include proposals for enhanced planting of the northern side of Acacia Creek. k. Future site development shall incorporate the following as feasible: • Skylights to maximize natural day lighting. • Operable windows to maximize natural ventilation. • Energy-efficient lighting systems for both interior and exterior use. ATTACHMENT F Page 143 of 309 A 88-97 Page4 1. The applicant shall complete a Phase II environmental site assessment to confirm that any contamination issues have been adequately addressed prior to site development. Accurate delineation of site contamination and resolution of all contamination issues prior to construction must be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. m. The new building shall incorporate facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling. n. If significant archaeological materials are discovered during grading and construction, all construction activities that may damage those materials shall immediately cease. The project sponsor shall then propose specific mitigation based on a qualified archaeologist's recommendations. The Director shall approve, approve with changes, or reject the mitigation proposal (if found incomplete, infeasible, or unlikely to reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level). If the proposal is approved, the project sponsor shall implement mitigation, to the satisfaction of the Director. A copy of the archaeologist's recommendations and the Director's decision will be forwarded to the Cultural Heritage Committee. Conditions 1. An administrative use permit will be required for any uses proposing habitable floor space at the mezzanine level. Use permits for development of mezzanine areas as habitable floor space will only be approved with the assurance that adequate parking exists to serve the new square footage. Use of the mezzanine level for storage may be allowed subject to meeting parking requirements. 2. The following is a list of allowed and conditionally allowed uses at the site: Allowed Uses: • Advertising & related services (graphic design, writing, mailing, addressing, etc.) • Auto repair & related services (body, brake, transmissions, muffler shops; painting, etc.) • Auto sound system installation • Broadcast studios • Building and landscape maintenance services • Caretaker's quarters • Catering services • Computer services • Construction activities • Contractors -all types of general and special building contractor's offices ATTACHMENT F Page 144 of 309 A 88-97 Page 5 • Contractor's yards • Credit reporting and collection • Delivery and private postal services • Detective and security services • Equipment rental • Exterminators and fumigators • Feed stores and farm supply sales • Government agency corporation yards • Laboratories (medical, analytical research) • Laundry/dry cleaners -cleaning plant -pick-up point • Offices (engineering) engineers, architects, and industrial design • Photocopy services -quick printers • Photofinishing-retail • Photofinishing-wholesale, and blueprinting and microfilming services • Photographicstudios • Post offices and public and private postal services • Printing and publishing • Repair services -small household appliances, locksmith, seamstress, shoe repair -large appliance, electrical equipment power tools, saw sharpening • Research & development-services, software, consumer products, instruments, office equipment and similar items, and related light chemical processing • Retail sales -appliances, furniture and furnishings, musical instruments, processing equipment, business, office and medical equipment stores, catalog stores, sporting goods, outdoor supply. • Retail sales -auto parts and accessories except tires and batteries as principal use • Retail sales -tires and batteries • Retail sales and repair of bicycles • Utility Companies -Corporation yards • Vending machines (See Section 17.08.050) • Warehousing, mini-storage, moving companies • Water treatment services • Wholesale and mail order houses Uses Allowed by Director's Approval of an Administrative Use Permit*: • Athletic and health clubs, fitness centers, game courts • Antennas ( commercial broadcasting) • Banks and savings and loans (branch office only -no headquarters) ATTACHMENT F Page 145 of 309 A 88-97 Page6 • Barbers, hairstylists, manicurists, tanning centers • Bowling alleys • Cabinet and carpentry shops • Day care -day care center • Gas distributors-containerized (butane, propane, oxygen, acetylene, etc.) • Laundry/dry cleaners -self-service • Manufacturing-food, beverages; ice; apparel; electronic, optical, instrumentation products; jewelry; musical instruments-, sporting goods; art materials • Organizations (professional, religious, political, labor, fraternal, trade, youth, etc.) offices and meeting rooms • Restaurants, sandwich shops, take-out food, etc. with a maximum of 2,000 square feet of floor area • Retail sales -indoor sales of building materials and gardening supplies (floor and wall coverings, paint, glass stores, etc.) • Schools -business, trade, recreational, or other specialized schools • Secretarial & related services (court reporting, stenography, typing, telephone answering, etc.) • Tattoo Parlors • Temporary sales • Temporary uses -not otherwise listed • Ticket/travel agencies • Utility companies -engineering & administration offices • Veterinarians * Future applications for use permits shall be subject to the rules and regulations in effect at the time of application. My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by the decision. If you have any questions, please call Pam Ricci at 781-7168. Sincerely, cc: ~nnd Hearing Officer Steve Pults, AIA 1401 Higuera Street SLO, CA 93401 Heirs of Helen Jones 713 Rancho Drive SLO, CA 93401 ATTACHMENT F Page 146 of 309 SLO Classical Academy Parking & Traffic Data Proforma For 3450 Broad Street Project Prepared August 20, 2024 based on city questions and feedback Transportation/Parking Demand Management Plan and Daily Schedule STAGGERED BELL TIMES Note this schedule includes the maximum number of students, we currently have less students than this. See below Daily Capacity section for total capacity of students, families and staff. Drop off: Drop off time range Who # of Students # of Families # of staff (includes teachers & admins) 7:45 - 8:00 Early morning program drop off K-8th Infants + toddlers early drop off 50 24 36 17 4 6 8 - 8:10 TK-4th grade drop off 103 73 16 8:10-8:20 5th - 8th grade drop off 151 107 16 8:20 - 9 Infants + toddlers and Preschool drop off Remaining non- teaching or support staff 44 31 8 17 Notes: ● Currently K-8th are dropped off at the same time and location. There is currently no real line for drop off in the morning. ● Many families carpool because they are coming from all over the county, greatly reducing the total number of cars coming to campus each day. ATTACHMENT G Page 147 of 309 SLOCA Transportation/Parking Demand Management Plan and Daily Schedule 2 Pick Up: Students Families 2:25-2:35 TK - 4th grade pick up 78 55 2:35 - 2:45 5th - 8th grade pick up 109 77 2:45 K-8th grade sports programs start, currently about 35% of our students participate in after school sports at the school, this is expected to increase 106 75 2:45 Extended care program (this program exists already) 10 8 3:00-5:00 Infant + Preschool pick up 68 48 DESIGNATED PARKING/LOADING AREAS Please see attached map for designated parking and loading areas. BUS/SHUTTLE ZONES We currently do not bus kids in from other cities, many of them carpool. STRATEGIES/INCENTIVES FOR CARPOOLING OR OTHER NON AUTO MODE SLOCA is planning to launch a Let Grow program, and one of the elements of the program will be encouraging parents to drop their student off a short distance from school and the student can ride or walk. SLOCA also plans to purchase staff e-bikes and scooters for them to be able to park and ride from a distance or ride from their homes. While many of our families already carpool, we plan to offer a carpooling incentive where parents can get volunteer hours (all parents required to volunteer 45 hours/year) or receive a small tuition credit for carpooling. ATTACHMENT G Page 148 of 309 SLOCA Transportation/Parking Demand Management Plan and Daily Schedule 3 HOW THIS WILL BE COMMUNICATED TO FAMILIES SLOCA has two required parent meetings per year that are highly attended. At these meetings we will be communicating directly about parking, drop off, pick up, and incentives. We also send out a weekly newsletter to parents where we often remind them of our parking process. In addition, we send out custom emails specifically regarding parking, drop off, and pickup. Finally, we have safety team members who guide families during drop off and pick up. At our current facility we have very restricted parking, and have used this team to help parents move through the line quickly. TOTAL DAILY CAPACITY based on capacity of the latest renderings of the facility. The above totals are for Monday - Thursday, Friday traffic is lower. TOTAL DAILY CAPACITY FOR STAFF Daily Schedule ATTACHMENT G Page 149 of 309 SLOCA Transportation/Parking Demand Management Plan and Daily Schedule 4 Drop off time range Who # of Students # of Families # of staff (includes teachers & admins) 7:45 - 8:00 Early morning program drop off K-8th Infants + toddlers early drop off 50 24 36 17 4 6 8 - 8:10 TK-4th grade drop off 103 73 16 8:10-8:20 5th - 8th grade drop off 151 107 16 8:20 - 9 Infants + toddlers and Preschool drop off Remaining non- teaching or support staff 44 31 8 17 3bi. Staggered Class Schedule including maximum students and related staff 1st - 4th 5th - 8th Maximum # of students in class Maximum # of students spread between gym, outdoors, Den (where snacks are purchased), and library Maximum # of staff in class Maximum # of staff outdoors Note there are 25 ops staff unrelated to these grades who will be in the offices and break room during below times 1st - 4th 8:30-9:40 1st period class 96 8 5th - 8th 8:30 - 10:15 1st Period Class 176 12 ATTACHMENT G Page 150 of 309 SLOCA Transportation/Parking Demand Management Plan and Daily Schedule 5 1st - 4th 9:40-9:55 Recess/Sna ck 96 8 6 5th - 8th 10:15-10:25 Recess/Sna ck 176 12 6 1st - 4th 9:55-11:30 2nd Period class 96 8 5th - 8th 10:25-12:10 2nd Period Class 176 12 1st - 4th 11:30-12:10 Lunch and Recess 96 8 6 5th - 8th 12:10-12:50 Lunch and Recess 176 12 6 1st - 4th 12:10-1:30 3rd Period Class 96 8 5th - 8th 12:50-1:40 3rd Period Class 176 12 1st - 4th 1:30-1:40 Recess 96 8 6 1st - 4th 1:40-2:30 4th Period Class 96 8 5th - 8th 1:45-2:35 4th Period Class (no afternoon recess) 176 12 3bii. Provide information on hybrid learning schedule and any extracurricular activities that will be held offsite at different locations. ⅔ of the daily max capacity for our 1st - 8th grade students are hybrid students, and attend classes at the facility Monday and Wednesday or Tuesday and Thursday. Some of these students also attend the Friday enrichment program (note that only half of total students attend Friday classes, and do not exceed maximums listed in drop off/pick up or staggered class times). On the days when hybrid students are not on campus, they are doing at-home learning. There are no offsite activities held on these days aside from Friday enrichment (note on this below). Some hybrid students do attend after- school sports at other gyms and fields (K-4 sports is at this facility and is accounted for in the drop-off and pick-up schedules). Middle School sports take place at SLO Naz Church for the gym space, and field space is to be determined. ATTACHMENT G Page 151 of 309 SLOCA Transportation/Parking Demand Management Plan and Daily Schedule 6 ⅓ of the daily max capacity of 1st-8th grade students are full-time, and present on campus Monday - Thursday with some enrolled in Friday enrichment (note on this below). These students are accounted for in the drop-off and pick-up. Offsite activities do not take place for these students during the school week aside from the Friday enrichment program. In the Friday enrichment program, there is one class of 16 students that will do off-site field trips each Friday. This is to various outdoor locations in San Luis Obispo County. ATTACHMENT G Page 152 of 309 ' ' '"# "! && $ %& % % TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION For all Non-Construction and Construction related tree removals Owner Name:Applicant Name: Address:Address: City:Zip:City:Zip: Phone:Phone: Email:Email: Address of Tree(s): Number of trees applying to remove: Tree Species: Reason for Removal: Is this removal a City Tree?YES NO DON’T KNOW Dog in yard? YES NO Is this associated with a Building Permit or Development Plan? _____ YES _____ NO If YES, please provide appropriate reference numbers: Is this property governed by a Homeowners Association (HOA)? YES NO If YES, please provide HOA Board Approved Meeting minutes authorizing tree removal(s) with your tree removal application. ALL ITEMS BELOW MUST BE INCLUDED TO PROCESS TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS Tree(s) banded with ribbon or duct tape for identification Site plan drawing or photo of tree site with Tree ID (Tree#1, Tree #2, etc.) Supporting documentation (repair, receipts, etc.) Photo log showing damage or reasons for removal1 Replanting plan2 Arborist Report3 INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. FAILURE TO KEEP TREES BANDED MAY RESULT IN A REJECTED APPLICATION. 1. Include a photo log that clearly shows the trees requested for removal. All tree(s) must be uniquely identified by a number and a ribbon, or an identifier wrapped around the truck in the photo and prior to inspection. 2. Include a replanting plan in accordance with Section 12.24.090(J) of the City’s Municipal Code. A minimum 1:1 replanting rate is required for plantings onsite, and a minimum 2:1 replanting rate is required for plantings offsite or within the public right-of-way. 3. An application for tree removal on a site where a discretionary or ministerial development permit is requested shall include an arborist report and a site plan that includes accurate drip line delineation and cross sections of construction work impacting both trees proposed for removal and trees planned to remain. X X Pending X Pending Sea Oak, a California Limited Partnership Bosky Landscape Architecture P.O. Box 5150 590 E Gutierrez St, SUITE D Paso Robles 93447 Santa Barbara CA 93103 (805) 423-8135 805-845-3251 johncoakley@hotmail.com brooks@boskyland.com 3450 Broad Street 21 Pyrus calleryana, Plum Spp. A portion of trees to be replaced due to interference with location of new construction; The remaining portion, which occurs along the Sacramento sidewalk, are to be replaced with a more desired species which is evergreen, low water use, and more consistent with the naturalised plant palette proposed elsewhere on site. ✔ ✔ ✔✔ ATTACHMENT H 20 X X BANDED PRIOR TO TREE COMMITTEE REVIEW Page 153 of 309 Tree Removal Decisions as outlined in Section 12.24.090 of the City’s Municipal Code SELECT TYPE OF TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION BEING SUBMITTED DECISION MAKER Imminent Hazard to Life or Property SLOMC 12.24.090(E)(1)(a) City Arborist Tree Health and Hazard Mitigation SLOMC 12.24.090(E) City Arborist Convenience Removal SLOMC 12.24.090(E)(3) Tree Committee makes recommendation to Community Development Director Community Development Director Minor Ministerial Development Permit SLOMC 12.24.090(F)(1) Removal for residential or accessory construction on an R-1 or R-2 lot City Arborist Discretionary Permits Construction Tree Removal SLOMC 12.24.090(F)(3) Community Development Director Major Development / Tentative Tract Map/ Conditional Use Permit SLOMC 12.24.090(F)(4) Planning Commission Submittal Instructions Submit Tree Removal applications to the City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department at the following address: 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 or by email to trees@slocity.org. Payment of the “Tree Removal Permit” fee shall be submitted along with this application. Refer to the City’s current Comprehensive Fee Schedule for the current fee. Property Owner Authorization: By signing this application, I certify that I have reviewed this completed application and the attached material and consent to its filing. I agree to allow the Community Development Department to duplicate and distribute submitted materials to interested persons as it determines is necessary for the processing of the application. Signed Date Applicant/ Representative Certification: By signing this application, I certify that the information provided is accurate. I understand the City might not approve what I’m applying for or might set conditions of approval. I agree to allow the Community Development Department to duplicate and distribute submitted materials to interested persons as it determines is necessary for processing of the application. Signed Date Permission to Access Property: This section is to be completed by the property owner and/or occupant who controls access to the property. To adequately evaluate the submitted proposal, Community Development Department Staff, Commissioners and City Council Members will have to gain access to the exterior of the real property in order to adequately review and report on the proposed request. Your signature below certifies that you agree to give the City permission to access the project site from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, as part of the normal review of this application. Signed Date Indemnification Agreement: The Owner/Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City or its agents or officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void, or annul, in whole or in part, the City’s approval of this project. In the event that the City fails to promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, or that the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense of said claim, this condition shall thereafter be of no further force or effect. Signed Date X 12/20/24 1/30/25 SLOCA Board Chair ATTACHMENT H X X Page 154 of 309 for SLOCA 3450 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Prepared for: Bosky Landscape Architecture 590 East Gutierrez Street Santa Barbara, CA 93103 Prepared by: Sam Oakley ISA Board Certified Master Arborist # WE-9474B TRAQ ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #556 The Oakley Group LLC PO Box 2412 Pismo Beach, CA 93448 February 7, 2025 ATTACHMENT H Page 155 of 309 Table of Contents Project Assignment 3 Project Description 3 Tree Inventory 3 Inventory Map 4 Inventory Data 5 Site Description 6 Site Plan Review 6 Impacts to Trees 6 Replacements 6 Tree Protection Guidelines 7 Conclusion 12 Additional Figures (Images of Trees) 13 Arborist Certification 23 ATTACHMENT H Page 156 of 309 Project Assignment The City of San Luis Obispo requires an arborist report prepared that identifies and discusses each tree within the development footprint (including, but not limited to, structural development, grading, staging areas, ground cover removal, changes in drain age patterns, and associated off-site improvements) including those tree proposed for removal and those tree that will remain. This report was prepared for a total of forty (40) trees, located on the site at 3450 Broad Street as required by the City of Sa n Luis Obispo (Fig. 1). The owner of 3450 Broad Street in San Luis Obispo, California, is preparing to renovate the existing commercial building and perform capital improvements to the landscape . There are twenty (20) trees on the property to be protected during the project and twenty (20) will require removal. The trees that are to be preserved may be impacted by the proposed development. Specifically, a group of three (3) Quercus agrifolia. (Coast Live Oaks; Trees 28, 29 & 33) in the rear parking lot, a Platanus racimosa (California Sycamore; Tree 34), and various small Pyrus ssp. (Pear) and Geijera sp. (Australian Willow) located along the property frontage may be impacted by the renovation. To what extent cannot be specifically determined, but by implementing the following Tree Protection Plan, impacts may be mitigated to a degree that the trees will survive and thrive . No trees on neighboring properties will be subjected to potential impacts to the project. This document estimates the proposed impacts and provides mitigation. It also serves as a tree protection plan to avoid damage during the construction. Project Description The commercial structure is to be converted to a school and landscaping upgraded with sports facilities. Tree Inventory Site evaluation was conducted on January 24, 2025, to include all trees 3-inches diameter or greater measured at 4.5-feet above grade, located within or directly adjacent to the property. The field analysis was conducted to document the following: • Unique identifying tree number consistent with numbering shown on the tree site plan/map ; • Tree species; • Trunk diameter/ DBH; • Health and structural condition with brief description of relevant characteristics ; • Suitability for preservation based on existing conditions and reason for removal (when recommended); ATTACHMENT H Page 157 of 309 During the site visits, a visual inspection of the Roots, Trunk, Scaffold (Large) Branches, Small Branches & Twigs as well as Foliage & Buds was conducted using the following health, structure, and form determinations: Scoring System: 1. Poor: Extreme problems, decay and/or structural defects present, potential for future removal 2. Fair: Minor to Major problems present; Problems treatable and/or correctable 3. Good: No apparent problems, tree is in overall good health and vigor Inventory Map Figure 1: the existing structure and trees at 3450 Broad Street with tree locations numbered 1 through 40. ATTACHMENT H Page 158 of 309 Inventory Data Table 1: the tree information for the existing trees at 3450 Broad Street. ATTACHMENT H Page 159 of 309 Site Description 3450 Broad Street is an occupied, single-level commercial property. The southern parking lot along the frontage contains many ornamental trees. There is a steep berm up to Sacramento Drive . The northern parking lot has several sitting areas and is bounded by a creek . Site Plan Review The landscape design plans A1.0-4.0, dated 12/20/24, showing the proposed building footprint and landscape upgrades were issued to me. Impacts to Trees The following are potential impacts to trees from the proposed construction activities: Trees 1, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 36, 38, 39, & 40 – The existing root zone and canopy footprint will be protected with tree protection fencing (see Size and Type of Fence section). Impacts are not likely to the critical root zone and pruning is not anticipated. Existing ground cover should be removed and replaced with mulch. Any work performed within proximity to these trees will need to be done so under the supervision of the Project Arborist. Trees 28, 28, & 33 – The existing root zone and canopy footprint will be protected with tree protection fencing (see Size and Type of Fence section). There may be impacts to the critical root zone with the construction of raised wood decks. Pruning may be needed (Fig. 3). Existing ground cover should be removed and replaced with mulch. Any work performed within proximity to these trees will need to be done so under the supervision of the Project Arborist. Trees 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 30, 31, 32, 35, & 37 – these trees will be removed based as will be close to footprint of the proposed construction. Tree 34 —I do not foresee any impacts to this tree from any proposed construction activities including grading, excavation for utility installation, retaining walls, drainage, landscaping, or any other aspects of the project so long as construction activities remain out of their tree protection zones Replacement Trees The proposed removals are proposed to be replaced with the following quantities, species, and sizes: Four (4) 24-inch box Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) Two (2) 24-inch box Chitalpa taskentensis (Chitalpa) Six (6) 36-inch box Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) Four (4) 60-inch box Quercus engelmannii (Engelman Oak) Fourteen (14) 24-inch box Quercus tomentella (Island Oak) ATTACHMENT H Page 160 of 309 Ten (10) 24-inch box Tristaniopsis laurina (Swamp Myrtle) Two (2) 48-inch box Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elm) Tree Protection Guidelines The objective of this section is to reduce the negative impacts of construction on trees to a less than significant level. Trees vary in their ability to adapt to altered growing conditions, while mature trees have established stable biological systems in the preexisting physical environment. Disruption of this environment by construction activities interrupts the tree’s physiological processes, causing depletion of energy reserves and a decline in vigor. This sometime is exhibited as death. Typically, this reaction may develop several years or more after disruption. The tree protection regulations are intended to guide a construction project to ensure that appropriate practices will be implemented in the field to eliminate undesirable consequences that may result from uninformed or careless acts and preserve both tree s and property values. The following a required to be implemented along with the TPP: The project arborist or contractor shall verify, in writing, that all preconstruction conditions have been met (tree fencing, erosion control, pruning, etc.) The demolition, grading and underground contractors, construction superintendent and other pertinent personnel are required to meet with the project arborist at the site prior to beginning work to review procedures, tree protection measures and to establish haul routes, staging, areas, contacts, watering, etc. Tree Protection shall be erected around trees to be protected to achieve three primary goals: To keep the foliage crowns and branching structure of the trees to be preserved clear from contact by equipment, materials, and activities; Preserve roots intact and maintain proper soil conditions in a non -compacted state and; To identify the tree protection zone (TPZ) in which no soil disturbance is permitted, and activities are restricted. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) Each tree to be preserved shall have a designated TPZ identifying the area sufficiently large enough to protect the tree and roots from disturbance. Activities prohibited within the TPZ include: Storage or parking vehicles, building materials, refuse, excavated spoils or dumping of poisonous materials on or around trees and roots. Poisonous materials include, but are not limited to, paint, petroleum products, concrete or stucco mix, dirty water or any other material which may be deleterious to tree health. The use of tree trunks as a winch support, anchorage, as a temporary power pole, signposts, or other similar function. ATTACHMENT H Page 161 of 309 Cutting of tree roots by utility trenching, foundation digging, placement of curbs and trenches and other miscellaneous excavation without prior approval of the project arborist. Activities Allowed Activities allowed or required within the TPZ include: Mulching: During construction, wood chips shall be spread within the TPZ to a six (6) inch depth, leaving the trunk clear of mulch to help inadvertent compaction and moisture loss from occurring. The mulch may be removed if improvements or other landscaping is required. Mulch material shall be two (2) inch unpainted, untreated wood chip mulch or approved equal. Root Buffer: When areas under the tree canopy cannot be fenced, a temporary buffer is required and shall cover the root zone and remain in place at the specified thickness until final grading stage. Irrigation, aeration, fertilizing or other beneficial practices that have been specifically approved for use within the TPZ. Size and type of fence Trees shall be protected with the following specifications: Six (6)-foot-tall chain link fencing shall be installed around the landscaped dripline of the trees. Fence posts shall be 1.5 inches in diameter, driven 2 feet into the ground, at most 10 feet apart . Signage (in both English and Spanish) should be printed on an 11” x 17” yellow -colored paper and secured in a prominent location on each protection fence. Signage shall include the Project Arborist’s contact information. Fencing may only be moved to within the TPZ if authorized by the Project Arborist and City Arborist. The fence must remain at least 1.5 times the diameter of the tree from its trunk (i.e. The fence must remain at least 30 - inches from the trunk of a 20-inch tree). The builder may not move the fence without authorization from the Project Arborist or City Arborist. ATTACHMENT H Page 162 of 309 Duration of Tree Protection Fencing Tree fencing shall be erected prior to demolition, grading or construction and remain in place until final inspection or under the direction of the Project Arborist. Tree protection fencing, if required to be moved, must be moved under the direction of the Project Arborist. All tree protection zones need to be clear of debris and construction materials and cleared of weeds regardless of if fencing is present or not. “Warning” Signage Warning signs a minimum of 8.5x11-inches shall be prominently displayed on each fence. The sign shall clearly state the following in both English and Spanish: ATTACHMENT H Page 163 of 309 Pruning, Surgery& Removal Any pruning shall occur prior to construction, pruning to clear from structures, activities, building encroachment or may need to be strengthened by means of mechanical support (cabling) or surgery. Such pruning, surgery or the removal of trees shall adhere to the following standards: Pruning limitations: • Minimum Pruning: If the project arborist recommends that trees be pruned, and the type of pruning is left unspecified, the standard pruning shall consist of ‘crown cleaning’ as defined by ISA Pruning Guidelines. Trees shall be pruned to reduce hazards and develop a strong, safe framework. • Maximum Pruning: Maximum pruning should only occur in the rarest situation approved by the project arborist. No more than one-fourth (1/4) of the functioning leaf and stem area may be removed within one (1) calendar year of any tree, or removal of foliage to cause the unbalancing of the tree. It must be recognized that trees are individual in form and structure, and that pruning needs may not always fit strict rules. The project arborist shall assume all responsibility for special pruning practices that vary from the standards outlined in this TPP. Tree Workers: Pruning shall not be attempted by construction or contractor personnel but shall be performed by a qualified tree care specialist or certified tree worker. The Project Arborist shall provide a follow-up letter documenting the pruning has been completed to specification. Activities During Construction & Demolition Near Trees Soil disturbance or other injurious and detrimental activity within the TPZ is prohibited unless approved by the project arborist. If an injurious event inadvertently occurs, or soil disturbance has been specifically conditioned for project approval, then the following mitigation is required: Soil Compaction: If compaction of the soil occurs, it shall be mitigated as outlined in Soil Compaction Damage, and/or Soil Improvement. Grading Limitations within the Tree Protection Zone: • Grade changes outside of the TPZ shall not significantly alter drainage to the tree. • Grade changes within the TPZ are not permitted. • Grade changes under specifically approved circumstances shall not allow more than six (6) inches of fill soil added or allow more than four (4) inches of existing soil to be removed from natural grade unless mitigated. Trenching, Excavation & Equipment Use No trenching, excavation, and heavy equipment used is permitted for this project unless specifically approved by the Project Arborist. ATTACHMENT H Page 164 of 309 Root Severance No cutting and removal of roots is permitted for this project unless specifically approved by the Project Arborist. Irrigation Program Irrigate to wet the soil within the TPZ to a depth of twenty -four to thirty (24-30) inches at least once a month, preferably twice a month. Ten (10) gallons per inch DBH is enough. Begin irrigating immediately prior to any construction activity. Alternatively, sub -surface irrigation may be used at regular specified intervals by injecting on approximate three (3) foot centers, ten (10) gallons of water per inch trunk diameter within the TPZ. Duration shall be until project completion plus monthly until se asonal rainfall totals at least eight (8) inches of rain, unless specified otherwise by the project arborist. Damage to Trees - Reporting Any damage or injury to trees shall be reported within 6-hours to the project arborist and job superintendent or City Arborist so that mitigation can take place. Remedial action should be taken within 48-hours. All mechanical or chemical injury to branches, trunk or to roots over two (2) inches in diameter shall be reported in the monthly inspection report. In the event of injury, the following mitigation and damage control measures shall apply: Root injury: If trenches are cut and tree roots two (2) inches or larger are encountered they must be cleanly cut back to a sound wood lateral root. The end of the root shall be covered with either a plastic bag and secured with tape or rubber band or be coated with latex paint. All exposed root areas within the TPZ shall be backfilled or covered within one (1) hour. Exposed roots may be kept from drying out by temporarily covering the roots and draping layered burlap or carpeting over the upper three (3) feet of trench walls. The materials must be kept wet until backfilled to reduce evaporation from the trench walls. Bark or trunk wounding: Current bark tracing and treatment methods shall be performed by a qualified tree care specialist within two (2) days. Scaffold branch or leaf canopy injury: Remove broken or torn branches back to an appropriate branch capable of resuming terminal growth within five (5) days. If leaves are heat scorched from equipment exhaust pipes, consult the project arborist within six (6) hours. Any damage any tree’s canopy will need to be restoratively pruned effective immediately after the damage occurs and no later than 48 hours after the damage occurs. Any tree on-site protected by the City’s Municipal Code will require replacement according to its appraised value if it is damaged beyond repair because of construction activities. The Project Arborist shall provide a follow -up letter documenting the mitigation has been completed to specification. ATTACHMENT H Page 165 of 309 Inspection Schedule The project arborist retained by the applicant shall conduct the following required inspections of the construction site: At least once every four (4) weeks; Monitor the effectiveness of the Tree Protection Plan; Provide recommendations for any necessary additional care or treatment; and Will be followed by monthly construction monitoring reports emailed directly to the City Arborist. The Project Arborist shall provide a follow-up letter documenting any mitigation has been completed to specification. A required final inspection is to be completed by the City Arborist at the end of the project. This is to be done before the tree protection fencing is taken down. Replacement trees should be planted at this time as well (before the tree protection fencing is taken down). Maintenance of Trees After Construction All trees to remain will need to be irrigated post-construction. Each tree should be inspected annually to monitor for disease or external stress and treated accordingly. Conclusion It is the nature of trees exposed to construction that some do not survive, and mortality cannot be predicted. If due care is exercised, all the trees on the project are expected to remain healthy and alive. ATTACHMENT H Page 166 of 309 Figure 2: Trees 1 (top left), 2 (top right), 3 (bottom left), and 4 (bottom right). ATTACHMENT H Page 167 of 309 Figure 3: Trees 5 (top left), 6 (top right), 7 (bottom left), and 8 (bottom right). ATTACHMENT H Page 168 of 309 Figure 4: Trees 9 (top left), 10 (top right), 11 (bottom left), and 12 (bottom right). ATTACHMENT H Page 169 of 309 Figure 5: Trees 13 (top left), 14 (top right), 15 (bottom left), and 16 (bottom right). ATTACHMENT H Page 170 of 309 Figure 6: Trees 17 (top left), 18 (top right), 19 (bottom left), and 20 (bottom right). ATTACHMENT H Page 171 of 309 Figure 7: Trees 21 (top left), 22 (top right), 23 (bottom left), and 24 (bottom right). ATTACHMENT H Page 172 of 309 Figure 8: Trees 25 (top left), 26 (top right), 27 (bottom left), and 28 (bottom right). ATTACHMENT H Page 173 of 309 Figure 9: Trees 29 (top left), 30 (top right), 31 (bottom left), and 32 (bottom right). ATTACHMENT H Page 174 of 309 Figure 10: Trees 33 (top left), 34 (top right), 35 (bottom left), and 36 (bottom right). ATTACHMENT H Page 175 of 309 Figure 11: Trees 37 (top left), 38 (top right), 39 (bottom left), and 40 (bottom right). ATTACHMENT H Page 176 of 309 Certification I, Sam Oakley, CERTIFY to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. That the statements of fact contained in this plant appraisal are true and correct. 2. That the analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and that they are my personal, unbiased professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions. 3. That I have no present or prospective interest in the plants that are the subject of this analysis and that I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 4. That my compensation is not contingent upon a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. 5. That my appraisal is based on the information known to me at this time. If more information is disclosed, I may have further opinions. ATTACHMENT H Page 177 of 309 Page 178 of 309 City of San Luis Obispo Phase 1 of the Proposed 3450 Broad Street SLOCA Campus Project Traffic Impact Study: CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Project Report June 2025 Prepared by: Advanced Mobility Group (AMG) ATTACHMENT I Page 179 of 309 TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Description ................................................................................................................. 1 A. Project Location, Land Uses, and Site Plan .................................................................................. 1 B. Proposed Frontage Geometrics & Access and Internal Circulation .................................................. 3 CEQA Transportation Analysis ................................................................................................. 4 A. Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................. 4 i. Existing Study Area Circulation Network ............................................................................................. 4 ii. Local, Regional, and State Plans and Regulatory Policies ................................................................... 10 iii. Analysis Assumptions, Methodologies, and CEQA Thresholds of significance .................................... 12 B. VMT Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 13 C. CEQA Analysis – Traffic Safety & Access Management ................................................................ 14 i. Traffic Safety Assessment ................................................................................................................. 14 ii. Sight Distance Assessment ................................................................................................................. 17 iii. Site Access & Circulation Assessment ................................................................................................ 18 iv. Queuing Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 21 D. Assessment of Emergency Vehicle Access .................................................................................. 22 E. Assessment of Conflicts with Applicable Plans, Programs, & Ordinances ...................................... 22 CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Conclusions ................................................................... 24 Appendices APPENDIX A | SLOCA Campus Project Site Plan APPENDIX B | Central Coast Transportation Consulting Preliminary Traffic Memo APPENDIX C | Recommended Pedestrian Treatments APPENDIX D | Queuing Analysis Figures Figure 1: Existing Site Plan ..................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Proposed SLOCA Campus Project Site Plan ................................................................................ 3 Figure 3: Study Intersections .................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4: Study Roadway Segments ........................................................................................................ 9 Figure 6: Proposed Treatments north (left) and south (right) of the project site ........................................ 16 Figure 5: Sacramento Drive & Via Esteban/Project Driveway proposed treatments ................................... 16 Figure 7: Driveway Sight Distance Triangle per Standard Drawing A-5a ..................................................... 17 Figure 8: Sight Triangle at Broad Street Project Driveway ........................................................................ 17 Figure 9: On-Site Circulation & proposed recommendations ..................................................................... 20 Figure 10: Proposed On-Site Parking Recommendations ......................................................................... 20 Figure 11: Emergency Vehicle Access onto Project Site ............................................................................ 22 Tables Table 1: Regional VMT Analysis ............................................................................................................. 13 Table 2: Queuing Analysis Results .......................................................................................................... 21 ATTACHMENT I Page 180 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 1 of 26 The purpose of this technical memorandum is to present the Phase 1 of the Traffic Impact Study for the proposed SLO Classical Academy (SLOCA) Campus project at 3450 Broad Street in the City of San Luis Obispo (SLO), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Transportation Analysis. This phase includes a Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Analysis and Transportation Safety Assessment. Phase 2 of the Traffic Impact Study, Multimodal Operational Analysis, is provided in a separate standalone report. Project Description The proposed SLOCA Campus project will consolidate current SLOCA students and staff from three separate locations (K-8th grade campus, preschool and infant care site, and staff offices) into one facility at 3450 Broad Street, repurposing a 54,495 s.f. office building into a private elementary school campus. The number of students enrolled will increase from 249 students to 372 students with the construction of the new campus. Currently, the K-8th grade campus is located at the southwest corner of Grand Avenue and Slack Street (165 Grand Avenue), and the preschool and infant care are located on a separate campus (160 Grand Avenue) just to the south of the K-8th grade campus. Staff offices are currently located near the Old Town Historic District at 1880 Santa Barbara Avenue. A. Project Location, Land Uses, and Site Plan Currently, at 3450 Broad Street, there is an existing one-story office building of 54,495 s.f.. The first floor makes up 51,498 s.f., and the second floor makes up 2,997 s.f.. On-site parking is provided with two parking areas, one to the south and west of the building and one to the north of the building. Between both parking areas, there are currently 152 standard parking spaces, accessible parking spaces and motorcycle parking spaces. Within the southern parking lot, there are 3 speed humps. There are a total of three existing driveways that provide access to the building, and all three driveways can be used to enter/exit the site. Two driveways are located adjacent to Sacramento Drive and one driveway is located adjacent to Broad Street. The Broad Street driveway is currently restricted to a right-turn in and right-turn out movement through a median on Broad Street. Located to the northwest of the existing site, there is a pedestrian & bicycle path connecting the sidewalks on Broad Street and Sacramento Drive. Figure 1 shows the existing site plan for the existing office building. ATTACHMENT I Page 181 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 2 of 26 The proposed campus includes the construction of 7 preschool/infant rooms as well as 19 classrooms for the K-8th grade students. The middle school classrooms will be divided between lower (5th and 6th grades) and upper (7th and 8th grades) middle school classrooms. There will be girls, boys, and unisex bathrooms for the students as well as a separate bathroom for the preschool and infant children. Some school amenities inside the building include a junior high-sized gymnasium with an adjacent kitchen and event storage room. A school library will be available to students and will include a 2nd floor mezzanine. There will be an outdoor playground and activity space for students that will replace the existing north parking lot. Administrative offices and meeting spaces will be located on the 2nd floor of the building above the upper middle school classrooms . Near the main entrance, there will be a reception area, school store, staff offices, and a break room for staff. The site plans also include adding 7 drop-off/pick-up vehicle spaces in the south parking lot. The plans also state providing 88 parking spaces (standard, compact, and accessible) as well as 14 bicycle parking spaces. Figure 2 shows the proposed SLOCA Campus Project. Appendix A contains the fully detailed SLOCA Campus Site Plan. Figure 1: Existing Site Plan ATTACHMENT I Page 182 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 3 of 26 B. Proposed Frontage Geometrics & Access and Internal Circulation As shown in the Site plan, the frontage of the project along Broad Street and Sacramento Drive is designed to enhance pedestrian accessibility and safety while integrating with the surrounding infrastructure. On the south side of the school, between the main building and the parking lot, a concrete pedestrian walkway will provide a clear and structured pathway for foot traffic. Additionally, a 5-foot wide asphalt sidewalk is planned to be installed on the west side along Sacramento Drive, ensuring pedestrian connectivity between the school and Capitolio Way to the south. The northern driveway along Sacramento Drive that provided access to the north parking lot entrance will be removed and new public curbs, gutters, and sidewalks will be installed to facilitate improved pedestrian movement and accessibility. A pedestrian walkway will also connect Broad Street to the SLOCA Campus on the west side of the site. Circulation within the project site will be one-way westbound for drop-off, pick-up and parking. The driveway along Sacramento Drive (near Via Esteban) will serve as a one-way entrance and the driveway along Broad Street will serve as a one-way exit. Vehicles will enter the project site on Sacramento Drive, move westbound along the southern perimeter of the SLOCA campus building and exit on Broad Street. The exit along Broad Street will be a right-turn only exit since left-turns are prohibited due to an existing median at the driveway on Broad Street. Figure 2: Proposed SLOCA Campus Project Site Plan ATTACHMENT I Page 183 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 4 of 26 CEQA Transportation Analysis A. Environmental Setting i. Existing Study Area Circulation Network Broad Street is a bi-directional north-south highway with varying lane configurations throughout its length. Near the project site, it consists of five lanes—two in each direction with a center turn lane with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. The posted speed limit changes along the corridor, set at 40 mph between South Street and Orcutt Road, increasing to 45 mph between Orcutt Road and Aero Drive, and reaching 55 mph between Aero Drive and Buckley Road. The ADT on Broad Street was 28,334 between Orcutt Road and Capitolio Way. The roadway features a slight horizontal curve along its entire length. Major intersecting streets include South Street, Orcutt Road, Tank Farm Road, Buckley Road, and Edna Road. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor. A signalized (HAWK) crosswalk is present at Woodbridge Street to facilitate pedestrian movement. On-street parking is permitted in the southbound direction between Funston Avenue and Sweeney Lane, while parking is not allowed in the northbound direction. Class II bike lanes are provided in both directions along the entire corridor, ensuring dedicated space for cyclists. Sidewalks are present intermittently, with segments in the southbound direction between South Street and Rockview Place, 900 feet n/o Industrial Way and 400 feet s/o Industrial Way, and Tank Farm Road and Aero Drive. In the northbound direction, sidewalks are present between Aero Drive and Fuller Road, as well as between Calle de Caminos and South Street. There are no pedestrian warning signs installed along the roadway. Sacramento Drive is a bi-directional north-south commercial collector consisting of two lanes, one in each direction, with a posted speed limit of 25 mph between Orcutt Road & Capitolio Way and a posted speed limit of 35 mph between Capitolio Way & Industrial Way. The ADT on Sacramento Drive was approximately 4,150 vehicles per day between Orcutt Road & Capitolio Way in 2023 and 5,100 vehicles per day between Capitolio Way & Industrial Way in 2018. The street features a slight horizontal curve throughout its length, with a sharp horizontal curve located north of Via Esteban toward Orcutt Road. Major intersecting streets along the corridor include Orcutt Road and Industrial Way. There is a marked crossing at the signalized intersection of Sacramento Drive & Orcutt Road. On-street parking is permitted in the southbound direction between Industrial Way and Via Esteban. Class II bike lanes are provided in both directions along the entire corridor, offering dedicated space for cyclists. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the roadway, except for a gap in the southbound direction between Capitolio Way and Via Esteban. Capitolio Way is a bi-directional east-west commercial collector consisting of two lanes, one in each direction, with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. The ADT on Capitolio Way between Broad Street and Sacramento Drive was approximately 2,700 vehicles per day in 2018. There is a slight horizontal curve near Sacramento Drive. Major intersecting streets along the corridor include Broad Street and Sacramento Drive. There are no marked crosswalks along this segment. On- street parking is permitted in both directions throughout the entire corridor. Class III bike lanes are designated in both directions between Broad Street and Sacramento Drive, allowing cyclists to share ATTACHMENT I Page 184 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 5 of 26 the roadway with vehicles. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the street for the entire length of the corridor. However, no pedestrian warning signs are installed along this roadway. Via Esteban is a bi-directional east-west local commercial roadway consisting of two lanes, one in each direction, with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the street for the entire length of the corridor. However, no pedestrian warning signs are installed along this roadway. Roadways that are also a part of the study intersections and study roadway segments but are not within the project vicinity include: Higuera Street is a bi-directional, north-south arterial roadway with a posted speed limit that varies from 30 to 40 mph. Its lane configuration varies, with five lanes between Prado Road and Margarita Avenue, four lanes between Margarita Avenue and Fontana Avenue, and six lanes between Madonna Street and South Street. A slight horizontal curve is present between Elks Lane and Prado Road. Major intersecting streets include Prado Road, Margarita Avenue, Elks Lane, Madonna Road, and South Street. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor. There are also a few marked crossings at midblock locations with advanced pedestrian warning signs near downtown. On-street parking is not permitted. Class II bike lanes run in both directions throughout the entire corridor, and sidewalks are present on both sides. Madonna Road is a bi-directional, east-west arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. It has six lanes—three in each direction—between Dalidio Drive and the US-101 ramp, narrowing to five lanes with a center turn lane between the US-101 ramp and Higuera Street. A slight horizontal curve is present at the western end of the segment. Major intersecting streets include Dalidio Drive, US-101, and Higuera Street. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor. A signalized (HAWK) crosswalk is midway between Dalidio Drive and Oceanaire Drive to facilitate pedestrian movement. On-street parking is not permitted. A Class I separated bike path runs along the north side of the roadway between US 101 SB off-ramp at Madonna Road and Dalidio Drive. Class II bike lanes run in both directions intermittently between Higuera Street and Pereira Drive. Sidewalks are present on both sides throughout the entire segment. However, no pedestrian warning signs are installed along the roadway. South Street is a bi-directional, east-west residential arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. It consists of three lanes—one in each direction with a center turn lane. The roadway is relatively straight with no curves. Major intersecting streets include Higuera Street, Exposition Drive, and Broad Street. There is a marked crosswalk with Rectangular Rapidly Flashing Beacons (RRFB) across the east leg at the intersection of South Street and King Street. There are advanced pedestrian warning crossings in both directions to the east and west of the crosswalk. On-street parking is allowed on both sides throughout most of the segment. Class II bike lanes run in both directions along the entire corridor, and sidewalks are present on both sides. Santa Barbara Street is a bi-directional, north-south arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. It consists of three lanes—one in each direction with a center turn lane. A slight horizontal curve is present around Upham Street. Major intersecting streets along this corridor include Leff Street, Upham Street, and Broad Street. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor. There are two marked crosswalks with Rectangular Rapidly Flashing Beacons (RRFB) at the intersection of Santa Barbara Street and High Street. There are advanced pedestrian warning crossings ATTACHMENT I Page 185 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 6 of 26 in both directions to the east and west of the crosswalk. On-street parking is permitted in the southbound direction throughout most of the corridor. Class IV bike lanes run in both directions between Upham Street and Broad Street. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the roadway. Orcutt Road is a bi-directional east-west arterial roadway with four lanes, two in each direction between Broad Street and Laurel Lane.It becomes a three lane roadway – one lane in each direction with a center turn lane from Laurel Lane to the west of Ranch House Road roundabout and shifts to a two lane road east of the roundabout. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Unlike other nearby streets, this segment has no horizontal or vertical curves. Major intersecting streets include Broad Street, Sacramento Drive, Bullock Lane, and Tank Farm Road. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor and at the Ranch House Road roundabout. On-street parking is not permitted along the corridor. Class II bike lanes are provided in both directions, offering dedicated space for cyclists. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the street throughout the entire corridor. Industrial Way is a bi-directional east-west commercial collector consisting of two lanes, one in each direction, with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. The roadway is relatively straight with no horizontal or vertical curves. Major intersecting streets include Broad Street and Sacramento Drive. There are no marked crosswalks along this segment. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street west of 838 Industrial Way. Class III bike lanes are designated in both directions, allowing cyclists to share the roadway with vehicles. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the street throughout the entire corridor. Tank Farm Road is a bi-directional, east-west parkway arterial with a posted speed limit that varies from 35 to 40 mph. The number of lanes varies between four and six throughout the segment. The roadway is relatively straight with no curves. Major intersecting streets include Santa Fe Road and Poinsettia Street. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor and both the Righetti Ranch Road & Orcutt Road roundabouts. There is a marked crosswalk with Rectangular Rapidly Flashing Beacons (RRFB) across the west leg at the intersection of Santa Barbara Street and High Street. There are advanced pedestrian warning crossings in both directions to the east and west of the crosswalk. On-street parking is not permitted. Class II bike lanes run in both directions along the entire segment. Sidewalks are present on the westbound side between Santa Fe Road and Broad Street, and on both sides between Broad Street and Poinsettia Street. Aerovista Place is a bi-directional, east-west local roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. It consists of two lanes, one in each direction. A slight horizontal curve is present on the east end of the segment. There are no marked crosswalks along this corridor. On-street parking is permitted on both sides throughout most of the segment. Unlike other nearby roadways, there are no designated bike facilities. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the street for the entire corridor. Aero Drive is a bi-directional, east-west local roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. It consists of three lanes, with one in each direction and a center turn lane. A horizontal curve is present throughout most of the segment. There are marked crosswalks at the intersection of Broad Street and Aero Drive. On-street parking is not permitted. Class II bike lanes run in both directions along the entire segment. Sidewalks are present only on the eastbound side for the full length of the corridor Edna Road/State Route 227 is a bi-directional, north-south highway with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. It consists of two lanes, one in each direction. While the observed segment is relatively straight, there is ATTACHMENT I Page 186 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 7 of 26 a slight curvature south of this area. Major intersecting streets include Los Ranchos Road, Crestmont Drive, Buckley Road, and Broad Street. On-street parking is permitted along most of the segment on the shoulders. Unlike other nearby roadways, there are no designated bike facilities or sidewalks. Farmhouse Lane is a bi-directional, east-west local roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. It consists of two lanes, one in each direction, with a slight horizontal curve present throughout the corridor. There are no marked crosswalks along this segment. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway. Unlike other nearby streets, there are no designated bike facilities. Sidewalks are present on both sides throughout the entire corridor. Buckley Road is a bi-directional roadway with 2 to 3 lanes running east-west. The speed limit is 55 mph. The road features a horizontal curve at the west end of the corridor and offers on-street parking on both sides throughout most of the segment. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor. There are no bike facilities, and sidewalks are only present in the west direction, available in certain segments of the corridor. Los Ranchos Road is a bi-directional, two-lane north-south roadway with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour (mph), reducing to 25 mph in school zones. The road features a curve at the north end of the segment and has on-street parking available on both sides throughout the entire corridor. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor. There is a marked crosswalk with Rectangular Rapidly Flashing Beacons (RRFB) in front of Los Ranchos Elementary School. There are advanced pedestrian warning crossings in both directions to the east and west of the crosswalk. There are no bike facilities, but sidewalks are present on both sides of the road throughout the entire segment. Figure 3 shows all the study intersections and Figure 4 shows the study roadways segments. ATTACHMENT I Page 187 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 8 of 26 Figure 3: Study Intersections ATTACHMENT I Page 188 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 9 of 26 Figure 4: Study Roadway Segments ATTACHMENT I Page 189 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 10 of 26 ii. Local, Regional, and State Plans and Regulatory Policies The City of San Luis Obispo has established criteria to determine the level of significance of traffic impacts based on standards set in the SLO General Plan, Active Transportation Plan, and the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Regional Transportation Plan. The following policies/goals are applicable to the proposed project and are related to the CEQA Analysis: SLO General Plan x 1.6.1 - Transportation Goal: Goal #2: Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using carpools. x 1.6.2 – Overall Transportation Strategy #4: Providing the infrastructure needed to accommodate the desired shift in transportation modes. x Policy 4.1.4 – New Development: The City shall require that new development provide bikeways, secure storage facilities, parking facilities, and showers consistent with City plans and development standards. When evaluating transportation impact, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service Analysis. x Policy 5.1.3 – New Development: New Development shall provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths consistent with City policies, plans programs and standards. When evaluating transportation impact, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service Analysis. x Policy 6.1.1 – Complete Streets: The City shall design and operate city streets to enable safe, comfortable, and convenient access and travel for users of all abilities including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists. x Policy 6.1.5 – Mitigation: For significant impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of any improvements required. Potential improvements for alternative mode may include, but are not limited to: A. Pedestrian: Provision of sidewalk, providing or increasing a buffer from vehicular travel lanes, increased sidewalk clear width, providing a continuous barrier between pedestrians and vehicular travel lanes, increased sidewalk clear width, providing a continuous barrier between pedestrians and vehicle traffic, improved crossings, reduced signal delay, traffic calming, no right turn on red, reducing intersection crossing distance. B. Bicycle: Addition of a bicycle lane, traffic calming, provision of a buffer between bicycle and vehicle traffic, pavement resurfacing, reduced number of access points, or provision of an exclusive bicycle path, reducing intersection crossing distance. C. Transit: For transit-related impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of any infrastructural improvements required. This may involve provision of street furniture at transit stops, transit shelters, and/or transit shelter amenities, pullouts for transit vehicles, transit signal prioritization, provision of additional transit vehicles, or exclusive transit lanes. ATTACHMENT I Page 190 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 11 of 26 x Policy 8.1.6 – Non-Infill Development: In new, non-infill developments shall be set back from Regional Routes and Highways, Parkway Arterials, Arterials, Residential Arterials, and Collector streets so that interior and exterior noise standards can be met without the use of noise walls. Active Transportation Plan x Goal 2.4a Safety: Look for opportunities to Reduce Traffic speeds – Support design strategies that encourage traffic speeds of 20 mph on residential and local streets and 15-20 mph along neighborhood greenways and within school zones. Explore development of a city ordinance to authorize posting speed limits as low as 15 mph in designated school zones consistent with California Vehicle Code procedures. x Goal 3.1 Convenience: Bicycle Parking – Provide secure bicycle parking at neighborhood destinations like schools, medical centers, grocery stores, and government offices through a combination of city-funded installations in public spaces, and privately- funded installations as a requirement of new development and redevelopment of existing properties. x Goal 4.2a Equity: ADA Amenities – Install or upgrade curb ramps, sidewalks, and traffic control devices to improve access for pedestrians with mobility challenges and visual impairments per current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards. x Design Policy 4.8 – Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings should include enhancements to improve pedestrian visibility and crossing safety consistent with applicable engineering standards and best practices for quality pedestrian infrastructure design. Potential crossing elements include addition of high-visibility warning signage and pavement markings, median refuges, in-pavement yield signs, and active crossing devices such as pedestrian hybrid beacons, pedestrian traffic signals, and beacon systems, such as rapid rectangular flashing beacons. x Design Policy 5.1 – Marked crosswalks should provide a direct alignment between curb ramps at either end of the crossing. x Design Policy 5.2 – Where marked crosswalks are installed, high visibility ladder style crosswalk markings should be applied at all uncontrolled crossings and at signalized crossings with high crossing demand, such as intersections within the Downtown Core. Pavers, stamped concrete, or other decorative treatments may be used at marked crosswalks within the Downtown Core in lieu of high-visibility ladder style markings. x Design Policy 5.3 – To reinforce yielding to pedestrians and reduce vehicle incursion into the crosswalk, consider using an advanced stop bar in advance of the crosswalk and advance yield markings ahead of uncontrolled crosswalks. SLOCOG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) x Policy Objective 2.1 – Provide reliable, integrated, and flexible travel choices across and between modes. x Policy Objective 5.1 – Expand access to healthy transportation options. ATTACHMENT I Page 191 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 12 of 26 iii. Analysis Assumptions, Methodologies, and CEQA Thresholds of significance In 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 to establish new practices and metrics to evaluate transportation impacts under CEQA. Specifically, SB 743 requires that Level of Service (LOS) metrics be replaced by VMT metrics for purposes of CEQA analysis. While SB 743 did not eliminate the ability of local agencies to continue using LOS as a planning metric in General Plans, it reflected a shift in perspective to more sustainable transportation planning that relies on metrics like VMT, which avoid discouraging infill development, and can help make non-automotive transportation faster, safer, and more reliable. The new guidelines require the use of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as the metric for evaluating the significant traffic impacts to promote greenhouse gas emissions reductions, multimodal transportation networks and diverse land uses. The City of SLO has adopted VMT methodology for application within the city. The methodology has five screening criteria to determine if a project can be exempted from the VMT analysis. x Small Development Projects: Small projects can be presumed to cause a less-than-significant VMT impact. Small projects are defined as generating 110 or fewer average daily vehicle trips or 11 peak hour vehicle trips. The proposed project generates more than 110 daily vehicle trips. x Medium Sized-Residential and Employment-Based (Office, Business Park, Industrial, etc.) Development Projects: If residential and employment-generating projects that generate less than 100 peak hour trips are located within a low VMT-generating area (10% below the adopted thresholds) and are generally similar to existing uses in the area, these projects can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact. The proposed project is not a residential or employment based. x Local Serving Retail & Public Facilities: Retail development projects that have a gross floor area of 50,000 square feet or less with reasonable justification that they are local serving can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact. Projects that consist of Local Serving Public Facilities that encompass government, civic, cultural, health, and infrastructure uses and activity which contribute to and support community needs (Police, Fire Stations, libraries, neighborhood parks, etc.) can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact. The proposed project is not a local serving retail development or local serving public facility. x Affordable Housing: A residential project consisting of a high percentage (>50%) of restricted affordable housing in infill locations can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact if located within a low VMT-generating area. The project is not located within an infill location. x Transit-Oriented Development: Residential, retail, office, and mixed-use projects located within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor may be assumed to cause a less-than significant impact. The proposed project is not within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. The proposed SLOCA Campus project does not meet any of these screening criteria, therefore it is not exempted, and will require further VMT analysis. ATTACHMENT I Page 192 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 13 of 26 Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance on evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. According to Section 15064.3, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is generally the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, except for projects consisting of the addition of travel lanes to roadways. VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project, regardless of the type of vehicle or number of occupants in a vehicle. Section 15064.3(b) establishes metrics and thresholds by which VMT can be evaluated for land use projects and transportation projects. Since the proposed project is a new school campus, the new project would cause a potentially significant impact if it causes an increase in total regional VMT. B. VMT Analysis VMT Analysis was conducted for the project site by Central Coast Transportation Consulting using SLO’s Travel Demand Model (TDM). Appendix B includes CCTC’s Traffic Memo. The Baseline scenario reflects the Model’s base year (2016), and the existing land uses for the current site of the SLOCA Campus and the proposed site . The Baseline Plus Project scenario removes the existing 50,283 square foot office building use on the site and replaces them with the proposed student population (372 K-8 private school and infant-care students). No land use adjustments were made in either scenario to SLOCA’s current campus on Grand Avenue, as it is unknown what will happen to the site once the SLOCA Campus opens at the new site. This represents a conservative approach because it does not account for any potential reduction in vehicle trips to/from the existing SLOCA Campus. Although it is unknown if the site on Grand Avenue will continue to operate as a school with similar characteristics/intensity, it was left in the analysis to account for any differences in use at that site. Table 1 shows the results of the VMT Analysis. Since the project would reduce regional VMT, it is considered less than significant to VMT. Table 1: Regional VMT Analysis Scenario Regional Vehicle Miles Travelled Baseline 8,486,293 Baseline + Project 8,486,042 Change from Baseline -251 Source: Central Coast Transportation Consulting: SLOCA Broad Street Campus – Preliminary Transportation Analysis ATTACHMENT I Page 193 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 14 of 26 C. CEQA Analysis – Traffic Safety & Access Management i. Traffic Safety Assessment AMG assessed the proposed SLOCA Campus project’s potential to create new or exacerbate existing transportation safety deficiencies. The assessment was conducted at the study intersections and segments within the project vicinity and at those that have been identified as high-priority safety locations by the City Annual Traffic Safety Program. The City of SLO is in the process of implementing Vision Zero throughout the City and has released a draft version of the Vision Zero document in late 2024. The Vision Zero draft has outlined segments on the high-injury network and high-crash rate locations, which will be used in this assessment. AMG obtained collision data from the City of San Luis Obispo Collision Dashboard from 2019 to 2023. The Dashboard presents collision data obtained from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and the City’s Emergency Dispatch Records System. The collision history near the project vicinity is summarized below. x Sacramento Drive Driveway: No collisions occurred here during this time period. x Broad Street Driveway: One hit object collision occurred in 2019. No fatalities or injuries occurred. x Sacramento Drive: One pedestrian collision (with Two pedestrian fatalities) occurred in 2022 at the intersection of Sacramento Drive & Basil Lane, which is approximately 500 feet north of the project site. Records indicate an isolated incident with documented and prosecuted recklessness. x Broad Street/Capitolio Way intersection: One head-on collision occurred at the intersection, one broadside collision involving a bicycle with a minor injury occurred 200 feet south of the intersection, two hit object collisions occurred, one at the intersection (with minor injury) and one north of the intersection. x Sacramento Drive/Capitolio Way intersection: One broadside collision and one sideswipe collision occurred at the intersection The proposed SLOCA campus site is surrounded by various commercial buildings. Many heavy vehicles use Sacramento Drive, which is designated as a commercial collector roadway, to deliver merchandise and goods to various commercials. Based on the collision data and the land use change at the site from office use to school use, the proposed project has the potential to increase pedestrian and bicyclist conflicts. To address accessibility and visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists, the school is proposing to install ADA compliant curb ramps within and around the perimeter of the school, install high visibility crosswalks at several locations within the school, and install a 5-foot wide asphalt sidewalk on the west side along Sacramento Drive, ensuring pedestrian connectivity between the school and Capitolio Way. In addition, the school will have a group of parent volunteers, a “Safety Team” that will direct student drop-off and pick-up. While these measures will improve safety within and along the perimeter of the site, they do not reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists on Sacramento Drive. AMG utilized the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Locations for recommendations to enhance safety near the project site, specifically along ATTACHMENT I Page 194 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 15 of 26 Sacramento Drive. Based on the number of travel lanes (two lanes), median type (no raised median), speed limit (25 mph), and typical ADT (approximately 4,150 vehicles per City data), the Sacramento Drive & Via Esteban/ Project Driveway intersection is a candidate for marked crosswalks and other pedestrian crossing treatments. Based on the site characteristics and anticipated use of the location for pedestrian crossings, AMG recommends the following treatments on Sacramento Drive: x Installation of two marked crosswalks (one across Sacramento Drive along the north leg of the intersection and one across Via Esteban). The preferred location for the crosswalk across Sacramento Drive is along the north leg of the intersection because the north leg has less conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists. However, installing the crosswalk along the South Leg of the intersection may be considered, if supported by the city, if significant constraints are discovered during the design of the curb ramps for their paving project. x The City of SLO will be upgrading the ADA curb ramps adjacent to Via Esteban with their 2025 paving project on Sacramento Drive, so this improvement will be installed before the SLOCA Campus opens. x Installation of yield markings, school pavement markings, and appropriate school signage to alert vehicles of the pedestrian crossing. x Installation of No Ped Crossing sign at the south leg of the Sacramento Drive/Via Esteban intersection to dissuade pedestrians from crossing the intersection where there is no marked crossing. x Installation of a new Stop Limit Line on Via Esteban five (5) feet from the crosswalk. x Installation of red curb twenty (20) feet from the main project driveway in each direction to improve sight visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists. Additional installation of red curb of thirty (30) feet on the east side of the northeast corner. x Installation of Bike Lane Intersection Line with Bike Lane Green paint to highlight the potential conflict point at the main project driveway. x Installation of school zone sign approximately five hundred (500) feet to the north of the project site to remind drivers that they are now entering a school zone. x Installation of an electronic speed display sign just north of the project site on Sacramento Drive to remind drivers of their speed. Installation of a speed limit and an electronic speed display sign approximately five hundred (500) feet to the south of the project site on Sacramento Drive to remind vehicles of the new speed limit. This measure should be coordinated with the City’s plan to conduct an Engineering & Traffic Survey. The updated measurement of the speed may lead to speed limit reduction on Sacramento Drive. Figure 5 below shows the proposed treatments at the intersection of Sacramento Drive & Via Esteban/Project Driveway. Figure 6 shows the school zone sign and the speed radar sign to the north of the project site and the proposed speed limit sign and speed radar sign to the south of the project site. Appendix C contains a detailed version of these recommendations. ATTACHMENT I Page 195 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 16 of 26 Rectangular Rapidly Flashing Beacons (RRFB), Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, or Adult crossing guards were not recommended at the crosswalk at this time. AMG utilized NCHRP Report 562 – Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings guidelines, California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), 2014 Edition, Revision 8 guidelines, and the FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Locations, to evaluate the feasibility of installing these treatments. Expected pedestrian crossing volumes and vehicle peak hour volumes did not meet the guidelines for those treatments. However, since many heavy vehicles use Sacramento Drive and slightly elevated speeds on Sacramento Drive (85th percentile speed of 32 mph on Sacramento Drive between Orcutt Road and Capitolio Way), it is up to the local City discretion to recommend installing a RRFB as a pedestrian treatment. Additionally, once SLOCA is open to students, if it is observed that more students arrive through active modes of transportation (walking, bicycling, public transportation), a follow up study could be conducted to assess the feasibility of installing additional measures on Sacramento Drive. Figure 6: Sacramento Drive & Via Esteban/Project Driveway proposed treatments Figure 5: Proposed Treatments north (left) and south (right) of the project site ATTACHMENT I Page 196 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 17 of 26 ii. Sight Distance Assessment AMG conducted stopping sight distance analysis near the main project driveway to ensure that there is sufficient distance for a driver to effectively apply the brakes and stop the vehicle without colliding with a vehicle/obstruction on the road. For example, a driver in a vehicle going 25 mph would need 155 feet to stop the vehicle after seeing an object on the roadway. From observation and The Highway Design Manual, July 1, 2020, Chapter 200 - Geometric Design & Structure Standards, Table 201.1 Sight Distance Standards, which recommends a stopping sight distance of 150 feet for a design speed of 25 mph, Sacramento Drive provides sufficient sight distance for vehicles to stop, as there are no vertical changes or significant grade changes near the project site and the main driveway. At driveways, a clear line of sight should be provided between the vehicle waiting at the driveway and the approaching vehicle. The vehicle waiting to either cross, turn left, or turn right, through the driveway should have sufficient time to make that maneuver without requiring the through traffic to drastically alter their speed. Based on the San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works Standard Drawing A-5a: Corner Sight Distance- Intersections & driveways, there must be at least 495 feet of corner sight distance from the point of the driveway that is 3.5 feet high and 8 feet behind the edge of traveled way at driveways that are adjacent to a roadway with 45 mph design speeds . Figure 7 shows the corner sight triangle at driveway, as presented in Standard Drawing A-5a. Any objects within the line of sight created by the corner sight distance triangle should be above or below the “vertical clear zone” (2.5 feet to 8 feet). This means objects should be shorter than 2.5 feet or taller than 8 feet from the street pavement. Figure 8 shows the corner distance triangle for the driveway on Broad Street (one-way right-turn only exit). The sight distance should also be adequate, given that any vertical object be maintained above or below the “vertical clear zone” dimensions mentioned above. Although the sight triangle demonstrates Figure 7: Driveway Sight Distance Triangle per Standard Drawing A-5a Figure 8: Sight Triangle at Broad Street Project Driveway ATTACHMENT I Page 197 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 18 of 26 the need for clearance of about 35 feet from the left curb to the project driveway at 3460 Broad Street, there is already no on-street parking adjacent to Broad Street given that there is a Class II bike lane next to the curb. Therefore, installing a red curb is not necessary at this location. iii. Site Access & Circulation Assessment AMG assessed the site access at both project driveways and circulation within the project site. As mentioned in the Proposed Frontage Geometrics & Access and Internal Circulation section, Pedestrian access to the SLOCA Campus will be provided through a concrete pedestrian walkway along the east and south side of the building that will provide a clear and structured pathway for foot traffic on Sacramento Drive. Additionally, a 5-foot wide asphalt sidewalk is planned to be installed on the west side along Sacramento Drive, ensuring pedestrian connectivity between the school and Capitolio Way to the south. A pedestrian walkway will also connect Broad Street to the SLOCA Campus on the west side of the site. To enhance safety, particularly near the preschool and infant classrooms, a retaining wall will be constructed along Sacramento Drive, offering additional protection from vehicular and public traffic. Furthermore, proposed fences with gated access near the south corner of Broad Street and the north corner of Sacramento Drive will help regulate entry points and maintain security. These design elements collectively contribute to a well-organized and pedestrian-friendly frontage while maintaining a balance between accessibility and safety. Bicycle access will be provided on Sacramento Drive and Broad Street as both roadways have Class II bike lane facilities near the pedestrian entrances. Public Transit access will be provided on Broad Street via a transit stop for Route 1A approximately 200 feet north of the pedestrian walkway access point on Broad Street. Circulation within the project site will be one-way westbound for drop-off, pick-up and parking. The driveway along Sacramento Drive (near Via Esteban) will serve as a one-way entrance and the driveway along Broad Street will serve as a one-way exit. Vehicles will enter the project site on Sacramento Drive, move westbound along the southern perimeter of the SLOCA campus building and exit on Broad Street. The exit along Broad Street will be a right-turn only exit since left-turns are prohibited due to an existing median at the driveway on Broad Street. Although the one-way entrance and exit will help circulation and reduce potential collisions and safety concerns for pedestrians, AMG believes circulation could be improved with the following measures: x Consider staggering start/end school times to encourage dispersal of vehicle arrivals to the site. While the school does encourage parents to drop off students at different times depending on the student’s grade, starting school and ending school at different times would further encourage parents to stagger arrivals. x Provide drop-off/pick-up space of approximately 300 feet along Sacramento Drive. Encourage vehicles arriving southbound on Sacramento Drive to drop-off/pick-up students here. x Allow older students who are being picked up by a parent along the Sacramento Drive drop- off/pick-up zone to enter/exit at the playground area to the north of the site. x Secure adult supervision and direction (staff members of parent volunteers) to ensure safe and efficient drop-off/pick-ups. ATTACHMENT I Page 198 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 19 of 26 x Add a “Stop” sign and appropriate striping on the westbound approach on the driveway along Broad Street x Install a “No Right Turn” sign on northbound Broad to warn drivers that they cannot enter through the driveway on Broad Street. x Install yellow striping that hatches the east side of the driveway along Broad Street to discourage entering through the driveway on Broad Street. x Install “Do Not Enter” sign facing any drivers trying to enter the school from Broad Street to warn drivers that they cannot enter through the driveway. x Install “No Left Turn” sign facing drivers that are exiting the west parking lot. This will help maintain one-way westbound circulation within the site. x Assign ten to twenty (10-20) “walk-in” parking spaces near the main entrance and west parking lot. This will minimize conflicts and reduce entry delays. These “walk-in” parking spaces will be dedicated to parents who want to walk to drop-off/pick-up their student during the peak pick- up/drop-off times. During other periods, these parking spaces can be used as general parking. x Assign ten to twenty (10-20) designated parking or staff-only parking south of the drop- off/pick-up area and near the main entrance. This will help improve circulation because vehicles will enter the site before drop-off times and exit the site after pick-up times. This will also reduce potential conflicts of vehicles trying to back out of parking spaces. x Assign a few (3-5) parking spaces near either entrance for carpooling vehicles, vans, or shuttles. Figure 9 shows the proposed on-site circulation and treatments to improve circulation. Figure 10 shows the proposed parking recommendations. ATTACHMENT I Page 199 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 20 of 26 Figure 9: On-Site Circulation & proposed recommendations Figure 10: Proposed On-Site Parking Recommendations ATTACHMENT I Page 200 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 21 of 26 iv. Queuing Assessment AMG conducted a queuing assessment at the main project driveway located adjacent to Sacramento Drive to determine the potential queues due to student drop-off & pick-up. At a school site, arrivals are assumed to be random as they cannot be predicted when to occur and the arrival of each vehicle is independent of each other. The number of random arrivals was estimated using a Poisson probability distribution. AMG conducted reviews of typical arrival and service rates. The new campus would expand enrollment to 372 students with 264 families. Based on this information, the average arrival rate at full capacity is 4.4 vehicles per minute (264 parents within an hour or 60 minutes). This assumed all students would arrive within the hour and there is no carpool or other means of transportation such as walking to drop off. However, since SLOCA uses a Hybrid schedule for 1st -8th grade, only 2/3 of the all the students would potentially be dropped-off or picked-up at the same time, an arrival rate of 2.9 vehicles per minute (176 parents within an hour or 60 minutes) was used. This was used for both the AM peak hour (drop-off) and the PM peak hour. Service rate ( how fast the school could help the students be dropped- off or picked-up) could vary between 3 to 5 vehicles per minute (vpm). AMG recommends a service rate of 4 vehicles per minute during the AM peak hour (drop-off) and a service rate of 3.5 Vehicles per minute during the PM peak hour (pick-up) to account for differences in dropping a student off quickly in the morning and potentially waiting a little longer for a student to arrive at their parent’s vehicle during dismissal in the afternoon. The queuing analysis was conducted based on the ITE Queuing Model as shown in Appendix C. The results of the queuing analysis are shown in Table 2. The 85th Percentile queuing analysis is the potential queue where there is only 15% probability that the queue would be exceeded during the analysis time. This is typically considered the acceptable practical threshold. In practice, the 85th- percentile queue is 1.4 to 2 times the average queue. The detailed queuing analysis results are shown in Appendix D. Table 2: Queuing Analysis Results Average Queue (ft.) 85th Percentile Queue (ft.) AM PM AM PM 139 277 190 350 Based on the site plan, the designated storage length within the dedicated to drop-off and pick up zone is approximately 140 feet. An additional stacking space within the site is approximately 170 feet, to account for a total queuing capacity of 310 feet within the site. This will not accommodate the 85th percentile queue for the pick-up in the afternoon. To ensure that this queue is accommodated, an additional 300 feet of drop-off/pick-up along Sacramento Drive will be needed, for a total of 610 feet of available queue length. That additional drop-off/pick-up will also improve circulation, as discussed in the previous section. Due to the nature of the project, a follow up study may be needed to confirm the actual queuing at the site once SLOCA opens. A detailed recommendation for that follow up study will be included in the multimodal operational analysis report for this project. ATTACHMENT I Page 201 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 22 of 26 D. Assessment of Emergency Vehicle Access AMG assessed Emergency Vehicle access to the proposed site. Emergency Vehicles are expected to enter the proposed site via the main driveway on Sacramento Drive and exit via the driveway that leads to Broad Street. Based on the City of San Luis Obispo’s Engineering Standard 2120: Driveway Ramp Size & Location, the minimum and maximum width of a driveway that requires fire truck access is twenty to thirty feet (20-30 feet). Both driveways have an existing width that is between the minimum and maximum width requirement (20-28 feet). The proposed project is not changing the driveway width at either driveway, therefore the width of both project driveways are adequate. A truck turning assessment was conducted at the project driveways to further asses that an emergency vehicle can enter the proposed site. Figure 11 shows the right-turn and left-turn ingress of a fire truck into the project site via the main project driveway on Sacramento Drive. Since a fire truck can safely enter the proposed site, emergency vehicle access onto the project site is adequate. Figure 11: Emergency Vehicle Access onto Project Site E. Assessment of Conflicts with Applicable Plans, Programs, & Ordinances AMG assessed any potential conflicts and significant traffic impacts that the proposed SLOCA Campus project could have with applicable Plans, Programs, and Ordinances. A traffic impact is considered significant if the project proposes to implement transportation infrastructure inconsistent with any of the adopted plans or policies, impedes or constrains future planned transportation infrastructure, increase VMT that exceeds the City thresholds, or exacerbates traffic volumes on neighborhood streets. Based on the planning documents, plans and policies outlined in section ii Local, Regional, and State Plans and Regulatory Policies of the Environmental Settings, the proposed project: x Does not implement transportation infrastructure that is inconsistent with any of the applicable plans, programs, policies, or ordinances. The transportation infrastructure that is being implemented by the project (new curb ramps, new sidewalks, pedestrian improvements) are consistent with the General Plan and the Active Transportation Plan. x Does not constrain or impede any future planned transportation infrastructure. x Does not increase VMT that exceeds City thresholds as described in the VMT Analysis section. ATTACHMENT I Page 202 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 23 of 26 This CEQA Transportation Analysis does not include a multimodal operations analysis. Therefore, any solutions or recommendations for impacts caused by project traffic volumes will be discussed and identified in the multimodal operation analysis portion of the Traffic Study. ATTACHMENT I Page 203 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 24 of 26 CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Conclusions The CEQA Transportation Analysis for the SLOCA Campus Project confirms a less than significant impact on VMT while identifying potential pedestrian and cyclist safety risks near Sacramento Drive. Key mitigation measures include new crosswalks, improved signage, and expanded drop-off areas. Emergency vehicle access and internal circulation are adequate, but additional queueing space is recommended. The following list outlines results of this analysis and recommendations: x The vehicle miles travelled of the baseline plus proposed project scenario causes a net decrease in total regional VMT. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impact on VMT. x Project has the potential to increase pedestrian and bicyclist conflicts. The following safety treatments are recommended: o Installation of two marked crosswalks (one across Sacramento Drive along the north leg of the intersection and one across Via Esteban). The preferred location for the crosswalk across Sacramento Drive is along the north leg of the intersection because the north leg has less conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists. However, installing the crosswalk along the South Leg of the intersection may be considered, if supported by the city, if significant constraints are discovered during the design of the curb ramps for their paving project. o The City of SLO will be upgrading the ADA curb ramps adjacent to Via Esteban with their 2025 paving project on Sacramento Drive, so this improvement will be installed before the SLOCA Campus opens. o Installation of yield markings, school pavement markings, and appropriate school signage to alert vehicles of the pedestrian crossing. o Installation of No Ped Crossing sign at the south leg of the Sacramento Drive/Via Esteban intersection to dissuade pedestrians from crossing the intersection where there is no marked crossing. o Installation of a new Stop Limit Line on Via Esteban five (5) feet from the crosswalk. o Installation of red curb twenty (20) feet from the main project driveway in each direction to improve sight visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists. Additional installation of red curb of thirty (30) feet on the east side of the northeast corner. o Installation of Bike Lane Intersection Line with Bike Lane Green paint to highlight the conflict point at the main project driveway. o Installation of school zone sign approximately five hundred (500) feet to the north of the project site to remind drivers that they are now entering a school zone. o Installation of an electronic speed display sign just north of the project site on Sacramento Drive to remind drivers of their speed. Installation of an electronic speed display sign approximately five hundred (500) feet to the south of the project site on Sacramento Drive to remind vehicles of the new speed limit. Additionally, the City is ATTACHMENT I Page 204 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 25 of 26 preparing to conduct an Engineering & Traffic Survey soon, which may lead to a potential speed limit reduction on Sacramento Drive. x Stopping sight distance on Sacramento Drive is adequate. Sight Distance at the Broad Street driveway is adequate. x While on-site circulation is adequate, it can be improved with the following measures: o Consider staggering start/end school times to encourage dispersal of vehicle arrivals to the site. While the school does encourage parents to drop off students at different times depending on the student’s grade, starting school and ending school at different times would further encourage parents to stagger arrivals. o Provide drop-off/pick-up space of approximately 300 feet along Sacramento Drive. Encourage vehicles arriving southbound on Sacramento Drive to drop-off/pick-up students here. o Allow older students who are being picked up by a parent along the Sacramento Drive drop-off/pick-up zone to enter/exit at the playground area to the north of the site. o Secure adult supervision and direction (staff members of parent volunteers) to ensure safe and efficient drop-off/pick-ups. o Add a “Stop” sign and appropriate striping on the westbound approach on the driveway along Broad Street o Install a “No Right Turn” sign on northbound Broad to warn drivers that they cannot enter through the driveway on Broad Street. o Install yellow striping that hatches the east side of the driveway along Broad Street to discourage entering through the driveway on Broad Street. o Install “Do Not Enter” sign facing any drivers trying to enter the school from Broad Street to warn drivers that they cannot enter through the driveway. o Install “No Left Turn” sign facing drivers that are exiting the west parking lot. This will help maintain one-way westbound circulation within the site. o Assign ten to twenty (10-20) “walk-in” parking spaces near the main entrance and west parking lot. This will minimize conflicts and reduce entry delays. These “walk-in” parking spaces will be dedicated to parents who want to walk to drop-off/pick-up their student during the peak pick-up/drop-off times. During other periods, these parking spaces can be used as general parking. o Assign ten to twenty (10-20) designated parking or staff-only parking south of the drop- off/pick-up area and near the main entrance. This will help improve circulation because vehicles will enter the site before drop-off times and exit the site after pick-up times. This will also reduce potential collisions of vehicles trying to back out of parking spaces. o Assign a few (3-5) parking spaces near either entrance for carpooling vehicles, vans, or shuttles. ATTACHMENT I Page 205 of 309 June 2, 2025 Page 26 of 26 x Dedicated Drop-off/Pick-up & stacking space (a total of 310 feet) is not sufficient to accommodate the required 85th percentile queueing length. Additional drop-off/pick-up space of approximately 300 feet along Sacramento Drive will accommodate all queueing. x Emergency vehicle access onto the project site is adequate. x The proposed project complies with all applicable plans, programs, or ordinances. For analysis and recommendations pertaining to the Multimodal Operations, please refer to the Multimodal Operational Analysis report, which is Phase 2 of this Traffic Impact Study. ATTACHMENT I Page 206 of 309 APPENDIX A | SLOCA Campus Project Site Plan ATTACHMENT I Page 207 of 309 ATTACHMENT I Page 208 of 309 ATTACHMENT I Page 209 of 309 ATTACHMENT I Page 210 of 309 ATTACHMENT I Page 211 of 309 ATTACHMENT I Page 212 of 309 ATTACHMENT I Page 213 of 309 ATTACHMENT I Page 214 of 309 ATTACHMENT I Page 215 of 309 S A C R A M E N T O D R I V E EXISTING BUILDING 200.50 FF (APPROXIMATE) 200.60 - 200.43 FF RANGE RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE S A C R A M E N T O D R I V E ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT 10 . 0 0 ' PG E EA S E M E N T V I A E S T E B A N A C A C I A C R E E K 60.0' R I G H T O F W A Y 8.1' 21.8' 20.4' 9.7' /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// NO PARKING NO PA R K I N G COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT WM IRR 1 1 1 1 2 TYP 2 TYP 2 TYP 2 TYP 2 TYP 2 TYP 2 TYP 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 TYP 5 TYP 5 TYP 5 TYP 6 7 7 7 777 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 2 0 . 0 0 ' 20.0 0 ' 20 . 0 0 ' 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 25 5.00' ASPHA L T SIDEW A L K 26 27 26 26 28 28 28 28 28 60 . 1 0 ' F U L L B A Y D I M E N S I O N 2. 5 0 ' O V E R H A N G 18 . 4 0 ' S T A L L 2. 5 0 ' O V E R H A N G 18 . 4 0 ' S T A L L 60.10' FULL BAY DIMENSION 2.50' OVERHANG 18.40' STALL 2.50' OVERHANG 18.40' STALL 18.00'9. 0 0 ' 5. 0 0 ' 9. 0 0 ' 57 . 7 0 ' B A Y D I M E N S I O N A T C O M P A C T P A R K I N G 2. 5 0 ' O V E R H A N G 18 . 4 0 ' S T A L L 2. 5 0 ' O V E R H A N G 16 . 0 0 ' S T A L L 60 . 1 0 ' F U L L B A Y D I M E N S I O N 2. 5 0 ' O V E R H A N G 18 . 4 0 ' S T A L L 2. 5 0 ' O V E R H A N G 18 . 4 0 ' S T A L L 9.00'8.00'9.00' 18 . 0 0 ' 29 29 29 29 31 31 TYPTYP 31 TYP 32 32 33 33 33 34 TYP 34 TYP 34 TYP 34 TYP 30 30 30 30 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 ADD "RIGHT TURN ONLY" TO EXISTING SIGN 22 34 TYP 34 TYP 37 37 37 SL O C L A S S I C A L A C A D E M Y BR O A D S T R E E T C A M P U S PR O J E C T N A M E : PL A N S P R E P A R E D F O R : P R O J E C T L O C A T I O N : SL O C L A S S I C A L A C A D E M Y 16 5 G R A N D A V E SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 5 34 5 0 B R O A D S T SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 AP N : 0 5 3 - 2 2 1 - 0 3 5 ENGINEER OF RECORD: REVISIONS: CDS JOB #: SCALE: 24-078 AS SHOWN DATE:December 23, 2024 PREPARED BY:MRS REVIEWED BY:MRS Z: \ S h a r e d \ C D S D a t a \ A c t i v e J o b s \ 2 4 - 0 7 8 S L O C l a s s i c a l A c a d e m y \ _ P r oj e c t \ 2 _ P r e l i m _ E n t i t l e m e n t s \ C 1 - P r e l i m S i t e P l a n . d w g , D e c e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 2 4 A B C DEFGHI JKL MNO A B C DEFG HIJKLMNO 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CI V I L E N G I N E E R I N G P L A N N I N G P E R M I T T I N G CIV I L DES I G N STU D I O P. O . B o x 1 9 9 | C a m b r i a | C A 9 3 4 2 8 80 5 . 7 0 6 . 0 4 0 1 w w w . c i v i l - s t u d i o . c o m EEN I No . 7 4 7 3 6 TS C TAE FO I GE R AI O F I L A C L I V N R R E R P S D ERET F O NO I LA GNE ISS M O N T E R S O T O SHEET XX OF 3 SHEETS CONSTRUCTION NOTES LEGEND 21 PROPOSED ASPHALT OR ASPHALT GRIND AND OVERLAY 22 PROPOSED CONCRETE FLATWORK 23 PROPOSED CONCRETE CURB 24 PROPOSED REMOVAL OF DRIVEWAYS AND CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARDS 25 PROPOSED PUBLIC ASPHALT SIDEWALK TO CONNECT AS SHOWN FROM PUBLIC ROAD ADA RAMP AT EASTERN CORNER OF SITE, EXTENDING TO EXISTING SIDEWALK APPROXIMATELY 200' TO THE SOUTH (NOT SHOWN) 26 STANDARD ACCESSIBLE STALL WITH STRIPING AND SIGNAGE. PAVEMENT MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION SHALL NOT EXCEED 2% 27 VAN ACCESSIBLE STALL WITH STRIPING AND VAN ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE. PAVEMENT MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION SHALL NOT EXCEED 2% 28 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE (TRUNCATED DOMES) 29 PROPOSED PARKING BAY DIMENSIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PARKING STANDARDS 2230 - 2240 30 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL 31 PROPOSED 4" WIDE WHITE PARKING STRIPE PER CITY REQUIREMENTS 32 PROPOSED STAIRS (WOOD OR CONCRETE) 33 PROPOSED DECK OVER EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE BASINS. BOTTOM OF DECK SHALL BE LOCATAED 6" MIN ABOVE SPILLWAY ELEVATION 34 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE FEATURE 35 PROPOSED FENCE WITH GATES 36 EXISTING BUILDING 37 PROPOSED DECOMPOSED GRANITE ASPHALT CONCRETE IN PEDESTRIAN AREA DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE28 22 21 20 10 015 SCALE: 1" = 20' 20 40 C1 PRELIMINARY CIVIL SITE PLAN 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS NOTES 1 EXISTING ASPHALT PATH, PROTECT IN PLACE 2 EXISTING TREE, PROTECT IN PLACE 3 EXISTING PARKING LOT ASPHALT, PROTECT IN PLACE 4 EXISTING CONCRETE CURB, PROTECT IN PLACE 5 EXISTING PARKING LOT STRIPING, PROTECT IN PLACE 6 EXISTING TRASH ENCLOSURE, PROTECT IN PLACE 7 EXISTING SPEED BUMP OR SPEED TABLE, PROTECT IN PLACE 8 ACACIA CREEK FLOWLINE, APPROXIMATE LOCATION 9 LOCATION OF TOP OF CREEK BANK AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION 10 PROPOSED LOCATION OF EXISTING 20' CREEK SETBACK DECK33 ATTACHMENT I Page 216 of 309 S A C R A M E N T O D R I V E EXISTING BUILDING 200.50 FF (APPROXIMATE) 200.60 - 200.43 FF RANGE RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE S A C R A M E N T O D R I V E V I A E S T E B A N A C A C I A C R E E K 60.0' R I G H T O F W A Y 8.1' 21.8' 20.4' 9.7' /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// NO PARKING NO PA R K I N G COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT WM IRR 200.51 FS (199) (19 9 ) (1 9 7 ) (1 9 8 ) (1 9 9 ) (199) (200) (1 9 8 ) ( 1 9 9 ) (2 0 1 ) (2 0 2 ) ( 2 0 3 ) (2 0 4 ) ( 2 0 4 ) ( 2 0 5 ) (19 6 ) (19 7 ) (19 8 ) (1 9 9 ) (19 5 ) (19 6 ) (19 7 ) (19 8 ) (19 9 ) (20 1 ) ( 2 0 2 ) ( 2 0 3 ) (2 0 0 ) (2 0 0 ) (199) ( 2 0 1 ) ( 2 0 2 ) (202) 199.4 EG 199.4 EG (199.6) EG (199.2) EG (199.3) EG (199.4) EG (199.4) EG (199.3) EG (199.4) EG (199.4) EG (199.3) EG (199.3) EG (199.3) EG (199.5) EG (199.5) EG (199.4) EG (199.4) EG (199.4) EG (199.5) EG (199.6) EG (201.3) EG (199.4) EG (198.7) EG (198.4) EG (198.6) EG (198.7) EG (198.8) EG (198.6) EG (198.5) EG (198.5) EG (198.6) EG (198.7) EG (198.9) EG (198.8) EG (198.7) EG (198.5) EG (198.3) EG (198.6) EG (198.9) EG (199.3) EG (199.8) EG (200.7) EG (199.3) EG 200.10 TC 199.60 FS 200.2 EG 200.10 TC 199.60 FS 200.00 TC 199.50 FS 200.00 TC 199.50 FS 200.08 TC 199.58 FS 200.08 TC 199.58 FS 200.56 FS (200.56) FF (200.49) FF (200.49) FF (200.50) FF (200.50) FF (200.51) FF (200.49) FF (200.51) FF (200.49) FF (200.60) FF (200.58) FF (200.43) FF (200.49) FF (200.51) FF (200.45) FF (200.48) FF (200.46) FF 199.3 EG 199.3 EG 199.60 FS 199.70 FS 200.20 FS 200.10 TC 199.60 FS 197.5 EG 200.00 FS 199.70 FS 5 % M A X 5 % M A X 200.10 TC 199.60 FS 200.90 TC 200.40 FS 201.90 TC 201.40 FS 200.35 FS 200.70 FS200.25 FS 200.10 TC 199.60 FS 201.58 FS (203.2) EG (204.3) EG 8 . 3 % M A X 200.36 FS 200.33 FS 200.36 FS 201.20 FS 205.00 FS 205.00 FS 200.87 FS200.87 FS 200.00 FS 199.70 FS 200.50 FS 5% MAX 5% M A X 200.58 FS 200.60 FS 199.00 TG 199.80 FS 200.0 FG 200.00 FS 201.0 FG 202.1 FG 203.1 FG 200.40 FS 200.50 FS (200.8) EG 200.55 FS 201.20 TC 200.70 FS 200.20 FS 3 STEPS AT 6.5" 200.65 FS 199.95 FS 200.80 TC 200.30 FS SL O C L A S S I C A L A C A D E M Y BR O A D S T R E E T C A M P U S PR O J E C T N A M E : PL A N S P R E P A R E D F O R : P R O J E C T L O C A T I O N : SL O C L A S S I C A L A C A D E M Y 16 5 G R A N D A V E SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 5 34 5 0 B R O A D S T SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 AP N : 0 5 3 - 2 2 1 - 0 3 5 ENGINEER OF RECORD: REVISIONS: CDS JOB #: SCALE: 24-078 AS SHOWN DATE:December 23, 2024 PREPARED BY:MRS REVIEWED BY:MRS Z: \ S h a r e d \ C D S D a t a \ A c t i v e J o b s \ 2 4 - 0 7 8 S L O C l a s s i c a l A c a d e m y \ _ P r oj e c t \ 2 _ P r e l i m _ E n t i t l e m e n t s \ C 2 - P r e l i m G r a d i n g P l a n . d w g , D e c e m be r 2 3 , 2 0 2 4 A B C DEFGHI JKL MNO A B C DEFG HIJKLMNO 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CI V I L E N G I N E E R I N G P L A N N I N G P E R M I T T I N G CIV I L DES I G N STU D I O P. O . B o x 1 9 9 | C a m b r i a | C A 9 3 4 2 8 80 5 . 7 0 6 . 0 4 0 1 w w w . c i v i l - s t u d i o . c o m EEN I No . 7 4 7 3 6 TS C TAE FO I GE R AI O F I L A C L I V N R R E R P S D ERET F O NO I LA GNE ISS M O N T E R S O T O SHEET XX OF 3 SHEETS 20 10 015 SCALE: 1" = 20' 20 40 C2 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 2 NOTE: ALL PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKWAYS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH ACCESSIBLE SLOPES. 1.5% CROSS SLOPE AND 4.5% MAXIMUM RUNNING SLOPE. NOTE: CONCRETE POURED ADJACENT TO BUILDING DOORS SHALL PROVIDE AN ACCESSIBLE FLUSH TRANSITION FROM EXTERIOR FLATWORK TO THE BUILDING FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION. ATTACHMENT I Page 217 of 309 S A C R A M E N T O D R I V E EXISTING BUILDING 200.50 FF (APPROXIMATE) 200.60 - 200.43 FF RANGE RIGHT OF WAY RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE S A C R A M E N T O D R I V E ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT OPEN SPACE EASEMENT 10 . 0 0 ' PG E EA S E M E N T V I A E S T E B A N A C A C I A C R E E K 60.0' R I G H T O F W A Y 8.1' 21.8' 20.4' 9.7' SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L WL WL WL SD SD G G G G G G G G G T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L T E L S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SS SS G G G G SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD WLWLWLWLWLWL SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SD SD SD SD SD SD S D WLS D S D S D SD SD SD SD WLWL WM IRR WL WL 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 43 43 43 51 51 51 52 52 53 51 41 61 62 62 63 6465 81 81 81 82 83 83838383 83 83 54 66 66 81 SL O C L A S S I C A L A C A D E M Y BR O A D S T R E E T C A M P U S PR O J E C T N A M E : PL A N S P R E P A R E D F O R : P R O J E C T L O C A T I O N : SL O C L A S S I C A L A C A D E M Y 16 5 G R A N D A V E SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 5 34 5 0 B R O A D S T SA N L U I S O B I S P O , C A 9 3 4 0 1 AP N : 0 5 3 - 2 2 1 - 0 3 5 ENGINEER OF RECORD: REVISIONS: CDS JOB #: SCALE: 24-078 AS SHOWN DATE:December 23, 2024 PREPARED BY:MRS REVIEWED BY:MRS Z: \ S h a r e d \ C D S D a t a \ A c t i v e J o b s \ 2 4 - 0 7 8 S L O C l a s s i c a l A c a d e m y \ _ P r oj e c t \ 2 _ P r e l i m _ E n t i t l e m e n t s \ C 3 - P r e l i m U t i l i t y P l a n . d w g , D e c e m be r 2 3 , 2 0 2 4 A B C DEFGHI JKL MNO A B C DEFG HIJKLMNO 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CI V I L E N G I N E E R I N G P L A N N I N G P E R M I T T I N G CIV I L DES I G N STU D I O P. O . B o x 1 9 9 | C a m b r i a | C A 9 3 4 2 8 80 5 . 7 0 6 . 0 4 0 1 w w w . c i v i l - s t u d i o . c o m EEN I No . 7 4 7 3 6 TS C TAE FO I GE R AI O F I L A C L I V N R R E R P S D ERET F O NO I LA GNE ISS M O N T E R S O T O SHEET XX OF 3 SHEETS 20 10 015 SCALE: 1" = 20' 20 40 C3 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 3 NOTE: STORM DRAINAGE PIPING AND CATCH BASINS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED ON A COMBINATION OF RECENT TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY INFORMATION AS WELL AS RECORD INFORMATION FROM ORIGINAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PLANS. UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES 41 EXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPE, PROTECT IN PLACE 42 EXISTING STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN, ADJUST TO GRADE IF NECESSARY 43 LOCATION OF EXISTING STORMWATER BASIN, NO MODIFICATION PROPOSED. DECK ABOVE WILL NOT AFFECT STORAGE CAPACITY NOTES 44 TO 50 NOT USED 51 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LINE - PROTECT IN PLACE 52 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE - PROTECT IN PLACE 53 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT - PROTECT IN PLACE 54 PROPOSED GREASE INTERCEPTOR NOTE 55 TO 60 NOT USED 61 SIX EXISTING WATER LATERALS AND METERS - ABANDON LATERALS IN PLACE, REMOVE METERS AND RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK, CAP AT CORPORATION STOP. 62 EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT - PROTECT IN PLACE 63 PROPOSED COMMERCIAL WATER SERVICE, METER, AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION PER CITY STANDARDS 64 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE WATER SERVICE, METER, AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION (IRRIGATION POINT OF CONNECTION) PER CITY STANDARDS 65 EXISTING 6" DOUBLE CHECK DETECTOR WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION (FDC) 66 PROPOSED PUBLIC HYDRANT ASSEMBLY TO BE INSTALLED NOTES 67 TO 80 NOT USED 81 PROPOSED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 82 EXISTING GAS METERS, PROTECT IN PLACE 83 EXISTING SITE LIGHT, PROTECT IN PLACE EXISTING SITE STORMWATER CONTROL NARRATIVE: THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN APPROXIMATELY 1998. DRAINAGE FOR THE PROPERTY IS COLLECTED INTO THREE SURFACE STORAGE BASINS AND DRAINAGE INLETS IN THE PARKING LOT WHICH FLOW TO A JUNCTION BOX WITH ORIFICE PLATE TO MITIGATE PEAK FLOW DISCHARGE. PROPOSED STORMWATER CONTROL NARRATIVE: EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE MODIFIED FROM THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF IMPERVIOUS AREA FOR THE PROJECT SITE DUE TO THE REMOVAL OF THE PARKING LOT ON THE NORTH SIDE. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE WILL RESULT IN A REDUCTION IN STORMWATER RUNOFF. PROPOSED WATER DESIGN NARRATIVE: WATER SERVICE TO THE REMODELED BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE RECONSTRUCTED INTO ONE PROPERLY SIZED WATER METER. THERE ARE CURRENTLY 6 EXISTING WATER METERS FOR THE PROPERTY, WHICH WILL BE REMOVED WITH THIS PROJECT. PROPOSED WATER SERVICE FIXTURE UNITS TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 220 WSFU. THE PROPOSED WATER METER WILL BE PROPERLY SIZED TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW DEMAND. PROPOSED FIRE DESIGN NARRATIVE: THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS AN EXISTING 6" DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE INSTALLED. NO MODIFICATION TO THIS SYSTEM IS PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. THE CITY WATER MAIN CAN PROVIDE 2500GPM WITH A RESIDUAL PRESSURE OF 79PSI PER WATER MODEL PROVIDED BY WALLACE GROUP. PROPOSED SEWER DESIGN NARRATIVE: THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS AN EXISTING 6" SEWER LATERAL AND SEWER PIPE INSTALLED. NO MODIFICATION TO THIS SYSTEM IS PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. PROPOSED DRAINAGE FIXTURE UNITS TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 220 DFU. THEREFORE, PER CPC TABLE 702.1, A 6" SEWER LATERAL IS SUFFICIENT. ATTACHMENT I Page 218 of 309 APPENDIX B | Central Coast Transportation Consulting Preliminary Traffic Memo ATTACHMENT I Page 219 of 309 (805) 316-0101 895 Napa Avenue Suite A-6, Morro Bay, CA 93442 MEMORANDUM Date: May 15, 2024 To: Tim Ronda, SDG Architects From: Joe Fernandez and Michelle Matson, CCTC Subject: SLOCA Broad Street Campus – Preliminary Transportation Analysis This memorandum summarizes the preliminary transportation analysis for the proposed SLO Classical Academy (SLOCA) campus at 3450 Broad Street in the City of San Luis Obispo. SLOCA is proposing adaptive re-use of a 54,495 s.f. (including additions) office building to be used for a private elementary school, with infant child care through 8th grade. CCTC recommends the following: x Infant/Preschool drop-off/pick-up: Provide parking spaces near entrance of building. x Kindergarten drop-off/pick-up: Use existing parking area west of the building. x 1st through 8th grade: Provide single file curb drop-off/pick-up area on the south side of the building and on Sacramento Drive. We recommend increasing time between staggered dismissal and consider allowing older students to enter and exit through playground area. x Vans/Shuttles: Use SLOCA designated parking area near entrance of building. x Busses: When needed, use 1st through 8th grade proposed curb drop-off/pick-up area. x Short term parking: Provide spaces at the southwest corner of the site past the drop-off/pick-up area. x Intersection Control: Install Stop signs for vehicles leaving the parking area west of the building and at exits to Broad Street. We also recommend that the applicant(s) prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) including bell schedules and circulation patterns to manage queuing on Sacramento Drive and help facilitate future changes in circulation as needed. The proposed on-site vehicle stacking is less than industry standard and approximately 1,100 feet of queued vehicles were observed at the current campus during pick-up. An additional loading zone on the west side of Sacramento Drive is recommended adjacent to the site. However, a portion of the existing on-street parking is currently being used by adjacent businesses. We recommend parking restrictions on Sacramento Drive be discussed with City staff to determine if supported. Increasing time between staggered dismissal is also recommended to reduce queuing as noted above. The recommendations are shown in Figure 1 and detailed throughout the report. The following sections summarize the existing setting, trip generation, vehicle miles traveled, campus access and circulation, and Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) recommendations. EXISTING SETTING The proposed campus would repurpose an existing office building east of Broad Street, north of Capitolio Way, and west of Sacramento Drive. Key roadways in the project vicinity include: x Broad Street is a five-lane highway with Class II bike lanes and sidewalks on the east side. There is an existing median restricting left turns at the project driveway. The average daily traffic (ADT) on Broad Street between Orcutt Road and Capitolio Way was approximately 29,100 vehicles per day in 2018. ATTACHMENT I Page 220 of 309 2 SLOCA Broad Street Campus – Preliminary Transportation Analysis Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 15, 2024 x Capitolio Way is a two-lane commercial collector with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour, sharrows, sidewalks, and intermittent parking on both sides. Capitolio Way is stop-controlled at Broad Street and Sacramento Drive. The ADT on Capitolio Way between Broad Street and Sacramento Drive was approximately 2,800 vehicles per day in 2018. x Sacramento Drive is a two-lane commercial collector with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour, sharrows, sidewalks, and intermittent parking on both sides. The ADT on Sacramento Drive between Capitolio Way and Industrial Way was approximately 5,100 vehicles per day in 2018. Up to eight vehicles were observed parking on-street adjacent to the site. There is a pedestrian and bicycle path located just north of the project site connecting the sidewalks on Broad Street and Sacramento Drive. CCTC obtained traffic collision data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for 2018 through 2022. The following summarizes the collision history in the project vicinity: x Broad Street driveway: No collisions occurred at or adjacent to the driveway. x Sacramento Street driveway: A pedestrian fatality occurred on Sacramento Drive just north of the project site. x Broad Street/Capitolio Way: One head-on collision occurred at the intersection and two hit object collisions occurred, one at the intersection and one south of the intersection. x Capitolio Way/Sacramento Drive: Three collisions occurred. Two occurred with parked vehicles east of the intersection and one automobile right-of-way collision occurred at the intersection. TRIP GENERATION SLOCA currently has 337 total students including infants, preschool, and kindergarten through 8th grade. With the hybrid schedule, a maximum of 249 students (188 families), attend on a weekday. With the proposed project, including the hybrid schedule, a maximum of 372 students (264 families) would attend on a weekday. The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition was used to estimate project trip generation. Table 1 summarizes the project trip generation including trip reduction from the existing office building. Table 1: Trip Generation ITE Land Use Code #530 Private School (K-8) notes that the school may also offer pre-kindergarten classes and extended care and day care, so those students are included in the estimate. The campus would generate 516 net new vehicle trips per weekday including 283 AM peak hour trips and three PM peak hour trips between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. Land Use Size Unit In Out Total In Out Total Private School (K-8)1 372 Students 1,154 210 166 376 44 53 97 Existing Office Building 2 50.283 KSF -638 -82 -11 -93 -16 -78 -94 516 128 155 283 28 -25 3 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual , 11th Edition. Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation 1. ITE Land Use Code #530, Private School (K-8). Average rates used for AM and PM. Daily rate developed from Elementary School #520. 2. ITE Land Use Code #710, General Offic Building. Fitted curve equations used. Daily Trips Net New Vehicle Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips ATTACHMENT I Page 221 of 309 3 SLOCA Broad Street Campus – Preliminary Transportation Analysis Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 15, 2024 Most vehicles will use Capitolio Way to access the site. The existing students travel from the following areas: x 37%: San Luis Obispo Area x 28%: South (Avila, Five Cities, Nipomo, Santa Barbara County, Kern County) x 23%: North (North County, Tulare County) x 12%: West (Cambria, Cayucos, Los Osos, Morro Bay) VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED The City’s Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines define thresholds of significance for transportation impacts using vehicle miles traveled (VMT). School projects would have a potentially significant impact to transportation if they cause a net increase in total regional VMT. The City’s Travel Demand Model was applied to determine the project effects on VMT. The Baseline scenario reflects the Model’s base year (2016) and the existing land uses on the site. The Baseline Plus Project scenario removes the office uses on the site and replaces them with the proposed student population. Note that no land use adjustments were made in either scenario to SLOCA’s current campus on Grand Avenue. Table 2 summarizes the project effect on regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Table 2: Regional VMT Analysis The project would reduce regional VMT, and would therefore have a less-than-significant impact to VMT. CAMPUS ACCESS AND CIRCULATION Existing Campus The existing campus has a curb side drop-off/pick-up area within the parking lot, with approximately 125 feet of on-site curbside space available, which is a portion of the 500 feet of total queue storage for waiting vehicles before queues spill back to Grand Avenue. In addition, there is a parking lot on Grand Avenue with approximately 200 feet of on-site curbside storage. The schedules and procedures include: x Infant/Preschool drop-off/pick-up: Drop off is between 8:00 and 9:30 AM at a separate campus on the southeast corner of Grand Avenue/Slack Street. Parents drop off curb side with storage for four to five vehicles or park. Up to 54 students (41 additional families without kindergarten-8th grade children) attend per day. x Kindergarten drop-off/pick-up: Drop off is between 8:10 and 8:30 AM and pick-up is between 2:30 and 2:45 PM. Parents are required to park. Up to 13 students/families attend per day. Baseline 8,486,293 Baseline+Project 8,486,042 Change from Baseline -251 Source: CCTC, 2024 Scenario1 Regional VMT Summary 1. Baseline is the 2016 Base Year SLO City Travel Demand Model. Baseline+Project removes 50,283 SF office and adds 372 elementary students to project TAZ. Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ATTACHMENT I Page 222 of 309 4 SLOCA Broad Street Campus – Preliminary Transportation Analysis Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 15, 2024 x 1st through 8th grade: Drop off is between 8:10 and 8:30 AM and pick-up is between 2:35 and 2:45 PM with 1st through 4th grade dismissal at 2:30 PM. Approximately 20 percent of families’ park. Up to 182 students (134 families) attend per day. x Events: Approximately, two nights per year there are larger “all school events” that would generate the need for up to 175 parked vehicles. Five times per year, smaller events would require parking for approximately 100 vehicles. x Sports: Occurs following school dismissal. Requires up to 50 parked vehicles. During the morning drop-off, no queuing was observed on Grand Avenue. During the afternoon pick-up, both parking lots were full, and up to 13 vehicles were observed queued on Grand Avenue. Proposed Campus The proposed campus currently has two parking areas, one south and west of the building and one north of the building which is proposed to be removed for outdoor areas. Two existing driveways are proposed for the campus south of the building, one on Broad Street and one on Sacramento Drive. The Broad Street driveway is restricted to right-in/right-out with a median. One-way westbound circulation through the parking lot is proposed for drop-off/pick-up. We recommend the following, summarized on Figure 1:: x Infant/Preschool drop-off/pick-up: Provide parking spaces near entrance of building. x Kindergarten drop-off/pick-up: Use parking area west of the building. x 1st through 8th grade: Provide single file right wheel to the curb drop-off/pick-up area (approximately 200 feet desired if feasible, this would reduce on-site parking spaces) on the south side of the building with a total stacking distance of approximately 345 feet. Pick-up and drop-off zones are typically marked as a loading zone and not time of day parallel parking. This will facilitate the goal of drive though drop-off/pick-up. x Provide curb drop-off/pick-up area on Sacramento Drive. Curb drop-off/pick-up on Sacramento Drive would require parking restrictions and coordination with the City. x Consider increased time between staggered dismissals and consider allowing older students to enter and exit through playground area. x Vans/Shuttles: Use SLOCA designated parking spaces near entrance of building. We recommend parents not use these spaces and impact the vehicle stacking distance and driveway operations. x Buses: When needed, use 1st through 8th grade proposed curb drop-off/pick-up area. x Short term parking: Provide spaces at the southwest corner of building past the drop-off/pick-up loading area. x Intersection Control: Install Stop signs for vehicles leaving the parking area west of the building and at exits to Broad Street. x Event parking: Utilize on-street parking as needed for the two large events and five smaller events. We also recommend that the applicant(s) prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) including bell schedules and circulation patterns to manage queuing on Sacramento Drive and help facilitate future changes in circulation as needed. ATTACHMENT I Page 223 of 309 5 SLOCA Broad Street Campus – Preliminary Transportation Analysis Central Coast Transportation Consulting May 15, 2024 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION’S (FHWA) RECOMMENDATIONS Table 3 summarizes the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) typical recommendations for school circulation planning, the proposed campus conformance, and the recommendations. Table 3: Site Access Standards and Recommendations The recommendations are also shown in Figure 1. Please let us know if you have any questions. Standard Recommendation1 Campus Conformance CCTC Recommendation Provide access from more than one direction to the immediate vicinity of the site, and provide access to the site from at least two adjacent streets. Partial conformance. Existing access to Broad Street and Sacramento Drive. However, one-way access is proposed and recommended for drop-off/pick-up. See Figure 1. The physical routes provided for the basic modes (buses, cars, pedestrians, and bicycles) of the traffic pattern should be separated as much as possible. Partial conformance with recommendations. Some, not all, physical routes are separated by mode. Recommend designating and separating infant/preschool, kindergarten, and 1st-8th drop- off/pick-up areas. See Figure 1. All primary building entrances for students shall be weather protected by overhead cover or soffit. Conforms: Building entrances are covered.None. The school site and proposed plans should be reviewed by the proper road agency. Conforms: Transportation Analysis will be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo.None. Single-file right wheel to the curb is the preferred staging method for buses. Partial conformance with recommendations. School uses shuttles. Buses, when needed, can use 1st-8th drop-off/pick-up area. See Figure 1. Short-term parking spaces should be identified past the student loading area and near the building entrance. Conforms with recommendations. See Figure 1. Provide safe crosswalks with crossing guards. Conforms with recommendations. Provide single-file right wheel to the curb areas and parking spaces for younger students to minimize vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. See Figure 1. There should be well-maintained sidewalks leading to the school. Conforms: Existing sidewalks on Broad Street and Sacramento Drive connect to site. None. Facilities should be provided for bicycle access and storage.Conforms: Bike racks proposed. None. Provide an adequate driveway for stacking cars on site. For Elementary Schools with <500 students, loop drive stacking length should be 400-750 feet. Does not conform. With a maximum of 372 students per day, the 345 feet of on-site stacking proposed is not adequate. Recommend stacking/loading on Sacramento Drive. Discuss parking restrictions with the City. See Figure 1. Required drop-off and pick-up areas for schools shall include at least one auto space for every 50 students. Conforms: 372 students would require 7 spaces. Significantly more spaces will be provided. None. Site Access Recommendations 1. Source: Traffic Operations and Safety at Schools: Recommended Guidelines, FHWA & Texas Transportation Institute, 2004. ATTACHMENT I Page 224 of 309 May 2024 6/2&$%URDG6WUHHW&DPSXV $WWDFKPHQW$9LFLQLW\0DSDQG5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV Short Term SLOCAST O P ST O P STOP 200 ft /(*(1' 67236,*1 '5232))3,&.83=21(6 6$)(7<7($0 9(+,&/(&,5&8/$7,21 STOP Kinder 345 ft Infant/ Preschool 4 0 0 f t ȱȱ $GGLWLRQDOORDGLQJ]RQHIRU VLQJOHILOHFXUEVLGHGURSRII SLFNXSUHFRPPHQGHG'LVFXVV SDUNLQJUHVWULFWLRQVRQ 6DFUDPHQWR'ULYHZLWK&LW\ ATTACHMENT I Page 225 of 309 APPENDIX C | Recommended Pedestrian Treatments ATTACHMENT I Page 226 of 309 XI N G S L O W S C H O O L XI N G SL O W SC H O O L XI N G SL O W SC H O O L XI N G SL O W SC H O O L SAN LUIS OBISPO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SLOCA CAMPUS PROJECT TRAFFIC STUDY RECOMMENDED SAFETY TREATMENTS ADVANCED MOBILITY GROUP 3003 OAK ROAD, SUITE 100 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597 DESIGNED REVISION BY APP. BENCHMARK DRAWN CHECKED A. FLORES A. FLORES R. RAIE DATE SCALE 03/28/2025 SHEET OF 1 DWG. DRAFT PJ NO. NO. 1 SITE LAYOUT & PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS T-1 YIELD MARKINGS YIELD MARKINGS YELLOW HIGH-VIS CROSSWALK STOP LIMIT LINE 30' RED CURB "SLOW SCHOOL XING" MARKING BIKE INTERSECTION MARKINGS "SLOW SCHOOL XING" MARKING BIKE INTERSECTION MARKINGS R1-5a 20' RED CURB 20' RED CURB R9-3A SACRAMENTO/ & VIA ESTEBAN/PROJECT DRIVEWAY TREATMENT PLAN SCALE 1" = 15' SITE TREATMENT PLAN SCALE 1" = 40' R4-1 & Speed Radar Sign SACRAMENTO DR SW24-3 SW24-2 SW24-1 Speed Radar Sign SACRAMENTO DR CA P I T O L I O W Y N R1-5a S A C R A M E N T O D R N ATTACHMENT I Page 227 of 309 APPENDIX D | Queuing Analysis ATTACHMENT I Page 228 of 309 ITE Transportation and Land Development Methodology (1988) Queuing System ATTACHMENT I Page 229 of 309 SLOCA @ 3495 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo Queuing Analysis Arrival Rate 2.9 veh/min Arrival Rate 2.9 veh/min Service Rate 4 veh/min Service Rate 3.5 veh/min Number of Servers in System 1 Number of Servers in System 1 Utilization Coefficient 0.725 Utilization Coefficient 0.829 Probability of no cars 0.229 Probability of no cars 0.150 Mean number in queue 1.594 Mean number in queue 3.507 Mean number in system 2.319 Mean number in system 4.335 Mean wait time in queue 0.550 in minutes Mean wait time in queue 1.209 in minutes Mean time in system 0.800 in minutes Mean time in system 1.495 in minutes Proportion who wait 0.604 Proportion who wait 0.726 Prob. of queue > length M 0.318 Prob. of queue > length M 0.498 Mean wait time in queue > 0 2.636 Mean wait time in queue > 0 4.833 Queue storage required 5.6 Length M in vehicles Queue storage required 11.1 Length M in vehicles Queue storage (ft) 139 Queue storage (ft) 277 Queue storage 85th Percentile 7.60 Queue storage 85th Percentile 14.00 Queue storage (ft) 190.00 Queue storage (ft) 350.00 AM Peak Single-Server System PM Peak Single-Server System ATTACHMENT I Page 230 of 309 SLOCA @ 3495 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo Estimate of 85th Percentile Queuing Avg. Storage Required AM 5.6 Queue Length Poisson Dist. Queue Length Cumulative Dist. 00.00 0 0.00 10.02 1 0.02 20.06 2 0.08 30.11 3 0.19 40.15 4 0.34 50.17 5 0.51 60.16 6 0.67 70.13 7 0.80 80.09 8 0.89 90.06 9 0.94 10 0.03 10 0.97 11 0.02 11 0.99 12 0.01 12 0.99 Avg. Storage Required PM 11.1 Queue Length Poisson Dist.Queue Length Cumulative Dist. 00.00 0 0.00 20.00 2 0.00 40.01 4 0.01 60.04 6 0.07 80.09 8 0.22 10 0.12 10 0.45 12 0.11 12 0.68 14 0.07 14 0.85 16 0.04 16 0.94 18 0.02 18 0.98 20 0.01 20 0.99 22 0.00 22 1.00 24 0.00 24 1.00 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.11 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 0123456789101112 Pe r c e n t a g e QueueLength(veh.) PoissonDistributionofQueueLengthAM Percentage CummulativePercentage 0.000.00 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 024681012141618202224 Pe r c e n t a g e QueueLength(veh.) PoissonDistributionofQueueLengthPM Percentage CummulativePercentage ATTACHMENT I Page 231 of 309 Page 232 of 309 City of San Luis Obispo Phase 2 of the Proposed 3450 Broad Street SLOCA Campus Project Traffic Impact Study: Multimodal Operational Analysis Project Report June 2025 Prepared by: Advanced Mobility Group (AMG) ATTACHMENT J Page 233 of 309 TABLE OF CONTENTS Operations Analysis Approach ................................................................................................. 1 A. Analysis Scenarios ..................................................................................................................... 1 B. Study Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 1 C. Local Thresholds of Significance, Methodologies, and Assumptions .............................................. 8 i. Local, Regional, and State Plans and Regulatory Policies ..................................................................... 8 ii. Analysis Methodologies ..................................................................................................................... 13 iii. Analysis Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 18 Baseline Analysis Conditions .................................................................................................. 19 A. Intersection & Roadway Geometrics and Volumes ..................................................................... 19 i. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 19 ii. Cumulative Base Conditions .............................................................................................................. 22 B. LOS Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 26 i. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 26 ii. Cumulative Baseline Conditions ......................................................................................................... 30 C. Intersection Queuing ................................................................................................................ 35 i. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 35 ii. Cumulative Baseline Conditions .......................................................................................................... 37 Project Analysis Conditions ....................................................................................................39 A. Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................................... 40 B. Project Trip Distribution & Trip Assignment ................................................................................ 41 C. Intersection & Roadway Geometrics and Volumes ...................................................................... 47 i. Existing Plus Project Conditions ......................................................................................................... 47 ii. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................... 50 D. LOS Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 53 i. Existing Plus Project Conditions ......................................................................................................... 53 ii. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................... 58 E. Intersection Queuing ............................................................................................................... 64 i. Existing Plus Project Conditions ......................................................................................................... 64 ii. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ................................................................................................... 66 F. Transit Analysis....................................................................................................................... 68 G. Assessment of Conflicts with Applicable Plans, Programs, & Ordinances ..................................... 69 H. Route 227 Corridor Mitigation Fees ............................................................................................ 70 Operational Analysis Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................... 71 ATTACHMENT J Page 234 of 309 Appendices APPENDIX A | Existing Traffic Counts APPENDIX B | Existing Conditions Analysis Reports & Worksheets APPENDIX C | Cumulative Conditions Analysis Reports & Worksheets APPENDIX D | SLOCA Campus Project Site Plan APPENDIX E | ITE Trip Generation Relevant Worksheets APPENDIX F | Existing Plus Project Conditions Analysis Reports & Worksheets APPENDIX G | Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Analysis Reports & Worksheets Figures Figure 1: Study Intersections .................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2: Study Roadway Segments ........................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3: Level of Traffic Stress Ranking System ..................................................................................... 16 Figure 4: Pedestrian Segment LOS Analysis Components ........................................................................ 17 Figure 5: Existing Conditions - Peak Hour Volumes & Controls .................................................................. 20 Figure 6: Existing Conditions - Segment Average Daily Traffic .................................................................. 21 Figure 7: Cumulative Conditions - Peak Hour Volume & Controls .............................................................. 24 Figure 8: Cumulative Conditions - Segment Average Daily Traffic ............................................................. 25 Figure 9: Proposed SLOCA Campus Project Site Plan .............................................................................. 39 Figure 10: Zones within the City of SLO .................................................................................................. 42 Figure 11: Vehicular Project Trip Distribution ......................................................................................... 44 Figure 12: Vehicular Project Only - Peak Hour Volume & Controls ............................................................. 45 Figure 13: Pedestrian and Bicycle Project Trip Distribution ...................................................................... 46 Figure 14: Pedestrian Project Only Peak Hour Volumes (left) & Bicycle Project Only Peak Hour Volumes (right) .................................................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 15: Existing Plus Project - Peak Hour Volumes & Controls ............................................................. 48 Figure 16: Existing Plus Project - Segment Average Daily Traffic .............................................................. 49 Figure 17: Cumulative Plus Project - Peak Hour Volume & Controls ........................................................... 51 Figure 18: Cumulative Plus Project - Segment Average Daily Traffic .......................................................... 52 Figure 19: Bus Stop near project site ..................................................................................................... 68 Tables Table 1: MMLOS Objectives & Service Standards (SLO General Plan) ......................................................... 8 Table 2: Modal Priorities for Level of Service (SLO General Plan) ................................................................ 9 Table 3: Street Classification Descriptions and Standards ........................................................................ 10 Table 4: Level of Service Thresholds Based on Intersection Delay for Vehicles ........................................... 14 Table 5: Level of Service Thresholds Based on LOS Score at Signalized Intersections for Peds & Bikes ......... 14 Table 6: Level of Service Thresholds Based on Pedestrian "Dissatisfaction" at two-way stop controlled intersections ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Table 7: Level of Service Thresholds Based on AADT .............................................................................. 16 Table 8: Level of Service Thresholds based on Pedestrian Space & Pedestrian LOS score on Segments ........ 17 Table 9: Existing Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Signalized intersections ............................................... 26 Table 10: Existing Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Unsignalized intersections ......................................... 26 Table 11: Existing Conditions Bicycle LOS results .................................................................................... 27 Table 12: Existing Conditions Pedestrian LOS results .............................................................................. 28 Table 13: Existing Conditions Vehicle Roadway Segment LOS results ...................................................... 29 Table 14: Existing Conditions Bicycle Roadway Segment LTS results ....................................................... 29 Table 15: Existing Conditions Pedestrian Roadway Segment LOS results .................................................. 30 Table 16: Cumulative Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Signalized intersections ......................................... 30 ATTACHMENT J Page 235 of 309 Table 17: Cumulative Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Roundabout intersections ...................................... 31 Table 18: Cumulative Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Stop controlled intersections .................................. 31 Table 19: Cumulative Conditions Bicycle LOS results ............................................................................... 32 Table 20: Cumulative Conditions Pedestrian LOS results .......................................................................... 33 Table 21: Cumulative Conditions Vehicle Roadway Segment LOS results .................................................. 34 Table 22: Cumulative Conditions Bicycle Roadway Segment LTS results ................................................... 34 Table 23: Cumulative Conditions Pedestrian Roadway Segment LOS results ............................................. 35 Table 24: Existing Conditions 95th Percentile Queuing Analysis results ..................................................... 36 Table 25: Cumulative Conditions 95th Percentile Queuing Analysis results ................................................ 38 Table 26: Trip Generation with Existing Credit use applied for SLOCA Campus Project .............................. 40 Table 27: Multimodal Split ..................................................................................................................... 41 Table 28: Multimodal Trip Generation .................................................................................................... 41 Table 29: Distribution of Student Residences within the City of SLO ......................................................... 43 Table 30: Existing Plus Project Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Signalized intersections ............................ 53 Table 31: Existing Plus Project Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Unsignalized intersections ........................ 53 Table 32: Existing Plus Project Conditions Bicycle LOS results .................................................................. 54 Table 33: Existing Plus Project Conditions Pedestrian LOS results............................................................ 56 Table 34: Existing Plus Project Conditions Vehicle Roadway Segment LOS results ..................................... 57 Table 35: Existing Plus Project Conditions Bicycle Roadway Segment LTS results ...................................... 57 Table 36: Existing Plus Project Conditions Pedestrian Roadway Segment LOS results ............................... 58 Table 37: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Signalized intersections ...................... 59 Table 38: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Stop controlled intersections ............... 59 Table 39: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Roundabout intersections ................... 59 Table 40: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Bicycle LOS results ............................................................ 61 Table 41: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Pedestrian LOS results ...................................................... 62 Table 42: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Vehicle Roadway Segment LOS results ............................... 63 Table 43: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Bicycle Roadway Segment LTS results ................................ 63 Table 44: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Pedestrian Roadway Segment LOS results .......................... 64 Table 45: Existing Plus Project Conditions 95th Percentile Queuing Analysis results ................................... 65 Table 46: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 95th Percentile Queuing Analysis results ............................. 67 Table 47: Transit Load Factor results ..................................................................................................... 69 Table 48: State Route 227 Corridor Mitigation Fee Calculation ................................................................. 70 ATTACHMENT J Page 236 of 309 The purpose of this report is to present Phase 2 of the Traffic Impact Study for the proposed SLO Classical Academy (SLOCA) Campus project at 3450 Broad Street in the City of San Luis Obispo (SLO), Multimodal Traffic Operations Analysis & Policy Assessment. Phase 1 of the Traffic Impact Study, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Transportation Analysis, which includes a Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Analysis and Transportation Safety Assessment, is provided in a separate standalone report. Operations Analysis Approach A. Analysis Scenarios The Operations Analysis includes the following analysis scenarios for each project alternative: 1. Existing Conditions: AMG evaluated existing conditions level of service (LOS), delay, and any relevant performance metrics per the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan with existing lane geometry, traffic control and traffic volumes. 2. Existing + Project: Proposed project trips estimated as discussed in the following sections were added to the existing conditions traffic models to evaluate the impact of the proposed project at the project intersections. 3. Cumulative Conditions: This scenario evaluated the cumulative buildout traffic projections envisioned in the City’s General Plan and regional growth consistent with the San Luis Obispo Council of Government (SLOCOG) projections for Year 2045. 4. Cumulative + Project: Proposed project trips were added to the cumulative background volumes to evaluate the impact of the project on cumulative conditions in this scenario. Each scenario analyzed weekday a.m. (7:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.) peak hour conditions, and roadway segments analyzed daily volumes as necessary. B. Study Facilities Broad Street is a bi-directional north-south highway with varying lane configurations throughout its length. Near the project site, it consists of five lanes—two in each direction with a center turn lane with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. The posted speed limit changes along the corridor, set at 40 mph between South Street and Orcutt Road, increasing to 45 mph between Orcutt Road and Aero Drive, and reaching 55 mph between Aero Drive and Buckley Road. The ADT on Broad Street was 28,334 between Orcutt Road and Capitolio Way. The roadway features a slight horizontal curve along its entire length. Major intersecting streets include South Street, Orcutt Road, Tank Farm Road, Buckley Road, and Edna Road. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor. A signalized (HAWK) crosswalk is present at Woodbridge Street to facilitate pedestrian movement. On-street parking is permitted in the southbound direction between Funston Avenue and Sweeney Lane, while parking is not allowed in the northbound direction. Class II bike lanes are provided in both directions along the entire corridor, ensuring dedicated space for cyclists. Sidewalks are present intermittently, with segments in the southbound direction between South Street and Rockview Place, 900 feet n/o Industrial Way and 400 feet s/o Industrial Way, and Tank Farm Road and Aero Drive. In the northbound direction, sidewalks are ATTACHMENT J Page 237 of 309 present between Aero Drive and Fuller Road, as well as between Calle de Caminos and South Street. There are no pedestrian warning signs installed along the roadway. Sacramento Drive is a bi-directional north-south commercial collector consisting of two lanes, one in each direction, with a posted speed limit of 25 mph between Orcutt Road & Capitolio Way and a posted speed limit of 35 mph between Capitolio Way & Industrial Way. The ADT on Sacramento Drive was approximately 4,150 vehicles per day between Orcutt Road & Capitolio Way in 2023 and 5,100 vehicles per day between Capitolio Way & Industrial Way in 2018. The street features a slight horizontal curve throughout its length, with a sharp horizontal curve located north of Via Esteban toward Orcutt Road. Major intersecting streets along the corridor include Orcutt Road and Industrial Way. There is a marked crossing at the signalized intersection of Sacramento Drive & Orcutt Road. On-street parking is permitted in the southbound direction between Industrial Way and Via Esteban. Class II bike lanes are provided in both directions along the entire corridor, offering dedicated space for cyclists. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the roadway, except for a gap in the southbound direction between Capitolio Way and Via Esteban. Capitolio Way is a bi-directional east-west commercial collector consisting of two lanes, one in each direction, with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. The ADT on Capitolio Way between Broad Street and Sacramento Drive was approximately 2,700 vehicles per day in 2018. There is a slight horizontal curve near Sacramento Drive. Major intersecting streets along the corridor include Broad Street and Sacramento Drive. There are no marked crosswalks along this segment. On- street parking is permitted in both directions throughout the entire corridor. Class III bike lanes are designated in both directions between Broad Street and Sacramento Drive, allowing cyclists to share the roadway with vehicles. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the street for the entire length of the corridor. However, no pedestrian warning signs are installed along this roadway. Via Esteban is a bi-directional east-west local commercial roadway consisting of two lanes, one in each direction, with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the street for the entire length of the corridor. However, no pedestrian warning signs are installed along this roadway. Roadways that are also a part of the study intersections and study roadway segments but are not within the project vicinity include: Higuera Street is a bi-directional, north-south arterial roadway with a posted speed limit that varies from 30 to 40 mph. Its lane configuration varies, with five lanes between Prado Road and Margarita Avenue, four lanes between Margarita Avenue and Fontana Avenue, and six lanes between Madonna Street and South Street. A slight horizontal curve is present between Elks Lane and Prado Road. Major intersecting streets include Prado Road, Margarita Avenue, Elks Lane, Madonna Road, and South Street. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor. There are also a few marked crossings at midblock locations with advanced pedestrian warning signs near downtown. On-street parking is not permitted. Class II bike lanes run in both directions throughout the entire corridor, and sidewalks are present on both sides. Madonna Road is a bi-directional, east-west arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. It has six lanes—three in each direction—between Dalidio Drive and the US-101 ramp, narrowing to five lanes with a center turn lane between the US-101 ramp and Higuera Street. A slight horizontal curve is ATTACHMENT J Page 238 of 309 present at the western end of the segment. Major intersecting streets include Dalidio Drive, US-101, and Higuera Street. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor. A signalized (HAWK) crosswalk is midway between Dalidio Drive and Oceanaire Drive to facilitate pedestrian movement. On-street parking is not permitted. A Class I separated bike path runs along the north side of the roadway between US 101 SB off-ramp at Madonna Road and Dalidio Drive. Class II bike lanes run in both directions intermittently between Higuera Street and Pereira Drive. Sidewalks are present on both sides throughout the entire segment. However, no pedestrian warning signs are installed along the roadway. South Street is a bi-directional, east-west residential arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. It consists of three lanes—one in each direction with a center turn lane. The roadway is relatively straight with no curves. Major intersecting streets include Higuera Street, Exposition Drive, and Broad Street. There is a marked crosswalk with Rectangular Rapidly Flashing Beacons (RRFB) across the east leg at the intersection of South Street and King Street. There are advanced pedestrian warning crossings in both directions to the east and west of the crosswalk. On-street parking is allowed on both sides throughout most of the segment. Class II bike lanes run in both directions along the entire corridor, and sidewalks are present on both sides. Santa Barbara Street is a bi-directional, north-south arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. It consists of three lanes—one in each direction with a center turn lane. A slight horizontal curve is present around Upham Street. Major intersecting streets along this corridor include Leff Street, Upham Street, and Broad Street. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor. There are two marked crosswalks with Rectangular Rapidly Flashing Beacons (RRFB) at the intersection of Santa Barbara Street and High Street. There are advanced pedestrian warning crossings in both directions to the east and west of the crosswalk. On-street parking is permitted in the southbound direction throughout most of the corridor. Class IV bike lanes run in both directions between Upham Street and Broad Street. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the roadway. Orcutt Road is a bi-directional east-west arterial roadway with four lanes, two in each direction between Broad Street and Laurel Lane. It becomes a three lane roadway – one lane in each direction with a center turn lane from Laurel Lane to the west of Ranch House Road roundabout and shifts to a two lane road east of the roundabout. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Unlike other nearby streets, this segment has no horizontal or vertical curves. Major intersecting streets include Broad Street, Sacramento Drive, Bullock Lane, and Tank Farm Road. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor and at the Ranch House Road roundabout. On-street parking is not permitted along the corridor. Class II bike lanes are provided in both directions, offering dedicated space for cyclists. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the street throughout the entire corridor. Industrial Way is a bi-directional east-west commercial collector consisting of two lanes, one in each direction, with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. The roadway is relatively straight with no horizontal or vertical curves. Major intersecting streets include Broad Street and Sacramento Drive. There are no marked crosswalks along this segment. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street west of 838 Industrial Way. Class III bike lanes are designated in both directions, allowing cyclists to share the roadway with vehicles. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the street throughout the entire corridor. ATTACHMENT J Page 239 of 309 Tank Farm Road is a bi-directional, east-west parkway arterial with a posted speed limit that varies from 35 to 40 mph. The number of lanes varies between four and six throughout the segment. The roadway is relatively straight with no curves. Major intersecting streets include Santa Fe Road and Poinsettia Street. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor and both the Righetti Ranch Road & Orcutt Road roundabouts. There is a marked crosswalk with Rectangular Rapidly Flashing Beacons (RRFB) across the west leg at the intersection of Santa Barbara Street and High Street. There are advanced pedestrian warning crossings in both directions to the east and west of the crosswalk. On-street parking is not permitted. Class II bike lanes run in both directions along the entire segment. Sidewalks are present on the westbound side between Santa Fe Road and Broad Street, and on both sides between Broad Street and Poinsettia Street. Aerovista Place is a bi-directional, east-west local roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. It consists of two lanes, one in each direction. A slight horizontal curve is present on the east end of the segment. There are no marked crosswalks along this corridor. On-street parking is permitted on both sides throughout most of the segment. Unlike other nearby roadways, there are no designated bike facilities. Sidewalks are present on both sides of the street for the entire corridor. Aero Drive is a bi-directional, east-west local roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. It consists of three lanes, with one in each direction and a center turn lane. A horizontal curve is present throughout most of the segment. There are marked crosswalks at the intersection of Broad Street and Aero Drive. On-street parking is not permitted. Class II bike lanes run in both directions along the entire segment. Sidewalks are present only on the eastbound side for the full length of the corridor Edna Road/State Route 227 is a bi-directional, north-south highway with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. It consists of two lanes, one in each direction. While the observed segment is relatively straight, there is a slight curvature south of this area. Major intersecting streets include Los Ranchos Road, Crestmont Drive, Buckley Road, and Broad Street. On-street parking is permitted along most of the segment on the shoulders. Unlike other nearby roadways, there are no designated bike facilities or sidewalks. Farmhouse Lane is a bi-directional, east-west local roadway with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. It consists of two lanes, one in each direction, with a slight horizontal curve present throughout the corridor. There are no marked crosswalks along this segment. On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway. Unlike other nearby streets, there are no designated bike facilities. Sidewalks are present on both sides throughout the entire corridor. Buckley Road is a bi-directional roadway with 2 to 3 lanes running east-west. The speed limit is 55 mph. The road features a horizontal curve at the west end of the corridor and offers on-street parking on both sides throughout most of the segment. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor. There are no bike facilities, and sidewalks are only present in the west direction, available in certain segments of the corridor. Los Ranchos Road is a bi-directional, two-lane north-south roadway with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour (mph), reducing to 25 mph in school zones. The road features a curve at the north end of the segment and has on-street parking available on both sides throughout the entire corridor. There are marked crosswalks at all the signalized intersections along this corridor. There is a marked crosswalk with Rectangular Rapidly Flashing Beacons (RRFB) in front of Los Ranchos Elementary School. There are advanced pedestrian warning crossings in both directions to the east and west of the crosswalk. ATTACHMENT J Page 240 of 309 There are no bike facilities, but sidewalks are present on both sides of the road throughout the entire segment. The following are the study intersections: 1) Higuera Street & Madonna Road 2) Higuera Street & South Street 3) Orcutt Road & Sacramento Drive/Duncan Road 4) Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way 5) Broad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue 6) Broad Street & Orcutt Road 7) Broad Street & Capitolio Way 8) Broad Street & Industrial Way 9) Broad Street & Tank Farm Road 10) Broad Street & Aerovista Place 11) Broad Street & Aero Drive 12) Broad Street & Farmhouse Lane 13) Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road* 14) Edna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road* * Intersection is under Caltrans’ jurisdiction. Caltrans analysis procedures & performance measures will apply here. The following are the study roadway segments: 1) Broad Street (South Street to Orcutt Road) 2) Broad Street (Orcutt Road to Tank Farm Road) 3) Broad Street (Tank Farm to City Limits) 4) Sacramento Drive (Orcutt Road to Capitolio Way) 5) Orcutt Road (Broad Street to Sacramento Drive) Figure 1 shows all the study intersections and Figure 2 shows the study roadways segments. ATTACHMENT J Page 241 of 309 Figure 1: Study Intersections ATTACHMENT J Page 242 of 309 Figure 2: Study Roadway Segments ATTACHMENT J Page 243 of 309 C. Local Thresholds of Significance, Methodologies, and Assumptions i. Local, Regional, and State Plans and Regulatory Policies The City of San Luis Obispo has established criteria to determine the level of significance of traffic impacts based on standards set in the SLO General Plan and the City’s Traffic Impact Study (TIS) guidelines and standards set by Caltrans. The following policies/goals are applicable to the proposed project and are related to the Multimodal Traffic Operations Analysis: SLO General Plan • Policy 4.1.4 – New Development: The City shall require that new development provide bikeways, secure storage facilities, parking facilities, and showers consistent with City plans and development standards. When evaluating transportation impact, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service Analysis. • Policy 5.1.3 – New Development: New Development shall provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths consistent with City policies, plans programs and standards. When evaluating transportation impact, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service Analysis. • Policy 6.1.2 – Multimodal Level of Service (LOS) Objectives, Service Standards, and Significance Criteria: The City shall strive to achieve level of service objectives and shall maintain level of service minimums for all four modes of travel: Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Transit, and Vehicles per the Highway Capacity Manual and the following Table (Table 1). Table 1: MMLOS Objectives & Service Standards (SLO General Plan) Travel Mode LOS Objective Minimum LOS Standard Bicycle1 B D Pedestrian2 B C Transit3 C Baseline LOS or LOS D, whichever is lower Vehicle C E (Downtown), D (All other Routes) • Policy 6.1.3 – In addition to maintaining minimum levels of service, multimodal service levels should be prioritized in accordance with the established modal priorities designated in Table 2 below, such that construction, expansion, or alteration for one mode should not degrade the service level of a higher priority mode. Note: (1) Bicycle LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. (2) Exceptions to minimum pedestrian LOS objectives & standards may apply when it’s determined that sidewalks are not consistent with the neighborhood character including topography, street design and existing density. (3) Transit LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s Short Range Transit Plan. ATTACHMENT J Page 244 of 309 Table 2: Modal Priorities for Level of Service (SLO General Plan) Complete Streets Areas Priority Mode Ranking Downtown & Upper Monterey Street 1. Pedestrians 2. Bicycles 3. Transit 4. Vehicle Residential Corridors & Neighborhoods 1. Pedestrians 2. Bicycles 3. Vehicle 4. Transit Commercial Corridors & Areas 1. Vehicles 2. Bicycles 3. Transit 4. Pedestrians Regional Arterial and Highway Corridors 1. Vehicles 2. Transit 3. Bicycles 4. Pedestrians • Policy 6.1.4 – Defining Significant Circulation Impact: Any degradation of the level of service shall be minimized to the extent feasible in accordance with the modal priorities established in Policy 6.1.3 and Table 2. If the level of service degrades below thresholds established in Policy 6.1.2 and Table 1, it shall be determined to be a significant impact for purposes of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For roadways already operating below the established MMLOS standards, any further degradation to the MMLOS score will be considered a significant impact under CEQA. Where a potential impact is identified, the City in accordance with the modal priorities established in Policy 6.1.3 and Table 2, can determine if the modal impact in question is adequately served through other means e.g., another parallel facility or like service. Based on this determination, a finding of no significant impact may be determined by the City. • Policy 6.1.5 – Mitigation: For significant impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of any improvements required. Potential improvements for alternative mode may include, but are not limited to: A. Pedestrian: Provision of sidewalk, providing or increasing a buffer from vehicular travel lanes, increased sidewalk clear width, providing a continuous barrier between pedestrians and vehicular travel lanes, increased sidewalk clear width, providing a continuous barrier between pedestrians and vehicle traffic, improved crossings, reduced signal delay, traffic calming, no right turn on red, reducing intersection crossing distance. B. Bicycle: Addition of a bicycle lane, traffic calming, provision of a buffer between bicycle and vehicle traffic, pavement resurfacing, reduced number of access points, or provision of an exclusive bicycle path, reducing intersection crossing distance. C. Transit: For transit-related impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of any infrastructural improvements required. This may involve provision of street furniture at transit stops, transit shelters, and/or transit shelter amenities, pullouts for transit vehicles, transit signal prioritization, provision of additional transit vehicles, or exclusive transit lanes. Note: Exceptions to multimodal priorities may apply when in conflict with safety or regulatory requirements or conflicts with area character, topography, street design, and existing density. ATTACHMENT J Page 245 of 309 • Policy 7.1.2 – Street Network: The City shall manage to the extent feasible the street network so that the standards presented in Table 1 are not exceeded. This will require new development to mitigate the traffic impacts it causes or the City to limit development that affects streets where congestion levels may be exceeded. • Policy 8.1.7 – New Project Evaluation: The City shall not approve development that impacts the quality of life and livability of residential neighborhoods by generating traffic conditions that significantly exceed the thresholds established in Table 1 except as provided under CEQA. The City shall also not approve development which significantly worsens already deficient residential neighborhood traffic conditions as established in Table 3 except as provided under CEQA. New development shall incorporate traffic calming features to minimize speeding and cut-through traffic. Table 3: Street Classification Descriptions and Standards Descriptions of Street Types Maximum ADT/LOS Desired Maximum Speeds1 Local Commercial Streets directly serve non-residential development that front them and channel traffic to commercial collector streets 5,000 25 MPH Local Residential Streets directly serve residential development that front them and channel traffic to minor and major residential collector streets 1,500 25 MPH Commercial Collector Streets collect traffic from commercial areas and channel it to arterials 10,000 25 MPH Residential Collector Streets (Minor) collect traffic from residential areas and channel it to arterials 3,000 25 MPH Residential Collector Streets (Major) collect traffic from neighborhood commercial, high density residential and residential areas and channel it to arterials 5,000 25 MPH Residential Arterials are bordered by residential property where preservation of neighborhood character is as important as providing for traffic flow and where speeds should be controlled. LOS D CVC* Arterial Streets provide circulation between major activity centers and residential areas LOS E (downtown) LOS D (other routes) CVC* Parkway Arterials/Regional Routes are arterial routes with landscaped medians where the number of cross streets is limited and direct access from fronting properties is discouraged. The routes connect the city with other parts of the county and are used by people traveling thoughout the county and state and are designated as primary traffic carriers. LOS D CVC* Highway/Freeway/Ramps are a regional route of significance where access is controlled. Segments of these routes leading into SLO should include landscaped medians and roadside areas to better define them as community entryways. LOS D CVC* * Speed Limits are dictated by prevailing speeds per the California Vehicle Code (CVC) • Policy 9.1.1 – New Development: The city shall require that new development assumes its fair share of responsibility for constructing new streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and bus turn-outs or reconstructing existing facilities. Note: (1) Desired Maximum Speed means that 85% of motorists using the street will drive at or slower than this speed. To account for seasonal shifts speeds shall be calculated using an annual average or for individual speed surveys the threshold shall be adjusted by 2.7 mph. ATTACHMENT J Page 246 of 309 SLO TIS Guidelines The San Luis Obispo Traffic Impact Study Guidelines provide guidance on how impacts are determined for facilities where project-related traffic causes standards of Level of Service, Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) or Queues be exceeded and for facilities already operating at deficient LOS, LTS or Queues. The following explains the specific thresholds of significance. Intersections: At signalized intersections, the following thresholds determine whether project-related LOS/Queue deficiencies are identified where: 1. Project causes minimum LOS standards to be exceeded or further degrades already exceeded LOS standards, and the V/C ratio is increased by .01 or more. 2. Project causes or exacerbates 95th percentile turning movement queues exceeding available turning pocket capacity by one vehicle length (25’) or more and presents a contextually significant safety hazard. 3. Project proposes roadway geometry changes that cause minimum LOS standards to be exceeded or further degrades already exceeded LOS standards for the overall intersection or individual lane groups. At roundabout intersections, the following thresholds determine whether project-related LOS/Queue deficiencies are identified where: 1. Project traffic causes minimum LOS standards to be exceeded or further degrades already exceeded LOS Standards and the V/C ratio is increased by 0.01 or more. 2. Project causes or exacerbates 95th percentile turning movement queues exceeding available turning pocket capacity by one vehicle length (25’) or more and presents a contextually significant safety hazard. 3. Project causes or exacerbates 95th percentile queues by at least one vehicle length (25’) at an adjacent intersection to the point where queues spill back into the roundabout functional area. 4. Project proposes roadway geometric changes that causes minimum LOS standards to be exceeded or further degrade already exceeded LOS standards. At unsignalized intersections, the following thresholds determine whether project-related LOS deficiencies are identified where: 1. Project traffic causes minimum LOS standards to be exceeded or further degrades already exceeded LOS standards and all of the following three conditions are met: a. V/C ratio is increased by 0.01 or more; and b. The project adds at least 10 trips to the critical approach/movement; and c. The intersection satisfies a signal warrant analysis. It should be noted that the satisfaction of signal warrants alone does not dictate that a traffic signal would be the required solution to address operational deficiencies. ATTACHMENT J Page 247 of 309 2.Project proposes roadway geometric changes that causes minimum LOS standards to be exceeded or further degrade already exceeded LOS standards. For bicycles and pedestrians, the following thresholds determine whether project-related LOS deficiencies are identified where: 1.Project traffic causes minimum LOS standards to be exceeded. 2.Project proposes modifications to roadway geometry that causes minimum LOS standards to be exceeded or conflicts with engineering best practices for design of safe intersection and driveway crossings. 3.Project-related traffic or geometric modifications further degrades already exceeded LOS standards and there is contextual significance to the impact. Contextual significance may be evaluated qualitatively and can generally be interpreted as a project-related action that results in a negative change to the bicycle/pedestrian environment that is likely to be noticeable to the average user. (i.e. a decrease in the effective buffer width between motor vehicles and bicyclists/pedestrians, addition of traffic adjacent to a bicycle/pedestrian facility that would be noticeable during a typical walk/bike trip, significant increases in crossing delays., etc.) Roadway Segments: For vehicles, the following thresholds determine whether project-related LOS deficiencies are identified where: 1.Project traffic causes minimum LOS standards for either direction to be exceeded, or further degrades already exceeded LOS standards and the Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) ratio increases by at least 0.01 with the project. 2.Project proposes roadway geometry changes that causes minimum LOS standards to be exceeded or further degrades already exceeded LOS standards. For bicycles and pedestrians, the following thresholds determine whether project-related LOS/LTS deficiencies are identified where: 1.Project traffic causes minimum LOS/LTS standards to be exceeded. 2.Project proposes modifications to roadway geometry that causes minimum LOS/LTS standards to be exceeded or conflicts with engineering best practices for bicycle and pedestrian facility design, including safety at intersection and driveway crossings. 3.Project-related traffic or geometric modifications further degrades already exceeded LOS standards and there is contextual significance to the impact. Contextual significance may be evaluated qualitatively and can generally be interpreted as a project-related action that results in a negative change to the bicycle/pedestrian environment that is likely to be noticeable to the average user. (i.e. a decrease in the effective buffer width between motor vehicles and bicyclists/pedestrians, addition of traffic adjacent to a bicycle/pedestrian facility that would be noticeable during a typical walk/bike trip, etc.) ATTACHMENT J Page 248 of 309 Caltrans Facilities under the jurisdiction of Caltrans include freeway segments, ramps, ramp terminals, and arterials. Caltrans is responsible for the maintenance and operation of State routes and highways. In San Luis Obispo, Caltrans facilities include Hwy 101 and SR 227. Although Caltrans has not designated a LOS standard, Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002) indicates attempts to maintain LOS of a State highway facility between the LOS “C/D” threshold. When existing State highway facilities are operating at higher levels of service than noted above, 20-year forecasts or general plan build-out analysis for the facility should be considered to establish equitable project contributions to local development impact fee programs that address cumulative traffic impacts. ii. Analysis Methodologies Intersection Analyses This study uses two different methods to determine vehicular Level of Service (LOS). Typically, the LOS criteria established in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 7th Edition published and updated by the Transportation Research Board is used for all study intersections. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) assigns vehicular intersection level of service (LOS) based on average control delay. Signalized intersection LOS is defined in terms of weighted average control delay for the entire intersection. However, the HCM 7th Edition methodology in Synchro 12 does not provide delay or LOS when signal timing includes non-standard ring-barrier structures (NEMA phasing). Therefore, the percentile delay method was used for analysis at signalized intersections where there is a non-standard ring-barrier structure present. The percentile delay method is based on HCM 2000 methodology that Synchro uses for optimization. Unsignalized intersection LOS criteria can be reduced into three intersection types: all-way stop control, two-way stop control, and roundabout control. All-way stop control intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the weighted average control delay for the entire intersection. Two-way stop- controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average control delay for each minor-street movement (or shared movement) as well as critical major-street left-turns. Roundabout control LOS is expressed using both average control delay for the intersection as well as LOS for the worst performing lane. Table 4 provides the relationship between LOS rating and delay for signalized and unsignalized intersections based on the HCM 7th Edition and HCM 2000 thresholds. ATTACHMENT J Page 249 of 309 Table 4: Level of Service Thresholds Based on Intersection Delay for Vehicles Level of Service Signalized Intersection Delay (sec) Unsignalized Intersection Delay (sec) A 0 ≤ D ≤ 10 0 ≤ D ≤ 10 B 10 < D ≤ 20 10 < D ≤ 15 C 20 < D ≤ 35 15 < D ≤ 25 D 35 < D ≤ 55 25 < D ≤ 35 E 55 < D ≤ 80 35 < D ≤ 50 F 80 < D 50 < D Criteria established in the HCM 7th edition will be also used to determine Pedestrian LOS (PLOS) and Bicycle LOS (BLOS) at the study intersections. For bicycles, Level of Service is assigned through a Level of Service score. This LOS score considers vehicular demand and cross-section properties including width of the cross street, outside through lane, bicycle lane, parking lane, and paved shoulder width. Bicycle LOS methodology only applies to signalized intersections, as no methodology has been developed in the HCM 7th edition to assess bicyclists at all-way stop control, two-way stop control, or roundabout controlled intersections. Therefore, a BLOS intersectional analysis was only conducted at signalized intersections. Table 5 provides the relationship between LOS rating and LOS Score evaluation BLOS for signalized intersections based on the HCM 7th Edition thresholds. BLOS will be provided for all intersection approaches, even if an approach does not have a dedicated bicycle lane. Table 5: Level of Service Thresholds Based on LOS Score at Signalized Intersections for Peds & Bikes Level of Service Level of Service Score A ≤ 1.50 B > 1.50-2.50 C > 2.50-3.50 D > 3.50-4.50 E > 4.50-5.50 F > 5.50 Pedestrian LOS methodology only applies to signalized intersections and two-way stop controlled intersections, as no methodology has been developed in the HCM 7th edition to assess pedestrians at all-way stop control or roundabout controlled intersections. Pedestrian LOS is assigned based on the type of control. At signalized intersections, the LOS score is used to determine LOS and follows the same relationship between rating and score for BLOS as shown in Table 5. This LOS score considers vehicular demand, cross-section properties, vehicular speed, and pedestrian delay. At two-way stop controlled intersections, LOS is determined based on the proportion of pedestrians that would rate their crossing experience as “dissatisfied” or worse. Pedestrian “satisfaction” or “dissatisfaction” is ATTACHMENT J Page 250 of 309 based on the probability of crossing the major street (or the street without the stop-control) without delay and the type(s) of treatment(s) provided at the major street crossing. The calculation of the proportion is also based on crosswalk length and width, pedestrian speed, pedestrian start-up time, and conflicting vehicular demand. Table 6 provides the relationship between LOS rating and proportion of pedestrians that would rate their crossing experience as “dissatisfied” at two-way stop controlled intersections based on the HCM 7th Edition thresholds. PLOS will be provided for each crossing at the intersection, even at crossings that do not have a marked crosswalk. Table 6: Level of Service Thresholds Based on Pedestrian "Dissatisfaction" at two-way stop controlled intersections Level of Service Proportion of Pedestrians “dissatisfied” Comments A PD < 0.05 Nearly all pedestrians would be satisfied B 0.05 ≤ PD < 0.15 At least 85% of pedestrians would be satisfied C 0.15 ≤ PD < 0.25 Fewer than one-quarter of pedestrians would be dissatisfied D 0.25 ≤ PD < 0.33 Fewer than one-third of pedestrians would be dissatisfied E 0.33 ≤ PD < 0.50 Fewer than one-half of pedestrians would be dissatisfied F PD ≥ 0.50 The majority of pedestrians would be dissatisfied Vehicle queuing analysis will be conducted for each lane or lane group that has a dedicated turn pocket. The queuing analysis will be performed via the 95th Percentile Queuing Analysis that is based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. The 95th Percentile queuing analysis is the potential queue where there is only 5% probability that the queue would be exceeded during the (analysis) time. In practice, the 95th Percentile queue is approximately 1.6 times the average (50th Percentile) queue for high-volume movements to approximately 2.0 times the average queue for low-volume movements. Roadway Segment Analyses Roadway segment analysis for vehicular operations will use guidelines presented in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element. The City uses daily volume thresholds, number of lanes, and whether the roadway is undivided or divided to designate Level of Service, as shown in Table 7 below. The daily volume thresholds will be bi-directional and will not be split in any one direction. Roadway segment analysis for bicycle operations will be performed using Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) methodology. The LTS methodology was published in the 2012 Mineta Transportation Institute Report 11-19: Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. This methodology measures how comfortable or stressful a given roadway segment is for a typical bicyclist. The perception of stress is based on the bicycle infrastructure present on the roadway segment as well as surrounding factors such as roadway speed limit, number of through lanes adjacent to the bike lane, and bike lane blockage. ATTACHMENT J Page 251 of 309 Table 7: Level of Service Thresholds Based on AADT Lanes Divided Level of Service A B C D E 2 Undivided 0 3,200 10,480 12,400 13,040 2 Undivided 0 4,000 13,100 15,500 16,300 2 Divided 0 4,200 13,755 15,500 16,300 4 Undivided 3,450 20,925 24,600 25,650 25,650 4 Undivided 4,370 26,505 31,160 32,490 32,490 4 Divided 4,600 27,900 32,800 34,200 34,200 6 Undivided 5,175 32,100 36,975 38,550 38,550 6 Undivided 6,555 40,660 46,835 48,830 48,830 6 Divided 6,900 42,800 49,300 51,400 51,400 Level of Traffic stress is quantified by using a ranking system from 1 to 4,with LTS 1 representing a comfortable, low stress experience for all users, while a LTS 4 represents a very stressful experience and is meant for only experienced riders. A shared-use path or trail that is physically separated from the roadway is typically considered LTS 1 and a roadway segment with limited or no bicycle facilities on a high speed arterial roadway segment is typically considered LTS 4. Figure 3 below, taken from the City’s Active transportation Plan, shows how each rank is categorized. Roadway segment analysis for pedestrian operations will be based on HCM 7th Edition methodology. A segment is composed of a link and a boundary intersection. A link can span multiple blocks when intersections between these blocks are not signalized or are controlled by two-way stops where the cross-street to the link stops and traffic parallel to the direction of the link does not stop. The boundary of a link is defined as where the link hits a signal or a stop that stops traffic on the link, this is also known as the boundary intersection. For segment evaluation, performance of the link and the boundary intersection must be considered, so link level of service and intersection level of service must be calculated. If there are multiple segments throughout the span of the given roadway boundaries, this is Figure 3: Level of Traffic Stress Ranking System ATTACHMENT J Page 252 of 309 considered a facility. Figure 4 outlines the boundaries of an intersection, link, segment, and facility, respectively. To determine the Level of service of a segment, pedestrian space and pedestrian LOS score are considered. Pedestrian space reflects the level of crowding on the sidewalk. Pedestrian space typically only influences overall pedestrian LOS when pedestrian facilities are very narrow, pedestrian volumes are very high, or both. Pedestrian LOS score considers pedestrian delay at the boundary intersection, pedestrian travel speed along the segment, vehicular volume along the link, vehicular speed along the segment, roadway cross-sectional properties, and sidewalk cross-sectional properties. Table 8 provides the relationship between Pedestrian Space, Pedestrian LOS Score and the LOS rating for a segment. The LOS for a facility is calculated by a length-weighted average of segment LOS scores. Pedestrian LOS analyses will be conducted for both directions along the roadway segment/facility. Table 8: Level of Service Thresholds based on Pedestrian Space & Pedestrian LOS score on Segments Segment-Based Pedestrian LOS Score Segment-Based Average Pedestrian Space (ft2/p) > 60 > 40 - 60 > 24 - 40 > 15 - 24 > 8.0 - 15 ≤ 8.0 ≤ 2.00 A B C D E F > 2.00 – 2.75 B B C D E F > 2.75 – 3.50 C C C D E F > 3.50 – 4.25 D D D D E F > 4.25 – 5.00 E E E E E F > 5.00 F F F F F F Figure 4: Pedestrian Segment LOS Analysis Components ATTACHMENT J Page 253 of 309 iii. Analysis Assumptions All Analyses were conducted during the weekday a.m. peak hour only because there will be no significant project impact to the transportation network during the p.m. peak hours. The p.m. peak hours were omitted from the analysis because the school generates little traffic during the typical p.m. peak hours (4-6 pm). City staff also confirmed that baseline traffic volumes within the vicinity of the project site during the existing pm peak (4-6 pm) are higher than existing volumes plus project traffic during the peak school afternoon pickup period(2:30-3:30 pm) , thus making the significance of the project-related traffic during the pm peak negligible. Vehicular heavy volume percentages were obtained from Replica 1. All conditions assumed the same heavy vehicle percentages. Similarly, all conditions assumed the same peak hour factor as the existing peak hour factors. The Existing and Existing Plus Project scenarios assumed existing traffic signal timings and parameters while the Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project scenarios used optimized traffic signal timings and parameters consistent with typical standards and best practices, if it was deemed necessary. The Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project scenarios also assumed changes to lane geometry and control changes at the following locations: • Lane changes at the intersection of Higuera Street & Madonna Road • Signal timing changes at the intersection of Higuera Street & South Street • Intersection control change (from signalized to roundabout control) at the intersections of Edna Road (SR227) & Buckley Road and Edna Road (SR227) & Los Ranchos Road • Lane changes at the intersection of Broad Street & Tank Farm Road These changes are part of anticipated transportation improvements that will occur within the City of San Luis Obispo with the buildout of the City’s General Plan Land use and circulation elements. These improvements are further expanded upon in the Intersection & Roadway Geometrics and Volumes section for the Cumulative Base conditions, as well as other assumptions made for the cumulative base model. Existing lane widths, parking designations, sidewalk widths and features, cross-section properties, crosswalk properties and crossing treatments were used for Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS calculations for all scenarios. In the Existing Plus Project scenario, pedestrian and bicycle demand was based on the existing pedestrian and bicycle demand plus pedestrian and bicycle trips created by the project. For the Cumulative scenario, pedestrian and bicycle demand was based on a growth rate determined by the City’s Travel Demand Forecasting Model. For the Cumulative Plus Project scenario, uses the cumulative pedestrian and bicycle demand plus the demand plus pedestrian and bicycle trips created by the project. 1 Replica is a nationwide activity-based model updated each week with near-real-time data on mobility, consumer spending, and land use at census-tract-level level. Replica uses activity-based travel models that simulate the movements of residents, visitors, and commercial vehicles in a given area. Data outputs can be queried down to the network link level. ATTACHMENT J Page 254 of 309 Baseline Analysis Conditions The Baseline Analysis analyzed the Existing Conditions near the project site and at the study intersections and study roadway segments. The Baseline Analysis also included Cumulative Base Conditions near the project site and at the study intersections and study roadway segments. However, the roadway geometrics, controls, and volumes for the cumulative base evaluated the cumulative buildout traffic projections for Year 2045. A. Intersection & Roadway Geometrics and Volumes i. Existing Conditions Figure 5 illustrates the existing vehicular intersection turning movement counts, lane geometry & traffic controls. Figure 6 illustrates the existing average daily traffic along the study roadway segments. Appendix A contains all the data for the collected vehicular turning movement counts and average daily volumes. The Appendix also contains collected pedestrian and bicycle counts at the study intersections and study segments. ATTACHMENT J Page 255 of 309 City of San Luis Obispo - 3450 Broad Street School Project - TIS Existing Condition - Peak Hour Volume & Controls Figure 5 7 Br o a d S t Capitolio Wy )0( 0 36 (0) 0 ( 0 ) 98 0 ( 0 ) 90 ( 0 ) )0( 31 76 3 ( 0 ) 35 ( 0 ) Br o a d S t 0 ( 0 ) Broad St (N/S) & Capitolio Wy (E/W) 4 )0( 02 )0( 74 Capitolio Wy Sa c r a m e n t o D r 33 (0) 37 ( 0 ) 72 ( 0 ) 11 ( 0 ) )0( 71 )0( 711 ( 0 ) 85 ( 0 ) 2 ( 0 ) )0( 4 Capitolio Wy Sa c r a m e n t o D r Sacramento Dr (N/S) & Capitolio Wy (E/W) 5 )0( 171 )0( 163 South St Br o a d S t 39 (0) 28 3 ( 0 ) 27 8 ( 0 ) )0( 411 )0( 0339 ( 0 ) 32 8 ( 0 ) 12 ( 0 ) )0( 21Br o a d S t Santa Barbara Ave 37 1 ( 0 ) Broad St (N/S) & South St /Santa Barbara Ave (E/W) 9 109 (0) 49 5 ( 0 ) 86 ( 0 ) 203 (0) 186 (0) Tank Farm Rd Tank Farm Rd Br o a d S t 254 (0) 19 1 ( 0 ) 59 2 ( 0 ) 14 6 ( 0 ) 156 (0) 205 (0) Br o a d S t 30 2 ( 0 ) Broad St (N/S) & Tank Farm Rd (E/W) # 30 ( 0 ) 93 4 ( 0 ) 12 ( 0 ) Aero Dr Br o a d S t 42 (0) )0( 0 )0( 6 Br o a d S t 58 ( 0 ) 55 6 ( 0 ) 33 ( 0 ) Broad St (N/S) & Aero Dr (E/W) # 0 ( 0 ) 1, 0 5 4 ( 0 ) 23 ( 0 ) Farmhouse Ln Br o a d S t 25 (0) 0 (0) 5 (0) Br o a d S t 0 ( 0 ) 66 0 ( 0 ) 69 ( 0 ) Broad St (N/S) & Farmhouse Ln (E/W) 8 Br o a d S t 37 (0) Industrial Wy )0( 8 )0( 77 1 (0) 3 (0) 4 (0) Br o a d S t 40 ( 0 ) 77 5 ( 0 ) Industrial Wy 20 ( 0 ) 91 1 ( 0 ) 55 ( 0 ) 10 6 ( 0 ) Broad St (N/S) & Industrial Wy (E/W) # Aerovista Pl Br o a d S t 28 (0) 81 ( 0 ) 92 1 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) )0( 0 )0( 31 Br o a d S t 15 1 ( 0 ) 64 9 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) Broad St (N/S) & Aerovista Pl (E/W) Hi g u e r a S t 7 (0) 39 0 ( 0 ) 30 7 ( 0 ) 9 ( 0 ) Driveway 7 (0) 3 (0) Madonna Rd Hi g u e r a S t 465 (15) )0( 31 440 (0)12 0 ( 0 ) 25 6 ( 0 ) 4 ( 0 ) Higuera St (N/S) & Madonna Rd/Driveway (E/W) 2 17 9 ( 0 ) 89 (0) tS htuoS 11 (0)Hi g u e r a S t 18 ( 0 ) 24 9 ( 0 ) South St Hi g u e r a S t )0( 51 13 (0) 15 (0) 31 ( 0 ) 21 2 ( 0 ) 45 7 ( 0 ) 486 (0) Higuera St (N/S) & South St (E/W) 3 560 (0) Orcutt Rd Sa c r a m e n t o D r 101 (0)15 ( 0 ) 4 ( 0 ) 2 ( 0 ) Du n c a n L n dR ttucrO 1 (0) 44 ( 0 ) 4 ( 0 ) )0( 274 71 ( 0 ) 15 (0) 60 (0) Sacramento Dr/Duncan Ln (N/S) & Orcutt Rd (E/W) 6 1 ( 0 ) 56 9 ( 0 ) 25 4 ( 0 ) Orcutt Rd Br o a d S t 306 (0) )0( 0 )0( 323 Br o a d S t 2 ( 0 ) 73 4 ( 0 ) 28 7 ( 0 ) Broad St (N/S) & Orcutt Rd (E/W) # 0 (0) Driveway 0 (0) Ed n a R d 1 (0) 34 5 ( 0 ) 42 (0) 344 (0) 34 0 ( 0 ) 1 ( 0 ) 88 ( 0 ) 94 1 ( 0 ) 1 ( 0 ) Ed n a R d Los Ranchos Rd 0 (0) Edna Rd (N/S) & Los Ranchos Rd/Driveway (E/W) # Br o a d S t 0 (0) Buckley Rd 3 (0) 176 (0) 48 ( 0 ) 51 2 ( 0 ) 2 ( 0 ) 73 (0) 22 4 ( 0 ) 1, 0 6 8 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 0 (0) Buckley Rd Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Buckley Rd (E/W) Legend Signal AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour * XX (XX) Stop-control )0(0 )0(3 3 (0) 22 (0) 0 (0) 6 (0) Driveway Driveway PM Peak Volumes are zero CFDBVTF no PM peak hour analysis was conducted for this project ATTACHMENT J Page 256 of 309 1 Ti bu r on W a y PradoRd O r cutt RdOrcutt R d Le ff F l ora S t t E Tank Farm Rd B u l l o c k L n H i gh S t Bi sh o p S t J o h n s o n A v e P o i n setti a S t La u relLn A u g u s t a St Southwood Dr B r o a d S t 227 227 South Hills Open Space Transitions Mental Health Association Old Mission Cemetery Sutcliffe Cemetery D a ve n por tC re e k B u ckley Rd Evans R d Cre s t m on t Dr Ho o v e rA v e 227San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport O r c u t t R d Islay Hill Park o n e P l LOS RANCHO City of San Luis Obispo - 3450 Broad Street School Project - TIS Existing Conditions - Segment Average Daily Traffic Figure 6 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles Legend Study Corridors City Boundary 1 2 3 4 5 1 28,296 cOOOOc u LaLaLaLaaaLaLa 5 16,256 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO rrr ccccccdRRdRRtttttututtRRddddd BBBBB uu l uu l uu l u l u l l u l l k L k L k L kk c k c k c k c o c oo c o c k o c oooo c c o c k c k L L 4 RdRdRdtttttuuttutRRtRdd4,541 nnnn L n L n L n L n 2 26,652 3 20,509 Segment ADT XX S a c r a m e n t o D r S a c r a m e n t o D r B r o a d S t B r o a d S t Project Site ATTACHMENT J Page 257 of 309 ii. Cumulative Base Conditions The intersection & roadway geometrics under the Cumulative Base Condition are based on the anticipated transportation improvements that will occur within the City of San Luis Obispo with the buildout of the City’s General Plan Land use and circulation elements. The following transportation improvements will change the intersection & roadway geometrics: • Higuera Street & Madonna Road intersection o Convert the northbound shared through/left-turn lane to a dedicated left-turn lane o Convert the southbound shared through/left-turn lane to a through-turn lane o Convert the westbound dedicated left-turn lane to a shared through/left-turn lane o Change cycle length and update various signal timing parameters including minimum green, yellow time, all-red time, walk time, flash don’t walk time, and maximum splits • Higuera Street and South Street intersection o Change cycle length and update various signal timing parameters including minimum green, yellow time, all-red time, walk time, and maximum splits • Broad Street & Tank Farm Road intersection o An additional southbound left-turn lane pocket with 200’ in storage length o A new dedicated northbound right turn lane pocket with 200’ in storage length o Convert the westbound right-turn lane to a shared through/right-turn lane • Multilane roundabouts will be constructed at Edna Road (SR 227)/Buckley Road and Edna Road (SR 227)/Los Ranchos Road. The roundabouts will have the following features at each intersection: o Edna Road (SR 227)/Buckley Road: Shared through/right-turn lane and shared through/left-turn lane on the northbound and southbound approaches. A shared through/left-turn lane and a dedicated right-turn lane with a channelized island on the eastbound approach. A shared through/left-turn/right-turn lane on the westbound approach. o Edna Road (SR 227)/Los Ranchos Road: Shared through/right-turn lane and shared through/left-turn lane on the northbound and southbound approaches. A shared through/right-turn lane and a dedicated left-turn lane on the eastbound approach. A shared through/left-turn/right-turn lane on the westbound approach. o Both roundabouts will also install pedestrian crossings with splitter islands across each approach. Cumulative traffic volume forecasts were developed using the City’s travel demand forecasting model, and assumed full development of the San Luis Ranch, Avila Ranch, Froom Ranch Specific Plan, Orcutt Area Specific Plan and Margarita Area Specific Plan developments. The travel demand forecasting model also assumed that the transportation improvements detailed above will be implemented by ATTACHMENT J Page 258 of 309 2045. Additionally, the following key transportation changes were incorporated into the forecasting model, but did not directly change any intersection or roadway geometrics: • Extension of Prado Road as a four-lane regional route from South Higuera Street to Broad Street with a new intersection between Capitolio Way and Industrial Way • Construction of a new interchange at Prado Road and US 101 along with replacement of the Prado Road Creek Bridge • Bullock Lane is extended as a residential collector, connecting Orcutt Road with Tank Farm Road Once the changes were verified, the forecasting model was used to obtain the cumulative intersection turning movement counts and roadway daily traffic volumes. A delta method was used between the existing counts, the 2016 base year volumes, and the proposed 2045 forecast volumes to calibrate the model. The delta method ensured that any volume discrepancies between existing volumes and baseline volumes were minimized. Here is a breakdown of other assumptions made in the model. • The model AM time period was 7-8AM and the project AM period is 7-9AM • Growth of one-hour AM Intersection Turning Movements were estimated from model output, as follows o The growth from 2025 to 2045 was calculated by linear interpolation of delta of (2040- 2016) AM ITM • Growth times 2, to reflect growth in two-hour AM period, was added to the observed volume to get AM Intersection Turning Movements o If the growth was calculated to be negative, observed volumes were assumed, effectively setting a floor of zero growth. Figure 7 illustrates the Cumulative vehicular intersection turning movement counts, lane geometry & traffic controls. Figure 8 illustrates the Cumulative average daily traffic along the study roadway segments. ATTACHMENT J Page 259 of 309 City of San Luis Obispo - 3450 Broad Street School Project - TIS Cumulative Conditions- Peak Hour Volume & Controls Figure 7 1 Driveway Hi g u e r a S t Hi g u e r a S t Madonna Rd Higuera St (N/S) & Driveway/Madonna Rd (E/W)2 South St Hi g u e r a S t Hi g u e r a S t tS htuoS Higuera St (N/S) & South St (E/W) 3 Orcutt Rd Sa c r a m e n t o D r Du n c a n L n dR ttucrO Sacramento Dr/Duncan Ln (N/S) & Orcutt Rd (E/W)4 Sa c r a m e n t o D r Capitolio Wy Capitolio Wy Sa c r a m e n t o D r Sacramento Dr (N/S) & Capitolio Wy (E/W) 5 Santa Barbara Ave Br o a d S t South St Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & South St /Santa Barbara Ave (E/W) )0( 112 )0( 163 39 (0) 28 3 ( 0 ) 69 6 ( 0 ) )0( 911 )0( 6748 ( 0 ) 56 7 ( 0 ) 16 ( 0 ) )0( 71 59 1 ( 0 ) Br o a d S t Orcutt Rd Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Orcutt Rd (E/W) Br o a d S t Farmhouse Ln Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Farmhouse Ln (E/W) # Br o a d S t Buckley Rd Buckley Rd Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Buckley Rd (E/W) # Driveway Ed n a R d Los Ranchos Rd Ed n a R d Edna Rd (N/S) & Los Ranchos Rd/Driveway (E/W) # Br o a d S t Aero Dr Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Aero Dr (E/W) 7 Br o a d S t Br o a d S t Capitolio Wy Broad St (N/S) & Capitolio Wy (E/W) 8 Industrial Wy Br o a d S t Br o a d S t Industrial Wy Broad St (N/S) & Industrial Wy (E/W) # Br o a d S t Aerovista Pl Br o a d S t Aerovista Pl (E/W)Broad St (N/S) & 9 Br o a d S t Tank Farm Rd Tank Farm Rd Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Tank Farm Rd (E/W) 14 (0) 53 2 ( 0 ) 30 7 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 12 (0) 3 (0) 465 (0) )0( 31 440 (0)12 0 ( 0 ) 34 2 ( 0 ) 4 ( 0 ) 1,060 (0) 461 (0)19 ( 0 ) 21 ( 0 ) 2 ( 0 ) 17 9 ( 0 ) 89 (0)1 (0) 44 ( 0 ) 13 ( 0 ) 21 (0) 18 ( 0 ) 42 1 ( 0 ) )0( 055)0( 81 13 (0) 31 (0)11 9 ( 0 ) 67 ( 0 ) 40 7 ( 0 ) 45 7 ( 0 ) 18 (0) 66 (0) 486 (0) )0( 02 )0( 74 111 (0) 37 ( 0 ) 93 ( 0 ) 11 ( 0 ) )0( 71 )0( 1124 9 ( 0 ) 20 1 ( 0 ) 91 ( 0 ) )0( 42 1 ( 0 ) 72 1 ( 0 ) 36 6 ( 0 ) 505 (0) )0( 4 )0( 0142 ( 0 ) 73 4 ( 0 ) 39 5 ( 0 ) )0( 0 36 (0) 0 ( 0 ) 1, 4 0 0 ( 0 ) 90 ( 0 ) )0( 731 98 2 ( 0 ) 17 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 67 (0) )0( 01 )0( 77 6 (0) 78 (0) 4 (0) 40 ( 0 ) 89 0 ( 0 ) 11 2 ( 0 ) 1, 1 9 3 ( 0 ) 55 ( 0 ) 10 6 ( 0 ) 109 (0) 60 6 ( 0 ) 11 3 ( 0 ) 450 (0) 186 (0) 359 (0) 36 9 ( 0 ) 63 4 ( 0 ) 14 6 ( 0 ) 182 (0) 429 (0) 53 5 ( 0 ) 35 (0) 81 ( 0 ) 1, 0 5 5 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) )0( 0 )0( 31 18 9 ( 0 ) 93 7 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 30 ( 0 ) 1, 0 0 7 ( 0 ) 12 ( 0 ) 51 (0) )0( 0 )0( 6 12 0 ( 0 ) 55 6 ( 0 ) 16 1 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 1, 1 2 7 ( 0 ) 24 ( 0 ) 25 (0) 0 (0) 19 (0)0 ( 0 ) 66 0 ( 0 ) 69 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 3 (0) 176 (0) 48 ( 0 ) 59 6 ( 0 ) 2 ( 0 ) 73 (0) 49 3 ( 0 ) 1, 1 4 4 ( 0 ) 18 6 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 34 5 ( 0 ) 42 (0) 344 (0) 42 0 ( 0 ) 1 ( 0 ) 88 ( 0 ) 1, 4 7 3 ( 0 ) 1 ( 0 ) 0 (0) )0(171 )0(163 39 (0) 25 (0) 0 (0) 5 (0) Legend Signal AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour* Roundabout Stop-control XX (XX) Driveway Driveway 1.1FBL7PMVNFTBSF[FSPCFDBVTFOP PM peak hour analysis was conducted for this project ATTACHMENT J Page 260 of 309 1 Ti bu r on W a y PradoRd O r cutt RdOrcutt R d Le ff F l ora S t t E Tank Farm Rd B u l l o c k L n H i gh S t Bi sh o p S t J o h n s o n A v e P o i n setti a S t La u relLn A u g u s t a St Southwood Dr B r o a d S t 227 227 South Hills Open Space Transitions Mental Health Association Old Mission Cemetery Sutcliffe Cemetery D a ve n por tC re e k B u ckley Rd Evans R d Cre s t m on t Dr Ho o v e rA v e 227San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport O r c u t t R d Islay Hill Park o n e P l LOS RANCHO City of San Luis Obispo - 3450 Broad Street School Project - TIS Cumulative Condition- Segment Average Daily Traffic Figure 8 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles Legend Study Corridors City Boundary 1 2 3 4 5 1 30,123 cOOOOc u LaLaLaLaaaLaLa 5 18,534 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO rrr ccccccdRRdRRtttttututtRRddddd BBBBB uu l uu l uu l u l u l l u l l k L k L k L kk c k c k c k c o c oo c o c k o c oooo c c o c k c k L L 4 RdRdRdtttttuuttutRRtRdd5,403 nnnn L n L n L n L n 2 32,705 3 21,307 Segment ADT XX S a c r a m e n t o D r S a c r a m e n t o D r B r o a d S t B r o a d S t Project Site ATTACHMENT J Page 261 of 309 B. LOS Analysis i. Existing Conditions Intersection Analyses AMG developed existing conditions traffic simulation models using Synchro 12 software using existing lane configuration, traffic signal timings and traffic volumes. The results of the vehicle LOS and delay analysis conducted at the signalized intersections are summarized in Table 9. The results of the vehicle LOS and delay analysis conducted at the unsignalized intersections are summarized in Table 10. Table 9: Existing Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Signalized intersections Table 10: Existing Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Unsignalized intersections All the intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better except for the Edna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road intersection that operates at LOS E. Note that design for the installation of a roundabout Delay LOS 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road*17.4 B 2 Higuera Street & South Street 31.7 C 3 Orcutt Road & Sacramento Drive/Duncan Road*10.6 B 5 Broad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue*26.7 C 6 Broad Street & Orcutt Road 25.0 C 8 Broad Street & Industrial Way 15.5 B 9 Broad Street & Tank Farm Road 28.2 C 11 Broad Street & Aero Drive 13.3 B 13 Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road*31.8 C 14 Edna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road*69.9 E #Intersection Existing Conditions Legend: * = Uses HCM 2000 for Analysis due to non-standard phasing (NEMA) Intersections highlighted in Light Blue are Caltrans Intersections Approach Delay LOS Movement Delay LOS EB 11.1 B NBL 7.5 A WB 11.3 B SBL 7.4 A NBTR 0.0 A SBTL 10.5 B NBL 10.4 B SBR 0.0 A NBR 0.0 A SBL 13.0 B12Broad Street & Farmhouse Lane WB 28.1 D 7 Broad Street & Capitolio Way WB 15.1 C 10 Broad Street & Aerovista Place EB 19.5 C Existing Conditions #Intersection Minor Street Approaches - Unsignalized Major Street Turning Movements -Unsignalized 4 Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way ATTACHMENT J Page 262 of 309 is currently underway, the intersection will improve to LOS D or better after the improvement is complete. Appendix B contains the Existing conditions Synchro analysis reports. The results for the Bicycle LOS and delay analysis are summarized in Table 11. All the intersection approaches operate at acceptable LOS D. Appendix B contains the existing conditions bicycle delay and LOS calculations. Delay (s/b)Score LOS EB 28.23 3.11 C WB 42.16 2.72 C NB 24.56 2.10 B SB 33.58 2.86 C EB 32.27 2.92 C WB 23.19 2.71 C NB 28.52 2.31 B SB 21.25 1.73 B EB 24.70 1.56 B WB 19.18 1.89 B NB 36.51 1.96 B SB 36.47 1.82 B EB 51.55 4.17 D WB 50.76 2.37 B NB 33.81 2.56 C SB 49.11 2.03 B EB 50.66 2.92 C WB 41.22 3.23 C NB 36.91 2.90 C SB 27.68 2.76 C EB 49.49 3.35 C WB 44.56 3.46 C NB 23.73 2.47 B SB 22.86 2.37 B EB 59.76 2.95 C WB 52.84 3.38 C NB 47.26 2.65 C SB 48.69 2.49 B EB 45.18 1.87 B WB 45.45 2.40 B NB 12.11 2.43 B SB 12.18 1.34 A EB 63.07 1.61 B WB N/A 1.57 B NB 13.54 3.10 C SB 39.73 3.57 D EB 46.93 3.92 D WB 62.44 3.01 C NB 20.15 2.77 C SB 27.65 2.44 B #Intersection Approach Existing Conditions 3 Orcutt Road & Sacramento Drive/Duncan Road 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road 2 Higuera Street & South Street 8 Broad Street & Industrial Way 13 Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road 5 Broad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue 6 Broad Street & Orcutt Road 14 Edna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road 11 Broad Street & Aero Drive 9 Broad Street & Tank Farm Road Table 11: Existing Conditions Bicycle LOS results ATTACHMENT J Page 263 of 309 The results for the Pedestrian LOS and delay analysis are summarized in Table 12. Many of the crossings operate below acceptable LOS C. At the signalized intersections, this may be due to low effective green walk time for that crossing, high conflicting vehicular demand, or there are many lanes that the pedestrian must cross. At the unsignalized intersections, this may be due to the crossings being unmarked crosswalks and that there are many lanes that the pedestrian must cross. Appendix B contains the existing conditions pedestrian delay and LOS calculations. Table 12: Existing Conditions Pedestrian LOS results Score LOS EB 3.46 C WB 1.98 B NB 2.62 C SB 3.98 D EB 2.05 B WB 3.02 C NB 4.17 D SB 2.50 B EB 2.78 C WB 2.64 C NB 2.28 B SB 2.00 B NB 0.52 F SB 0.50 E EB 3.59 D WB 2.25 B NB 3.59 D SB 2.59 C EB 1.96 B WB 3.58 D NB 3.74 D SB 2.93 C NB 0.80 F SB 0.80 F EB 2.04 B WB 2.19 B NB 3.24 C SB 2.97 C EB 3.36 C WB 2.70 C NB 3.43 C SB 3.76 D NB 0.73 F SB 0.76 F EB 2.05 B WB 2.07 B NB 2.84 C SB 3.04 C NB 0.84 F SB 0.84 F EB 2.94 C WB 1.75 B NB 3.32 C SB 3.23 C EB 2.57 C WB 1.74 B NB 2.91 C SB 4.25 D OWSBroad Street & Farmhouse Lane12 Signal SignalEdna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road14 13 Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road OWSBroad Street & Aerovista Place10 Broad Street & Aero Drive Signal11 SignalBroad Street & Industrial Way 8 SignalBroad Street & Tank Farm Road9 SignalBroad Street & Orcutt Road6 OWSBroad Street & Capitolio Way7 Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way TWS4 SignalBroad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue5 SignalOrcutt Road & Sacramento Drive/Duncan Road3 Higuera Street & South Street2 Signal Existing Conditions 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road Signal #Intersection Existing Control Crosswalk ATTACHMENT J Page 264 of 309 Roadway Analyses Using existing geometric conditions and traffic volumes, Existing conditions level of service for vehicles and pedestrians, and level of traffic stress for cyclists were evaluated. The results of the vehicle LOS analysis are summarized in Table 13 . All roadway segments are within the acceptable LOS D for arterials and regional routes and below the maximum ADT threshold (10,000 vehicles) for commercial collector streets. The results of the bicycle level of traffic stress are summarized in Table 14. The existing LTS is at rank 4 due to the perception of high stress a cyclists feel while riding on the study roadways. The perceived stress is high due to high roadway speed limit and large vehicular demand on the through lanes adjacent to the bike lane. The results of the pedestrian LOS analysis are summarized in Table 15. Some of the segments operate below acceptable LOS C. This is due to the narrow sidewalks, narrow buffers between the sidewalks and the roadway, and high crossing delay at the boundary intersection. Appendix B contains the existing conditions pedestrian delay and LOS calculations. Table 13: Existing Conditions Vehicle Roadway Segment LOS results Table 14: Existing Conditions Bicycle Roadway Segment LTS results Broad St (South to Orcutt) 4 Broad St (Orcutt to Tank Farm)4 Broad St (Tank Farm to City Limits 4 Sacramento Dr (Orcutt to Capitolio) 3 Orcutt Rd (Broad to Sacramento) 4 Segment Existing LTS ADT LOS Broad St (South to Orcutt) Arterial 4 YES 28,296 C Broad St (Orcutt to Tank Farm)Regional Route 4 YES 26,652 B Broad St (Tank Farm to City Limits Regional Route 2 or 4 YES 20,509 B Sacramento Dr (Orcutt to Capitolio) Collector 2 NO 4,541 C Orcutt Rd (Broad to Sacramento) Arterial 4 YES 16,256 B Segment ExistingRoad Type DividedLanes ATTACHMENT J Page 265 of 309 ii. Cumulative Baseline Conditions Intersection Analyses AMG developed Cumulative conditions traffic simulation models using Synchro 12 software using the existing lane configurations in addition to the corresponding intersection and roadway geometric changes based on the anticipated transportation improvements that will occur within the City of San Luis Obispo with the buildout of the City’s General Plan Land use and circulation elements. Cumulative traffic volumes were obtained from the travel forecasting model. Cumulative signal timings were optimized based on best practices to improve overall intersection performance. The results of the vehicle LOS and delay analysis conducted at the signalized intersections are summarized in Table 16. The results of the vehicle LOS and delay analysis conducted at the stop controlled intersections are summarized in Table 17. The results of the vehicle LOS and delay analysis conducted at the roundabout controlled intersections are summarized in Table 18. Broad St (South to Orcutt) 9,883 3.68 D 6,123 3.30 C Broad St (Orcutt to Tank Farm)7,220 3.35 C 14,657 3.56 D Broad St (Tank Farm to City Limits 50,361 3.50 D 37,771 3.62 D Sacramento (Orcutt to Capitolio) 9,332 2.73 B 3,485 1.39 A Orcutt (Broad to Sacramento) 6,123 2.94 C 9,883 3.46 C Segment LOS SB or WB Ped Space (ft2/s) SB or WB Ped LOS score Existing NB or EB Ped Space (ft2/s)LOSNB or EB Ped LOS score Table 15: Existing Conditions Pedestrian Roadway Segment LOS results Delay LOS 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road*32.8 C 2 Higuera Street & South Street 34.5 C 3 Orcutt Road & Sacramento Drive/Duncan Road*18.5 B 5 Broad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue*31.9 C 6 Broad Street & Orcutt Road 34.9 C 8 Broad Street & Industrial Way 21.2 C 9 Broad Street & Tank Farm Road 38.4 D 11 Broad Street & Aero Drive 35.3 D #Intersection Cumulative Conditions Legend: * = Uses HCM 2000 for Analysis due to non-standard phasing (NEMA) Table 16: Cumulative Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Signalized intersections ATTACHMENT J Page 266 of 309 All the signalized intersections and both roundabout intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better. The two-way stop controlled intersection at Broad Street & Aerovista Place operates at acceptable LOS D, while the rest of the stop controlled intersections operate below acceptable LOS D. These intersections fall below acceptable levels of service due to the increasing vehicular demand on the main streets, making it difficult for the vehicles to exit the minor streets. These intersections should be monitored to see if all-way stop control or signalization is warranted in the future. Appendix C contains the Cumulative conditions Synchro analysis reports. The results for the Bicycle LOS and delay analysis are summarized in Table 19 . All the intersection approaches operate at acceptable LOS D. Appendix C contains the cumulative conditions bicycle delay and LOS calculations. The results for the Pedestrian LOS and delay analysis are summarized in Table 20 . Many of the crossings operate below acceptable LOS C. At the signalized intersections, this may be due to low effective green walk time for that crossing, high conflicting vehicular demand, or there are many lanes that the pedestrian must cross. At the unsignalized intersections, this may be due to the crossings being unmarked crosswalks and that there are many lanes that the pedestrian must cross. Appendix C contains the cumulative conditions pedestrian delay and LOS calculations. Table 18: Cumulative Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Stop controlled intersections Approach Delay LOS Movement Delay LOS EB 72.0 F NBL 8.8 A WB 18.5 C SBL 7.7 A NBTR 0.0 A SBTL 13.9 B NBL 13.6 B SBR 0.0 A NBR 0.0 A SBL 14.3 B12Broad Street & Farmhouse Lane WB 39.8 E 7 Broad Street & Capitolio Way WB 163.5 F 10 Broad Street & Aerovista Place EB 30.8 D Cumulative Conditions #Intersection Minor Street Approaches - Unsignalized Major Street Turning Movements -Unsignalized 4 Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way Table 17: Cumulative Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Roundabout intersections Delay LOS Approach Delay LOS Movement Delay LOS EB 9.4 A NBTR 29.7 D WB 0.0 A SBLT 12.8 B EB 7.1 A NBTR 52.2 F WB 18.2 C SBLT & SBTR 6.8 A Minor Street Approaches - Unsignalized Major Street Turning Movements - Unsignalized Cumulative Conditions #Intersection Intersection 21.8 C 30.9 D 13 Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road 14 Edna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road Note: Both intersections are Caltrans intersections ATTACHMENT J Page 267 of 309 Delay (s/b)Score LOS EB 41.73 3.11 C WB 66.49 2.74 C NB 27.98 2.57 C SB 39.81 2.98 C EB 47.18 2.96 C WB 30.86 2.73 C NB 35.85 2.52 C SB 30.44 1.88 B EB 40.46 1.64 B WB 16.84 2.64 C NB 55.46 2.06 B SB 55.39 1.85 B EB 50.61 4.24 D WB 46.97 2.48 B NB 27.90 3.15 C SB 40.58 2.27 B EB 50.75 2.92 C WB 37.24 3.76 D NB 33.15 3.14 C SB 23.08 2.86 C EB 45.30 3.49 C WB 43.07 3.51 D NB 23.81 2.57 C SB 20.96 2.70 C EB 58.00 3.26 C WB 46.79 3.17 C NB 40.93 2.83 C SB 45.86 2.80 C EB 44.82 1.89 B WB 44.82 2.50 B NB 19.04 2.50 B SB 12.00 1.52 B #Intersection Approach Cumulative Conditions 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road 2 Higuera Street & South Street 3 Orcutt Road & Sacramento Drive/Duncan Road 9 Broad Street & Tank Farm Road 11 Broad Street & Aero Drive 5 Broad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue 6 Broad Street & Orcutt Road 8 Broad Street & Industrial Way Table 19: Cumulative Conditions Bicycle LOS results ATTACHMENT J Page 268 of 309 Score LOS EB 3.50 C WB 2.00 B NB 2.66 C SB 4.22 D EB 2.18 B WB 3.04 C NB 4.26 D SB 2.60 C EB 2.97 C WB 2.93 C NB 3.04 C SB 2.03 B NB 0.59 F SB 0.57 F EB 3.60 D WB 2.38 B NB 4.20 D SB 2.75 C EB 1.97 B WB 4.20 D NB 4.11 D SB 3.04 C NB 0.88 F SB 0.88 F EB 2.09 B WB 2.25 B NB 3.34 C SB 3.37 C EB 4.18 D WB 2.83 C NB 3.62 D SB 4.45 D NB 0.82 F SB 0.84 F EB 2.08 B WB 2.42 B NB 2.87 C SB 3.27 C NB 0.85 F SB 0.85 F 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road Signal 2 Higuera Street & South Street Signal #Intersection Existing Control Crosswalk Cumulative Conditions 3 Orcutt Road & Sacramento Drive/Duncan Road Signal 4 Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way TWS 5 Broad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue Signal 6 Broad Street & Orcutt Road Signal 7 Broad Street & Capitolio Way OWS 8 Broad Street & Industrial Way Signal 9 Broad Street & Tank Farm Road Signal 10 Broad Street & Aerovista Place OWS 11 Broad Street & Aero Drive Signal 12 Broad Street & Farmhouse Lane OWS Table 20: Cumulative Conditions Pedestrian LOS results ATTACHMENT J Page 269 of 309 Roadway Analyses Using cumulative geometric conditions and traffic volumes, Cumulative conditions level of service for vehicles and pedestrians, and level of traffic stress for cyclists were evaluated. The results of the vehicle LOS analysis are summarized in Table 21. All roadway segments are within the acceptable LOS D for arterials and regional routes and below the maximum ADT threshold (10,000 vehicles) for commercial collector streets. The results of the bicycle level of traffic stress are summarized in Table 22. Compared to existing conditions, the Level of Traffic Stress will be improved on all roadway segments under Cumulative conditions. The city is currently in the process of installing a bicycle buffer with raised pavement markers along some portions of Sacramento Drive between Orcutt Road and Capitolio Way as well as green bike lane conflict markings at intersections and high traffic driveways. This will improve the LTS 3 ranking to a LTS 2 ranking on Sacramento Drive. Per the city’s Active Transportation Plan, the city is proposing to install protected bike lanes along Broad Street from South Street all the way to Farmhouse Lane (City Limits) and along Orcutt Road between Broad Street and Johnson Avenue within the General Plan & Circulation element’s buildout timeline. If the protected bike lanes are installed, the LTS 4 ranking will improve to a LTS 2 ranking on Broad Street and Orcutt Road. The results of the pedestrian LOS analysis are summarized in Table 23. Some of the segments operate below acceptable LOS C. This is due to the narrow sidewalks, narrow buffers between the sidewalks and the roadway, and high crossing delay at the boundary intersection. Appendix C contains the cumulative conditions pedestrian delay and LOS calculations. Table 21: Cumulative Conditions Vehicle Roadway Segment LOS results Table 22: Cumulative Conditions Bicycle Roadway Segment LTS results ADT LOS Broad St (South to Orcutt) Arterial 4 YES 30,123 C Broad St (Orcutt to Tank Farm)Regional Route 4 YES 32,705 C Broad St (Tank Farm to City Limits Regional Route 2 or 4 YES 21,307 B Sacramento Dr (Orcutt to Capitolio) Collector 2 NO 5,403 C Orcutt Rd (Broad to Sacramento) Arterial 4 YES 18,534 B Segment CumulativeRoad Type DividedLanes Broad St (South to Orcutt) 2 Broad St (Orcutt to Tank Farm)2 Broad St (Tank Farm to City Limits 2 Sacramento Dr (Orcutt to Capitolio) 2 Orcutt Rd (Broad to Sacramento) 2 Segment Cumulative LTS ATTACHMENT J Page 270 of 309 C. Intersection Queuing For vehicle queuing analysis, Synchro 12 software was used to obtain the 95th percentile queues at most of the study intersections. However, if oversaturated conditions were present at a study intersection, SimTraffic microsimulation analysis was conducted to obtain 95th percentile queues. SimTraffic analysis was also used at Caltrans intersections, as it is a Caltrans requirement. Caltrans requires that SimTraffic analysis uses five (5) SimTraffic runs, four 15-minute intervals with a 10-minute seeding period. i. Existing Conditions The results of the vehicle queuing analysis under Existing conditions are summarized in Table 24. Most of the lanes or lane groups with a dedicated turn pocket have an existing 95th percentile queue that does not extend past the available storage length under existing conditions. Appendix B contains the 95th percentile Synchro and SimTraffic reports under the existing conditions. Broad St (South to Orcutt) 4,647 4.11 D 3,485 3.78 D Broad St (Orcutt to Tank Farm)4,899 3.71 D 7,264 3.95 D Broad St (Tank Farm to City Limits 50,361 3.74 D 37,771 3.78 D Sacramento (Orcutt to Capitolio) 2,796 3.23 C 1,300 2.33 B Orcutt (Broad to Sacramento) 3,485 3.41 C 4,647 3.61 D Segment Cumulative NB or EB Ped Space (ft2/s) NB or EB Ped LOS score LOSLOSSB or WB Ped Space (ft2/s) SB or WB Ped LOS score Table 23: Cumulative Conditions Pedestrian Roadway Segment LOS results ATTACHMENT J Page 271 of 309 Synchro Simtraffic ID #Intersection Movements Total Existing Storage Length (ft.) Existing 95th Queue Length (ft.) Existing 95th Queue Length (ft.) NBL 160 116 SBT1 220 126 SBT2 220 126 EBR 110 32 NBL 60 39 51 NBR 150 38 153 SBL 100 189 143 EBR 50 0 36 WBL1 230 150 163 NBL 90 38 SBL 50 5 EBL 120 19 WBL 120 69 NBL1 250 150 NBL2 250 150 NBR 200 60 SBL 100 28 EBL 170 58 NBL 130 6 NBR 200 12 SBL1 350 193 SBL2 350 193 WBL 210 164 EBR 50 0 NBL 150 57 NBR 170 33 SBL 110 68 SBR 430 0 EBR 100 0 WBR 180 0 NBL1 280 103 NBL2 280 103 SBL 250 141 SBR 300 64 EBL1 270 122 EBL2 270 122 EBR 130 68 WBL 150 174 NBL 150 47 SBL 200 51 EBR 120 0 NBL 360 242 168 SBL 400 10 12 SBR 400 17 41 EBTL 440 110 83 NBL 220 164 132 SBL 80 8 0 SBR 110 65 147 EBR 265 0 81 3 Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way4 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road Higuera Street & South Street*2 N/A N/A Broad Street & Industrial Way 8 5 7 Broad Street & Capitolio Way Broad Street & Orcutt Road6 Broad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14 Broad Street & Tank Farm Road9 Broad Street & Farmhouse Lane12 Broad Street & Aero Drive11 Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road**13 10 Broad Street & Aerovista Place N/A N/A N/A N/A Edna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road** Orcutt Road & Sacramento Drive / Duncan Road Legend: * = Used Simtraffic due to oversaturated conditions ** = Used Simtraffic due to Caltrans guidelines Table 24: Existing Conditions 95th Percentile Queuing Analysis results ATTACHMENT J Page 272 of 309 ii. Cumulative Baseline Conditions The results of the vehicle queuing analysis under Cumulative conditions are summarized in Table 25. Most of the lanes or lane groups with a dedicated turn pocket have an existing 95th percentile queue that does not extend past the available storage length under cumulative conditions. Appendix C contains the 95th percentile Synchro and SimTraffic reports under the cumulative conditions. ATTACHMENT J Page 273 of 309 Synchro Simtraffic ID #Intersection Movements Total Cumulative Storage Length (ft.) Cumulative 95th Queue Length (ft.) Cumulative 95th Queue Length (ft.) NBL1 160 96 NBL2 160 96 SBT 220 167 EBR 110 57 NBL 60 91 NBR 150 61 SBL 100 201 EBR 50 0 WBL1 130 225 NBL 90 41 SBL 50 6 EBL 120 23 WBL 120 356 NBL1 250 178 NBL2 250 178 NBR 200 264 SBL 100 40 EBL 170 68 NBL 130 6 NBR 200 17 SBL1 350 262 SBL2 350 262 WBL 210 208 EBR 50 0 NBL 150 64 NBR 170 37 SBL 110 78 SBR 430 37 EBR 100 0 WBR 180 5 NBL1 250 308 NBL2 250 308 NBR 200 70 SBL 1 200 85 SBL 2 200 85 SBR 300 455 EBL1 300 193 EBL2 300 193 EBR 300 312 WBL 150 184 NBL 150 44 SBL 200 279 EBR 120 0 NBTL 150 300 497 NBTR N/A 400 852 SBTL 360 75 274 SBTR N/A 75 376 EBTL N/A 0 47 EBR 440 25 57 WBTLR N/A 0 0 NBTL 220 400 332 NBTR N/A 475 950 SBTL 110 50 27 SBTR N/A 50 23 EBL N/A 25 129 EBTR 265 25 43 WBTLR N/A 0 12 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road N/A 2 Higuera Street & South Street N/A 3 Orcutt Road & Sacramento Drive / Duncan Road N/A 4 Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way N/A 5 Broad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue N/A 6 Broad Street & Orcutt Road N/A 7 Broad Street & Capitolio Way N/A 8 Broad Street & Industrial Way N/A N/A 12 Broad Street & Farmhouse Lane N/A 9 Broad Street & Tank Farm Road N/A 10 Broad Street & Aerovista Place N/A Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road*13 11 Broad Street & Aero Drive Edna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road* 14 Legend: * = Used Simtraffic due to Caltrans guidelines Table 25: Cumulative Conditions 95th Percentile Queuing Analysis results ATTACHMENT J Page 274 of 309 Project Analysis Conditions The Project Analysis Conditions analyzed the Existing Plus Project Conditions near the project site and at the study intersections and study roadway segments. The Project Analysis Conditions also included the Cumulative Plus Project Conditions near the project site and at the study intersections and study roadway segments. However, the roadway geometrics, controls, and volumes for the Cumulative Plus Project evaluated the cumulative buildout with the project traffic projections for Year 2045. The proposed SLOCA Campus project will consolidate current SLOCA students and staff from three separate locations (K-8th grade campus, preschool and infant care site, and staff offices) into one facility at 3450 Broad Street, repurposing a 54,495 s.f. office building into a private elementary school campus. The number of students enrolled will increase from 249 students to 372 students with the construction of the new campus. The project will encompass a total area of 55,154 sq. ft. across two stories, featuring 36 classrooms, daycare, common and assembly areas, a library, a meeting room, a break room, a reception/store, and a gym. On-site parking will include 88 spaces, comprising 4 ADA- compliant spaces and 4 designated motorcycle spaces. Figure 9 shows the site plan of the proposed SLO Classical Academy Campus Project. Appendix D contains the fully detailed SLOCA Campus Site Plan. Figure 9: Proposed SLOCA Campus Project Site Plan ATTACHMENT J Page 275 of 309 A. Project Trip Generation AMG proposed that the peak hour trip generation for the project should be based on the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Based on the proposed project land use and site plan, Private School (K-8) (ITE 530) and General Office Building (ITE 710) seemed to be the most appropriate for the proposed and existing uses. The ITE Trip Generation Manual classifies various educational institutions, including Private Schools (K- 8), which cater to elementary and middle school students in a private, non-sectarian or sectarian setting. The proposed development aligns with ITE Land Use Code 530 – Private School (K-8), which represents facilities that provide structured education for kindergarten through eighth grade. These schools typically include classrooms, administrative offices, common areas, recreational spaces, and other support facilities tailored to student learning. The trip generation characteristics of a Private School (K-8) are influenced by factors such as student enrollment, faculty size, school bus services, and parent drop-off/pick-up operations. The proposed development includes necessary infrastructure to accommodate student transportation needs while ensuring safe and efficient site circulation. It is estimated that the project will generate approximately 844 daily trips and approximately 376 trips during the AM peak hour and 97 trips during the PM peak hour. However, an existing use credit based on the current office use on the project site was applied. Table 26 below shows the Trip Generation for the proposed project and summarizes the net new AM and PM peak hour trips generated by the SLOCA Campus project. Table 26: Trip Generation with Existing Credit use applied for SLOCA Campus Project Land Use ITE Code Size1 Daily Weekday A.M. Weekday P.M. Rate Total Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Private School (K-8)2 ITE 530 372 STU 2.27 844 1.01 210 166 376 0.26 44 53 97 Existing General Office Building3 ITE 710 50.3 KSF - -638 - -82 -11 -93 - -16 -78 -94 Net New Trips - 206 - 128 155 283 - 28 -25 3 Notes: Based on ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition, 2022 1. STU = Students KSF = 1,000 Square Feet 2. Average Rates used for AM & PM. Daily Rate was developed from Elementary School (ITE 520). 3. Fitted Curve Equations Used Details of the ITE 530 Private School (K-8) and ITE 710 General Office Building categories are contained in Appendix E. The proposed SLOCA project is expected to generate a net new amount of 206 daily trips, and 283 and 3 during the AM and PM peak, respectively. Since the number of new PM peak hour trips is very low, the impact of these new trips can be considered negligible. Therefore, the operational analysis will not consider the PM Peak hour trips, since the impact of these trips will be close to existing conditions. ATTACHMENT J Page 276 of 309 The net new trips as shown in Table 26 above, do not reflect the modal split created by the project. Modal split assumptions were derived based on information from the American Community Survey (ACS), Replica and Existing Counts. Table 27 shows the percentage of the modal split from these different sources near the project site. Based on the average, the modal split was generated as shown below. Table 27: Multimodal Split Mode Replica ACS Counts Average Vehicle 92.0% 88.5% 91.2% 90.6% Pedestrian 2.5% 8.3% 5.0% 5.3% Bicycle 3.6% 1.9% 3.8% 3.1% Transit 0.2% 0.9% 0.0% 0.6% It is worth noting, other local K-12 schools in San Luis Obispo likely have a higher share of non-vehicle trips. However, this mode share assumption is appropriate for the SLOCA campus because most students live outside of SLO city limits, making it difficult for most students walk, bike, or use transit. Additionally, SLOCA does not provide school bus or shuttle service to campus, so students living in SLO but far from campus will also use vehicles to travel to campus. Based on this modal split, the estimated trip generation for each mode was estimated as shown in Table 28. Table 28: Multimodal Trip Generation AM Trips In Out Total Vehicle Trip Generation 117 141 258 Pedestrian Trip Generation 6 8 14 Bicycle Trip Generation 4 5 9 Transit Trip Generation 1 1 2 Net Project Trip Generation 128 155 283 B. Project Trip Distribution & Trip Assignment Trip distribution is a process that determines in what proportion vehicles would be expected to travel between a project site and various destinations outside the project study area. The process of trip assignment determines the various routes that vehicles would take from the project site to each destination using the estimated trip distribution. Based on data provided by SLOCA representatives, the existing students travel from the following areas: • 37% from within the City of San Luis Obispo • 28% south of the City of SLO (Avila, Five Cities, Nipomo, Santa Barbara County, Kern County) • 23% North of the City of SLO (North County, Tulare County) • 12% West of the City of SLO (Cambria, Cayucos, Los Osos, Morro Bay) ATTACHMENT J Page 277 of 309 To provide a more detailed Trip Distribution within the City of SLO, student address data was used to determine the origin locations of where students come from. To maintain student confidentiality, full student addresses were not provided. SLOCA asked AMG to break down the City of SLO into various zones, as shown in Figure 10. Based on these zones, the school provided the number of students that go to campus from each distinctive zone. The school is on a hybrid schedule, some students go to campus on Mondays & Wednesdays, and other students go to school on Tuesdays & Thursdays, while a portion of students from each tract goes to elective classes on Fridays. Since the number of students that go to campus differs 3 times a week, AMG calculated the average number of students that go to campus from each zone. Table 29 shows the number of students that go to school based on their schedule tract, and the average of those totals. Figure 10: Zones within the City of SLO ATTACHMENT J Page 278 of 309 From these averages, the distribution within the City of SLO was derived, which accounts for 37% of the total trips. The estimated vehicular trip distribution patterns are shown on Figure 11. The vehicular trip assignment and project only trips are shown in Figure 12.The trip assignment follows the assumption that the on-site driveway along Sacramento Drive (near Via Esteban) will serve as a one-way entrance and the driveway along Broad Street will serve as a one-way exit. This means circulation within the site is one-way westbound travel, as proposed by SLOCA and recommended by AMG in the CEQA Transportation Analysis. Table 29: Distribution of Student Residences within the City of SLO Zones Schedule/Tract Average Average %-age Monday & Wednesday Tuesday & Thursday Friday 1 9 8 8 8 9% 2 7 6 7 7 8% 3 8 9 9 9 10% 4 7 7 7 7 8% 5 4 6 6 5 6% 6 14 16 16 15 17% 7 1 1 1 1 1% 8 3 3 5 4 4% 9 1 1 1 1 1% 10 8 7 8 8 9% 11 5 5 5 5 6% 12 7 9 8 8 9% 13 11 11 11 11 12% 14 0 0 0 0 0% 15 0 0 0 0 0% 16 0 0 0 0 0% TOTAL 100% ATTACHMENT J Page 279 of 309 1 Ti bu r on W a y PradoRd O r cutt RdOrcutt R d Le ff F l ora S t t E Tank Farm Rd B u l l o c k L n H i gh S t Bi sh o p S t J o h n s o n A v e P o i n setti a S t La u relLn A u g u s t a St Southwood Dr B r o a d S t 227 South Hills Open Space Transitions Mental Health Association Old Mission Cemetery Sutcliffe Cemetery D a ve n por tC re e k B u ckley Rd Evans R d Cre s t m on t Dr Ho o v e rA v e 227San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport O r c u t t R d Islay Hill Park o n e P l LOS RANCHO 227 S a c r a m e n t o D r S a c r a m e n t o D r B r o a d S t B r o a d S t 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles oOoOsssooOOssssssssssiiioooosoosnnnnnnOOO yyyyryrryetrryCCCeyyttetettCCeetttteeeeerrryyyyreteeettteeeeeerrryyyrtteetettteeeeeerrrryyyryrtteeteCCC RdRddddRddRRddddd kk L k L kk c k o c k c o c k o c c o c k c k L L m r a S a c a c r a SSSSSS a c r a m S a S a c r a m S a S a c r a m a r a c r a c r S a c r a SSSSS a SS a S a c a c r a c r a c r a m mmmmmm a m 22227227 OOOOO 7272222722 OOrOrOOOOOOOOOOOrr nnn i n i n i n i n i n o i o P o i P o P o i PP ooooo P o i o i n i n ss yyyyyytytttntyntyntyyntynty 722222722772222722 City of San Luis Obispo - 3450 Broad Street School Project - TIS Project Trip Distribution Figure 11 53% 10% 8% 5% 10% 14%City of San Luis Obispo 9% 16% 23% 3% 14% 14% Regional Distribution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 14 Project Site ATTACHMENT J Page 280 of 309 )0(0 )0(0 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 Driveway Hi g u e r a S t 62 (0) )0( 0 0 (0) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) Hi g u e r a S t 0 (0) 75 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) Madonna Rd 0 (0) 0 (0) Higuera St (N/S) & Driveway/Madonna Rd (E/W)2 75 (0) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 62 ( 0 ) South St Hi g u e r a S t )0( 0 0 (0) 0 (0) Hi g u e r a S t 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 (0) tS htuoS 0 (0) Higuera St (N/S) & South St (E/W) 3 0 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 74 (0) )0( 0 0 (0) Orcutt Rd Sa c r a m e n t o D r 9 (0)0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) Du n c a n L n dR ttucrO 0 (0) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) Sacramento Dr/Duncan Ln (N/S) & Orcutt Rd (E/W)4 Sa c r a m e n t o D r )0( 0 )0( 00 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) )0( 0 Capitolio Wy )0( 0 )0( 0 Capitolio Wy Sa c r a m e n t o D r 34 (0) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) Sacramento Dr (N/S) & Capitolio Wy (E/W) 5 Santa Barbara Ave 0 ( 0 ) Br o a d S t )0( 0 )0( 00 ( 0 ) 12 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) )0( 0 )0( 0 )0( 26 South St Br o a d S t 0 (0) 75 ( 0 ) 14 ( 0 ) Broad St (N/S) & South St /Santa Barbara Ave (E/W) 0 (0) )0( 0 )0( 0 Br o a d S t 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 74 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 89 ( 0 ) 11 ( 0 ) Orcutt Rd Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Orcutt Rd (E/W) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Br o a d S t 0 ( 0 ) 20 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) Farmhouse Ln Br o a d S t 0 ( 0 ) 16 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) Broad St (N/S) & Farmhouse Ln (E/W) # Br o a d S t 0 (0) 0 (0) Buckley Rd Buckley Rd 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 ( 0 ) 20 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 0 ( 0 ) 16 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) Br o a d S t 0 (0) Broad St (N/S) & Buckley Rd (E/W) # 0 ( 0 ) Driveway 0 ( 0 ) 16 ( 0 ) Ed n a R d Los Ranchos Rd 0 (0) 20 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Ed n a R d 0 (0) 0 (0) Edna Rd (N/S) & Los Ranchos Rd/Driveway (E/W) # Br o a d S t 0 ( 0 ) 20 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) Aero Dr Br o a d S t 0 (0) )0( 0 )0( 0 0 ( 0 ) 16 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) Broad St (N/S) & Aero Dr (E/W) 7 0 ( 0 ) 34 ( 0 ) Br o a d S t 0 ( 0 ) Br o a d S t Capitolio Wy )0( 0 0 (0) 0 ( 0 ) 41 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) )0( 0 Broad St (N/S) & Capitolio Wy (E/W) 8 0 ( 0 ) 41 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 34 ( 0 ) Industrial Wy 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Br o a d S t Br o a d S t 0 (0) Industrial Wy )0( 0 )0( 0 Broad St (N/S) & Industrial Wy (E/W) # Br o a d S t 0 ( 0 ) 20 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) Aerovista Pl Br o a d S t 0 (0) 0 ( 0 ) 16 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) )0( 0 )0( 0 Aerovista Pl (E/W)Broad St (N/S) & 9 16 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 0 (0) Br o a d S t 14 ( 0 ) 6 (0) 20 ( 0 ) 7 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 0 (0) Tank Farm Rd Tank Farm Rd Br o a d S t 12 (0) 0 ( 0 ) Broad St (N/S) & Tank Farm Rd (E/W) City of San Luis Obispo - 3450 Broad Street School Project - TIS Project Only - Peak Hour Volume & Controls Figure 12 Legend Signal AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour* XX (XX) Stop-control Driveway Driveway 1.1FBL7PMVNFTBSF[FSPCFDBVTFOP PM peak hour analysis was conducted for this project ATTACHMENT J Page 281 of 309 Trip Distribution for pedestrian and bicycle trips was limited to intersections within a 0.5 mile radius of the project site, as typically, most students that live farther than a 0.5 mile radius from a school campus use transit, carpool, or vehicles to get to school. Figure 13 shows the Trip Distribution for pedestrian and bicycle trips. Figure 14 shows the pedestrian and bicycle trip assignment at certain intersections. Figure 13: Pedestrian and Bicycle Project Trip Distribution 35%20% 10% 10%20% 5% 10% ATTACHMENT J Page 282 of 309 C. Intersection & Roadway Geometrics and Volumes i. Existing Plus Project Conditions The Existing Plus Project Condition does not present any intersection or roadway geometric changes to the Existing conditions. The only changes between the Existing conditions and the Existing Plus Project conditions are the project trips generated by the project, as shown in Figure 12. Figure 15 illustrates the Existing Plus Project vehicular intersection turning movement counts, lane geometry & traffic controls. Figure 16 illustrates the Existing Plus Project average daily traffic along the study roadway segments. Figure 14: Pedestrian Project Only Peak Hour Volumes (left) & Bicycle Project Only Peak Hour Volumes (right) Pedestrians Bicycles 6 3 4 7 9 8 6 3 47 9 8 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 13 3 2 2 3 13 1 1 1 1 1 11 ATTACHMENT J Page 283 of 309 City of San Luis Obispo - 3450 Broad Street School Project - TIS Existing Conditions Plus Project - Peak Hour Volume & Controls Figure 15 1 Driveway Hi g u e r a S t Hi g u e r a S t Madonna Rd Higuera St (N/S) & Driveway/Madonna Rd (E/W) 2 South St Hi g u e r a S t Hi g u e r a S t tS htuoS Higuera St (N/S) & South St (E/W) 3 Orcutt Rd Sa c r a m e n t o D r Du n c a n L n dR ttucrO Sacramento Dr/Duncan Ln (N/S) & Orcutt Rd (E/W) 4 Sa c r a m e n t o D r Capitolio Wy Capitolio Wy Sa c r a m e n t o D r Sacramento Dr (N/S) & Capitolio Wy (E/W) 5 Santa Barbara Ave Br o a d S t South St Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & South St /Santa Barbara Ave (E/W) )0( 21 Br o a d S t Orcutt Rd Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Orcutt Rd (E/W) Br o a d S t Farmhouse Ln Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Farmhouse Ln (E/W) # Br o a d S t Buckley Rd Buckley Rd Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Buckley Rd (E/W) # Driveway Ed n a R d Los Ranchos Rd Ed n a R d Edna Rd (N/S) & Los Ranchos Rd/Driveway (E/W) # Br o a d S t Aero Dr Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Aero Dr (E/W) 7 Br o a d S t Br o a d S t Capitolio Wy Broad St (N/S) & Capitolio Wy (E/W) 8 Industrial Wy Br o a d S t Br o a d S t Industrial Wy Broad St (N/S) & Industrial Wy (E/W) # Br o a d S t Aerovista Pl Br o a d S t Aerovista Pl (E/W)Broad St (N/S) & 9 Br o a d S t Tank Farm Rd Tank Farm Rd Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Tank Farm Rd (E/W) 7 (0) 46 5 ( 0 ) 30 7 ( 0 ) 9 ( 0 ) 7 (0) 3 (0) 527 (15) )0( 31 440 (0)12 0 ( 0 ) 25 6 ( 0 ) 4 ( 0 ) 17 9 ( 0 ) 89 (0) 11 (0) 18 ( 0 ) 24 9 ( 0 ) )0( 51 13 (0) 15 (0) 0 ( 0 ) 31 ( 0 ) 21 2 ( 0 ) 51 9 ( 0 ) 561 (0) 560 (0) 110 (0)15 ( 0 ) 4 ( 0 ) 2 ( 0 ) 1 (0) 44 ( 0 ) 4 ( 0 ) )0( 274 71 ( 0 ) 15 (0) 134 (0) )0( 02 )0( 74 67 (0) 37 ( 0 ) 72 ( 0 ) 11 ( 0 ) )0( 71 )0( 711 ( 0 ) 85 ( 0 ) 2 ( 0 ) )0( 4 )0( 171 )0( 324 39 (0) 35 8 ( 0 ) 29 2 ( 0 ) )0( 411 )0( 0339 ( 0 ) 34 0 ( 0 ) 12 ( 0 ) 37 1 ( 0 ) 1 ( 0 ) 67 8 ( 0 ) 26 5 ( 0 ) 306 (0) )0( 0 )0( 3232 ( 0 ) 73 4 ( 0 ) 36 1 ( 0 ) )0( 0 36 (0) 0 ( 0 ) 1, 0 2 1 ( 0 ) 90 ( 0 ) )0( 31 76 3 ( 0 ) 69 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 37 (0) )0( 8 )0( 77 1 (0) 3 (0) 4 (0)40 ( 0 ) 80 9 ( 0 ) 20 ( 0 ) 95 2 ( 0 ) 55 ( 0 ) 10 6 ( 0 ) 115 (0) 51 5 ( 0 ) 93 ( 0 ) 203 (0) 186 (0) 266 (0) 19 1 ( 0 ) 60 8 ( 0 ) 14 6 ( 0 ) 156 (0) 205 (0) 31 6 ( 0 ) 28 (0) 81 ( 0 ) 93 7 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0( 0 0( 31 15 1 ( 0 ) 66 9 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 30 ( 0 ) 95 0 ( 0 ) 12 ( 0 ) 42 (0) )0( 0 )0( 6 58 ( 0 ) 57 6 ( 0 ) 33 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 1, 0 7 0 ( 0 ) 23 ( 0 ) 25 (0) 0 (0) 5 (0)0 ( 0 ) 68 0 ( 0 ) 69 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 3 (0) 176 (0) 48 ( 0 ) 53 2 ( 0 ) 2 ( 0 ) 73 (0) 22 4 ( 0 ) 1, 0 8 4 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 34 5 ( 0 ) 42 (0) 344 (0) 36 0 ( 0 ) 1 ( 0 ) 88 ( 0 ) 95 7 ( 0 ) 1 ( 0 ) 0 (0) )0(0 )0(3 3 (0) 22 (0) 0 (0) 6 (0) Legend Signal AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour* XX (XX) Stop-control Driveway Driveway 1.1FBL7PMVNFTBSF[FSPCFDBVTFOP PM peak hour analysis was conducted for this project ATTACHMENT J Page 284 of 309 1 Ti bu r on W a y PradoRd O r cutt RdOrcutt R d Le ff F l ora S t t E Tank Farm Rd B u l l o c k L n H i gh S t Bi sh o p S t J o h n s o n A v e P o i n setti a S t La u relLn A u g u s t a St Southwood Dr B r o a d S t 227 227 South Hills Open Space Transitions Mental Health Association Old Mission Cemetery Sutcliffe Cemetery D a ve n por tC re e k B u ckley Rd Evans R d Cre s t m on t Dr Ho o v e rA v e 227San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport O r c u t t R d Islay Hill Park o n e P l LOS RANCHO City of San Luis Obispo - 3450 Broad Street School Project - TIS Existing Plus Project - Segment Average Daily Traffic Figure 16 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles Legend Study Corridors City Boundary 1 2 3 4 5 1 28,452 cOOOOc u LaLaLaLaaaLaLa 5 16,386 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO rrr ccccccdRRdRRtttttututtRRddddd BBBBB uu l uu l uu l u l u l l u l l k L k L k L kk c k c k c k c o c oo c o c k o c oooo c c o c k c k L L 4 RdRdRdtttttuuttutRRtRdd4,747 nnnn L n L n L n L n 2 26,831 3 20,637 Segment ADT XX S a c r a m e n t o D r S a c r a m e n t o D r B r o a d S t B r o a d S t Project Site ATTACHMENT J Page 285 of 309 ii. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions The Cumulative Plus Project Condition does not present any intersection or roadway geometric changes to the baseline Cumulative conditions. Cumulative Plus Project traffic volume forecasts were developed using the same travel demand forecasting model that was used for the Cumulative conditions traffic volumes. However, changes were made to land use of the model to represent to project. The following land use changes and assumptions were used: • Moved K-8 enrollment to the new site and move ¼ of existing office SF to the new site to represent the project. • The number of students at the project TAZ was adjusted by the same ratio, and the growth of enrollment from 2016 to 2045 was applied to Cumulative Plus Project scenario. • No Land use adjustments were made to SLOCA’s current site on Grand Avenue. Although it is unknown if the site on Grand Avenue will continue to operate as a school with similar characteristics/intensity, it was left in the analysis to account for any differences in use at that site. This represents a conservative approach because it assumed that a similar use (private education) would occupy the vacated space of the existing campus in the future. Therefore, it did not account for any potential reduction in vehicle trips to/from the existing SLOCA Campus. Figure 17 illustrates the Cumulative Plus Project vehicular intersection turning movement counts, lane geometry & traffic controls. Figure 18 illustrates the Cumulative Plus Project average daily traffic along the study roadway segments. ATTACHMENT J Page 286 of 309 City of San Luis Obispo - 3450 Broad Street School Project - TIS Cumulative Plus Project- Peak Hour Volume & Controls Figure 17 1 Driveway Hi g u e r a S t Hi g u e r a S t Madonna Rd Higuera St (N/S) & Driveway/Madonna Rd (E/W) 2 South St Hi g u e r a S t Hi g u e r a S t tS htuoS Higuera St (N/S) & South St (E/W) 3 Orcutt Rd Sa c r a m e n t o D r Du n c a n L n dR ttucrO Sacramento Dr/Duncan Ln (N/S) & Orcutt Rd (E/W) 4 Sa c r a m e n t o D r Capitolio Wy Capitolio Wy Sa c r a m e n t o D r Sacramento Dr (N/S) & Capitolio Wy (E/W) 5 Santa Barbara Ave Br o a d S t South St Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & South St /Santa Barbara Ave (E/W) )0( 112 )0( 324 39 (0) 35 8 ( 0 ) 71 0 ( 0 ) )0( 911 )0( 6748 ( 0 ) 56 9 ( 0 ) 16 ( 0 ) )0( 71 59 5 ( 0 ) Br o a d S t Orcutt Rd Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Orcutt Rd (E/W) Br o a d S t Farmhouse Ln Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Farmhouse Ln (E/W) # Br o a d S t Buckley Rd Buckley Rd Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Buckley Rd (E/W) # Driveway Ed n a R d Los Ranchos Rd Ed n a R d Edna Rd (N/S) & Los Ranchos Rd/Driveway (E/W) # Br o a d S t Aero Dr Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Aero Dr (E/W) 7 Br o a d S t Br o a d S t Capitolio Wy Broad St (N/S) & Capitolio Wy (E/W) 8 Industrial Wy Br o a d S t Br o a d S t Industrial Wy Broad St (N/S) & Industrial Wy (E/W) # Br o a d S t Aerovista Pl Br o a d S t Aerovista Pl (E/W)Broad St (N/S) & 9 Br o a d S t Tank Farm Rd Tank Farm Rd Br o a d S t Broad St (N/S) & Tank Farm Rd (E/W) 14 (0) 57 6 ( 0 ) 30 7 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 12 (0) 3 (0) 517 (0) )0( 31 440 (0)12 0 ( 0 ) 34 2 ( 0 ) 4 ( 0 ) 17 9 ( 0 ) 89 (0) 21 (0) 18 ( 0 ) 42 1 ( 0 ) )0( 81 13 (0) 31 (0) 67 ( 0 ) 40 7 ( 0 ) 51 9 ( 0 ) 561 (0) 1,068 (0) 475 (0)19 ( 0 ) 21 ( 0 ) 2 ( 0 ) 1 (0) 45 ( 0 ) 13 ( 0 ) )0( 055 11 9 ( 0 ) 18 (0) 88 (0) )0( 02 )0( 74 148 (0) 37 ( 0 ) 93 ( 0 ) 11 ( 0 ) )0( 71 )0( 1124 9 ( 0 ) 20 1 ( 0 ) 91 ( 0 ) )0( 42 1 ( 0 ) 80 2 ( 0 ) 36 6 ( 0 ) 505 (0) )0( 4 )0( 0142 ( 0 ) 73 4 ( 0 ) 47 6 ( 0 ) )0( 0 36 (0) 0 ( 0 ) 1, 4 3 8 ( 0 ) 90 ( 0 ) )0( 731 98 2 ( 0 ) 22 3 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 66 (0) )0( 01 )0( 77 6 (0) 78 (0) 4 (0)40 ( 0 ) 91 3 ( 0 ) 11 2 ( 0 ) 1, 2 1 2 ( 0 ) 55 ( 0 ) 10 6 ( 0 ) 115 (0) 61 0 ( 0 ) 11 4 ( 0 ) 450 (0) 186 (0) 361 (0) 36 9 ( 0 ) 66 2 ( 0 ) 14 6 ( 0 ) 182 (0) 429 (0) 54 0 ( 0 ) 35 (0) 81 ( 0 ) 1, 0 6 1 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) )0( 0)0( 0 )0( 6)0( 31 19 0 ( 0 ) 94 2 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 30 ( 0 ) 1, 0 1 2 ( 0 ) 12 ( 0 ) 51 (0) 12 0 ( 0 ) 56 0 ( 0 ) 16 1 ( 0 ) 0 ( 0 ) 1, 1 3 2 ( 0 ) 24 ( 0 ) 25 (0) 0 (0) 19 (0)0 ( 0 ) 66 4 ( 0 ) 69 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 3 (0) 176 (0) 48 ( 0 ) 60 1 ( 0 ) 2 ( 0 ) 73 (0) 50 2 ( 0 ) 1, 1 4 8 ( 0 ) 18 6 ( 0 ) 0 (0) 0 (0)0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (0) 34 5 ( 0 ) 42 (0) 344 (0) 42 5 ( 0 ) 1 ( 0 ) 88 ( 0 ) 1, 4 9 0 ( 0 ) 1 ( 0 ) 0 (0) )0(1 )0(3 5 (0) 6 (0) 0 (0) 73 (0) Legend Signal AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour* Roundabout Stop-control XX (XX) Driveway Driveway 1.1FBL7PMVNFTBSF[FSPCFDBVTFOP PM peak hour analysis was conducted for this project ATTACHMENT J Page 287 of 309 1 Ti bu r on W a y PradoRd O r cutt RdOrcutt R d Le ff F l ora S t t E Tank Farm Rd B u l l o c k L n H i gh S t Bi sh o p S t J o h n s o n A v e P o i n setti a S t La u relLn A u g u s t a St Southwood Dr B r o a d S t 227 227 South Hills Open Space Transitions Mental Health Association Old Mission Cemetery Sutcliffe Cemetery D a ve n por tC re e k B u ckley Rd Evans R d Cre s t m on t Dr Ho o v e rA v e 227San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport O r c u t t R d Islay Hill Park o n e P l LOS RANCHO City of San Luis Obispo - 3450 Broad Street School Project - TIS Cumulative Plus Project - Segment Average Daily Traffic Figure 18 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles Legend Study Corridors City Boundary 1 2 3 4 5 1 30,253 cOOOOc u LaLaLaLaaaLaLa 5 18,664 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO rrr ccccccdRRdRRtttttututtRRddddd BBBBB uu l uu l uu l u l u l l u l l k L k L k L kk c k c k c k c o c oo c o c k o c oooo c c o c k c k L L 4 RdRdRdtttttuuttutRRtRdd5,609 nnnn L n L n L n L n 2 32,785 3 21,336 Segment ADT XX S a c r a m e n t o D r S a c r a m e n t o D r B r o a d S t B r o a d S t Project Site ATTACHMENT J Page 288 of 309 D. LOS Analysis i. Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Analyses AMG developed Existing Plus Project conditions traffic simulation models using Synchro 12 software using existing lane configuration, traffic signal timings and traffic volumes. The results of the vehicle LOS and delay analysis conducted at the signalized intersections are summarized in Table 30. The results of the vehicle LOS and delay analysis conducted at the unsignalized intersections are summarized in Table 31. Table 31: Existing Plus Project Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Unsignalized intersections All the intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better except for the Edna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road intersection that operates at LOS E. Note that design for the installation of a roundabout is currently underway, the intersection will improve to LOS D or better after the improvement is complete. Additionally, project-related traffic does not further degrade already exceeded LOS standards at any of the study intersections. Nonetheless, the project would provide a fair share Table 30: Existing Plus Project Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Signalized intersections Approach Delay LOS Movement Delay LOS Approach Delay LOS Movement Delay LOS EB 11.1 B NBL 7.5 A EB 12.1 B NBL 7.5 A +1.0 0.0 WB 11.3 B SBL 7.4 A WB 11.3 B SBL 7.4 A 0.0 0.0 NBTR 0.0 A NBTR 0.0 A 0.0 SBTL 10.5 B SBTL 10.7 B +0.2 NBL 10.4 B NBL 11.0 B +0.6 SBR 0.0 A SBR 0.0 A 0.0 NBR 0.0 A NBR 0.0 A 0.0 SBL 13.0 B SBL 13.6 B +0.6 +0.5 +0.7 +1.5 Delay Difference Minor Approach Major Approach C EB 20.2 C WB 29.6 D12Broad Street & Farmhouse Lane WB 28.1 D Existing + Project Conditions Minor Street Approaches - Unsignalized Major Street Turning Movements -Unsignalized WB 15.6C 10 Broad Street & Aerovista Place EB 19.5 C 4 Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way 7 Broad Street & Capitolio Way WB 15.1 Existing Conditions #Intersection Minor Street Approaches - Unsignalized Major Street Turning Movements -Unsignalized Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road*17.4 B 17.5 B +0.1 2 Higuera Street & South Street 31.7 C 33.6 C +1.9 3 Orcutt Road & Sacramento Drive/Duncan Road*10.6 B 10.8 B +0.2 5 Broad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue*26.7 C 27.8 C +1.1 6 Broad Street & Orcutt Road 25.0 C 29.6 C +4.6 8 Broad Street & Industrial Way 15.5 B 15.6 B +0.1 9 Broad Street & Tank Farm Road 28.2 C 28.9 C +0.7 11 Broad Street & Aero Drive 13.3 B 13.4 B +0.1 13 Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road*31.8 C 33.4 C +1.6 14 Edna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road*69.9 E 71.9 E +2.0 Existing + Project Conditions Delay Difference#Intersection Existing Conditions Legend: * = Uses HCM 2000 for Analysis due to non-standard phasing (NEMA) Intersections highlighted in Light Blue are Caltrans Intersections ATTACHMENT J Page 289 of 309 contribution towards the roundabout improvement at the intersection through payment of the County’s SR 227 Corridor Mitigation Fees. More details on the project’s fair share contribution are found in the Route 227 Corridor Mitigation Fees section of this report. Appendix F contains the Existing Plus Project conditions Synchro analysis reports. The results for the Bicycle LOS and delay analysis are summarized in Table 32. All the study intersection approaches operate at acceptable LOS D and project-related traffic does not cause minimum LOS standards to be exceeded. Appendix F contains existing plus project conditions bicycle delay and LOS calculations. Delay (s/b)Score LOS Delay (s/b)Score LOS EB 28.23 3.11 C 27.55 3.22 C WB 42.16 2.72 C 42.25 2.72 C NB 24.56 2.10 B 24.35 2.10 B SB 33.58 2.86 C 33.49 2.93 C EB 32.27 2.92 C 32.27 2.92 C WB 23.19 2.71 C 23.19 2.84 C NB 28.52 2.31 B 28.52 2.37 B SB 21.25 1.73 B 21.25 1.73 B EB 24.70 1.56 B 23.37 1.62 B WB 19.18 1.89 B 17.86 1.90 B NB 36.51 1.96 B 36.49 1.96 B SB 36.47 1.82 B 36.38 1.82 B EB 51.55 4.17 D 51.64 4.28 D WB 50.76 2.37 B 50.76 2.37 B NB 33.81 2.56 C 32.04 2.65 C SB 49.11 2.03 B 48.68 2.05 B EB 50.66 2.92 C 50.75 2.92 C WB 41.22 3.23 C 40.62 3.23 C NB 36.91 2.90 C 34.13 3.01 C SB 27.68 2.76 C 25.49 2.83 C EB 49.49 3.35 C 49.49 3.35 C WB 44.56 3.46 C 44.65 3.46 C NB 23.73 2.47 B 23.61 2.50 B SB 22.86 2.37 B 22.81 2.40 B EB 59.76 2.95 C 59.58 2.96 C WB 52.84 3.38 C 52.61 3.39 C NB 47.26 2.65 C 46.36 2.66 C SB 48.69 2.49 B 47.87 2.52 C EB 45.18 1.87 B 45.18 1.87 B WB 45.45 2.40 B 45.55 2.40 B NB 12.11 2.43 B 11.97 2.44 B SB 12.18 1.34 A 12.03 1.36 A EB 63.07 1.61 B 63.25 1.61 B WB N/A 1.57 B N/A 1.57 B NB 13.54 3.10 C 13.72 3.10 C SB 39.73 3.57 D 40.99 3.57 D EB 46.93 3.92 D 47.10 3.92 D WB 62.44 3.01 C 62.44 3.01 C NB 20.15 2.77 C 18.55 2.80 C SB 27.65 2.44 B 25.72 2.47 B 14 Edna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road 11 Broad Street & Aero Drive 9 Broad Street & Tank Farm Road 8 Broad Street & Industrial Way 13 Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road 5 Broad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue 6 Broad Street & Orcutt Road 3 Orcutt Road & Sacramento Drive/Duncan Road 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road 2 Higuera Street & South Street #Intersection Approach Existing Conditions Existing + Project Conditions Table 32: Existing Plus Project Conditions Bicycle LOS results ATTACHMENT J Page 290 of 309 The results for the Pedestrian LOS and delay analysis are summarized in Table 33. Many of the crossings operate below acceptable LOS C. At the signalized intersections, this may be due to low effective green walk time for that crossing, high conflicting vehicular demand, or there are many lanes that the pedestrian must cross. At the unsignalized intersections, this may be due to the crossings being unmarked crosswalks and that there are many lanes that the pedestrian must cross. Although some crossings operate below acceptable LOS C, project-related traffic does not cause minimum LOS standards to be further degraded at any of the crossings for all the study intersections. Further, as shown in Figure 14, the net new pedestrian trips generated by the project beyond the campus pick- up/drop-off area are expected to be relatively low. Appendix F contains existing plus project conditions pedestrian delay and LOS calculations. Additionally, AMG recommended several traffic calming and pedestrian crossing safety improvements on Sacramento Drive near the campus pick-up/drop-off area. These recommendations include enhanced crosswalks at the school entry for bicyclist and pedestrian crossing safety, advanced pedestrian warning signs, and school pavement markings . For further details on these recommendations please refer to the CEQA Transportation Analysis report, which is Phase 1 of this Traffic Impact Study. ATTACHMENT J Page 291 of 309 Score LOS Score LOS EB 3.46 C 3.47 C WB 1.98 B 1.98 B NB 2.62 C 2.62 C SB 3.98 D 4.19 D EB 2.05 B 2.05 B WB 3.02 C 3.05 C NB 4.17 D 4.41 D SB 2.50 B 2.50 B EB 2.78 C 2.91 C WB 2.64 C 2.64 C NB 2.28 B 2.32 B SB 2.00 B 2.00 B NB 0.52 F 0.52 F SB 0.50 E 0.50 E EB 3.59 D 3.72 D WB 2.25 B 2.25 B NB 3.59 D 3.62 D SB 2.59 C 2.60 C EB 1.96 B 1.96 B WB 3.58 D 3.72 D NB 3.74 D 3.78 D SB 2.93 C 2.97 C NB 0.80 F 0.81 F SB 0.80 F 0.81 F EB 2.04 B 2.04 B WB 2.19 B 2.19 B NB 3.24 C 3.26 C SB 2.97 C 2.99 C EB 3.36 C 3.36 C WB 2.70 C 2.73 C NB 3.43 C 3.43 C SB 3.76 D 3.82 D NB 0.73 F 0.74 F SB 0.76 F 0.77 F EB 2.05 B 2.05 B WB 2.07 B 2.07 B NB 2.84 C 2.86 C SB 3.04 C 3.05 C NB 0.84 F 0.84 F SB 0.84 F 0.84 F EB 2.94 C 2.94 C WB 1.75 B 1.75 B NB 3.32 C 3.34 C SB 3.23 C 3.25 C EB 2.57 C 2.57 C WB 1.74 B 1.74 B NB 2.91 C 2.93 C SB 4.25 D 4.27 D OWSBroad Street & Farmhouse Lane12 Signal SignalEdna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road14 13 Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road OWSBroad Street & Aerovista Place10 Broad Street & Aero Drive Signal11 SignalBroad Street & Industrial Way 8 SignalBroad Street & Tank Farm Road9 SignalBroad Street & Orcutt Road6 OWSBroad Street & Capitolio Way7 Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way TWS4 SignalBroad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue5 SignalOrcutt Road & Sacramento Drive/Duncan Road3 Higuera Street & South Street2 Signal Existing Conditions Existing + Project Conditions 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road Signal #Intersection Existing Control Crosswalk Table 33: Existing Plus Project Conditions Pedestrian LOS results ATTACHMENT J Page 292 of 309 Roadway Analyses Using existing geometric conditions and traffic volumes, Existing Plus Project conditions level of service for vehicles and pedestrians, and level of traffic stress for cyclists were evaluated. The results of the vehicle LOS analysis are summarized in Table 34 . All roadway segments are within the acceptable LOS D for arterials and regional routes and below the maximum ADT threshold (10,000 vehicles) for commercial collector streets. Project-related traffic does not cause LOS standards to be exceeded. Table 34: Existing Plus Project Conditions Vehicle Roadway Segment LOS results The results of the bicycle level of traffic stress are summarized in Table 35. Project-related traffic does not cause LTS standards to be exceeded or further degraded from the existing conditions, and the net increase in bicycle and vehicle trips outside of the campus pick-up/drop-off area is not expected to represent a notable change in user experience compared to existing conditions. It is worth noting that there will be a 300’ long drop-off zone adjacent to the southbound bicycle lane along Sacramento Drive near the project site. Potential conflicts between bicyclists and vehicles entering and existing the drop-off zone could arise. Consequently, AMG recommended several traffic calming and safety improvements along Sacramento drive near the campus pick-up/drop-off area in Phase 1 of the TIS, the CEQA Transportation Analysis. These recommendations include green bike lane markings along the 300’ drop-off zone and through the site driveway on Sacramento Drive, advance warning signage, radar speed feedback signs approaching the school on Sacramento Drive, and enhanced crosswalks at the school entry for bicyclist and pedestrian crossing safety. Additionally, a follow-up study will be conducted 3-6 months after school opening to further monitor conflicts after occupancy. If any conflicts or significant impacts are found, the study will recommend any additional improvements. ADT LOS ADT LOS Broad St (South to Orcutt) Arterial 4 YES 28,296 C 28,452 C Broad St (Orcutt to Tank Farm)Regional Route 4 YES 26,652 B 26,831 B Broad St (Tank Farm to City Limits Regional Route 2 or 4 YES 20,509 B 20,637 B Sacramento Dr (Orcutt to Capitolio) Collector 2 NO 4,541 C 4,747 C Orcutt Rd (Broad to Sacramento) Arterial 4 YES 16,256 B 16,386 B Segment ExistingRoad Type DividedLanes Existing + Project Table 35: Existing Plus Project Conditions Bicycle Roadway Segment LTS results Broad St (South to Orcutt) 4 +5 +156 0.55% Broad St (Orcutt to Tank Farm)4 +1 +179 0.67% Broad St (Tank Farm to City Limits 4 +1 +128 0.62% Sacramento Dr (Orcutt to Capitolio) 3 +9 +206 4.54% Orcutt Rd (Broad to Sacramento) 4 +5 +130 0.80% Net Increase Bike Trips Net Increase Vehicle Trips % Net Increase Vehicle TripsSegmentExisting + Project LTS ATTACHMENT J Page 293 of 309 The results of the pedestrian LOS analysis are summarized in Table 36. Some of the segments operate below acceptable LOS C. This is due to the narrow sidewalks, narrow buffers between the sidewalks and the roadway, and high crossing delay at the boundary intersection. Project-related traffic does not cause LOS standards to be exceeded or further degraded from the existing conditions in a manner that would be noticeable to the average road user, or contextually significant in a negative manner. Further, as shown in Figure 14, the net new pedestrian trips generated by the project beyond the campus pick- up/drop-off area are expected to be relatively low. Appendix F contains existing plus project conditions pedestrian delay and LOS calculations. Additionally, AMG recommended several traffic calming and pedestrian crossing safety improvements on Sacramento Drive near the campus pick-up/drop-off area. These recommendations include enhanced crosswalks at the school entry for bicyclist and pedestrian crossing safety, advanced pedestrian warning signs, and school pavement markings . The project also proposes to construct a 5- foot wide asphalt sidewalk on the west side along Sacramento Drive, ensuring pedestrian connectivity between the school and Capitolio Way to the south. For further details on these recommendations please refer to the CEQA Transportation Analysis report, which is Phase 1 of this Traffic Impact Study. ii. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Intersection Analyses AMG developed Cumulative Plus Project conditions traffic simulation models using Synchro 12 software using the cumulative lane configurations based on the anticipated transportation improvements that will occur within the City of San Luis Obispo with the buildout of the City’s General Plan Land use and circulation elements. Cumulative Plus Project traffic volumes were obtained from the travel forecasting model that included the project land use. Cumulative Plus Project condition signal timings were optimized based on best practices to improve overall intersection performance. The results of the vehicle LOS and delay analysis conducted at the signalized intersections are summarized in Table 37. The results of the vehicle LOS and delay analysis conducted at the stop controlled intersections are summarized in Table 38. The results of the vehicle LOS and delay analysis conducted at the roundabout controlled intersections are summarized in Table 39. Broad St (South to Orcutt) 9,883 3.68 D 6,123 3.30 C 5,986 3.75 D 4,489 3.35 C Broad St (Orcutt to Tank Farm)7,220 3.35 C 14,657 3.56 D 6,270 3.38 C 9,472 3.58 D Broad St (Tank Farm to City Limits 50,361 3.50 D 37,771 3.62 D 50,361 3.53 D 37,771 3.70 D Sacramento (Orcutt to Capitolio) 9,332 2.73 B 3,485 1.39 A 3,485 3.14 C 1,891 1.54 B Orcutt (Broad to Sacramento) 6,123 2.94 C 9,883 3.46 C 4,489 2.95 C 5,986 3.47 C Segment LOS SB or WB Ped Space (ft2/s) SB or WB Ped LOS score LOS Existing Existing + Project NB or EB Ped Space (ft2/s)LOS LOSNB or EB Ped Space (ft2/s) NB or EB Ped LOS score NB or EB Ped LOS score SB or WB Ped LOS score SB or WB Ped Space (ft2/s) Table 36: Existing Plus Project Conditions Pedestrian Roadway Segment LOS results ATTACHMENT J Page 294 of 309 Table 38: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Stop controlled intersections Table 39: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Roundabout intersections All the signalized intersections and both roundabout intersections operate at acceptable LOS D or better. The two-way stop controlled intersection at Broad Street & Aerovista Place operates at acceptable LOS D, while the rest of the stop controlled intersections operate below acceptable LOS D. These intersections fall below acceptable levels of service due to the increasing vehicular demand on the main streets, making it difficult for the vehicles to exit the minor streets. Appendix G contains the Cumulative Plus Project conditions Synchro analysis reports. Although the intersections of Broad Street & Capitolio Way and Broad Street & Farmhouse Lane fall below LOS D, the project adds less than 10 trips to the critical approach/movement. As mentioned in the SLO TIS Guidelines section of the report, the City’s thresholds of significance for unsignalized Delay LOS Approach Delay LOS Movement Delay LOS Delay LOS Approach Delay LOS Movement Delay LOS EB 9.4 A NBTR 29.7 D EB 9.4 A NBTR 30.7 D WB 0.0 A SBLT 12.8 B WB 0.0 A SBLT 13.1 B EB 7.1 A NBTR 52.2 F EB 7.1 A NBTR 55.0 F WB 18.2 C SBLT & SBTR 6.8 A WB 18.6 C SBTR 6.9 A Cumulative Conditions 13 Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road 21.8 C #Intersection Intersection Minor Street Approaches - Unsignalized Major Street Turning Movements - Unsignalized Cumulative + Project Conditions Intersection Minor Street Approaches - Unsignalized Major Street Turning Movements -Unsignalized 22.5 C 32.5 D14Edna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road 30.9 D Note: Both intersections are Caltrans intersections Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road*32.8 C 33.6 C +0.8 2 Higuera Street & South Street 34.5 C 35.7 D +1.2 3 Orcutt Road & Sacramento Drive/Duncan Road*18.5 B 19.0 B +0.5 5 Broad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue*31.9 C 33.5 C +1.6 6 Broad Street & Orcutt Road 34.9 C 37.9 D +3.0 8 Broad Street & Industrial Way 21.2 C 21.4 C +0.2 9 Broad Street & Tank Farm Road 38.4 D 38.9 D +0.5 11 Broad Street & Aero Drive 35.3 D 35.6 D +0.3 Delay Difference#Intersection Cumulative Conditions Cumulative + Project Conditions Legend: * = Uses HCM 2000 for Analysis due to non-standard phasing (NEMA) Table 37: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Vehicle LOS results - Signalized intersections Approach Delay LOS Movement Delay LOS Approach Delay LOS Movement Delay LOS EB 72.0 F NBL 8.8 A EB 123.7 F NBL 8.8 A +51.7 0.0 WB 18.5 C SBL 7.7 A WB 18.5 C SBL 7.7 A 0 0.0 NBTR 0.0 A NBTR 0.0 A 0.0 SBTL 13.9 B SBTL 14.6 B +0.7 NBL 13.6 B NBL 13.6 B 0.0 SBR 0.0 A SBR 0.0 A 0.0 NBR 0.0 A NBR 0.0 A 0.0 SBL 14.3 B SBL 14.4 B +0.1 +0.3 +0.4 Minor Approach Major Approach +17.9 Delay Difference 31.0 D 12 Broad Street & Farmhouse Lane WB 39.8 E WB 40.2 E 10 Broad Street & Aerovista Place EB 30.8 D EB WB 163.5 F WB 181.4 F Cumulative + Project Conditions #Intersection Minor Street Approaches - Unsignalized Major Street Turning Movements -Unsignalized Minor Street Approaches - Unsignalized Major Street Turning Movements -Unsignalized Cumulative Conditions 4 Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way 7 Broad Street & Capitolio Way ATTACHMENT J Page 295 of 309 intersections states that already deficient LOS requires a project to (a) increase V/C ratio by 0.01 or more, (b) add at least 10 trips to the critical movement, and (c) make the intersection meet the signal warrants. All three conditions must be met, and at both intersections, condition (b) is not met. Therefore, project related traffic is not significant in further degrading LOS standards and does not trigger city thresholds. The city should monitor both intersections and consider solutions in improving the LOS, such as signalization. Another possible mitigation measure the city could consider at the Broad Street & Capitolio Way intersection is to restrict left-turns exiting Capitolio Way if a collision trend caused by that movement materializes in the future. Currently, at the intersection of Broad Street & Farmhouse Lane, there is no planned future improvement. However, the intersection is included in the County’s SR 227 Corridor Mitigation Fee Program, which includes costs for future improvements (signalization or roundabout installation). The project would provide a fair share contribution towards future improvement at the intersection through payment of the County’s SR 227 Corridor Mitigation Fees. At the intersection of Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way, the project increases the v/c ratio by more than 0.01 and adds more than 10 trips to the critical approach/movement. However, signal warrants are not met, so it does not trigger city thresholds. Nonetheless, existing volumes are just under the volumes required to meet an all-way stop control warrant. AMG recommends assessing the all-way stop control warrant at the intersection, as part of the overall monitoring study after the school is operational. The Operational Analysis Conclusions and Recommendations section of the report will expand on the potential mitigation measure considered for this impact. The results for the Bicycle LOS and delay analysis are summarized in Table 40. All the study intersection approaches operate at acceptable LOS D and project-related traffic does not cause minimum LOS standards to be exceeded. Appendix G contains cumulative plus project conditions bicycle delay and LOS calculations. ATTACHMENT J Page 296 of 309 The results for the Pedestrian LOS and delay analysis are summarized in . Many of the crossings operate below acceptable LOS C. At the signalized intersections, this may be due to low effective green walk time for that crossing, high conflicting vehicular demand, or there are many lanes that the pedestrian must cross. At the unsignalized intersections, this may be due to the crossings being unmarked crosswalks and that there are many lanes that the pedestrian must cross. Although some crossings operate below acceptable LOS C, project-related traffic does not cause minimum LOS standards to be further degraded at any of the crossings for all the study intersections. Further, as shown in Figure 14, the net new pedestrian trips generated by the project beyond the campus pick- up/drop-off area are expected to be relatively low. Appendix G contains the cumulative plus project conditions pedestrian delay and LOS calculations. Additionally, AMG recommended several traffic calming and pedestrian crossing safety improvements on Sacramento Drive near the campus pick-up/drop-off area. These recommendations include enhanced crosswalks at the school entry for bicyclist and pedestrian crossing safety, advanced Delay (s/b)Score LOS Delay (s/b)Score LOS EB 41.73 3.11 C 39.15 3.20 C WB 66.49 2.74 C 66.58 2.74 C NB 27.98 2.57 C 27.86 2.57 C SB 39.81 2.98 C 39.59 3.02 C EB 47.18 2.96 C 47.28 2.96 C WB 30.86 2.73 C 30.41 2.86 C NB 35.85 2.52 C 35.93 2.58 C SB 30.44 1.88 B 29.25 1.93 B EB 40.46 1.64 B 39.62 1.64 B WB 16.84 2.64 C 16.02 2.64 C NB 55.46 2.06 B 55.57 2.06 B SB 55.39 1.85 B 55.39 1.85 B EB 50.61 4.24 D 48.58 4.36 D WB 46.97 2.48 B 46.80 2.48 B NB 27.90 3.15 C 26.81 3.23 C SB 40.58 2.27 B 40.27 2.27 B EB 50.75 2.92 C 50.84 2.92 C WB 37.24 3.76 D 37.14 3.76 D NB 33.15 3.14 C 32.33 3.21 C SB 23.08 2.86 C 21.26 2.94 C EB 45.30 3.49 C 45.30 3.49 C WB 43.07 3.51 D 43.07 3.51 D NB 23.81 2.57 C 23.82 2.59 C SB 20.96 2.70 C 20.97 2.71 C EB 58.00 3.26 C 58.18 3.26 C WB 46.79 3.17 C 47.06 3.17 C NB 40.93 2.83 C 40.85 2.86 C SB 45.86 2.80 C 45.89 2.81 C EB 44.82 1.89 B 44.82 1.89 B WB 44.82 2.50 B 44.82 2.50 B NB 19.04 2.50 B 19.04 2.50 B SB 12.00 1.52 B 12.00 1.52 B #Intersection Approach Cumulative Conditions Cumulative + Project Conditions 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road 2 Higuera Street & South Street 3 Orcutt Road & Sacramento Drive/Duncan Road 9 Broad Street & Tank Farm Road 11 Broad Street & Aero Drive 5 Broad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue 6 Broad Street & Orcutt Road 8 Broad Street & Industrial Way Table 40: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Bicycle LOS results ATTACHMENT J Page 297 of 309 pedestrian warning signs, and school pavement markings . For further details on these recommendations please refer to the CEQA Transportation Analysis report, which is Phase 1 of this Traffic Impact Study. Score LOS Score LOS EB 3.50 C 3.50 C WB 2.00 B 2.00 B NB 2.66 C 2.66 C SB 4.22 D 4.23 D EB 2.18 B 2.18 B WB 3.04 C 3.07 C NB 4.26 D 4.49 D SB 2.60 C 2.60 C EB 2.97 C 3.01 C WB 2.93 C 2.93 C NB 3.04 C 3.08 C SB 2.03 B 2.03 B NB 0.59 F 0.65 F SB 0.57 F 0.63 F EB 3.60 D 3.86 D WB 2.38 B 2.38 B NB 4.20 D 4.24 D SB 2.75 C 2.76 C EB 1.97 B 1.97 B WB 4.20 D 4.35 D NB 4.11 D 4.12 D SB 3.04 C 3.08 C NB 0.88 F 0.88 F SB 0.88 F 0.88 F EB 2.09 B 2.09 B WB 2.25 B 2.25 B NB 3.34 C 3.35 C SB 3.37 C 3.39 C EB 4.18 D 4.18 D WB 2.83 C 2.85 C NB 3.62 D 3.63 D SB 4.45 D 4.47 D NB 0.82 F 0.82 F SB 0.84 F 0.84 F EB 2.08 B 2.08 B WB 2.42 B 2.42 B NB 2.87 C 2.88 C SB 3.27 C 3.28 C NB 0.85 F 0.85 F SB 0.85 F 0.85 F Cumulative+ Project Conditions 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road Signal 2 Higuera Street & South Street Signal #Intersection Existing Control Crosswalk Cumulative Conditions 3 Orcutt Road & Sacramento Drive/Duncan Road Signal 4 Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way TWS 5 Broad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue Signal 6 Broad Street & Orcutt Road Signal 7 Broad Street & Capitolio Way OWS 8 Broad Street & Industrial Way Signal 9 Broad Street & Tank Farm Road Signal 10 Broad Street & Aerovista Place OWS 11 Broad Street & Aero Drive Signal 12 Broad Street & Farmhouse Lane OWS Table 41: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Pedestrian LOS results ATTACHMENT J Page 298 of 309 Roadway Analyses Using cumulative geometric conditions and traffic volumes, Cumulative conditions level of service for vehicles and pedestrians, and level of traffic stress for cyclists were evaluated. The results of the vehicle LOS analysis are summarized in Table 42 . All roadway segments are within the acceptable LOS D for arterials and regional routes and below the maximum ADT threshold (10,000 vehicles) for commercial collector streets. Project-related traffic does not cause LOS standards to be exceeded. Table 42: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Vehicle Roadway Segment LOS results The results of the bicycle level of traffic stress are summarized in Table 43. Project-related traffic does not cause LTS standards to be exceeded or further degraded from the existing conditions, and the net increase in bicycle and vehicle trips outside of the campus pick-up/drop-off area is not expected to represent a notable change in user experience compared to existing conditions. It is worth noting that there will be a 300’ long drop-off zone adjacent to the southbound bicycle lane along Sacramento Drive near the project site. Potential conflicts between bicyclists and vehicles entering and existing the drop-off zone could arise. Consequently, AMG recommended several traffic calming and safety improvements along Sacramento drive near the campus pick-up/drop-off area in Phase 1 of the TIS, the CEQA Transportation Analysis. These recommendations include green bike lane markings along the 300’ drop-off zone and through the site driveway on Sacramento Drive, advance warning signage, radar speed feedback signs approaching the school on Sacramento Drive, and enhanced crosswalks at the school entry for bicyclist and pedestrian crossing safety. Additionally, a follow-up study will be conducted 3-6 months after school opening to further monitor conflicts after occupancy. If any conflicts or significant impacts are found, the study will recommend any additional improvements. ADT LOS ADT LOS Broad St (South to Orcutt) Arterial 4 YES 30,123 C 30,253 C Broad St (Orcutt to Tank Farm)Regional Route 4 YES 32,705 C 32,785 C Broad St (Tank Farm to City Limits Regional Route 2 or 4 YES 21,307 B 21,336 B Sacramento Dr (Orcutt to Capitolio) Collector 2 NO 5,403 C 5,609 C Orcutt Rd (Broad to Sacramento) Arterial 4 YES 18,534 B 18,664 B Segment Cumulative Cumulative + ProjectRoad Type DividedLanes Table 43: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Bicycle Roadway Segment LTS results Broad St (South to Orcutt) 2 +5 +130 0.43% Broad St (Orcutt to Tank Farm)2 +1 +80 0.24% Broad St (Tank Farm to City Limits 2 +1 +29 0.14% Sacramento Dr (Orcutt to Capitolio) 2 +9 +206 3.81% Orcutt Rd (Broad to Sacramento) 2 +5 +130 0.70% Net Increase Bike Trips Net Increase Vehicle Trips % Net Increase Vehicle TripsSegmentCumulative + Project LTS ATTACHMENT J Page 299 of 309 The results of the pedestrian LOS analysis are summarized in Table 44. Some of the segments operate below acceptable LOS C. This is due to the narrow sidewalks, narrow buffers between the sidewalks and the roadway, and high crossing delay at the boundary intersection. Project-related traffic does not cause LOS standards to be exceeded or further degraded from the existing conditions in a manner that would be noticeable to the average road user, or contextually significant in a negative manner. Further, as shown in Figure 14, the net new pedestrian trips generated by the project beyond the campus pick- up/drop-off area are expected to be relatively low. Appendix G contains cumulative plus project conditions pedestrian delay and LOS calculations. Additionally, AMG recommended several traffic calming and pedestrian crossing safety improvements on Sacramento Drive near the campus pick-up/drop-off area. These recommendations include enhanced crosswalks at the school entry for bicyclist and pedestrian crossing safety, advanced pedestrian warning signs, and school pavement markings . The project also proposes to construct a 5- foot wide asphalt sidewalk on the west side along Sacramento Drive, ensuring pedestrian connectivity between the school and Capitolio Way to the south. For further details on these recommendations please refer to the CEQA Transportation Analysis report, which is Phase 1 of this Traffic Impact Study. E. Intersection Queuing For vehicle queuing analysis, Synchro 12 software was used to obtain the 95th percentile queues at most of the study intersections. However, if oversaturated conditions were present at a study intersection, SimTraffic microsimulation analysis was conducted to obtain 95th percentile queues. SimTraffic analysis was also used at Caltrans intersections, as it is a Caltrans requirement. Caltrans requires that SimTraffic analysis uses five (5) SimTraffic runs, four 15-minute intervals with a 10-minute seeding period. i. Existing Plus Project Conditions The results of the vehicle queuing analysis under Existing Plus Project conditions are summarized in Table 45. Most of the lanes or lane groups with a dedicated turn pocket have a 95th percentile queue that does not extend past the available storage length under existing plus project conditions. Although some of the lanes do extend past the available storage length, project-related traffic does not cause a queue that is greater than one vehicle length (25’) from the 95th percentile queues in the existing conditions. Therefore, project-related traffic does not exacerbate existing queues. Appendix F contains the 95th percentile Synchro and SimTraffic reports under the existing plus project conditions. Broad St (South to Orcutt) 4,647 4.11 D 3,485 3.78 D 3,366 4.15 D 2,796 3.81 D Broad St (Orcutt to Tank Farm)4,899 3.71 D 7,264 3.95 D 4,384 3.74 D 5,678 3.96 D Broad St (Tank Farm to City Limits 50,361 3.74 D 37,771 3.78 D 50,361 3.76 D 37,771 3.81 D Sacramento (Orcutt to Capitolio) 2,796 3.23 C 1,300 2.33 B 1,569 3.29 C 727 2.45 B Orcutt (Broad to Sacramento) 3,485 3.41 C 4,647 3.61 D 2,796 3.46 C 3,366 3.62 D Segment Cumulative Cumulative + Project NB or EB Ped Space (ft2/s) NB or EB Ped LOS score LOS NB or EB Ped Space (ft2/s) NB or EB Ped LOS score LOSLOSSB or WB Ped Space (ft2/s) SB or WB Ped LOS score LOS SB or WB Ped Space (ft2/s) SB or WB Ped LOS score Table 44: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Pedestrian Roadway Segment LOS results ATTACHMENT J Page 300 of 309 ID #Intersection Movements Total Existing Storage Length (ft.) Existing 95th Queue Length (ft.) Existing + Project 95th Queue Length (ft.) Difference (ft.) Existing 95th Queue Length (ft.) Existing + Project 95th Queue Length (ft.) Difference (ft.) NBL 160 116 116 0 SBT1 220 126 126 0 SBT2 220 126 126 0 EBR 110 32 32 0 NBL 60 39 39 0 50 58 +8 NBR 150 38 47 +9 130 153 +23 SBL 100 189 189 0 142 164 +22 EBR 50 0 0 0 30 34 +4 WBL 1 230 150 175 +25 155 159 +4 NBL 90 38 40 +2 SBL 50 5 6 +1 EBL 120 19 20 +1 WBL 120 69 77 +8 NBL1 250 150 190 +40 NBL2 250 150 190 +40 NBR 200 60 60 0 SBL 100 28 28 0 EBL 170 58 59 +1 NBL 130 6 6 0 NBR 200 12 13 +1 SBL1 350 193 259 +66 SBL2 350 193 259 +66 WBL 210 164 164 0 EBR 50 0 0 0 NBL 150 57 57 0 NBR 170 33 33 0 SBL 110 68 68 0 SBR 430 0 0 0 EBR 100 0 0 0 WBR 180 0 0 0 NBL1 280 103 108 +5 NBL2 280 103 108 +5 SBL 250 141 158 +17 SBR 300 64 70 +6 EBL1 270 122 129 +7 EBL2 270 122 129 +7 EBR 130 68 69 +1 WBL 150 174 178 +4 NBL 150 47 47 0 SBL 200 51 51 0 EBR 120 0 0 0 NBL 360 242 245 +3 168 203 +35 SBL 400 10 10 0 12 11 -1 SBR 400 17 16 -1 41 130 +89 EBTL 440 110 110 0 83 88 +5 NBL 220 164 164 0 132 167 +35 SBL 80 8 8 0 0 11 +11 SBR 110 65 76 +11 147 139 -8 EBR 265 0 0 0 81 183 +102 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 13 Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road** 14 Edna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road** 10 Broad Street & Aerovista Place 11 Broad Street & Aero Drive 12 Broad Street & Farmhouse Lane 9 Broad Street & Tank Farm Road 4 Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way 5 Broad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue 6 Broad Street & Orcutt Road 7 Broad Street & Capitolio Way 8 Broad Street & Industrial Way 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road 2 Higuera Street & South Street* 3 Orcutt Road & Sacramento Drive / Duncan Road Synchro N/A N/A N/A SimTraffic Legend: * = Used Simtraffic due to oversaturated conditions ** = Used Simtraffic due to Caltrans guidelines Table 45: Existing Plus Project Conditions 95th Percentile Queuing Analysis results ATTACHMENT J Page 301 of 309 ii. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions The results of the vehicle queuing analysis under Cumulative Plus Project conditions are summarized in . Most of the lanes or lane groups with a dedicated turn pocket have a 95th percentile queue that does not extend past the available storage length under cumulative plus project conditions. Although some of the lanes do extend past the available storage length, project-related traffic does not cause a queue that is greater than one vehicle length (25’) from the 95th percentile queues in cumulative conditions. Therefore, project-related traffic does not exacerbate existing queues. Appendix G contains the 95th percentile Synchro and SimTraffic reports under the cumulative plus project conditions. ATTACHMENT J Page 302 of 309 ID #Intersection Movements Total Cumulative Storage Length (ft.) Cumulative 95th Queue Length (ft.) Cumulative + Project 95th Queue Length (ft.) Difference (ft.) Cumulative 95th Queue Length (ft.) Cumulative + Project 95th Queue Length (ft.) Difference (ft.) NBL 1 160 96 96 0 NBL 2 160 96 96 0 SBT1 220 96 168 +72 SBT2 110 167 168 +1 EBR 60 57 80 +23 NBL 150 91 95 +4 NBR 100 61 104 +43 SBL 50 201 203 +2 EBR 130 0 0 0 WBL 1 90 225 266 +41 NBL 50 41 60 +19 SBL 120 6 8 +2 EBL 120 23 32 +9 WBL 0 356 374 +18 NBL1 250 178 257 +79 NBL2 250 178 257 +79 NBR 200 264 268 +4 SBL 100 40 40 0 EBL 170 68 69 +1 NBL 130 6 6 0 NBR 200 17 17 0 SBL1 350 262 318 +56 SBL2 350 262 318 +56 WBL 210 208 211 +3 EBR 50 0 0 0 NBL 150 64 64 0 NBR 170 37 37 0 SBL 110 78 78 0 SBR 430 37 37 0 EBR 100 0 0 0 WBR 180 5 4 -1 NBL1 250 308 308 0 NBL2 250 308 308 0 NBR 200 70 75 +5 SBL 1 200 85 85 0 SBL 2 200 85 85 0 SBR 300 455 464 +9 EBL1 300 193 194 +1 EBL2 300 193 194 +1 EBR 300 312 312 0 WBL 150 184 184 0 NBL 150 44 50 +6 SBL 200 279 329 +50 EBR 120 0 0 0 NBTL 150 300 300 0 497 545 +48 NBTR N/A 400 400 0 852 622 -230 SBTL 360 75 75 0 274 300 +26 SBTR N/A 75 75 0 376 537 +161 EBTL N/A 0 0 0 47 44 -3 EBR 440 25 25 0 57 50 -7 WBTLR N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBTL 220 400 400 0 332 347 +15 NBTR N/A 475 500 +25 950 971 +21 SBTL 110 50 50 0 27 33 +6 SBTR N/A 50 50 0 23 28 +5 EBL N/A 25 25 0 129 147 +18 EBTR 265 25 25 0 43 51 +8 WBTLR N/A 0 0 0 12 8 -4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road* N/A N/A N/A N/A 13 11 Broad Street & Aero Drive Edna Road (SR 227) & Los Ranchos Road* 14 9 Broad Street & Tank Farm Road 12 Broad Street & Farmhouse Lane 10 Broad Street & Aerovista Place 8 Broad Street & Industrial Way 3 Orcutt Road & Sacramento Drive / Duncan Road 4 Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way 5 Broad Street & South Street/Santa Barbara Avenue 6 Broad Street & Orcutt Road 7 Broad Street & Capitolio Way 2 Higuera Street & South Street Synchro 1 Higuera Street & Madonna Road SimTraffic Legend: * = Used Simtraffic due to Caltrans guidelines Table 46: Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 95th Percentile Queuing Analysis results ATTACHMENT J Page 303 of 309 F. Transit Analysis Transit service in the City of SLO is provided by San Luis Obispo’s Transit Division, SLO Transit. The project site is bounded to the west by Broad Street and to the east by Sacramento Drive. Near the project site, a single bus stop for the SLO Transit Route 1A is found. Route 1A provides service between SLO County Airport to the south and downtown San Luis Obispo to the north. The route is looping, and buses make stops in the clockwise direction. Route 1A provides 16 daily trips from the Transit Center in Downtown Luis Obispo during the Academic year (September-June) and 14 daily trips in the summer (June-August). On weekends, 12 daily trips are provided. The bus stop near the project site is the Broad at Rockview stop. The stop is located approximately 250’ to the north along Broad Avenue from the project site access on Broad Avenue and can be accessed by pedestrians and bicyclists via sidewalk. The stop provides passengers with a covered bus shelter as well as a trash can. Figure 19 shows the location of the bus stop in relation to the project site. Figure 19: Bus Stop near project site To determine project impacts on transit, transit load factors with and without the project-generated ridership demand were evaluated. The multimodal trip generation calculated that 2 transit trips would be generated by the project. Since school will not offer a private school bus or shuttle bus service to students, both of those transit trips will be served by SLO Transit’s Route 1A. Route 1A has a frequency of 1 bus per hour, so to analyze future crowding conditions, additional trips were added to a single bus trip on the route. Ridership data shows that the highest average ridership has an average of approximately 12 riders on the bus. Assigning the project trips to this hour, the average ridership for the peak hour would be 14. The vehicles used on Route 1A by SLO Transit have a seated capacity of 40 passengers. The peak factor is calculated by dividing the ridership data by the seated bus capacity. BROAD @ ROCKVIEW BUS STOP ATTACHMENT J Page 304 of 309 Table 47 shows the transit load factors with and without the project-generated ridership demand. The city’s transit load factor threshold for significant impact is 0.83. Analysis shows that the additional trips generated by the project will not exceed this threshold and therefore have no significant impact on transit services. Table 47: Transit Load Factor results No Project Transit Load Factor With Project Transit Load Factor 0.30 0.35 G. Assessment of Conflicts with Applicable Plans, Programs, & Ordinances AMG assessed any potential conflicts and significant traffic impacts that the proposed SLOCA Campus project could have with applicable Plans, Programs, and Ordinances. A traffic impact is considered significant if the project proposes to implement transportation infrastructure inconsistent with any of the adopted plans or policies, impedes or constrains future planned transportation infrastructure, increase LOS that exceeds the City thresholds, or exacerbates traffic volumes on neighborhood streets. Based on the planning documents, plans and policies outlined in the Local, Regional, and State Plans and Regulatory Policies section of the Operational Analysis Approach, the proposed project: • Does not implement transportation infrastructure that is inconsistent with any of the applicable plans, programs, policies, or ordinances. The transportation infrastructure that is being implemented by the project (new curb ramps, new sidewalks, pedestrian improvements) are consistent with the General Plan and the Active Transportation Plan. • Does not constrain or impede any future planned transportation infrastructure. • Does not increase LOS that exceeds City thresholds at most study intersections and segments. For locations where LOS exceeds City thresholds or exacerbates already deficient LOS, mitigation measures will be recommended to offset these deficiencies. • Does not increase 95th percentile queues by more than one vehicle length (25’) or exceed storage length. Does not cause queues that would cause significant impact. ATTACHMENT J Page 305 of 309 H. Route 227 Corridor Mitigation Fees San Luis Obispo County, in coordination with SLOCOG and Caltrans, is in the process of making improvements along Broad Street and Edna Road (State Route 227). These improvements involve installing roundabouts at Broad Street & Farmhouse Lane, Edna Road/SR 227 & Buckley Road , and Edna Road/SR227 & Los Ranchos Road intersections. In order to collect a proportionate share of the costs for these improvements from new development projects that add traffic to the State Route 227 Corridor, SLO County has created the State Route 227 Mitigation Fee Program. This program is used to calculate each project’s fair share participation. The mitigation fees are calculated by the number of peak hour trips the project will generate along the State Route 227 intersections. Table 48 below summarizes the fair share calculation this project will need to contribute to the mitigation fee program. Since the project will only generate AM trips, the project will only pay for the AM share. Table 48: State Route 227 Corridor Mitigation Fee Calculation Improvement 2035 Cumulative AM Peak Volume AM Peak Project Trips Improvement Cost AM Fair Share Fee Broad St & Farmhouse Ln 2,269 40 $2,000,000 $35,257.82 Edna Rd/SR227 & Buckley Rd 2,371 40 $2,000,000 $45,550.40 Edna Rd/SR227 & Crestmont Dr 2,333 40 $2,000,000 $46,292.33 Edna Rd/SR227 & Los Ranchos Rd 2,352 40 $2,000,000 $45,918.37 Total $173,018.92 ATTACHMENT J Page 306 of 309 Operational Analysis Conclusions and Recommendations The Multimodal Operational Transportation Analysis for the SLOCA Campus Project confirms a less than significant impact on Level Of Service for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at most study intersections and roadway segments during Existing, Existing Plus Project, Cumulative, and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Project-generated transit demand confirms a less than significant impact on Transit services. The project must pay $173,019 into SLO County’s State Route 227 Corridor Mitigation Fee Program. The following are deficiencies that are not project related but are outlined below: • Broad Street & Capitolio Way and Broad Street & Farmhouse Lane intersections have a level of service below LOS D, not caused by project-related traffic and not exacerbated by the project to the extent that would be considered significant per city adopted impact thresholds. The city should monitor both intersections and consider solutions in improving LOS. • At the Broad Street & Capitolio Way intersection, the city should continue monitoring for signal warrants and consider restricting left-turns exiting Capitolio Way if a collision trend caused by that movement materializes in the future. • At Broad Street and Farmhouse Lane, there is a future roundabout planned and funded through the County’s SR 227 Corridor Impact Fee. Timing for implementation is uncertain for now, but payment of SR 227 Mitigation fees satisfies the project’s fair share contribution. The following are the project-related deficiencies found from the multimodal operational analysis: • Project-related traffic leads to vehicular LOS deficiency during Cumulative Plus Project conditions at the Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way intersection. However, project-related traffic does not exacerbate it to the extent that would be considered significant per city adopted impact thresholds. • Project has the potential to increase bicyclist conflicts near the project site on Sacramento Drive due to dedicated drop-off zone. To offset project related deficiencies, a monitoring study after occupancy of the school should be conducted. This study should be conducted a few months (3-6) after school occupancy at the site and should monitor potential pedestrian and bicycle conflicts along Sacramento Drive near the project site and project driveway. If traffic patterns and behaviors show an increase in pedestrian and bicycle conflicts, a Rectangular Rapidly Flashing Beacon should be installed at the project driveway crossing and green bike lane striping should be installed along southbound Sacramento Drive adjacent to the project. These measures may also be considered for implementation prior to project occupancy as preemptive strategies, if desired. Additionally, as part of the recommended monitoring program, traffic counts should be collected at the Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way intersection to verify if warrants for all-way stop control are met following occupancy of the project. An all-way stop control warrant is needed at this intersection because it will improve LOS from LOS F to LOS D during the Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Currently, the existing volumes are just below the thresholds needed to meet the all-way stop control ATTACHMENT J Page 307 of 309 warrant. However, counts should be taken again after occupancy (preferably during monitoring study), to verify that an all-way stop is warranted. An all-way stop control improvement at Sacramento Drive & Capitolio Way is not currently contained in the City’s Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. If it is found that the warrant is met, the school must install the all-way stop control. If the warrant is not met after school occupancy, the school must pay the fair share mitigation fee to City for the costs of installing an all-way stop control at a future date. For analysis and recommendations pertaining to VMT, Safety, and Site Circulation, please refer to the CEQA Transportation Analysis report, which is Phase 1 of this Traffic Impact Study. ATTACHMENT J Page 308 of 309 Technical Appendices Available Upon Request ATTACHMENT J Page 309 of 309 1 School and Daycare ARCH-0672-2024, PDEV-0673-2024, USE-0674-2024, and TREE-0033-2025 (3450 Broad Street) Planning Commission Hearing –June 11, 2025 Applicant – San Luis Obispo Classical Academy (SLOCA) Representative – Tim Ronda of SDG Architects 2 Recommendation Adopt the Draft Resolution, based on the findings and subject to the conditions, to approve the project, which consists of: Moderate Development Review (ARCH-0672-2024) for building, site, and sign improvements; Planned Development Amendment (PDEV-0673-2024) for the change in use; Conditional Use Permit (USE-0674-2024) to operate the school and daycare with reduced outdoor recreational area; Tree Removal Application (TREE-0033-2025) for 20 tree removals; Creek setback exception for mechanical equipment within creek setback; and Fencing in Open Space Easement area. 3 Project Location 3450 Broad Street Large developed property with office building and supporting site improvements (parking, landscaping, etc.) Acacia Creek Business Park Zone: C-S-S-PD 4 Project Description SLOCA – private elementary school and daycare Infant care through 8th grade New campus to consolidate SLOCA’s current operations at 3 separate locations K-8 school site at 165 Grand Avenue Preschool and infant care at Grand Avenue / Slack Street Staff offices at 1880 Santa Barbara Avenue Building, site, and sign improvements Project includes 4 accompanying applications 5 Project Description Moderate Development Review and PD Amendment Change use of large office PD to school and daycare Building improvements o 4,300 square foot addition (interior to building footprint) o Tenant improvements to create classrooms, offices, etc. o Façade refresh with new exterior colors and finishes Site improvements o Outdoor field and activity areas o Redesign of south parking lot for new access and circulation improvements o Landscape upgrades Sign improvements o New sign program Creek setback exception to allow mechanical equipment in creek setback Requested fencing in the Open Space Easement (OSE) 6 Project Description Conditional Use Permit Establish the school and daycare uses o Full-time and hybrid programs o Staggered class schedule o Maximum of 372 students on campus at any one time Tree Removal Application Remove 20 trees to accommodate new outdoor field, recreational areas, and decks for outdoor classroom areas Plant 45 replacement trees on outdoor field perimeter, along Sacramento, and throughout south parking area 7 8 9 10 Tree Removals 40 existing trees 20 removals 12 Callery pears 3 Australian willows 3 Coast live oaks 1 Western sycamore 1 stump 20 remaining to be protected 11 Tree Plantings 45 replacements Chitalpas Brisbane box Coast live oaks Engelmann oaks Island oaks Water gum Chinese elm 12 Consistency with the General Plan Amendment to Large Office PD Change in use must be consistent with the General Plan Services and Manufacturing (SM) land use designation o Intended for a wide range of services that meet the needs of the City o Appropriate uses include public and quasi-public uses such as the proposed school and daycare Project to advance LUE Goals 26 and 27 – support high quality education and serve as the County’s hub for education 13 Consistency with the Community Design Guidelines Building, Site, and Sign Improvements Consistent with the Community Design Guidelines ARC unanimously supported the changes o Limited changes to building form o Façade refresh with muted color palette and complementary metal/wood materials and detailing o Additional outdoor spaces, landscaping, and trees o Appropriate sign program for the tenant 14 Creek Setback Exception New (replacement) mechanical equipment Minor encroachments at portions of the current creek setback Installed in areas that have been disturbed and do not have value as riparian habitat Original site development included a creek setback exception for the bike path and required an OSE to ensure protection of the pertinent creek habitat (and address this special consideration of the site) New equipment between bike path and building, and comply with OSE Condition No. 10 limits exception to the new mechanical equipment 15 Fencing in the Open Space Easement ARC unanimously supported the open fencing Consistent with the OSE Agreement Provide separation and protection between the different uses Condition No. 11 details the allowable fencing exception and subsequent responsibilities 16 Consistency with the Tree Regulations Tree Removals and Compensatory Plantings Consistent with the Tree Regulations TC unanimously supported the changes o 24-inch to 60-inch box replacements o Replantings in areas where trees would be removed (perimeter of outdoor field, along Sacramento, in south parking lot) o Result in larger, more visually prominent trees at maturity Consistent with the OSE Agreement o Coast live oaks replantings in OSE appropriate for riparian corridor restoration, erosion control, and soil stabilization Condition No. 18 requires the 45 tree replacements, as proposed 17 Consistency with the Zoning Regulations School/Daycare Use Not within 1,000-foot of a cannabis retailer or site with hazardous materials or conditions Consistent with Airport Land Use Plan (use, safety/density, height, and noise criteria) Comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance Provide reduced amount of recreational open space for grades 1-8 o 20,056 SF outdoor field (4,408 SF for preschool/kindergarten and 15,648 SF for grades 1-8) o ~140 SF of (indoor and outdoor) recreational space per grade 1-8 student Conditions No. 15-16 requires Pick-Up and Drop-off Plan and carpool-matching services in coordination with the Final TIS recommendations 18 Consistency with the S Overlay (Location and Circulation) Transportation Impact Study (TIS) conducted (to address any concerns related to the use and location and circulation of the site) Evaluation based on CEQA Guidelines and local transportation policy: Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) Site circulation and safety Parking demand management Offsite multimodal transportation operations (including vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian and transit considerations) Project exempt from CEQA and consistent with local policy with recommendations to prepare the site for the school use 19 TIS Findings and Recommendations TIS findings informed the project conditions (Conditions No. 28 – 34) Pay Transportation Impact Fees for the City and County Construct sidewalk along Sacramento at property to immediate south Install passenger loading area along Sacramento during drop-off and pick -up times Construct pedestrian crossing upgrades at Sacramento and Via Esteban Install green bike lane markings along Sacramento to increase visibility of cyclists Install traffic calming signage (reduced speeds/school zone) along Sacramento Implement School Access and Parking Management strategies (one-way westbound parking lot access; short-term, staff, and carpool designated parking stalls; staggered class start and end times; etc.) Implement School Circulation and Monitoring Program (to ensure operations are conducted in a safe manner and correct any concerns as needed) Contribute to improvements at Sacramento and Capitolio intersection, as needed 20 21 22 Environmental Review Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) Consistent with applicable General Plan policies and Zoning Regulations Located on a site that is less than five (5) acres in size Surrounded by other urban uses Not a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species as a developed property Not result in significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality as conditioned Continue to be served by all required utilities and public services 23 Recommendation Adopt the Draft Resolution, based on the findings and subject to the conditions, to approve the project, which consists of: Moderate Development Review (ARCH-0672-2024) for building, site, and sign improvements; Planned Development Amendment (PDEV-0673-2024) for the change in use; Conditional Use Permit (USE-0674-2024) to operate the school and daycare with reduced outdoor recreational area; Tree Removal Application (TREE-0033-2025) for 20 tree removals; Creek setback exception for mechanical equipment within creek setback; and Fencing in Open Space Easement area. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41