HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-11-2025 PC Agenda PacketPlanning Commission
AGENDA
Wednesday, June 11, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Planning Commission meetings can be viewed remotely on Channel 20, the City’s YouTube Channel,
and on the City’s website under the Public Meeting Agendas web page. Attendees of City Council or
Advisory Body meetings are eligible to receive one hour of complimentary parking; restrictions apply,
visit Parking for Public Meetings for more details.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:
Public Comment prior to the meeting (must be received 3 hours in advance of the meeting):
Mail - Delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Address letters to the City Clerk's Office at 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401.
Email - Submit Public Comments via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org. In the body of your
email, please include the date of the meeting and the item number (if applicable). Emails will not
be read aloud during the meeting.
Voicemail - Call (805) 781-7164 and leave a voicemail. Please state and spell your name, the
agenda item number you are calling about, and leave your comment. Verbal comments must be
limited to 3 minutes. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting.
All correspondence will be archived and distributed to members, however, submissions received
after the deadline may not be processed until the following day.
Public Comment during the meeting:
Meetings are held in-person. To provide public comment during the meeting, you must be
present at the meeting location.
Electronic Visual Aid Presentation. To conform with the City's Network Access and Use Policy,
Chapter 1.3.8 of the Council Policies & Procedures Manual, members of the public who desire
to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentation must provide display-ready
material to the City Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Contact the City Clerk's
Office at cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7114.
Pages
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Houghton will call the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to
order.
2.PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the
agenda. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this
time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is
necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
3.CONSENT
Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-
controversial and will be acted upon at one time. A member of the public may
request the Planning Commission to pull an item for discussion. The public may
comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three-minute
time limit.
Recommendation:
To approve Consent Items 3a to 3c.
3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - MAY 28, 2025 PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
7
Recommendation:
To approve the Planning Commission Minutes of May 28, 2025.
3.b ADOPT RESOLUTION OF REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY USE AT 1236 MONTE VISTA PLACE
13
Adopt the Draft Resolution to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for use
of 1236 Monte Vista Place as a fraternity.
3.c ADOPT RESOLUTION OF REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY USE AT 1304 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
19
Adopt the Draft Resolution to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for use
of 1304 Foothill Boulevard as a fraternity.
4.PUBLIC HEARINGS
Note: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this
agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at,
or prior to, the public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and
address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes; consultant
and project presentations limited to six minutes.
4.a 1425 SYDNEY STREET (APPL-0248-2025) REVIEW OF AN APPEAL
OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR TO APPROVE FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION
APPLICATION FNCE-0686-2024
25
Recommendation:
Adopt the Draft Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the
decision of the Community Development Director approving the Fence
Height Exception application FNCE-0686-2024.
4.b 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,
USE-0674-2024, TREE-0033-2025)
57
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:
Approve the Moderate Development Review (ARCH-0672-
2024) to allow the proposed building, site, and sign
improvements;
1.
Approve the Planned Development Amendment (PDEV-0673-
2024) to allow the proposed change in use at the project site;
2.
Approve the Conditional Use Permit (USE-0674-2024) to allow
establishment and operation of the proposed school and
daycare with reduced outdoor recreational area;
3.
Approve the Tree Removal Application (TREE-0033-2025) to
allow the proposed removal of 20 existing trees;
4.
Approve the creek setback exception to allow installation of
mechanical equipment within portions of the creek setback
area; and
5.
Allow the proposed fencing within the Open Space Easement
area.
6.
5.COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Receive a brief update from Principal Planner Rachel Cohen.
6.ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for June
25, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES for the hearing impaired--see the Clerk
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible
to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate
alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who
requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting
should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7114 at least
48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the
Deaf (805) 781-7410.
Planning Commission meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20 and on
the City's YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/CityofSanLuisObispo. Agenda
related writings or documents provided to the Planning Commission are
available for public inspection on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and-
minutes.
Page 6 of 309
1
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Planning
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioner Sheryl Flores, Commissioner Bob Jorgensen,
Commissioner Steve Kahn, Chair Dave Houghton,
Commissioner Justin Cooley
Planning
Commissioners
Absent:
Commissioner Juan Munoz-Morris and Vice Chair Eric Tolle
City Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey, Deputy
City Attorney Sadie Symens, City Clerk Teresa Purrington
1. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to
order on May 28, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Chair Houghton.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comment:
Kathie Walker
End of Public Comment--
3. CONSENT
Motion By Commissioner Cooley
Second By Commissioner Flores
To approve Consent Items 3a and 3b.
Ayes (5): Commissioner Flores, Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner Kahn,
Chair Houghton, and Commissioner Cooley
Absent (2): Commissioner Munoz-Morris, and Vice Chair Tolle
CARRIED (5 to 0)
Page 7 of 309
2
3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - APRIL 9, 2025 PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES
To approve the Planning Commission Minutes of April 9, 2025.
3.b CITYWIDE (GENP-0359-2025) REVIEW OF THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN OF THE 2025-27 FINANCIAL PLAN FOR
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY
Adopt a Resolution determining general plan conformance for the 2025 -27
Capital Improvement Plan and that this action is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15262 which
excludes feasibility and planning studies.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.a 1236 MONTE VISTA PLACE (USE-0332-2025). RE-REVIEW OF AN
EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FRATERNITY. THE
PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
Commissioners Flores, Kahn, Cooley, and Jorgensen and Chair Houghton
reported having no Ex Parte Communications regarding the project.
Assistant Planner Patino presented the staff report and responded to
Commission inquiries.
Applicant representative, Jakob Zuckermandel, provided a brief overview
of the project and responded to questions raised.
Chair Houghton opened the Public Hearing
Public Comment:
Stew Jenkins
Kathie Walker
End of Public Comment--
Chair Houghton closed the Public Hearing.
Motion By Chair Houghton
Second By Commissioner Cooley
To revoke the Conditional Use Permit, without prejudice based the inability
to make the required findings. The code Sections that are the basis for
the revocation are 17.86.130 Fraternities and sororities, 17.102.020(C)(7)
Revocation of Conditional Use Permit and 17.110 Minor Use Permit and
Conditional Use Permits. The Resolution for the revocation will return to
Page 8 of 309
3
the Planning Commission at the June 11, 2025 Planning Commission
meeting.
Ayes (5): Commissioner Flores, Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner
Kahn, Chair Houghton, and Commissioner Cooley
Absent (2): Commissioner Munoz-Morris, and Vice Chair Tolle
CARRIED (5 to 0)
4.b 1304 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND 190 CRANDALL WAY (USE-0333-
2025). RE-REVIEW OF AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A FRATERNITY. THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW.
Commissioners Flores, Kahn, Cooley and Jorgensen and Chair Houghton
reported having no Ex Parte Communications regarding the project.
Assistant Planner Patino presented the staff report and responded to
Commission inquiries.
Applicant representative, Charlie Minor, provided a brief overview of the
project and responded to questions raised.
Chair Houghton opened the Public Hearing
Public Comment:
Stew Jenkins
Steve Walker
Kathie Walker
End of Public Comment--
Chair Houghton closed the Public Hearing
Motion By Commissioner Cooley
Second By Commissioner Jorgensen
To revoke the Conditional Use Permit, without prejudice based the inability
to make the required findings. The code Sections that are the basis for the
revocation are 17.86.130 Fraternities and sororities, 17.102.020(C)(7)
Revocation of Conditional Use Permit and 17.110 Minor Use Permit and
Conditional Use Permits. The Resolution for the revocation will return to
the Planning Commission at the June 11, 2025 Planning Commission
meeting.
Page 9 of 309
4
Ayes (5): Commissioner Flores, Commissioner Jorgensen, Commissioner
Kahn, Chair Houghton, and Commissioner Cooley
Absent (2): Commissioner Munoz-Morris, and Vice Chair Tolle
CARRIED (5 to 0)
5. PRESENTATION
5.a CAL POLY, CITY, AND REGIONAL PLANNING GRADUATE STUDENT
STUDIO ON THE UPPER MONTEREY AREA PRESENTATION
Cal Poly students provided a presentation regarding the Upper Monterey
Area.
6. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
6.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey provided an update
of upcoming projects:
Scheduled for the June 11th meeting, are the Resolutions for the
revocation of Conditional Use Permits for Fraternities located at
1236 Monte Vista Place (USE-0332-2025) and 1304 Foothill
Boulevard and 190 Crandall Way (USE-0333-2025) (no further
discussion on the merits of the CUP reviews will be held; the vote
will be only on the adoption of the language of the Resolutions of
revocation); an appeal of the Community Development Director’s
approval of a Fence Height Exception located at 1425 Sydney
Street; and the re-use of an office building to establish a private
school (SLO Classical Academy) located at 3450 Broad Street
ARCH-0672-2024; PDEV-0673-2024; USE-0674-2024).
Tentatively scheduled for the June 25th meeting, is a re-review of a
Conditional Use Permit for a Fraternity located at 720 Foothill
Boulevard (USE-0334-2025); a request to remove a Planned
Development Overlay for 1144 Chorro Street (PDEV-0428-2023;
and a modification to a Use Permit for an existing Bar/Tavern use
located at 1234 Broad Street (MOD-0029-2025).
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission is scheduled for June 11, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
Page 10 of 309
5
APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/202X
Page 11 of 309
Page 12 of 309
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION OF REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A FRATERNITY USE AT 1236 MONTE VISTA PLACE
BY: Sadie Symens, Deputy City Attorney FROM: Sadie Symens, Deputy City Attorney
Phone Number: (805) 781-7512 Phone Number: (805) 781-7512
Email: ssymens@slocity.org Email: ssymens@slocity.org
RECOMMENDATION
On May 28, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 5 -0 (two members absent) to revoke the
Conditional Use Permit U106-98 for use of 1236 Monte Vista Place as a fraternity. The draft
Resolution recites the Commission’s findings in revoking the permit and is being brought before
the Commission for adoption.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft PC Resolution Revoking the Conditional Use Permit for a Fraternity at 1236 Monte
Vista Place
Meeting Date: 6/11/2025
Item Number: 3b
Time Estimate: N/A
Page 13 of 309
Page 14 of 309
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO REVOKING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A FRATERNITY AT 1236 MONTE VISTA PLACE. THE ACTION IS
EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
WHEREAS, on August 12, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo revised a Use Permit to allow a fraternity (Kappa Sigma) at 1236 Monte Vista
Place (Resolution No. 5230-98 (1998 Series)); and
WHEREAS, after Kappa Sigma vacated the project site, Delta Chi began residing
at the project site in 2012 and continued the use as a fraternity organization under the
provisions of Use Permit U106-98; and
WHEREAS, on November 2, 2021, a Notice to Correct Code Violation(s)/Notice of
Violation was issued to the property due to unpermitted work to enclose upper story
balconies to convert non-habitable space into sleeping areas. Building permits to convert
the spaces back into decks were submitted in October 2022 and December 2023, but the
work has not been completed; and
WHEREAS, the City received complaints, and, between September 2024 and May
2025, the Police Department issued three citations relating to noise violations at the
property (one was successfully appealed) and one citation for an unruly gathering; and
WHEREAS, Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation on March 19, 2025,
relating to the multiple, verified violations of the existing Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, in order to grant a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission
must find, among other things, that the establishment and subsequent operation or
conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the
particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use (SLOMC 17.110.070(A)(5)); and
WHEREAS, revocation of an existing Conditional Use Permit is appropriate if the
Planning Commission cannot make one or more findings of San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code Chapter 17.110 upon review of the permit due to violations thereof (SLOMC
17.102.020); and
WHEREAS, Condition No. 11 of Use Permit U106-98 requires Planning
Commission re-review if complaints are received by the City, at which time the Planning
Commission could add, delete, or modify conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit;
and
Page 15 of 309
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 2
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 May 28, 2025,
for the re-review of the Conditional Use Permit and to consider the continuation of the
fraternity at 1236 Monte Vista, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-0333-2025,
Sigma Nu, applicant; and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was provided at the time and in the manner
required by, including publication on May 15, 2025, in the New Times newspaper of a
legal ad for the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo considered all evidence, including testimony of the applicant, public comment,
and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 (two members absent) to revoke
the Conditional Use Permit and directed their legal counsel to prepare a Resolution of
revocation for the Commission’s adoption at the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Recitals stated above are incorporated herein as
Findings of the Planning Commission. In revoking the Conditional Use Permit pursuant
to Municipal Code §17.102.020(C)(7), and without prejudice, the Planning Commission
additionally finds:
1. The current use is not consistent with Fraternity regulations of Municipal Code
Section 17.86.130 because:
a. The fraternity has been repeatedly cited for violations of the City’s Noise
Ordinance and unruly gatherings.
b. Since May 2024, ten (10) complaints have been made to the Police for noise
violations at the property, resulting in several citations. One of these
occurred after the property was served with a Notice of Violation of the
Conditional Use Permit on March 19, 2025.
c. The fraternity was cited by Police on March 15, 2025, for the “St. Fratty’s
Day” party hosted on the property, during a safety enhancement zone and
despite City staff’s proactive outreach to fraternity organizations ahead of
the St. Patrick’s Day Weekend to encourage safe celebrations and deter
unruly gatherings.
d. The fraternity was most recently cited for a noise violation on May 17, 2025,
after the fraternity was provided notice of the Planning Commission hearing
on re-review of the Conditional Use Permit.
Page 16 of 309
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 3
e. The maximum number of persons on site repeatedly exceeded the limit
established by the Conditional Use Permit.
f. The fraternity has failed to apply for special event permits or parking and
transportation plans as required by their Conditional Use Permit, despite
hosting events which exceeded the routine gathering capacity limits of the
Permit.
g. There have been a series of events detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of the neighborhood.
h. There has been an institutional failure within the fraternity to educate its
members about the existence and requirements of the Conditional Use
Permit.
2. For the reasons stated above, the design, location, size, and operating
characteristics of the current use is not compatible with residential uses in the
vicinity. The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions
would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code
17.110.070(A)(3) cannot be made.
3. For the reasons stated above, the continued use of the property as a fraternity
under the Conditional Use Permit is not appropriate for the subject location, is
incompatible with the neighborhood, and will be detrimental to the health, safety,
and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity . The Planning
Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these
purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code § 17.110.070(A)(5)
cannot be made.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental
review under Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines
because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the revocation of the
Conditional Use Permit may have a significant effect on the environment. Additionally,
CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15270.)
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby REVOKES the Conditional
Use Permit U106-98, previously issued as to 1236 Monte Vista Place for use as a
fraternity, based on the Findings stated above. Use as a fraternity shall cease immediately
upon execution of this Resolution. Any subsequent application to establish a subsequent
Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity at the location shall be subject to all requirements
of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to Section 17.86.130 and Chapter 17.110.
Page 17 of 309
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 4
SECTION 4. Appeal. This Resolution of the Planning Commission may be
appealed to the City Council by filing an appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar
days of date of this decision as stated below and in compliance with San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Chapter 17.126. The appellant must pay the appropriate appeal f ee, if
applicable.
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 11th day of June 2025.
Rachel Cohen, Secretary
Planning Commission
Page 18 of 309
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION OF REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A FRATERNITY USE AT 1304 FOOTHILL BLVD.
BY: Sadie Symens, Deputy City Attorney FROM: Sadie Symens, Deputy City Attorney
Phone Number: (805) 781-7512 Phone Number: (805) 781-7512
Email: ssymens@slocity.org Email: ssymens@slocity.org
RECOMMENDATION
On May 28, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 5 -0 (two members absent) to revoke the
Conditional Use Permit U1484 for use of 1304 Foothill Blvd/190 Crandall Way as a fraternity.
The draft Resolution recites the Commission’s findings in revoking the permit and is being
brought before the Commission for adoption.
Attachments:
A - Draft PC Resolution Revoking the Conditional Use Permit for a Fraternity at 1304 Blvd/190
Crandall Way
Meeting Date: 6/11/2025
Item Number: 3c
Time Estimate: N/A
Page 19 of 309
Page 20 of 309
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO REVOKING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A FRATERNITY AT 1304 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND 190
CRANDALL WAY. THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW.
WHEREAS, on May 14, 1990, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo revised a Use Permit to allow a fraternity at 1304 Foothill Boulevard (Resolution
No. 5017-90 (1990 Series)); and
WHEREAS, on May 8, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo reviewed a previously approved Use Permit allowing a fraternity at 1304 Foothill
Boulevard, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under U1484; Sigma Nu, applica nt
Resolution No. 5055-91 ((1991 Series)); and
WHEREAS, on October 14, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo re-reviewed a previously approved and amended Use Permit allowing a fraternity
at 1304 Foothill Boulevard, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under U1484; Sigma Nu,
applicant (Resolution No. 5111-92 ((1992 Series)); and
WHEREAS, between September 2024 and May 2025, the City received
complaints regarding conduct at 1304 Boulevard, and the Police Department issued
four citations relating to noise violations and an unruly gathering at the property; and
WHEREAS, Code Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation on January 8, 2025,
and an Administrative Citation on April 2, 2025, relating to the multiple, verified violations
of the existing Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, in order to grant a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission
must find, among other things, that the establishment and subsequent operation or
conduct of the use will not, because of the circumstances and conditions applied in the
particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public or
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use, or be detrimental or injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity of the use (SLOMC 17.110.070(A)(5)); and
WHEREAS, revocation of an existing Conditional Use Permit is appropriate if the
Planning Commission cannot make one or more findings of San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code Chapter 17.110 upon review of the permit due to violations thereof (SLOMC
17.102.020); and
WHEREAS, Condition No. 4 of Use Permit requires that the Planning Commission
review complaints received by the City and consider whether to add, delete, or modify
conditions of approval, or revoke the use permit; and
Page 21 of 309
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 2
WHEREAS, pursuant to Condition No. 4 of the Use Permit, 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 May 28, 2025, for the re-review of the
Conditional Use Permit and to consider the continuation of the fraternity use at 1304
Foothill Boulevard and 190 Crandall Way, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under USE-
0333-2025; Sigma Nu, applicant; and
WHEREAS, notice of said public hearing was provided at the time and in the
manner required by, including publication on May 15, 2025, in the New Times newspaper
of a legal ad for the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo considered all evidence, including, testimony of the applicant, public comment,
and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 (two members absent) to revoke
the Conditional Use Permit and directed their legal counsel to prepare a Resolution of
revocation for the Commission’s adoption at the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Recitals stated above are incorporated herein as
Findings of the Planning Commission. In revoking the Conditional Use Permit pursuant
to Municipal Code §17.102.020(C)(7), and without prejudice, the Planning Commission
additionally finds:
1. The current use is not consistent with Fraternity regulations of Municipal Code
Section 17.86.130 because:
a. The fraternity has been repeatedly cited for violations of the City’s Noise
Ordinance and unruly gatherings.
b. The maximum number of persons on site repeatedly exceeded the limit
established by the Conditional Use Permit.
c. Since May 2024, nine (9) complaints have been made to the Police for noise
violations at 1304 Foothill Blvd, resulting in several citations. A citation
issued on November 1, 2024, documented 300 people in attendance at the
property.
d. At least three citations for noise violations have been issued to the property
since issuance of the Notice of Violation of the Conditional Use Permit in
January 2025.
e. The fraternity has failed to apply for special event permits or parking and
transportation plans as required by their Conditional Use Permit, despite
Page 22 of 309
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 3
hosting events which exceeded the routine gathering capacity limits of the
Permit.
f. There has been a series of events detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of the neighborhood.
g. There has been an institutional failure within the fraternity to educate its
members about the existence and requirements of the Conditional Use
Permit.
2. For the reasons stated above, the design, location, size, and operating
characteristics of the current use is not compatible with residential uses in the
vicinity. The Planning Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions
would secure these purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code
17.110.070(A)(3) cannot be made.
3. For the reasons stated above, the continued use of the property as a fraternity
under the Conditional Use Permit is not appropriate for the subject location, is
incompatible with the neighborhood, and will be detrimental to the health, safety,
and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity . The Planning
Commission was not satisfied that any set of conditions would secure these
purposes. Therefore, the required finding in Municipal Code § 17.110.070(A)(5)
cannot be made.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental
review under Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the CEQA Guidelines
because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the revocation of the
Conditional Use Permit may have a significant effect on the environment. Additionally,
CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15270.)
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission hereby REVOKES the Conditional
Use Permit U1484, previously issued as to 1304 Foothill Boulevard for use as a fraternity,
based on the Findings stated above. Use as a fraternity shall cease immediately upon
execution of this Resolution. Any subsequent application to establish a subsequent
Conditional Use Permit for a fraternity at the location shall be subject to all requirements
of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to Section 17.86.130 and Chapter 17.110.
Page 23 of 309
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-25 Page 4
SECTION 4. Appeal. This Resolution of the Planning Commission may be
appealed to the City Council by filing an appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar
days of date of this decision as stated below and in compliance with San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Chapter 17.126. The appellant must pay the appropriate appeal fee, if
applicable.
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 11th day of June 2025.
Rachel Cohen, Secretary
Planning Commission
Page 24 of 309
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: 1425 SYDNEY STREET (APPL-0248-2025) - REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF
THE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO APPROVE
FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION APPLICATION FNCE-0686-2024, GRANTING
EXCEPTIONS FROM HEIGHT STANDARDS FOR FENCES AND HEDGES IN SIDE
YARD SETB
BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner FROM: Rachel Cohen, Principal Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7593 Phone Number: (805) 781-7169
Email: woetzell@slocity.org Email: tcorey@slocity.org
APPELLANTS: Craig and Allison Brandum
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the
Community Development Director approving the Fence Height Exception application
FNCE-0686-2024
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
As provided by Zoning Regulations Section 17.126.040 (A), the Commission will consider
an appeal of the decision of the Community Development Director.
2.0 SUMMARY
Lacey and Jake Minnick filed a Fence Height Exception application (FNCE-0686-2024)
for Director’s Action to grant an exception from the standards limiting the height of fences,
walls, and hedges, to allow taller fencing and hedge height at 1425 Sydney Street (see
Exception Statement and Project Plans, Attachments B and C). Applicable standards are
set out in Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.070, and consideration of exceptions from
those standards is authorized by Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.070 (H). On
March 24, 2025, the application was approved by the Community Development Director,
based on findings of consistency with the intent of standards for fences, walls, and hedges
see Decision Letter, Attachment D).
On April 2, 2025, Craig and Allison Brandum, owners and residents of the property at
1475 Sydney Street, adjacent at the east of the subject site, appealed the Director’s
decision (see Appeal Form, Attachment E), and provided additional narrative discussion
of the reasons for the appeal, by email (see Appellant Email Correspondence,
Attachment F). This appeal is now before the Planning Commission.
Meeting Date: 6/11/2025
Item Number: 4a
Time Estimate: 45 Minutes
Page 25 of 309
Item 4a
APPL-0248-2025 (1425 Sydney)
Planning Commission Agenda Report – June 11, 2025
In the discussion, the appellants raise concern with the height of hedges planted within
the east side setback of the property. The appellants discuss the potential for the
neighbors’ hedges to cast shadow onto the lower portion of the appellants’ windows, to
limit views and sunlight, as experienced from their property, and for the exception to
negatively affect the value of their property. The appellants note window coverings as an
alternate means of achieving privacy between the adjacent properties. The design and
height of fencing in the west setback (between 1425 and 1411 Sydney), which were
included in the applicant’s exception request, are not discussed in the Appeal Form or
correspondence provided with the appeal filing.
3.0 BACKGROUND
Site and Setting
The subject property is a residential parcel on
the south side of Sydney Street, between
Augusta Street and Johnson Avenue, in a
Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone. It is
developed with a single-family dwelling and
detached garage. Adjoining properties are
also developed with single-family dwellings.
Exception Request
As shown in Project Plans (Attachment C),
the Fence Height Exception application
concerned fencing along the property’s two
side boundaries: the west side setback, and
the east side setback.
West side setback. In the west side setback
between 1425 and 1411 Sydney), fencing is erected on top of a short retaining wall about
one to two feet in height (see Detail B, Fence and Wall Elevations, Sheet L3 of Project
Plans). The fence depicted ranges between five and seven feet in height, with the total
combined height of the fencing and the retaining wall ranging between seven and nine
feet. Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.070 (F)(3) provides that the height of fences
located on retaining walls shall not exceed six feet (measured from the “uphill side”), and
the total combined height of a fence and retaining wall (measured from the “downhill side”)
shall not exceed nine feet.
An exception to this standard was requested, to allow the height of the fence to reach up
to seven feet, exceeding the six-foot fence height limit by one foot. This exception was
found to be appropriate because the total combined height of the wall and fence,
measured from the “low side,” does not exceed nine feet, consistent with the intent of this
standard. Staff notes that neither the height of fencing in this setback (the “west” setback),
nor the exception granted for the height of this fence is the subject of this appeal.
Figure 1: 1425 Sydney St.
Page 26 of 309
Item 4a
APPL-0248-2025 (1425 Sydney)
Planning Commission Agenda Report – June 11, 2025
East side setback. In the east side
setback (between 1425 Sydney and the
appellants’ property at 1475 Sydney), a
wood fence six feet in height is
depicted, installed in front of a short
retaining wall (see Detail A, Fence and
Wall Height Elevations, Sheet L3). Also
depicted is an area of additional hedge
height, extending three feet above the
fence (as measured from the “downhill
side”). Standards for the height of
fences, walls, and hedges provide a
six-foot maximum height for a fence,
wall, or hedge in any interior side
setback (Zoning Regulations § Section
17.70.070 (C)(4)), and this standard
applies to the fencing and hedges that
have been installed and planted within
this setback.
An exception to the standard six-foot height limit was requested here, to allow the height
of the hedges to exceed the limit by about three feet (the height of the fence itself
conforms to the six-foot limit). The taller hedge height is desired in order to provide
additional screening primarily between a bedroom window of the neighboring property
and the living and dining area window of the subject property. Enhanced screening is also
desired between the neighbors’ bathroom window and the applicants’ rear yard area.
Where grade level differs between properties, on either side of a retaining wall, the height
of a boundary fence will be taller as measured from the “downhill” side than it will be as
measured from the “uphill” side. As
noted above, standards for the height
of fences, walls, and hedges provide
that, where a fence is erected or
replaced on top of a retaining wall
within a setback, fence height is
limited to six feet, measured from the
uphill side,” and the total combined
height of the fence and the wall may
not exceed nine feet in height.
Figure 2: East side setback between 1475 Sydney (left)
and 1425 Sydney (right)
Figure 3: Living Area Sections; Perceived hedge height
7 feet 8 feet
Page 27 of 309
Item 4a
APPL-0248-2025 (1425 Sydney)
Planning Commission Agenda Report – June 11, 2025
In support of their exception request, the applicants noted the difference in grade between
adjacent properties, with the “uphill” property (1475 Sydney) situated about a foot higher
in elevation and an unusually high floor height of the neighboring residence as factors
that create an overlook situation impacting privacy between properties that could not be
mitigated by fencing of standard height (see “Living Area Sections” on Sheet L2 of Project
Plans, Attachment C, and Figures 2 and 3). Altering the form or position of windows is not
considered to be feasible in this case, and it would be impractical to coordinate opening
and closing various window coverings at appropriate times to provide enhanced privacy
where needed between the properties.
The appellants contacted staff during review of the exception application to express
concerns about loss of view and natural light on the side of their house, about limited
opportunity for emergency egress to that side of the property, and about buildup of
moisture and growth of mold in the planted areas adjacent to the boundary fencing. These
concerns were taken into consideration by the Director, in reaching a decision on the
application.
Director’s Action. On March 24, 2025, the Community Development Director approved
the Fence Height Exception application, granting limited exceptio ns from the height
standards set out in Zoning Regulations (see Decision Letter, Attachment D). At the west
side, as requested, the exception approved allows the fence height to reach seven feet,
with a combined fence and wall height not to exceed nine feet. At the east side, a
maximum hedge height of nine feet was requested, but a height limit of only eight feet (as
measured from the “downhill” side) was approved. Furthermore, the exception would
allow additional hedge height only within a limited area of the setback, extending 40 feet
from the front wall of the detached garage.
Figure 4 below depicts the boundary area between 1425 and 1475 Sydney, with the
location of the bedroom and bathroom windows of 1475 Sydney and the living and dining
area window of the subject property outlined in blue. Outlined in orange is the limited area
40 feet from the front of the 1425 Sydney garage) within which the exception for taller
hedges was approved.
Figure 4: Site Plan showing limited exception area (orange) and window orientations (blue)
Page 28 of 309
Item 4a
APPL-0248-2025 (1425 Sydney)
Planning Commission Agenda Report – June 11, 2025
These limitations were imposed with the intent to balance the desire of the applicant for
privacy against the provision of adequate light and air to the neighboring property. Hedges
that are eight feet tall, measured from the downhill side, would be perceived as no more
than seven feet tall from the neighboring property (see Figure 3, above), since that
property sits about one foot higher (“uphill”). A vegetative screen, such as a hedge of this
type, is dense enough to enhance privacy, but will provide filtered screening that, at the
top of the plant, will still allow for partial passage of light and provide an aesthetically
pleasing appearance, in contrast to the complete visual obstruction that would be
presented by an artificial barrier, such as wood fencing. Limiting the extent of taller hedges
is intended to focus the additional screening on the area between the private portions of
each property, while maintaining solar exposure to the front half of the adjacent house
wall unaffected (see Figure 5).
4.0 APPEAL EVALUATION
The concerns raised in the Appeal Form filed by the appellant, and accompanying email
correspondence (see Attachments E and F) focus on the effects of shade cast by the
existing fencing and potential effects of shading from an additional foot of permitted hedge
height (as experienced from their property), a decrease of natural light into their home,
compromised views from the home, and the potential to reduce the value of the property
due to those effects.
Setbacks help determine the pattern of building masses and open areas within
neighborhoods, provide separation between combustible materials in neighboring
buildings, and help provide landscape beauty, air circulation, views, and exposure to
sunlight for both natural illumination and use of solar energy (see Zoning Regulations
17.70.170 (A) (Setbacks-Purpose)). The appellants’ dwelling at 1475 Sydney is situated
three feet from its western property line (adjacent to the subject property), which is two
feet narrower than the current minimum (5-foot) side setback applicable to residential
development in the R-1 Zone.
Figure 5: Limited exception area (outlined in orange); majority of wall (i.e., in front of line) left
unaffected
Page 29 of 309
Item 4a
APPL-0248-2025 (1425 Sydney)
Planning Commission Agenda Report – June 11, 2025
Plant growth and soil condition. Privacy fencing at property boundaries is a common
feature of residential development and shading of the setback area lying between fencing
and adjacent building walls is unavoidable. This portion of a side setback is typically
blocked from view of the street, offering little value for landscape beauty, and the viability
of these areas for landscape plantings is inherently limited, given their shading and
constrained width. The problems described by the appellants with respect to plant growth
and soil conditions in this area are reported as conditions now existing, attributable to the
location of this area immediately adjacent to boundary fencing. In staff’s analysis, it isn’t
clear that the additional hedge height allowed under the Fence Height exception over
limited portions of the fence line would significantly alter these existing conditions or
hinder the appellant’s use of this portion of their side setback for plantings that are suited
for shaded locations.
Shade, natural light, and views. The appellants also raise concern with additional shading,
decreased natural light, and compromised views that taller hedges might cause at the
bedroom and bathroom windows on the southwest wall of their home. Staff notes that the
hedge height allowed under the approved exception is eight feet from the “downhill side”
the subject property, at 1425 Sydney). Because of the differential in grade between the
properties, the hedges, at that maximum height, would be perceived as seve n feet in
height from the appellants’ property. The bedroom windows on this side of the home
appear to be situated about 6 inches above the top of the fence line, indicating that
hedges at the approved height may rise up to about 1 ½ feet above the bottom of the
windows, as seen from inside the appellants’ home.
Photos were provided in email correspondence from the appellant, visualizing with a tape
measure the portion of views that may be occluded by the additional one foot of permitted
hedge height that would be experienced from the appellants’ property (see Attachment F,
pp. 2-6). These show that the additional foot of hedge height would largely screen views
of the backyard and deck area of the subject (applicants’) property while preserving views
of sky and vegetation beyond the property. Interference with natural light into these
windows is likely to be minimal, occurring late in the afternoon when the sun has already
dropped behind distant trees and rooflines of nearby structures. Furthermore, the uppe r
portions of this species of hedge (Pittosporum “Silver Sheen”; see photo details in
Attachment C, Sheet L2) present loosely-spaced branches and leaves, allowing for light
and views through them, rather than a monolithic and opaque view screen.
Summary and recommended action. Given the circumstances discussed above, the
decision of the Community Development Director to approve limited exceptions to height
standards for fences, walls, and hedges represents a reasonable compromise that allows
for adequate privacy between living and outdoor areas of adjacent properties while
avoiding undue impacts to solar access and views, and in a manner consistent with the
intent and purpose of the City’s standards for fences, wall, hedges, and setbacks.
Page 30 of 309
Item 4a
APPL-0248-2025 (1425 Sydney)
Planning Commission Agenda Report – June 11, 2025
Hedges at up to eight feet in height, as measured from the “downhill side” on the subject
property, will be perceived from the neighboring property as seven feet in height, given
the difference in grade between the properties. Such hedges will largely screen views into
the backyard, living room, and dining room areas of the subject property while maintaining
natural sunlight and wider views for the adjacent property. Restraining the height of
hedges to six feet would serve no apparent purpose and would have no significant effect
on the soil conditions, landscape viability, or types of plants or vegetation that would be
appropriate for an area with limited direct sunlight in the adjacent side setback area of the
appellants’ property.
As such, staff recommends that the Comm ission adopt a resolution denying the appeal
and upholding the decision of the Director granting limited exception from standards for
fences, walls, and hedges. A Draft Resolution for this purpose is provided as
Attachment A to this report.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Consideration of an exception to fence and wall height standards is exempt from
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures).
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. The Commission could decide to uphold the appeal and direct staff to prepare a
resolution denying in part the Fence Height Exception application FNCE -0686-2024,
regarding exceptions from standards for fences, walls, and hedges at 1425 Sydney
Street, such that hedges in the east side setback of the subject property would remain
subject to a six-foot height limit.
2. The Commission could continue consideration of the item to a future date, with
relevant guidance to staff and the applicant. Continued consideration of the matter is
unlikely to uncover additional considerations relevant to the action taken on the Fence
Height Exception application that is the subject of this appeal.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Planning Commission Resolution (APPL-0248-2025)
B - Exception Statement (FNCE-0686-2024)
C - Project Plans (FNCE-0686-2024)
D - Decision Letter (FNCE-0686-2024)
E - Appeal Form (APPL-0248-2025)
F - Appellant Email Correspondence (Craig and Allison Brandum)
Page 31 of 309
Page 32 of 309
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S
DECISION APPROVING THE FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION
APPLICATION FNCE-0686-2024 REGARDING FENCES, WALLS, AND
HEDGES AT 1425 SYDNEY STREET (APPL-0248-2025)
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2025 the Community Development Director approved certain
exceptions from standards applicable to fences, walls, and hedges under Fence Height Exception
application FNCE-0686-2024, to accommodate fencing and hedges at 1425 Sydney Street; Lacey
and Jake Minnick, applicants, and
WHEREAS, On April 3, 2025, Craig and Allison Brandum filed an appeal of the
Community Development Director’s decision to approve the Fence Height Exception application;
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, to consider the
appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the
following findings:
1. Granting the requested exceptions is consistent with the intent of the City’s Zoning
Regulations and applicable General Plan policies. Consistent with Policy 2.3.11 of the Land
Use Element of the City’s General Plan, the fencing and hedges depicted in plans provide
privacy between adjacent dwellings and outdoor areas while maintaining an attractive
residential setting by use of wood material and landscape plantings. Zoning Regulations
Section 17.70.070 (H) provides for consideration of exceptions to standards for fence height
to address issues related to privacy and other circumstances.
2. Granting the requested exceptions is consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
Fencing proposed in plans is of wood materials and of a conventional design associated with
residential development. Proposed hedges depicted in plans are “Pittosporum Silver Sheen,”
or similar, appropriate for residential landscaping.
Page 33 of 309
Resolution No. _____ (2025 Series) Page 2
3. As conditioned to limit the extent and excess height of fences and hedges, granting the
requested exceptions provides adequate consideration of and measures to address any
potential adverse effects on surrounding properties. Along the northeast side of the property,
the height exception is limited by Condition #1 to the minimum extent (40 feet in length)
and the minimum height necessary (eight feet, where the standard limit is six feet) to provide
adequate privacy between windows and outdoor areas of adjacent dwellings where the
adjacent property is at a higher grade. The limited extent and height minimize the impact to
solar exposure enjoyed by the adjacent dwelling and, due to a small increase (one foot) in
ground height between the properties, results in an apparent maximum hedge height of only
seven feet, as perceived from the adjacent property. Along the southwest side of the property,
the approved exception allows fencing up to seven feet in height (where six feet is the
standard limit), however the combined height of the retaining wall and fence remains
consistent with the nine-foot limitation set out in Zoning Regulations Section
17.70.070 (F)(3).
4. While the difference in ground height between adjacent properties and the elevated floor
level of the adjacent residence to the northeast make strict adherence to standards for fence
and wall height impractical, granting the requested exceptions conforms with the intent of
the standards for fences, walls, and hedges set out in Zoning Regulations section 17.70.070.
The exceptions achieve a balance between concerns for privacy and the need to provide
privacy, security, and useable outdoor area of the occupants of the property. The exception
applies to limited areas within the site, preserving the community appearance, visual image
of the streetscape, and overall character of neighborhood, and does not unduly interfere with
provision of adequate light and air to the site or to neighboring property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Consideration of an exception to fence and wall
height standards is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or conversion of small structures).
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny the subject appeal
filed by Craig and Allison Brandum, and upholds the Community Development Director’s
decision to approve exceptions to standards for fences, walls, and hedges at 1425 Sydney Str eet,
under Fence Height Exception application FNCE-0686-2024, based on the above findings, and
subject to the following conditions:
Planning
1. Limited exception. The exception granted by this approval is limited to the location, extent,
and height of the fencing and hedges depicted in plans dated February 8, 2025, and submitted
to the Community Development Department on February 10, 2025, except that excess height
for hedges allowed under this approval shall be limited to the portion of the northeast side
setback extending no more than 40 feet toward the street from the front wall of the garage
depicted in plans, and the maximum height of hedges in this area may not exceed eight feet.
This approval shall not be construed to allow excess hedge height outside of this limited area.
The maximum height of fencing located on the retaining wall along the southwest side
setback shall not exceed seven feet in height, as depicted in plans. Any significant
modification to the height, placement, extent, or design of proposed fencing or hedges in the
Page 34 of 309
Resolution No. _____ (2025 Series) Page 3
area of exception shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development
Director.
2. Design and Materials. Fencing installed within the setback areas under this exception shall
be of wood material and of a conventional design consistent with the residential character of
the site and vicinity, as depicted in plans.
Indemnification
3. 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. The City shall promptly notify the Owner / Applicant of any such
claim, action or proceeding upon being presented therewith, and the City shall cooperate
fully in the defense of said claim.
Upon motion of Commissioner Jorgensen, seconded by Commissioner Kahn, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSED:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 11th day of June, 2025.
Rachel Cohen, Secretary
Planning Commission
Page 35 of 309
Page 36 of 309
Fence Height Exception Application
1425 Sydney Street
October 27,2024
The following information is provided based on City Code Section 17.109.030.A,which states
that,for a Director ’s Action,it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide evidence in support
of the findings required by Section 17.109.040.
Section 17.109.040.A.1 -The proposed Fence Height Exception is consistent with the
intent of Section 17.70.070 (Fences,Walls,and Hedges)because the project achieves
an appropriate balance between providing privacy between living areas of neighboring
homes and maintaining the visual image of the streetscape and overall character of the
neighborhood by balancing the visual impact and scale with natural materials and screen
plantings.See Sheets L1 and L2.
Section 17.109.040.A.2 -The proposed Fence Height Exception is consistent with the
character of the neighborhood and zone because the project is located in the R1 -Single
Family Residential Zone,where nearly every property is fenced on a minimum of three
sides,but in some cases,four.
Section 17.109.040.A.3 -The proposed Fence Height Exception provides adequate
consideration of any potential adverse effects on surrounding properties by balancing the
visual impact and scale with natural materials and screen plantings to ensure the
provision of adequate light,air,and public safety for residences on both sides.See
Sheets L1 and L2.
Section 17.70.070.H -While site characteristics,such as topographic differences
between the subject property and neighboring properties to the northeast and southwest
make strict adherence to the zoning regulations impractical or infeasible,the project
nonetheless conforms to the intent of Section 17.70.070.
Further,no public purpose would be served by strict adherence with the zoning
regulations because the provisions for fence height exceptions are intended to provide
flexibility for lots with unique characteristics,specifically including topography,and the
location,height,and extent of the proposed fencing will not adversely affect the health,
safety,or welfare of persons living or working in the vicinity,nor will the exception grant
any special privileges to the property owners.
Page 37 of 309
Page 38 of 309
Page 39 of 309
Page 40 of 309
Page 41 of 309
Page 42 of 309
CityofSanLuisObispo, Community Development, 919PalmStreet, SanLuisObispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org
March 24, 2025
Lacey and Jake Minnick
1425 Sydney St
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
SUBJECT: Application FNCE-0686-2024 (1425 Sydney)
Request for exceptions from height limits for fences, walls, and hedges.
Dear Lacey and Jake Minnick:
On March 24, 2025, I reviewed your Fence Height Exception application regarding height of
fencing at 1425 Sydney Street. The exceptions would allow excess height for fencing located
on a retaining wall in portions of the side setback area along the southwest side of the property,
and would allow excess height for hedges along a portion of the side setback area along the
northeast side of the property. After careful consideration, I have approved your request with
modifications, based on findings and subject to the following conditions:
Findings:
1. Granting the requested exceptions is consistent with the intent of the City’s Zoning
Regulations and applicable General Plan policies. Consistent with Policy 2.3.11 of the
Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan, the fencing and hedges depicted in plans
provide privacy between adjacent dwellings and outdoor areas while maintaining an
attractive residential setting by use of wood material and landscape plantings. Zoning
Regulations Section 17.70.070 (H) provides for consideration of exceptions to standards
for fence height to address issues related to privacy and other circumstances.
2. Granting the requested exceptions is consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
Fencing proposed in plans is of wood materials and of a conventional design associated
with residential development. Proposed hedges depicted in plans are “Pittosporum
Silver Sheen,” or similar, appropriate for residential landscaping.
3. As conditioned to limit the extent and excess height of fences and hedges, granting the
requested exceptions provides adequate consideration of and measures to address any
potential adverse effects on surrounding properties. Along the northeast side of the
property, the height exception is limited by Condition #1 to the minimum extent (40 feet
in length) and the minimum height necessary (eight feet, where the standard limit is six
feet) to provide adequate privacy between windows and outdoor areas of adjacent
dwellings where the adjacent property is at a higher grade. The limited extent and height
minimize the impact to solar exposure enjoyed by the adjacent dwelling and, due to a
small increase (one foot) in ground height between the properties, results in an apparent
maximum hedge height of only seven feet, as perceived from the adjacent property.
Page 43 of 309
FNCE-0686-2024 (1425 Sydney)
Page 2
Along the southwest side of the property, the approved exception allows fencing up to
seven feet in height (where six feet is the standard limit), however the combined height
of the retaining wall and fence remains consistent with the nine-foot limitation set out
in Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.070 (F)(3).
4. While the difference in ground height between adjacent properties and the elevated floor
level of the adjacent residence to the northeast make strict adherence to standards for
fence and wall height impractical, granting the requested exceptions conforms with the
intent of the standards for fences, walls, and hedges set out in Zoning Regulations
section 17.70.070. The exceptions achieve a balance between concerns for privacy and
the need to provide privacy, security, and useable outdoor area of the occupants of the
property. The exception applies to limited areas within the site, preserving the
community appearance, visual image of the streetscape, and overall character of
neighborhood, and does not unduly interfere with provision of adequate light and air to
the site or to neighboring property.
5. Granting an exception to fence and wall height standards is exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Fences and walls are small
structures, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New construction or
conversion of small structures).
Conditions:
Please note the project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code requirements.
Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include additional
requirements applicable to your project.
Planning
1. Limited exception. The exception granted by this approval is limited to the location,
extent, and height of the fencing and hedges depicted in plans dated February 8, 2025,
and submitted to the Community Development Department on February 10, 2025,
except that excess height for hedges allowed under this approval shall be limited to the
portion of the northeast side setback extending no more than 40 feet toward the street
from the front wall of the garage depicted in plans, and the maximum height of hedges
in this area may not exceed eight feet. This approval shall not be construed to allow
excess hedge height outside of this limited area. The maximum height of fencing located
on the retaining wall along the southwest side setback shall not exceed seven feet in
height, as depicted in plans. Any significant modification to the height, placement,
extent, or design of proposed fencing or hedges in the area of exception shall be subject
to the review and approval of the Community Development Director.
2. Design and Materials. Fencing installed within the setback areas under this exception
shall be of wood material and of a conventional design consistent with the residential
character of the site and vicinity, as depicted in plans.
Indemnification
3. 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
Page 44 of 309
FNCE-0686-2024 (1425 Sydney)
Page 3
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.
My action is final unless appealed within 10 calendar days of the date of the decision. Anyone
may appeal the action by submitting a letter to the Community Development Department
within the time specified. The appropriate appeal fee must accompany the appeal
documentation. Appeals will be scheduled for the first available Planning Commission
meeting date. If an appeal is filed, you will be notified by mail of the date and time of the
hearing.
The Community Development Director’s approval expires after one year. On request prior to
the expiration of the original approval, the Community Development Director may grant a
single, one-year extension.
If you have any questions, or if you need additional information, please contact Walter Oetzell,
Assistant Planner at (805) 781-7593, or by email at: woetzell@slocity.org
Sincerely,
Brian Leveille, AICP
Principal Planner
Page 45 of 309
Page 46 of 309
Page 1
All Director Decisions will be appealed to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission decisions are
appealed to the City Council and require the submittal of an Appeal to the City Council form and can be obtained
from the City Clerk’s Office or on the City Clerk’s website.
Fee Payment. Fee amounts for this application can be found online within the City’s Comprehensive Fee
Schedule based on the level or Tier of the decision (see below). The fee must be paid at the time of the submittal
of this form.
APPELLANT INFORMATION
Name: __________________________________________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________________________________
Phone: ______________________
Email: _______________________
APPEAL REQUEST
In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 17, Chapter 17.126 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the (select one of the following):
Tier 2:
Zoning Hearing Officer (e.g., Minor Use Permit (MUP), Variance, Tentative Parcel Map, Creek
Setback Exception, etc.) or
Community Development Director (e.g., Minor or Moderate Development Review)
Tier 3:
Community Development Director (e.g., Director’s Actions.)
Tier 4:
Community Development Director (e.g., Home Occupation Permit, Non-profit Special Event, Tree
Removals, etc.)
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR DECISION
Community Development Department, Planning Division
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
T 805.781.7170 E planning@slocity.org
Per Municipal Code Chapter 17.126, any person may appeal a decision of any official body, except those
administrative decisions requiring no discretionary judgment. Appeals must be filed within ten calendar days
of the rendering of a decision which is being appealed. If the tenth day is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday,
the appeal period shall extend to the next business day. The appeal shall concern a specific action and shall
state the grounds for appeal.
Craig and Allison Brandum
1475 Sydney Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
9167301997
rainsong71@sbcglobal.net
4
Page 47 of 309
Page 2
SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL
Date the decision being appealed was rendered: ____________________
Project address: ________________________________________________________________
Application number: _________________________
Explain specifically what action(s) you are appealing and why you believe your appeal should be
considered. You may attach additional pages, if necessary.
03/24/2025
1425 Sydney Street SLO, 93401
FNCE-0686-2024
We are appealing the above noted application approved for an 8 foot hedge along the Northeast property
of 1425 and 1475 Sydney Street. The owners already have a 6'6" fence (permitted?) that has caused
shading of our exterior walls and soil. We have had to remove plants that died because of the fence
blocking the sun, we have mushrooms growing in the soil, and mold growing at the bottom of the exterior
wall. Permitting an 8 foot hedge would shade the lower portion of the windows of our home decreasing
any natural light and decreasing the enjoyment of our home. Who would be responsible for making sure
that hedge doesn't grow beyond the 8 feet?
We currently have a tree in front of our office window that provides privacy to 1425 Sydney Street, they
have chosen not to put up window coverings for their privacy. That is part of our appeal, if they want
privacy put up window coverings. The other window that faces their property is above our stand alone bath
tub, the bottom half of that window is obscured glass and provides privacy to both addresses. An 8 foot
hedge would make the room darker and colder.
The owners of 1425 were aware of the difference in slope of the the properties when they purchased their
property. Now they are asking for permission to shade our property because they aren't happy with the
difference in slope. WE don't want it to look like we live in a compound from our windows.
As a property owner we have the right to enjoy our property without the intrusion of their proposed hedge.
Page 48 of 309
From:Craig Brandum
To:Planning
Subject:APPEAL
Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 6:27:45 PM
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or
respond.
Our neighbors have applied to put an 8 foot hedge between our homes. They have already
installed a 6 foot 6 inch fence that has diminished our sunlight and because of that one of our
trees will need to be removed. Which is actually helping in privacy for both us and them. We
understand that they want privacy however their acts have limited our ability to have any
views and sunlight. We have concerns that with any other obtrusion that our property will be
compromised and the value will be diminished. As a property owner we have rights to enjoy
ours without any intrusion.
Craig and Allison Brandum IMG_4606.jpg IMG_4609.jpg
IMG_4607.jpg IMG_4608.jpg
Page 49 of 309
Page 50 of 309
Page 51 of 309
Page 52 of 309
Page 53 of 309
Page 54 of 309
Page 55 of 309
Page 56 of 309
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; administration 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, offices, 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 various 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 the 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 daycares. 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 to 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 exists 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 quality, 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 applicable 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 activities 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 circulation 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 project 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 on 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 Draft 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 executed 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 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.
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 approval 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 of 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 for
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 Community 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 addition
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 Allowance (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 11th 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' RI G H T O F W A Y
8.1'
21.8'
20.4'
9.7'
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKI
NG
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
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 77777
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
IM
E
N
S
IO
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
IM
E
N
S
IO
N
A
T
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
P
A
R
K
IN
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
IM
E
N
S
IO
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
JE
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
IO
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
ta
a
c
tiv
e
jo
b
s
2
4
0
7
8
s
lo
c
la
s
sic
a
l
a
c
a
d
e
m
y
P
roj
e
c
t
2
P
re
lim
E
n
tit
le
m
e
n
ts
C
1
P
r
e
lim
S
ite
P
la
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
il
s
t
u
d
io
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 INANY 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 WARNINGSURFACE28
22
21
20 10015
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 INPLACE
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' RI G H T O F W A Y
8.1'
21.8'
20.4'
9.7'
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKI
NG
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
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
20
1
202
2
0
3
2
0
4
2
0
4
2
0
5
196
197
198
199
19 5 19 6 19 7 19 8 19 9
201
2
0
2
20
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
199.50FS
200.00 TC
199.50 FS
200.08TC
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
199.60FS
197.5
EG
200.00
FS
199.70
FS
5%
M
A
X
5
M
A
X
200.10 TC
199.60FS
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
201.20TC
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%
MAX
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
JE
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
IO
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
ta
a
c
tiv
e
jo
b
s
2
4
0
7
8
s
lo
c
la
s
sic
a
l
a
c
a
d
e
m
y
P
roj
e
c
t
2
P
re
lim
E
n
tit
le
m
e
n
ts
C
2
P
r
e
lim
G
r
a
d
in
g
P
la
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
il
s
t
u
d
io
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 10015
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' RI 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
WLSD
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
JE
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
IO
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
ta
a
c
tiv
e
jo
b
s
2
4
0
7
8
s
lo
c
la
s
sic
a
l
a
c
a
d
e
m
y
P
roj
e
c
t
2
P
re
lim
E
n
tit
le
m
e
n
ts
C
3
P
r
e
lim
U
t
ilit
y
P
la
n
d
w
g
M
a
rc
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
il
s
t
u
d
io
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 10015
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 INPLACE
53 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT - PROTECT IN PLACE
54 PROPOSED GREASE INTERCEPTOR
NOTE 55TO 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, A6" SEWER LATERAL ISSUFFICIENT.
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 .RodewaldRecorder
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 beallowedifapprovedbythecity'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 bepreservedinitsnaturalcondition .
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 theGovernmentCodeoftheStateofCalifornia, 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 reviewandapprovalofotheragencieswithregulatorycontroloverworkdoneinthe
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 RNASCommission#1068188NotaryPtak — CaliforniaSantaBarbaraCounty ;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. SEALDIANER . STUART
NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA -
COMMISSION 01142689 C
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTYMrCommtsatoeF+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 dthabrSANDRAUMANN
co o11it 1115957 signature(s) on the instrument the person(9 ,
Notary PublicSSoo 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 preventfraudulentreattachmentofthisform .
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 EasementFileno : 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.
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
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' RI G H T O F W A Y
8.1'
21.8'
20.4'
9.7'
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKI
NG
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
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 77777
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
2
0
00
20.00
20
00
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
IM
E
N
S
IO
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
IM
E
N
S
IO
N
A
T
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
P
A
R
K
IN
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
IM
E
N
S
IO
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
JE
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
IO
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
ta
A
c
tiv
e
J
o
b
s
2
4
0
7
8
S
L
O
C
la
s
sic
a
l
A
c
a
d
e
m
y
P
roj
e
c
t
2
P
r
e
lim
E
n
tit
le
m
e
n
ts
C
1
P
re
lim
S
ite
P
la
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
il
s
t
u
d
io
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 INANY 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 WARNINGSURFACE28
22
21
20 10015
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 INPLACE
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' RI G H T O F W A Y
8.1'
21.8'
20.4'
9.7'
NO
PARKING
NO
PARKI
NG
COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACT COMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACTCOMPACT
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
20
1
202
2
0
3
2
0
4
2
0
4
2
0
5
196
197
198
199
19 5 19 6 19 7 19 8 19 9
201
2
0
2
20
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
199.50FS
200.00 TC
199.50 FS
200.08TC
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
199.60FS
197.5
EG
200.00
FS
199.70
FS
5
M
A
X
5
M
A
X
200.10 TC
199.60FS
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
201.20TC
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
JE
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
IO
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
ta
A
c
tiv
e
J
o
b
s
2
4
0
7
8
S
L
O
C
la
s
sic
a
l
A
c
a
d
e
m
y
P
roj
e
c
t
2
P
r
e
lim
E
n
tit
le
m
e
n
ts
C
2
P
re
lim
G
ra
d
in
g
P
la
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
il
s
t
u
d
io
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 10015
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' RI 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
EL
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
EL
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
WLSD
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
JE
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
IO
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
ta
A
c
tiv
e
J
o
b
s
2
4
0
7
8
S
L
O
C
la
s
sic
a
l
A
c
a
d
e
m
y
P
roj
e
c
t
2
P
r
e
lim
E
n
tit
le
m
e
n
ts
C
3
P
re
lim
U
t
ilit
y
P
la
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
il
s
t
u
d
io
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 10015
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 INPLACE
53 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT - PROTECT IN PLACE
54 PROPOSED GREASE INTERCEPTOR
NOTE 55TO 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, A6" SEWER LATERAL ISSUFFICIENT.
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
2SLOCABroadStreetCampus – 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
3SLOCABroadStreetCampus – 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
4SLOCABroadStreetCampus – 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
5SLOCABroadStreetCampus – 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&$URDG 6WUHHW DPSXV
WWDFKPHQW 9LFLQLW\0DS DQG 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV
Short
TermSLOCASTO
P
ST
O
P
STOP
200 ft
1'
6723 6,*1
523 2))3,&.83 21(6
6$)(7<7($0
9(+,&/(5&8/$7,21
STOP
Kinder
345 ft
Infant/
Preschool
4
0
0
f
t
GGLWLRQDO ORDGLQJ RQH IRU
VLQJOH ILOH FXUE VLGH GURS RII
SLFN XS UHFRPPHQGHG LVFXVV
SDUNLQJ UHVWULFWLRQV RQ
6DFUDPHQWR ULYH ZLWK 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
NG
SL
O
W
SC
HOO
L
XI
N
G
SL
O
W
SC
HOOL
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
IT
O
LIO
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
Queue Length veh.)
Poisson Distribution of Queue Length AM
Percentage
Cummulative Percentage
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
Queue Length veh.)
Poisson Distribution of Queue Length PM
Percentage
Cummulative Percentage
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
r33 (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( 21Bro
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)
tShtuoS
11 (0)Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
18
0
24
9
0
South St
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t0( 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
dRttucrO
1 (0)
44
0
4
0
0( 274 71
015 (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 cuttRdOrcuttRd
Le ff
F
lora
St
t E
Tank Farm Rd
B
u
l
l
o
c
k
L
n
H igh St
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 urelLn
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 Rd
Cre
stm
on
t
Dr
Ho
overAve
227SanLuisObispo
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 rrrccccccdRRdRRtttttututtRRddddd
BBBBB
uu
l
uu
l
uu
l
u
l
u
ll
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
cc
o
c
k
c
k
LL
4
RdRdRdtttttuuttutRRtRdd4,541
nnnn
L
n
L
n
L
n
L
n
2
26,652
3
20,509
Segment ADTXX
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
tShtuoS
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
dRttucrO
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
051 (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
1.1FBL 7PMVNFT BSF FSP CFDBVTF OP
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 cuttRdOrcuttRd
Le ff
F
lora
St
t E
Tank Farm Rd
B
u
l
l
o
c
k
L
n
H igh St
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 urelLn
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 Rd
Cre
stm
on
t
Dr
Ho
overAve
227SanLuisObispo
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 rrrccccccdRRdRRtttttututtRRddddd
BBBBB
uu
l
uu
l
uu
l
u
l
u
ll
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
cc
o
c
k
c
k
LL
4
RdRdRdtttttuuttutRRtRdd5,403
nnnn
L
n
L
n
L
n
L
n
2
32,705
3
21,307
Segment ADTXX
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 13.0B12BroadStreet & 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
OWSBroadStreet & FarmhouseLane12
Signal
SignalEdnaRoad (SR 227) & Los RanchosRoad14
13 Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road
OWSBroadStreet & AerovistaPlace10
Broad Street & Aero DriveSignal11
SignalBroadStreet & Industrial Way8
SignalBroadStreet & Tank FarmRoad9
SignalBroadStreet & OrcuttRoad6
OWSBroadStreet & CapitolioWay7
Sacramento Drive & Capitolio WayTWS4
SignalBroadStreet & South Street/Santa BarbaraAvenue5
SignalOrcuttRoad & Sacramento Drive/DuncanRoad3
Higuera Street & SouthStreet2 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 ExistingRoadTypeDividedLanes
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)LOSNBorEB
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 14.3B12BroadStreet & 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 CumulativeRoadTypeDividedLanes
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 LOSLOSSBorWBPed
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
CapitolioWay4
1 Higuera Street &
Madonna Road
Higuera Street &
South Street*2
N/A
N/A
Broad Street &
Industrial Way8
5
7 Broad Street &
Capitolio Way
Broad Street &
OrcuttRoad6
Broad Street &
South Street/Santa
Barbara Avenue
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
14
Broad Street &
Tank FarmRoad9
Broad Street &
FarmhouseLane12
Broad Street &
AeroDrive11
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
ageMonday &
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 cuttRdOrcuttRd
Le ff
F
lora
St
t E
Tank Farm Rd
B
u
l
l
o
c
k
L
n
H igh St
Bi sh o p S t
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
P
o
i
n
setti
a
S
t
LaurelLn
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 Rd
Cre
stm
on
t
Dr
Ho
overAve
227SanLuisObispo
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
cc
o
c
k
c
k
LL
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
mmmmmmm
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
t0( 0
0 (0)
0 (0)
Hi
g
u
e
r
a
S
t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 (0)
tShtuoS
0 (0)
Higuera St (N/S) & South St (E/W)
3
0
00 (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
dRttucrO
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
r34 (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
1.1FBL 7PMVNFT BSF FSP CFDBVTF OP
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
tShtuoS
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
dRttucrO
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
015 (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
042 (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
1.1FBL 7PMVNFT BSF FSP CFDBVTF OP
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 cuttRdOrcuttRd
Le ff
F
lora
St
t E
Tank Farm Rd
B
u
l
l
o
c
k
L
n
H igh St
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 urelLn
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 Rd
Cre
stm
on
t
Dr
Ho
overAve
227SanLuisObispo
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 rrrccccccdRRdRRtttttututtRRddddd
BBBBB
uu
l
uu
l
uu
l
u
l
u
ll
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
cc
o
c
k
c
k
LL
4
RdRdRdtttttuuttutRRtRdd4,747
nnnn
L
n
L
n
L
n
L
n
2
26,831
3
20,637
Segment ADTXX
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
tShtuoS
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
dRttucrO
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
018 (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
051 (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
1.1FBL 7PMVNFT BSF FSP CFDBVTF OP
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 cuttRdOrcuttRd
Le ff
F
lora
St
t E
Tank Farm Rd
B
u
l
l
o
c
k
L
n
H igh St
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 urelLn
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 Rd
Cre
stm
on
t
Dr
Ho
overAve
227SanLuisObispo
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 rrrccccccdRRdRRtttttututtRRddddd
BBBBB
uu
l
uu
l
uu
l
u
l
u
ll
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
cc
o
c
k
c
k
LL
4
RdRdRdtttttuuttutRRtRdd5,609
nnnn
L
n
L
n
L
n
L
n
2
32,785
3
21,336
Segment ADTXX
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 29.6D12BroadStreet & 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
OWSBroadStreet & FarmhouseLane12
Signal
SignalEdnaRoad (SR 227) & Los RanchosRoad14
13 Edna Road (SR 227) & Buckley Road
OWSBroadStreet & AerovistaPlace10
Broad Street & Aero DriveSignal11
SignalBroadStreet & Industrial Way8
SignalBroadStreet & Tank FarmRoad9
SignalBroadStreet & OrcuttRoad6
OWSBroadStreet & CapitolioWay7
Sacramento Drive & Capitolio WayTWS4
SignalBroadStreet & South Street/Santa BarbaraAvenue5
SignalOrcuttRoad & Sacramento Drive/DuncanRoad3
Higuera Street & SouthStreet2 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 ExistingRoadTypeDividedLanes
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
VehicleTripsSegmentExisting + 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 LOSNBorEBPed
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
32.5D14EdnaRoad (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 + ProjectRoadTypeDividedLanes
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
VehicleTripsSegmentCumulative + 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
LOSLOSSBorWBPed
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