HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 2017-0014CITY OF ATASCADERO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration & Notice of
Determination
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED BY CONTACTING THE ATASCADERO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT
http://www.atascadero.org
6500 PALMA AVENUE | ATASCADERO, CA 93422 | (805) 461-5000 | (805) 461-7612
PLN NO. 2015-1556 Environmental Document No. 2017-0009
PROJECT TITLE Hartberg Planned Development
APPLICANT NAME Hartberg Properties Inc. Email chris.seaberg@att.net
MAILING ADDRESS: 2165 Wilton Drive Cambria, CA 93428
STAFF CONTACT: Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP (805) 470-3436 acastillo@atascadero.org
PROJECT ADDRESS: 10850 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 APN: 045-351-008
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project consists of a total of 75 unit residential units that includes:
48 independent living, senior apartments at a total of 3-stories in height;
20 attached townhomes, 2-stories in height;
7 single-family residential cottages;
On-site parking is to be provided;
Landscaping, and on-site amenities including BBQ area, patio and gardens.
The project area is approximately 3.79 acres with a gentle slope of 6%. The site is partially developed with an
existing single family residence, and accessory structures. The site has been previously graded/disturbed and
is surrounded by development. All existing structures were deemed not historically significant and will be
demolished. Removal of 28 trees including two (2) native Coast Live Oak is also proposed.
LEAD AGENCY:
City of Atascadero
Community Development Department
6500 Palma Avenue
Atascadero, CA 93422
DOCUMENT AVAILABLE ONLINE: http://www.atascadero.org/environmentaldocs
STATE CLEARING HOUSE REVIEW: ☐ Yes NO ☒
REVIEW PERIOD BEGINS: 05/25/2017 REVIEW PERIOD ENDS: 06/13/2017
PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED: ☐No ☒ Yes June 20, 2017 at 6pm (Tentative)
PUBLIC NOTICE: The City of Atascadero is releasing a draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative declaration at
the above project address for review and comment to all affected agencies, organizations,
and interested parties. Reviewers should focus on the content and accuracy of the report and
the potential impacts upon the environment. The notice for this project is in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Persons responding to this notice are
urged to submit their comments in writing. Written comments should be delivered to the City
(lead agency) no later than 5pm on the date listed as “review period ends”. Submittal of
written comments via email is also accepted and should be directed to the Staff contact at
the above email address. This document may be viewed by visiting the Community
Development Department listed under the lead agency address, or accessed via the City’s
website.
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 1
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ☐ SCH No
This is to advise that the City of Atascadero Community Development Department as Lead Agency [approved/denied] the
above project on [MM/DD/YYYY], and has made the following determination regarding the above described project:
The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the
project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. Mitigation Measures and monitoring program were made a condition of
approval of the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. Findings were made
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This is to certify that the Mitigated negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is
available to the Public at the Lead Agency Address above.
Phil Dunsmore (pdunsmore@atascadero.org)
Signature Community Development Director Date
CITY OF ATASCADERO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Initial Study Summary – Environmental Checklist
PLN NO. 2015-1556 Environmental Document No. 2017-0009
PROJECT TITLE: Hartberg Planned Development
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The proposed project could have a “Potentially
Significant Impact” for at least one of the environmental factors checked below. Please refer to the
attached pages for discussion on mitigation measures or project revisions to either reduce these impacts
to less than significant levels or require further analysis.
☒ Aesthetics ☒ Geology and Soils ☐ Recreation
☐ Agricultural Resources ☐ Hazards / Hazardous Materials ☒ Transportation
☒ Air Quality ☒ Noise ☒ Wastewater
☒ Biological Resources ☒ Population / Housing ☒ Water / Hydrology
☒ Cultural Resources ☒ Public Services / Utilities ☐ Land Use
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation, the Community Development Director finds that:
☐ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to
by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☐ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐ The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.
☐ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Alfredo R. Castillo, AICP
Prepared by (Print) Signature Date
Phil Dunsmore, AICP
Prepared by (Print) Signature Date
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 1
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The City of Atascadero’s environmental review process incorporates all of the requirements for
completing the Initial Study as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study includes Staff’s on-site inspection of the project site and surrounding
area and a detailed review of the information on file for the proposed project. In addition, available
background information is reviewed for each project. Relevant information regarding soil types and
characteristics, geological information, significant vegetation and/or wildlife resources, water availability,
wastewater disposal service, existing land uses and surrounding land use categories and other
information relevant to the environmental review process are evaluated for each project. Exhibit A
includes the references used in this document, as well as the agencies or groups that were contacted as
a part of this initial study. The City of Atascadero uses the checklist to summarize the results of the
research accomplished during the initial environmental review of the project.
Persons, agencies, or organizations interested in obtaining more information regarding the environmental
review process for a project should contact the Community Development Department, 6500 Palma
Avenue, Atascadero, CA 93422 or call (805) 461-5000.
A. PROPOSED PROJECT
Description: The proposed project consists of a total of 75 unit residential units that includes:
48 independent living, senior apartments at a total of 3-stories in height;
20 attached townhomes, 2-stories in height;
7 single-family residential cottages;
On-site parking is to be provided;
Landscaping, and on-site amenities including BBQ area, patio and gardens.
The project area is approximately 3.79 acres with a gentle slope of 6%. The site is
partially developed with an existing single family residence, and accessory structures.
The site has been disturbed and is surrounded by development. All existing structures
were deemed not historically significant and will be demolished. Removal of 28 trees
including two (2) native Coast Live Oak is also proposed.
Assessor parcel number(s): 045-351-008
Latitude: 35.45 Longitude: 120.64
Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
B. EXISTING SETTING
Land use designation: High Density Residential (HDR)
Zoning district Residential Multi-Family (RMF-20)
Parcel size: 3.79 acres
Topography: Steady slope westward Average Slope: 6 percent
Vegetation: 2 native trees; 26 nonnative trees; grass coverage
Existing use: Single Family Residential
Surrounding land use:
North: South: East: West:
RMF-20 / Small Lot Single Family
Residential
RMF-20 / Townhomes Public (Chalk Mt.
School)/ RMF-20
Apartments
Freeway (US 101 Right
of Way)
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 2
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
During the initial study process, at least one issue was identified as having a potentially
significant environmental effects (see following Initial Study). The potentially significant items
associated with the proposed project can be minimized to less than significant levels.
CITY OF ATASCADERO
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
1. AESTHETICS – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
an adopted scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: The proposed project is located between two (2) high density residential
housing developments along the City’s El Camino Real corridor. The proposed project is not
located in an adopted scenic vista and there are no scenic resources on site or within the
vicinity. The existing single family residence is one-story in height, however there is a two-story
barn on-site which includes a residential unit on the 2nd floor. Both structures contain standard
residential lighting, including porch lights and interior lighting. Surrounding uses include
attached townhouses directly south, and small lot single family homes to the north of the
proposed project.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project includes high quality craftsman style architecture
with natural tone colors and materials, and includes design elements such as pop-outs, roofline
variations, and use of shutters, awnings, and other architectural features throughout the
development. The proposed craftsman style architecture is consistent with the development to
the south of the proposed project (La Costa Neighborhood), and blends in with an older, one
story single family neighborhood directly north of the proposed project. Phase 1 of the
Atascadero Family Apartments, to the east of the project, includes similar craftsman style
architecture.
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 3
The proposed project includes an independent senior housing facility three-stories (42-feet) in
height, located at the rear of the lot along Highway 101. Adjacent existing buildings to the north
and south include one-story single-family homes and two-story townhomes. As the three-story
building exceeds the City’s height limit requirements per AMC Section 9 -4.113, the applicant
has requested a height waiver exception. The proposed grading plan of the project shows the
applicant is utilizing varying topography to reduce visual impacts (see figure 4). Based on
preliminary grading plans, the building will be recessed approximately 8-feet along the HWY 101
frontage resulting in the appearance of a lower building from the freeway corridor. Additionally,
landscaping is proposed along the Highway 101 frontage, in addition to the northern portion of
the project that directly affects visual character between the existing single-family residence and
the proposed three-story senior apartment portion of the project. This aides in breaking up the
height difference and adds additional screening to the proposed project. Despite exceeding the
City’s height limits, the design, grading, and landscaping plan of the proposed project reduce
visual impacts to a level of less than significant.
Additional new light sources will be generated that may affect existing nighttime view in the
area. All proposed lighting will be low intensity, residential fixtures with shielded light sources..
The applicant has not provided a proposed lighting plan that illustrates any proposed new
overhead lights to be installed with the proposed new street, nor has the applicant included any
proposed street lights or residential lighting for the units. To reduce potential environmental
effects, mitigation will be needed to ensure pole heights do not contribute to excess light
pollution.
The Atascadero Municipal Code (AMC) contains language under section 9-4.137, exterior
lighting, stating that “no light glare shall be transmitted or reflected in such concentration or
intensity as to be detrimental or harmful to persons or to interfere with the use of surrounding
properties or streets.” All lighting shall be designed to eliminate any off-site glare, consistent
with the City’s existing municipal code. Additionally the code requires that all exterior lighting
shall utilize full cut-off, “hooded” lighting fixtures to prevent offsite light spillage and glare. To
ensure consistency with the code, as well as mitigating the proposed project from becoming a
substantial new source of light, mitigation measures will be required.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: To reduce potential impacts from the creation of new nighttime
light and glare sources, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated. With these
measures, the potential new sources of substantial light and glare are considered less than
significant.
AES – 1. At the time of building permit submittal of the proposed project, applicant must submit
a photometric plan showing locations of proposed on-site lighting. Prior to final occupancy, City
Staff and the applicant shall meet on-site and review lights at dusk condition to ensure off-site
light spillage and glare.
AES – 2. Any luminaire pole height shall not exceed 14-feet in height to minimize off-site light
spillage for consistency with the Atascadero Municipal Code.
AES – 3. Limit intensity to up to 3.0 foot candles at ingress /egress, and otherwise 0.6 foot
candle minimum to 1.0 maximum in parking areas and/or for street lighting, bollards, etc.
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 4
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland) to nonagricultural
use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland
or timberland zoned Timberland
Production?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: The current general plan land use designation is high density residential
and is currently used as a single family residence. There are no agriculture activities occurring
on-site.
PROPOSED PROJECT: This project is not in any agriculture zones and will not affect
agricultural resources in the City.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Proposed project will not impact any agricultural resources.
3. AIR QUALITY – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: Currently the site is underdeveloped and contains one existing single-
family home, with previously disturbed grassland.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project includes 75 units on 3.79 acres. According to
the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD), Operational Screening Criteria
for Project Air Quality Analysis (Table 1-1, SLOAPCD, 2012), low to mid rise apartment
buildings (3-10 feet) would have to be at or over 94-113 dwelling units in order to be expected to
exceed the APCD Annual GHG Bright Line Threshold, as well as the APCD Daily Ozone
Precursor Significance Threshold. The proposed residential units will not exceed air quality and
emissions thresholds set by the Operational Screening Criteria for Project Air Quality Analysis
(Table 1-1, SLOAPCD, 2012), therefore the impact is determined to be less than significant.
The City of Atascadero Climate Action Plan (ACAP) is a long-range policy geared towards
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and maintaining safe air quality as development
within the City increases. The plan also outlines several community goals such as lowering
energy costs, reducing air pollution, supporting local economic development, and improving
public health and quality of life.
The proposed project includes the planting of high quality landscaping that will have a positive
impact on Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen in the environment as well as improve visual site quality.
Landscaping on site also helps provide shade and reduce temperatures. The senior housing
facility improves quality of life for seniors, and is in accordance with the City of Atascadero
General Plan’s goal of constructing more senior housing to serve the growing population. A
large parking lot serving the senior housing facility will also account for senior transportation
services such as Dial-A-Ride, reducing vehicle miles traveled on and off site.
The proposed project features sidewalks on site and construction of a continuous sidewalk
across the front of the site boundary along El Camino Real. This missing link along ECR will
provide improved connection between bus stations and the existing and proposed
neighborhoods, as was identified as an air quality improvement tactic by the San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments.
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 6
Construction of the project may potentially increase air pollution on and directly adjacent to the
site as materials transfer and moving may stir up dust and particulates. Sensitive receptors
including existing neighbors and future residents living within the project boundary during
construction activities may be potentially affected by short-term construction activities. These
activities, including site grading, have the potential to produce small quantities of air pollution
that include dust and equipment exhaust. Air quality impacts from construction will be temporary
and short term. To ensure that these short term impacts are mitigated, the proposed project will
require mitigation consistent with applicable SLOAPCD regulations pertaining to the control of
fugitive dust (PM-10) as showed in Section 2 “Assessing and Mitigating Construction Impacts”
of the April 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook to reduce air quality impacts. Those mitigation
measures are included.
The proposed project also includes demolition of an existing residential structure. Demolition
activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper
handling, abatement, and disposal of asbestos-containing material (ACM). Asbestos-containing
materials could be encountered during the demolition or remodeling of existing structures or the
disturbance, demolition, or relocation of above or below ground utility pipes/pipelines (e.g.,
transite pipes or insulation on pipes). A mitigation measure has been included to reduce these
potential impacts.
The construction of the project will not concentrate pollutants or create objectionable odors
based on proposed uses and screening criteria established by the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution
Control District. Therefore, there is no impact.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: To mitigate potential air quality impacts, the proposed project
will require implementing the following mitigation measure. With this proposed mitigation
measure, the project’s potential impacts will be considered less than significant.
AQ – 1. The proposed project must comply with all standard mitigation measures for
construction equipment (Table 2.1, SLOAPCD Air Quality Handbook, April 2012) established by
the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) pertaining to construction impacts
to reduce the proposed project to thresholds considered less than significant by the District.
AQ – 2. Prior to issuance of a demo permit for the existing single family residence, the project
applicant shall perform the following: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of
activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos
Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. Please
contact the APCD Engineering & Compliance Division at (805) 781-5912 for further information
or go to slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php for further information. To obtain a
Notification of Demolition and Renovation form, go to the “Other Forms” section of
slocleanair.org/library/download-forms.php.
AQ – 3. To help reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment
used to construct the project, the applicant shall implement the following idling control
techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California
Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial
motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and
licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based
vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 7
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at
any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a
heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping
or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when
within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the
regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified
in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel
regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind
drivers and operators of the state’s 5-minute idling limit.
d. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulations can be reviewed at the
following web sites: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf and
www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf.
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors including adjacent residential uses to
the proposed project, and the Chalk Mountain School:
In addition to the state required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall
comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive
receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended; and
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site.
AQ – 4. Proposed project construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a
nuisance to local residents and businesses in close proximity to the proposed construction site.
The following measures must be incorporated into the project to control dust:
a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
b. Use water trucks, APCD approved dust suppressants (see Section 4.3 in the CEQA Air
Quality Handbook), or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust
from leaving the site and from exceeding the District’s limit of 20% opacity for greater
than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency would be
required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should
be used whenever possible. (Please note that since water use is a concern due to
drought conditions, the contractor or builder shall consider the use of an APCD-
approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the amount of water used for dust
control.) For a list of suppressants, see Section 4.3 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook;
c. All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust
barriers as needed;
d. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as
possible, and building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding, soil binders or other dust controls are used;
e. All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building
plans; and,
f. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize
dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below 20% opacity. Their duties shall
include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 8
AQ – 5. Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the California Air Resources
Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout
California and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. The SLO County APCD has identified
areas throughout the county where NOA may be present (see the APCD’s 2012 CEQA
Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4). If the project site is located in a candidate area for
Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA), the following requirements apply. Under the ARB Air
Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations (93105), prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall
ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from
the regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt
from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements
outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation
Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. More information
on NOA can be found at slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
4. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: Currently the site is underdeveloped and contains one existing single-
family home, with previously disturbed grassland.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed residential units will not exceed greenhouse gas
emissions thresholds set by the Operational Screening Criteria for Project Air Quality Analysis
(Table 1-1, SLOAPCD, 2012). Therefore the project’s impacts are determined to be less than
significant.
The Climate Action Plan estimates that upon General Plan buildout by the year 2020, the City
will have increased GHG emissions by 22% (Table ES-1 of the ACAP). The proposed project
site was designated high density residential in the City of Atascadero General Plan, and
therefore the proposed project is already accounted for in the GHG emissions forecast
generated by the City. The proposed project does not pass the threshold of GHG emissions as
identified in the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, and therefore is in compliance
with the Climate Action Plan’s goal of a 15% emission decrease by the year 2020.
Transportation is the largest emission source, accounting for 39% of the overall GHG emissions
forecast. Construction of a continuous sidewalk along ECR to link bus stations, and driving
reductions based on senior population numbers mean the proposed project will promote public
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 9
transportation and the decrease in single occupancy vehicle dependency. Therefore the
project is consistent with the Atascadero Climate Action Plan.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: The proposed project will not exceed greenhouse gas emissions
thresholds, and therefore has an insignificant impact on local greenhouse gas emission.
5. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or
CDFW and USFWS?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) Conflict with policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as
the native tree ordinance?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: Currently the site is underdeveloped and contains one existing single-
family home, with previously disturbed grassland. The site slope is approximately six (6)
percent. The site is adjacent to El Camino Real, Highway 101, and high density residential lots,
which has resulted in significant grading along the perimeter of the site boundary. Because of
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 10
the highly urbanized surroundings, as well as the previously disturbed site, There are no
significant biological factors on the site (wetlands, creeks, etc.). Based on a site visit and
arborist report, there are a total of 28 trees on-site. Of the 28, two (2) native Coast Live Oaks.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project includes the removal of all 28 trees on site,
including the removal of the two (2) native coast live oaks. The Atascadero Municipal Code lists
the Coast Live Oak as a native tree. Because the project proposes construction, and is in a
multi-family residential zoning district, the native tree ordinance provides regulations and
outlines mitigations for removal of these native trees. The applicant’s landscaping plan does
include potential locations for replanting of native Valley and Coast Live Oak. A total of 17-
inches of native trees will be removed. Consistent with the AMC, the applicant will be required to
plant either 11 five-gallon native trees, or box tree equivalent, or pay a fee of $566.67 into the
native tree fund, or provide a combination of fees or plantings. Implementation of the City’s
native tree ordinance mitigation, as well as measures outlined in the arborist report will render
this impact less than significant.
The native tree removals, as well as the non-native tree removals, may interfere with migratory
bird habitat that may be present on-site. A biological nesting survey was not conducted,
however would need to be completed to ensure the protection of migratory and potentially
endangered birds. The Final EIR for the Atascadero General plan noted that this area, coupled
with the previous disturbed soils, is not suitable habitat for threatened or endangered species. A
mitigation measure will be required to ensure endangered, threatened, or migratory birds are
not present prior to the removal of any tree on site.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: The following mitigation measure is required to reduce potential
impacts of tree removals on migratory birds that may be threatened, endangered, etc. to a less
than significant impact threshold.
BIO – 1. A Nesting bird survey by a qualified bioligist will be required prior to the
commencement of any tree removals, or grading activities, whichever occurs first.
6. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 11
EXISTING SETTING: An Atascadero Colony Home is currently being utilized as single family
residence. The Colony home was constructed in 1924 by an original settler of the Atascadero
Colony. Since the house was built, two rooms have been added, a new fireplace, chimney, and
deck have been built. A 1976 renovation was added, partially in-filling the original porch entry,
bump-out of historic roof line adding square footage to the bedroom in the northwest corner of
the house, an addition of a covered patio, and a trellis covering a portion of a wood deck along
the east side of the house. There are no known human remains on the site; however, in
accordance with AB 52, tribal consultations with local tribes were conducted to assess potential
conflict with ancestral tribal sites. No known archaeological study has been conducted directly
on site; however, a visual on-site survey did not see any potential rock forming or other types of
artifacts, as the site has been disturbed and graded.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project will remove the Colony Home from the site.
Demolishing the on-site colony home could potentially reduce the number of examples from the
City’s early history. A historical report found that the structure no longer exhibited character
defining features due to alterations, and it “bears little resemblance to the original simple cross-
gable bungalow” (Figure 7). Although the report concludes the structure bears no historical
significance, for consistency with the City’s adopted General Plan goals and policies, a
mitigation measure has been added that the applicant work with either their retained consultant
or the Atascadero Historical Society to document the house and any artifacts that may be
removed or documented prior to demo. The documentation should include photographs of
interior and exterior.
Because the site has been previously disturbed, partially developed, and is not located near any
previously known or mapped areas of potential cultural significance, a Phase 1 survey is not
warranted. However, since the site has not been fully graded, to ensure human remains are not
located on-site, a mitigation measure will need to be added.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lower
the threshold of impacts to less than significant.
CR – 1. Prior to issuance of building permits for demolition of the existing Colony house on-site,
the applicant shall work with either their retained consultant or the Atascadero Historical Society
to photo document the house and any artifacts that may be removed.
CR – 2. In the event that human remains are discovered on the property, all work on the project
shall stop and the Atascadero Police Department and the County Coroner shall be contacted.
The Atascadero Community Development Department shall be notified. If the human remains
are identified as being Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) shall be contacted at (916) 653-4082 within 24 hours. A representative from both the
Chumash Tribe and the Salinan Tribe shall be notified and present during the excavation of any
remains.
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 12
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Result in the exposure to or production
of unstable earth conditions including the
following:
Landslides;
Earthquakes;
Liquefaction;
Land subsidence or other similar
hazards?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Be within a California Geological
Survey “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault
Zone, or other known fault zone?
(consultant Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication #42)
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Result in soil erosion, topographic
changes, loss of topsoil or unstable soil
conditions from proposed improvements
such as grading, vegetation removal,
excavation or use of fill soil?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Include any structures located on
known expansive soils? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Be inconsistent with the goals and
policies of the City’s Safety element
relating to geologic and seismic hazards?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: The project site does not lie within an area of high risk of liquefaction,
landslides or subsidence based on review of City GIS information. The lot is located relatively
close to a known fault line but is not located within a California Geological Survey “Alquist -
Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone. Geographical information systems show the project site to be in
an area of low risk for both landslides and liquefaction. Geographical Information Systems
expansion determination indicates that the bearing soils lie in the “Low” and “Moderate”
expansion potential ranges.
PROPOSED PROJECT: Although there are no known faults within the project area, there are
faults located near the City that have been known to create seismic events. The City adopts the
California Building Code as its building code and updates this code during each required
adoption cycle. This code is continually updated with requirements to make building safer during
a seismic event. Incorporation of the latest California Building Code requirements at the time of
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 13
building permit submittal will reduce the exposure of people and structures to strong ground
shaking to a less than significant level.
The proposed project will remove topsoil to construct home foundations and for driveway
pavement. A total of 112,060 of net impervious surface are proposed upon site completion.
Consistent with both the Municipal Code and the City’s adopted Stormwater Management Plan,
sedimentation and erosion control shall include, but are not limited to: slope surface stabilization
through temporary mulching or seeding, or natural or paved interceptors and diversions installed
at the top of cut or fill slopes.
Erosion or sedimentation control devices can be used in order to prevent polluting
sedimentation discharges. Control devices may include, but are not limited to: energy absorbing
structures or devices to reduce the velocity of runoff water, sediment debris basin and traps,
dispersal of water runoff over undisturbed areas, and implementing multiple discharge points to
reduce volume of runoff over localized areas. A requirement of the Municipal Code and the
City’s adopted Stormwater Management plan requires the inclusion of an erosion and sediment
control plan, to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer or their designee.
Implementation of existing City codes and adopted policies renders this potential impact to less
than significant.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Implementation of the City’s Municipal Code, California Building
Code, and Stormwater Management Plan renders potential impacts to less than significant
levels.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Create a hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 14
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project
area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: The existing site does not have any documented hazardous materials on
or around the site. The development is in a high fire hazard zone, therefore exposing people
and structures to risk of wildfire damage.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project does not generate or involve the use of
significant amounts of hazardous materials. There are no known hazardous materials on the
site or nearby, therefore, there is no impact. The project will not impair implementation of an
adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan within the city.
The proposed project is within the urban core and not located near wildlands. Geographical
information systems show the project site to be in a high fire hazard zone, which may pose
potential risks to residents and structures that are constructed on-site. The City of Atascadero
adopts the California Building Code; in additional to the 2015 Wildlife Urban Interface Code that
specifically regulates construction methodology in high fire risk areas. During building permit
review, the fire department will inspect all structures for consistency with this code. Because the
code and its implementation reduces fire risk, potential impacts are considered less than
significant.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Implementation of the City’s adopted building code renders
potential impacts less than significant.
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 15
9. WATER QUALITY / HYDROLOGY – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or
a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of
preexisting nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 16
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
i) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: There is an existing single family residence on-site and the parcel is
partially developed. The site does not lie within a 100- year flood plain and will therefore not be
at risk of flood or inundation. This site does not contain a stream, river or identified waters of the
United States (US).
PROPOSED PROJECT: The existing pre-development drainage pattern of the site will be
altered to accommodate development of the proposed project. Upon completed construction,
the project will have 112,060 square feet of new impervious surface. The project site channels
all possible impervious area runoff to vegetated areas before the runoff enters any stormwater
conveyance systems. Site open space was also maximized to be approximately 56,807 sf, of
which 12,007 sf will be undisturbed soil and natural vegetation.
Post-stormwater construction standards require drainage patterns to mimic pre-development
status, as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project proposes a series
of underground retention and infiltration that meets this standard, as well as bio-swales to catch
storm water runoff. According to the Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan, storm water will be
managed in compliance with the current Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements
with the use of a series of interconnected bio-infiltration BMPs to treat runoff. All project site bio-
infiltration BMPs were sized to have a maximum storage loading area based on five (5) inches
per hour during the 0.2 inch per hour storm event. Every BMP is designed to have a depth of
three (3) feet total beneath the finished ground, consisting of two (2) feet of bio-retention soil
media (BSM), and one (1) foot of class II permeable aggregate base rock, and six (6) inches of
ponding capacity above the finished ground.
Bioretention areas shall be used to infiltrate stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces.
Subsurface retention facilities shall be placed underground. This underground system shall
retain a portion of the stormwater and provide treatment through infiltration. The majority of
water runoff from the project will be caught on site to avoid pollution runoff off site.
Additionally, the City, consistent with the Municipal Code and its Stormwater Management Plan,
requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)/Erosion Control Plan to be submitted
and approved by the City Engineer, or their designee prior to the issuance of the building permit.
The plan must include storm water measures for the operation and maintenance of the project
for their review and identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the uses
conducted on site that effectively prohibit the entry of pollutants into storm water runoff.
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 17
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: With implementation of the City’s Municipal Code, as well as the
policies outlined in the adopted Stormwater Management Plan, the potential impacts are
rendered to a less than significant level.
10. LAND USE & PLANNING – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Physically divide an established
community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: The site’s general plan designation is High Density Residential (HDR).
The site’s zoning district is Residential Multi-Family (RMF-20) with an allowed density of 20 to
24 units per acre. Surrounding properties are zoned Residential Multiple Family (20 units / acre)
(RMF-20), Residential Multiple Family (10 units / acre) (RMF-10), and Public (P).
PROPOSED PROJECT: The Atascadero Zoning Ordinance indicates that multiple-family
dwellings are an allowed use in the High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan designation
as well as Residential Multiple Family (RMF-20) zone. The proposed project will be developed
in accordance with the City of Atascadero General Plan and will infill an under-used lot between
two existing high density residential developments. The project will not physically divide an
established community. The proposed project is in compliance with the General Plan Policy 2.1
ensuring that new development is compatible with existing and surrounding neighborhoods. The
project is consistent with the open space and conservation policies identified in the General
Plan. A multi-family development is consistent and compatible with the surrounding residential
neighborhood.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No impact.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 18
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
use plan?
EXISTING SETTING: There are no known mineral resources on the site.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: No impact required.
12. NOISE – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
EXISTING SETTING: There is an existing single family residence on-site. The City’s General
Plan identified the site to be within noise contours generated by both El Camino Real and
Highway 101, due to the site sitting in between both roadways. The site is not located within an
airport land use plan or private airstrip and therefore will not expose people living onsite to
excessive noise levels.
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 19
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed development does not anticipate noise generation
levels exceeding existing city standards. Construction of the project is expected to generate a
significant amount of noise on and around the site.
Upon completion, the proposed project will not result in a significant increase in generation of
noise levels or ground borne vibration. However, construction is expected to involve some
heavy machinery and use of tools that will temporarily increase the ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity. The AMC outlines noise generation regulations such as established hours of
operations to keep off site noise pollution at a minimum during the day. The AMC limits
construction activity from 7am to 9pm. Implementation of the City’s noise ordinance ensures
construction activities do not take place early in the morning and into the late evening hours.
With the City’s ordinance, the potential impact is considered less than significant.
The proposed project is located within noise contours identified by the City’s General Plan.
Because of this, a noise study was conducted to ensure noise impacts are reduced to
thresholds allowable by the implementation measures and policies set by the City’s General
Plan. The noise study recommended exterior noise barriers shall be constructed along the east
site of the site boundary, at or near the lot line next to Highway 101. The noise barriers will
afford noise protection for potential outdoor activity areas on the sides of the dwelling units
facing the noise source. Exterior noise barriers will also protect the interior habitable spaces on
the first floor level from noise levels above LND 45 dBA. The barriers shall be two sections of
masonry acoustic sound walls constructed along the western property line of the project site to
shield adjacent townhomes from elevated noise levels produced by vehicular traffic traveling on
Highway 101. Two additional sound walls shall be considered along El Camino Real for noise
attenuation for the three closest detached cottages.
To achieve the required performance of less than 45 dBA, consistent with the City’s General
Plan, interior noise level along the critical sides of dwelling units nearest the noise source (only
for second story construction on facades or surfaces directly facing the noise source), the noise
study recommends construction specifications shall be incorporated into the building plans.
These measures are considered mitigation to meet the City’s General Plan goals and policies.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Implementation of the following noise mitigation measures will
reduce potential noise impacts to less than significant thresholds.
NOI – 1. A six(6) foot noise attenuation wall will be required on the westerly portion of the site
facing US Highway 101. Wall shall be well articulated and incorporate landscaping and color
elements that are consistent with the proposed development.
NOI – 2. Vents and roof penetrations. Soffit vents, eave vents, dormer vents and other wall and
roof penetrations shall be on the walls and roofs facing away from the noise source wherever
possible.
NOI – 3. The walls of habitable spaces on second floors of dwelling units nearest the noise
source shall have wall construction with an S.T.C. (Sound Transmission Class) rating of 30 or
greater. For instance, stucco exterior or equivalent on 2” x 4” stud walls with minimum R-13 batt
insulation and two layers of ½” gypsum board on the interior will provide an S.T.C. rating of 30
or greater along these walls.
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 20
NOI – 4. Common acoustic leaks, such as electrical outlets, pipes, vents, ducts, flues, and other
breaks in the integrity of the wall, ceiling or roof construction on the side of the dwellings nearest
transportation noise source shall receive special attention during construction. All construction
openings and joints on the walls on the noise facing side of the site shall be insulated, sealed
and caulked with a resilient, non-hardening, acoustical caulking material. All such openings and
joints shall be airtight to maintain sound isolation.
NOI – 5. To meet the interior LDN 45 dBA requirements, windows for habitable spaces on the
second floor of affected units (shown in following figures) facing the noise source shall be of
double-glazed construction with one light of laminated glass, and installed in accordance with
the recommendations of the manufacturer. The windows shall have full gaskets, with an S.T.C.
rating of 30 or better, as determined in testing by an accredited acoustical laboratory.
13. POPULATION & HOUSING – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Induce substantial population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: There is one existing single family home on–site that is deemed “not
historically significant” by the Cultural Resource Report and will be demolished, displacing the
current tenants.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The population increase resulting from the proposed project is in
accordance with the City of Atascadero General Plan. The development will displace the
tenants of the single family colony home that currently sits on the site. All eviction processes
must be in accordance with the California tenant Handbook. The population increase resulting
from the proposed project is in accordance with the City of Atascadero General Plan. The
development will displace the tenants of the single family colony home that currently sits on the
site.
The project proposes 75 residential units. The new development is expected to increase
housing opportunities and population in the area in accordance with the City’s General Plan.
The project will also help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs goal. Based on the 2010 US
Census, the City’s average household size is 2.51 persons per unit. The total projected
population of the project at build out is approximately 188 persons. This represents less than
1% of the City’s total population of 30,900 based on the State of California Department of
Finance population housing estimates for 2017, based off the 2010 US Census.
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 21
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: The proposed project will not have a significant impact.
14. PUBLIC SERVICE – Will the Project:
Will the proposed project have an effect
upon, or result in the need for new or
altered public services in any of the
following areas:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Emergency Services (Atascadero Fire) ? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Police Services (Atascadero Police)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Public Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: Currently there is an existing single family residence on-site. The
residence is set to be demolished as a part of the proposed project.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project is within the Atascadero Urban Services Line
and will not result in the need for new or altered public services outside of the population
increase potentially to occur upon project completion.
Development Impact Fees will be required of any new project for which a building permit is
issued. The concept of the impact fee program is to fund and sustain improvements which are
needed as a result of new development as stated in the General Plan and other policy
documents within the fee program. These fees include park fees and fire services. The
collection of these fees helps to offset additional new residences serviced. Additionally, the
proposed project will need to be annexed into the City’s existing Community Facilities District,
consistent with City Council Policy on new residential development that requires legislative
approval. With this annexation, the proposed project will help off-set any additional expenditures
to both police and fire service calls. With annexation into the CFD, and collection of impact fees,
the impact is considered less than significant.
At buildout, the city’s population will overburden the existing school system unless additional
classroom space is added. The Atascadero Unified School District charges impact fees to fund
additional schools as needed. State law restricts mitigation of school impacts to the levying of
these fees and other measures adopted by the school district. Provision of adequate facilities
for the population is the responsibility of the school district. Payment of these fees are required
to be completed prior to the issuance of building permits on residential units, per City policy.
With the collections of these fees, the impact is considered less than significant.
The proposed project will increase demand on existing City parks and recreation facilities.
Because the subdivision is not proposing public parks to off-set this demand, and is proposing
common open space areas to meet requirement for high density housing, the applicant will be
required to pay Quimby act fees prior to final map recordation, consistent with State law.
Additionally, the applicant will be required to pay development impact fees related to parks and
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 22
open space. Payment of Quimby parkland in-lieu fees, and development impact to parks and
open space make this potential impact less than significant.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: With collection of development impact fees for fire, police, and
parks, and the collection of Quimby Act fees for parkland creation, the impacts are considered
less than significant.
15. RECREATION – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: The existing site contains one (1) single family residence and is partially
developed.
IPROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project does not include any large recreational areas,
and is only slated to develop private passive recreation for residents. Residents are expected to
use existing parks in the City of Atascadero. In accordance with section 66477 of the
Government Code (Quimby Act), developers shall pay a parkland dedication fee in-lieu of
dedicating parkland on-site if the parcel is less than fifty (50) acres.
To calculate parkland dedication fees, a calculation is made based on the number of people
living in the project. The proposed project is estimated to house 188 people upon completion,
based on the City’s General Plan. The adopted General Plan requires that 5 acres of parkland is
dedicated for public parks, recreational trails, and recreational facilities per 1,000 persons.
Based on the 188 projected residents, a total of .94 acres would be required.
The proposed project does not include a dedication of 0.94 acres of public park space; therefore
a parkland dedication fee will be required. Payment of this Quimby Act fee prior to recordation of
the Final Map is included as a standard condition of approval on maps.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: Payment of Quimby act fees renders potential impact to less
than significant thresholds.
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 23
16. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and
non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Substantially increase hazards due to
a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: There is an existing single family residence with an existing driveway off
of El Camino Real. The centerline of Calle Cynthia to the north of the project is located
approximately 203 feet from the existing driveway and serves 23 single family homes. La Costa
Court, to the south of the existing site, is located 240 feet from the existing driveway centerline
to centerline and serves 40 existing attached and detached single family residences. Directly to
the east of the site is Avenida Maria. The centerline of Avenida Maria to the existing driveway is
off-set by approximately 20-feet. Avenida Maria currently serves 92 apartments, however Phase
1 construction of the Knoll at the Avendia (Atascadero Family Apartments) as well as additional
construction for Phase 2 of the Hidden Oaks village will increase traffic numbers. El Camino
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 24
Real currently functions as a level of service A along this segment. The site is not within the
vicinity of an airstrip / airport.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project includes the construction of 27 attached and
detached single-family residences, and 48 senior living units. Vehicles will access the project via
a new local road (dedicated public right-of-way, but privately maintained) that intersections with
El Camino Real between Calle Cynthia and La Costa Court. The proposed new local road is off-
set from the centerline of Avenida Maria by approximately 30-feet. The new local road will
contain two travel lanes and some on-street parking. The local road will terminate with a
hammerhead design to accommodate fire truck access and turn around and access guest and
resident parking for the senior apartments portion of the project.
Currently the sightline drops below the grade of El Camino Real. The proposed project has
included a traffic report that provided a mitigation measure to ensure sight distance at the
intersection of the new local roadway and El Camino Real. Sight distance would be adequate
for both entering and exiting drivers so long as the project entry matches that of the Avenida
Maria driveway. Additionally, the report indicated that landscaping along the project frontage
and the proposed median would need to consist of low lying shrubs and foliage to ensure sight
lines are maintained. Landscaping and foliage along the project frontage should be set back so
as not to obstruct sight lines.
The City Engineer and the applicant’s traffic engineer reviewed turning movements for left turn
outs for both Avenida Maria turning on to El Camino Real southbound and the proposed new
local road turning northbound on to El Camino Real. Because the intersections centerlines are
off-set by 30-feet, both the City Engineer and traffic engineer have determined that turning
movements will not be in conflict with one another due to the off-set. With implementation of the
sight distance measures, the proposed design of the roadway does not significantly increase
hazards, rendering potential impacts to less than significant levels.
The project is anticipated to generate 338 new average daily trips with 22 a.m. peak hour and
27 p.m. peak hour trips. Currently El Camino Real functions at a level of service A. This is
above the level of service to which the City’s adopted General Plan determines to be a
significant impact. In review of nearby intersections and ensuring their safety with the existing,
plus proposed project scenario, a signal phasing analysis should be completed at the
intersection of El Camino Real / Santa Barbara Road to ensure safety of turning movements.
This mitigation measure has been included based on the traffic report analysis. The proposed
project, coupled with other projects currently under construction or recently completed will not
contribute to a drop in the level of service in the existing project, or future plus project scenarios.
Traffic volumes generated by the proposed project are not expected to significantly affect
queuing operations at the US 101 freeway interchanges with Santa Barbara Road and Santa
Rosa Road, except under Existing plus Project conditions. However, the proposed project will
contribute to queue lengths that already exceed available storage in the future project
scenarios. Improvements at the Santa Rosa interchange that alleviate this condition are
included in the City’s Traffic Impact Fees (TIF), which is based on the City’s adopted Capital
Improvement Program (CIP).
Facilities for alternative modes will be adequate upon completion of recommended
improvements, which include installing sidewalk along the project frontage on El Camino Real.
The traffic report recommends eliminating the southbound right-turn lane from El Camino Real
to San Diego Way and installing a bike lane instead. Since the report was completed,
construction and re-striping of El Camino Real has been completed, widening the roadway to 2
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 25
lanes in both direction and a Class 2 bicycle lane and a dedicated turn lane onto San Diego
Way.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: With implementation of the following mitigation measures,
potential impacts are considered less than significant.
TP-1. A review of traffic signal phasing should be completed at the intersection of El Camino
Real/Santa Barbara Road to determine if protected left turn phasing for the eastbound and
westbound approaches would potentially reduce conflicts between vehicles.
TP-2.Since the project would contribute minor traffic volumes towards already excessive
queues at the Santa Rosa Road interchange, the project must contribute towards the City’s
Traffic Impact Fee program which includes future improvements at the Santa Rosa Road
interchange. The impact fee is based on the type of residential unit constructed and is due at
the time of building permit issuance.
TP-3. The applicant must install sidewalks along the project frontage on the west side of El
Camino Real.
TP-4.The project driveway must be constructed at the same elevation as El Camino Real for a
minimum length of one vehicle, or longer, if determined necessary by the City Engineer.
TP-5. Landscaping along the project frontage must be low laying and set back so as not to
obstruct sight lines along the project frontage.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 26
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: There is an existing single-family residence on-site that is scheduled to
be demolished. The existing residence is connected to water service by the Atascadero Mutual
Water Company (AWMC). The residence is not connected to the City’s sewer service.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project will be required to connect all residential units
and landscaping irrigation to water services. The Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC)
has indicated that it can provide water to the proposed project. All property within the City limits
is entitled to water from the AMWC. The project is not expected to require a significant quantity
of water for the proposed use. Water is pumped from several portions of the underground, the
Atascadero Sub-Basin, using a series of shallow and deep wells. The water company
anticipates that it will be able to meet the city’s needs through build out and beyond. Projected
water use factor per unit is 0.51 acre feet per year (afy) for the detached and attached single
family homes, and 0.18 afy for the senior housing apartments. Based on these calculations, a
total of 18.3 afy is estimated for the entire project. The AWMC projects a supply of 8,700 afy for
the year 2020 with a demand in a single dry year at 6,788 afy for its entire system for both
existing and future demand. Based on these statistics, the proposed project’s impact on water
supply is considered less than significant.
The proposed project will require annexation onto the City’s sewer system. Based on the
findings from the Final March 2016 “City of Atascadero Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan
Update”, the current average daily flow is 1.38 millions of gallons per day (mgd), which is 99
percent of the original 1.40 mgd design capacity, leaving the facility with 0.02 mgd available.
Based on this study, the City is currently conducting a re-rating study to determine the final
remaining capacity that is left within the water reclamation facility. The proposed project may
move forward, if remaining capacity is sufficient to accommodate the proposed project.
However, in the event that capacity is maximized at the City’s treatment facility, there are a
number of improvements that may be made at the existing plan to add capacity, including, but
not limited to, aeration, partial dredging from the polishing pond, or modification of the existing
recirculation pumping stations. This project, along with the proposed Eagle Ranch and any other
projects, will need to contribute their fair share of potential upgrades to expand the treatment
facility, if necessary. Any potential expansion of the facility may necessitate additional CEQA
review to ensure full compliance with State Law. Implementation of the listed mitigation
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 27
measures would reduce the potential impacts to the wastewater treatment facility to a level of
less than significant.
Solid waste will be collected by the City of Atascadero, through provide contracts, and
processed to the Chicago Grade landfill. There is sufficient capacity to serve the proposed
project, therefore the impact is considered less than significant.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: The following mitigation measures must be implemented to
ensure potential impacts are less than significant.
UT – 1. The proposed project must pay all applicable sewer connection fees at the time of
building permit issuance.
UT – 2. If the City Engineer determines there is insufficient capacity to accommodate the
proposed project prior to building permit issuance, a building permit will not be issued by the
City until sufficient capacity is obtained either through permanent plant upgrades or interim
upgrades.
UT – 3. The applicant shall be responsible for providing interim improvements at the
Wastewater Reclamation Facility to handle flows and loading from the proposed project, prior to
the issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall either construct, or pay its proportional fair
share for any upgrades, either permanent or interim that provide sufficient capacity to serve the
proposed project.
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either
a site, feature, place, cultural landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value
to a California Native American tribe?:
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as define in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource
to a California native American Tribe?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 28
EXISTING SETTING: An Atascadero Colony Home is currently being utilized as single family
residence. The Colony home was constructed in 1924 by an original settler of the Atascadero
Colony. In accordance with AB 52, tribal consultations with local tribes were conducted to
assess potential conflict with ancestral tribal sites. No known archaeological study has been
conducted directly on site; however, a visual on-site survey did not see any potential rock-
forming or other types of artifacts, as the site has been disturbed and graded.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project will demo the existing residential home and
grade pre-disturbed soil. The proposed project site has been graded extensively on both the
western and eastern ends of the site where US Highway 101 and El Camino Real are located,
respectively. Based on a site visual inspection, there are no visible artifacts. However, known
cultural resources are located ¾ of a mile south of the site. The Xolon Salinan nation has
expressed the desire for a surface survey to ensure no artifacts are located on the site. This
type of survey is less significant than a Phase 1 archeological survey. Because of the lack of
presence of any artifacts, based on maps and known archeological survey, the proposed action
would ensure the proposed project impacts would be considered less than significant.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: With the implementation of the following mitigation measures,
as well as implementation of mitigation measure CR – 1, the proposed project impacts are
therefore considered less than significant.
TCR – 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for subdivision improvements, the applicant
shall contract with a qualified archeological consultant to perform a visual survey for a pre-
historic surface survey for Native American and cultural artifacts.
TCR – 2. During grading activities, if any cultural resources are unearthed throughout the
duration of the proposed project, all grading activities shall cease, and the applicant shall
contact the City of Atascadero Staff. City Staff shall than contact all local native American tribes
to determine the extent of additional tribal monitoring for remaining grading activities. Grading
activities may resume upon agreeance of monitoring.
19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE – Will the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 29
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Requires
Mitigation
Insignificant
Impact
Not
Applicable
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
EXISTING SETTING: The proposed project is currently a partially developed lot with a single
family residence. The site has been previously graded and disturbed. There is currently no
known wetlands, significant tree vegetation or known habitat for rare or endangered species.
The site has no known pre-historic resources or examples of California history.
PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project is a total of 75 units. 48 of which are
independent living, senior apartments, and 20 attached and detached single family homes. The
project is consistent with the underlying zoning district, Residential Multi-Family (RMF-20), as
well as the maximum densities established by the zoning district. The proposed project and the
cumulative effects will not have an impact on existing and future projects, nor does the
proposed project have any environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
residents, either directly or indirectly.
MITIGATION / CONCLUSION: The proposed project will not have a significant cumulative
impact.
For further information on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or the City’s
environmental review process, please visit the City’s website at www.atascadero.org under the
Community Development Department or the California Environmental Resources Evaluation
System at: http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/ for additional information on CEQA.
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 30
Exhibit A – Initial Study References & Outside Agency Contacts
The Community Development Department of the City of Atascadero has contacted various
agencies for their comments on the proposed project. With respect to the proposed project, the
following outside agencies have been contacted (marked with a ☒) with a Notice of Intent to
Adopt a proposed Negative / Mitigated Negative Declaration.
☒ Atascadero Mutual Water Company ☒ Native American Heritage Commission
☒ Atascadero Unified School District ☒ San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
☒ Atascadero Waste Alternatives ☒ San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District
☒ AB 52 – Salinan Tribe ☐ San Luis Obispo Integrated Waste
Management Board
☒ AB 52 – Northern Chumash Tribe ☒ Regional Water Quality Control Board District 3
☒ AB 52 – Xolon Salinan Tribe ☒ HEAL SLO – Healthy Communities Workgroup
☐ AB 52 – Other ☒ US Postal Service
☐ California Highway Patrol ☒ Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)
☒ California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(Region 4) ☒ Southern California Gas Co. (SoCal Gas)
☒ California Department of Transportation
(District 5) ☒ San Luis Obispo County Assessor
☒ Pacific Gas & Electric ☐ LAFCO
☐ San Luis Obispo County Planning &
Building ☐ Office of Historic Preservation
☐ San Luis Obispo County Environmental
Health Department ☐ Charter Communications
☐ Upper Salians – Las Tablas RCD ☐ CA Housing & Community Development
☐ Central Coast Information Center (CA.
Historical Resources Information System) ☐ CA Department of Toxic Substances Control
☐ CA Department of Food & Agriculture ☐ US Army Corp of Engineers
☐ CA Department of Conservation ☐ Other:
☐ CA Air Resources Board ☐ Other:
☐ Address Management Service ☐ Other:
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 31
The following checked (“☒”) reference materials have been used in the environmental review
for the proposed project and are hereby incorporated by reference into the Initial Study. The
following information is available at the Community Development Department and requested
copies of information may be viewed by requesting an appointment with the project planner at
(805) 461-5000.
☒ Project File / Application / Exhibits /
Studies ☒ Adopted Atascadero Capital Facilities Fee
Ordinance
☒ Atascadero General Plan 2025 / Final EIR ☒ Atascadero Inclusionary Housing Policy
☒ Atascadero Municipal Code ☒ SLO APCD Handbook
☐ Atascadero Appearance Review Manual ☒ Regional Transportation Plan
☒ Atascadero Urban Stormwater
Management Plan ☒ Flood Hazard Maps
☐ Atascadero Hillside Grading Guidelines ☒ CDFW / USFW Mapping
☒ Atascadero Native Tree Ordinance &
Guidelines ☒ CA Natural Species Diversity Data Base
☒ Atascadero Climate Action Plan (CAP) ☒ Archeological Resources Map
☐ Atascadero Downtown Revitalization Plan ☒ Atascadero Mutual Water Company Urban
Water Management Plan
☒ Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan ☒ CalEnvironScreen
☒ Atascadero GIS mapping layers ☐ Other:
☐ Other: ☐ Other:
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 32
EXHIBIT B – MITIGATION SUMMARY TABLE
Hartberg Planned Development
PLN 2015-1556
Per Public Resources Code § 21081.6, the following measures also constitutes the mitigation
monitoring and/or reporting program that will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than
significant levels. The measures will become conditions of approval (COAs) should the project
be approved. The City of Atascadero, as the Lead Agency, or other responsible agencies, as
specified, are responsible to verify compliance with these COAs.
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
Aesthetics
AES-1 At the time of building permit submittal of the proposed project,
applicant must submit a photometric plan showing locations of
proposed on-site lighting. Prior to final occupancy, City Staff and
the applicant shall meet on-site and review lights at dusk
condition to ensure off-site light spillage and glare.
Building
Permit
Submittal
AES-2 Any luminaire pole height shall not exceed 14-feet in height to
minimize off-site light spillage for consistency with the Atascadero
Municipal Code.
Building
Permit
Submittal
AES-3 Limit intensity to up to 3.0 foot candles at ingress /egress, and
otherwise 0.6 foot candle minimum to 1.0 maximum in parking
areas and/or for street lighting, bollards, etc.
Building
Permit
Submittal
Air Quality
AQ-1 The proposed project must comply with all standard mitigation
measures for construction equipment (Table 2.1, SLOAPCD Air
Quality Handbook, April 2012) established by the San Luis
Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) pertaining to
construction impacts to reduce the proposed project to thresholds
considered less than significant by the district.
During
Construction
AQ-2 Prior to issuance of a demo permit for the existing single family
residence, the project applicant shall perform the following: 1)
written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities
commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a
Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and
disposal requirements of identified ACM. Please contact the
APCD Engineering & Compliance Division at (805) 781-5912 for
further information or go to slocleanair.org/rules-
regulations/asbestos.php for further information. To obtain a
Notification of Demolition and Renovation form go to the “Other
Forms” section of slocleanair.org/library/download-forms.php.
Prior to
Building
Permit
Issuance
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 33
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
AQ-3 To help reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel
vehicles and equipment used to construct the project, the
applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section
2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations.
This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled
commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight
ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for
operation on highways. It applies to California and
non-California based vehicles. In general, the
regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for
greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as
noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power
system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or
any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during
sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater
than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000
feet of a restricted area, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-
minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2)
of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-
Road Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas
and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the
state’s 5-minute idling limit.
d. The specific requirements and exceptions in the
regulations can be reviewed at the following web sites:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf and
www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf.
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors
including adjacent residential uses to the proposed project,
and the Chalk Mountain School:
In addition to the state required diesel idling requirements,
the project applicant shall comply with these more
restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby
sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within
1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors
shall not be permitted;
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended;
and
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted
and enforced at the site.
During
Construction
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 34
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
AQ-4 Proposed project construction activities can generate fugitive
dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and businesses
in close proximity to the proposed construction site. The following
measures shall be incorporated into the project to control dust:
a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
b. Use water trucks, APCD approved dust suppressants (see
Section 4.3 in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook), or
sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent
airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the
District’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in
any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency
would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph.
Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever
possible. (Please note that since water use is a concern
due to drought conditions, the contractor or builder shall
consider the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant
where feasible to reduce the amount of water used for
dust control.) For a list of suppressants, see Section 4.3
of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook;
c. All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily and
covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed;
d. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved
should be completed as soon as possible, and building
pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding, soil binders or other dust controls are
used;
e. All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be
shown on grading and building plans;
f. And, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or
persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and
enhance the implementation of the measures as
necessary to minimize dust complaints, and reduce visible
emissions below 20% opacity. Their duties shall include
holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in
progress
During
Construction
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 35
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
AQ-5 Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the
California Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant.
Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout
California and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. The
SLO County APCD has identified areas throughout the county
where NOA may be present (see the APCD’s 2012 CEQA
Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4). If the project site is located
in a candidate area for Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA), the
following requirements apply. Under the ARB Air Toxics Control
Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations (93105), prior to any construction
activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a
geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area
disturbed is exempt from the regulation. An exemption request
must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt from the
requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all
requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include
development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an
Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
More information on NOA can be found at
slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php
Prior to
issuance of
Building
Permit
Biological Resources
BIO-1 A Nesting bird survey by a qualified biologist will be required prior
to the commencement of any tree removals, or grading activities,
whichever occurs first.
Prior to
issuance of
permits.
Cultural Resources
CR-1 Prior to issuance of building permits for demolition of the existing
Colony house on-site, the applicant shall work with either their
retained consultant or the Atascadero Historical Society to
document the house and any artifacts that may be removed.
Prior to
issuance of
grading
permit
CR-2 In the event that human remains are discovered on the property,
all work on the project shall stop and the Atascadero Police
Department and the County Coroner shall be contacted. The
Atascadero Community Development Department shall be
notified. If the human remains are identified as being Native
American, the California Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) shall be contacted at (916) 653-4082 within 24 hours. A
representative from both the Chumash Tribe and the Salinan
Tribe shall be notified and present during the excavation of any
remains.
During
Construction
Noise
NOI-1 A six(6) foot noise attenuation wall will be required on the westerly
portion of the site facing US Highway 101. The wall shall be well
articulated and incorporate landscaping and color elements that
are consistent with the proposed development.
Prior to
issuance of
subdivision
improvement.
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 36
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
NOI-2 Vents and roof penetrations. Soffit vents, eave vents, dormer
vents and other wall and roof penetrations shall be on the walls
and roofs facing away from the noise source wherever possible.
Prior to
issuance of
permits.
NOI-3 The walls of habitable spaces on second floors of dwelling units
nearest the noise source shall have wall construction with an
S.T.C. (Sound Transmission Class) rating of 30 or greater. For
instance, stucco exterior or equivalent on 2” x 4” stud walls with
minimum R-13 batt insulation and two layers of ½” gypsum board
on the interior will provide an S.T.C. rating of 30 or greater along
these walls.
Prior to
issuance of
permits.
NOI-4 Common acoustic leaks, such as electrical outlets, pipes, vents,
ducts, flues, and other breaks in the integrity of the wall, ceiling or
roof construction on the side of the dwellings nearest
transportation noise source, shall receive special attention during
construction. All construction openings and joints on the walls on
the noise facing side of the site shall be insulated, sealed and
caulked with a resilient, non-hardening, acoustical caulking
material. All such openings and joints shall be airtight to maintain
sound isolation.
Prior to
issuance of
permits.
NOI-5 To meet the interior LDN 45 dBA requirements, windows for
habitable spaces on the second floor of affected units (shown in
following figures) facing the noise source shall be of double-
glazed construction with one light of laminated glass, and installed
in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer.
The windows shall have full gaskets, with an S.T.C. rating of 30 or
better, as determined in testing by an accredited acoustical
laboratory.
Prior to
issuance of
permits.
Transportation & Traffic
TP-1 A review of traffic signal phasing should be completed at the
intersection of El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Road to determine
if protected left turn phasing for the eastbound and westbound
approaches would potentially reduce conflicts between vehicles.
Prior to final
of the first
residential
unit.
TP-2 Since the project would contribute minor traffic volumes towards
already excessive queues at the Santa Rosa Road interchange,
the project must contribute towards the City’s Traffic Impact Fee
program which includes future improvements at the Santa Rosa
Road interchange. The impact fee is based on the type of
residential unit constructed and is due at the time of building
permit issuance.
Prior to
issuance of
permits.
TP-3 The applicant must install sidewalks along the project frontage on
the west side of El Camino Real.
Prior to
issuance of
permits.
TP-4 The project driveway must be constructed at the same elevation
as El Camino Real for a minimum length of one vehicle, or longer,
if determined necessary by the City Engineer
Prior to
issuance of
permits.
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 37
MITIGATION MEASURE TIMING
TP-5 Landscaping along the project frontage must be low laying and
set back so as not to obstruct sight lines along the project
frontage
Prior to
issuance of
permits.
Utilities Services
UT-1 The proposed project must pay all applicable sewer connection
fees at the time of building permit issuance.
Prior to
issuance of
permits.
UT-2 If the City Engineer determines there is insufficient capacity to
accommodate the proposed project prior to building permit
issuance, a building permit will not be issued by the City until
sufficient capacity is obtained either through permanent plant
upgrades or interim upgrades.
Prior to
issuance of
permits.
UT-3 The applicant shall be responsible for providing interim
improvements at the Wastewater Reclamation Facility to handle
flows and loading from the proposed project, prior to the issuance
of a building permit. The applicant shall either construct, or pay its
proportional fair share for any upgrades, either permanent or
interim that provide sufficient capacity to serve the proposed
project.
Prior to
issuance of
permits.
Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for subdivision
improvements, the applicant shall contract with a qualified
archeological consultant to perform a visual survey for a pre-
historic surface survey for native American and cultural artifacts.
Prior to
issuance of
permits.
TCR-2 During grading activities, if any cultural resources are unearthed
throughout the duration of the proposed project, all grading
activities shall cease, and the applicant shall contact the City of
Atascadero Staff. City Staff shall than contact all local native
American tribes to determine the extent of additional tribal
monitoring for remaining grading activities. Grading activities may
resume upon agreeance of monitoring.
During
Construction
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 38
The applicant agrees to incorporate the above measures into the project. These measures
become a part of the project description and therefore become a part of the record of action
upon which the environmental determination is based. All development activity must occur in
strict compliance with the above mitigation measures. The measures shall be perpetual and run
with the land. These measures are binding on all successors in interest of the subject property.
The applicant understands that any changes made to the project description subsequent to this
environmental determination must be reviewed by the Community Development Director or their
designee and may require a new environmental analysis for the project. By signing this
agreement, the owner(s) agrees to and accepts the incorporation of the above mitigation
measures into the proposed project description.
Signature of Owner(s) Name (Print) Date
Signature of Owner(s) Name (Print) Date
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 39
EXHIBIT C – PROJECT FIGURES & SUPPLEMENTS
Figure 1 – Location Map / General Plan & Zoning
Proposed Project
Public Facilities (P),
Chalk Mt. School
General Commercial
(GN)/ Commercial
Neighborhood (CN)
Rural Suburban (RS)
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 40
\
Figure 2 – Aerial Mapping
Proposed Project
[Type a quote from the document or the summary of an
interesting point. You can position the text box
anywhere in the document. Use the Drawing Tools tab
to change the formatting of the pull quote text box.]
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 41
Figure 3 – Site Plan
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 42
Figure 4 – Elevations & Sections
Cottage Elevation Examples
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 43
Figure 4 – Elevations & Sections
Townhouse Elevations
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 44
Figure 4 – Elevations & Sections
Senior Housing Elevations
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 45
Figure 4 – Elevations & Sections
Senior Housing Highway 101 Sections
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 46
Figure 5 – Site Photos
Sidewalk ending at
property boundary,
facing north on ECR
Sidewalk ending at
property boundary,
facing south on ECR
Facing back of property towards west,
showing gentle slope of 6% and existing
single family home and accessory structures
Grassland and existing vegetation types,
northern side boundary along adjacent single
family lots
Looking across ECR standing at middle of front property
line, high density residential and public land uses seen
here
Grassland and vegetation types, facing
west towards HWY 101, showing site
boundary lining adjacent single family
homes
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 47
Figure 5 – Site Photos
Existing vegetation on-site facing
northwest
Site boundary interaction with ECR
facing south
Site boundary interaction with ECR facing north
Facing back of site towards the west, townhome
development bordering the south of site
Facing project site from across ECR
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 48
Figure 6 – Traffic Report
490 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 201 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 707.542.9500
475 14th Street, Suite 290 OAKLAND, CA 94612 510.444.2600
1276 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 204 SAN JOSE, CA 95125 650.314.8313
w-trans.com
Draft Report
Traffic Impact Study
for the Hartberg Properties
for the
City of Atascadero
April 5, 2016
i
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Transportation Setting ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Capacity Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Alternative Modes .................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Access and Circulation .......................................................................................................................................................... 23
Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 24
Study Participants and References ................................................................................................................................... 25
Figures
1. Study Area and Lane Configurations ................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Existing Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
3. Future Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................................................................... 12
4. Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
5. Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................................................................... 16
Tables
1. Collision Rates at the Study Intersections .......................................................................................................................... 5
2. Bicycle Facility Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
3. Intersection Level of Service Criteria ................................................................................................................................... 9
4. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ......................................................................................................... 10
5. Future Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................................................... 13
6. Trip Generation Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
7. Trip Distribution Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................. 15
8. Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ....................................................... 15
9. Future and Future plus Project Peak Hour Levels of Service ..................................................................................... 17
10. Peak Hour Queues Near Santa Rosa and Santa Barbara Interchanges – Existing ............................................... 18
11. Peak Hour Queues Near Santa Rosa and Santa Barbara Interchanges – Existing plus Project ...................... 19
12. Peak Hour Queues Near Santa Rosa and Santa Barbara Interchanges – Future ................................................. 20
13. Peak Hour Queues Near Santa Rosa and Santa Barbara Interchanges – Future plus Project ......................... 21
Appendices
A. Collision Rate Calculations
B. Intersection Level of Service Calculations
C. Queuing Calculations
1
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Executive Summary
The proposed Hartberg Properties project would construct 20 townhome units, seven single family cottages, and
48 senior living units, resulting in a total of 75 units on a lot currently occupied by a single family home. The project
is anticipated to generate 338 net-new daily trips on average during a weekday, with 22 net-new trips during the
a.m. peak hour and 27 during the p.m. peak hour.
Protected left turn phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches should be evaluated at the intersection
of El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Road to determine if these improvements would potentially reduce conflicts
between vehicles.
Analysis indicates that the five study intersections are operating acceptably under Existing conditions and would
continue to do so with project traffic under projected Future volumes with and without the addition of project
generated traffic.
Traffic volumes generated by the project are not expected to significantly affect queuing operations at the US 101
freeway interchanges with Santa Barbara Road and Santa Rosa Road, except under Existing plus Project
conditions, where the project would contribute to queue lengths that already exceed available storage.
Improvements at the Santa Rosa interchange are included in the City’s Traffic Impact Fees (TIF), and the project
should contribute towards the City’s TIF.
Vehicles will access the project via one full access driveway on El Camino Real south of the intersection of Calle
Cynthia/El Camino Real. Sight distance at the project driveway would be adequate for both entering and exiting
drivers so long as the project driveway is constructed with the same elevation as that of El Camino Real at their
intersection for a length of one vehicle. Landscaping and foliage along the project frontage should be set back so
as not to obstruct sight lines.
Facilities for alternative modes will be adequate upon completion of recommended improvements, which include
installing sidewalk along the project frontage on El Camino Real and eliminating the southbound right-turn lane
from El Camino Real to San Diego Way and installing a bike lane instead.
2
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Introduction
Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the potential traffic impacts that would be associated with development of the
proposed Hartberg Properties project, which would consist of 75 residential dwelling units to be located at 10850
El Camino Real in the City of Atascadero. The traffic study was completed in accordance with the criteria
established by the City of Atascadero, and is consistent with standard traffic engineering techniques.
Prelude
The purpose of a traffic impact study is to provide City staff and policy makers with data that they can use to make
an informed decision regarding the potential traffic impacts of a proposed project, and any associated
improvements that would be required in order to mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance as defined by
the City’s General Plan or other policies. Vehicular traffic impacts are typically evaluated by determining the
number of new trips that the proposed use would be expected to generate, distributing these trips to the
surrounding street system based on existing travel patterns or anticipated travel patterns specific to the proposed
project, then analyzing the impact the new traffic would be expected to have on critical intersections or roadway
segments. Impacts relative to access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and to transit are also addressed.
Project Profile
The project would result in the construction of a total of 75 residential dwelling units, consisting of 20 townhome
units, seven single family cottages, and 48 senior living units. The project site is currently occupied by one single
family home and is bounded by US 101 to the west, El Camino Real to the east, and single family residences on La
Costa Lane to the south and on Calle Cynthia to the north, as shown in Figure 1.
Project
Site
AccessProj
ect
101
1
2
3
4
Sant
a
Rosa
R
o
a
d
S a n Rafael R o a dSan Diego WayS anta B a r b a ra R o a dEl Cam
ino
Rea
l
Santa
B
ar
b
ara
R
d
4
E
l
C
am
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
San Diego Wy
US 101 NB Off-Ramp
3
El
C
am
i
n
o
R
e
a
l San Rafael Rd2
Santa Rosa RdEl
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
1
020ata.ai 2/16
North
Not to Scale
Figure 1 – Study Area and Lane Configurations
Traffic Impact Study for Hartberg Properties
LEGEND
Study Intersection
4
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Transportation Setting
Operational Analysis
Study Area and Periods
The study area consists of the following intersections:
1. El Camino Real/Santa Rosa Road
2. El Camino Real/San Rafael Road
3. El Camino Real/San Diego Way-US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp
4. El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Road
Operating conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods were evaluated to capture the highest potential
impacts for the proposed project as well as the highest volumes on the local transportation network. The morning
peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and reflects conditions during the home to work or school commute,
while the p.m. peak hour occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and typically reflects the highest level of congestion
during the homeward bound commute.
Study Intersections
El Camino Real/Santa Rosa Road is a four-legged signalized intersection; the east leg is a driveway. Protected
left-turn phasing is provided on the northbound and southbound El Camino Real approaches and a right turn
overlap is provided on the eastbound approach. There are ladder-style crosswalks on the north and west legs.
El Camino Real/San Rafael Road is a four-legged signalized intersection. The northbound and southbound El
Camino Real approaches have protected left-turn phasing. The intersection’s north, east, and west legs have
ladder-style crosswalks.
El Camino Real/San Diego Way (US 101 NB Off-Ramp) is a “tee” intersection with a stop control on the eastbound
San Diego Way approach. A center turn lane is provided on El Camino Real.
El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Road is a four-legged signalized intersection with crosswalks provided on all legs.
The northbound and southbound El Camino Real approaches have protected left-turn phasing.
Project Access
El Camino Real/Project Access would be stop-controlled on the eastbound Project Access approach while the
northbound and southbound El Camino Real approaches are and would remain uncontrolled.
The locations of the study intersections and the existing lane configurations and controls are shown in Figure 1.
Study Roadway
El Camino Real is identified as a Major Arterial in the City of Atascadero’s General Plan and serves as a local parallel
route to US 101 within the City. Near the southern city limit, the character of El Camino Real is consistent of typical
rural conditions, lacking pedestrian and bicycle facilities in some areas with low-density commercial and
residential uses. To the north, the arterial has a more urban configuration generally including pedestrian and
bicycle facilities, as well as commercial development with on-street parking allowed in some areas. El Camino Real
5
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
has two to four travel lanes, and planted medians and/or two-way left-turn lanes. El Camino Real has posted speed
limits ranging from 25 to 45 mph, though within the study area, the posted speed limit is 45 mph. Along the
project frontage, the El Camino Real roadway cross-section transitions north to south from four travel lanes with
a two-way left-turn lane and bike lanes to two travel lanes with a right-turn lane, a two-way left-turn lane, and a
northbound bike lane.
Collision History
The collision history for the study area was reviewed to determine any trends or patterns that may indicate a safety
issue. Collision rates were calculated based on records available from the California Highway Patrol as published
in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports. The most current five-year period available
is January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2013.
As presented in Table 1, the calculated collision rates for the study intersections were compared to average collision
rates for similar facilities statewide, as indicated in 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans). All of the study intersections have calculated collision rates lower than the
Statewide average except El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Road. Copies of the collision rate calculations are provided
in Appendix A.
Table 1 – Collision Rates at the Study Intersections
Study Intersection Number of
Collisions
(2009-2013)
Calculated
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
Statewide
Average
Collision Rate
(c/mve)
1. El Camino Real/Santa Rosa Rd 11 0.24 0.43
2. El Camino Real/San Rafael Rd 9 0.36 0.43
3. El Camino Real/San Diego Way 1 0.06 0.14
4. El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Rd 10 0.57 0.43
Note: c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering
At the intersection of El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Road, the calculated collision rate was 0.57 collisions per
million vehicles entering (c/mve), which is higher than the statewide average for similar facilities of 0.43 c/mve. Of
the ten reported collisions for this period, a total of three collisions were broadside, sideswipe, or head-on
collisions that had a left turn movement preceding the collisions with auto right-of-way violation as the primary
collision factor. Due to the topography in the vicinity of the intersection, vehicles on the northbound and
westbound approaches are travelling on the downgrade of a crest toward the intersection. This may result in
limited stopping sight distances for drivers at all approaches of the intersection. Modification of the traffic signal
by adding protected westbound and eastbound left-turn phasing may reduce the vehicle conflicts at the
intersection and should be evaluated.
Alternative Modes
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions, and
various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. In general, a network of sidewalks, crosswalks,
pedestrian signals, and curb ramps provide access for pedestrians in the vicinity of the proposed project site;
however, sidewalk gaps can be found along all of the roadways connecting to the project site. Existing gaps and
obstacles along the connecting roadways impact convenient and continuous access for pedestrians and present
6
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
safety concerns in those locations where appropriate pedestrian infrastructure would address potential conflict
points.
El Camino Real – Intermittent sidewalk coverage is provided on El Camino Real with significant gaps on the
west side of the street between San Rafael Road and Patria Circle. There is another large gap between Calle
Cynthia and La Costa Lane. Sidewalks are provided along developed property frontages. Lighting is provided
by overhead street lights.
Bicycle Facilities
The Highway Design Manual, Caltrans, 2012, classifies bikeways into three categories:
Class I Multi-Use Path – a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians
with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized.
Class II Bike Lane – a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.
Class III Bike Route – signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street
or highway.
Guidance for Class IV Bikeways is provided in Design Information Bulletin Number 89: Class IV Bikeway Guidance
(Separated Bikeways/Cycle Tracks), Caltrans, 2015.
Class IV Separated Bikeway/Cycle Track – a bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and requires physical
separation such as grade separations, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking between
the bikeway and through vehicular traffic.
In the project area, Class II bike lanes exist on El Camino Real between the northern city limits and southern city
limits. However, a gap exists where the southbound bike lane terminates approximately 260 feet south of Calle
Cynthia, between the project frontage and San Diego Way, where a southbound right-turn lane exists. Santa Rosa
Road and Santa Barbara Road also have Class II bike lanes in the vicinity of the project. Bicyclists ride in the
roadway and/or on sidewalks along all other streets within the project study area. Table 2 summarizes the existing
and planned bicycle facilities in the project vicinity, as contained in the Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan:
Pedaling from 2010 to 2025, City of Atascadero, 2010.
Table 2 – Bicycle Facility Summary
Status
Facility
Class Length
(miles)
Begin Point End Point
Existing
El Camino Real II 2.3 San Diego Rd SR 41
El Camino Real II 2.0 Southern City Limit Santa Barbara Road
Santa Barbara Rd II 0.51 US 101 Viejo Camino
Santa Rosa Rd II 0.30 US 101 Atascadero
Planned
Viejo Camino II 1.25 El Camino Real El Camino Real
Source: Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan: Pedaling from 2010 to 2025, City of Atascadero, 2010
7
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Transit Facilities
The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) provides regional service between Atascadero and surrounding communities
in San Luis Obispo County. Route 9 provides service between the City of San Luis Obispo and San Miguel, with
stops less than one-quarter mile from the project site at El Camino Real/Avenida Maria and El Camino Real/Patria
Circle. The route operates Monday through Friday from 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with approximately one-hour
headways for most of the day, but thirty-minute headways during commute hours.
Two bicycles can be carried on most RTA buses. Bike rack space is on a first come, first served basis. Additional
bicycles are allowed on RTA buses at the discretion of the driver.
Dial-a-ride, also known as paratransit, or door-to-door service, is available for those who are unable to
independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability. Atascadero Dial-a-Ride is designed to
serve the needs of individuals with disabilities within the City of Atascadero and the greater City of Atascadero
area.
8
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Capacity Analysis
Intersection Level of Service Methodologies
Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and
roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, Level of Service A represents
free flow conditions and Level of Service F represents forced flow or breakdown conditions. A unit of measure
that indicates a level of delay generally accompanies the LOS designation.
The study intersections were analyzed using methodologies published in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM),
Transportation Research Board, 2000. This source contains methodologies for various types of intersection
control, all of which are related to a measurement of delay in average number of seconds per vehicle.
The Levels of Service for the intersections with side-street stop controls, or those which are unsignalized and have
one or two approaches stop controlled, were analyzed using the “Two-Way Stop-Controlled” intersection capacity
method from the HCM. This methodology determines a level of service for each minor turning movement by
estimating the level of average delay in seconds per vehicle. Results are presented for individual movements
together with the weighted overall average delay for the intersection.
The study intersections that are currently controlled by a traffic signal were evaluated using the signalized
methodology from the HCM. This methodology is based on factors including traffic volumes, green time for each
movement, phasing, whether or not the signals are coordinated, truck traffic, and pedestrian activity. Average
stopped delay per vehicle in seconds is used as the basis for evaluation in this LOS methodology. For purposes of
this study, delays were calculated using optimized signal timing.
The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 3.
9
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Table 3 – Intersection Level of Service Criteria
LOS Two-Way Stop-Controlled Signalized
A Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Gaps in traffic are readily
available for drivers exiting the minor street.
Delay of 0 to 10 seconds. Most vehicles arrive
during the green phase, so do not stop at all.
B Delay of 10 to 15 seconds. Gaps in traffic are
somewhat less readily available than with LOS A, but
no queuing occurs on the minor street.
Delay of 10 to 20 seconds. More vehicles stop than
with LOS A, but many drivers still do not have to
stop.
C Delay of 15 to 25 seconds. Acceptable gaps in traffic
are less frequent, and drivers may approach while
another vehicle is already waiting to exit the side
street.
Delay of 20 to 35 seconds. The number of vehicles
stopping is significant, although many still pass
through without stopping.
D Delay of 25 to 35 seconds. There are fewer acceptable
gaps in traffic, and drivers may enter a queue of one or
two vehicles on the side street.
Delay of 35 to 55 seconds. The influence of
congestion is noticeable, and most vehicles have to
stop.
E Delay of 35 to 50 seconds. Few acceptable gaps in
traffic are available, and longer queues may form on
the side street.
Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not all, vehicles
must stop and drivers consider the delay excessive.
F Delay of more than 50 seconds. Drivers may wait for
long periods before there is an acceptable gap in
traffic for exiting the side streets, creating long queues.
Delay of more than 80 seconds. Vehicles may wait
through more than one cycle to clear the
intersection.
Reference: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000
Analysis of Interchange Area Queuing
Adverse queuing conditions can result in traffic impacts at closely spaced intersections, particularly at freeway
interchanges where queues can potentially affect mainline freeway operation. For these reasons, an analysis of
queuing was performed for the Santa Barbara Road and Santa Rosa Road corridors between the US 101
Southbound Ramps and El Camino Real Road, including the US 101 Northbound Ramps intersection. The
projected vehicle queues were determined using the applied timing schemes in SIMTRAFFIC, which is a traffic
simulation extension of SYNCHRO that generates random “seeding” of vehicles on the street network and then
simulates how vehicles will flow through the system using the actual volumes, phasing, and timing developed in
SYNCHRO. Because each SIMTRAFFIC run is unique, a series of five separate “runs” was used to develop queuing
estimates. The 95th percentile queues projected for each lane in the five SIMTRAFFIC runs were averaged and are
reported as the maximum queue.
Traffic Operation Standards
The City of Atascadero’s adopted Level of Service standard is contained in Policy 1.3 of the 2025 Atascadero General
Plan. This standard allows for a minimum operation of LOS C or better at all intersections and on all arterial and
collector roads. Upon City Council approval, LOS D is acceptable where residences are not directly impacted and
improvements made meet City standards.
The City of Atascadero LOS standard does not differentiate between signalized intersections and other types of
controls. Since application of the LOS C standard to individual movements at two- or all-way stop-controlled
intersections may lead to recommendations which create unnecessary delay or maintenance expenses, mitigation
measures such as a traffic signal, additional lanes, or revised right-of-way controls were only considered if
operation on any single movement fell to LOS F, indicating an average delay in excess of 50 seconds, and traffic
10
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
signal warrants were met. This approach is common practice in evaluating unsignalized intersections and is
acceptable to the City.
Caltrans maintains a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D for freeway facilities where LOS C is
considered acceptable and LOS D exceeds the standard.
A project would create a significant circulation impact if it would create or worsen queuing conditions at freeway
interchange intersections in which the projected queues cannot be accommodated within the available storage
space.
Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current operation based on existing traffic volumes
during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. This condition does not include project-generated traffic volumes. Volume
data was collected in May 2013 and January 2015 while local schools were in session.
Intersection Levels of Service
Under existing conditions, the study intersections are operating acceptably at LOS A or B overall as well as on
individual approaches. A summary of the intersection level of service calculations is contained in Table 4. The
existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2, and copies of the Level of Service calculations are provided in
Appendix B.
Table 4 – Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. El Camino Real/Santa Rosa Rd 17.0 B 18.7 B
2. El Camino Real/San Rafael Rd 12.6 B 13.3 B
3. El Camino Real/San Diego Way 1.7 A 1.2 A
Eastbound Approach 12.1 B 13.0 B
4. El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Rd 16.2 B 15.3 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor
approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
Future Conditions
Segment volumes for the horizon year of 2035 were obtained from the regional travel demand model maintained
by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) and translated to turning movement volumes at each
of the study intersections using the “Furness” method. The Furness method is an iterative process that employs
existing turn movement data, existing link volumes and future link volumes to project likely turning future
movement volumes at intersections.
Intersection Levels of Service
Under the anticipated Future volumes, the study intersections are expected to operate acceptably at LOS A or B
both overall and on all approaches. Future operating conditions are summarized in Table 5, and Future volumes
are shown in Figure 3.
Project
Site
AccessProj
ect
101
1
2
3
4
Sant
a
Rosa
R
o
a
d
S a n Rafael R o a dSan Diego WayS anta B a r b a ra R o a d
7 (11)
153(95)
8 (5)
(91)40
(150)98
(112)96
(114)148(105) 74 (7) 4207(137)60 (125)8 (10)4 7 (23)255(479) (1) 4(336)337(59)78
(29)18
3
47(272)
0 (0)
16(93)
(20)18
(3) 1
(8)18
(15) 5(392)421 (11)10710 (21)249(508)318(25)2
3(16)
4(21)
1(4)
(178)125
(4) 11
(251)273
(335)242(553)275 (4) 6169(251)335(501)5 (8)1
020ata.ai 2/16
North
Not to Scale
Figure 2 – Existing Traffic Volumes
Traffic Impact Study for Hartberg Properties
LEGEND
xx
(xx)
A.M. Peak Hour Volume
Study Intersection
P.M. Peak Hour Volume
Project
Site
AccessProj
ect
101
1
2
3
4
Sant
a
Rosa
R
o
a
d
S a n Rafael R o a dSan Diego WayS anta B a r b a ra R o a d
14 (28)
159(108)
10 (7)
(111) 47
(167)112
(112) 96
(114)148(139) 99 (8) 5208(149)74 (166)15 (22)4 9 (23)383(635) (0) 1(538)416(77)87
(11) 0
3
44(215)
0 (0)
22(155)
(15)14
(3) 0
(13)21
(59) 12(506)528 (20)13717 (40)324(664)289(22)2
5(20)
7(21)
1(5)
(218)127
(6) 12
(305)300
(335)301(680)314 (6) 7184(251)363(618)5 (12)1
020ata.ai 2/16
North
Not to Scale
Figure 3 – Future Traffic Volumes
Traffic Impact Study for Hartberg Properties
LEGEND
xx
(xx)
A.M. Peak Hour Volume
Study Intersection
P.M. Peak Hour Volume
13
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Table 5 – Future Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. El Camino Real/Santa Rosa Rd 17.5 B 19.3 B
2. El Camino Real/San Rafael Rd 11.5 B 12.2 B
3. El Camino Real/San Diego Way 1.3 A 1.1 A
Eastbound Approach 12.9 B 15.6 C
4. El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Rd 15.9 B 15.2 B
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor
approaches to two-way stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics
Project Description
The site of the proposed Hartberg Properties project is located at 10850 El Camino Real. The project would include
20 townhome units, seven single family cottages, and 48 senior living units, resulting in 75 total units on a lot that
is currently occupied by a single family home. The proposed project site plan is shown in Figure 4. The project
would be served by one full access driveway on El Camino Real.
Trip Generation
The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard rates published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 for “Single Family Detached
Housing” (ITE LU #210), “Condominium/Townhouse” (ITE LU #230), and “Senior Adult Housing-Attached” (ITE LU
#252). Because the site is currently occupied by a single family residence, the trip generation of the existing single
family residence was considered. The expected trip generation potential for the proposed project is indicated in
Table 6, with deductions taken for trips made to and from the existing single family residence at the site, which
will cease with the construction of the project. The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 338
net-new trips per day, including 22 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 27 during the p.m. peak hour.
Table 6 – Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out
Existing
Single Family Residential 1 du 9.52 67 0.75 5 1 4 1.00 7 43
Proposed
Townhouse 20 du 5.81 157 0.44 12 2 10 0.52 14 9 5
Single Family Residential 7 du 9.52 67 0.75 5 1 4 1.00 7 4 3
Senior Adult Housing-Attached 48 occ 3.44 165 0.19 9 3 6 0.23 11 7 4
Total 338 22 5 17 27 17 10
Note: du = dwelling unit; occ= occupied room
020ata.ai 2/16Source: Isaman design, Inc. 8/15Figure 4 – Site PlanTraffic Impact Study for Hartberg PropertiesNorth
Not to Scale
15
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Trip Distribution
The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was based on traffic volumes in the area. The
applied distribution assumptions and resulting trips are shown in Table 7.
Table 7 – Trip Distribution Assumptions
Route Percent Daily
Trips
AM
Trips
PM
Trips
US 101 (to/from north) 25% 85 5 7
US 101 (to/from south) 15% 51 3 4
El Camino Real (to/from north) 30% 101 7 8
El Camino Real (to/from south) 30% 101 7 8
TOTAL 100% 338 22 27
Intersection Operation
Existing plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-related traffic to the existing volumes, the study intersections are expected to
continue operating acceptably overall at LOS A or B. These results are summarized in Table 8. Project traffic
volumes are shown in Figure 5.
Table 8 – Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
Existing Conditions Existing plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. El Camino Real/Santa Rosa Rd 17.0 B 18.7 B 17.0 B 18.9 B
2. El Camino Real/San Rafael Rd 12.6 B 13.3 B 12.6 B 13.3 B
3. El Camino Real/San Diego Way 1.7 A 1.2 A 1.7 A 1.2 A
Eastbound approach 12.1 B 13.0 B 12.1 B 13.1 B
4. El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Rd 16.2 B 15.3 B 16.2 B 15.3 B
5. El Camino Real/Project Dwy* 0.0 --0.0 --10.9 -- 13.7 --
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way
stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; * The delay at the eastbound project access is reported for
informational purposes only
Finding – The study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably at the same levels of service
upon the addition of project-generated traffic.
Future plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-generated traffic to the anticipated Future volumes, the study intersections are
expected to operate acceptably at LOS A or B overall, with the side streets at LOS C or better. The Future plus
Project operating conditions are summarized in Table 9.
Project
Site
AccessProj
ect
101
1
2
3
4
Sant
a
Rosa
R
o
a
d
S a n Rafael R o a dSan Diego WayS anta B a r b a ra R o a d
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
(2)1
(0)0
(0)0 (0)0(5)2(0)02(1)5(3)0(0)4 0(0)7(4)(0)0(7)2(0)0
(0)0
3
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
(0)0
(0)0
(0)0 (0)0(5)9(0)00(0)3(9)0(0)2
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
(0)0
(0)0
(4)1 (2)4(3)5(0)00(0)2(5)0(0)1
020ata.ai 2/16
North
Not to Scale
Figure 5 – Project Traffic Volumes
Traffic Impact Study for Hartberg Properties
LEGEND
xx
(xx)
A.M. Peak Hour Volume
Study Intersection
P.M. Peak Hour Volume
17
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Table 9 – Future and Future plus Project Peak Hour Levels of Service
Study Intersection
Approach
Future Conditions Future plus Project
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1. El Camino Real/Santa Rosa Rd 17.5 B 19.3 B 17.6 B 19.4 B
2. El Camino Real/San Rafael Rd 11.5 B 12.2 B 11.5 B 12.2 B
3. El Camino Real/San Diego Way 1.3 A 1.1 A 1.3 A 1.1 A
Eastbound Approach 12.9 B 15.6 C 12.9 B 15.7 C
4. El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Rd 15.9 B 15.2 B 15.9 B 15.2 B
5. El Camino Real/Project Dwy* 0.0 --0.0 --12.2 -- 17.6 --
Notes: Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Results for minor approaches to two-way
stop-controlled intersections are indicated in italics; * The delay at the eastbound project access is reported for
informational purposes only
Finding – The study intersections will continue operating acceptably with project traffic added, at the same Levels
of Service overall as without it.
Interchange Area Queuing
Queuing in the vicinity of the US 101 interchanges at Santa Barbara Road and Santa Rosa Road was assessed under
Existing, Existing plus Project, Future, and Future plus Project conditions to determine whether the project would
impact operation at the interchanges.
Existing Conditions
Vehicle queues in the vicinity of the Santa Barbara Road freeway interchange are within acceptable storage under
Existing conditions. However, queue lengths currently exceed capacity for the eastbound and westbound
through movements on Santa Rosa Road at the US 101 Northbound Ramps during the p.m. peak hour. A summary
of the Existing conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour queues is presented in Table 10. Copies of the SIMTRAFFIC
projections are contained in Appendix C.
18
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Table 10 – Peak Hour Queues Near Santa Rosa and Santa Barbara Interchanges – Existing
Study Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Through Through Through Through Right-Turn
Santa Barbara Rd/US 101 NB Ramps
Available Storage 1,000 –285 440 –
Maximum Queue AM/PM 42/76 –/– 43/24 –/– –/–
Santa Barbara Rd/US 101 SB Ramps
Available Storage –405 323 285 –
Maximum Queue AM/PM –/– 69/75 45/49 75/58 –/–
Santa Rosa Rd/US 101 NB Ramps
Available Storage 710 –255 120 333
Maximum Queue AM/PM 144/253 –/–234/269 109/175 104/261
Santa Rosa Rd/US 101 SB Ramps
Available Storage –1,026 355 255 –
Maximum Queue AM/PM –/– 179/275 135/113 226/240 –/–
Notes: Maximum (95th Percentile ) Queue represents the maximum queues that develop within SIMTRAFFIC (values
represent the average of 5 SIMTRAFFIC runs); all distances are measured in feet; Bold text = deficient operation
Existing plus Project Conditions
With the addition of project-generated traffic, vehicle queues in the vicinity of the Santa Barbara Road freeway
interchange are projected to continue to be acceptable and remain within the provided storage. However,
projected queuing lengths exceed capacity for the eastbound and westbound through movements on Santa Rosa
Road at the US 101 Northbound Ramps without or with the project. The difference in queue length with the
project compared to without it is less than 50 feet, or approximately two car lengths on average. The project
would contribute towards already excessive queues at the Santa Rosa Road interchange. A summary of the
Existing plus Project a.m. and p.m. peak hour queues is presented in Table 11.
19
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Table 11 – Peak Hour Queues Near Santa Rosa and Santa Barbara Interchanges – Existing plus Project
Study Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Through Through Through Through Right-Turn
Santa Barbara Rd/US 101 NB Ramps
Available Storage 1,000 –285 440 –
Maximum Queue AM/PM 42/98 –/–51/––/– –/–
Santa Barbara Rd/US 101 SB Ramps
Available Storage –405 323 285 –
Maximum Queue AM/PM –/– 66/111 52/109 76/56 –/–
Santa Rosa Rd/US 101 NB Ramps
Available Storage 710 –255 120 333
Maximum Queue AM/PM 167/260 –/–265/313 124/171 102/206
Santa Rosa Rd/US 101 SB Ramps
Available Storage –1,026 355 255 –
Maximum Queue AM/PM –/–228/132 177/120 192/195 –/–
Notes: Maximum (95th Percentile ) Queue represents the maximum queues that develop within SIMTRAFFIC (values
represent the average of 5 SIMTRAFFIC runs); all distances are measured in feet; Bold text = deficient operation
Finding – The project would contribute towards already excessive queues at the Santa Rosa Road interchange.
Recommendation – The City plans to complete a traffic study in cooperation with Caltrans that would seek
alternative routes and capacity improvements at the Santa Rosa Road interchange that utilize the existing
circulation system without widening of the existing overpass. These improvements could include diversion of
traffic, restriction of traffic movements, and addition of traffic control devices at adjacent locations, combined with
signal timing enhancements. Improvements at the Santa Rosa Road interchange are included in the City’s Traffic
Impact Fees (TIF), and the project should contribute towards the TIF program. The implementation of the
interchange capacity enhancements would reduce queuing conditions to levels prior to the addition of the project
traffic.
Future Conditions
Vehicle queues in the vicinity of the Santa Barbara Road freeway interchange are projected to be within acceptable
storage under Future Conditions. However, queue lengths are expected to further exceed capacity for the
eastbound and westbound through movements on Santa Rosa Road at the US 101 Northbound Ramps. A
summary of the Future a.m. and p.m. peak hour queues is presented in Table 12. Copies of the SIMTRAFFIC
projections are contained in Appendix C.
20
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Table 12 – Peak Hour Queues Near Santa Rosa and Santa Barbara Interchanges – Future
Study Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Through Through Through Through Right-Turn
Santa Barbara Rd/US 101 NB Ramps
Available Storage 1,000 –285 440 –
Maximum Queue AM/PM 40/97 –/– 25/97 –/– –/–
Santa Barbara Rd/US 101 SB Ramps
Available Storage –405 323 285 –
Maximum Queue AM/PM –/– 74/71 51/48 79/66 –/–
Santa Rosa Rd/US 101 NB Ramps
Available Storage 710 –255 120 333
Maximum Queue AM/PM 153/247 –/–261/313 101/148 89/143
Santa Rosa Rd/US 101 SB Ramps
Available Storage –1,026 355 255 –
Maximum Queue AM/PM –/– 260/305 142/128 184/228 –/–
Notes: Maximum (95th Percentile ) Queue represents the maximum queues that develop within SIMTRAFFIC (values
represent the average of 5 SIMTRAFFIC runs); all distances are measured in feet; Bold text = deficient operation
Future plus Project Conditions
With the project, vehicle queues in the vicinity of the Santa Barbara Road freeway interchange are projected to
continue to be met within the provided storage. However, projected queuing lengths exceed capacity for the
eastbound and westbound through movements on Santa Rosa Road at the US 101 Northbound Ramps. No
change in queue length is expected with the project compared to without it. A summary of the Future plus Project
a.m. and p.m. peak hour queues is presented in Table 13.
21
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Table 13 – Peak Hour Queues Near Santa Rosa and Santa Barbara Interchanges – Future plus Project
Study Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Through Through Through Through Right-Turn
Santa Barbara Rd/US 101 NB Ramps
Available Storage 1,000 –285 440 –
Maximum Queue AM/PM 40/97 –/– 25/31 –/– –/–
Santa Barbara Rd/US 101 SB Ramps
Available Storage –405 323 285 –
Maximum Queue AM/PM –/– 74/71 51/48 79/66 –/–
Santa Rosa Rd/US 101 NB Ramps
Available Storage 710 –255 120 333
Maximum Queue AM/PM 153/247 –/–261/313 101/148 89/143
Santa Rosa Rd/US 101 SB Ramps
Available Storage –1,026 355 255 –
Maximum Queue AM/PM –/– 260/305 142/128 184/228 –/–
Notes: Maximum (95th Percentile ) Queue represents the maximum queues that develop within SIMTRAFFIC (values
represent the average of 5 SIMTRAFFIC runs); all distances are measured in feet; Bold text = deficient operation
Finding – The project is not expected to impact operations at the evaluated interchanges to the extent that there
would be a significant increase in queue lengths.
22
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Alternative Modes
Pedestrian Facilities
Given the proximity of strip commercial, residential, and schools surrounding the site, it is reasonable to assume
that some project residents will want to walk, bicycle, and/or utilize transit for travel to and from Hartberg
Properties.
Project Site – No sidewalks are provided along the project frontage on the west side of El Camino Real. The site
plan indicates that sidewalks would be constructed within the project site, but not along the El Camino Real
frontage.
Finding – Pedestrian facilities serving the project site are deficient.
Recommendation – The applicant should install sidewalks along the project frontage on the west side of El
Camino Real.
Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities, including bike lanes on El Camino Real, provide access for bicyclists. However, a gap
exists where the southbound bike lane terminates approximately 260 feet south of Calle Cynthia, between the
project frontage and San Diego Way, where a southbound right-turn lane exists.
Finding – Bicycle facilities serving the project site are deficient.
Recommendation – The existing southbound right-turn lane on El Camino Real from the project site to San Diego
Way, which is not warranted operationally, should be removed and replaced with a bike lane.
Transit
Existing transit routes are adequate to accommodate project-generated transit trips. Existing stops are within an
acceptable walking distance of the site.
Finding – Transit facilities serving the project site are expected to be adequate.
23
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Access and Circulation
Site Access
The project site would be accessed via one full access driveway located on El Camino Real, approximately 175 feet
south of the El Camino Real/Calle Cynthia intersection. An existing center turn lane on El Camino Real allows
northbound vehicles to turn left into the project driveway and provides refuge for eastbound vehicles turning left
onto El Camino Real.
Sight Distance
Sight distances along El Camino Real at the proposed project driveway were evaluated based on sight distance
criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans. The recommended sight distance for
minor-street approaches that are either a private road or a driveway is based on stopping sight distance using the
approach travel speeds as the basis for determining the recommended sight distance. Based on the posted speed
limit of 45 mph on El Camino Real, the minimum stopping sight distance required is 360 feet. A review of field
conditions showed that sight distance at the project driveway is more than adequate and would be met so long
as the following recommendations are implemented.
Currently, there is a steep embankment on the east side of the site along the El Camino Real frontage, with El
Camino Real situated at a higher elevation than the project site. In order for sight lines to be adequate, vehicles
turning out of the project driveway must be at-grade with El Camino Real. It is recommended that the project
access driveway be constructed at a similar elevation as the centerline of El Camino Real at the driveway’s
intersection with El Camino Real. This elevation should be maintained for a length that provides sufficient space
for at least one outbound vehicle waiting to turn from the driveway onto El Camino Real.
Landscaping and foliage along the project frontage should be set back from the roadway to avoid obstructing
sight lines in either direction.
Finding – Sight distance would be satisfactory at the proposed project driveway upon implementation of the
recommended improvements.
Recommendation – The elevation of the project driveway should be the same as that of El Camino Real at their
intersection. The driveway should maintain this elevation for the length of one vehicle. Landscaping and foliage
along the project frontage should be set back so as not to obstruct sight lines.
24
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
The four intersections had collision rates for the five-year study period that are lower than the statewide
average for similar facilities, except El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Road.
Currently, all four study intersections operate acceptably.
Under Future conditions, all of the study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably.
The proposed project would generate an average of 338 trips per day, including 22 trips during the a.m. peak
hour and 27 during the p.m. peak hour.
With the addition of project-generated traffic, all of the study intersections are expected to continue
operating acceptably under all scenarios evaluated. Vehicles turning out of the project access driveway are
expected to experience tolerable levels of delay.
The project is not expected to significantly impact queuing operations at the Santa Barbara Road freeway
interchanges under Existing and Future conditions.
The project would contribute towards already excessive queues at the Santa Rosa Road interchange.
With the implementation of the recommended improvements, pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities are
expected to adequately serve the project site.
Sight distance would be satisfactory at the proposed project driveway upon implementation of the
recommended improvements.
Recommendations
A review of traffic signal phasing should be completed at the intersection of El Camino Real/Santa Barbara
Road to determine if protected left turn phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches would
potentially reduce conflicts between vehicles.
Since the project would contribute minor traffic volumes towards already excessive queues at the Santa Rosa
Road interchange, the project should contribute towards the City’s Traffic Impact Fee program which includes
future improvements at the Santa Rosa Road interchange.
The applicant should install sidewalks along the project frontage on the west side of El Camino Real.
The existing right-turn lane on southbound El Camino Real from the project site to San Diego Way should be
removed and replaced with a bike lane.
The project driveway should be constructed at the same elevation as El Camino Real for a minimum length of
one vehicle. Landscaping and foliage along the project frontage should be set back so as not to obstruct sight
lines.
25
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 5, 2016
Study Participants and References
Study Participants
Principal in Charge Steve Weinberger, PE, PTOE
Associate Engineer Smadar Boardman, EIT
Technician David Thorpe
Editing/Formatting/Graphics Angela McCoy
Report Review Dalene J. Whitlock, PE, PTOE
References
2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, California Department of Transportation, 2012
Atascadero Bicycle Transportation Plan: Pedaling from 2010 to 2025, City of Atascadero, 2010
City of Atascadero General Plan 2025, Crawford Multari & Clark, Omni-Means, and City of Atascadero Community
Development Department, 2004
Design Information Bulletin Number 89: Class IV Bikeway Guidance (Separated Bikeways/Cycle Tracks), California
Department of Transportation, 2015
Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000
Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition, California Department of Transportation, 2012
San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority, http://www.slorta.org/
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), California Highway Patrol, 2011-2015
Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012
ATA020
A
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 2016
Appendix A
Collision Rate Calculations
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 11
Number of Injuries: 3
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 25600
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Suburban
11 x
25,600 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.24 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.43 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 9
Number of Injuries: 5
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 13700
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Suburban
9x
13,700 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.36 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.43 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
City of Atascadero - Hartberg
Saturday, January 00, 1900
Saturday, January 00, 1900
37.9%
Intersection Collision Rate Calculations
January 1, 2009
December 31, 2013
Intersection #El Camino Real & Santa Rosa Rd
collision rate = 1,000,000
El Camino Real & San Rafael Rd
37.9%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
January 1, 2009
365
Intersection #
December 31, 2013
Number of Collisions x 1 Millioncollision rate =
1:
55.6%
Collision Rate Fatality Rate
collision rate = 365
2:
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
0.4%
collision rate = ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
27.3%
1,000,000
Injury Rate
Fatality Rate
0.0%
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
0.0%
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
0.4%
Collision Rate Injury Rate
Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc.
3/7/2016
Page 1 of 2
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 1
Number of Injuries: 1
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 9300
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Tee
Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls
Area: Suburban
1x
9,300 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.06 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.14 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
Date of Count:
Number of Collisions: 10
Number of Injuries: 2
Number of Fatalities: 0
ADT: 9600
Start Date:
End Date:
Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Four-Legged
Control Type: Signals
Area: Suburban
10 x
9,600 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.57 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.43 c/mve
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection
* 2012 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans
collision rate =
Collision Rate
Saturday, January 00, 1900
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
0.4%
0.0%20.0%
1,000,000
365
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
El Camino Real & Santa Barbara Rd
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
0.7%
Saturday, January 00, 1900
100.0%
4:
Collision Rate
3: El Camino Real & San Diego way/Hwy 101
collision rate = 1,000,000
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
ADT x 365 Days per Year x Number of Years
Injury Rate
December 31, 2013
City of Atascadero - Hartberg
January 1, 2009
37.9%
Fatality Rate Injury Rate
January 1, 2009
collision rate =
Intersection #
0.0%
December 31, 2013
collision rate =
ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection
Intersection #
Fatality Rate
38.0%
Intersection Collision Rate Calculaions
365
Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc.
3/7/2016
Page 2 of 2
B
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 2016
Appendix B
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
AM Existing Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:01 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 El Camino Real/Santa Rosa Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.570 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 17.0 Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Rosa Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 25 May 2006 << 7:30 - 8:30 am Base Vol: 242 275 6 5 335 169 125 11 273 1 4 3 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 242 275 6 5 335 169 125 11 273 1 4 3 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 263 299 7 5 364 184 136 12 297 1 4 3 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 263 299 7 5 364 184 136 12 297 1 4 3 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 263 299 7 5 364 184 136 12 297 1 4 3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.33 0.67 0.92 0.08 1.00 0.13 0.50 0.37 Final Sat.: 1805 3522 77 1805 2280 1150 1669 147 1615 224 896 672 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.26 0.52 0.52 0.02 0.28 0.28 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.02 0.02 Volume/Cap: 0.57 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.57 0.57 0.26 0.25 0.57 0.57 0.26 0.26 Delay/Veh: 21.2 7.7 7.7 31.3 19.3 19.3 15.7 15.2 18.4 72.2 33.2 33.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 21.2 7.7 7.7 31.3 19.3 19.3 15.7 15.2 18.4 72.2 33.2 33.2 LOS by Move: C A A C B B B B B E C C HCM2k95thQ: 8 3 3 1 10 10 4 4 9 2 1 1 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:05 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 El Camino Real/Santa Rosa Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.724 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 18.7 Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Rosa Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 24 May 2006 << 4:30 - 5:30 pm Base Vol: 335 553 4 8 501 251 178 4 251 4 21 16 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 335 553 4 8 501 251 178 4 251 4 21 16 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 360 595 4 9 539 270 191 4 270 4 23 17 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 360 595 4 9 539 270 191 4 270 4 23 17 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 360 595 4 9 539 270 191 4 270 4 23 17 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.33 0.67 0.98 0.02 1.00 0.10 0.51 0.39 Final Sat.: 1805 3580 26 1805 2285 1145 1771 40 1615 175 917 699 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.02 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.58 0.58 0.02 0.33 0.33 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.03 0.05 0.05 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.72 0.72 0.50 0.47 0.72 0.72 0.50 0.50 Delay/Veh: 24.9 6.3 6.3 34.2 20.2 20.2 21.7 20.7 28.2 63.4 32.3 32.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 24.9 6.3 6.3 34.2 20.2 20.2 21.7 20.7 28.2 63.4 32.3 32.3 LOS by Move: C A A C C C C C C E C C HCM2k95thQ: 12 6 6 1 16 16 6 6 9 5 3 3 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA AM
Existing Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:01 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 El Camino Real/San Rafael Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.453 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.6 Optimal Cycle: 28 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Rafael Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Feb 2015 << 7:15 - 8:15 am Base Vol: 5 421 107 318 249 10 18 1 18 16 0 47 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 5 421 107 318 249 10 18 1 18 16 0 47 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 6 465 118 351 275 11 20 1 20 18 0 52 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 6 465 118 351 275 11 20 1 20 18 0 52 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 6 465 118 351 275 11 20 1 20 18 0 52 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.94 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.59 0.41 1.00 1.92 0.08 0.48 0.03 0.49 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 2792 710 1805 3450 139 699 39 699 1788 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.37 0.37 0.43 0.77 0.77 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 Volume/Cap: 0.10 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.14 0.00 0.45 Delay/Veh: 29.2 14.7 14.7 12.6 1.8 1.8 29.2 29.2 29.2 26.7 0.0 29.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.2 14.7 14.7 12.6 1.8 1.8 29.2 29.2 29.2 26.7 0.0 29.6 LOS by Move: C B B B A A C C C C A C HCM2k95thQ: 0 8 8 9 1 1 3 3 3 1 0 3 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:05 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 El Camino Real/San Rafael Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.416 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.3 Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Rafael Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Feb 2015 << 4:30 - 5:30 pm Base Vol: 15 392 11 25 508 21 20 3 8 93 0 272 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 15 392 11 25 508 21 20 3 8 93 0 272 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 17 436 12 28 564 23 22 3 9 103 0 302 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 17 436 12 28 564 23 22 3 9 103 0 302 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 17 436 12 28 564 23 22 3 9 103 0 302 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.78 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.92 0.08 0.64 0.10 0.26 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3497 98 1805 3446 142 964 145 386 1486 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.02 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.39 0.39 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.45 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.42 0.42 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.00 0.42 Delay/Veh: 35.8 13.7 13.7 30.1 13.4 13.4 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.9 0.0 11.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 35.8 13.7 13.7 30.1 13.4 13.4 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.9 0.0 11.5 LOS by Move: D B B C B B A A A A A B HCM2k95thQ: 1 6 6 1 8 8 1 1 1 2 0 8 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:01 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 El Camino Real/San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 12.1] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 5 Feb 2015 << 7:15 - 8:15 am Base Vol: 4 337 0 0 255 7 78 0 18 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 4 337 0 0 255 7 78 0 18 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 4 378 0 0 286 8 87 0 20 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 4 378 0 0 286 8 87 0 20 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 294 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 673 673 286 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1279 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 424 379 758 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1279 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 423 378 758 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Total Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 590 524 xxxxx 530 521 xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.15 0.00 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 616 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 12.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 12.1 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:05 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 El Camino Real/San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.0] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 5 Feb 2015 << 4:45 - 5:45 pm Base Vol: 1 336 0 0 479 23 59 0 29 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 336 0 0 479 23 59 0 29 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 1 346 0 0 494 24 61 0 30 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 1 346 0 0 494 24 61 0 30 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 518 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 842 842 494 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1059 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 337 303 579 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1059 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 337 303 579 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Total Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 523 466 xxxxx 442 456 xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.12 0.00 0.05 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 8.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 540 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 13.0 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 13.0 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:01 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.366 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 16.2 Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Barbara Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 16 Oct 2014 << 7:15 - 8:15 am Base Vol: 148 74 4 8 60 207 40 98 96 8 153 7 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 148 74 4 8 60 207 40 98 96 8 153 7 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 159 80 4 9 65 223 43 105 103 9 165 8 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 159 80 4 9 65 223 43 105 103 9 165 8 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 159 80 4 9 65 223 43 105 103 9 165 8 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.55 1.00 0.85 0.68 0.99 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 0.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.04 Final Sat.: 1805 1788 97 1805 1900 1615 1049 1900 1615 1294 1804 83 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.09 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.24 0.56 0.56 0.06 0.38 0.38 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Volume/Cap: 0.37 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.37 0.16 0.22 0.26 0.03 0.37 0.37 Delay/Veh: 19.5 6.2 6.2 27.0 12.1 13.9 17.9 18.1 18.4 17.1 19.1 19.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 19.5 6.2 6.2 27.0 12.1 13.9 17.9 18.1 18.4 17.1 19.1 19.1 LOS by Move: B A A C B B B B B B B B HCM2k95thQ: 6 2 2 0 2 6 1 3 3 0 6 6 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:05 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.284 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 15.3 Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Barbara Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 16 Oct 2014 << 4:45 - 5:45 pm Base Vol: 114 105 7 10 125 137 91 150 112 5 95 11 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 114 105 7 10 125 137 91 150 112 5 95 11 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 124 114 8 11 136 149 99 163 122 5 103 12 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 124 114 8 11 136 149 99 163 122 5 103 12 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 124 114 8 11 136 149 99 163 122 5 103 12 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.67 1.00 0.85 0.59 0.98 0.98 Lanes: 1.00 0.94 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.10 Final Sat.: 1805 1765 118 1805 1900 1615 1277 1900 1615 1127 1676 194 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.24 0.52 0.52 0.05 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.22 0.28 0.26 0.28 0.25 0.02 0.20 0.20 Delay/Veh: 18.9 7.5 7.5 28.0 14.9 15.4 16.2 16.3 16.1 14.7 15.8 15.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 18.9 7.5 7.5 28.0 14.9 15.4 16.2 16.3 16.1 14.7 15.8 15.8 LOS by Move: B A A C B B B B B B B B HCM2k95thQ: 4 2 2 0 4 4 3 5 3 0 3 3 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Future Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:20 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 El Camino Real/Santa Rosa Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.599 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 17.5 Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Rosa Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 301 314 7 5 363 184 127 12 300 1 7 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 301 314 7 5 363 184 127 12 300 1 7 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 301 314 7 5 363 184 127 12 300 1 7 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 301 314 7 5 363 184 127 12 300 1 7 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 301 314 7 5 363 184 127 12 300 1 7 5 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.33 0.67 0.91 0.09 1.00 0.08 0.54 0.38 Final Sat.: 1805 3521 78 1805 2276 1154 1660 157 1615 138 966 690 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.53 0.53 0.02 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.03 0.03 Volume/Cap: 0.60 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.60 0.60 0.26 0.25 0.60 0.60 0.26 0.26 Delay/Veh: 20.8 7.4 7.4 31.8 20.3 20.3 16.4 15.7 19.6 68.2 31.3 31.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 20.8 7.4 7.4 31.8 20.3 20.3 16.4 15.7 19.6 68.2 31.3 31.3 LOS by Move: C A A C C C B B B E C C HCM2k95thQ: 9 3 3 1 11 11 4 4 9 2 1 1 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Future Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:24 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 El Camino Real/Santa Rosa Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.752 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 19.3 Optimal Cycle: 49 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Rosa Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 335 680 6 12 618 251 218 6 305 5 21 20 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 335 680 6 12 618 251 218 6 305 5 21 20 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 335 680 6 12 618 251 218 6 305 5 21 20 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 335 680 6 12 618 251 218 6 305 5 21 20 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 335 680 6 12 618 251 218 6 305 5 21 20 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 1.98 0.02 1.00 1.42 0.58 0.97 0.03 1.00 0.11 0.46 0.43 Final Sat.: 1805 3575 32 1805 2457 998 1764 49 1615 193 812 773 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.25 0.56 0.56 0.02 0.33 0.33 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.05 0.05 Volume/Cap: 0.75 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.75 0.75 0.52 0.49 0.75 0.75 0.52 0.52 Delay/Veh: 28.0 7.2 7.2 34.6 20.6 20.6 21.2 20.0 28.5 68.9 33.5 33.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.0 7.2 7.2 34.6 20.6 20.6 21.2 20.0 28.5 68.9 33.5 33.5 LOS by Move: C A A C C C C C C E C C HCM2k95thQ: 12 7 7 1 18 18 7 7 10 5 3 3 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Future Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:20 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 El Camino Real/San Rafael Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.436 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 11.5 Optimal Cycle: 28 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Rafael Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 12 528 137 289 324 17 14 0 21 22 0 44 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 12 528 137 289 324 17 14 0 21 22 0 44 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 12 528 137 289 324 17 14 0 21 22 0 44 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 12 528 137 289 324 17 14 0 21 22 0 44 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 12 528 137 289 324 17 14 0 21 22 0 44 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.77 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.59 0.41 1.00 1.90 0.10 0.40 0.00 0.60 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 2777 721 1805 3406 179 589 0 883 1900 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.05 0.44 0.44 0.37 0.75 0.75 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.06 Volume/Cap: 0.13 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.13 0.13 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.18 0.00 0.44 Delay/Veh: 27.7 12.0 12.0 14.7 2.1 2.1 29.6 0.0 29.6 27.4 0.0 30.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 27.7 12.0 12.0 14.7 2.1 2.1 29.6 0.0 29.6 27.4 0.0 30.1 LOS by Move: C B B B A A C A C C A C HCM2k95thQ: 0 9 9 8 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 3 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Future Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:24 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 El Camino Real/San Rafael Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.418 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.2 Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Rafael Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 59 506 20 22 664 40 15 3 13 155 0 215 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 59 506 20 22 664 40 15 3 13 155 0 215 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 59 506 20 22 664 40 15 3 13 155 0 215 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 59 506 20 22 664 40 15 3 13 155 0 215 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 59 506 20 22 664 40 15 3 13 155 0 215 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.75 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.92 0.08 1.00 1.89 0.11 0.48 0.10 0.42 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3452 136 1805 3374 203 757 151 656 1423 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.00 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.51 0.51 0.04 0.47 0.47 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.32 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.42 0.42 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.34 0.00 0.42 Delay/Veh: 28.4 8.7 8.7 30.0 10.6 10.6 14.3 14.3 14.3 16.1 0.0 16.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.4 8.7 8.7 30.0 10.6 10.6 14.3 14.3 14.3 16.1 0.0 16.6 LOS by Move: C A A C B B B B B B A B HCM2k95thQ: 2 6 6 1 8 8 1 1 1 5 0 7 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Future Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:20 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 El Camino Real/San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 12.9] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 416 0 0 383 9 87 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 416 0 0 383 9 87 0 0 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 1 416 0 0 383 9 87 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 1 416 0 0 383 9 87 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 392 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 801 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1178 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 356 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1178 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 356 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Total Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 543 483 xxxxx 492 480 xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.16 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 8.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 12.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * B * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 12.9 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Future Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:24 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 El Camino Real/San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 15.6] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 538 0 0 635 23 77 0 11 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 538 0 0 635 23 77 0 11 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 538 0 0 635 23 77 0 11 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 538 0 0 635 23 77 0 11 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1173 1173 635 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 214 194 482 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 214 194 482 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Total Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 420 376 xxxxx 357 370 xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.18 0.00 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 427 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 15.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * C * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 15.6 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Future Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:20 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.350 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 15.9 Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Barbara Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 148 99 5 15 74 208 47 112 96 10 159 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 148 99 5 15 74 208 47 112 96 10 159 14 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 148 99 5 15 74 208 47 112 96 10 159 14 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 148 99 5 15 74 208 47 112 96 10 159 14 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 148 99 5 15 74 208 47 112 96 10 159 14 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.56 1.00 0.85 0.67 0.99 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 0.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.08 Final Sat.: 1805 1796 91 1805 1900 1615 1062 1900 1615 1273 1725 152 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.09 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.23 0.52 0.52 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Volume/Cap: 0.35 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.35 0.17 0.22 0.23 0.03 0.35 0.35 Delay/Veh: 19.6 7.2 7.2 26.0 12.5 14.1 17.3 17.5 17.6 16.4 18.3 18.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 19.6 7.2 7.2 26.0 12.5 14.1 17.3 17.5 17.6 16.4 18.3 18.3 LOS by Move: B A A C B B B B B B B B HCM2k95thQ: 5 2 2 1 2 5 1 3 3 0 6 6 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Future Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:24 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Future Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Base Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.275 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 15.2 Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Barbara Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 114 139 8 22 166 149 111 167 112 7 108 28 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 114 139 8 22 166 149 111 167 112 7 108 28 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 114 139 8 22 166 149 111 167 112 7 108 28 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 114 139 8 22 166 149 111 167 112 7 108 28 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 114 139 8 22 166 149 111 167 112 7 108 28 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.64 1.00 0.85 0.59 0.97 0.97 Lanes: 1.00 0.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.21 Final Sat.: 1805 1782 103 1805 1900 1615 1220 1900 1615 1129 1462 379 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.23 0.47 0.47 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.22 0.02 0.23 0.23 Delay/Veh: 19.4 9.1 9.1 26.6 15.6 15.7 15.7 15.5 15.1 14.0 15.2 15.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 19.4 9.1 9.1 26.6 15.6 15.7 15.7 15.5 15.1 14.0 15.2 15.2 LOS by Move: B A A C B B B B B B B B HCM2k95thQ: 4 3 3 1 4 4 3 5 3 0 4 4 ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:58:44 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trip Generation Report Forecast for am Zone Rate Rate Trips Trips Total % Of # Subzone Amount Units In Out In Out Trips Total ---- ------------ ------- -------------- ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 Hartberg Tow 1.00 Project 5.00 16.00 5 16 21 100.0 Zone 1 Subtotal ............................. 5 16 21 100.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL .................................................. 5 16 21 100.0 Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:05:06 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trip Generation Report Forecast for pm Zone Rate Rate Trips Trips Total % Of # Subzone Amount Units In Out In Out Trips Total ---- ------------ ------- -------------- ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 Hartberg Tow 1.00 Project 16.00 9.00 16 9 25 100.0 Zone 1 Subtotal ............................. 16 9 25 100.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL .................................................. 16 9 25 100.0 Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:10 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 El Camino Real/Santa Rosa Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.574 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 17.0 Optimal Cycle: 34 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Rosa Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 25 May 2006 << 7:30 - 8:30 am Base Vol: 242 275 6 5 335 169 125 11 273 1 4 3 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 242 275 6 5 335 169 125 11 273 1 4 3 Added Vol: 4 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 246 280 6 5 337 169 125 11 274 1 4 3 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 267 304 7 5 366 184 136 12 298 1 4 3 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 267 304 7 5 366 184 136 12 298 1 4 3 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 267 304 7 5 366 184 136 12 298 1 4 3 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.33 0.67 0.92 0.08 1.00 0.13 0.50 0.37 Final Sat.: 1805 3524 76 1805 2284 1145 1669 147 1615 224 896 672 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.26 0.52 0.52 0.02 0.28 0.28 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.02 0.02 Volume/Cap: 0.57 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.57 0.57 0.26 0.25 0.57 0.57 0.26 0.26 Delay/Veh: 21.1 7.6 7.6 31.4 19.4 19.4 15.8 15.3 18.5 73.8 33.2 33.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 21.1 7.6 7.6 31.4 19.4 19.4 15.8 15.3 18.5 73.8 33.2 33.2 LOS by Move: C A A C B B B B B E C C HCM2k95thQ: 8 3 3 1 11 11 4 4 9 2 1 1 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:16 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 El Camino Real/Santa Rosa Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.730 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 18.9 Optimal Cycle: 47 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Rosa Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 24 May 2006 << 4:30 - 5:30 pm Base Vol: 335 553 4 8 501 251 178 4 251 4 21 16 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 335 553 4 8 501 251 178 4 251 4 21 16 Added Vol: 2 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 337 556 4 8 506 251 178 4 255 4 21 16 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 362 598 4 9 544 270 191 4 274 4 23 17 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 362 598 4 9 544 270 191 4 274 4 23 17 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 362 598 4 9 544 270 191 4 274 4 23 17 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 1.34 0.66 0.98 0.02 1.00 0.10 0.51 0.39 Final Sat.: 1805 3581 26 1805 2292 1137 1771 40 1615 175 917 699 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.02 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.58 0.58 0.02 0.33 0.33 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.03 0.05 0.05 Volume/Cap: 0.73 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.73 0.73 0.50 0.46 0.73 0.73 0.50 0.50 Delay/Veh: 25.2 6.3 6.3 34.3 20.4 20.4 21.6 20.6 28.4 64.8 32.2 32.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 25.2 6.3 6.3 34.3 20.4 20.4 21.6 20.6 28.4 64.8 32.2 32.2 LOS by Move: C A A C C C C C C E C C HCM2k95thQ: 12 6 6 1 16 16 6 6 9 5 3 3 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:10 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 El Camino Real/San Rafael Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.457 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.6 Optimal Cycle: 28 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Rafael Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Feb 2015 << 7:15 - 8:15 am Base Vol: 5 421 107 318 249 10 18 1 18 16 0 47 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 5 421 107 318 249 10 18 1 18 16 0 47 Added Vol: 0 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 5 430 107 318 252 10 18 1 18 16 0 47 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 6 475 118 351 278 11 20 1 20 18 0 52 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 6 475 118 351 278 11 20 1 20 18 0 52 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 6 475 118 351 278 11 20 1 20 18 0 52 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.95 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.60 0.40 1.00 1.92 0.08 0.48 0.03 0.49 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 2804 698 1805 3451 137 699 39 699 1801 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.03 0.37 0.37 0.43 0.77 0.77 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 Volume/Cap: 0.11 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.11 0.11 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.14 0.00 0.46 Delay/Veh: 29.2 14.6 14.6 12.7 1.8 1.8 29.3 29.3 29.3 26.7 0.0 29.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 29.2 14.6 14.6 12.7 1.8 1.8 29.3 29.3 29.3 26.7 0.0 29.7 LOS by Move: C B B B A A C C C C A C HCM2k95thQ: 0 8 8 9 1 1 3 3 3 1 0 3 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:16 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 El Camino Real/San Rafael Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.419 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.3 Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Rafael Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 3 Feb 2015 << 4:30 - 5:30 pm Base Vol: 15 392 11 25 508 21 20 3 8 93 0 272 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 15 392 11 25 508 21 20 3 8 93 0 272 Added Vol: 0 5 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 15 397 11 25 517 21 20 3 8 93 0 272 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 17 441 12 28 574 23 22 3 9 103 0 302 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 17 441 12 28 574 23 22 3 9 103 0 302 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 17 441 12 28 574 23 22 3 9 103 0 302 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.78 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.92 0.08 0.64 0.10 0.26 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3499 97 1805 3448 140 964 145 386 1484 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.17 0.17 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.02 0.37 0.37 0.05 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.45 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.42 0.42 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.16 0.00 0.42 Delay/Veh: 35.9 13.6 13.6 30.2 13.3 13.3 9.4 9.4 9.4 10.0 0.0 11.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 35.9 13.6 13.6 30.2 13.3 13.3 9.4 9.4 9.4 10.0 0.0 11.7 LOS by Move: D B B C B B A A A A A B HCM2k95thQ: 1 6 6 1 8 8 1 1 1 2 0 8 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:11 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 El Camino Real/San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.7 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 12.1] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 5 Feb 2015 << 7:15 - 8:15 am Base Vol: 4 337 0 0 255 7 78 0 18 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 4 337 0 0 255 7 78 0 18 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 4 339 0 0 262 7 78 0 18 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 4 380 0 0 294 8 87 0 20 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 4 380 0 0 294 8 87 0 20 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 302 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 683 683 294 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1271 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 418 374 750 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1271 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 417 373 750 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Total Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 586 521 xxxxx 526 517 xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.15 0.00 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 611 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 12.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 12.1 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:16 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 El Camino Real/San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.1] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 5 Feb 2015 << 4:45 - 5:45 pm Base Vol: 1 336 0 0 479 23 59 0 29 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 336 0 0 479 23 59 0 29 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 1 343 0 0 483 23 59 0 29 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 1 354 0 0 498 24 61 0 30 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 1 354 0 0 498 24 61 0 30 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 522 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 854 854 498 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1055 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 332 298 576 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1055 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 332 298 576 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Total Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 519 462 xxxxx 438 453 xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.12 0.00 0.05 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 8.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 537 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 13.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 13.1 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:11 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.368 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 16.2 Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Barbara Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 16 Oct 2014 << 7:15 - 8:15 am Base Vol: 148 74 4 8 60 207 40 98 96 8 153 7 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 148 74 4 8 60 207 40 98 96 8 153 7 Added Vol: 0 2 0 0 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 148 76 4 8 65 209 41 98 96 8 153 7 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 159 82 4 9 70 225 44 105 103 9 165 8 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 159 82 4 9 70 225 44 105 103 9 165 8 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 159 82 4 9 70 225 44 105 103 9 165 8 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.55 1.00 0.85 0.68 0.99 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 0.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.04 Final Sat.: 1805 1792 94 1805 1900 1615 1047 1900 1615 1292 1804 83 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.09 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.24 0.56 0.56 0.06 0.38 0.38 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Volume/Cap: 0.37 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.37 0.17 0.22 0.26 0.03 0.37 0.37 Delay/Veh: 19.5 6.1 6.1 27.1 12.1 13.8 18.0 18.2 18.5 17.1 19.2 19.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 19.5 6.1 6.1 27.1 12.1 13.8 18.0 18.2 18.5 17.1 19.2 19.2 LOS by Move: B A A C B B B B B B B B HCM2k95thQ: 6 2 2 0 2 6 1 3 3 0 6 6 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:16 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.285 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 15.3 Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Barbara Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 16 Oct 2014 << 4:45 - 5:45 pm Base Vol: 114 105 7 10 125 137 91 150 112 5 95 11 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 114 105 7 10 125 137 91 150 112 5 95 11 Added Vol: 0 5 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 114 110 7 10 128 138 93 150 112 5 95 11 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 124 119 8 11 139 150 101 163 122 5 103 12 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 124 119 8 11 139 150 101 163 122 5 103 12 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 124 119 8 11 139 150 101 163 122 5 103 12 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.67 1.00 0.85 0.59 0.98 0.98 Lanes: 1.00 0.94 0.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.10 Final Sat.: 1805 1770 113 1805 1900 1615 1277 1900 1615 1127 1676 194 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.24 0.52 0.52 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Volume/Cap: 0.29 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.22 0.29 0.26 0.29 0.25 0.02 0.20 0.20 Delay/Veh: 18.9 7.5 7.5 28.2 14.9 15.3 16.3 16.3 16.1 14.8 15.8 15.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 18.9 7.5 7.5 28.2 14.9 15.3 16.3 16.3 16.1 14.8 15.8 15.8 LOS by Move: B A A C B B B B B B B B HCM2k95thQ: 4 3 3 0 4 4 3 5 3 0 3 3 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Existing plus Project Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:59:44 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 El Camino Real/Project Access ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.9] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Project Access Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 415 0 0 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 415 0 0 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 2 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 7 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 2 415 0 0 280 3 9 0 7 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 2 415 0 0 280 3 9 0 7 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 2 415 0 0 280 3 9 0 7 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 6.5 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 283 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 493 701 142 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1291 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 510 366 887 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1291 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 510 365 887 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.02 0.00 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 626 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.8 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.9 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.9 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Existing plus Project Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:06:04 Page 7-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Existing plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 El Camino Real/Project Access ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 13.7] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Project Access Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 395 0 0 595 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 395 0 0 595 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 7 0 0 0 0 9 5 0 4 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 7 395 0 0 595 9 5 0 4 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 7 395 0 0 595 9 5 0 4 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 7 395 0 0 595 9 5 0 4 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 6.5 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 604 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 811 1009 302 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 984 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 321 242 700 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 984 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 320 241 700 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.02 0.00 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 8.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 421 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 8.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 13.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 13.7 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Future plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:29 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Future plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 El Camino Real/Santa Rosa Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.603 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 17.6 Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Rosa Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 301 314 7 5 363 184 127 12 300 1 7 5 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 301 314 7 5 363 184 127 12 300 1 7 5 Added Vol: 4 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 305 319 7 5 365 184 127 12 301 1 7 5 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 305 319 7 5 365 184 127 12 301 1 7 5 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 305 319 7 5 365 184 127 12 301 1 7 5 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 305 319 7 5 365 184 127 12 301 1 7 5 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.96 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 1.96 0.04 1.00 1.33 0.67 0.91 0.09 1.00 0.08 0.54 0.38 Final Sat.: 1805 3522 77 1805 2280 1149 1660 157 1615 138 966 690 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.08 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.28 0.53 0.53 0.02 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.01 0.03 0.03 Volume/Cap: 0.60 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.60 0.60 0.26 0.25 0.60 0.60 0.26 0.26 Delay/Veh: 20.8 7.3 7.3 31.9 20.4 20.4 16.5 15.7 19.7 69.4 31.3 31.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 20.8 7.3 7.3 31.9 20.4 20.4 16.5 15.7 19.7 69.4 31.3 31.3 LOS by Move: C A A C C C B B B E C C HCM2k95thQ: 10 3 3 1 11 11 4 4 9 2 1 1 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Future plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:34 Page 2-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Future plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 El Camino Real/Santa Rosa Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.758 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 19.4 Optimal Cycle: 50 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Rosa Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 335 680 6 12 618 251 218 6 305 5 21 20 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 335 680 6 12 618 251 218 6 305 5 21 20 Added Vol: 2 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 337 683 6 12 623 251 218 6 309 5 21 20 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 337 683 6 12 623 251 218 6 309 5 21 20 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 337 683 6 12 623 251 218 6 309 5 21 20 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 337 683 6 12 623 251 218 6 309 5 21 20 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 1.98 0.02 1.00 1.43 0.57 0.97 0.03 1.00 0.11 0.46 0.43 Final Sat.: 1805 3575 31 1805 2463 992 1764 49 1615 193 812 773 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.25 0.56 0.56 0.02 0.33 0.33 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.05 0.05 Volume/Cap: 0.76 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.76 0.76 0.52 0.49 0.76 0.76 0.52 0.52 Delay/Veh: 28.3 7.3 7.3 34.7 20.8 20.8 21.1 20.0 28.7 70.4 33.3 33.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.3 7.3 7.3 34.7 20.8 20.8 21.1 20.0 28.7 70.4 33.3 33.3 LOS by Move: C A A C C C C B C E C C HCM2k95thQ: 12 7 7 1 18 18 7 7 10 5 3 3 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Future plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:29 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Future plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 El Camino Real/San Rafael Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.438 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 11.5 Optimal Cycle: 28 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Rafael Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 12 528 137 289 324 17 14 0 21 22 0 44 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 12 528 137 289 324 17 14 0 21 22 0 44 Added Vol: 0 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 12 537 137 289 327 17 14 0 21 22 0 44 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 12 537 137 289 327 17 14 0 21 22 0 44 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 12 537 137 289 327 17 14 0 21 22 0 44 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 12 537 137 289 327 17 14 0 21 22 0 44 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.77 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.59 0.41 1.00 1.90 0.10 0.40 0.00 0.60 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 2790 712 1805 3408 177 589 0 883 1900 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.05 0.44 0.44 0.37 0.75 0.75 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.06 Volume/Cap: 0.13 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.13 0.13 0.38 0.00 0.38 0.18 0.00 0.44 Delay/Veh: 27.7 11.9 11.9 14.9 2.1 2.1 29.7 0.0 29.7 27.4 0.0 30.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 27.7 11.9 11.9 14.9 2.1 2.1 29.7 0.0 29.7 27.4 0.0 30.2 LOS by Move: C B B B A A C A C C A C HCM2k95thQ: 0 9 9 8 2 2 2 0 2 1 0 3 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Future plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:34 Page 3-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Future plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 El Camino Real/San Rafael Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.421 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.2 Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Rafael Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 59 506 20 22 664 40 15 3 13 155 0 215 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 59 506 20 22 664 40 15 3 13 155 0 215 Added Vol: 0 5 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 59 511 20 22 673 40 15 3 13 155 0 215 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 59 511 20 22 673 40 15 3 13 155 0 215 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 59 511 20 22 673 40 15 3 13 155 0 215 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 59 511 20 22 673 40 15 3 13 155 0 215 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.75 1.00 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 1.92 0.08 1.00 1.89 0.11 0.48 0.10 0.42 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1805 3453 135 1805 3380 201 756 151 655 1421 0 1615 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.00 0.13 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.08 0.51 0.51 0.04 0.47 0.47 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.32 Volume/Cap: 0.42 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.42 0.42 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.34 0.00 0.42 Delay/Veh: 28.4 8.6 8.6 30.0 10.6 10.6 14.4 14.4 14.4 16.2 0.0 16.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 28.4 8.6 8.6 30.0 10.6 10.6 14.4 14.4 14.4 16.2 0.0 16.7 LOS by Move: C A A C B B B B B B A B HCM2k95thQ: 2 6 6 1 9 9 1 1 1 5 0 7 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Future plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:29 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Future plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 El Camino Real/San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 12.9] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 416 0 0 383 9 87 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 1 416 0 0 383 9 87 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 1 418 0 0 390 9 87 0 0 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 1 418 0 0 390 9 87 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 1 418 0 0 390 9 87 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 399 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 810 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1171 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 352 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1171 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 352 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Total Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 540 480 xxxxx 489 477 xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.16 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 8.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 12.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * B * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 12.9 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Future plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:34 Page 4-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Future plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 El Camino Real/San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 1.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 15.7] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real San Diego Wy-US 101 Off Ramp Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 538 0 0 635 23 77 0 11 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 538 0 0 635 23 77 0 11 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 545 0 0 639 23 77 0 11 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 545 0 0 639 23 77 0 11 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 545 0 0 639 23 77 0 11 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1184 1184 639 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 211 191 480 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 211 191 480 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Total Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 418 374 xxxxx 354 367 xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.18 0.00 0.02 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 424 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 15.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * C * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 15.7 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Future plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:29 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Future plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.351 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 15.9 Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Barbara Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 148 99 5 15 74 208 47 112 96 10 159 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 148 99 5 15 74 208 47 112 96 10 159 14 Added Vol: 0 2 0 0 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 148 101 5 15 79 210 48 112 96 10 159 14 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 148 101 5 15 79 210 48 112 96 10 159 14 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 148 101 5 15 79 210 48 112 96 10 159 14 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 148 101 5 15 79 210 48 112 96 10 159 14 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.56 1.00 0.85 0.67 0.99 0.99 Lanes: 1.00 0.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 0.08 Final Sat.: 1805 1798 89 1805 1900 1615 1060 1900 1615 1273 1725 152 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.09 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.23 0.53 0.53 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Volume/Cap: 0.35 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.35 0.17 0.22 0.23 0.03 0.35 0.35 Delay/Veh: 19.7 7.2 7.2 26.1 12.5 14.0 17.4 17.6 17.6 16.5 18.4 18.4 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 19.7 7.2 7.2 26.1 12.5 14.0 17.4 17.6 17.6 16.5 18.4 18.4 LOS by Move: B A A C B B B B B B B B HCM2k95thQ: 5 2 2 1 2 6 1 3 3 0 6 6 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Future plus Project Fri Feb 5, 2016 11:26:35 Page 5-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Future plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 El Camino Real/Santa Barbara Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.277 Loss Time (sec): 8 Average Delay (sec/veh): 15.2 Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Santa Barbara Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 114 139 8 22 166 149 111 167 112 7 108 28 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 114 139 8 22 166 149 111 167 112 7 108 28 Added Vol: 0 5 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 114 144 8 22 169 150 113 167 112 7 108 28 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 114 144 8 22 169 150 113 167 112 7 108 28 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 114 144 8 22 169 150 113 167 112 7 108 28 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 114 144 8 22 169 150 113 167 112 7 108 28 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.64 1.00 0.85 0.59 0.97 0.97 Lanes: 1.00 0.95 0.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.21 Final Sat.: 1805 1786 99 1805 1900 1615 1218 1900 1615 1127 1462 379 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.23 0.48 0.48 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.22 0.02 0.23 0.23 Delay/Veh: 19.4 9.0 9.0 26.8 15.4 15.5 15.8 15.6 15.2 14.1 15.3 15.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 19.4 9.0 9.0 26.8 15.4 15.5 15.8 15.6 15.2 14.1 15.3 15.3 LOS by Move: B A A C B B B B B B B B HCM2k95thQ: 4 3 3 1 5 4 3 5 3 0 4 4 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
AM Future plus Project Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:07:48 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hour - Future plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 El Camino Real/Project Access ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 12.2] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Project Access Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 525 0 0 388 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 525 0 0 388 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 2 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 7 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 2 525 0 0 388 3 9 0 7 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 2 525 0 0 388 3 9 0 7 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 2 525 0 0 388 3 9 0 7 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 6.5 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 391 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 656 919 196 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1179 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 403 273 819 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1179 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 402 273 819 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.02 0.00 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 8.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 518 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 8.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 12.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 12.2 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA PM Future plus Project Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:10:14 Page 6-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hour - Future plus Project Conditions Traffic Study for Hartberg Properties City of Atascadero -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 El Camino Real/Project Access ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 17.6] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: El Camino Real Project Access Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 587 0 0 788 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 587 0 0 788 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 7 0 0 0 0 9 5 0 4 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 7 587 0 0 788 9 5 0 4 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 7 587 0 0 788 9 5 0 4 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 7 587 0 0 788 9 5 0 4 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.8 6.5 6.9 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 797 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1100 1394 399 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 834 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 210 143 607 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 834 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 208 142 607 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.02 0.00 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 9.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 294 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 9.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 17.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * C * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 17.6 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * C * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 8.0.0715 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to W-TRANS, Santa Rosa, CA
C
Traffic Impact Study for the Hartberg Properties
April 2016
Appendix C
Queuing Calculations
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Existing Conditions2/8/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 6: US101 Southbound Ramp/West Front Road & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedLTR LTR LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 126 179 163Average Queue (ft) 80 118 12895th Queue (ft)139 212 192Link Distance (ft)355 255 1026Upstream Blk Time (%)0Queuing Penalty (veh)2Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 7: East Front Road/US 101 Northbound Ramp & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB WB NBDirections ServedLTR LT R LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 216 95 92 133Average Queue (ft) 143 59 42 8895th Queue (ft)234 109 104 144Link Distance (ft)255333 710Upstream Blk Time (%) 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 5Storage Bay Dist (ft)120Storage Blk Time (%)0 0Queuing Penalty (veh)1 0Intersection: 8: US 101 Southbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedTR LT LTRMaximum Queue (ft)36 68 63Average Queue (ft)27 52 4495th Queue (ft)45 75 69Link Distance (ft)323 285 405Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Existing Conditions2/5/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 6: US101 Southbound Ramp/West Front Road & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedLTR LTR LTRMaximum Queue (ft)84 183 174Average Queue (ft)52 105 14295th Queue (ft)82 189 187Link Distance (ft)355 255 1026Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 7: East Front Road/US 101 Northbound Ramp & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB WB NBDirections ServedLTR LT R LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 268 149 244 256Average Queue (ft) 172 95 118 15095th Queue (ft)269 175 261 253Link Distance (ft)255333 710Upstream Blk Time (%) 2Queuing Penalty (veh) 12Storage Bay Dist (ft)120Storage Blk Time (%)11 0Queuing Penalty (veh)35 1Intersection: 8: US 101 Southbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedTR LT LTRMaximum Queue (ft)52 54 74Average Queue (ft)33 39 5195th Queue (ft)49 58 75Link Distance (ft)323 285 405Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Existing Conditions2/8/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 9: US 101 Northbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementEB WB NBDirections ServedLT TR LTRMaximum Queue (ft)35 5 32Average Queue (ft)13 1 2395th Queue (ft)43 8 42Link Distance (ft)285 440 406Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 7Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Existing Conditions2/5/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 9: US 101 Northbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementEB NBDirections ServedLT LTRMaximum Queue (ft)28 75Average Queue (ft)6 5295th Queue (ft)24 76Link Distance (ft)285 406Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 49
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions2/8/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 6: US101 Southbound Ramp/West Front Road & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedLTR LTR LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 150 148 210Average Queue (ft) 92 110 13795th Queue (ft)177 192 228Link Distance (ft)355 255 1026Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 7: East Front Road/US 101 Northbound Ramp & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB WB NBDirections ServedLTR LT R LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 234 99 91 139Average Queue (ft) 163 59 47 10195th Queue (ft)265 124 102 167Link Distance (ft)255333 710Upstream Blk Time (%) 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 6Storage Bay Dist (ft)120Storage Blk Time (%)1 0Queuing Penalty (veh)2 0Intersection: 8: US 101 Southbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedTR LT LTRMaximum Queue (ft)43 64 53Average Queue (ft)28 51 4195th Queue (ft)52 76 66Link Distance (ft)323 285 405Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions2/5/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 6: US101 Southbound Ramp/West Front Road & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedLTR LTR LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 114 198 130Average Queue (ft) 67 98 10695th Queue (ft)120 195 132Link Distance (ft)355 255 1026Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 7: East Front Road/US 101 Northbound Ramp & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB WB NBDirections ServedLTR LT R LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 272 149 194 265Average Queue (ft) 192 112 131 15495th Queue (ft)313 171 206 260Link Distance (ft)255333 710Upstream Blk Time (%) 2Queuing Penalty (veh) 9Storage Bay Dist (ft)120Storage Blk Time (%)2 7Queuing Penalty (veh)8 21Intersection: 8: US 101 Southbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedTR LT LTRMaximum Queue (ft)98 53 109Average Queue (ft)63 38 5995th Queue (ft)109 56 111Link Distance (ft)323 285 405Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions2/8/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 9: US 101 Northbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementEB WB NBDirections ServedLT TR LTRMaximum Queue (ft)43 2 33Average Queue (ft)17 1 1895th Queue (ft)51 6 42Link Distance (ft)285 440 406Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 8Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Existing plus Project Conditions2/5/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 9: US 101 Northbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementNBDirections ServedLTRMaximum Queue (ft)96Average Queue (ft)5995th Queue (ft)98Link Distance (ft)406Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 39
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Future Conditions2/8/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 6: US101 Southbound Ramp/West Front Road & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedLTR LTR LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 130 153 229Average Queue (ft) 85 102 15495th Queue (ft)142 184 260Link Distance (ft)355 255 1026Upstream Blk Time (%)0Queuing Penalty (veh)1Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 7: East Front Road/US 101 Northbound Ramp & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB WB NBDirections ServedLTR LT R LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 242 84 76 138Average Queue (ft) 160 49 46 9595th Queue (ft)261 101 89 153Link Distance (ft)255333 710Upstream Blk Time (%) 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 4Storage Bay Dist (ft)120Storage Blk Time (%)0 0Queuing Penalty (veh)1 0Intersection: 8: US 101 Southbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedTR LT LTRMaximum Queue (ft)39 71 68Average Queue (ft)28 52 4695th Queue (ft)51 79 74Link Distance (ft)323 285 405Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Future Conditions2/8/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 6: US101 Southbound Ramp/West Front Road & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedLTR LTR LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 109 201 283Average Queue (ft) 71 129 19095th Queue (ft)128 228 305Link Distance (ft)355 255 1026Upstream Blk Time (%)0Queuing Penalty (veh)2Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 7: East Front Road/US 101 Northbound Ramp & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB WB NBDirections ServedLTR LT R LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 262 129 118 210Average Queue (ft) 207 75 64 15695th Queue (ft)313 148 143 247Link Distance (ft)255333 710Upstream Blk Time (%) 5Queuing Penalty (veh) 29Storage Bay Dist (ft)120Storage Blk Time (%)3 1Queuing Penalty (veh)9 2Intersection: 8: US 101 Southbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedTR LT LTRMaximum Queue (ft)38 60 64Average Queue (ft)25 43 5095th Queue (ft)48 66 71Link Distance (ft)323 285 405Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Future Conditions2/8/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 9: US 101 Northbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementEB NBDirections ServedLT LTRMaximum Queue (ft)23 30Average Queue (ft)5 1895th Queue (ft)25 40Link Distance (ft)285 406Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 6Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Future Conditions2/8/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 9: US 101 Northbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementEB NBDirections ServedLT LTRMaximum Queue (ft)26 84Average Queue (ft)9 6295th Queue (ft)31 97Link Distance (ft)285 406Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 42
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions2/8/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 6: US101 Southbound Ramp/West Front Road & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedLTR LTR LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 130 153 229Average Queue (ft) 85 102 15495th Queue (ft)142 184 260Link Distance (ft)355 255 1026Upstream Blk Time (%)0Queuing Penalty (veh)1Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 7: East Front Road/US 101 Northbound Ramp & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB WB NBDirections ServedLTR LT R LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 242 84 76 138Average Queue (ft) 160 49 46 9595th Queue (ft)261 101 89 153Link Distance (ft)255333 710Upstream Blk Time (%) 1Queuing Penalty (veh) 4Storage Bay Dist (ft)120Storage Blk Time (%)0 0Queuing Penalty (veh)1 0Intersection: 8: US 101 Southbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedTR LT LTRMaximum Queue (ft)39 71 68Average Queue (ft)28 52 4695th Queue (ft)51 79 74Link Distance (ft)323 285 405Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions2/8/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 1Intersection: 6: US101 Southbound Ramp/West Front Road & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedLTR LTR LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 109 201 283Average Queue (ft) 71 129 19095th Queue (ft)128 228 305Link Distance (ft)355 255 1026Upstream Blk Time (%)0Queuing Penalty (veh)2Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Intersection: 7: East Front Road/US 101 Northbound Ramp & Santa Rosa RoadMovementEB WB WB NBDirections ServedLTR LT R LTRMaximum Queue (ft) 262 129 118 210Average Queue (ft) 207 75 64 15695th Queue (ft)313 148 143 247Link Distance (ft)255333 710Upstream Blk Time (%) 5Queuing Penalty (veh) 29Storage Bay Dist (ft)120Storage Blk Time (%)3 1Queuing Penalty (veh)9 2Intersection: 8: US 101 Southbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementEB WB SBDirections ServedTR LT LTRMaximum Queue (ft)38 60 64Average Queue (ft)25 43 5095th Queue (ft)48 66 71Link Distance (ft)323 285 405Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking ReportAM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions2/8/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 9: US 101 Northbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementEB NBDirections ServedLT LTRMaximum Queue (ft)23 30Average Queue (ft)5 1895th Queue (ft)25 40Link Distance (ft)285 406Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 6Queuing and Blocking ReportPM Peak Hour Future plus Project Conditions2/8/2016Hartberg PropertiesSimTraffic ReportW-TransPage 2Intersection: 9: US 101 Northbound Ramps & Santa Barbara RoadMovementEB NBDirections ServedLT LTRMaximum Queue (ft)26 84Average Queue (ft)9 6295th Queue (ft)31 97Link Distance (ft)285 406Upstream Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Storage Bay Dist (ft)Storage Blk Time (%)Queuing Penalty (veh)Zone SummaryZone wide Queuing Penalty: 42
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 49
Figure 7 – Historical Repot
PLN 2015-1556
Hartberg Planned Development | Seaberg
Environmental Review | City of Atascadero | www.atascadero.org | fb.me/planningatascadero Page 50
Figure 8 – Noise Study
Sound Level Assessment for
Proposed Multi-Family Project
APN 045-351-008
10850 El Camino Real
Atascadero, CA
requested by
Hartberg Properties
2165 Wilton Dr.
Cambria, Ca. 93428
February 19, 2016
45dB.com
David Lord, PH.D.
Acoustics Consulting
P.O. Box 1406
San Luis Obispo
California 93406
tel. 805.704.8046
email: dl@45db.com
Atascadero Multi-Family page 2 2/19/16
Table of Contents
1.0 Description ....................................................................................................4
2.0 Location ..........................................................................................................4
3.0 Regulatory Setting ...........................................................................................4
3.1 Federal Regulation .............................................................................4
3.2 State Regulation .............................................................................5
3.3 Local Regulation ............................................................................6
4.0 Existing and Future Sound Level .....................................................................6
5.0 Future Short Term Construction Noise .........................................................8
5.1 Short Term Construction Vibration .................................................15
6.0 Noise Mitigation .........................................................................................16
7.0 CALGreen Code Acoustical Requirements .................................................16
8.0 Discussion and Conclusions .......................................................................16
9.0 Sound and Vibration Fundamentals ............................................................18
9.1 Terminology / Noise Descriptors .......................................................18
9.2 Characteristics of Sound ...............................................................18
9.3 Characteristics of Vibration .............................................................20
10.0 Appendix: Glossary of Acoustical Terms ..................................................22
11.0 References ..................................................................................................25
Atascadero Multi-Family page 3 2/19/16
List of Figures
Figure 1. City Noise Element Regulatory Matrix ................................................7
Figure 2. U.S. Highway 101 Traffi c ........................................................................8
Figure 3. Vicinity Map .........................................................................................10
Figure 4. Site Plan ...............................................................................................11
Figure 5. Noise Contours Before Project .........................................................12
Figure 6. Noise Contours, No Noise Wall ......................................................13
Figure 7. Noise Contours, With Noise Wall ....................................................14
List of Tables
Table 1. Vibration Impact Criteria .........................................................................9
Table 2. Decibel Changes ....................................................................................19
Table 3. Construction Equipment Vibration Levels .............................................21
Atascadero Multi-Family page 4 2/19/16
Sound Level Assessment for
Proposed Multi-Family Project
APN 045-351-008
10850 El Camino Real
Atascadero, CA
1.0 Description
This sound level assessment is intended to determine potential future noise impacts on the
proposed multi-family development project. The following topics are presented in this report:
• A description of the study area, project site, and proposed project.
• A description of the regulatory setting, including guidelines and standards.
• An evaluation of the future noise environment.
• An assessment of potential short-term construction-related noise and vibration impacts.
• An assessment of future potential noise and vibration impacts.
• Information on fundamentals of noise and vibration.
2.0 Location
The general location of the development is 10850 El Camino Real (APN 045-351-008) in
the City of Atascadero to the east of U.S. Highway 101. The vicinity of the site with relation to
the primary transportation noise source is shown in “Figure 3. Vicinity Map” on page 10.
3.0 Regulatory Setting
Noise regulations are addressed by federal, state, and local government agencies,
discussed below. Local policies are generally adaptations of federal and state guidelines,
adjusted to prevailing local condition.
3.1 Federal Regulation
The adverse impact of noise was offi cially recognized by the federal government in the
Noise Control Act of 1972, which serves three purposes:
Atascadero Multi-Family page 5 2/19/16
(a) Promulgating noise emission standards for interstate commerce.
(b) Assisting state and local abatement eff orts.
(c) Promoting noise education and research.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) assumes a signifi cant role in noise control. The
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates noise of aircraft and airports. Surface trans-
portation system noise is regulated by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Freeways that
are part of the interstate highway system are regulated by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA).
3.2 State Regulation
California State Code Section 65302 mandates that the legislative body of each county
and city in California adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The
local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines published by the State
Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of
normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable.
Title 24, Chapter 1, Article 4 of the California Administrative Code (California Noise
Insulation Standards) requires noise insulation in new apartment houses and dwellings (other
than single-family detached housing) that provides an annual average noise level of no more
than 45 dBA CNEL. When such structures are located within a 60 dBA CNEL (or greater)
noise contour, an acoustical analysis is required to ensure that interior levels do not exceed the
45 dBA CNEL annual threshold. In addition, Title 21, Chapter 6, Article 1 of the California
Administrative Code requires that all habitable rooms shall have an interior annual CNEL of 45
dBA or less. Acoustical terminology and noise descriptors are defi ned in “10.1 Terminology /
Noise Descriptors” on page 5.
The 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (CGBSC or CALGreen), Division
of the State Architect – Structural Safety (DSA-SS) (CCR, Title 24, Part 11), revised 7-24-15,
also applies to this project. The CGBSC contains submittal guidelines and chapter 5 contains
mandatory requirements for acoustical control:
“5.507.4.1 Exterior noise transmission prescriptive method.
“Wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building
or addition envelope or altered envelope shall meet a composite STC rating of at least
50 or a composite OITC rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum
STC of 40 or OITC of 30 ... within the 65 CNEL or Ldn noise contour of a freeway or
expressway, railroad, industrial source or fi xed-guideway source as determined by the
Noise Element of the General Plan.”
Chapter 5.507.4.1.1 governs acoustical performance and noise exposure where noise
contours are not readily available:
Atascadero Multi-Family page 6 2/19/16
“Buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dBLeq-1-hr during any hour of operation shall
have building, addition or alteration exterior wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed
to the noise source meeting a composite STC rating of at least 45 (or OITC 35), with
exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or (OITC 30).”
The performance method may be used to comply with CGBSC:
“...wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source making up the building
or addition envelope or altered envelope shall be constructed to provide an interior noise
environment attributable to exterior sources that does not exceed an hourly equivalent
noise level (Leq -1Hr) of 50 dBA in occupied areas during any hour of operation.”
3.3 Local Regulation
The City of Atascadero General Plan, Noise Element provides regulation and guidelines
regarding noise. The Noise Element provides the conclusions, recommendations, and strategies
necessary to ensure an appropriately quiet and pleasurable interior environment for the residents
of the proposed project. Since the regulation of transportation noise sources such as roadway,
railway and aircraft primarily fall under either State or federal jurisdiction, the local jurisdiction
generally uses land use and planning decisions to limit locations or volumes of such transpor-
tation noise sources, to avoid development within noise impact zones, or to shield impacted
receivers or sensitive receptors. A matrix describing Land Use Category and Noise Exposure is
seen in “Figure 1. City Noise Element Regulatory Matrix” on page 7.
Conclusions and Recommendations in the Noise Element: The maximum exterior noise
exposure compatible with noise sensitive uses without mitigation is 60 dBA Day-Night Average
Sound Level. Above this sound level, noise mitigation features are to be included in project
designs.
Noise-sensitive uses proposed in areas where the Day-Night Average Sound Level is 65
dBA or more should be designed so that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources do
not exceed 45 dBA Ldn/CNEL when doors and windows are closed. An analysis of the noise
insulation eff ectiveness of proposed construction should be required, showing that the building
design and construction specifi cations are adequate to meet the prescribed interior noise standard.
The Noise Element stipulates that noise level limits, applicable to new noise sources,
should be incorporated into all commercial and industrial zoning districts and into conditional
use permit requirements.
4.0 Existing and Future Sound Level
Determination of both existing and future sound levels along U.S. Highway 101 is based
on the existing traffi c volume on the highway section adjacent to the project site, which is 43,000
Average Annual Daily Traffi c (AADT). Year 2035 vehicle volumes were estimated based on
a yearly 1.25% escalation factor. This results in a future AADT of 55,000 (year 2035) on the
analyzed segment of US Highway 101.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 7 2/19/16
Figure 1. City Noise Element Regulatory Matrix
Land Uses Category and Community Noise Exposure Level (Ldn or CNEL) dBA.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 8 2/19/16
Potential Vibration: The method for predicting the potential for vibration is described in the
Federal Transit Administration “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” document.
See “Table 1. Vibration Impact Criteria” on page 9. The approximate human threshold of
perception to vibration is 70 VdB (Vibration Velocity Level, dB). Buses, trucks and heavy street
traffi c at 50 feet distance from the highway is equal to 70 VdB or less. Typically, the setback to
the 60 VdB contour near the road is 50 feet or less from the center of roadway. Therefore, any
potential truck vibration levels are anticipated to be less than the human threshold of perception
and therefore do not have an adverse eff ect on this proposed project.
5.0 Future Short Term Construction Noise
With reference to potential short-term construction noise which may have an impact on
nearby sensitive residential receptors, the following thresholds of signifi cance for assisting in the
determination of signifi cant noise impacts are used:
“Noise from grading and construction activity within 1,600 feet of sensitive receptors,
including schools, residential development, commercial lodging facilities, hospitals or
care facilities, would generally result in a potentially signifi cant impact. To mitigate this
impact, construction within 1,600 feet of sensitive receptors shall be limited to weekdays
between the hours of 8 AM to 5 PM only. Noise attenuation barriers and muffl ing of
grading equipment may also be required. Construction equipment generating noise levels
above 95 dBA may require additional mitigation.”
Figure 2. U.S. Highway 101 Traffi c
The segment of U.S. Highway 101 that is nearest the proposed development has an existing
Avarage Anual Daily Traffi c fl ow of between 42,400 and 44,400 vehicles per day. The vehicle
mix on the U.S. 101 Highway is 96% automobiles, 2% medium trucks, and 2% heavy trucks
(data provided by ATE/Caltrans). The input into the computer model includes the above existing
and future traffi c volumes and vehicle mix, with an average vehicle speed of 65 mph. The
distance from the edge of northbound lane of Highway 101 to the west side of the proposed
building is approximately 90 feet.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 9 2/19/16
Short-term noise impacts could potentially occur during project construction activ-
ities from either the noise impacts created from the transport of workers and movement of
construction materials to and from the project site, or from the noise generated on-site during
demolition and ground clearing activities; excavation, grading, and similar ground-disturbing
activities; and construction activities.
Construction noise levels vary signifi cantly based upon the size and topographical
features of the active construction zone, duration of the workday, and types of equipment
employed. A typical eight-hour construction day may generate 84 dBA CNEL at a distance
of 50 feet from the noise source. Typical operating cycles may involve a short period of full
power operation followed by a longer period at lower power settings. Although there would
be potential for a relatively high single-event noise exposure, resulting in potential short-term
intermittent annoyances, the eff ect on longer-term ambient noise levels would be nominal when
averaged over a longer period.
Project construction is anticipated to utilize a mix of construction equipment on the
project site, including tractors for excavation and grading activities, backhoes for trenching, earth
Table 1. Vibration Impact Criteria
From “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,” Federal Transit Administration, 2006.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 10 2/19/16
Figure 3. Vicinity Map
Proposed Site with relation to US Higway 101, the principal noise source to the west and El
Camino Real to the east.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 11 2/19/16
Figure 4. Site Plan
Site plan for proposed project, with primary transportation noise source, U.S. Highway 101
located to the west of the site. Distance from edge of northbound lane to west side of proposed
building is approximately 90 feet.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 12 2/19/16
Figure 5. Noise Contours Before Project
Noise contours (dBA average sound level Ldn or CNEL) on site of proposed project, with
primary transportation noise source, U.S. Highway 101 located to the west of the site, to the
left of the fi gures below. Noise contours shown above without 6’ noise wall, and below, with 6’
noise wall at west boundary of site.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 13 2/19/16
Figure 6. Noise Contours, No Noise Wall
Site Plan with proposed project, showing predicted future sound level contours year 2035 for
built project. This depiction of future noise contours does not incorporate a noise wall on the
west side of the proposed development.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 14 2/19/16
Figure 7. Noise Contours, With Noise Wall
Site Plan with proposed project, showing predicted future sound level contours year 2035 for
built project. This depiction of future noise contours incorporates a 6 foot high noise wall on the
west side of the proposed development. There is very little noise attenuation from the noise wall
except in the area immediately to the west of the proposed project.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 15 2/19/16
rollers for compaction, and asphalt rollers for paving. The closest noise-sensitive uses to the
project site are residences located to the west.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Model (RCNM
Version 1.1), allows the preliminary prediction of construction noise levels for a variety of
construction operations based on a compilation of empirical data and the application of acous-
tical propagation formulas.
Potential noise impacts at possible nearby residential receptors were modeled to under-
stand the potential eff ect. “Table 2. Construction Equipment Noise Levels” on page 13 shows
the calculated noise levels at 150 feet for typical items of equipment to be utilized on the project
site. The results of modeling show that the average (Leq) noise level of the backhoe, paver, and
roller are less than 60 dBA. The tractor will generate a noise level of 64 dBA Leq, below the 65
dBA standard for sensitive receptors.
Equipment calculated dBA at 150 feet from source
Lmax Leq
Backhoe 62 58
Paver 61 57
Roller 65 57
Tractor 69 64
Total 69 65
Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Model, RCNM ver. 1.1, 2012
5.1 Short Term Construction Vibration
Potential construction vibration from the project would be a localized event and is
typically only perceptible to a receptor that is in close proximity to the vibration source. As an
example, the potential vibration from worst-case construction equipment, a small bulldozer: is:
PPV at 100 feet = 0.0004 inches / second. This vibration level is far below the Federal Transit
Administration Signifi cant Impact guideline maximum of 0.2 inches / second.
A vibration impact would be generally considered signifi cant if it involves any
construction-related or operations-related impacts in excess of 78 VdB at sensitive receptors.
The construction and operations-related vibration impacts have been analyzed separately below.
Construction activities have the potential to produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent
uses. However, the construction of the proposed project would not require the use of equipment
such as pile drivers, which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The
project site will utilize many pieces of construction equipment in sequence at diff erent locations
on the site. The primary source of vibration during project construction would likely be from
a bulldozer (tractor) used early in the construction process, which could generate 0.089 inch
per second PPV at 25 feet with an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB. Representative
construction equipment vibration levels are shown in “Table 3. Construction Equipment
Vibration Levels” on page 21.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 16 2/19/16
It is anticipated that vibration levels generated by a bulldozer operating on the periphery
of the area of disturbance during project construction and experienced at the nearest off -site
structure will be less than the acceptable threshold of 78 VdB for residential (sensitive) uses
during the day.
The City of San Luis Obispo does not have any specifi c provisions regarding vibration
that would be applicable to the project site as currently zoned; nonetheless, the increase in
off -site vibration generated by on-site construction activities would represent only a nominal
short-term increase whose impact would not be considered signifi cant. Therefore, impacts
associated with construction vibration are considered less than signifi cant.
6.0 Noise Mitigation
The arrangement and construction of residential habitable/occupied spaces along the west
side of the proposed project requires additional acoustical measures in order to address noise, as
described below:
1. 2” x 6” insulated walls along the U.S. Highway 101 frontage and the side yard areas,
compliant with CALGreen Code.
2. Location of required outdoor activity areas on the east side of the proposed building
structure.
3. Reducing the number of high, exposed gable or roof vents facing the noise source.
6. Noise rated glass for residential windows with appropriate STC / OITC rating for
compliance with CALGreen Code, as described below.
Other than the above required noise mitigation, and CALGreen Code Acoustical
Requirements below, ordinary construction methods and assemblies are adequate for all other
exposures.
7.0 CALGreen Code Acoustical Requirements
All new non-residential buildings that are submitted for building plan check must comply
with the mandatory requirements of the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code.
Acoustical control requires that building assemblies and components have Sound Transmission
Coeffi cients (STC) values as determined in accordance with ASTM E90 and ASTM E413 as
described below:
A. Exterior noise transmission. Wall and roof-ceiling assemblies making up the building
envelope along the west side shall have an STC of at least 50, and exterior windows on
the west side shall have a minimum STC of 30, since sound levels at the property line
regularly exceed 65 decibels. Exception: Building areas with no occupants and where
occupants are not likely to be aff ected by exterior noise, such as storage, parking, and
utility buildings.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 17 2/19/16
8.0 Discussion and Conclusions
The 24-hour CNEL = 68 dBA sound level on the undeveloped site is clearly shown
in relation to the primary transportation noise source, U.S. Highway 101. This primary noise
source is signifi cant as Average Daily Traffi c grows by the year 2035. The occupied residential
spaces nearest the potential noise source are protected by the eff ective sound attenuation
provided by mitigation measures outlined above.
No mitigation of short term construction noise and vibration impact toward potential
residential receptors is required due to the distance to potential residential receptors, the phased
nature of the work, and the presence of buildings and obstructions which act as a noise barriers.
Therefore, in our opinion this project is consistent with the General Plan Noise Element
and the proposed project is in compliance with regulations governing noise and vibration.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 18 2/19/16
9.0 Sound and Vibration Fundamentals
9.1 Terminology / Noise Descriptors
Noise is most often defi ned as unwanted sound. Although sound can be easily and
objectively measured, the perception of noise and the physical, subjective response to sound
complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound
sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.”
The following are brief defi nitions of terminology used in this report:
• Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure
waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving
mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.
• Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.
• Decibel (“dB”). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale.
• A-Weighted Decibel (“dBA”). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that
approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
• Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (“Leq”). The mean of the noise level averaged over
the measurement period, regarded as an average level.
• Day-Night Level (“Ldn”). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring
during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the
period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
• Community Noise Equivalent Level (“CNEL”). The energy average of the A-weighted
sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period with 5 dB added to the levels occurring
during the period from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB added to the sound levels
occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
Note that Ldn and CNEL values rarely diff er by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice,
Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment.
9.2 Characteristics of Sound
When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy as acoustical pressure in the form
of a sound wave. Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or
duration (time). The human hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies.
Therefore, to approximate this human, frequency-dependent response, the A-weighted fi lter
system is used to adjust measured soundlevels. The normal range of human hearing extends
from approximately 0 dBA to 140 dBA.Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels
are measured on a logarithmic scale, representingpoints on a sharply rising curve. Because of
Atascadero Multi-Family page 19 2/19/16
the physical characteristics of noise transmission and of noiseperception, the relative loudness of
sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy.
Table 2. Decibel Changes
Decibel Changes, Loudness, Energy Loss
Sound level change Relative Loudness Acoustic Energy Loss
0 dBA Reference 0%
-3 dBA Barely Perceptible Change 50%
-5 dBA Readily Perceptible Change 67%
-10 dBA Half as Loud 90%
-20 dBA 1/4 as Loud 99%
-30 dBA 1/8 as Loud 99.9%
Source: Highway Traffi c Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Offi ce of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch, June 1995.
Sound levels are generated from a source and their decibel level decreases as the distance
from that source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source.
This phenomenon is known as spreading loss. Generally, sound levels from a point source will
decrease by 6.0 dBA for each doubling of distance. Sound levels for a highway line source vary
diff erently with distance because sound pressure waves propagate along the line and overlap
at the point of measurement. A closely spaced, continuous line of vehicles along a roadway
becomes a line source and produces a 3.0 dBA decrease in sound level for each doubling of
distance. However, experimental evidence has shown that where sound from a highway propa-
gates close to “soft” ground (e.g., plowed farmland, grass, crops, etc.), a more suitable drop-off
rate to use is not 3.0 dBA but rather 4.5 dBA per distance doubling (FHWA 2010).
When sound is measured for distinct time intervals, the statistical distribution of the
overall sound level during that period can be obtained. The Leq is the most common parameter
associated with such measurements. The Leq metric is a single-number noise descriptor that
represents the average sound level over a given period of time. For example, the L50 noise level
is the level that is exceeded 50 percent of the time. This level is also the level that is exceeded
30 minutes in an hour. Similarly, the L02, L08 and L25 values are the noise levels that are
exceeded 2, 8, and 25 percent of the time or 1, 5, and 15 minutes per hour. Other values typically
noted during a noise survey are the Lmin and Lmax. These values represent the minimum and
maximum root-mean-square noise levels obtained over the measurement period.
Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the
evening and at night, State law requires that, for planning purposes, an artifi cial dB increment
be added to quiet-time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the CNEL or Ldn. This
increment is incorporated in the calculation of CNEL or Ldn, described earlier.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 20 2/19/16
9.3 Characteristics of Vibration
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s
amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration is
normally associated with activities such as railroads or vibration-intensive stationary sources,
but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and
hydraulic hammers. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves
away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves
is described as the velocity and the rate of change of the speed is described as the acceleration.
Each of these descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to building damage, and acceptable
equipment vibration levels.
During construction of a development project, the operation of construction equipment
can cause groundborne vibration. During the operational phase of a project, receptors may
experience annoyance due to noise generated from vibration of a structure or items within a
structure. This type of vibration is best measured in velocity and acceleration.
The three main wave types of concern in the propagation of groundborne vibrations are
surface or Rayleigh waves, compression or P-waves, and shear or S-waves.
• Surface or Rayleigh waves travel along the ground surface. They carry most of their
energy along an expanding cylindrical wave front, similar to the ripples produced by
throwing a rock into a lake. The particle motion is more or less perpendicular to the
direction of propagation (known as retrograde elliptical).
• Compression or P-waves are body waves that carry their energy along an expanding
spherical wave front. The particle motion in these waves is longitudinal, in a push-pull
motion. P-waves are analogous to airborne sound waves.
• Shear or S-waves are also body waves, carrying their energy along an expanding
spherical wave front. Unlike P-waves, however, the particle motion is transverse, or
perpendicular to the direction of propagation.
The peak particle velocity (“PPV”) or the root mean square (“RMS”) velocity is usually
used to describe vibration amplitudes. PPV is defi ned as the maximum instantaneous peak of the
vibration signal and RMS is defi ned as the square root of the average of the squared amplitude of
the signal. PPV is more appropriate for evaluating potential building damage.
The units for PPV velocity is normally inches per second (in/sec). Often, vibration
is presented and discussed in dB units in order to compress the range of numbers required
to describe the vibration. In this study, all PPV and RMS velocity levels are in in/sec and all
vibration levels are in dB relative to one microinch per second (abbreviated as VdB). Typically,
groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the
source of the vibration. Even the more persistent Rayleigh waves decrease relatively quickly
as they move away from the source of the vibration. Human-made vibration problems are,
therefore, usually confi ned to short distances (500 feet or less) from the source.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 21 2/19/16
Construction operations generally include a wide range of activities that can generate
groundborne vibration. In general, blasting and demolition of structures generate the highest
vibrations. Vibratory compactors or rollers, pile drivers, and pavement breakers can generate
perceptible amounts of vibration at distances within 200 feet of the vibration sources. Heavy
trucks can also generate groundborne vibrations, which vary depending on vehicle type, weight,
and pavement conditions. Potholes, pavement joints, discontinuities, diff erential settlement
of pavement, etc., all increase the vibration levels from vehicles passing over a road surface.
Construction vibration is normally of greater concern than vibration of normal traffi c on streets
and freeways with smooth pavement conditions. Trains generate substantial quantities of
vibration due to the mass and momentum of their engines, vibration transmission from steel
wheels to steel track, and heavy loads.
Table 3. Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Atascadero Multi-Family page 22 2/19/16
10.0 Appendix: Glossary of Acoustical Terms
A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA)
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the inter-
nationally standardized A-weighting fi lter or as computed from sound spectral data to
which A-weighting adjustments have been made. A-weighting de-emphasizes the low
and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of
the average human ear. A-weighted sound levels correlate well with subjective reactions
of people to noise and are universally used for community noise evaluations.
Airborne Sound
Sound that travels through the air, diff erentiated from structure-borne sound.
Ambient Sound Level
The prevailing general sound level existing at a location or in a space, which usually
consists of a composite of sounds from many sources near and far. The ambient level is
typically defi ned by the Leq level.
Background Sound Level
The underlying, ever-present lower level noise that remains in the absence of intrusive or
intermittent sounds. Distant sources, such as traffi c, typically make up the background.
The background level is generally defi ned by the L90 percentile noise level.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL):
The Leq of the A-weighted noise level over a 24-hour period with a 5 dB penalty applied
to noise levels between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. and a 10 dB penalty applied to noise levels
between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn):
The Leq of the A-weighted noise level over a 24-hour period with a 10 dB penalty
applied to noise levels between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Decibel (dB):
The decibel is a measure on a logarithmic scale of the magnitude of a particular quantity
(such as sound pressure, sound power, sound intensity) with respect to a reference
quantity.
DBA or dB(A)
A-weighted sound level. The ear does not respond equally to all frequencies, but is less
Atascadero Multi-Family page 23 2/19/16
sensitive at low and high frequencies than it is at medium or speech range frequencies.
Thus, to obtain a single number representing the sound level of a noise containing a wide
range of frequencies in a manner representative of the ear’s response, it is necessary
to reduce the eff ects of the low and high frequencies with respect to the medium
frequencies. The resultant sound level is said to be A-weighted, and the units are dBA.
The A-weighted sound level is also called the noise level.
Energy Equivalent Level (LEQ):
Because sound levels can vary markedly in intensity over a short period of time, some
method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior
of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, one describes ambient sounds in
terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the
time-varying events. This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called LEQ. In this
report, an hourly period is used.
Field Sound Transmission Class (FSTC):
A single number rating similar to STC, except that the transmission loss values used to
derive the FSTC are measured in the fi eld. All sound transmitted from the source room to
the receiving room is assumed to be through the separating wall or fl oor-ceiling assembly.
Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC):
A single number classifi cation, specifi ed by the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM E 1332 issued 1994), that establishes the A-weighted sound level
reduction provided by building facade components (walls, doors, windows, and combina-
tions thereof), based upon a reference sound spectra that is an average of typical air, road,
and rail transportation sources. The OITC is the preferred rating when exterior facade
components are exposed to a noise environment dominated by transportation sources.
Percentile Sound Level, Ln:
The noise level exceeded during n percent of the measurement period, where n is a
number between 0 and 100 (e.g., L10 or L90)
Sound Transmission Class (STC):
STC is a single number rating, specifi ed by the American Society for Testing and
Materials, which can be used to measure the sound insulation properties for comparing
the sound transmission capability, in decibels, of interior building partitions for noise
sources such as speech, radio, and television. It is used extensively for rating sound
insulation characteristics of building materials and products.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 24 2/19/16
Structure-Borne Sound:
Sound propagating through building structure. Rapidly fl uctuating elastic waves in
gypsum board, joists, studs, etc.
Sound Exposure Level (SEL)
SEL is the sound exposure level, defi ned as a single number rating indicating the total
energy of a discrete noise-generating event (e.g., an aircraft fl yover) compressed into a 1-
second time duration. This level is handy as a consistent rating method that may be
combined with other SEL and Leq readings to provide a complete noise scenario for
measurements and predictions. However, care must be taken in the use of these values
since they may be misleading because their numeric value is higher than any sound level
which existed during the measurement period.
Subjective Loudness Level
In addition to precision measurement of sound level changes, there is a subjective charac-
teristic which describes how most people respond to sound:
•A change in sound level of 3 dBA is barely perceptible by most listeners.
•A change in level of 6 dBA is clearly perceptible.
•A change of 10 dBA is perceived by most people as being twice (or half) as loud.
Atascadero Multi-Family page 25 2/19/16
11.0 References
1. American National Standards Institute, Inc. 2004. ANSI 1994 American National Standard
Acoustical Terminology. ANSI S.1.-1994, (R2004) , New York, NY.
2. American Society for Testing and Materials. 2004. ASTM E 1014 - 84 (Reapproved 2000)
Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A-Weighted Sound Levels.
3. Berglund, Birgitta, World Health Organization. 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise
chapter 4, Guideline Values.
4. Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 1973. Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffi c Noise,
Report No. PB-222-703. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration.
5. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1982. Caltrans Transportation
Laboratory Manual.
6. ______. 1998. Caltrans Traffi c Noise Analysis Protocol For New Highway Construction and
Highway Reconstruction Projects.
7. ______. 2006. California Transportation Plan 2025, chapter 6.
8. California Resources Agency. 2007. Title 14. California Code of Regulations Chapter 3.
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Article 5.
Preliminary Review of Projects and Conduct of Initial Study Sections, 15060 to 15065.
9. City of Atascadero. City of Atascadero General Plan, Noise Element.
10. Federal Highway Administration. 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s
Guide Final Report. FHWA-HEP-05-054 DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01.
11. Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
12. Harris, Cyril.M., editor. 1979 Handbook of Noise Control.