initial study - fairfield inn & suites 405 martin

INITIAL STUDY FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES

405 MARTIN AVENUE, ROHNERT PARK

City of Rohnert Park Development Services

130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486

AUGUST 2017

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

Fairfield Inn & Suites Initial Study

Fairfield Inn & Suites i August 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page No.

1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Overview and Location .............................................................................. 1 1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ............................................... 1 1.3 Public Review Process ............................................................................................ 1

2 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ......................................................................................3 2.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 13 2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources...................................................................... 16 2.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 18 2.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 27 2.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 35 2.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................. 38 2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................... 42 2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................ 48 2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................... 52 2.10 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................... 59 2.11 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 60 2.12 Noise ..................................................................................................................... 61 2.13 Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 67 2.14 Public Services ...................................................................................................... 69 2.15 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 70 2.16 Transportation and Traffic .................................................................................... 71 2.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................... 84 2.18 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................ 85 2.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................... 90

3 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................92 3.1 References Cited ................................................................................................... 92

APPENDICES

A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations B Biological Studies C Traffic Impact Study

FIGURES

1 Regional Location Map........................................................................................................4

Initial Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Page No.

Fairfield Inn & Suites ii August 2017

2 Aerial Photo Map .................................................................................................................6 3 Site Plan ...............................................................................................................................7

TABLES

Table 2.3-1 Thresholds of Significance .........................................................................................19 Table 2.3-2 Average Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions.................................................22 Table 2.3-3 Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions .................................................................24 Table 2.7-1 Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................45 Table 2.16-1 Intersection Level of Service Criteria .......................................................................75 Table 2.16-2 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................76 Table 2.16-3 Baseline Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service .................................................78 Table 2.16-4 Trip Generation Summary ........................................................................................79 Table 2.16-6 Trip Distribution Assumptions for New Trips .........................................................79 Table 2.16-7 Existing and Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of

Service................................................................................................................................80 Table 2.16-8 Baseline and Baseline plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of

Service................................................................................................................................80

Initial Study

Fairfield Inn & Suites iii August 2017

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Initial Study

Fairfield Inn & Suites 1 August 2017

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Overview and Location

The project proposes to construct a 5-story, 100-room Fairfield Inn and Suites at 405 Martin Avenue, Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California. The proposed project site is a vacant, 1.83-acre parcel (Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 143-040-120) located west of Highway 101 at the southwest corner of Dowdell and Martin Avenue and immediately north of Hinebaugh Creek.

1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance

This Initial Study has been prepared per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000, et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.).

1.3 Public Review Process

The Initial Study and the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be circulated for public review for a period of 30 days, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073(a). The City of Rohnert Park will provide public notice at the beginning of the public review period.

Initial Study


INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Initial Study


2 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

Project title:

Fairfield Inn & Suites

Lead agency name and address:

City of Rohnert Park Development Services 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486

Contact person and phone number:

Jeffrey Beiswenger, Planning Manager (707) 588-2253

Project location:

405 Martin Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA APN: 143-040-120

Project sponsor’s name and address:

Tejal Patel Rohnert Park Lodging, LLC 13486 Melody Road

Chino Hills, CA 91709

General plan and zoning designations:

Project Parcel General Plan Designation Zoning Designation

Fairfield Inn & Suites APN 143-040-120, +/- 1.83 acres

Commercial – R (Regional) C-R: Regional Commercial

Description of project and environmental setting:

The proposed project would construct a 5-story, 100-room hotel on a vacant, 1.83-acre site located at 405 Martin Avenue in the City of Rohnert Park.

Project Location and Site Characteristics

As shown on Figure 1 Regional Location Map, the project site is located in the City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California. The project parcel is approximately 1.83 acres

MoragaTown

AlamoOrinda

LafayetteWalnutCreek

PleasantHill

Concord

SanFrancisco

Fairview

SanLeandro

CastroValley

Alameda

Oakland

Berkeley

VineHill

Richmond

MartinezPinole

Rodeo

Hercules

Mill Valley

SanRafael

Lagunitas-ForestKnolls

Lucas Valley-Marinwood

Inverness

Novato

Benicia

Vallejo

Fairfield

AmericanCanyon

Napa

St.Helena

DeerPark

Angwin

Petaluma

BodegaBay

Occidental

SantaRosa

RohnertPark

SouthSanta Rosa

SouthSantaRosa

Forestville

Larkfield-Wikiup

Windsor

HiddenValley Lake

Cobb

LowerLake

ClearlakeKelseyville

San Francisco County

MarinCounty

Solano County

Marin County

Sonoma County

Napa County

Colusa County

Lake County

Mendocino County

San Mateo County

Yolo County

Napa County

Napa CountySonoma County

Sonoma County Sonoma CountyLake County

P a c i f i c O c e a n

?221

?281

?253

?24

?131

?29

?16

?123

?53

?13

?37

?4

?121

?175

?20

?12

?116

?128

?1£¤101

§̈¦80

§̈¦5

§̈¦680

§̈¦880 §̈¦580

Regional Map Sonoma County, CaliforniaInitial Study for the Fairfield Inn Site in Rohnert Park

Date

: 8/8

/201

7 -

Las

t sav

ed b

y: rs

trobr

idge

- P

ath:

Z:\P

rojec

ts\j98

1000

\MAP

DOC\

DOCU

MEN

T\Fa

irfiel

dInn\

IS\F

igure

1_Re

giona

l.mxd

0 105Milesn

FIGURE 1

Project Site!̂

Initial Study


west of Highway 101 in the northwest portion of the City. The center of the project site corresponds to 38°, 21', 3.9" north latitude and 122°, 43', 11.2" west longitude, in Township 6 north, Range 8 west, Section 23 of the Cotati, CA” U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle, at the Mt. Diablo Meridian. The project site is relatively flat with an elevation range of about 84 to 96 feet above mean sea level. Historically, the site has been altered by agriculture, placement of fill, and grading activities associated with development. The project site was substantially altered in 2007 when fill material was spread across most of the site, in preparation for use as an equipment storage area from 2007 to 2008. Figure 2 Aerial Photo Map provides aerial imagery of the proposed site.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The proposed project site is located in the northwest portion of the City in an area predominately characterized by existing commercial and industrial/business uses. The property to the west and north of the site are within the Stadium Lands Master Plan “PD” zone district and are currently undeveloped but planned for development. As part of the recently approved Five Creek project, a hotel, apartments, a public park, and commercial uses are planned for development on the land to the north of the project site. The property to the west of the project site will include a new City fire station. The project site is north of Hinebaugh Creek and immediately west of the Ashley Furniture HomeStore. Costco is located to the northeast of the project site.

Project Characteristics

As shown on Figure 3 Site Plan, the project proposes to construct a 100-room hotel on a vacant 1.83-acre parcel. The hotel building would have five floors and the building height would be 70 feet. The proposed building footprint would be approximately 11,670 square feet (sf) with a combined total building area of approximately 57,670 sf.

Proposed first floor building amenities include a porte cochère and covered drop off area, a lobby with lounge seating and a waiting area, breakfast bar and breakfast seating, business services area, a fitness center, an outdoor pool and seating area, and outdoor linear fire pits.

Roadway Access: Primary access to the project site at the intersection of Dowdell Avenue and Martin Avenue via a driveway shared with Ashley Furniture HomeStore. Martin Avenue, which currently terminates at its intersection with Dowdell Avenue, will be extended from Dowdell Avenue to Labath Avenue. The extension of Martin Avenue is not a component of the proposed project, but will be constructed as part of the recently approved Five Creek project on the property to the north of the project site. For the

Vicinity MapSonoma County, CaliforniaInitial Study for the Fairfield Inn Site in Rohnert Park

SOURCE: Bing Maps (Accessed 2017)

Date

: 8/8

/201

7 -

Las

t sav

ed b

y: rs

trobr

idge

- P

ath:

Z:\P

rojec

ts\j98

1000

\MAP

DOC\

DOCU

MEN

T\Fa

irfiel

dInn\

IS\F

igure

2_Vi

cinity

.mxd

0 2,0001,000Feetn Project Boundary

FIGURE 2

Project Site

HATCHING LEGEND:KEY NOTES:

1

2

Site PlanFIGURE 3

Initial Study for the Fairfield Inn Site in Rohnert Park Sonoma County, California

SOURCE: Adobe Associates, Inc. (2017)

Initial Study


proposed project, secondary access for emergency vehicles would be provided at the southeast corner of the project site to the Ashley Furniture HomeStore parking lot on the adjacent parcel. The project would not reconfigure any existing roadways.

Parking: The project includes a parking lot with 105 parking spaces, including four accessible spaces and one van accessible space. Electric vehicle spaces would be provided in compliance with Building Code requirements. A designated area for bicycle parking would be provided at the front of the hotel.

Water and Recycled Water: The City’s water system would provide domestic, fire protection, and irrigation demands for the project. The project would tie in to the existing 8-inch water line in Martin Avenue adjacent to the project site.

Wastewater: To serve wastewater demands, the project would tie into the City’s sanitary sewer system. The project would connect to an existing 8-inch sewer line located within Martin Avenue via 6-inch main that would traverse from Martin Avenue through the proposed entry driveway area and connect to a 4-inch main that would continue southwest to the project site.

Stormwater: The Five Creek project will construct a new storm drain system with a 36” storm water outfall to Hinebaugh Creek, just west of the existing Labath Avenue Bridge. This new storm drain system is designed to accommodate the 10-year storm event and to accept runoff from 15.25 acres of the Five Creek site, the City Public Safety and Public Works site, and the proposed project site, for a total tributary area of 17.08 acres.

In addition to flood control, the City of Rohnert Park has adopted the City of Santa Rosa and County of Sonoma Storm Water Low Impact Design Technical Design Manual to address stormwater runoff quality and quantity from new development and redevelopment projects. To meet the design goal, the project would implement permanent storm water best management practices (BMPs) designed in accordance with the County of Sonoma Storm Water Low Impact Design Technical Design Manual.

The project proposes to meet design requirements by treating 100 percent of the flow generated by the 85th percentile 24 hour storm event and capturing the resulting increase in stormwater volume (due to project development) generated by the 85th percentile 24 hour storm event.

Grading: Due to placement of fill from a project in the past, it is anticipated that approximately 4000 cubic yards would be off-hauled from the site.

Initial Study


Sustainability Features: The project would include the following energy, water conservation, and solid waste diversion features to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and to promote more sustainable practices:

• The project proposes to utilize modular building units for construction that would be completely finished with paint, carpets, doors/locks, furniture, and other features. Proposed modular construction would serve to reduce construction material waste.

• Solar energy generation is proposed for the project. Approximately 60 percent of the roof area, or 7000 square feet, would be available for solar energy generation equipment. At 22.2 square feet of area for one panel, approximately 315 panels could be installed on the building. At 325 watts per panel, this project would generate approximately 110 to 120 kW of energy per day through photovoltaic means.

• The project would be required to be constructed in compliance with state or local green building standards in effect at the time of building construction.

• The project would comply with current Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations energy efficiency standards for electrical and natural gas appliances and other devices at the time of building construction. The project would use LED lighting for outdoor areas.

• During both construction and operation of the project, the project would comply with all state regulations related to solid waste generation, storage, and disposal, including the California Integrated Waste Management Act, as amended. During construction, all wastes would be recycled to the maximum extent possible.

The proposed project would be constructed in a single phase that would take approximately 9 months to complete.

Entitlements and required approvals:

The project would require the following approvals:

• Site Plan and Architectural Review; and • California Department of Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

review and concurrence with findings of the California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment for the Fairfield Inn Site

Initial Study


ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Hydrology and Water Quality

Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population and Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems

Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” 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.

Initial Study


EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

• A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

• All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

• Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.

• “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

• Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated

Initial Study


or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

• Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

• Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

• This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

• The explanation of each issue should identify:

a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS – Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 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?

2.1 Aesthetics

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Initial Study


For purposes of this analysis, a scenic vista is defined as an expansive view of highly valued landscape feature (e.g. a mountain range, lake or coastline) observable from a publicly accessible vantage point. In the project vicinity, publically accessible vantage points are limited to public roads. The project site is located in an urban area that contains a mixture of existing regional commercial, public/institutional, and industrial uses. The project site is comprised of vacant and previously graded land, which is void of scenic resources and unique natural features. The site is not designated, nor is it adjacent to, a designated scenic vista or a state scenic highway (City of Rohnert Park 2015). The Sonoma County General Plan identifies U.S. 101 and Petaluma Hill Road as designated scenic corridors (City of Rohnert Park 2007). However, the project site is not visible from either of those corridors. Accordingly, development of the project would result in no impacts to scenic vistas nor result in damage to scenic resources.

b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Refer to answer provided in ‘a’ above.

c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

For the purposes of this analysis, a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality would occur if the project would introduce a new visible element that would be inconsistent with the overall quality, scale, and character of the surrounding development. As previously discussed, the site is located in a developed, urban area that contains a mixture of existing regional commercial, residential, public/institutional, and industrial park land uses.

The project site is presently undeveloped and previously disturbed. The existing conditions of the site do not provide substantial scenic value because the site is an undeveloped, generally flat parcel with little vegetation, trees or greenery surrounded by regional commercial, public/institutional, and light industrial buildings and development. While the project site is located adjacent to the Hinebaugh Creek corridor which supports riparian vegetation and trees, the proposed development would not include alterations within the Creek area.

The project would replace the undeveloped site with a hotel building and enhanced landscaping and amenities that would complement the existing development in the direct vicinity of the project site. The land use and zoning designation for the project site currently allow for hotel uses, as proposed. The proposed building would be required to

Initial Study


comply with City design standards and reflect a similar architectural design that would be consistent with the nature of the surrounding area. Therefore, while development of the project site with a hotel would change the visual character of the site, impacts would be less than significant.

d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Exterior lighting would be added to the proposed building and parking lot on a parcel of land upon which there is currently no lighting. The project would increase nighttime lighting from vehicles, the interior streets, parking and buildings. However, due to the urbanized nature of the surrounding area, a significant amount of ambient nighttime lighting currently exists, which affects nighttime views in the area. Despite that, the project would introduce new sources of light in the area, all future development on the project site must comply with the City of Rohnert Park’s lighting and glare standards (Municipal Code Section 17.12.050). Accordingly, impacts associated with lighting and glare would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures are necessary.


Impact




Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant

environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

Initial Study



Impact




Impact No Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning

of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

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?

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

The proposed project site is located in an urban area and surrounding parcels support residential, industrial, commercial, and public facility land uses. The project site has previously been disturbed and does not contain land that is designated as prime agricultural soils by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The site has not been identified as prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance by the California Department of Conservation. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract site pursuant to Sections 51200–51207 of the California Government Code (DOC 2013).

The proposed project site is designated zoned Regional Commercial. The site is not planned for or used for any agricultural or forestry purposes and the proposed project would not result in the conversion of any agricultural or forest land, conflict with any agricultural use, or conflict with a Williamson Act contract.

In addition, the site is designated as developed land and not designated as farmland under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation or the City of Rohnert Park General Plan (DOC 2014, City of Rohnert Park 2015). The project site is not considered forest land as defined in PRC Section 12220(g). Timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526) or timberland-zoned timberland production (as defined by Section 51104[g] of the Government Code) is not present

Initial Study


onsite, nor are any active or potential commercial timber operations present in the area. Therefore, no impact associated with agriculture and forestry resources would result from implementation of the proposed project.

b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?


c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?


d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?


e) Would the project 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?


Mitigation Measures



Impact




Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air

pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the

applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Initial Study



Impact




Impact No Impact 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?

2.3 Air Quality

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, including new thresholds of significance, in June 2010 (BAAQMD 2010), and revised them in May 2011. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines advise lead agencies on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, including establishing quantitative and qualitative thresholds of significance. The BAAQMD resolutions adopting and revising the significance thresholds in 2011 were set aside by a judicial writ of mandate on March 5, 2012. In May 2012, the BAAQMD updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to continue to provide direction on recommended analysis methodologies, but without recommended quantitative significance thresholds (BAAQMD 2012). On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reverse the judgment and upheld the BAAQMD’s CEQA thresholds. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were recently re-released in May 2017 and include the same thresholds as in the 2010 and 2011 Guidelines for criteria air pollutants, TACs, and greenhouse gases (BAAQMD 2017a). The Guidelines also address the December 2015 Supreme Court’s opinion (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369). These BAAQMD significance thresholds are summarized in Table 2.3-1.

In general, the BAAQMD significance thresholds for reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), and carbon monoxide (CO) address the first three air quality significance criteria. The BAAQMD maintains that these thresholds are intended to maintain ambient air quality concentrations of these criteria air pollutants below state and federal standards and to prevent a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional nonattainment with ambient air quality standards. The toxic air contaminant (TAC) thresholds (cancer and noncancer risks) and local

Initial Study


CO thresholds address the fourth significance criterion, and the BAAQMD odors threshold addresses the fifth significance criterion.

Table 2.3-1 Thresholds of Significance

Pollutant

Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds Average Daily Emissions

(lbs/day) Average Daily Emissions

(lbs/day) Maximum Annual Emissions

(tons/year) ROG 54 54 10 NOx 54 54 10 PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15 PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10 PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) Best Management Practices None Local CO None 9.0 ppm (8-hour average, 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Risks and Hazards (Individual Project)

Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan or Increased cancer risk of >10.0 in a million Increased noncancer risk of >1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute) Ambient PM2.5 increase >0.3 μg/m3 annual average Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from property line of source or receptor

Risks and Hazards (Cumulative)

Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan or Cancer risk of >100 in a million (from all local sources) Noncancer risk of >10.0 Hazard Index (chronic, from all local sources) Ambient PM2.5 >0.8 μg/m3 annual average (from all local sources) Zone of Influence: 1,000-foot radius from property line of source or receptor

Accidental Release of Acutely Hazardous Air Pollutants

None Storage or use of acutely hazardous material located near receptors or new receptors located near stored or used acutely hazardous materials considered significant

Odors None Five confirmed complaints to BAAQMD per year averaged over 3 years

Source: BAAQMD 2017a lbs/day = pounds per day; tons/year = tons per year; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; CO = carbon monoxide

a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

An area is designated as “in attainment” when it is in compliance with the federal and/or state standards. These standards are set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or public welfare with a margin of safety. The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is designated non-attainment for the

Initial Study


federal 8-hour ozone (O3) and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. The area is in attainment or unclassified for all other federal standards. The area is designated non-attainment for state standards for 1-hour and 8-hour O3, 24-hour PM10, annual PM10, and annual PM2.5.

On April 19, 2017, the BAAQMD adopted the Spare the Air: Cool The Climate Final 2017 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2017b). The 2017 Clean Air Plan provides a regional strategy to protect public health and protect the climate. To protect public health, the 2017 Clean Air Plan includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of O3 precursors (ROG and NOx) and reduce O3 transport to neighboring air basins. In addition, the 2017 Clean Air Plan builds upon the BAAQMD efforts to reduce fine particulate matter (PM) and TACs. To protect the climate, the plan defines a vision for transitioning the region to a post-carbon economy needed to achieve ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets for 2030 and 2050, and provides a regional climate protection strategy that will put the Bay Area on a pathway to achieve those GHG reduction targets.

The BAAQMD Guidelines identify a three-step methodology for determining a project’s consistency with the current Clean Air Plan. If the responses to these three questions can be concluded in the affirmative and those conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, then the BAAQMD considers the project to be consistent with air quality plans prepared for the Bay Area.

The first question to be assessed in this methodology is “does the project support the goals of the Air Quality Plan”? The BAAQMD-recommended measure for determining project support for these goals is consistency with BAAQMD thresholds of significance. If a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would be consistent with the goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As indicated in the following discussion with regard to air quality impact questions b) and c), the project would result in less than significant construction emissions and would not result in long-term adverse air quality impacts. Therefore, the project would be considered to support the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan and, therefore, consistent with the current Clean Air Plan.

The second question to be assessed in this consistency methodology is “does the project include applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan?” The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains 85 control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area. Projects that incorporate all feasible air quality plan control measures are considered consistent with the Clean Air Plan. The project includes plans for a 100-room, 57,670 square-foot hotel and associated above ground parking. The control strategies of the 2017 Clean Air Plan include measures in the categories of stationary sources, the transportation sector, the buildings sector, the energy sector, the agriculture sector, natural and working lands, the waste sector,

Initial Study


the water sector, and super-GHG pollutant measures. Depending on the control measure, the tools for implementation include leveraging the BAAQMD rules and permitting authority, regional coordination and funding, working with local governments to facilitate best policies in building codes, outreach and education, and advocacy strategies. Since the proposed project would comply with all applicable BAAQMD rules and would incorporate energy efficiency and green building measures in compliance with state standards and/or local building codes, the project would include applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

The third question to be assessed in this consistency methodology is “does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan?” Examples of how a project may cause the disruption or delay of control measures include a project that precludes an extension of a transit line or bike path, or proposes excessive parking beyond parking requirements. The proposed project would not create any barriers or impediments to planned or future improvements to transit or bicycle facilities in the area, nor would it include excessive parking. Therefore, the project would not hinder implementation of 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures.

In summary, the responses to all three of the questions with regard to Clean Air Plan consistency are affirmative and the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. This is a less than significant impact.

b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.1 was used to estimate emissions from construction and operation of the proposed project. CalEEMod is a statewide computer model developed in cooperation with air districts throughout the state to quantify criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the construction and operational activities from a variety of land use projects, such as residential, commercial, and industrial facilities. CalEEMod input parameters, including the proposed project land use type and size, construction schedule, and anticipated construction equipment utilization, were based on information provided by the project applicant, or default model assumptions if project specifics were unavailable.

Construction. Construction of the proposed project would involve construction and operation of a 100-room, 57,670 square-foot hotel and associated above ground parking on a 1.83-acre site. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2017 and take approximately 9 months to complete. Construction would involve site preparation and grading of the site. The proposed earthwork would export approximately 4,000-cubic yards of soil for the

Initial Study


project site. The building would be delivered in modular units, completely finished with paint, carpets, doors/locks, and furniture, which is anticipated to reduce onsite equipment usage by approximately 75 percent of model defaults for a site built hotel of this magnitude. It was assumed that 60 haul trucks would be needed to transport the modular units, with a conservative trip length of 60-miles each way. Notably, low-volatile organic compound (VOC) coatings were assumed per applicant input. Sources of emissions would include: off-road construction equipment exhaust, on-road vehicles exhaust and entrained road dust (i.e., haul trucks for soil export and modular unit import, material delivery trucks, and worker vehicles), fugitive dust associated with site preparation and grading activities, and paving and architectural coating activities. Detailed assumptions associated with project construction are included in Appendix A.

Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of active construction days, which were then compared to the BAAQMD construction thresholds of significance. Table 2.3-2 shows average daily construction emissions of O3 precursors (ROG and NOx), PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during project construction.1

Table 2.3-2 Average Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions

Year ROG NOx PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust

pounds per day 2017-2018 Construction 3.4 15.9 0.7 0.7 BAAQMD Construction Thresholds

54 54 82 54

Exceed Threshold? No No No No Source: Appendix A Note: The values shown are average daily emissions based on total overall tons of construction emissions, converted to pounds, and divided by 196 active work days. ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter

As shown in Table 2.3-2, construction of the proposed project would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Criteria air pollutant emissions during construction would be less than significant. Although the BAAQMD does not have a quantitative significance threshold for fugitive dust, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines recommend that projects determine the significance for fugitive dust through application of best

1 Fuel combustion during construction and operations would also result in the generation of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and CO. These values are included in Appendix A. However, since the SFBAAB is in attainment of these pollutants, the BAAQMD has not established a quantitative mass-significance threshold for comparison and are not included in the project-generated emissions tables in this document. Notably, the BAAQMD does have screening criteria for operational localized CO, which are discussed in more detail below.

Initial Study


management practices (BMPs). The project contractor would be required as conditions of approval to implement the following BMPs that are required of all projects:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Implementation of the required fugitive dust control measures would ensure air quality and fugitive dust-related impacts associated with construction would remain less than significant.

Operations. Operation of the project would generate criteria pollutant (including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5) emissions from mobile sources (vehicular traffic), area sources (consumer products, architectural coatings, landscaping equipment), and energy sources (natural gas appliances, space and water heating). CalEEMod was used to estimate daily emissions from the operational sources. The CalEEMod default trip rate was used, which matched the Traffic Impact Study for the project (W-Trans 2017). Table 2.3-3 summarizes the daily mobile, energy, and area emissions of criteria pollutants that would

Initial Study


be generated by project development and compares the emissions to BAAQMD operational thresholds.

Table 2.3-3 Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions

Source ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5

pounds per day Area 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Energy 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 Mobile 2.0 8.4 3.6 1.0 Total 3.4 9.1 3.7 1.1 BAAQMD Operational Thresholds

54 54 82 54

Exceed Threshold? No No No No Source: Appendix A Note: The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter

As indicated in Table 2.3-3, project-related operational emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds during operations, and thus, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in relation to regional operational emissions.

In regards to localized CO concentrations, according to the BAAQMD thresholds, a project would result in a less than significant impact if the following screening criteria are met:

1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.

2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.

3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

The project would generate minimal new traffic trips and would comply with the BAAQMD screening criteria. Accordingly, project-related traffic would not exceed CO

Initial Study


standards and therefore, no further analysis was conducted for CO impacts. This CO emissions impact would be considered less than significant on a project-level and cumulative basis.

c) Would the project 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)?

Past, present, and future development projects may contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. Per BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, by its nature air pollution is largely a cumulative impact; no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be considered cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, if the proposed project’s emissions are below the BAAQMD thresholds or screening criteria, then the proposed project’s cumulative impact would be considered to be less than significant.

As described in criterion “b” above, criteria pollutant emissions generated by short-term construction and long-term operations of the project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, the project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in relation to regional emissions. In addition, project-related traffic would not exceed the BAAQMD CO screening criteria and would result in a less than significant cumulative impact in relation to localized CO.

d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

The BAAQMD has adopted project and cumulative thresholds for three risk-related air quality indicators for sensitive receptors: cancer risks, noncancer health effects, and increases in ambient air concentrations of PM2.5. These impacts are addressed on a localized rather than regional basis and are specific to the sensitive receptors identified for the project. Sensitive receptors are groups of individuals, including children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, that may be more susceptible to health risks due to chemical exposure, and sensitive-receptor population groups are likely to be located at hospitals, medical clinics, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, residences, and retirement homes (BAAQMD 2017a). The closest sensitive receptors are existing

Initial Study


multi-family apartments located approximately 550 feet west of the project across Labath Avenue.

“Incremental cancer risk” is the net increased likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of TACs resulting from a project over a 9-, 30-, and 70-year exposure period would contract cancer based on the use of standard Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk-assessment methodology (OEHHA 2015). In addition, some TACs have non-carcinogenic effects. TACs that would potentially be emitted during construction activities would be diesel particulate matter, emitted from heavy-duty construction equipment and heavy-duty trucks. Heavy-duty construction equipment and diesel trucks are subject to CARB air toxic control measures to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions. According to the OEHHA, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30-year exposure period for the maximally exposed individual resident; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project (OEHHA 2015). Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (approximately 9-months) would only constitute a small percentage of the total 30-year exposure period. Regarding long-term operations, the proposed project would not result in non-permitted stationary sources that would emit air pollutants or TACs.

In summary, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial, long-term pollutant concentrations or health risk during construction or operations, and this impact would be less than significant on a project-level and cumulative basis.

e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

BAAQMD has identified typical sources of odor in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a few examples of which include manufacturing plants, rendering plants, coffee roasters, wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, and solid waste transfer stations. While sources that generate objectionable odors must comply with air quality regulations, the public’s sensitivity to locally produced odors often exceeds regulatory thresholds. The project would not include uses that have been identified by BAAQMD as potential sources of objectionable odors. Potential odor impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures


Initial Study



Impact




Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or

through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

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 any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or 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?

2.4 Biological Resources

A Biological Constraints Report and a California Tiger Salamander (CTS) Habitat Assessment were prepared for the proposed project by Dudek (Dudek 2017 and Dudek 2017a). These assessments were used to complete this section and are included as Appendix B of this Initial Study.

The project site is located directly southwest of Dowdell Avenue and north of Hinebaugh Creek and the Hinebaugh Creek trail. The center of the project site corresponds to 38°, 21', 3.9" north latitude and 122°, 43', 11.2" west longitude, in Township 6 north, Range 8 west, Section 23 of the Cotati, CA” U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle, at the Mt. Diablo Meridian. The

Initial Study


project site is located within the planning area of the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy, a comprehensive plan for management and development in sensitive habitat within the region.

The project site is relatively flat with an elevation range of about 84 to 96 feet above mean sea level. Historically, the site has been altered by agriculture, placement of fill, and grading activities associated with development. The project site was substantially altered in 2007 when fill material was spread across most of the site, in preparation for use as an equipment storage area from 2007 to 2008. Additionally, portions of the site appear to have been maintained by mowing in the late spring/early summer in 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012, as shown on historic aerial imagery.

One soil type is mapped on the project site: Clear Lake clay, sandy substratum, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 14. The Clear Lake soil series consist of sandy, poorly drained alluvium derived from volcanic and sedimentary rock (Dudek 2017 citing USDA 2017). Although Clear Lake clay soil represents the native soils in the area, the project site has been extensively disturbed and fill material has been deposited throughout the site.

A review of historic aerial photography of the study area dating back to 1952 indicates that land use on the project site was primarily agricultural prior to conversion to residential and recreation uses (including a baseball diamond) prior to the 1990s (Dudek 2017 citing HistoricAerials.com 2017). Additionally, the project site showed no evidence of aquatic resources in historic aerials.

Currently, two non-natural land cover types were classified for the project site: disturbed and developed. The majority of the project site is comprised of disturbed land. The vegetation within this land cover type is typical of non-native species found in previously graded lots and include species such as Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), bulbous canary-grass (Phalaris aquatica), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), spring vetch (Vicia sativa), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) (Dudek 2017).

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Special-status biological resources present or potentially present on the project site were identified through a literature search using the following sources: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Trust Resource Report (Dudek 2017 citing USFWS 2017); the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (Dudek 2017

Initial Study


citing CDFW 2017); and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants (Dudek 2017 citing CNPS 2017). Searches were completed for the following U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangles: Cotati, Sebastopol, Santa Rosa, Kenwood, Two Rock, Glen Ellen, Point Reyes, Petaluma, and Petaluma River.

As indicated in the Biological Constraints Report prepared for the proposed project, special-status species are those that are (1) listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered; (2) listed or candidates for listing under the California Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered; (3) a state fully protected species; (4) a CDFW Species of Special Concern; or (5) a species listed on the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants with a California Rare Plant Rank of 1B or 2B (Dudek 2017). As further indicated in the Biological Constraints Report, special-status vegetation communities are those communities identified as high priority for inventory in the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (Dudek 2017 citing CDFG 2010) by a state rarity ranking of S1, S2, or S3.

According to the Biological Constraints Report prepared for the project, a total of 90 special-status plant species are known to occur within the project quad or eight surrounding quads. Of these 90, 86 were removed from consideration based on lack of suitable soils or habitat, or because the project site is outside of the known elevation or geographic range for the species. The remaining four species have a low potential to occur on the site due to the highly disturbed nature of the habitat and the Biological Constraints Report concluded that is extremely unlikely for these species to occur onsite due to the level of past and ongoing disturbance and maintenance at the project site (Dudek 2017). Accordingly, no special-status plant species are expected to occur on the project site; therefore, no potential impacts to special-status plant species would occur due to implementation of the project.

According to the Biological Constraints Report prepared for the project, a total of 29 special-status wildlife species are known to occur within the project quad or eight surrounding quads. Of these, 26 were removed from consideration based on lack of suitable habitat or because the site is outside of the known geographic or elevation range for the species. The remaining three species that have potential to occur on include western burrowing owl, California tiger salamander (CTS), and western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) (Dudek 2017).

Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)

Initial Study


Burrowing owl is a California bird species of special concern. They are small owls that inhabit burrows or other suitable burrow-like structures in the ground such as culverts or concrete piles. Burrowing owl prefers habitat that contains short or sparse vegetation that allows unobstructed views of potential predators and prey species. Their diet consists of arthropods and small mammals (Dudek 2017 citing Dechant et al. 2002). The typical breeding season for this species extends from February 1 to August 31.

The Biological Constraints Report concluded that the site provides marginally suitable foraging habitat for this species due to dense and high cover of non-native grasses and no suitable burrows were observed by Dudek during the April 28, 2017 site visit. The nearest documented CNDDB occurrence for this species is located approximately 2.8 miles east of the project site, on the edge of the City of Rohnert Park. Project construction could adversely affect potential nesting and foraging habitat for western burrowing owl either directly through destruction of active burrows from grading activities or indirectly through disturbance associated with noise, increased human activity, and lighting (Dudek 2017). To ensure that new development does not adversely impact this species, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Mitigation Measure BIO-1, which requires a preconstruction survey to identify any active burrowing owl burrows within the project site and includes protective measures for any identified nests, would ensure that impacts to the western burrowing owl remain less than significant.

California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)

The Sonoma population of the CTS is a federally and State threatened amphibian species. This species utilizes vernal pools, other ephemeral pools, and sometimes stream courses and man-made pools if predatory fishes are absent, for breeding. CTS utilize annual grassland and valley and foothill hardwood forest for aestivation and overland dispersal habitat.

The project site is within Critical Habitat Unit 1 for this species and Hinebaugh Creek occurs directly south of the project site; however, Dudek senior aquatic ecologist Craig Seltenrich, performed a habitat assessment for this species on April 28, 2017 and concluded the Creek does not provide suitable breeding habitat for this species (Dudek 2017a). The CTS Habitat Assessment is included with Appendix B of this Initial Study. The CTS Habitat Assessment also noted that there no suitable small mammal burrows were observed during the assessment; thus, it is highly unlikely this species would utilize the disturbed habitat within the project site. The nearest documented CNDDB occurrence of this species is located 0.7 mile south of the project site. The project would result in no impacts to CTS species (Dudek 2017a).

Initial Study


Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata)

Western pond turtle is a California reptile species of special concern. It generally inhabits slow-moving permanent or intermittent streams, ponds, small lakes, and reservoirs. They require adequate emergent basking sites and adjacent uplands for nesting, aestivation, and hibernation (Dudek 2017).

Hinebaugh Creek occurs directly south of the project site and there are two documented CNDDB occurrences located within this waterway; one occurs upstream of the site and one occurs downstream. There is a high probability that this species occurs throughout this waterway, including directly south of the site. The project site may provide marginal nesting, aestivation, and hibernation habitat for this species where soils are suitably friable. Although no sign of turtles or suitable burrows for nesting were observed during the site survey, there is low potential for this species to occur onsite. Project construction could adversely affect potential nesting and aestivation habitat for western pond turtle should they be present at the time of ground-disturbing activities (Dudek 2017). To ensure that construction activities do not adversely impact turtles, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2, which requires a preconstruction survey for western pond turtles prior to initiation of grading, potential impacts to western pond turtles would be less than significant.

Nesting Birds

All raptor species found in California are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 and may use the site for nesting or foraging. The project area supports suitable nesting trees for a variety of raptor species, as well as other native bird species protected by the MBTA (Dudek 2017). Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would require completion of a nesting bird survey two weeks prior to construction during the nesting season (February 1 – September 30) to determine if native birds are nesting on or near the site. With implementation of this measure, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant.

As discussed above, two special-status wildlife species, the burrowing owl and western pond turtle, have a low potential to occur on the project site. There is also the potential for nesting birds to be present onsite. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 would ensure that impacts to special-status wildlife species remain less than significant.

Initial Study


b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

There are no riparian areas located within the project site. The Hinebaugh Creek Flood Channel is located immediately south of the project site, but the proposed project does not include alterations within the adjacent Creek area.

Due to the highly disturbed nature of the project site, no potentially jurisdictional wetlands or waters are present (Dudek 2017). Indirect effects may occur to Hinebaugh Creek, which is likely a jurisdictional feature, in the form of sedimentation or runoff from development of the site. However, as discussed further in Section 2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1, which requires compliance with Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). During construction, the project would be required to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ensure that runoff from the site does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The RWQCB must approve the SWPPP and issue Waste Discharge Requirements for the project before a grading permit is issued by the City. Upon completion of the project, runoff generated from the developed site would be treated on-site. Compliance with stormwater permit requirements through the implementation of site-specific stormwater capture and treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), as well as maintenance and inspection requirements for those BMPs would ensure that sedimentation or runoff impacts to Hinebaugh Creek are reduced to a less than significant level.

c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Refer to answer provided in ‘b’ above.

d) Would the project 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?

The project site does not function as a wildlife corridor and does not support any wildlife nursery sites. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would result in no impacts to these resources.

Initial Study


e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

The project site is located within the area covered by the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy (USFWS 2005). The purpose of the Conservation Strategy is to create a long-term conservation program to assist in the recovery of CTS and four listed plant species. The project site is identified on the Conservation Strategy Map as “Areas Within 1.3 Miles of Known CTS Breeding.” As identified in the Conservation Strategy, impact to CTS is not likely on some lands within 1.3 miles from breeding sites that are surrounded by significant barriers or are otherwise unsuitable CTS habitat (USFWS 2005). As discussed in criterion ‘a’ above, no CTS have been identified on the project site and it is highly unlikely this species would utilize the disturbed habitat within the project site. In addition, the CTS Habitat Assessment concluded that the adjacent Hinebaugh Creek does not provide suitable breeding habitat for this species (Dudek 2017a). Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure BIO-4, which requires submission of the CTS Habitat Assessment (Dudek 2017a) to the USFWS and CDFW for their concurrence with the report findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would ensure that impacts related to possible conflicts with the Conservation Strategy remain less than significant.

The site is not included in any other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and there are no protected trees (i.e., oaks and other native trees of significant size) located on the project site. No impacts to other local policies, ordinances or plans would be expected to occur from implementation of the project.

f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Refer to the answer in ‘e’ above.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 10 days prior to the onset of construction to identify active burrowing owl burrows. If active burrows are detected, the following shall be implemented:

• Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31).

Initial Study


• No disturbance should occur within 160 feet of occupied burrows during the non-breeding season (September 1 to January 31). If avoidance of occupied burrows during the non-breeding season is not feasible, consultation with CDFW will be necessary. Measures that may be approved through consultation with CDFW may include passive relocation methods, such as installation of one-way doors.

• Any destruction of active burrows shall be mitigated by preservation or creation of suitable burrows at a mitigation ratio no less than 2:1 (impacted habitat: preserved/restored habitat) on protected lands approved by CDFW.

If no active burrows are detected, no further measures are necessary.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: A preconstruction survey for western pond turtles and potential western pond turtle nest sites shall be conducted within two weeks prior to initiation of grading. A buffer of 100 feet around any active nests shall be flagged with high visibility flagging and avoided by construction activities until young have hatched and moved from the site of their own volition. Any western pond turtle found within the construction area shall be avoided and allowed to leave of its own volition, or alternatively and with CDFW approval, it will be captured by a qualified biologist and relocated out of harm’s way to the nearest suitable habitat immediately upstream or downstream from the project site.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Project construction could result in impacts to nesting birds, including the loss of nests, eggs, and fledglings if vegetation clearing and ground-disturbing activities occur during the nesting season (generally February 1 through September 30). All native migratory bird species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (which specifically protects raptors). A preconstruction nesting bird survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist no sooner than 10 days prior to construction activities to determine if any native birds are nesting on or near the site (including a 250-foot buffer for raptors). If any active nests are observed during surveys, a suitable avoidance buffer will be determined and flagged by the qualified biologist based on species, location and planned construction activity. These nests would be avoided until the chicks have fledged and the nests are no longer active. It is also recommended that the removal of any habitat (i.e. trees) occur outside of the breeding bird season.

Initial Study


Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit the California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment prepared for the project to the USFWS and the CDFW for review and concurrence with the report findings.


Impact




Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

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?

2.5 Cultural Resources

Records Search

A records search including the project site and a half-mile search radius was conducted by Dudek at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System located in Rohnert Park; the records search is listed at the NWIC under File Number 16-1729. The NCIC records search indicates that there are no recorded resources within the project area and one resource, a historic building, within one half-mile radius of the project site. Three previous technical studies have been conducted in the project area and an additional 15 reports that have been conducted within the records search area.

Dudek’s archaeological staff determined that it is unlikely that intact archaeological deposits are present within the project area. Based on the current disturbed nature of the site, no additional cultural inventory or monitoring was recommended by Dudek archaeological staff.

Native American Consultation

Dudek sent a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on May 2, 2017, to search its sacred lands file for any Native American resources in the project area, and to provide

Initial Study


a list of Native American representatives who may have knowledge of Native American cultural resources in the project area. The NAHC responded stating that the sacred lands file search did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The NAHC also provided a list of individuals who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21082.3[d][3]), the City of Rohnert Park sent notification about the project to the tribes that have requested notification of projects subject to CEQA. The City received a response from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria indicating they had no comments to provide at that time. The City now considers its Native American tribal consultation complete.

a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

Historical resource is a term with a defined statutory meaning. (See Public Resources Code § 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.5(a), (b)). The term embraces any resource listed or determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, as well as some California State Landmarks and Points of Historical Interest. In addition, historical resources are evaluated against the CRHR criteria prior to making a finding as to the project’s impacts on historical resources.

Generally, resources must be at least 50 years old to be considered for the listing in the California Register. There are no structures or built-features on the project site and as such, there are no historical resources to be impacted. The project’s impact on historic resources would be less than significant.

There are no known historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources or human remains onsite. It is unlikely that previously unknown cultural resources would be encountered during future site grading and construction. However, to ensure that impacts to cultural resources remain less than significant, should any such resources be encountered during project grading and construction, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3. These mitigation measures were also included in the City of Rohnert Park General Plan EIR. With implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

Refer to the answer provided in ‘a’ above.

Initial Study


c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?


d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?


Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If at any time during earth disturbing activities a concentration of artifacts or a cultural deposit is encountered, work shall cease in the immediate area and a qualified archeologist shall be contacted by the construction manager to evaluate the find and make further recommendations. Construction crews should be alerted to cultural resources which could consist of, but not be limited to, artifacts of stone, bone, wood, shell, or other materials; features, including hearths, structural remains, or dumps; areas of discolored soil indicating the location of fire pits, post molds, or living area surfaces.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: If human remains are encountered anywhere on the project site, all work shall stop in the immediate vicinity of the discovered remains. Both the County Coroner and a qualified archeologist shall be notified by the construction manager immediately so that an evaluation can be performed. If the remains are deemed to be Native American and prehistoric, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted by the Coroner so that a “Most Likely Descendant” can be designated and recommendations for treatment solicited pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5(e).

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Per state law, in the event that paleontological resources or unique geologic features are encountered during construction, all earthwork within a 50 meter radius of the find will be stopped, the City of Rohnert Park notified, and a paleontologist retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations.

Initial Study



Impact




Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential

substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including

liquefaction?

iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss

of topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

2.6 Geology and Soils

a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

The closest known active fault traces are those of the Rodgers Creek fault, approximately 3 miles northeast of the project area and the San Andreas Fault, approximately 15 miles

Initial Study


west of the City (City of Rohnert Park 2015). Because the project area is located approximately 3 miles from traces of any potentially active fault and from known traces the nearest zoned active fault (the Rodgers Creek fault) and it not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, fault-line surface rupture would not be a hazard within the project area. Impacts related to fault rupture potential would be less than significant.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

The intensity of ground shaking depends on the distance from the earthquake epicenter to the site, the magnitude of the earthquake, site soil conditions, and the characteristics of the source. As the project site is within the proximity of two active faults, the project could potentially result in exposure of people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic ground shaking. This impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level though implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 which requires preparation of a site-specific geotechnical report.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Soil liquefaction most commonly occurs when ground shaking from an earthquake causes a sediment layer saturated with groundwater to lose strength and take on the characteristics of a fluid, thus becoming similar to quicksand. Liquefaction may also occur in the absence of a seismic event, when unconsolidated soil above a hardpan becomes saturated with water. Factors determining the liquefaction potential are the level and duration of seismic ground motions, the type and consistency of soils, and the depth to groundwater. Loose sands and peat deposits; uncompacted fill and other Holocene materials deposited by sedimentation in rivers and lakes (fluvial or alluvial deposits); and debris or eroded material (colluvial deposits) are the most susceptible to liquefaction. The project area is classified as having moderate to high liquefaction hazard (City of Rohnert Park 2015). Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires preparation of site-specific geotechnical reports and implementation of site-specific design recommendations, would ensure impacts related to seismic related ground failure remain less than significant.

iv) Landslides?

No landslide deposits have been mapped within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The California Geological Survey slope stability map of southern Sonoma County categorizes the project area as being of the greatest relative stability because there are no slopes steeper than 1 percent (City of Rohnert Park 2007). Therefore, impacts associated with landslides would be less than significant.

b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Initial Study


The existence of expansive soils within the project area makes necessitates determination that the soils used for foundation support are sound (City of Rohnert Park 2015). An acceptable degree of soil stability can be achieved by the required incorporation of soil treatment programs (e.g. grouting, compaction, drainage control, lime treatment) in the excavation and construction plans to address site-specific soil conditions. The site-specific analysis is necessary for foundation support design in areas where unsuitable conditions are suspected. To ensure that the future development at the project site is not adversely affected by unstable soil conditions, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires preparation of a site-specific soil analysis, including site-specific recommendations, would ensure that impacts related to expansive soils would remain less than significant.

c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Unstable geologic units or soils are characterized by materials lacking in sufficient integrity to support urban development (e.g., poorly consolidated fill). The project area supports development, which indicates that geologic conditions in the area are capable of supporting the proposed development. As previously discussed, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires preparation of a site-specific geotechnical report and implementation of site-specific design recommendations. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer would review and approve all grading and structural foundation plans to verify that recommendations of the geotechnical report have been followed and to provide supplemental recommendations, if necessary. The City Engineer, or a representative thereof, would also inspect and approve all grading and site preparation prior to construction of improvements to ensure compliance with Uniform Building Code and local codes. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the project would have less than significant impacts associated with unstable geologic units or soils.

d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture change. These volume changes can result in damage over time to building foundations, underground utilities, and other subsurface facilities and infrastructure if they are not designed and constructed appropriately to resist the damage associated with changing soil conditions. A review of NRCS (2014) soil survey data indicates that the project area is composed of Clear Lake

Initial Study


Clay, which has a high shrink-swell potential. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires preparation of a site-specific geotechnical report and implementation of site-specific design recommendations, would ensure that this impact remains less than significant.

e) Would the project 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?

No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed and the project would have no impact related to these types of wastewater disposal.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The project applicant shall retain a licensed geotechnical engineer to prepare a final geotechnical report per California Building Standards Code and City requirements for the proposed facilities that shall be submitted for review and approved by the City of Rohnert Park prior to issuance of a grading permit. The final geotechnical engineering report shall address and make recommendations on the following:

o seismic design parameters;

o seismic ground shaking;

o liquefaction;

o expansive/unstable soils;

o site preparation;

o soil bearing capacity;

o structural foundations, including retaining-wall design;

o grading practices; and

o soil corrosion of concrete and steel.

In addition to the recommendations for the conditions listed above, the geotechnical investigation shall include subsurface testing of soil and groundwater conditions (as appropriate), and shall determine appropriate foundation designs that are consistent with the version of the CBC that is applicable at the time building and grading permits are applied for. All recommendations contained in the final geotechnical engineering report shall be implemented by the project applicant. Design and construction of all new project

Initial Study


development shall be in accordance with the CBC. The project applicant shall provide for engineering inspection and certification by a qualified geotechnical or civil engineer that earthwork has been performed in conformity with recommendations contained in the geotechnical report.


Impact




Impact No Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: 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?

2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind, lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called GHGs. The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process: (1) short-wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; (2) the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long-wave radiation; and (3) GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long-wave radiation and emit this long-wave radiation into space and back toward the Earth. This trapping of the long-wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect.

Principal GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide, O3, and water vapor. Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and nitrous oxide, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely byproducts of fossil-fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results mostly from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Manufactured GHGs, which have a much greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride, which are associated with certain industrial products and processes (CAT 2006).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed the Global Warming Potential (GWP) concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP of a GHG is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram of a trace substance relative to that

Initial Study


of 1 kilogram of a reference gas (IPCC 2014). The reference gas used is CO2; therefore, GWP-weighted emissions are measured in metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2E).

Regarding impacts from GHGs, both BAAQMD and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) consider GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts (BAAQMD 2017a; CAPCOA 2008); therefore, assessment of significance is based on a determination of whether the GHG emissions from a project represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global atmosphere. This analysis uses both a quantitative and a qualitative approach. The quantitative approach is used to address the first significance criterion: “Would the Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?” This analysis considers that, because the quantifiable thresholds developed by BAAQMD were formulated based on AB 32 and California Climate Change Scoping Plan reduction targets for which its set of strategies were developed to reduce GHG emissions statewide, a project cannot exceed a numeric BAAQMD threshold without also conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, if a project exceeds a numeric threshold and results in a significant cumulative impact, it would also result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to plan, policy, or regulation consistency, even though the project may incorporate measures and have features that would reduce its contribution to cumulative GHG emissions.

Separate thresholds of significance are established by the BAAQMD for operational emissions from stationary sources (such as generators, furnaces, and boilers) and nonstationary sources (such as on-road vehicles) (BAAQMD 2017a). The threshold for stationary sources is 10,000 MT CO2E per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). For nonstationary sources, the following three separate thresholds have been established:

• Compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy (i.e., if a project is found to be out of compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, its GHG emissions may be considered significant).

• 1,100 MT CO2E per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant).

• 4.6 MT CO2E per service population per year (i.e., emissions above this level may be considered significant). (Service population is the sum of residents plus employees expected for a development project.)

The quantitative threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2E annually adopted by BAAQMD is applied to this analysis. If the project GHG emissions would exceed this threshold then, consistent with BAAQMD Guidelines, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact on climate change.

Initial Study


a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Construction. Construction of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions, which are primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on-road hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. Since the BAAQMD has not established construction-phase GHG thresholds, construction GHG emissions were amortized assuming a 30-year development life after completion of construction and added to operational emissions to compare to the BAAQMD operational GHG threshold. Amortized GHG emissions associated with project construction would result in annualized generation of 7 MT CO2E.

A detailed depiction of the construction schedule—including information regarding phasing, equipment utilized during each phase, haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicles—is included in Appendix A.

Operations. Long-term operational emissions would occur over the life of the project. CalEEMod was used to estimate GHG emissions from motor vehicle trips, grid electricity usage, solid waste, and other sources (including area sources, natural gas combustion, and water/wastewater conveyance).

CalEEMod default mobile source data, including temperature, trip characteristics, variable start information, emission factors, and trip distances, were conservatively used for the model inputs. Project-related traffic was assumed to be comprised of a mixture of vehicles in accordance with the model defaults for traffic. The CalEEMod default trip rate was used, which matched the Traffic Impact Study for the project (W-Trans 2017). It is assumed that the first full year of project operation would be in the year 2019.

CalEEMod was also used to estimate emissions from the project’s area sources, which includes operation of gasoline-powered landscape maintenance equipment, which produce minimal GHG emissions.

The estimation of operational energy emissions was based on CalEEMod land use defaults and total area (i.e., square footage) of the proposed project. Annual natural gas (non-hearth) and electricity emissions were estimated in CalEEMod using the emissions factors for PG&E as a conservative estimate and adjusted to account for 25 percent renewable portfolio standard by 2016. In addition, solar photovoltaic panels would be part of the project, with a total 110 to 120 kW power capacity anticipated to be installed. As a conservative estimate, 110 kW per day was assumed, which would equate to 156,465 kWh per year based on the project location (NREL 2017). This system

Initial Study


performance estimate is also included in Appendix A. The most recent amendments to Title 24, Part 6, referred to as the 2016 standards, became effective on January 1, 2017. The previous amendments were referred to as the 2013 standards. Non-residential buildings constructed in accordance with the 2016 standards are anticipated to use 5 percent less energy for lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation, and water heating than the 2013 standards. Although the project would be required to comply with the 2016 Title 24 standards, CalEEMod default assumptions were conservatively used, which incorporate the 2013 Title 24 standards.

Supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water for the project require the use of electricity, which would result in associated indirect GHG emissions. Similarly, wastewater generated by the proposed project requires the use of electricity for conveyance and treatment, along with GHG emissions generated during wastewater treatment. Water consumption estimates for both indoor and outdoor water use and associated electricity consumption from water use and wastewater generation were estimated using CalEEMod default values. However, compliance with CALGreen indoor and outdoor water reduction standards was assumed.

The proposed project would generate solid waste and would therefore result in CO2E emissions associated with landfill off-gassing. The project was assumed to comply with the 75 percent diversion rate consistent with AB 341 (Chesbro, Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) (25 percent increase from the solid waste diversion requirements of AB 939, Integrated Waste Management Act).

The estimated operational project-generated GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, motor vehicles, solid waste generation, water supply, and wastewater treatment are shown in Table 2.7-1.

Table 2.7-1 Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emission Source CO2E (MT/yr) Area 0.0 Energy 222.1 Mobile 728.3 Solid Waste 7.1 Water Supply and Wastewater 5.8

Total 963.4 Amortized Construction Emissions 7.2

Operation + Amortized Construction Total 970.6 BAAQMD GHG Threshold 1,100

Initial Study


Table 2.7-1 Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emission Source CO2E (MT/yr) Significant (Yes or No)? No Source: Appendix A Note: Total emissions may not sum due to rounding. Project GHG emissions are based on the “Mitigated” CalEEMod outputs in order to incorporate water reduction consistent with CALGreen, solid waste diversion rates consistent with AB 341 and beneficial project features including 110 kW solar electricity generation, even though these would not be considered actual mitigation. CO2E = carbon dioxide-equivalent; MT/year = metric tons per year

Table 2.7-1 indicates that the GHG emissions associated with the project would be below BAAQMD’s GHG threshold of 1,100 MT CO2E per year. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment and this would represent a cumulatively less than significant GHG impact.

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

The City of Rohnert Park has a GHG reduction plan that focuses on municipal operations, and thus is not applicable to the proposed project. The City is working with other jurisdictions to implement the Sonoma County Community Climate Action Plan to serve all of Sonoma County; however, this plan has not yet been adopted.

The Scoping Plan, approved by CARB on December 12, 2008, provides a framework for actions to reduce California’s GHG emissions and requires CARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and other initiatives to reduce GHGs. As such, the Scoping Plan is not directly applicable to specific projects. Relatedly, in the Final Statement of Reasons for the Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, the CNRA observed that “[t]he [Scoping Plan] may not be appropriate for use in determining the significance of individual projects because it is conceptual at this stage and relies on the future development of regulations to implement the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan” (CNRA 2009). Under the Scoping Plan, however, there are several state regulatory measures aimed at the identification and reduction of GHG emissions. CARB and other state agencies have adopted many of the measures identified in the Scoping Plan. Most of these measures focus on area source emissions (e.g., energy usage, high-GWP GHGs in consumer products) and changes to the vehicle fleet (i.e., hybrid, electric, and more fuel-efficient vehicles) and associated fuels (e.g., LCFS), among others. To the extent that these regulations are applicable to the project, the project would comply will all regulations adopted in furtherance of the Scoping Plan to the extent required by law.

Initial Study


Regarding consistency with Senate Bill (SB) 32 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) and Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 (goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050), there are no established protocols or thresholds of significance for that future-year analysis. However, CARB forecasts that compliance with the current Scoping Plan puts the state on a trajectory of meeting these long-term GHG goals, although the specific path to compliance is unknown (CARB 2014). As discussed previously, the project would result in less than significant GHG emissions and would not conflict with the state’s trajectory toward future GHG reductions. In addition, since the specific path to compliance for the state in regards to the long-term goals will likely require development of technology or other changes that are not currently known or available, specific additional mitigation measures for the project would be speculative and cannot be identified at this time. With respect to future GHG targets under SB 32 and EO S-3-05, CARB has also made clear its legal interpretation that it has the requisite authority to adopt whatever regulations are necessary, beyond the AB 32 horizon year of 2020, to meet the reduction targets in 2030 and in 2050; this legal interpretation by an expert agency provides evidence that future regulations will be adopted to continue the state on its trajectory toward meeting these future GHG targets.

Based on the preceding considerations, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and no additional mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures



Impact




Impact No Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Initial Study



Impact




Impact No Impact d) Be located on a site that 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?

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?

2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

The proposed project would allow for future development of a hotel on the vacant, 1.83-acre project site. Construction of the proposed project would involve temporary use of hazardous materials, including fuel for construction equipment, paints, solvents and sealants. Storage, handling, and use of these materials would occur in accordance with standard construction BMPs to minimize the potential for spill or release and ensure that any such spill or release would be controlled onsite. The standard construction BMPs include storing all hazardous materials inside buildings or under other cover, vehicle specifications for hazardous material transport and disposal, procedures for safe storage, and training requirements for those handling hazardous materials. Project construction contractors and future on-site businesses are required by law to implement and comply with existing hazardous material regulations. Because each of these regulations is specifically designed to protect the public health through improved procedures for handling hazardous materials, improved technology in the equipment used to transport these materials, and quicker, more coordinated response to emergencies, impacts related

Initial Study


to the creation of significant hazards to the public through routine transport, use, disposal, and risk of upset during construction would be less than significant.

It is anticipated that hazardous materials used during long-term operation of the proposed project could include building maintenance and cleaning chemicals, as well as other landscaping and pool chemicals. These materials are commonly used across all types of land uses, and the proposed project is not expected to present any significant risks associated with their use. During operation, the proposed project would be required to use, store, and transport hazardous materials in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations during project operation. Each of these regulations is specifically designed to protect the public health through improved procedures for the handling of hazardous materials, better technology in the equipment used to transport these materials, and a more coordinated, quicker response to emergencies. Therefore, impacts related to the creation of significant hazards to the public through routine transport, use, disposal, and risk of upset during project operations would be less than significant.

b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?


c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

The Bergin University of Canine Studies is located at 5860 Labath Avenue, immediately north of Carlson Avenue and northwest of the project site. However, the project would not create hazardous emissions or hazardous waste and would not handle hazardous materials or substances. The project would have no impact related to exposure of the project site to hazards and hazardous materials.

d) Would the project be located on a site that 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?

A search of federal, state, and local databases regarding hazardous material releases and site cleanup lists was conducted for the project site (DTSC 2017). The project area was not identified in any of the records, is not included on the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s site cleanup list, and is not expected to be affected by any offsite spill incidents. The project would have no impact related to the site being included on or affected by

Initial Study


other sites that are included on a hazardous material release site.

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?

There are no airports or airstrips within 2 miles of the project area. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to airport safety.

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?

Refer to the answer provided in ‘e’ above.

g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

The project would not interfere with any adopted emergency or evacuation plans. The City recently approved the development of a new Public Safety facility (fire station) on the property immediately west of the project site. Upon completion of the new fire station, response times in the project area would be reduced. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to implementation of emergency plans.

h) Would the project 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?

The City of Rohnert Park General Plan states that the potential for wildland fires varies within the City (City of Rohnert Park, 2000). The project area is in a local responsibility area (LRA) that does not contain any very high fire hazard severity zones. Most of the area surrounding the project site is already developed with urban land uses. Fire suppression services in the project area are currently and would continue to be provided by the City of Rohnert Park. Because the project area is not in or near an area of high fire hazard severity, and because adequate fire protection services would be provided by a local fire protection district, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures


Initial Study



Impact




Impact No Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project: 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 pre-existing 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?

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?

Initial Study


2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

The largest concentration of impervious surface in the northwest area of Rohnert Park occurs in the existing commercial/industrial areas to the west, south, and east of the project area. The Stadium Area, which is adjacent to the north and west boundaries of the project site, contains large areas of vacant or undeveloped land approved for development. The project site is currently vacant, as well, and the project would allow for future development of a hotel.

Development at the project site would include earth-disturbing activities, grading, and trenching that could expose disturbed areas and stockpiled soils to winter rainfall and stormwater runoff. Areas of exposed or stockpiled soils could be subject to sheet erosion during short periods of peak stormwater runoff, allowing temporary discharges of sediment to Hinebaugh Creek, which empties into Laguna de Santa Rosa. If not managed properly, water used for dust suppression during construction could also enter drainage systems or creeks and ultimately into Laguna de Santa Rosa. Accidental spills of construction-related contaminants (e.g., fuels, oils, paints, solvents, cleaners, and concrete) could also occur during construction, resulting in releases to nearby surface water, and thereby degrading water quality. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 and HYDRO-2 would require adherence to applicable local regulations, and compliance with grading plan requirements would adequately avoid violations of water quality standards and would reduce construction-related impacts on water quality to a less than significant level.

The proposed project could result in changes to drainage patterns and water quality associated with the altered use of the site. Stormwater that drains from the site would potentially carry different or possibly higher concentrations of pollutants into receiving waters. Water used for irrigation of landscaped areas may encounter pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer. Water that encounters these chemicals but is not absorbed by plants and soil could enter the storm drain system and be conveyed to receiving waters. The potential discharges of contaminated urban runoff from paved and landscaped areas with implementation of the proposed project could contribute to adverse effects on aquatic organisms in receiving waters.

Water quality and stormwater runoff is regulated under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) stormwater permit with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). As of

Initial Study


2014, the Storm Drain Design Standards reference the City of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County 2011 LID Manual, as required by the City’s MS4 permit. The manual provides technical guidance for project designs that require the implementation of permanent LID features and stormwater BMPs. The design goal stated in the LID Manual requires that 100 percent of the design storm event (85th percentile, 24 hour) runoff generated from the developed site be treated on-site, and that any increase in runoff volume caused by development or redevelopment for the design storm be infiltrated and/or reused on-site. To meet the design goal, the project would include gravel storage zones under vegetated areas within the site. The total volume of storage required for the project would be reduced based on the use of pollution prevention measures.

Design and construction of drainage systems per the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) Flood Control Design Criteria would ensure that storm drainage systems are adequately sized. Implementation of post-construction BMPs would reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 and HYDRO 2, which include post-construction BMPs, as well as adherence to the City’s SWMP and to state and local regulatory requirements, potential water quality and runoff impacts from development at the project site would be reduced to a less than significant level.

b) Would the project 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 (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Implementation of the proposed project would result in impervious surfaces that would interfere with on-site groundwater recharge. Development associated with the project would be required to comply with the City’s standards and current stormwater BMPs. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with the City’s stormwater drainage standards and the City of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County LID Manual. Design requirements include the treatment of all runoff generated by an 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event and specify that new development or redevelopment must not increase the volume of runoff in an 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. The LID Manual also includes a menu of BMPs that can be used to capture, infiltrate, and/or reuse stormwater on-site. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

c) Would the project 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?

Initial Study


Future development at the project site would require vegetation removal, grading, trenching, and soil movement for the placement of new structures on-site, which would alter drainage courses and runoff patterns from existing conditions. Alterations to existing drainage patterns or flow velocities could result in a short-term increase in erosion or siltation that may have substantial adverse effects on water quality.

Implementation of Measures HYDRO-1 and HYDRO-2 would prescribe specific construction BMPs as part of the SWPPP and ECP, which would reduce the effects of ground disturbance at the site during construction, which in turn would reduce the impact on drainage, erosion, and sedimentation during construction to less than significant level.

Once completed, the project could result in altered drainage patterns that could increase the potential for erosion, siltation, and associated adverse water quality effects on- or off-site. As previously discussed, the City requires all new development projects to design and construct storm drainage systems in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Storm Drain Design Standards, which includes the City of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County’s Manual and associated LID requirements. Adherence to the City’s SWMP would provide for compliance with the City’s MS4 NPDES stormwater permit requirements through the implementation of site-specific stormwater capture and treatment BMPs, as well as maintenance and inspection requirements for those BMPs. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 and HYDRO-2 would also include post-construction stormwater pollution prevention BMPs. In addition, SCWA reviews project drainage system plans for compliance with its Flood Control Design Criteria. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that storm drainage systems are adequately sized to convey post-development runoff. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 and HYDRO-2, adherence to the City’s SWMP, and compliance with SCWA’s design criteria would reduce impacts from erosion and siltation caused by changes in existing drainage patterns to a less than significant level.

d) Would the project 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?

Construction. Construction of the project would require grading and soil disturbance for placement of a new structure on-site, which could substantially alter drainage courses and runoff patterns from existing conditions, and could result in flooding on- or off-site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 and HYDRO-2 would prescribe specific construction BMPs as part of project-specific SWPPPs, which would reduce the

Initial Study


impact of ground disturbance and would reduce the impact on drainage and the rate or amount of surface runoff during construction to less than significant level.

Operations. As described above, the proposed project would not result in a net increase of impervious surfaces. The City requires all new development projects to design and construct storm drainage systems in accordance with the City of Rohnert Park Storm Drain Design Standards, which includes the City of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County’s Manual. The design goal stated in the manual requires that any increase in runoff volume from development or redevelopment for the design storm (85th percentile, 24 hour storm event) be infiltrated and/or reused on-site (City of Santa Rosa and County of Sonoma, 2011). Through compliance with the MS4 Permit requirements, which would include adherence to the City’s SWMP, the proposed project would not result in any increase in runoff volume in comparison to existing conditions, because 100 percent of any increase in stormwater volume would be required to be infiltrated and/or reused on-site.

In addition, SCWA reviews project drainage system plans for compliance with its Flood Control Design Criteria. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that storm drainage systems are adequately sized to convey post-development runoff. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 and HYDRO-2 and adherence to the City’s SWMP, in addition to compliance with SCWA’s design criteria, the proposed plan would not result in flooding or exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Accordingly, this impact would be less than significant.

e) Would the project 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?

The project site is primarily undeveloped, vacant land. Future development of the site would involve covering the site with impervious surfaces such as driveways, parking lot, and buildings. The surfaces would be graded to direct drainage away from structures. The impervious surfaces would reduce surface water infiltration and increase the rate and volume of surface runoff leaving the site.

The existing topography is relatively flat, gently sloping westerly toward Labath Avenue. This project was included as a tributary to the storm drain system within Labath Avenue, where the site currently drains. An existing 30-inch and 36-inch storm drains collect runoff and convey flows westerly down Martin and Carlson Avenues, respectively. These storm drains ultimately converge and outlet into Hinebaugh Creek.

Initial Study


As part of the Five Creek project, a new outfall to Hinebaugh Creek, just west of the existing Labath Avenue Bridge, will be constructed. The new storm drain system is designed to accept runoff from the Residence at Five Creek site, the City Public Safety and Public Works site, and the project site, for a total tributary area of 17.08 acres. The tributary area is less than one square mile and is classified as a minor waterway. The storm drain system is designed to accommodate the 10-year storm event.

Construction of the new storm drain system will be completed in compliance with the Stormwater Phase II regulations administered by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board through permits to the City. With project-specific stormwater detention measures in place and operative, there would be no increase in the runoff rate that leaves the site over the existing site level. Accordingly, impacts related to surface runoff or flooding would be less than significant.

f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Increased runoff from the construction of impermeable surfaces on the project site could lower the quality of stormwater runoff and infiltrating groundwater. The major contributor of contaminants to runoff and infiltrating groundwater is the land surface over which the water passes.

In developed areas, driveways, parking lots, sidewalks, streets and gutters are connected directly to storm drains that collect and guide stormwater runoff. Between rainstorms, materials accumulate on these surfaces from debris dropped or scattered by individuals, street sweepings, debris and other particulate matter washed into roadways from adjacent areas, wastes and dirt from construction and renovation or demolition, fecal droppings from animals, remnants of household refuse dropped during collection or scattered by animals or wind, oil and various residues contributed by automobiles, and fallout of air-borne particles.

During rainfall, stormwater may take several paths when it reaches the ground surface. As water fills surface depressions, it seeps into the ground where the ground is permeable. Where the rate of rain reaching the ground exceeds the rate of infiltration, a film of water builds up on the ground surface. Once this film is of sufficient depth (about 0.1 inch), the water collecting on the ground surface begins to flow. The initial flow of each storm often contains the highest concentrations of pollutants, but this is not always the case because the phenomenon is dependent on the duration of the preceding dry weather period, rainfall patterns, rainfall intensity, the chemistry of individual pollutants, and other site-specific conditions.

Initial Study


If uncontrolled, the accumulation of urban pollutants could have a detrimental cumulative effect because overland flow from paved surfaces and landscaped areas carries many of the above-listed contaminants, thereby contributing to the deterioration of the quality of stormwater runoff and infiltrating groundwater. The eventual result would be the deterioration of water quality in downstream receiving waters. Reaches of drainage-ways downstream from the project site would carry stormwater runoff to Hinebaugh Creek and Laguna de Santa Rosa and, eventually, to the Russian River, which would be subject to water quality deterioration.

The previous discussions of erosion and sedimentation control and storm-drainage system design provide documentation of the requirements to reduce turbidity and capacity effects. The City’s General Plan Policy HS-5 encourages the use of environmentally sensitive drainage improvements to ensure the protection of surface water quality and stream integrity. There would be a less than significant impact regarding pollution from surface water runoff.

g) Would the project 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?

Section 7.2, Drainage, Erosion, Stormwater, and Flooding of the City’s General Plan and Community Panel Number 06097C0877E of FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Sonoma County both place the project site outside the 500-year zone and the 100-year flood hazard area. There are no dams or levees in the vicinity of the project site. The project would not expose people or structures to significant loss related to flooding. The project site is physically removed from any large body of water and is not subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project would have no impact related to flooding or other water-related hazards.

h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

Refer to the answer provided in ‘g’ above.

i) Would the project 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?

Initial Study



Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1: The applicant or its consultant shall apply to the North Coast RWQCB for coverage under the Construction General Permit and prepare a site-specific SWPPP for approval by the North Coast RWQCB before any onsite demolition, grading, or construction activities begin. The SWPPP shall cover pre- and post- construction activities and describe site-specific and construction phase-specific activities detailing the following:

o activities that may cause pollutant discharge (including sediment);

o BMPs, consistent with the requirements of the NPDES permit, to reduce the potential for contaminated runoff, such as limiting ground-disturbing activities during the winter rainfall period, minimizing exposure of disturbed areas and soil stockpiles to rainfall, and minimizing construction activities near or within drainage facilities;

o erosion and sedimentation control measures to be implemented, such as soil stabilization, mulching, silt fencing, or temporary desilting basins; good housekeeping practices, such as road sweeping and dust control; and diversion measures, such as the use of berms to prevent clear runoff from contacting disturbed areas; and

o hazardous materials spill prevention and response measure requirements, including lists of materials proposed for use, handling and storage practices, identification of spill response equipment, spill containment and cleanup procedures, and identification of regulatory notification protocols and contact phone numbers to be used in the event of a spill.

The applicant shall implement the SWPPP, monitoring all BMPs and the parties responsible for them, in conformance with the guidelines set forth in the Construction General Permit.

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-2: The project applicant shall submit a site- specific erosion control plan (ECP) to the City of Rohnert Park City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. All sites that will have grading activities are required to submit an ECP. The ECP shall include the placement of structural and nonstructural stormwater pollution prevention controls that prevent erosion during and after construction. Proper soil stabilization shall be required for all graded areas. A grading permit shall not be issued until all of the required data, including the ECP,

Initial Study


have been submitted and approved. City of Rohnert Park Ordinance 798, Section 15.50.090, provides additional detail regarding excavation, grading, and filling regulations.


Impact




Impact No Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: 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 (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

2.10 Land Use and Planning

a) Would the project physically divide an established community?

Existing business and commercial development and other vacant land surround the proposed project area. Land uses proposed by the project would match the land uses of the surrounding area and would not physically divide an established community. The project would have no impact related to the physical division of an established community.

b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

The project site is designated and zoned Regional Commercial in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Hotel uses are an allowable use in the Regional Commercial zone district. The project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Map, and other City plans and policies. Accordingly, the project would have no impact related to conflicts with any local land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Initial Study


c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

As discussed in Section 2.4 Biological Resources, the project site is located within the area covered by the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy (USFWS 2005). The purpose of the Conservation Strategy is to create a long-term conservation program to assist in the recovery of CTS and four listed plant species. The project site is identified in the Conservation Strategy as “Area Within 1.3 Miles of Known CTS Breeding.” As identified in the Conservation Strategy, impact to CTS is not likely on some lands within 1.3 miles from breeding sites that are surrounded by significant barriers or are otherwise unsuitable CTS habitat. As discussed in Section 2.4 Biological Resources, no CTS have been identified on the project site and neither the site nor the adjacent Hinebaugh Creek provide suitable breeding habitat for CTS. Therefore, future development at the proposed project site would result in no impact to CTS nor result in conflicts with the Conservation Strategy.

Mitigation Measures



Impact




Impact No Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral

resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

2.11 Mineral Resources

a) Would the project 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?

There are no known mineral resources on the subject property and the site is not delineated on the General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site (City of Rohnert Park 2015). Accordingly, the project would have no impact related to the loss of availability of mineral resources.

Initial Study


b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?


Mitigation Measures



Impact




Impact No Impact XII. NOISE – Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise

levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

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?

2.12 Noise

The proposed project site is comprised of 1.83 acres of undeveloped land west of Highway 101 in the City of Rohnert Park. The project area is predominately characterized by existing commercial and industrial/business uses. The property to the west and north of the project site are within the Stadium Lands Master Plan “PD” zone district and are currently undeveloped but planned for development. As part of the recently approved Five Creek development, a hotel,

Initial Study


apartments, a public park, and commercial uses are planned for the land to the north of the project site. The property to the west of the project site will include a new City fire station. The project site is north of Hinebaugh Creek and immediately west of the Ashley Furniture HomeStore. Costco is located to the northeast of the project site.

Existing noise sources affecting the noise environment in the project area include traffic noise from adjacent roadways and noise generated by existing land uses in the project vicinity.

Thresholds of Significance

The project site is located in the City of Rohnert Park, and therefore noise levels are governed by the City of Rohnert Park Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. Chapter 17.12 of the Rohnert Park Code of Ordinances offers performance standards. The ordinance states:

A. No uses or activities shall create noise levels which exceed the following standards:

Table 5: City of Rohnert Park Maximum Noise Levels (dBA) [1]

Zoning District Measured at Property Line or District Boundary

Measured at any Boundary of a Residential District

Between 7PM and 7AM measured at any boundary of a residential zone [4]

Residential 60 [2] N.A. 50 or ambient noise level

Commercial 70 60 50 or ambient noise level

Industrial (4) 70 [3] 60 50 or ambient noise level

Mixed Use 65 [2] 60 50 or ambient noise level

Public/Institutional 65 60 50 or ambient noise level

Open Space 65 60 50 or ambient noise level

1 Levels not to be exceeded more than 5 minutes in any hour 2 The maximum interior noise level for residential uses shall be forty-five dBA with all openings closed. 3 For commercial and industrial properties, the measurement shall be at the property line of the use or activity. 4 Restricted hours may be modified through conditions of an approved conditional, administrative, or temporary use permit.

B. The noise standards above shall be modified as follows to account for the effects of time and duration on noise levels:

1) Noise that is produced for no more than a cumulative period of five minutes in any hour may exceed the above standards by five dBA except between the

Initial Study


hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM.

2) Noise that is produced for no more than a cumulative period of one minute in any hour may exceed the above standards by ten dBA except between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM.

3) Mechanical and electrical equipment shall provide adequate shielding and baffling so that noise levels from such equipment will not exceed the above noise levels when measured at the property line.

The City provides certain exemptions or further restrictions from these operational noise standards. For example, the City prohibits noise producing construction activities in residential zones from between the hours of 6:00 p.m. of one day and 8:00 a.m. of the next day in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance unless beforehand a permit therefore has been duly obtained from the superintendent of public works. The City prohibits noise from mechanical equipment operations to cause the noise level at the property line of any property to exceed the ambient base noise level by more than 5 decibels.

a) Would the project result in 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?

The project proposes to construct a hotel in an area primarily developed with existing commercial and industrial/business uses. During the construction phases of the proposed project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. Project construction activities would occur in a single phase and are anticipated to take nine months to complete. Temporary construction-related noise levels may at times cause minor annoyance, but the City of Rohnert Park does not have construction noise level limits for construction activity occurring within the period between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM daily. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact with implementation of the standard noise control measures included in Mitigation Measure NOI-1.

Existing exterior noise sources in the project area include traffic local streets serving existing commercial and industrial/business developments in the area. Project operation would result in an increase in noise levels associated with vehicle trips to the hotel facility. However, given the existing developed nature of the project area, noise associated with project-related vehicle trips would be expected to be negligible and noise

Initial Study


generated on the project site would not be expected to result in a substantial change in existing noise levels in the project area.

Guests staying at the project would be exposed to parking lot noise from the adjacent Ashely Furniture HomeStore and Costco store to the northeast of the project site. While the proposed project includes an outdoor pool for the hotel guests, the pool would be located behind the building and not adjacent to Martin Avenue. The building would be expected to shield the outdoor pool area from noise on adjacent roadways. To the west of the project site, a new City fire station is planned for development. However, plans for the new station have taken the adjacent land uses into consideration and the site siting, circulation, and building configuration have been designed to minimize noise impacts. For instance, the egress doors of the apparatus bay for the station will be located at the southwest corner of the property and trucks would exit onto Labath Avenue. The City has also indicated that sirens would not be activated for responding vehicles until they have left the station and are oriented south on Labath. Returning trucks will enter the station from an entrance on Martin Avenue, but will not have their sirens activated upon entry. Accordingly, potential noise impacts associated with future development on the project site are expected to be less than significant.

b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

The proposed project would not include equipment or activities capable of producing substantial ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. The only ground vibration potential would be associated with short-term construction of the proposed project. Project construction activities (e.g., earthwork) could expose persons to groundborne vibration; however, these activities are temporary in nature and would not be expected to result in any unusual or excessive vibration levels. In addition, the potential for groundborne vibration to occur is low because the type of equipment used and construction activities would not create the type of vibration that could be experienced by adjacent uses (e.g. pile drivers). Also, as previously stated, the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code (Ord. 152 § 3.1, 1971) limits noise-generating construction activities to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Compliance with the City’s Municipal Code requirements and implementation of the standard noise control measures included in Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would ensure that short-term construction related vibration impacts remain less than significant.

c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Initial Study


After construction of the proposed project, vehicle traffic to and from the site and guest activities onsite would result in a permanent increase in noise levels in the project vicinity. However, project-related operational noise would be similar to and consistent with existing uses within the project vicinity. Noise generated on the project site would not be expected to result in a substantial change in existing noise levels in the project area. This impact would be less than significant.

Area noise levels are not expected to increase significantly due to HVAC or mechanical equipment servicing the project. However, details regarding mechanical equipment are not yet available for review. The City’s Noise Ordinance states that mechanical and electrical equipment shall have adequate shielding and baffling to meet the noise standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would ensure that impacts associated with mechanical noise remain less than significant.

d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Short-term noise would be associated with heavy equipment used for the grading and construction of the project. Daytime construction noise levels at the closest residences to the proposed project could at times cause minor annoyance, but the City of Rohnert Park does not have construction noise level limits for construction activity occurring within the period between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM daily. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact provided that the standard noise control measures included in Mitigation Measure NOI-1 are implemented.

e) Would the project be 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?

The proposed project is not located near a public airport or public use airport. Petaluma Municipal Airport is the closes airport and located approximately over 10 miles away from the proposed project location. There would be no impact associated with airport noise.

f) Would the project be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

The proposed project is not located near a private airstrip. Graywood Ranch Airport in Santa Rosa is the closest private airstrip and located over 10 miles away from the proposed project location. Accordingly, there would be no impact related to airstrip noise exposure.

Initial Study


Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Noise-generating activities at the construction site or in areas adjacent to the construction site associated with the project in any way shall be restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. In addition, all construction activity shall comply with the following requirements:

1. Use available noise suppression devices and properly maintain and muffle loud construction equipment.

2. Avoid the unnecessary idling of equipment and stage construction equipment as far as reasonable from residences.

3. Notify adjacent uses of the construction schedule.

4. Designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.

5. All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, air-inlet silencers where appropriate, and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise-reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification. Mobile or fixed “package” equipment (e.g., arc-welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment.

6. All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the Project that are regulated for noise output by a local, state, or federal agency shall comply with such regulation while in the course of Project activity.

7. Construction site and access road speed limits shall be established and enforced during the construction period.

8. The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only.

Initial Study


9. Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding property owners to contact the job superintendent if necessary.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit documentation that the mechanical equipment does not produce levels exceeding the noise standards or that shielding to be installed will reduce noise levels to those in compliance with City standards.


Impact




Impact No Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,

either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

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?

2.13 Population and Housing

a) Would the project 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)?

The proposed project includes the development of a hotel that would create part-time and full-time jobs in the City. It is anticipated that these positions would be filled by people already residing in the region. The project is not large enough to induce substantial population growth resulting in the need to construct new homes and provide new services for this new population. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly induce population growth because it proposes no significant employment generating uses, other than staffing required for the hotel. It would not indirectly induce population growth because it would not extend roads or infrastructure into previously undeveloped areas. In addition, the project would not displace people or housing because the site is undeveloped and does not provide housing. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant on population and housing in the City of Rohnert Park.

Initial Study


b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The site does not currently support any housing or residential uses. No housing or residents would be displaced by the proposed project and the project would have no impact on housing or require construction of new housing.

c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Refer to answer provided in ‘b’ above.

Mitigation Measures



Impact




Impact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered

governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities?

Initial Study


2.14 Public Services

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire and police protection?

The City of Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety provides police and fire protection services within the City. Employees and guests of the project may require the services of the City of Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety in the event of an emergency.

The nearest fire station is 500 City Center Drive, located approximately 1.2 miles from project site. The project has been designed in compliance with the Uniform Fire and Building Codes to ensure adequate water pressure and water is available in the event of a fire. The hotel would also include fire sprinklers in the event of a fire, per the Uniform Fire Code. The City’s General Plan includes policies and implementation measures that serve to mitigate impacts to the provision of fire services within the City. As previously mentioned, a new Public Safety Facility (fire station) will be constructed on the property to the west of the project site. Once constructed, response times to the project site would be further reduced. The project would not require an expansion of the existing fire station or the construction of a new one. For these reasons, the project would result in a less than significant impact on the City’s fire protection services.

Schools?

The proposed project does not include any residential uses; therefore, the project would not result in a population increase that would require new schools to serve new City residents. For this reason, no impacts on schools would result with development of the proposed project.

Parks and other public facilities?

The proposed project would not introduce a new population to the City needing access to parks or other public facilities or services. Therefore, no impact on other public facilities would occur.

Initial Study


Mitigation Measures



Impact




Impact No Impact XV. RECREATION 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?

2.15 Recreation

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?

The proposed project would not support an increase in residential population that would increase demand for existing park or recreational facilities or require the construction of new or expansion of existing recreational facilities. The existing, paved Hinebaugh Creek trail is located at the southern boundary of the project site adjacent to Hinebaugh Creek. The project would provide a connection to the trial for use by employees and hotel visitors. However, this would not create a substantial increase in use of recreation facilities. Therefore, no impacts to recreational facilities would occur.

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?

As discussed above, the project would include a pedestrian connection from the hotel parking lot to the existing Hinebaugh Creek trail that is located to the south of the project site adjacent to Hinebaugh Creek. Impacts associated with development of the project are discussed throughout this Initial Study and al would be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of included mitigation measures. Accordingly, impacts related to recreational facilities would be less than significant.

Initial Study


Mitigation Measures



Impact




Impact No Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or

policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

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?

2.16 Transportation and Traffic

W-Trans prepared a Traffic Impact Study to analyze the potential traffic impacts that would be associated with the development of the proposed 100-room hotel located at 405 Martin Avenue in the City of Rohnert Park (W-Trans 2017). The traffic study was completed in accordance with the criteria established by the City of Rohnert Park, and is consistent with standard traffic engineering techniques. This report, which was used to complete the assessment below, is included in Appendix C of this Initial Study.

Transportation Setting – Operational Analysis

Initial Study


The project study area consists of the following intersections:

1. Redwood Drive/Business Park Drive 2. Labath Avenue/Martin Avenue 3. Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue 4. Redwood Drive/Martin Avenue 5. Labath Avenue/Rohnert Park Expressway 6. Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway

Operating conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods were evaluated to determine 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

Redwood Drive/Business Park Drive is a signalized “tee” intersection with protected left-turn phasing on the northbound approach. The eastbound approach includes a right-turn overlap signal phase. A marked crosswalk is provided across the west leg of the intersection.

Labath Avenue/Martin Avenue is an unsignalized “tee” intersection with stop controls on the terminating eastbound approach.

Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue currently serves as a through street for vehicles traveling from westbound Martin Avenue to northbound Dowdell Avenue. The southern leg is a driveway serving Ashley Furniture. The recently approved “Residences at Five Creek” project will extend Martin Avenue to Labath Avenue, adding a new western leg at the intersection, resulting in a four-legged, all-way stop-controlled intersection at Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue.

Redwood Drive/Martin Avenue is a four-legged signalized intersection with protected left-turn phasing on the northbound and southbound Redwood Drive approaches. The eastbound Martin Avenue approach includes a right-turn overlap signal phase. Marked crosswalks and pedestrian phasing are provided at each leg of the intersection.

Labath Avenue/Rohnert Park Expressway is a signalized, four-legged intersection, with protected left-turn phasing on all approaches, and right-turn overlap signal phases on the eastbound and westbound approaches. Crosswalks with pedestrian phasing are present on all legs of the intersection.

Initial Study


Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway is a four-legged signalized intersection with protected left-turn phasing on all approaches. The northbound and eastbound approaches include right-turn overlap signal phases. Marked crosswalks and pedestrian phasing are provided at each leg.

The locations of the study intersections and the existing lane configurations and controls are shown Figure 1 of the Traffic Impact Study (included as Appendix C of this Initial Study).

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, obstacles, and barriers can be found along some or 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 safety concerns in those locations where appropriate pedestrian infrastructure would address potential conflict points.

Continuous sidewalk coverage is provided along Martin Avenue, which currently terminates at the northwestern corner of the project site. Sidewalks also exist on the west side of Labath Avenue, north of the project site. On the east side of Labath Avenue there are no sidewalks, apart from a small section spanning 360 feet adjacent to a parking lot on the northwest corner of the project site. A pedestrian crosswalk exists on the south leg of the intersection of Dowdell Avenue/Carlson Court. Though there is only one crosswalk, the intersections of Dowdell Avenue/Carlson Court, Labath Avenue/Carlson Court, and Labath Avenue/Martin Avenue have curb ramps at each leg. Continuous sidewalk is also provided on the west side of Redwood Drive, bordering the existing Costco store northeast of the project site, which connects to Martin Avenue.

Bicycle Facilities

The Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation (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.

Initial Study


• 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.

In the project area, Class II bike lanes exist on Dowdell Avenue, as well as along Redwood Drive and Rohnert Park Expressway. The Santa Rosa De Laguna Trail runs along the southern boundary of the site which extends from the western City limits to Redwood Drive. There are no other existing bicycle facilities present within the study area. However, Class II bike lanes are planned for both Labath Avenue and Martin Avenue, and the City is currently considering options to fill a short gap in the bike lane system on Redwood Drive near Martin Avenue.

Transit Facilities

Sonoma County Transit (SCT) provides regional transit service between Rohnert Park and surrounding Sonoma County communities. SCT Route 44 provides service to the project area and has four stops on Labath Avenue. One northbound and one southbound stop are located on Labath Avenue near the Hinebaugh Creek trailhead, southwest of the project site, and across form North Bay Industries, which is northwest of the project site.

Route 44 operates Monday through Friday with approximately one-hour headways between 5:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. Weekend service for Route 44 does not operate within the project area.

Two to three bicycles can be carried on most SCT buses. Bike rack space is on a first come, first served basis. Additional bicycles are allowed on SCT 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. SCT Paratransit is designed to serve the needs of individuals with disabilities within Rohnert Park and Sonoma County.

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.

Initial Study


The study intersections were analyzed using methodologies published in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Transportation Research Board, 2010. 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.

Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue was analyzed using the “All-Way Stop-Controlled” Intersection methodology from the HCM for all plus Project scenarios. This methodology evaluates delay for each approach based on turning movements, opposing and conflicting traffic volumes, and the number of lanes. Average vehicle delay is computed for the intersection as a whole, and is then related to a Level of Service.

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.

The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 2.16-1.

Table 2.16-1 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

Delay of 55 to 80 seconds. Most, if not all, vehicles must stop and drivers consider the delay excessive.

Initial Study


the side street. 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.

Source: W-Trans (2016) citing Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010

Traffic Operation Standards

The applied thresholds of significance for intersection impacts are based on those included in Policy TR-1 of the Rohnert Park 2020 General Plan, which stipulates that LOS C is the minimum acceptable standard. Policy TR-1 also indicates that intersections operating at LOS D or lower at the time a development application is submitted are allowable, so long as the development results in no further LOS reduction, and provided that no feasible improvements exist to improve the LOS.

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 June 2016 (W-Trans, 2017).

Intersection Levels of Service

Under existing conditions, all study intersections are operating in accordance with minimum acceptable standards except Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which operates at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. A summary of the existing intersection level of service calculations is provided in Table 2.16-2. The Traffic Impact Study (included in Appendix C of this Initial Study) provides the existing traffic volumes in Figure 2 and provides copies of the Level of Service calculations in Appendix A.

Table 2.16-2 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service

Study Intersection Approach

AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 6.0 A 6.4 A 2. Labath Ave/Martin Ave 2.9 A 2.7 A Eastbound (Martin Ave) approach Westbound (Martin Ave) approach

9.3 2.7

A A

10.4 2.7

B A

3. Dowdell Ave/Martin Ave N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Redwood Dr/Martin Ave 8.4 A 13.0 B 5. Labath Ave/Rohnert Park Exp 18.9 B 24.6 C 6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Exp 32.9 C 45.9 D

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; Bold text = deficient operation.

Initial Study


Source: W-Trans 2017

Baseline Conditions

Baseline operating conditions were developed to include trips from the approved projects in the area including:

• “The Reserve,” north of the project site, includes plans for 84 apartment units

• “The Residences at Five Creek,” located just north of the project site, includes 135 apartment units, 34,000 square feet of retail space, a 132-room hotel, and 0.65-acre park

• New buildings for City of Rohnert Park Public Safety and Public Works institutional uses, neighboring the west side of the proposed project, located just south of the Five Creek. 2

Upon the construction of the proposed Residences at Five Creek and the proposed project, Martin Avenue will be extended westward to Labath Avenue. With the extension of Martin Avenue, the intersection of Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue will be reconfigured to an all-way stop controlled intersection.

Additionally, in order to accommodate planned bike facilities on Martin Avenue and to fill a short gap in the adjacent bike lane network on Redwood Drive, a new configuration of the Redwood Drive/Martin Avenue intersection was determined to be necessary. As it currently exists, the south leg of Redwood Drive/Martin Avenue has two northbound left turn lanes, which requires two eastbound travel lanes on Martin Avenue. This configuration does not provide sufficient width to accommodate continuous bike lanes on Martin Avenue and Redwood Drive. The new intersection configuration would eliminate one of the two left-turn lanes on the northbound approach at Redwood Drive/Martin Avenue and adjust the signal phasing to accommodate a longer green time to serve the northbound left-turn movement. The new configurations of both Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue and Redwood Drive/Martin Avenue are explained in greater detail in the Draft Bike Lane Assessment for Redwood Drive and Martin Avenue, February 2017, produced for the City of Rohnert Park by W-Trans. These new configurations were assumed to be in place in the Baseline conditions of this analysis (W-Trans, 2017).

Under these conditions, all study intersections are expected to operate acceptably, except Redwood Drive/ Rohnert Park Expressway, which would continue to operate unacceptably at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. These results are summarized in Table 2.16-3 below.

2 The new City Public Works facility is no longer being planned for development at the referenced site. The Traffic Impact Analysis for the Fairfield Inn project has included the assumed buildout of the Public Works facility in the baseline conditions; thus, the results of the impact analysis are conservative.

Initial Study


Baseline volumes are shown in Figure 3 of the Traffic Impact Study (included in Appendix C to this Initial Study).

Table 2.16-3 Baseline Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service


AM Peak PM Peak Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 6.4 A 6.8 A 2. Labath Ave/Martin Ave 3.0 A 3.0 A Eastbound (Martin Ave) approach 9.8 A 11.0 B Westbound (Martin Ave) approach 13.2 B 14.0 B 3. Dowdell Ave/Martin Ave 8.6 A 9.2 A 4. Redwood Dr/Martin Ave 10.1 A 18.6 B 5. Labath Ave/Rohnert Park Exp 19.3 B 25.4 C 6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Exp 34.2 C 46.9 D

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; Bold text = deficient operation. Source: W-Trans 2017

a) Would the project 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?

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 “Hotel” (ITE LU 310) land uses. For comparison purposes, the trip generation that would be anticipated for the site if it were developed with retail-type uses consistent with the existing Regional Commercial (C-R) zoning was determined using rates for “Specialty Retail” (ITE LU 826). If the site were developed in compliance with the existing zoning, approximately 31,500 square feet of commercial retail space could be built.

The project would be expected to generate an average of 817 trips per day, including 51 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 60 during the p.m. peak hour. With the existing C-R zoning designation, the site would be expected to generate 1,397 trips per day on average, with 30 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 85 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The proposed hotel would generate fewer daily trips and p.m. peak hour, and 23 more trips

Initial Study


during the a.m. peak hour. The expected trip generation potential for the proposed project as well as potential trips with the existing zoning designation is provided in Table 2.16-4 below.

Table 2.16-4 Trip Generation Summary

Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out Proposed Project Hotel 100 rooms 8.17 817 0.53 53 31 22 0.60 60 31 29 Existing C-R Zoning Retail 31,500 sf 44.32 1,397 0.96 30 19 11 2.71 85 38 47

Source: W-Trans 2017

Since future conditions in the study area have been evaluated in the SAMP EIR with higher trip generation assumptions for the project site during the critical p.m. peak hour (which encounters more traffic congestion than the a.m. peak hour in the study area), the “future conditions” analysis provided in the SAMP EIR can reasonably be expected to reflect conditions with the project as currently proposed, so an evaluation of future conditions was not included in this report.

Trip Distribution

The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was based on distributions used in the SAMP and previous traffic studies conducted for projects in the area. The applied distribution assumptions and resulting trips are shown in Table 2.16-6.

Table 2.16-6 Trip Distribution Assumptions for New Trips

Route Percent Daily Trips AM Trips PM Trips Redwood Dr north of Business Park Dr 32% 261 17 19 Labath Ave north of Martin Ave 6% 49 3 4 Martin Ave west of Labath Ave 2% 16 1 1 Rohnert Park Exp west of Labath Ave 6% 49 3 4 Labath Ave south of Rohnert Park Exp 4% 33 2 2 Redwood Dr south of Rohnert Park Exp 15% 123 8 9 Rohnert Park Exp east of Redwood Dr 35% 286 19 21 TOTAL 100% 817 53 60 Source: W-Trans, 2017

Intersection Operation

Existing plus Project Conditions

Initial Study


Upon the addition of project-related traffic to the existing volumes, all the study intersections are expected to operate in accordance with minimum acceptable standards except Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which is expected to continue operating at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4 of the Traffic Impact Study (Appendix C to this Initial Study), and the resulting levels of service are summarized in Table 2.16-7 below.

Table 2.16-7 Existing and Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service


Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak

Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 6.0 A 6.4 A 6.0 A 6.4 A 2. Labath Ave/Martin Ave 2.9 A 2.7 A 2.9 A 2.7 A Eastbound (Martin Ave) approach Westbound (Martin Ave) approach

9.3 2.7

A A

10.4 2.7

B A

9.3 2.7

A A

10.4 2.7

B A

3. Dowdell Ave/Martin Ave* N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.0 A 3.6 A 4. Redwood Dr/Martin Ave 8.4 A 13.0 B 8.6 A 13.5 B 5. Labath Ave/Rohnert Park Exp 18.9 B 24.6 C 19.0 B 24.7 C 6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Exp 32.9 C 45.9 D 33.1 C 46.1 D

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; Bold text = deficient operation; *plus project scenario assumes all-way stop controls (see Site Access section for details on intersection configuration) Source: W-Trans, 2017

As shown in Table 2.16-7 above, the study intersections are expected to continue operating in accordance with minimum acceptable standards upon the addition of project-generated traffic, except for the intersection of Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which would continue operating at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. Since project-generated trips do not cause further reductions in levels of service at this intersection, impacts would be less than significant.

Baseline plus Project Conditions

With project-related traffic added to Baseline volumes, all study intersections are expected to operate in accordance with minimum acceptable standards except Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which would continue to operate at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. These results are summarized in Table 2.16-8 below.

Table 2.16-8 Baseline and Baseline plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service


Baseline Conditions Baseline Plus Project AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak

Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS

Initial Study


1. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 6.4 A 6.8 A 6.4 A 6.8 A 2. Labath Ave/Martin Ave 3.0 A 3.0 A 3.1 A 3.2 A Eastbound (Martin Ave) approach Westbound (Martin Ave) approach

9.8 13.2

A B

11.0 14.0

B B

9.8 13.4

A B

11.1 14.2

B B

3. Dowdell Ave/Martin Ave* 8.6 A 9.2 A 8.6 A 9.3 A 4. Redwood Dr/Martin Ave** 10.1 A 18.6 B 10.3 B 19.4 B 5. Labath Ave/Rohnert Park Exp 19.3 B 25.4 C 19.4 B 25.5 C 6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Exp 34.2 C 46.9 D 34.2 C 47.1 D

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; Bold text = deficient operation; *plus project scenario assumes all-way stop controls (see Site Access section for details on intersection configuration); ** intersection modified to include single left-turn lane as identified in the Draft Bike Lane Assessment for Redwood Drive and Martin Avenue, W-Trans, February 2017 Source: W-Trans 2017

As shown in Table 2.16-8 above, the study intersections are expected to operate in accordance with minimum acceptable standards with the addition of project-generated trips, except Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which would continue operating at an unacceptable level of service during the p.m. peak hour. Since the LOS at Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway is not being further reduced by the proposed project and would remain at the same LOS upon the addition of project-generated traffic, the impacts are considered to be less than significant (W-Trans, 2017).

Pedestrian, Transit, and Bicycle Facilities

Given the proximity of adjacent shopping centers, residential neighborhoods, and recreational facilities near the project site, it is reasonable to assume that some project residents, patrons, and employees would want to walk, bicycle, and/or use transit to reach the site. With the inclusion of sidewalks along the project frontage on Martin Avenue, the Traffic Impact Study concluded that the project site provides adequate pedestrian facilities (W-Trans 2017).

The Traffic Impact Study prepared for the project concluded that existing transit routes are adequate to accommodate project-generated transit trips. Existing stops are within acceptable walking distance of the site (W-Trans 2017).

Existing bicycle facilities, including Class II bike lanes on Dowell Avenue, the Hinebaugh Creek trail, and Redwood Drive as well as the proposed Class II lanes on Labath Avenue and Martin Avenue, would provide bicycle access to the project site. Chapter 17.16.140 of Rohnert Park’s Municipal Code stipulates the number of bicycle parking spaces required for new development. The code requires one bicycle space for every 15 off-street vehicle parking spaces for commercial uses. The proposed project includes 105 vehicle parking spaces, which equates to a bicycle parking requirement of seven spaces. Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which would require the project to include 7

Initial Study


onsite bicycle spaces, would ensure that the project complies with the City zoning code and this impact remains less than significant.

b) Would the project 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?

No applicable congestion management plan exists. Therefore, the proposed plan would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program for designated roads or highways. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

c) Would the project 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?

The proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in air traffic levels or a change in location that would result in substantial safety risks during construction or operation. The closest airports are the Sonoma County Airport and Petaluma Municipal Airport, both more than 10 miles from the project area. There would be no safety risks associated with proximity to airports; therefore, no impact would occur.

d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

The site would be accessed via a new driveway located at the northwest corner of the existing parking lot of Ashley Furniture Store at the intersection of Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue. In addition to the primary site access located at the Martin Avenue and Dowdell Avenue intersection, the project would provide an additional secondary access for emergency vehicles at the southeast corner of the project site from a connection to the Ashley Furniture HomeStore parking lot on the adjacent parcel. There are no anticipated conflicts with the planned access points. Further, there are no barriers to the lines of sight for entering and exiting vehicles.

Given the proposed design and surrounding conditions, the access as proposed is expected to operate acceptably and impacts related to design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant.

e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

Initial Study


As previously discussed, there would be two points of access to the project site. In addition to the primary site access located at the Martin Avenue and Dowdell Avenue intersection, the project would provide an additional secondary access for emergency vehicles at the southeast corner of the project site from a connection to the Ashley Furniture HomeStore parking lot on the adjacent parcel.

Emergency access would be maintained on all roads throughout construction and all internal driveways would be developed to the City’s public street standards and would accommodate emergency vehicle circulation. No impact associated with inadequate emergency access would result from implementation of the proposed project.

f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?


Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure TRA-1: The project shall provide a minimum of seven onsite bicycle spaces for the hotel in compliance with Section 17.16.140 of the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Code.


Impact




Impact No Impact XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal

cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Initial Study


2.17 Tribal Cultural Resources

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

The proposed project would construct a hotel on vacant, previously disturbed property. No tribal cultural resources are known to be present at the site. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) provided a review of their Sacred Lands files on May 5, 2017, which indicated that there is no specific information on the site in the NAHC’s Sacred Lands File.

Assembly Bill (AB) 52 requires lead agencies to consult with California Native American Tribes that request such consultation prior to the agency’s release of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR, or notice of an MND, or Negative Declaration (ND) on or after July 1, 2015. The City of Rohnert Park sent AB 52 letters to Native American tribes in the area to inform them about the project and to offer an opportunity to consult or comment prior to the public circulation of the Notice of Intent. The City received a response from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, indicating they had no comments to provide at that time..

Since there are no known tribal cultural resources on the site, no impacts to these resources would occur with the project.

b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.


Mitigation Measures


Initial Study



Impact




Impact No Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: 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?

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?

2.18 Utilities and Service Systems

a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

As discussed in Section IX Hydrology and Water Quality, wastewater treatment and disposal are provided by the Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System, which also serves the cities of Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, and Cotati. Wastewater from the Subregional System is treated at the Laguna Water Reclamation Plant, located about two miles northwest of Rohnert Park. The City owns capacity rights to 3.43 million gallons per day (MGD) at the Laguna Water Reclamation Plant and has an agreement with the City of Santa Rosa to use up to 4.46 MGD of capacity rights. Under the Subregional System’s approved Incremental Recycled Water Program, the City can acquire up to 5.15 MGD of capacity (City of Santa Rosa 2008). The City’s current capacity needs are

Initial Study


approximately 3.0 MGD, meaning that up to 2.15 MGD of capacity is available to serve new development.

The project applicant has indicated that the project would be expected to generate 12,500 gallons per day GPD) or .012 MGD of wastewater. Because the capacity required to serve the proposed project would be accommodated by the City’s existing approved wastewater capacity and would not result in the need for any new off-site wastewater system expansions, this impact would be less than significant.

b) Would the project 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?

The existing water supply facilities are expected to be sufficient to provide an adequate supply of water to meet the current and future demand of the project. The proposed project alone would not require SCWA to increase its existing water entitlements; as discussed in criterion ‘d’ below, SCWA has an adequate supply to meet the demands associated with the project area. Therefore, the water supply and related facility impacts would be less than significant.

Wastewater treatment and disposal is provided by the Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System. Wastewater from the Subregional System is treated at the Laguna Water Reclamation Plant, located about two miles northwest of Rohnert Park. As discussed in criterion ‘a’ above, the capacity required to serve the project site could be accommodated by the City’s existing approved wastewater capacity and would not result in the need for any new off-site wastewater system expansions. Accordingly, wastewater facility impacts would be less than significant.

c) Would the project 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?

The project site is undeveloped, consisting of vacant land. The existing topography is relatively flat, gently sloping westerly toward the adjacent parcel. This project was included as a tributary to the storm drain system within Labath Avenue, where the site currently drains. An existing 30-inch and 36-inch storm drains collect runoff and convey flows westerly down Martin and Carlson Avenues, respectively. These storm drains ultimately converge and outlet into Hinebaugh Creek. The recently approved Five Creek project on the adjacent parcels includes construction of a new system and outlet at Hinebaugh Creek to drain on-site runoff for 15.25 acres from the Five Creek site, the

Initial Study


City’s Public Safety Facility parcel, and the project site for a total tributary area of 17.08 acres. The tributary area is less than one square mile, and would be classified as a minor waterway. Impacts associated with construction of the new storm drain outlet were previously assessed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Five Creek project.

The proposed project would be required comply with the City’s storm drain standards, including the City of Santa Rosa and County of Sonoma’s Low Impact Development Technical Design Manual (LID Manual). Design requirements include the requirements to treat all runoff generated by the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm and to ensure that the volume of runoff from the site in the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm does not increase as a result of development or redevelopment. The LID Manual includes best management practices that can be used to capture, infiltrate, and/or reuse stormwater on-site. Because the existing stormwater system provides adequate protection to the project area and because existing design requirements minimize any increases in stormwater runoff or changes in stormwater quality, the stormwater-related impacts associated with development of the proposed project would be less than significant.

d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

The City has three water sources: Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) supply, local groundwater, and recycled water. The City manages these supplies using a “conjunctive use” strategy, drawing on SCWA and recycled-water supplies first and using its local groundwater to manage peak demands. The total supply available to the City through these three sources is 11,427 AFY, including 10,077 AFY of potable water and 1,350 AFY of recycled water (City of Rohnert Park 2016).

Under its contract with SCWA, the City has access to as much as 7,500 AFY, although a number of conditions can limit the SCWA supply. Because of these limitations, the City uses 6,372 AFY as its reliable supply from SCWA under all hydrologic conditions. Over the past 10 years, the City has used between 2,500 and 5,000 AFY of SCWA supply, which is significantly less than its maximum allocation (City of Rohnert Park 2016).

The City’s local groundwater supply is from the Santa Rosa Plain Subbasin of the Santa Rosa Valley Groundwater Basin. The City manages its groundwater supply in accordance with its 2004 Water Policy Resolution, which limits groundwater pumping to 2,577 AFY. The City’s 2004 City-wide Water Supply Assessment provides the technical support for this maximum pumping rate. The City participates actively in the implementation of the Santa Rosa Plain Watershed Groundwater Management Plan and is currently working

Initial Study


with other water suppliers in the basin to implement the requirements of the Groundwater Sustainability Act of 2014. Modeling and monitoring data collected by the City and others indicate that groundwater levels are generally rising around the City’s well field, an indication of stable supply. Over the past 10 years the City has used between 350 and 1,600 AFY of groundwater, significantly less than its policy limitation on groundwater use (City of Rohnert Park 2016).

As previously discussed, the City’s tertiary-treated recycled-water supply is produced by the Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System. The City and the Subregional System have recently entered into a producer/distributor agreement that provides the City with access to 1,350 AFY of recycled water. The City uses recycled water primarily for irrigation purposes; demand for recycled water has varied between 800 and 1,100 AFY over the past 10 years (City of Rohnert Park 2016).

The City completed its 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Water Demand and Water Conservation Measures Update. This analysis, which is based on Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) population and job projections, projects the City’s potable water demands through 2040. This demand is expected to range between 5,600 and 6,100 AFY, depending on the level of water conservation undertaken by the City. This projected demand is significantly less than the City’s available water supplies. This analysis also indicates that the City has the potential to secure approximately 500 AFY (the difference between 5,600 and 6,100 AFY) by undertaking more aggressive water conservation activities (City of Rohnert Park 2016).

The existing water supply sources are expected to be sufficient to provide an adequate supply of water for the project. Development at the project site would not require SCWA to increase its existing water entitlements; as discussed above, SCWA has an adequate supply to meet the demands associated with the proposed project. Impacts associated the water supply for the project would be less than significant.

e) Would the project 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?

Refer to the answer provided in ‘b’ above.

f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

The proposed project, consisting of a 100 room hotel development, would generate solid waste. The North Bay Corporation provides solid waste disposal and composting of

Initial Study


organic materials in the city. Waste would be disposed of at the Central Disposal Landfill, which has maximum daily throughput of 2,500 tons per day (City of Rohnert Park 2016). The Landfill has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s disposal needs. Accordingly, the project would have a less than significant impact on the demand for solid waste collection and disposal in the City.

g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Assembly Bill (AB) 939 requires the City to develop and implement a solid waste management program. PRC Section 41780(a)(2) also requires cities and counties to divert 50 percent of the solid waste produced within their respective jurisdictions through source reduction, recycling, and/or composting activities. Since 2007, Senate Bill 1016 has required cities to report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (now known as CalRecycle) the amount of garbage disposed in the landfill per person per day. According to CalRecycle’s jurisdiction/disposal rate detail for SCWMA for the 2011 reporting year (CalRecycle 2013), SCWMA’s residential disposal target is 7.1 pounds per person per day. Rohnert Park’s annual residential disposal rate of 3.6 pounds per person per day met this target in 2014. The employee disposal target (18.3 pounds per employee per day) was also met, with an actual employee disposal rate of 10.2 pounds per employee per day. Waste reduction and disposal framework developed by the City and SCWMA provides guidance for future development. The project would not contain features that would generate waste flows at rates that would exceed typical disposal rates for the City; therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures



Impact




Impact No Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the

quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Initial Study



Impact




Impact No Impact b) Does the project have impacts that are individually

limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

2.19 Mandatory Findings of Significance

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

To ensure that the project does not 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, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, this Initial Study has identified several mitigation measures for implementation. Mitigation Measure BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3 which would require preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls, western pond turtles, and nesting birds, would ensure impacts to special status and migratory birds would be less than significant. Additionally, Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 and HYDRO-2 would reduce the potential for construction to result in the degradation of habitat for special status species.

Though there have been no important historic or prehistoric resources identified on the project site, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3 would ensure that the project has a less than significant impact on cultural resources.

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)?

Initial Study


The analysis provided throughout this Initial Study demonstrates that the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through mitigation. As such, a finding of “less than significant impact with mitigation,” is appropriate for mandatory findings of significance.

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

The analysis provided throughout this Initial Study identifies project impacts that may be potentially significant and identifies mitigation measures that would reduce each impact to a less than significant level. As such, a finding of “less than significant impact with mitigation,” is appropriate for mandatory findings of significance.

Initial Study


3 REFERENCES

3.1 References Cited

14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A through L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance, October 2009. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/revised-draft-ceqa-thresholds-justification-report-oct-2009.pdf?la=en.

BAAQMD. 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, adopted September 15, 2010. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans.

BAAQMD. 2010. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2010. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/draft_baaqmd_ceqa_guidelines_may_2010_final.pdf?la=en.

BAAQMD. 2012, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Guidelines_Final_May%202012.ashx?la=en.

BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.

BAAQMD. 2017b. Spare the Air: Cool the Climate - Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en.

California Public Resources Code, Section 21000–21177. California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2013. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Detail for Sonoma County Waste Management Agency, Reporting Year 2011. Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversionDetail.aspx?JurisdictionID=503&Year=2011. Accessed August 6, 2016.

Initial Study


CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. December 12, 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/psp.pdf.Accessed August 2016.

CARB. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32 – The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May 2014. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_ climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf.

CAT (California Climate Action Team). 2006. Climate Action Team Report to the Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Sacramento, California. March 2006. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006report/2006-04-03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT.PDF.

City of Rohnert Park. 2007. Stadium Area Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. October.

City of Rohnert Park. 2008. Stadium Area Master Plan Final Development Plan. February.

City of Rohnert Park. 2015 (May) (originally adopted 2000). City of Rohnert Park General Plan. Our Place . . . Rohnert Park 2020, A Plan for the Future. Adopted in July 2000; seventh edition printed May 2015. Rohnert Park, CA. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners.

City of Rohnert Park. 2016 (February). Central Rohnert Park Priority Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Certified March 22, 2016 . Prepared by AECOM.

City of Santa Rosa. 2008 (November 18). Proposed Fifth Amendment to the Subregional Agreement for Operation of the Laguna Treatment Plant and Water Reclamation System. Agenda Item #10.5 for Council Meeting of 11/18/2008. Available: http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/doclib/agendas_packets_minutes/Documents/20081118_CC_Item10.5.pdf. Accessed July 26, 2017.

CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB 97. December 2009.

Initial Study


DOC (California Department of Conservation). 2014. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Sonoma County data. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/son14.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2017.

DOC. 2013. Sonoma County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014. Sonoma County data. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Sonoma_13_14_WA.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2017.

DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2017. EnviroStor. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed July 27, 2017.

Dudek. 2017. Biological Constraints Report for the proposed Fairfield Inn Site in Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California. July 7, 2017.

Dudek. 2017a. Preliminary California Tiger Salamander Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Fairfield Inn Site Located in Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California. May 16, 2017.

EPA. 2016. “EPA Region 9 Air Quality Maps and Geographic Information.” Last updated April 27, 2016. http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/maps/.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1995. IPCC Second Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Synthesis of Scientific-Technical Information Relevant to Interpreting Article 2 of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/. Accessed August 2016.

NRCS (U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2014. Web Soil Survey. Available: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Last updated September 2014. Accessed July 27, 2017.

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2017. PVWatts Calculator. Accessed April 2017. http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spot Program – Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health

http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/

Initial Study


Risk Assessments. February 2015. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy. December 1.

W-Trans. 2017. Traffic Impact Study for the Fairfield Inn & Suites Project. April 4, 2017.

APPENDIX A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Calculations

CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1 Outputs Annual, Summer, Winter, Mitigation Report

Off-road Equipment - Building would be modular and shipped to site. Assumed 25% of typical equipment needed (adjusted hrs/day) for building construction based on applicant inputOff-road Equipment - Default equipment for Paving

Off-road Equipment - Default equipment for Architectural Coating

Grading - 4,000 CY of soil exported

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

Project Characteristics - CO2 intensity adjusted based on 25% RPS

Land Use - Land uses: 100-room hotel with a 350 sf swimming pool and 104-space above ground parking lot

Construction Phase - Adjusted default construction schedule based on applicant input

Off-road Equipment - Default equipment for Site Preparation

Off-road Equipment - Default equipment for Grading

CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

559.32 CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)

0.029 N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)

0.006

75

Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2019

Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

1.2 Other Project Characteristics

Urbanization Rural Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days)

Recreational Swimming Pool 0.35 1000sqft 0.01 350.00 0

Parking Lot 104.00 Space 1.00 43,905.00 0

Floor Surface Area Population

Hotel 100.00 Room 0.72 57,670.00 0

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 1 Date: 4/28/2017 11:39 AM

Fairfield Inn & Suites - Sonoma-San Francisco County, Annual

Fairfield Inn & SuitesSonoma-San Francisco County, Annual

tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/7/2017 6/1/2017


tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/30/2017 6/15/2017






tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 13.00




tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 40 15


tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150 50

tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100 50

tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 50.00

tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 50.00

Energy Mitigation - 110 kW of solar power assumed per applicant input, estimated generation of 156,465 kWh/year based on PVWatts Calculator

Water Mitigation - 20% indoor/outdoor reduction in water assumed for CALGreen compliance

Waste Mitigation - 75% waste diversion consistent with AB 341

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

Vehicle Trips - Default traffic trip generation assumed based on TIS

Area Coating - Low-VOC coatings assumed per applicant input

Energy Use - Default energy use intensity

Water And Wastewater - Default water and wastewater

Solid Waste - Default solid waste

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Basic control measures - water exposed area 2x per day and 15mph vehicle speed on unpaved areas

Trips and VMT - Building would be modular and shipped to site on 60 trucks (120 one-way trips) -- assumed 60 mile triplength to account for potential travel from Bay AreaArchitectural Coating - Low-VOC coatings will be used per applicant input

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall ConstructionUnmitigated Construction

tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 13.60 0.00

tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 33.82 0.00

tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 0.00 120.00

tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.10 0.00

tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural

tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 60.00

tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 559.32

tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2019

tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 1.50




tblLandUse RecSwimmingAreaSquareFeet 350.00 0.00


tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.33 0.72


tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 145,200.00 57,670.00


tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeet 41,600.00 43,905.00

tblLandUse BuildingSpaceSquareFeet 0.00 350.00

tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 4,000.00


tblGrading AcresOfGrading 16.50 1.50




4 3-1-2018 5-31-2018 0.0030 0.0030

2 9-1-2017 11-30-2017 0.3624 0.3624

3 12-1-2017 2-28-2018 0.4660 0.4660

Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)

1 6-1-2017 8-31-2017 1.0511 1.0511

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0038.09 0.00 27.76 45.07 0.00 25.50

NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e

Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10

0.0000 177.4888 177.4888 0.0276 0.0000 178.17840.1026 0.0602 0.1628 0.0438 0.0568 0.1006Maximum 0.2272 1.3573 0.8468 1.9400e-003

0.0000 36.3124 36.3124 3.7500e-003

0.0000 36.40610.0136 9.6300e-003

0.0232 3.6300e-003

9.4000e-003

0.01302018 0.1014 0.2051 0.1825 4.1000e-004

0.0000 177.4888 177.4888 0.0276 0.0000 178.17840.1026 0.0602 0.1628 0.0438 0.0568 0.10062017 0.2272 1.3573 0.8468 1.9400e-003

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Year tons/yr MT/yr

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

0.0000 177.4889 177.4889 0.0276 0.0000 178.17850.1740 0.0602 0.2342 0.0827 0.0568 0.1395Maximum 0.2272 1.3573 0.8468 1.9400e-003

0.0000 36.3124 36.3124 3.7500e-003

0.0000 36.40610.0136 9.6300e-003

0.0232 3.6300e-003

9.4000e-003

0.01302018 0.1014 0.2051 0.1825 4.1000e-004

0.0000 177.4889 177.4889 0.0276 0.0000 178.17850.1740 0.0602 0.2342 0.0827 0.0568 0.13952017 0.2272 1.3573 0.8468 1.9400e-003

NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Year tons/yr MT/yr

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


2.8794 0.0000 2.8794 0.1702 0.0000 7.13370.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Waste

0.0000 727.3452 727.3452 0.0379 0.0000 728.29230.5860 0.0131 0.5991 0.1578 0.0124 0.1702Mobile 0.3089 1.4337 3.2685 7.9400e-003

0.0000 220.9153 220.9153 6.9800e-003

3.4100e-003

222.10659.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

Energy 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-004

0.0000 3.6500e-003

3.6500e-003

1.0000e-005

0.0000 3.9000e-003

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

Area 0.2440 2.0000e-005

1.9000e-003

0.0000


Category tons/yr MT/yr

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

Mitigated Operational


Exhaust PM10

12.3291 991.7321 1,004.0611 0.8112 5.8500e-003

1,026.0815

0.5860 0.0227 0.6087 0.1578 0.0220 0.1797Total 0.5667 1.5595 3.3761 8.6900e-003

0.8113 3.7723 4.5836 0.0835 2.0100e-003

7.27020.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Water

11.5177 0.0000 11.5177 0.6807 0.0000 28.53460.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Waste

0.0000 727.3452 727.3452 0.0379 0.0000 728.29230.5860 0.0131 0.5991 0.1578 0.0124 0.1702Mobile 0.3089 1.4337 3.2685 7.9400e-003

0.0000 260.6110 260.6110 9.0400e-003

3.8400e-003

261.98059.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

Energy 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-004

0.0000 3.6500e-003

3.6500e-003

1.0000e-005

0.0000 3.9000e-003

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

Area 0.2440 2.0000e-005

1.9000e-003

0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

2.2 Overall OperationalUnmitigated Operational


Exhaust PM10

Highest 1.0511 1.0511

Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41

Building Construction Forklifts 1 1.50 89 0.20

Building Construction Cranes 1 1.50 231 0.29

Building Construction Generator Sets 1 2.00 84 0.74

Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9 0.56

Load Factor

Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48

OffRoad Equipment

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power

86

Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1

Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1.5

Acres of Paving: 1

Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 87,030; Non-Residential Outdoor: 29,010; Striped Parking Area:

5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/1/2017 2/28/2018 5

196

4 Paving Paving 8/15/2017 8/31/2017 5 13

3 Building Construction Building Construction 6/1/2017 3/1/2018 5

11

2 Grading Grading 6/1/2017 8/1/2017 5 44

End Date Num Days Week

Num Days Phase Description

1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/1/2017 6/15/2017 5

3.0 Construction Detail

Construction Phase

Phase Number

Phase Name Phase Type Start Date

71.38 4.08 4.91 65.25 14.19 6.110.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


3.5285 951.2820 954.8105 0.2819 5.0200e-003

963.35250.5860 0.0227 0.6087 0.1578 0.0220 0.1797Total 0.5667 1.5595 3.3761 8.6900e-003

0.6491 3.0178 3.6669 0.0668 1.6100e-003

5.81620.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Water

Water Exposed Area

Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

Clean Paved Roads

3.2 Site Preparation - 2017Unmitigated Construction On-Site

6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80

10.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT


Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00

Grading 3 8.00 0.00 500.00 10.80



Building Construction 7 43.00 17.00 120.00

Architectural Coating 1 9.00 0.00 0.00 10.80

Worker Trip Length

Vendor Trip Length

Hauling Trip Length

Worker Vehicle Class

Vendor Vehicle Class

Hauling Vehicle Class

Trips and VMT

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count

Worker Trip Number

Vendor Trip Number

Hauling Trip Number

Building Construction Welders 3 2.00 46 0.45

Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247 0.40

Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36

Grading Graders 1 6.00 187 0.41

Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37

Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37

Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37

Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 1.50 97 0.37

Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6.00 247 0.40

Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38

Paving Pavers 1 6.00 130 0.42

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0133 0.0000 0.0133 7.1900e-003

0.0000 7.1900e-003

Fugitive Dust



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

Mitigated Construction On-Site


Exhaust PM10

0.0000 0.3473 0.3473 2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.34773.5000e-004

0.0000 3.5000e-004

9.0000e-005

0.0000 9.0000e-005

Total 2.8000e-004

2.2000e-004

2.2000e-003

0.0000

0.0000 0.3473 0.3473 2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.34773.5000e-004

0.0000 3.5000e-004

9.0000e-005

0.0000 9.0000e-005

Worker 2.8000e-004

2.2000e-004

2.2000e-003

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site


Exhaust PM10

0.0000 8.8027 8.8027 2.7000e-003

0.0000 8.87010.0295 5.7500e-003

0.0353 0.0160 5.2900e-003

0.0213Total 0.0106 0.1222 0.0462 9.0000e-005

0.0000 8.8027 8.8027 2.7000e-003

0.0000 8.87015.7500e-003

5.7500e-003

5.2900e-003

5.2900e-003

Off-Road 0.0106 0.1222 0.0462 9.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0295 0.0000 0.0295 0.0160 0.0000 0.0160

CO2e


Fugitive Dust

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OSO2 Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

ROG NOx CO


0.0000 28.8373 28.8373 8.8400e-003

0.0000 29.05820.1004 0.0192 0.1196 0.0547 0.0177 0.0724Total 0.0353 0.4024 0.1548 3.1000e-004

0.0000 28.8373 28.8373 8.8400e-003

0.0000 29.05820.0192 0.0192 0.0177 0.0177Off-Road 0.0353 0.4024 0.1548 3.1000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.1004 0.0000 0.1004 0.0547 0.0000 0.0547Fugitive Dust



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

3.3 Grading - 2017Unmitigated Construction On-Site


Exhaust PM10

0.0000 0.3473 0.3473 2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.34773.5000e-004

0.0000 3.5000e-004

9.0000e-005

0.0000 9.0000e-005

Total 2.8000e-004

2.2000e-004

2.2000e-003

0.0000

0.0000 0.3473 0.3473 2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.34773.5000e-004

0.0000 3.5000e-004

9.0000e-005

0.0000 9.0000e-005

Worker 2.8000e-004

2.2000e-004

2.2000e-003

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

Mitigated Construction Off-Site


Exhaust PM10

0.0000 8.8027 8.8027 2.7000e-003

0.0000 8.87010.0133 5.7500e-003

0.0190 7.1900e-003

5.2900e-003

0.0125Total 0.0106 0.1222 0.0462 9.0000e-005

0.0000 8.8027 8.8027 2.7000e-003

0.0000 8.87015.7500e-003

5.7500e-003

5.2900e-003

5.2900e-003

Off-Road 0.0106 0.1222 0.0462 9.0000e-005



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 28.8373 28.8373 8.8400e-003

0.0000 29.05820.0452 0.0192 0.0644 0.0246 0.0177 0.0423Total 0.0353 0.4024 0.1548 3.1000e-004

0.0000 28.8373 28.8373 8.8400e-003

0.0000 29.05820.0192 0.0192 0.0177 0.0177Off-Road 0.0353 0.4024 0.1548 3.1000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0452 0.0000 0.0452 0.0246 0.0000 0.0246Fugitive Dust



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 21.2743 21.2743 1.3600e-003

0.0000 21.30835.5300e-003

7.5000e-004

6.2800e-003

1.5100e-003

7.2000e-004

2.2300e-003

Total 4.2400e-003

0.0954 0.0288 2.2000e-004

0.0000 1.3892 1.3892 7.0000e-005

0.0000 1.39091.3800e-003

1.0000e-005

1.3900e-003

3.7000e-004

1.0000e-005

3.8000e-004

Worker 1.1300e-003

9.0000e-004

8.7900e-003

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 19.8852 19.8852 1.2900e-003

0.0000 19.91744.1500e-003

7.4000e-004

4.8900e-003

1.1400e-003

7.1000e-004

1.8500e-003

Hauling 3.1100e-003

0.0945 0.0200 2.0000e-004



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

0.0000 67.2487 67.2487 4.1600e-003

0.0000 67.35260.0361 2.5100e-003

0.0386 9.7800e-003

2.3900e-003

0.0122Total 0.0306 0.2434 0.2285 7.2000e-004

0.0000 25.7944 25.7944 1.2700e-003

0.0000 25.82620.0257 2.4000e-004

0.0259 6.8300e-003

2.2000e-004

7.0500e-003

Worker 0.0209 0.0166 0.1632 2.9000e-004

0.0000 31.0430 31.0430 2.3500e-003

0.0000 31.10177.5800e-003

1.8700e-003

9.4500e-003

2.1900e-003

1.7900e-003

3.9800e-003

Vendor 8.1900e-003

0.1832 0.0561 3.2000e-004

0.0000 10.4113 10.4113 5.4000e-004

0.0000 10.42472.8200e-003

4.0000e-004

3.2200e-003

7.6000e-004

3.8000e-004

1.1400e-003

Hauling 1.4900e-003

0.0437 9.2200e-003

1.1000e-004



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 35.2291 35.2291 7.4100e-003

0.0000 35.41430.0234 0.0234 0.0226 0.0226Total 0.0563 0.3655 0.2728 4.2000e-004

0.0000 35.2291 35.2291 7.4100e-003

0.0000 35.41430.0234 0.0234 0.0226 0.0226Off-Road 0.0563 0.3655 0.2728 4.2000e-004



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

3.4 Building Construction - 2017Unmitigated Construction On-Site


Exhaust PM10

0.0000 21.2743 21.2743 1.3600e-003

0.0000 21.30835.5300e-003

7.5000e-004

6.2800e-003

1.5100e-003

7.2000e-004

2.2300e-003

Total 4.2400e-003

0.0954 0.0288 2.2000e-004

0.0000 1.3892 1.3892 7.0000e-005

0.0000 1.39091.3800e-003

1.0000e-005

1.3900e-003

3.7000e-004

1.0000e-005

3.8000e-004

Worker 1.1300e-003

9.0000e-004

8.7900e-003

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 19.8852 19.8852 1.2900e-003

0.0000 19.91744.1500e-003

7.4000e-004

4.8900e-003

1.1400e-003

7.1000e-004

1.8500e-003

Hauling 3.1100e-003

0.0945 0.0200 2.0000e-004


0.0000 67.2487 67.2487 4.1600e-003

0.0000 67.35260.0361 2.5100e-003

0.0386 9.7800e-003

2.3900e-003

0.0122Total 0.0306 0.2434 0.2285 7.2000e-004

0.0000 25.7944 25.7944 1.2700e-003

0.0000 25.82620.0257 2.4000e-004

0.0259 6.8300e-003

2.2000e-004

7.0500e-003

Worker 0.0209 0.0166 0.1632 2.9000e-004

0.0000 31.0430 31.0430 2.3500e-003

0.0000 31.10177.5800e-003

1.8700e-003

9.4500e-003

2.1900e-003

1.7900e-003

3.9800e-003

Vendor 8.1900e-003

0.1832 0.0561 3.2000e-004

0.0000 10.4113 10.4113 5.4000e-004

0.0000 10.42472.8200e-003

4.0000e-004

3.2200e-003

7.6000e-004

3.8000e-004

1.1400e-003

Hauling 1.4900e-003

0.0437 9.2200e-003

1.1000e-004



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 35.2290 35.2290 7.4100e-003

0.0000 35.41420.0234 0.0234 0.0226 0.0226Total 0.0563 0.3655 0.2728 4.2000e-004

0.0000 35.2290 35.2290 7.4100e-003

0.0000 35.41420.0234 0.0234 0.0226 0.0226Off-Road 0.0563 0.3655 0.2728 4.2000e-004



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 10.1329 10.1329 2.0400e-003

0.0000 10.18395.8200e-003

5.8200e-003

5.6200e-003

5.6200e-003

Off-Road 0.0143 0.0959 0.0763 1.2000e-004



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 19.2034 19.2034 1.1100e-003

0.0000 19.23140.0120 5.6000e-004

0.0126 3.2200e-003

5.3000e-004

3.7600e-003

Total 7.7700e-003

0.0652 0.0578 2.0000e-004

0.0000 7.2679 7.2679 3.2000e-004

0.0000 7.27607.4200e-003

7.0000e-005

7.4900e-003

1.9800e-003

6.0000e-005

2.0400e-003

Worker 5.4200e-003

4.2100e-003

0.0415 8.0000e-005

0.0000 8.9612 8.9612 6.4000e-004

0.0000 8.97722.1900e-003

4.2000e-004

2.6100e-003

6.3000e-004

4.0000e-004

1.0400e-003

Vendor 2.0000e-003

0.0498 0.0140 9.0000e-005

0.0000 2.9744 2.9744 1.5000e-004

0.0000 2.97822.4200e-003

7.0000e-005

2.4900e-003

6.1000e-004

7.0000e-005

6.8000e-004

Hauling 3.5000e-004

0.0113 2.3200e-003

3.0000e-005



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 10.1329 10.1329 2.0400e-003

0.0000 10.18395.8200e-003

5.8200e-003

5.6200e-003

5.6200e-003

Total 0.0143 0.0959 0.0763 1.2000e-004

0.0000 10.1329 10.1329 2.0400e-003

0.0000 10.18395.8200e-003

5.8200e-003

5.6200e-003

5.6200e-003

Off-Road 0.0143 0.0959 0.0763 1.2000e-004



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10


0.0000 8.0657 8.0657 2.4300e-003

0.0000 8.12634.8200e-003

4.8200e-003

4.4400e-003

4.4400e-003

Total 9.1200e-003

0.0797 0.0595 9.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 1.3100e-003

0.0000 8.0657 8.0657 2.4300e-003

0.0000 8.12634.8200e-003

4.8200e-003

4.4400e-003

4.4400e-003

Off-Road 7.8100e-003

0.0797 0.0595 9.0000e-005



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

3.5 Paving - 2017Unmitigated Construction On-Site


Exhaust PM10

0.0000 19.2034 19.2034 1.1100e-003

0.0000 19.23140.0120 5.6000e-004

0.0126 3.2200e-003

5.3000e-004

3.7600e-003

Total 7.7700e-003

0.0652 0.0578 2.0000e-004

0.0000 7.2679 7.2679 3.2000e-004

0.0000 7.27607.4200e-003

7.0000e-005

7.4900e-003

1.9800e-003

6.0000e-005

2.0400e-003

Worker 5.4200e-003

4.2100e-003

0.0415 8.0000e-005

0.0000 8.9612 8.9612 6.4000e-004

0.0000 8.97722.1900e-003

4.2000e-004

2.6100e-003

6.3000e-004

4.0000e-004

1.0400e-003

Vendor 2.0000e-003

0.0498 0.0140 9.0000e-005

0.0000 2.9744 2.9744 1.5000e-004

0.0000 2.97822.4200e-003

7.0000e-005

2.4900e-003

6.1000e-004

7.0000e-005

6.8000e-004

Hauling 3.5000e-004

0.0113 2.3200e-003

3.0000e-005



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 10.1329 10.1329 2.0400e-003

0.0000 10.18395.8200e-003

5.8200e-003

5.6200e-003

5.6200e-003

Total 0.0143 0.0959 0.0763 1.2000e-004



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 8.0657 8.0657 2.4300e-003

0.0000 8.12634.8200e-003

4.8200e-003

4.4400e-003

4.4400e-003

Total 9.1200e-003

0.0797 0.0595 9.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 1.3100e-003

0.0000 8.0657 8.0657 2.4300e-003

0.0000 8.12634.8200e-003

4.8200e-003

4.4400e-003

4.4400e-003


0.0797 0.0595 9.0000e-005



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 0.6670 0.6670 3.0000e-005

0.0000 0.66786.6000e-004

1.0000e-005

6.7000e-004

1.8000e-004

1.0000e-005

1.8000e-004

Total 5.4000e-004

4.3000e-004

4.2200e-003

1.0000e-005

0.0000 0.6670 0.6670 3.0000e-005

0.0000 0.66786.6000e-004

1.0000e-005

6.7000e-004

1.8000e-004

1.0000e-005

1.8000e-004

Worker 5.4000e-004

4.3000e-004

4.2200e-003

1.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10

0.0000 1.5273 1.5273 8.0000e-005

0.0000 1.52921.5200e-003

1.0000e-005

1.5300e-003

4.0000e-004

1.0000e-005

4.2000e-004

Total 1.2400e-003

9.8000e-004

9.6600e-003

2.0000e-005

0.0000 1.5273 1.5273 8.0000e-005

0.0000 1.52921.5200e-003

1.0000e-005

1.5300e-003

4.0000e-004

1.0000e-005

4.2000e-004

Worker 1.2400e-003

9.8000e-004

9.6600e-003

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 5.4895 5.4895 5.8000e-004

0.0000 5.50403.7300e-003

3.7300e-003

3.7300e-003

3.7300e-003

Total 0.0790 0.0470 0.0402 6.0000e-005

0.0000 5.4895 5.4895 5.8000e-004

0.0000 5.50403.7300e-003

3.7300e-003

3.7300e-003

3.7300e-003


0.0470 0.0402 6.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.0718



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2017Unmitigated Construction On-Site


Exhaust PM10

0.0000 0.6670 0.6670 3.0000e-005

0.0000 0.66786.6000e-004

1.0000e-005

6.7000e-004

1.8000e-004

1.0000e-005

1.8000e-004

Total 5.4000e-004

4.3000e-004

4.2200e-003

1.0000e-005

0.0000 0.6670 0.6670 3.0000e-005

0.0000 0.66786.6000e-004

1.0000e-005

6.7000e-004

1.8000e-004

1.0000e-005

1.8000e-004

Worker 5.4000e-004

4.3000e-004

4.2200e-003

1.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000


0.0000 1.5273 1.5273 8.0000e-005

0.0000 1.52921.5200e-003

1.0000e-005

1.5300e-003

4.0000e-004

1.0000e-005

4.2000e-004

Total 1.2400e-003

9.8000e-004

9.6600e-003

2.0000e-005

0.0000 1.5273 1.5273 8.0000e-005

0.0000 1.52921.5200e-003

1.0000e-005

1.5300e-003

4.0000e-004

1.0000e-005

4.2000e-004

Worker 1.2400e-003

9.8000e-004

9.6600e-003

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 5.4895 5.4895 5.8000e-004

0.0000 5.50403.7300e-003

3.7300e-003

3.7300e-003

3.7300e-003

Total 0.0790 0.0470 0.0402 6.0000e-005

0.0000 5.4895 5.4895 5.8000e-004

0.0000 5.50403.7300e-003

3.7300e-003

3.7300e-003

3.7300e-003


0.0470 0.0402 6.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.0718



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.0718



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 1.4866 1.4866 7.0000e-005

0.0000 1.48831.5200e-003

1.0000e-005

1.5300e-003

4.0000e-004

1.0000e-005

4.2000e-004

Total 1.1100e-003

8.6000e-004

8.4800e-003

2.0000e-005

0.0000 1.4866 1.4866 7.0000e-005

0.0000 1.48831.5200e-003

1.0000e-005

1.5300e-003

4.0000e-004

1.0000e-005

4.2000e-004

Worker 1.1100e-003

8.6000e-004

8.4800e-003

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 5.4895 5.4895 5.2000e-004

0.0000 5.50263.2400e-003

3.2400e-003

3.2400e-003

3.2400e-003

Total 0.0782 0.0431 0.0399 6.0000e-005

0.0000 5.4895 5.4895 5.2000e-004

0.0000 5.50263.2400e-003

3.2400e-003

3.2400e-003

3.2400e-003


0.0431 0.0399 6.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 0.0718



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10

0.0000 727.3452 727.3452 0.0379 0.0000 728.29230.5860 0.0131 0.5991 0.1578 0.0124 0.1702Unmitigated 0.3089 1.4337 3.2685 7.9400e-003

0.0000 727.3452 727.3452 0.0379 0.0000 728.29230.5860 0.0131 0.5991 0.1578 0.0124 0.1702Mitigated 0.3089 1.4337 3.2685 7.9400e-003



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile


0.0000 1.4866 1.4866 7.0000e-005

0.0000 1.48831.5200e-003

1.0000e-005

1.5300e-003

4.0000e-004

1.0000e-005

4.2000e-004

Total 1.1100e-003

8.6000e-004

8.4800e-003

2.0000e-005

0.0000 1.4866 1.4866 7.0000e-005

0.0000 1.48831.5200e-003

1.0000e-005

1.5300e-003

4.0000e-004

1.0000e-005

4.2000e-004

Worker 1.1100e-003

8.6000e-004

8.4800e-003

2.0000e-005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 5.4895 5.4895 5.2000e-004

0.0000 5.50253.2400e-003

3.2400e-003

3.2400e-003

3.2400e-003

Total 0.0782 0.0431 0.0399 6.0000e-005

0.0000 5.4895 5.4895 5.2000e-004

0.0000 5.50253.2400e-003

3.2400e-003

3.2400e-003

3.2400e-003


0.0431 0.0399 6.0000e-005

5.0 Energy Detail

Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

Kilowatt Hours of Renewable Electricity Generated

0.025150 0.002984 0.002020 0.005725 0.000869 0.001276

0.000869 0.001276

Recreational Swimming Pool 0.558294 0.043613 0.174269 0.117152 0.033155 0.007464 0.028029

0.007464 0.028029 0.025150 0.002984 0.002020 0.005725Parking Lot 0.558294 0.043613 0.174269 0.117152 0.033155

0.025150 0.002984 0.002020 0.005725 0.000869 0.001276

SBUS MH

Hotel 0.558294 0.043613 0.174269 0.117152 0.033155 0.007464 0.028029

LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCYLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1

48.00 19.00 52 39 9

4.4 Fleet Mix

0.00 0.00 0 0 0

Recreational Swimming Pool 14.70 6.60 6.60 33.00

61.60 19.00 58 38 4

Parking Lot 14.70 6.60 6.60 0.00

H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by

Hotel 14.70 6.60 6.60 19.40

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W

Total 817.00 819.00 595.00 1,578,346 1,578,346Recreational Swimming Pool 0.00 0.00 0.00

Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00

Annual VMT

Hotel 817.00 819.00 595.00 1,578,346 1,578,346

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated MitigatedLand Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT

2.5100e-003

137.79319.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

0.0000 136.9791 136.9791 2.6300e-003

0.1057 7.5000e-004

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

CO2e

Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

Hotel 2.56689e+006

0.0138 0.1258

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

NaturalGas Use

ROG NOx CO

136.9791 2.6300e-003

2.5100e-003

137.7931

Mitigated

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

0.0000 136.9791

0.0000

Total 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-004

9.5600e-003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Recreational Swimming Pool

0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

137.7931

Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

9.5600e-003

0.0000 136.9791 136.9791 2.6300e-003

2.5100e-003

7.5000e-004

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

Hotel 2.56689e+006

0.0138 0.1258 0.1057


Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

Unmitigated

NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

136.9791 136.9791 2.6300e-003

2.5100e-003

137.7931

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

0.0000

2.6300e-003

2.5100e-003

137.7931

NaturalGas Unmitigated

0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-004

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

0.0000 136.9791 136.9791

124.1874

NaturalGas Mitigated

0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-004

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

0.0000 0.0000 123.6319 123.6319 6.4100e-003

1.3300e-003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

83.9362 83.9362 4.3500e-003

9.0000e-004

84.3133

Electricity Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000


Electricity Mitigated

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eFugitive PM10

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

ROG NOx CO SO2

-13.2914

Total 83.9362 4.3500e-003

9.0000e-004

84.3133


-52155 -13.2319 -0.0007 -0.0001

101.0498

Parking Lot -13518.6 -3.4297 -0.0002 0.0000 -3.4451

Land Use kWh/yr ton

MT/yr

Hotel 396518 100.5978 5.2200e-003

1.0800e-003

Mitigated

Electricity Use


0.0000

Total 123.6319 6.4100e-003

1.3300e-003

124.1874


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

114.3411

Parking Lot 38636.4 9.8022 5.1000e-004

1.1000e-004

9.8462

Land Use kWh/yr ton

MT/yr

Hotel 448673 113.8297 5.9000e-003

1.2200e-003

Unmitigated

Electricity Use


136.9791 136.9791 2.6300e-003

2.5100e-003

137.7931

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

9.5600e-003

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000

Total 0.0138 0.1258 0.1057 7.5000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000


0 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mitigated

0.0000 3.6500e-003

3.6500e-003

1.0000e-005

0.0000 3.9000e-003

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

Total 0.2440 2.0000e-005

1.9000e-003

0.0000

0.0000 3.6500e-003

3.6500e-003

1.0000e-005

0.0000 3.9000e-003

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

Landscaping 1.8000e-004

2.0000e-005

1.9000e-003

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products

0.2294

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating

0.0144


SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

6.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigated


Exhaust PM10

0.0000 3.6500e-003

3.6500e-003

1.0000e-005

0.0000 3.9000e-003

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

Unmitigated 0.2440 2.0000e-005

1.9000e-003

0.0000

0.0000 3.6500e-003

3.6500e-003

1.0000e-005

0.0000 3.9000e-003

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

Mitigated 0.2440 2.0000e-005

1.9000e-003

0.0000



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area


7.2 Water by Land UseUnmitigated

Unmitigated 4.5836 0.0835 2.0100e-003

7.2702

Category ton

MT/yr

Mitigated 3.6669 0.0668 1.6100e-003

5.8162

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

Apply Water Conservation Strategy


0.0000 3.6500e-003

3.6500e-003

1.0000e-005

0.0000 3.9000e-003

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

Total 0.2440 2.0000e-005

1.9000e-003

0.0000

0.0000 3.6500e-003

3.6500e-003

1.0000e-005

0.0000 3.9000e-003

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005

1.0000e-005


2.0000e-005

1.9000e-003

0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products

0.2294

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating

0.0144


SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

Institute Recycling and Composting Services

Category/Year

0.0544

Total 3.6669 0.0668 1.6000e-003

5.8162


0.0165601 /

0 0101497

0.0370 5.4000e-004

1.0000e-005

5.7618

Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Land Use Mgal ton

MT/yr

Hotel 2.02934 / 0.225482

3.6299 0.0663 1.5900e-003

Mitigated

Indoor/Outdoor Use


0.0680

Total 4.5836 0.0835 2.0100e-003

7.2702


0.0207001 /

0 0126872

0.0463 6.8000e-004

2.0000e-005

7.2022

Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Land Use Mgal ton

MT/yr

Hotel 2.53668 / 0.281853

4.5374 0.0829 1.9900e-003

Indoor/Outdoor Use


6.8835

Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Land Use tons ton

MT/yr

Hotel 13.6875 2.7784 0.1642 0.0000

Mitigated

Waste Disposed


1.0008

Total 11.5177 0.6807 0.0000 28.5346


1.99 0.4040 0.0239 0.0000

27.5339

Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Land Use tons ton

MT/yr

Hotel 54.75 11.1138 0.6568 0.0000

8.2 Waste by Land UseUnmitigated

Waste Disposed


Unmitigated 11.5177 0.6807 0.0000 28.5346

ton

MT/yr

Mitigated 2.8794 0.1702 0.0000 7.1337


User Defined Equipment

Equipment Type Number

11.0 Vegetation

Fuel Type

Boilers

Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type

Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment

Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor

9.0 Operational Offroad

Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power

0.2502

Total 2.8794 0.1702 0.0000 7.1337


0.4975 0.1010 5.9700e-003

0.0000













0.006

75








Hotel 100.00 Room 0.72 57,670.00 0


1.1 Land Usage



Fairfield Inn & Suites - Sonoma-San Francisco County, Summer

Fairfield Inn & SuitesSonoma-San Francisco County, Summer


2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)Unmitigated Construction




























0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0047.91 0.00 38.64 51.25 0.00 35.55


Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


0.0000 5,873.1491

5,873.1491 1.2207 0.0000 5,903.6663

5.2912 2.2941 7.5853 2.6501 2.1266 4.7767Maximum 4.9239 52.7278 23.8004 0.0574

0.0000 1,860.2079

1,860.2079 0.1879 0.0000 1,864.9052

0.6463 0.4408 1.0871 0.1723 0.4305 0.60282018 4.6960 9.3019 8.4170 0.0189

0.0000 5,873.1491

5,873.1491 1.2207 0.0000 5,903.6663

5.2912 2.2941 7.5853 2.6501 2.1266 4.77672017 4.9239 52.7278 23.8004 0.0574


Year lb/day lb/day

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 5,873.1491

5,873.1491 1.2207 0.0000 5,903.6663

10.7520 2.2941 13.0461 5.6173 2.1266 7.7439Maximum 4.9239 52.7278 23.8004 0.0574

0.0000 1,860.2079

1,860.2079 0.1879 0.0000 1,864.9052

0.6463 0.4408 1.0871 0.1723 0.4305 0.60282018 4.6960 9.3019 8.4170 0.0189

0.0000 5,873.1491

5,873.1491 1.2207 0.0000 5,903.6663

10.7520 2.2941 13.0461 5.6173 2.1266 7.74392017 4.9239 52.7278 23.8004 0.0574


Year lb/day lb/day

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total





Construction Phase

Phase Number


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


5,639.9153

5,639.9153 0.2545 0.0152 5,650.7968

3.5102 0.1272 3.6374 0.9414 0.1232 1.0646Total 3.3869 8.6319 19.3778 0.0518

4,812.5082

4,812.5082 0.2385 4,818.4701

3.5102 0.0748 3.5849 0.9414 0.0707 1.0121Mobile 1.9732 7.9422 18.7776 0.0477

827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.0152 832.27900.0524 0.0524 0.0524 0.0524Energy 0.0758 0.6895 0.5792 4.1400e-003

0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

Area 1.3379 2.0000e-004

0.0211 0.0000


Category lb/day lb/day

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

5,639.9153

5,639.9153 0.2545 0.0152 5,650.7968

3.5102 0.1272 3.6374 0.9414 0.1232 1.0646Total 3.3869 8.6319 19.3778 0.0518

4,812.5082

4,812.5082 0.2385 4,818.4701

3.5102 0.0748 3.5849 0.9414 0.0707 1.0121Mobile 1.9732 7.9422 18.7776 0.0477

827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.0152 832.27900.0524 0.0524 0.0524 0.0524Energy 0.0758 0.6895 0.5792 4.1400e-003

0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

Area 1.3379 2.0000e-004

0.0211 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10

















Load Factor


OffRoad Equipment


86



Acres of Paving: 1



196

4 Paving Paving 8/15/2017 8/31/2017 5 13


11

2 Grading Grading 6/1/2017 8/1/2017 5 44



1,764.2381

1,764.2381 0.5406 1,777.7521

5.3657 1.0451 6.4108 2.9069 0.9615 3.8683Total 1.9297 22.2106 8.4016 0.0172

1,764.2381

1,764.2381 0.5406 1,777.7521

1.0451 1.0451 0.9615 0.9615Off-Road 1.9297 22.2106 8.4016 0.0172

0.0000 0.00005.3657 0.0000 5.3657 2.9069 0.0000 2.9069

CO2e


Fugitive Dust

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

Water Exposed Area


Clean Paved Roads


ROG NOx CO






Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00

Grading 3 8.00 0.00 500.00 10.80





Worker Trip Length

Vendor Trip Length

Hauling Trip Length




Trips and VMT


Worker Trip Number

Vendor Trip Number

Hauling Trip Number



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 1,764.2381

1,764.2381 0.5406 1,777.7521

2.4146 1.0451 3.4596 1.3081 0.9615 2.2696Total 1.9297 22.2106 8.4016 0.0172

0.0000 1,764.2381

1,764.2381 0.5406 1,777.7521

1.0451 1.0451 0.9615 0.9615Off-Road 1.9297 22.2106 8.4016 0.0172

0.0000 0.00002.4146 0.0000 2.4146 1.3081 0.0000 1.3081Fugitive Dust



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

74.0414 74.0414 3.5600e-003

74.13040.0657 5.8000e-004

0.0663 0.0174 5.4000e-004

0.0180Total 0.0523 0.0363 0.4178 7.5000e-004

74.0414 74.0414 3.5600e-003

74.13040.0657 5.8000e-004

0.0663 0.0174 5.4000e-004

0.0180Worker 0.0523 0.0363 0.4178 7.5000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10

1,075.4881

1,075.4881 0.0668 1,077.1575

0.2621 0.0342 0.2962 0.0710 0.0327 0.1037Total 0.1920 4.2484 1.2969 0.0101

74.0414 74.0414 3.5600e-003

74.13040.0657 5.8000e-004

0.0663 0.0174 5.4000e-004

0.0180Worker 0.0523 0.0363 0.4178 7.5000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

1,001.4466

1,001.4466 0.0632 1,003.0271

0.1963 0.0336 0.2299 0.0536 0.0321 0.0858Hauling 0.1397 4.2120 0.8791 9.3500e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

1,444.8958

1,444.8958 0.4427 1,455.9636

4.5630 0.8738 5.4368 2.4881 0.8039 3.2920Total 1.6023 18.2915 7.0342 0.0141

1,444.8958

1,444.8958 0.4427 1,455.9636

0.8738 0.8738 0.8039 0.8039Off-Road 1.6023 18.2915 7.0342 0.0141

0.0000 0.00004.5630 0.0000 4.5630 2.4881 0.0000 2.4881Fugitive Dust



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

74.0414 74.0414 3.5600e-003

74.13040.0657 5.8000e-004

0.0663 0.0174 5.4000e-004

0.0180Total 0.0523 0.0363 0.4178 7.5000e-004

74.0414 74.0414 3.5600e-003

74.13040.0657 5.8000e-004

0.0663 0.0174 5.4000e-004

0.0180Worker 0.0523 0.0363 0.4178 7.5000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000


1,075.4881

1,075.4881 0.0668 1,077.1575

0.2621 0.0342 0.2962 0.0710 0.0327 0.1037Total 0.1920 4.2484 1.2969 0.0101

74.0414 74.0414 3.5600e-003

74.13040.0657 5.8000e-004

0.0663 0.0174 5.4000e-004

0.0180Worker 0.0523 0.0363 0.4178 7.5000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

1,001.4466

1,001.4466 0.0632 1,003.0271

0.1963 0.0336 0.2299 0.0536 0.0321 0.0858Hauling 0.1397 4.2120 0.8791 9.3500e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 1,444.8958

1,444.8958 0.4427 1,455.9636

2.0534 0.8738 2.9271 1.1197 0.8039 1.9235Total 1.6023 18.2915 7.0342 0.0141

0.0000 1,444.8958

1,444.8958 0.4427 1,455.9636

0.8738 0.8738 0.8039 0.8039Off-Road 1.6023 18.2915 7.0342 0.0141

0.0000 0.00002.0534 0.0000 2.0534 1.1197 0.0000 1.1197Fugitive Dust



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 510.9660 510.9660 0.1074 513.65210.3078 0.3078 0.2969 0.2969Off-Road 0.7413 4.8091 3.5892 5.5100e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

1,003.5197

1,003.5197 0.0596 1,005.0106

0.4955 0.0327 0.5282 0.1338 0.0312 0.1650Total 0.4062 3.1319 3.0606 9.7000e-003

397.9726 397.9726 0.0191 398.45110.3532 3.1300e-003

0.3564 0.0937 2.8900e-003

0.0966Worker 0.2812 0.1953 2.2458 4.0100e-003

454.2659 454.2659 0.0328 455.08590.1035 0.0243 0.1279 0.0298 0.0233 0.0531Vendor 0.1055 2.3779 0.6945 4.2800e-003

151.2812 151.2812 7.6900e-003

151.47350.0387 5.2200e-003

0.0440 0.0104 4.9900e-003

0.0154Hauling 0.0196 0.5588 0.1203 1.4100e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

510.9660 510.9660 0.1074 513.65210.3078 0.3078 0.2969 0.2969Total 0.7413 4.8091 3.5892 5.5100e-003

510.9660 510.9660 0.1074 513.65210.3078 0.3078 0.2969 0.2969Off-Road 0.7413 4.8091 3.5892 5.5100e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10


507.7097 507.7097 0.1022 510.26490.2645 0.2645 0.2554 0.2554Total 0.6480 4.3570 3.4692 5.5100e-003

507.7097 507.7097 0.1022 510.26490.2645 0.2645 0.2554 0.2554Off-Road 0.6480 4.3570 3.4692 5.5100e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

1,003.5197

1,003.5197 0.0596 1,005.0106

0.4955 0.0327 0.5282 0.1338 0.0312 0.1650Total 0.4062 3.1319 3.0606 9.7000e-003

397.9726 397.9726 0.0191 398.45110.3532 3.1300e-003

0.3564 0.0937 2.8900e-003

0.0966Worker 0.2812 0.1953 2.2458 4.0100e-003

454.2659 454.2659 0.0328 455.08590.1035 0.0243 0.1279 0.0298 0.0233 0.0531Vendor 0.1055 2.3779 0.6945 4.2800e-003

151.2812 151.2812 7.6900e-003

151.47350.0387 5.2200e-003

0.0440 0.0104 4.9900e-003

0.0154Hauling 0.0196 0.5588 0.1203 1.4100e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 510.9660 510.9660 0.1074 513.65210.3078 0.3078 0.2969 0.2969Total 0.7413 4.8091 3.5892 5.5100e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 507.7097 507.7097 0.1022 510.26490.2645 0.2645 0.2554 0.2554Total 0.6480 4.3570 3.4692 5.5100e-003

0.0000 507.7097 507.7097 0.1022 510.26490.2645 0.2645 0.2554 0.2554Off-Road 0.6480 4.3570 3.4692 5.5100e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

989.9578 989.9578 0.0554 991.34310.5723 0.0252 0.5975 0.1527 0.0240 0.1767Total 0.3567 2.9034 2.6798 9.5600e-003

387.4392 387.4392 0.0169 387.86070.3532 2.9700e-003

0.3562 0.0937 2.7400e-003

0.0964Worker 0.2519 0.1708 1.9772 3.9000e-003

453.1984 453.1984 0.0310 453.97390.1035 0.0189 0.1224 0.0298 0.0181 0.0479Vendor 0.0892 2.2341 0.5977 4.2700e-003

149.3201 149.3201 7.5300e-003

149.50840.1156 3.2700e-003

0.1189 0.0292 3.1300e-003

0.0324Hauling 0.0157 0.4986 0.1049 1.3900e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10

120.3173 120.3173 5.7900e-003

120.46200.1068 9.5000e-004

0.1077 0.0283 8.7000e-004

0.0292Total 0.0850 0.0590 0.6790 1.2100e-003

120.3173 120.3173 5.7900e-003

120.46200.1068 9.5000e-004

0.1077 0.0283 8.7000e-004

0.0292Worker 0.0850 0.0590 0.6790 1.2100e-003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

1,367.8311

1,367.8311 0.4114 1,378.1167

0.7417 0.7417 0.6832 0.6832Total 1.4024 12.2685 9.1549 0.0135

0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 0.2015

1,367.8311

1,367.8311 0.4114 1,378.1167

0.7417 0.7417 0.6832 0.6832Off-Road 1.2008 12.2685 9.1549 0.0135



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

989.9578 989.9578 0.0554 991.34310.5723 0.0252 0.5975 0.1527 0.0240 0.1767Total 0.3567 2.9034 2.6798 9.5600e-003

387.4392 387.4392 0.0169 387.86070.3532 2.9700e-003

0.3562 0.0937 2.7400e-003

0.0964Worker 0.2519 0.1708 1.9772 3.9000e-003

453.1984 453.1984 0.0310 453.97390.1035 0.0189 0.1224 0.0298 0.0181 0.0479Vendor 0.0892 2.2341 0.5977 4.2700e-003

149.3201 149.3201 7.5300e-003

149.50840.1156 3.2700e-003

0.1189 0.0292 3.1300e-003

0.0324Hauling 0.0157 0.4986 0.1049 1.3900e-003


120.3173 120.3173 5.7900e-003

120.46200.1068 9.5000e-004

0.1077 0.0283 8.7000e-004

0.0292Total 0.0850 0.0590 0.6790 1.2100e-003

120.3173 120.3173 5.7900e-003

120.46200.1068 9.5000e-004

0.1077 0.0283 8.7000e-004

0.0292Worker 0.0850 0.0590 0.6790 1.2100e-003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 1,367.8311

1,367.8311 0.4114 1,378.1167

0.7417 0.7417 0.6832 0.6832Total 1.4024 12.2685 9.1549 0.0135

0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 0.2015

0.0000 1,367.8311

1,367.8311 0.4114 1,378.1167

0.7417 0.7417 0.6832 0.6832Off-Road 1.2008 12.2685 9.1549 0.0135



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 3.3400



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

83.2966 83.2966 4.0100e-003

83.39680.0739 6.6000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 6.1000e-004

0.0202Total 0.0589 0.0409 0.4701 8.4000e-004

83.2966 83.2966 4.0100e-003

83.39680.0739 6.6000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 6.1000e-004

0.0202Worker 0.0589 0.0409 0.4701 8.4000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.19090.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733Total 3.6723 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e-003

281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.19090.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733Off-Road 0.3323 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e-003

0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 3.3400



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10


281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.11710.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506Total 3.6386 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e-003

281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.11710.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506Off-Road 0.2986 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e-003

0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 3.3400



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

83.2966 83.2966 4.0100e-003

83.39680.0739 6.6000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 6.1000e-004

0.0202Total 0.0589 0.0409 0.4701 8.4000e-004

83.2966 83.2966 4.0100e-003

83.39680.0739 6.6000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 6.1000e-004

0.0202Worker 0.0589 0.0409 0.4701 8.4000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.19090.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733Total 3.6723 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e-003

0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.19090.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733Off-Road 0.3323 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.11710.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506Total 3.6386 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e-003

0.0000 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.11710.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506Off-Road 0.2986 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e-003

0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 3.3400



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

81.0919 81.0919 3.5300e-003

81.18020.0739 6.2000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 5.7000e-004

0.0202Total 0.0527 0.0357 0.4138 8.2000e-004

81.0919 81.0919 3.5300e-003

81.18020.0739 6.2000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 5.7000e-004

0.0202Worker 0.0527 0.0357 0.4138 8.2000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10




Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00

Annual VMT

Hotel 817.00 819.00 595.00 1,578,346 1,578,346



4,812.5082

4,812.5082 0.2385 4,818.4701

3.5102 0.0748 3.5849 0.9414 0.0707 1.0121Unmitigated 1.9732 7.9422 18.7776 0.0477

4,812.5082

4,812.5082 0.2385 4,818.4701

3.5102 0.0748 3.5849 0.9414 0.0707 1.0121Mitigated 1.9732 7.9422 18.7776 0.0477



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2




81.0919 81.0919 3.5300e-003

81.18020.0739 6.2000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 5.7000e-004

0.0202Total 0.0527 0.0357 0.4138 8.2000e-004

81.0919 81.0919 3.5300e-003

81.18020.0739 6.2000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 5.7000e-004

0.0202Worker 0.0527 0.0357 0.4138 8.2000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

832.2790

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigated

0.0524 827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.01524.1400e-003

0.0524 0.0524 0.0524

827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.0152 832.2790


0.0758 0.6895 0.5792

0.0524 0.0524 0.0524 0.0524



0.0758 0.6895 0.5792 4.1400e-003


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

5.0 Energy Detail




ROG NOx CO SO2

0.025150 0.002984 0.002020 0.005725 0.000869 0.001276

0.000869 0.001276


0.007464 0.028029 0.025150 0.002984 0.002020 0.005725Parking Lot 0.558294 0.043613 0.174269 0.117152 0.033155

0.025150 0.002984 0.002020 0.005725 0.000869 0.001276

SBUS MH

Hotel 0.558294 0.043613 0.174269 0.117152 0.033155 0.007464 0.028029


48.00 19.00 52 39 9

4.4 Fleet Mix

0.00 0.00 0 0 0


61.60 19.00 58 38 4

Parking Lot 14.70 6.60 6.60 0.00


Hotel 14.70 6.60 6.60 19.40


6.0 Area Detail


827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.0152 832.27900.0524 0.0524 0.0524 0.0524Total 0.0758 0.6895 0.5792 4.1400e-003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Recreational Swimming Pool

0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.0152 832.27900.0524 0.0524 0.0524 0.0524Hotel 7.03258 0.0758 0.6895 0.5792 4.1400e-003


Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

Mitigated

NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.0152 832.27900.0524 0.0524 0.0524 0.0524Total 0.0758 0.6895 0.5792 4.1400e-003


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.0152 832.27900.0524 0.0524 0.0524 0.0524Hotel 7032.58 0.0758 0.6895 0.5792 4.1400e-003



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2NaturalGas Use


Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

Mitigated


Exhaust PM10

0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

Total 1.3379 2.0000e-004

0.0211 0.0000

0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005


2.0000e-004

0.0211 0.0000

0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products

1.2572

0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating

0.0787


SubCategory lb/day lb/day

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005


0.0211 0.0000

0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

Mitigated 1.3379 2.0000e-004

0.0211 0.0000



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total




Fuel Type

Boilers








7.0 Water Detail



8.0 Waste Detail



0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

Total 1.3379 2.0000e-004

0.0211 0.0000

0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005


2.0000e-004

0.0211 0.0000


1.2572


0.0787














0.006

75








Hotel 100.00 Room 0.72 57,670.00 0


1.1 Land Usage



Fairfield Inn & Suites - Sonoma-San Francisco County, Winter

Fairfield Inn & SuitesSonoma-San Francisco County, Winter


2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)Unmitigated Construction




























0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0047.91 0.00 38.63 51.25 0.00 35.54


Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


0.0000 5,812.4326

5,812.4326 1.2264 0.0000 5,843.0915

5.2912 2.2953 7.5865 2.6501 2.1277 4.7778Maximum 4.9665 52.9751 23.9475 0.0568

0.0000 1,816.5220

1,816.5220 0.1901 0.0000 1,821.2746

0.6463 0.4413 1.0876 0.1723 0.4309 0.60332018 4.7257 9.4029 8.4719 0.0184

0.0000 5,812.4326

5,812.4326 1.2264 0.0000 5,843.0915

5.2912 2.2953 7.5865 2.6501 2.1277 4.77782017 4.9665 52.9751 23.9475 0.0568


Year lb/day lb/day

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 5,812.4326

5,812.4326 1.2264 0.0000 5,843.0915

10.7520 2.2953 13.0473 5.6173 2.1277 7.7450Maximum 4.9665 52.9751 23.9475 0.0568

0.0000 1,816.5220

1,816.5220 0.1901 0.0000 1,821.2746

0.6463 0.4413 1.0876 0.1723 0.4309 0.60332018 4.7257 9.4029 8.4719 0.0184

0.0000 5,812.4326

5,812.4326 1.2264 0.0000 5,843.0915

10.7520 2.2953 13.0473 5.6173 2.1277 7.74502017 4.9665 52.9751 23.9475 0.0568


Year lb/day lb/day

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total





Construction Phase

Phase Number


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Percent Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


5,375.8950

5,375.8950 0.2625 0.0152 5,386.9771

3.5102 0.1283 3.6384 0.9414 0.1241 1.0655Total 3.1868 9.1074 20.4229 0.0492

4,548.4880

4,548.4880 0.2465 4,554.6504

3.5102 0.0758 3.5859 0.9414 0.0717 1.0130Mobile 1.7731 8.4178 19.8227 0.0451

827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.0152 832.27900.0524 0.0524 0.0524 0.0524Energy 0.0758 0.6895 0.5792 4.1400e-003

0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

Area 1.3379 2.0000e-004

0.0211 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

5,375.8950

5,375.8950 0.2625 0.0152 5,386.9771

3.5102 0.1283 3.6384 0.9414 0.1241 1.0655Total 3.1868 9.1074 20.4229 0.0492

4,548.4880

4,548.4880 0.2465 4,554.6504

3.5102 0.0758 3.5859 0.9414 0.0717 1.0130Mobile 1.7731 8.4178 19.8227 0.0451

827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.0152 832.27900.0524 0.0524 0.0524 0.0524Energy 0.0758 0.6895 0.5792 4.1400e-003

0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

Area 1.3379 2.0000e-004

0.0211 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10

















Load Factor


OffRoad Equipment


86



Acres of Paving: 1



196

4 Paving Paving 8/15/2017 8/31/2017 5 13


11

2 Grading Grading 6/1/2017 8/1/2017 5 44



1,764.2381

1,764.2381 0.5406 1,777.7521

5.3657 1.0451 6.4108 2.9069 0.9615 3.8683Total 1.9297 22.2106 8.4016 0.0172

1,764.2381

1,764.2381 0.5406 1,777.7521

1.0451 1.0451 0.9615 0.9615Off-Road 1.9297 22.2106 8.4016 0.0172

0.0000 0.00005.3657 0.0000 5.3657 2.9069 0.0000 2.9069

CO2e


Fugitive Dust

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

Water Exposed Area


Clean Paved Roads


ROG NOx CO






Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00

Grading 3 8.00 0.00 500.00 10.80





Worker Trip Length

Vendor Trip Length

Hauling Trip Length




Trips and VMT


Worker Trip Number

Vendor Trip Number

Hauling Trip Number



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 1,764.2381

1,764.2381 0.5406 1,777.7521

2.4146 1.0451 3.4596 1.3081 0.9615 2.2696Total 1.9297 22.2106 8.4016 0.0172

0.0000 1,764.2381

1,764.2381 0.5406 1,777.7521

1.0451 1.0451 0.9615 0.9615Off-Road 1.9297 22.2106 8.4016 0.0172

0.0000 0.00002.4146 0.0000 2.4146 1.3081 0.0000 1.3081Fugitive Dust



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

68.8387 68.8387 3.4700e-003

68.92550.0657 5.8000e-004

0.0663 0.0174 5.4000e-004

0.0180Total 0.0567 0.0450 0.4143 6.9000e-004

68.8387 68.8387 3.4700e-003

68.92550.0657 5.8000e-004

0.0663 0.0174 5.4000e-004

0.0180Worker 0.0567 0.0450 0.4143 6.9000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10

1,058.1446

1,058.1446 0.0700 1,059.8943

0.2621 0.0348 0.2968 0.0710 0.0333 0.1043Total 0.2003 4.3783 1.3642 9.9200e-003

68.8387 68.8387 3.4700e-003

68.92550.0657 5.8000e-004

0.0663 0.0174 5.4000e-004

0.0180Worker 0.0567 0.0450 0.4143 6.9000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

989.3059 989.3059 0.0665 990.96880.1963 0.0342 0.2305 0.0536 0.0327 0.0863Hauling 0.1435 4.3333 0.9499 9.2300e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

1,444.8958

1,444.8958 0.4427 1,455.9636

4.5630 0.8738 5.4368 2.4881 0.8039 3.2920Total 1.6023 18.2915 7.0342 0.0141

1,444.8958

1,444.8958 0.4427 1,455.9636

0.8738 0.8738 0.8039 0.8039Off-Road 1.6023 18.2915 7.0342 0.0141

0.0000 0.00004.5630 0.0000 4.5630 2.4881 0.0000 2.4881Fugitive Dust



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

68.8387 68.8387 3.4700e-003

68.92550.0657 5.8000e-004

0.0663 0.0174 5.4000e-004

0.0180Total 0.0567 0.0450 0.4143 6.9000e-004

68.8387 68.8387 3.4700e-003

68.92550.0657 5.8000e-004

0.0663 0.0174 5.4000e-004

0.0180Worker 0.0567 0.0450 0.4143 6.9000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000


1,058.1446

1,058.1446 0.0700 1,059.8943

0.2621 0.0348 0.2968 0.0710 0.0333 0.1043Total 0.2003 4.3783 1.3642 9.9200e-003

68.8387 68.8387 3.4700e-003

68.92550.0657 5.8000e-004

0.0663 0.0174 5.4000e-004

0.0180Worker 0.0567 0.0450 0.4143 6.9000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

989.3059 989.3059 0.0665 990.96880.1963 0.0342 0.2305 0.0536 0.0327 0.0863Hauling 0.1435 4.3333 0.9499 9.2300e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 1,444.8958

1,444.8958 0.4427 1,455.9636

2.0534 0.8738 2.9271 1.1197 0.8039 1.9235Total 1.6023 18.2915 7.0342 0.0141

0.0000 1,444.8958

1,444.8958 0.4427 1,455.9636

0.8738 0.8738 0.8039 0.8039Off-Road 1.6023 18.2915 7.0342 0.0141

0.0000 0.00002.0534 0.0000 2.0534 1.1197 0.0000 1.1197Fugitive Dust



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 510.9660 510.9660 0.1074 513.65210.3078 0.3078 0.2969 0.2969Off-Road 0.7413 4.8091 3.5892 5.5100e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

965.3494 965.3494 0.0622 966.90400.4955 0.0332 0.5288 0.1338 0.0317 0.1656Total 0.4362 3.2406 3.1441 9.3400e-003

370.0081 370.0081 0.0187 370.47450.3532 3.1300e-003

0.3564 0.0937 2.8900e-003

0.0966Worker 0.3050 0.2417 2.2267 3.7300e-003

444.7142 444.7142 0.0357 445.60590.1035 0.0249 0.1284 0.0298 0.0238 0.0536Vendor 0.1114 2.4159 0.7941 4.2000e-003

150.6271 150.6271 7.8600e-003

150.82360.0387 5.2500e-003

0.0440 0.0104 5.0200e-003

0.0154Hauling 0.0198 0.5830 0.1233 1.4100e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

510.9660 510.9660 0.1074 513.65210.3078 0.3078 0.2969 0.2969Total 0.7413 4.8091 3.5892 5.5100e-003

510.9660 510.9660 0.1074 513.65210.3078 0.3078 0.2969 0.2969Off-Road 0.7413 4.8091 3.5892 5.5100e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10


507.7097 507.7097 0.1022 510.26490.2645 0.2645 0.2554 0.2554Total 0.6480 4.3570 3.4692 5.5100e-003

507.7097 507.7097 0.1022 510.26490.2645 0.2645 0.2554 0.2554Off-Road 0.6480 4.3570 3.4692 5.5100e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

965.3494 965.3494 0.0622 966.90400.4955 0.0332 0.5288 0.1338 0.0317 0.1656Total 0.4362 3.2406 3.1441 9.3400e-003

370.0081 370.0081 0.0187 370.47450.3532 3.1300e-003

0.3564 0.0937 2.8900e-003

0.0966Worker 0.3050 0.2417 2.2267 3.7300e-003

444.7142 444.7142 0.0357 445.60590.1035 0.0249 0.1284 0.0298 0.0238 0.0536Vendor 0.1114 2.4159 0.7941 4.2000e-003

150.6271 150.6271 7.8600e-003

150.82360.0387 5.2500e-003

0.0440 0.0104 5.0200e-003

0.0154Hauling 0.0198 0.5830 0.1233 1.4100e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 510.9660 510.9660 0.1074 513.65210.3078 0.3078 0.2969 0.2969Total 0.7413 4.8091 3.5892 5.5100e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 507.7097 507.7097 0.1022 510.26490.2645 0.2645 0.2554 0.2554Total 0.6480 4.3570 3.4692 5.5100e-003

0.0000 507.7097 507.7097 0.1022 510.26490.2645 0.2645 0.2554 0.2554Off-Road 0.6480 4.3570 3.4692 5.5100e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

951.9855 951.9855 0.0577 953.42870.5723 0.0256 0.5980 0.1527 0.0244 0.1771Total 0.3822 2.9959 2.7407 9.2000e-003

360.1407 360.1407 0.0164 360.54980.3532 2.9700e-003

0.3562 0.0937 2.7400e-003

0.0964Worker 0.2723 0.2115 1.9486 3.6300e-003

443.2095 443.2095 0.0337 444.05140.1035 0.0194 0.1229 0.0298 0.0185 0.0483Vendor 0.0940 2.2647 0.6849 4.1800e-003

148.6354 148.6354 7.6900e-003

148.82760.1156 3.2900e-003

0.1189 0.0292 3.1500e-003

0.0324Hauling 0.0159 0.5197 0.1073 1.3900e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10

111.8629 111.8629 5.6400e-003

112.00390.1068 9.5000e-004

0.1077 0.0283 8.7000e-004

0.0292Total 0.0922 0.0731 0.6732 1.1300e-003

111.8629 111.8629 5.6400e-003

112.00390.1068 9.5000e-004

0.1077 0.0283 8.7000e-004

0.0292Worker 0.0922 0.0731 0.6732 1.1300e-003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

1,367.8311

1,367.8311 0.4114 1,378.1167

0.7417 0.7417 0.6832 0.6832Total 1.4024 12.2685 9.1549 0.0135

0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 0.2015

1,367.8311

1,367.8311 0.4114 1,378.1167

0.7417 0.7417 0.6832 0.6832Off-Road 1.2008 12.2685 9.1549 0.0135



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

951.9855 951.9855 0.0577 953.42870.5723 0.0256 0.5980 0.1527 0.0244 0.1771Total 0.3822 2.9959 2.7407 9.2000e-003

360.1407 360.1407 0.0164 360.54980.3532 2.9700e-003

0.3562 0.0937 2.7400e-003

0.0964Worker 0.2723 0.2115 1.9486 3.6300e-003

443.2095 443.2095 0.0337 444.05140.1035 0.0194 0.1229 0.0298 0.0185 0.0483Vendor 0.0940 2.2647 0.6849 4.1800e-003

148.6354 148.6354 7.6900e-003

148.82760.1156 3.2900e-003

0.1189 0.0292 3.1500e-003

0.0324Hauling 0.0159 0.5197 0.1073 1.3900e-003


111.8629 111.8629 5.6400e-003

112.00390.1068 9.5000e-004

0.1077 0.0283 8.7000e-004

0.0292Total 0.0922 0.0731 0.6732 1.1300e-003

111.8629 111.8629 5.6400e-003

112.00390.1068 9.5000e-004

0.1077 0.0283 8.7000e-004

0.0292Worker 0.0922 0.0731 0.6732 1.1300e-003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 1,367.8311

1,367.8311 0.4114 1,378.1167

0.7417 0.7417 0.6832 0.6832Total 1.4024 12.2685 9.1549 0.0135

0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 0.2015

0.0000 1,367.8311

1,367.8311 0.4114 1,378.1167

0.7417 0.7417 0.6832 0.6832Off-Road 1.2008 12.2685 9.1549 0.0135



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 3.3400



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

77.4436 77.4436 3.9100e-003

77.54120.0739 6.6000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 6.1000e-004

0.0202Total 0.0638 0.0506 0.4661 7.8000e-004

77.4436 77.4436 3.9100e-003

77.54120.0739 6.6000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 6.1000e-004

0.0202Worker 0.0638 0.0506 0.4661 7.8000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.19090.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733Total 3.6723 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e-003

281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.19090.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733Off-Road 0.3323 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e-003

0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 3.3400



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10


281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.11710.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506Total 3.6386 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e-003

281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.11710.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506Off-Road 0.2986 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e-003

0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 3.3400



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

77.4436 77.4436 3.9100e-003

77.54120.0739 6.6000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 6.1000e-004

0.0202Total 0.0638 0.0506 0.4661 7.8000e-004

77.4436 77.4436 3.9100e-003

77.54120.0739 6.6000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 6.1000e-004

0.0202Worker 0.0638 0.0506 0.4661 7.8000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.19090.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733Total 3.6723 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e-003

0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0297 282.19090.1733 0.1733 0.1733 0.1733Off-Road 0.3323 2.1850 1.8681 2.9700e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0000 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.11710.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506Total 3.6386 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e-003

0.0000 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.11710.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506Off-Road 0.2986 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e-003

0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 3.3400



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

75.3783 75.3783 3.4300e-003

75.46390.0739 6.2000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 5.7000e-004

0.0202Total 0.0570 0.0443 0.4078 7.6000e-004

75.3783 75.3783 3.4300e-003

75.46390.0739 6.2000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 5.7000e-004

0.0202Worker 0.0570 0.0443 0.4078 7.6000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total


Exhaust PM10




Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00

Annual VMT

Hotel 817.00 819.00 595.00 1,578,346 1,578,346



4,548.4880

4,548.4880 0.2465 4,554.6504

3.5102 0.0758 3.5859 0.9414 0.0717 1.0130Unmitigated 1.7731 8.4178 19.8227 0.0451

4,548.4880

4,548.4880 0.2465 4,554.6504

3.5102 0.0758 3.5859 0.9414 0.0717 1.0130Mitigated 1.7731 8.4178 19.8227 0.0451



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2




75.3783 75.3783 3.4300e-003

75.46390.0739 6.2000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 5.7000e-004

0.0202Total 0.0570 0.0443 0.4078 7.6000e-004

75.3783 75.3783 3.4300e-003

75.46390.0739 6.2000e-004

0.0746 0.0196 5.7000e-004

0.0202Worker 0.0570 0.0443 0.4078 7.6000e-004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

832.2790

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigated

0.0524 827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.01524.1400e-003

0.0524 0.0524 0.0524

827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.0152 832.2790


0.0758 0.6895 0.5792

0.0524 0.0524 0.0524 0.0524



0.0758 0.6895 0.5792 4.1400e-003


Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

5.0 Energy Detail




ROG NOx CO SO2

0.025150 0.002984 0.002020 0.005725 0.000869 0.001276

0.000869 0.001276


0.007464 0.028029 0.025150 0.002984 0.002020 0.005725Parking Lot 0.558294 0.043613 0.174269 0.117152 0.033155

0.025150 0.002984 0.002020 0.005725 0.000869 0.001276

SBUS MH

Hotel 0.558294 0.043613 0.174269 0.117152 0.033155 0.007464 0.028029


48.00 19.00 52 39 9

4.4 Fleet Mix

0.00 0.00 0 0 0


61.60 19.00 58 38 4

Parking Lot 14.70 6.60 6.60 0.00


Hotel 14.70 6.60 6.60 19.40


6.0 Area Detail


827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.0152 832.27900.0524 0.0524 0.0524 0.0524Total 0.0758 0.6895 0.5792 4.1400e-003


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.0152 832.27900.0524 0.0524 0.0524 0.0524Hotel 7.03258 0.0758 0.6895 0.5792 4.1400e-003



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

Mitigated

NaturalGas Use


Exhaust PM10

827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.0152 832.27900.0524 0.0524 0.0524 0.0524Total 0.0758 0.6895 0.5792 4.1400e-003


0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

827.3624 827.3624 0.0159 0.0152 832.27900.0524 0.0524 0.0524 0.0524Hotel 7032.58 0.0758 0.6895 0.5792 4.1400e-003



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2NaturalGas Use


Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

Mitigated


Exhaust PM10

0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

Total 1.3379 2.0000e-004

0.0211 0.0000

0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005


2.0000e-004

0.0211 0.0000


1.2572


0.0787



PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total

Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2



Exhaust PM10

0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005


0.0211 0.0000

0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

Mitigated 1.3379 2.0000e-004

0.0211 0.0000



Exhaust PM10

PM10 Total

Fugitive PM2.5

Exhaust PM2.5

PM2.5 Total




Fuel Type

Boilers








7.0 Water Detail



8.0 Waste Detail



0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

Total 1.3379 2.0000e-004

0.0211 0.0000

0.0447 0.0447 1.2000e-004

0.04788.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005

8.0000e-005


2.0000e-004

0.0211 0.0000


1.2572


0.0787


0.00Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel No Change 0 2 No Change

0.00

Rollers Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00

Pavers Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change

0.00

Graders Diesel No Change 0 2 No Change 0.00

Forklifts Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change

0.00

Cranes Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00

Cement and Mortar Mixers Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change

Oxidation Catalyst

Air Compressors Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00

Equipment Type Fuel Type Tier Number Mitigated Total Number of Equipment DPF

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

OFFROAD Equipment Mitigation

0.00 0.00

Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

Grading 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Building Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CO2ePercent Reduction

Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2

NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OPhase ROG NOx CO SO2

Exhaust PM10

CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1Page 1 of 1

Date: 4/28/2017 11:43 AM

Fairfield Inn & SuitesSonoma-San Francisco County, Mitigation Report

Construction Mitigation Summary

2.61541E+0002.45000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.59546E+000 2.59546E+000 8.00000E-004 0.00000E+000

9.79993E+000 3.01000E-003 0.00000E+000 9.87527E+000

Forklifts 3.74000E-003 3.25200E-002 2.28000E-002 3.00000E-005 2.67000E-003

2.23990E-001

Cranes 1.17900E-002 1.40190E-001 5.05500E-002 1.10000E-004 6.21000E-003 5.72000E-003 0.00000E+000 9.79993E+000

7.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 2.23410E-001 2.23410E-001 2.00000E-005 0.00000E+000Cement and Mortar Mixers

2.90000E-004 1.80000E-003 1.50000E-003 0.00000E+000 7.00000E-005

0.00000E+000 1.09790E+001 1.09790E+001 1.10000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.10065E+001

CO2eMitigated tons/yr Mitigated mt/yr

Air Compressors 1.35700E-002 9.01000E-002 8.00300E-002 1.30000E-004 6.96000E-003 6.96000E-003

Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O

1.38342E+001 2.92000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.39072E+001

Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10

1.44172E+001

Welders 3.58400E-002 1.26970E-001 1.39700E-001 1.90000E-004 9.16000E-003 9.16000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.38342E+001

1.02900E-002 0.00000E+000 1.43074E+001 1.43074E+001 4.39000E-003 0.00000E+000

1.68975E+001 5.18000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.70270E+001

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

1.55100E-002 1.49340E-001 1.18560E-001 1.50000E-004 1.11800E-002

1.39422E+000

Rubber Tired Dozers

2.62400E-002 2.84880E-001 9.86100E-002 1.80000E-004 1.39400E-002 1.28300E-002 0.00000E+000 1.68975E+001

1.10000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.38362E+000 1.38362E+000 4.20000E-004 0.00000E+000

2.45695E+000 7.50000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.47577E+000

Rollers 1.77000E-003 1.65000E-002 1.13200E-002 1.00000E-005 1.20000E-003

2.14128E+000

Paving Equipment 1.87000E-003 2.12300E-002 1.67400E-002 3.00000E-005 1.06000E-003 9.80000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.45695E+000

9.30000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.12500E+000 2.12500E+000 6.50000E-004 0.00000E+000

1.35965E+001 4.17000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.37007E+001

Pavers 1.83000E-003 2.04400E-002 1.43800E-002 2.00000E-005 1.01000E-003

1.38749E+001

Graders 1.17800E-002 1.64360E-001 4.31100E-002 1.50000E-004 5.36000E-003 4.93000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.35965E+001

7.15000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.38476E+001 1.38476E+001 1.09000E-003 0.00000E+000

2.59546E+000 8.00000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.61541E+000

Generator Sets 1.36100E-002 1.07440E-001 9.23100E-002 1.60000E-004 7.15000E-003

9.87528E+000

Forklifts 3.74000E-003 3.25200E-002 2.28000E-002 3.00000E-005 2.67000E-003 2.45000E-003 0.00000E+000 2.59546E+000

5.72000E-003 0.00000E+000 9.79995E+000 9.79995E+000 3.01000E-003 0.00000E+000

2.23410E-001 2.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 2.23990E-001

Cranes 1.17900E-002 1.40190E-001 5.05500E-002 1.10000E-004 6.21000E-003

1.10065E+001

Cement and Mortar Mixers

2.90000E-004 1.80000E-003 1.50000E-003 0.00000E+000 7.00000E-005 7.00000E-005 0.00000E+000 2.23410E-001

6.96000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.09790E+001 1.09790E+001 1.10000E-003 0.00000E+000Air Compressors 1.35700E-002 9.01000E-002 8.00300E-002 1.30000E-004 6.96000E-003

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eUnmitigated tons/yr Unmitigated mt/yr

0.00

Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

Welders Diesel No Change 0 3 No Change

0.00

Paving Equipment Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change 0.00

Generator Sets Diesel No Change 0 1 No Change

Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Diesel No Change 0 4 No Change 0.00

Mitigation InputYes/No Mitigation Measure Mitigation Input Mitigation Input

1.44569E-006 1.44569E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.43811E-006

Fugitive Dust Mitigation

0.00000E+000 1.38723E-006

Welders 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 6.98937E-007 6.98937E-007 0.00000E+000

1.18360E-006 1.18360E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 1.17461E-006


0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

4.07009E-006 4.07009E-006 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 4.03915E-006

Rollers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

Paving Equipment 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

7.35482E-007 7.35482E-007 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 7.29891E-007

Pavers 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

0.00000E+000 1.44145E-006

Graders 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 7.22148E-007 7.22148E-007 0.00000E+000

0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

Generator Sets 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

0.00000E+000 1.01263E-006

Forklifts 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 2.04083E-006 2.04083E-006 0.00000E+000

0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

Cranes 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

0.00000E+000 9.08552E-007

Cement and Mortar Mixers

0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 9.10830E-007 9.10830E-007 0.00000E+000

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2ePercent Reduction

Air Compressors 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000 0.00000E+000

1.39071E+001

Equipment Type ROG NOx CO SO2 Exhaust PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

9.16000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.38342E+001 1.38342E+001 2.92000E-003 0.00000E+000

1.43074E+001 4.39000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.44172E+001

Welders 3.58400E-002 1.26970E-001 1.39700E-001 1.90000E-004 9.16000E-003

1.70270E+001


1.55100E-002 1.49340E-001 1.18560E-001 1.50000E-004 1.11800E-002 1.02900E-002 0.00000E+000 1.43074E+001

1.28300E-002 0.00000E+000 1.68975E+001 1.68975E+001 5.18000E-003 0.00000E+000

1.38362E+000 4.20000E-004 0.00000E+000 1.39422E+000

Rubber Tired Dozers 2.62400E-002 2.84880E-001 9.86100E-002 1.80000E-004 1.39400E-002

2.47576E+000

Rollers 1.77000E-003 1.65000E-002 1.13200E-002 1.00000E-005 1.20000E-003 1.10000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.38362E+000

9.80000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.45694E+000 2.45694E+000 7.50000E-004 0.00000E+000

2.12500E+000 6.50000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.14128E+000

Paving Equipment 1.87000E-003 2.12300E-002 1.67400E-002 3.00000E-005 1.06000E-003

1.37007E+001

Pavers 1.83000E-003 2.04400E-002 1.43800E-002 2.00000E-005 1.01000E-003 9.30000E-004 0.00000E+000 2.12500E+000

4.93000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.35965E+001 1.35965E+001 4.17000E-003 0.00000E+000

1.38476E+001 1.09000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.38749E+001

Graders 1.17800E-002 1.64360E-001 4.31100E-002 1.50000E-004 5.36000E-003

Generator Sets 1.36100E-002 1.07440E-001 9.23100E-002 1.60000E-004 7.15000E-003 7.15000E-003 0.00000E+000 1.38476E+001

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2O CO2ePercent Reduction

Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Exhaust PM10

Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

Total CO2 CH4

Operational Percent Reduction Summary

Category ROG NOx CO SO2

0.55 0.55

Site Preparation Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Site Preparation Fugitive Dust 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00

Paving Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paving Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.55 0.55

Grading Roads 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grading Fugitive Dust 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.02

0.00 0.00

Building Construction Roads 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00

Building Construction Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00

Architectural Coating Roads 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5Architectural Coating Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Unmitigated Mitigated Percent Reduction

Phase Source PM10 PM2.5 PM10

Yes Clean Paved Road % PM Reduction 0.00

No Unpaved Road Mitigation Moisture Content %

0.00 Vehicle Speed (mph)

15.00

Yes Water Exposed Area PM10 Reduction 55.00 PM2.5 Reduction

55.00 Frequency (per day)

2.00

0.00

No Replace Ground Cover of Area Disturbed

PM10 Reduction 0.00 PM2.5 Reduction

0.00

No Soil Stabilizer for unpaved Roads

PM10 Reduction 0.00 PM2.5 Reduction

No Parking Policy Pricing Limit Parking Supply 0.00

Neighborhood Enhancements Neighborhood Enhancements Subtotal 0.00

No Neighborhood Enhancements Implement NEV Network 0.00

No Neighborhood Enhancements Provide Traffic Calming Measures

No Neighborhood Enhancements Improve Pedestrian Network

Land Use Land Use SubTotal 0.00

No Land Use Integrate Below Market Rate Housing 0.00

No Land Use Increase Transit Accessibility 0.25

No Land Use Improve Destination Accessibility 0.00

No Land Use Improve Walkability Design 0.00

No Land Use Increase Diversity 0.09 0.31

Input Value

No Land Use Increase Density 0.00

Mitigation Selected

Category Measure % Reduction Input Value 1 Input Value 2

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Operational Mobile Mitigation

Project Setting:

20.00

Water Outdoor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.40

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Water Indoor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00

Natural Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00

Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

32.11 32.14 32.33 32.11

Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00

Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.11

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Consumer Products 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

No No Hearth

No Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies

Area Mitigation

Measure Implemented Mitigation Measure Input Value

No Only Natural Gas Hearth

Total VMT Reduction 0.00

No School Trip Implement School Bus Program 0.00

Commute Commute Subtotal 0.00

No Commute Provide Ride Sharing Program

No Commute Employee Vanpool/Shuttle 0.00 2.00

No Commute Market Commute Trip Reduction Option 0.00

No Commute Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules

0.00

No Commute Workplace Parking Charge

No Commute Implement Employee Parking "Cash Out"

No Commute Transit Subsidy

No Commute Implement Trip Reduction Program

Land Use and Site Enhancement Subtotal 0.00

Transit Improvements Transit Improvements Subtotal 0.00

No Transit Improvements Increase Transit Frequency 0.00

No Transit Improvements Expand Transit Network 0.00

No Transit Improvements Provide BRT System 0.00

Parking Policy Pricing Parking Policy Pricing Subtotal 0.00

No Parking Policy Pricing On-street Market Pricing 0.00

No Parking Policy Pricing Unbundle Parking Costs 0.00

No Use Grey Water 0.00

Input Value 2

Yes Apply Water Conservation on Strategy 20.00 20.00

No Use Reclaimed Water 0.00 0.00

Refrigerator 15.00

Water Mitigation Measures

Measure Implemented Mitigation Measure Input Value 1

DishWasher 15.00

Fan 50.00

Appliance Type Land Use Subtype % Improvement

ClothWasher 30.00

No Install High Efficiency Lighting 0.00

Yes On-site Renewable 156,465.00 0.00

Energy Mitigation Measures

Measure Implemented Mitigation Measure Input Value 1 Input Value 2

No Exceed Title 24 0.00

No % Electric Leafblower

No % Electric Chainsaw

No Use Low VOC Paint (Parking) 150.00

No % Electric Lawnmower

No Use Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Interior) 50.00

No Use Low VOC Paint (Non-residential Exterior) 50.00

No Use Low VOC Paint (Residential Interior) 100.00

No Use Low VOC Paint (Residential Exterior) 150.00

Solid Waste Mitigation

Mitigation Measures Input Value

Institute Recycling and Composting ServicesPercent Reduction in Waste Disposed

75.00

No Use Water Efficient Irrigation Systems 6.10

No Water Efficient Landscape 0.00 0.00

No Install low-flow Shower 20.00

No Turf Reduction 0.00

No Install low-flow Kitchen faucet 18.00

No Install low-flow Toilet 20.00

No Install low-flow bathroom faucet 32.00

Photovoltaic System Performance Estimate PVWatts Calculator

4/28/2017 PVWatts Calculator

http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php 1/1

Caution: Photovoltaic system performancepredictions calculated by PVWatts®include many inherent assumptions anduncertainties and do not reflect variationsbetween PV technologies nor sitespecificcharacteristics except as represented byPVWatts® inputs. For example, PVmodules with better performance are notdifferentiated within PVWatts® fromlesser performing modules. Both NRELand private companies provide moresophisticated PV modeling tools (such asthe System Advisor Model athttp://sam.nrel.gov) that allow for moreprecise and complex modeling of PVsystems.

The expected range is based on 30 yearsof actual weather data at the givenlocation and is intended to provide anindication of the variation you might see.For more information, please refer to thisNREL report: The Error Report.

Disclaimer: The PVWatts® Model("Model") is provided by the NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory ("NREL"),which is operated by the Alliance forSustainable Energy, LLC ("Alliance") forthe U.S. Department Of Energy ("DOE")and may be used for any purposewhatsoever.

The names DOE/NREL/ALLIANCE shall notbe used in any representation,advertising, publicity or other mannerwhatsoever to endorse or promote anyentity that adopts or uses the Model.DOE/NREL/ALLIANCE shall not provide

any support, consulting, training orassistance of any kind with regard to theuse of the Model or any updates,revisions or new versions of the Model.

YOU AGREE TO INDEMNIFYDOE/NREL/ALLIANCE, AND ITSAFFILIATES, OFFICERS, AGENTS, ANDEMPLOYEES AGAINST ANY CLAIM ORDEMAND, INCLUDING REASONABLEATTORNEYS' FEES, RELATED TO YOURUSE, RELIANCE, OR ADOPTION OF THEMODEL FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER.THE MODEL IS PROVIDED BYDOE/NREL/ALLIANCE "AS IS" AND ANYEXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES,INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THEIMPLIED WARRANTIES OFMERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR APARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE EXPRESSLYDISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALLDOE/NREL/ALLIANCE BE LIABLE FOR ANYSPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIALDAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGESWHATSOEVER, INCLUDING BUT NOTLIMITED TO CLAIMS ASSOCIATED WITHTHE LOSS OF DATA OR PROFITS, WHICHMAY RESULT FROM ANY ACTION INCONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERTORTIOUS CLAIM THAT ARISES OUT OFOR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE ORPERFORMANCE OF THE MODEL.

The energy output range is based onanalysis of 30 years of historical weatherdata for nearby , and is intended toprovide an indication of the possibleinterannual variability in generation for aFixed (open rack) PV system at thislocation.

156,465 kWh per Year *RESULTS

Month Solar Radiation( kWh / m2 / day )

AC Energy( kWh )

Energy Value( $ )

January 2.52 6,887 N/A

February 3.13 7,575 N/A

March 3.78 10,114 N/A

April 6.43 16,168 N/A

May 7.49 19,125 N/A

June 7.56 18,510 N/A

July 7.45 18,870 N/A

August 7.01 17,603 N/A

September 6.32 15,263 N/A

October 4.53 11,772 N/A

November 3.36 8,660 N/A

December 2.18 5,918 N/A

Annual 5.15 156,465 0

Location and Station Identification

Requested Location 405 martin ave, rohnert park, ca

Weather Data Source (TMY3) SANTA ROSA (AWOS), CA 12 mi

Latitude 38.52° N

Longitude 122.82° W

PV System Specifications (Commercial)

DC System Size 110 kW

Module Type Standard

Array Type Fixed (roof mount)

Array Tilt 20°

Array Azimuth 180°

System Losses 14%

Inverter Efficiency 96%

DC to AC Size Ratio 1.1

Economics

Average Cost of Electricity Purchased from Utility No utility data available

Performance Metrics

Capacity Factor 16.2%

APPENDIX B Biological Studies

July 7, 2017 9810

Jeffrey Beiswenger, Planning Manager City of Rohnert Park 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, California 94928

Subject: Biological Constraints Report for the proposed Fairfield Inn Site in Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California

Dear Mr. Beiswenger:

This letter report provides a description of the methodology and results of a biological constraints review performed for the proposed Fairfield Inn Site, located in the City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The proposed project consists of construction of a five story, 100-unit hotel..

PROJECT LOCATION

The approximately 1.83-acre site is located southwest of the Stadium Lands area, directly southwest of Dowdell Avenue and north of Hinebaugh Creek and Trail. The center of the project site corresponds to 38°, 21', 3.9" north latitude and 122°, 43', 11.2" west longitude, in township 6 north, range 8 west, section 23 of the Cotati, CA” U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle, at the Mt. Diablo Meridian. The project is located within the planning area of the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy, a comprehensive plan for management and development in sensitive habitat within the region.

METHODS

Literature Review

Special-status biological resources present or potentially present on the project site were identified through a literature search using the following sources: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Trust Resource Report (USFWS 2017); the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2017); and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2017). Searches were

Mr. Beiswenger Subject: Biological Constraints Report for the proposed Fairfield Inn Site in Rohnert Park,

Sonoma County, California

9810 2 July 2017

completed for the following U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangles: Cotati, Sebastopol, Santa Rosa, Kenwood, Two Rock, Glen Ellen, Point Reyes, Petaluma, and Petaluma River.

For this report, special-status species are those that are (1) listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered; (2) listed or candidates for listing under the California Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered; (3) a state fully protected species; (4) a CDFW Species of Special Concern; or (5) a species listed on the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants with a California Rare Plant Rank of 1B or 2B.

Special-status vegetation communities are those communities identified as high priority for inventory in the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (CDFG 2010) by a state rarity ranking of S1, S2, or S3.

Field Reconnaissance

Dudek senior aquatic ecologist Craig Seltenrich conducted a habitat assessment for California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californienese) on April 28, 2017. All native and naturalized plant species encountered within the study area were identified and recorded. The potential for special-status plant and wildlife species to occur within the study area was evaluated based on the vegetation communities and soils present. Vegetation communities and land covers on site were mapped directly in the field. There is extensive information regarding existing site conditions and potential for special-status animal species to occur onsite, as numerous biological surveys have been performed for this site in the past, including those conducted for the City of Rohnert Park’s Stadium Area Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (2007).

Latin and common names for plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank follow the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2017). For plant species without a California Rare Plant Rank, Latin names follow the Jepson Interchange List of Currently Accepted Names of Native and Naturalized Plants of California (Jepson Flora Project 2017) and common names follow the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Database (USDA 2017a). Natural vegetation communities were mapped in the field using the Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009) and the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (CDFG 2010).

Dudek geographic information systems (GIS) specialists mapped biological resources into GIS and provided figures using ArcGIS software.



9810 3 July 2017

RESULTS

Site Description

The project site is relatively flat with an elevation range of about 84 to 96 feet above mean sea level. Historically, the site has been altered by agriculture, placement of fill, and grading activities associated with development. The project site was substantially altered in 2007 when fill material was spread across most of the site, in preparation for use as an equipment storage area from 2007 to 2008. Additionally, portions of the site appear to have been maintained by mowing in the late spring/early summer in 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012, as shown on historic aerial imagery,

Soils

One soil type is mapped on the project site: Clear Lake clay, sandy substratum, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes, MLRA 14. The Clear Lake soil series consist of sandy, poorly drained alluvium derived from volcanic and sedimentary rock (USDA 2017).

Although Clear Lake clay soil represents the native soils in the area, the project site has been extensively disturbed and fill material has been deposited throughout the site.

Vegetation Communities and Land Covers

Dudek reviewed historic aerial photography of the study area dating back to 1952 (HistoricAerials.com 2017). Land use on the project site was primarily agricultural prior to conversion to residential and recreation uses (including a baseball diamond) prior to the 1990s. Additionally, the project site showed no evidence of aquatic resources in historic aerials.

Currently, two non-natural land cover types were classified for the project site: disturbed and developed. These land cover types are described in further detail below.

Developed Land

Although not recognized by the Natural Communities List (CDFG 2010), “developed land” refers to areas that have been constructed on or disturbed so severely that native vegetation is no longer supported. Developed land includes areas with permanent or semi-permanent structures, pavement or hardscape, landscaped areas, and areas with a large amount of debris or other materials.



9810 4 July 2017

The portions of the project site that are currently graded or paved and do not contain vegetation are considered developed. This land cover type is the direct result of fairly recent anthropogenic disturbance and does not function as suitable habitat for special-status plant or wildlife species.

Disturbed Land

The classification of disturbed land is due to the predominance of bare ground, non-native plant species, and other ruderal plant species. Disturbed habitat generally corresponds to areas that have been physically disturbed by previous human activity and are no longer recognizable as a native or naturalized vegetation association, but that continue to retain a soil substrate. Typically, vegetation, if present, is nearly exclusively composed of non-native annual plant species (i.e., weeds).

The majority of the project site is comprised of disturbed land (refer to Attachment 1, Representative Site Photographs). The vegetation within this land cover type is typical of non-native species found in previously graded lots and include species such as Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), bulbous canary-grass (Phalaris aquatica), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), spring vetch (Vicia sativa), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Although disturbed, the grassland within this land cover type may provide low-quality habitat for several special-status wildlife species such as burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).

Floral Diversity

A total of 15 species of plants, 1 native (7%) and 14 non-native (93%),were recorded within the study area (Attachment 2). This low plant diversity and high percentage of non-native, weedy species reflects the project site’s developed and disturbed environment, and its proximity to adjacent developed areas.

Wildlife

The project site is completely disturbed with no native habitat and is surrounded by existing development (roads and commercial development) with the exception of Hinebaugh Creek at the southern edge. As a result, wildlife use is expected to be limited to common urban species adapted to life in proximity to human disturbance, such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginana) and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis).



9810 5 July 2017

Special-Status Plant Species

A total of 90 special-status plant species are known to occur within the project quad or eight surrounding quads. Of these 90, 86 were removed from consideration based on lack of suitable soils or habitat, or because the project site is outside of the known elevation or geographic range for the species (Attachment 3). These species are not discussed further in this document. The remaining four species have a low potential to occur on the site due to the highly disturbed nature of the habitat. It is extremely unlikely for these species to occur onsite due to the level of past and ongoing disturbance and maintenance at the project site.

Special-Status Wildlife Species

A total of 29 special-status wildlife species are known to occur within the project quad or eight surrounding quads. Of these, 26 were removed from consideration based on lack of suitable habitat or because the site is outside of the known geographic or elevation range for the species (Attachment 3). These species are not discussed further in this document. The remaining three species that have potential to occur on include western burrowing owl, California tiger salamander, and western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata). These species are discussed in further detail below.

Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)

Burrowing owl (BUOW) is a California bird species of special concern. They are small owls that inhabit burrows or other suitable burrow-like structures in the ground such as culverts or concrete piles. BUOW prefers habitat that contains short or sparse vegetation that allows unobstructed views of potential predators and prey species. Their diet consists of arthropods and small mammals (Dechant et al. 2002). The typical breeding season for this species extends from February 1 to August 31.

The site provides marginally suitable foraging habitat for this species due to dense and high cover of non-native grasses and no suitable burrows were observed during the April 28, 2017 site visit. The nearest documented CNDDB occurrence for this species is located approximately 2.8 miles east of the project site, on the edge of the City of Rohnert Park.

California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)

The Sonoma population of the California tiger salamander (CTS) is a federally and State threatened amphibian species. This species utilizes vernal pools, other ephemeral pools, and sometimes stream courses and man-made pools if predatory fishes are absent, for breeding. They



9810 6 July 2017

utilize annual grassland and valley and foothill hardwood forest for aestivation and overland dispersal habitat.

The project site is within Critical Habitat Unit 1 for this species and Hinebaugh Creek occurs directly south of the project site; however, Dudek senior aquatic ecologist Craig Seltenrich, performed a habitat assessment for this species on April 28, 2017 and concluded the creek does not provide suitable breeding habitat for this species. Additionally, no suitable small mammal burrows were observed during the assessment; thus, it is highly unlikely this species would utilize the disturbed habitat within the project site. The nearest documented CNDDB occurrence of this species is located 0.7 mile south of the project site (Figure 3; CDFW 2017).

Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata)

Western pond turtle is a California reptile species of special concern. It generally inhabits slow-moving permanent or intermittent streams, ponds, small lakes, and reservoirs. They require adequate emergent basking sites and adjacent uplands for nesting, aestivation, and hibernation.

Hinebaugh Creek occurs directly south of the project site and there are two documented CNDDB occurrences located within this waterway; one occurs upstream of the site and one occurs downstream. There is a high probability that this species occurs throughout this waterway, including directly south of the site (Figure 3; CDFW 2017). The project site may provide marginal nesting, aestivation, and hibernation habitat for this species where soils are suitably friable. Although no sign of turtles or suitable burrows for nesting were observed during the survey, there is low potential for this species to occur onsite.

IMPACTS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section addresses potential impacts to special-status biological resources that could result from implementation of the proposed project. This section follows the CEQA checklist for biological resources. For the purposes of this biological analysis, it is assumed that the entire project site will be permanently impacted.

Special-Status Plants

No special-status plant species are expected to occur on the project site; therefore, no potential impacts to special-status plant species would occur due to implementation of the project.



9810 7 July 2017

Special-Status Wildlife

Two special-status wildlife species -burrowing owl and western pond turtle- have a low potential to occur on the project site. Implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures will ensure no impacts to special-status wildlife species would occur due to implementation of the project.

BIO-1: Western Burrowing Owl

Project construction could adversely affect potential nesting and foraging habitat for western burrowing owl either directly through destruction of active burrows from grading activities or indirectly through disturbance associated with noise, increased human activity, and lighting. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 10 days prior to the onset of construction to identify active burrowing owl burrows. If active burrows are detected, the following will be implemented:

• Occupied burrows will not be disturbed during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31).

• No disturbance should occur within 160 feet of occupied burrows during the non-breeding season (September 1 to January 31). If avoidance of occupied burrows during the non-breeding season is not feasible, consultation with CDFW will be necessary. Measures that may be approved through consultation with CDFW may include passive relocation methods, such as installation of one-way doors.

• Any destruction of active burrows shall be mitigated by preservation or creation of suitable burrows at a mitigation ratio no less than 2:1 (impacted habitat: preserved/restored habitat) on protected lands approved by CDFW.

If no active burrows are detected, no further measures are necessary.

BIO-2: Western Pond Turtle

Project construction could adversely affect potential nesting and aestivation habitat for western pond turtle should they be present at the time of ground-disturbing activities. Dudek recommends a preconstruction survey for western pond turtles and potential western pond turtle nest sites be conducted within two weeks prior to initiation of grading. A buffer of 100 feet around any active nests shall be flagged with high visibility flagging and avoided by construction activities until young have hatched and moved from the site of their own volition. Any western pond turtle found



9810 8 July 2017

within the construction area will be avoided and allowed to leave of its own volition, or alternatively and with CDFW approval, it will be captured by a qualified biologist and relocated out of harm’s way to the nearest suitable habitat immediately upstream or downstream from the project site.

BIO-3: Nesting Birds

Project construction could result in impacts to nesting birds, including the loss of nests, eggs, and fledglings if vegetation clearing and ground-disturbing activities occur during the nesting season (generally February 1 through September 30). All native migratory bird species are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (which specifically protects raptors). A preconstruction nesting bird survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist no sooner than 10 days prior to construction activities to determine if any native birds are nesting on or near the site (including a 250-foot buffer for raptors). If any active nests are observed during surveys, a suitable avoidance buffer will be determined and flagged by the qualified biologist based on species, location and planned construction activity. These nests would be avoided until the chicks have fledged and the nests are no longer active. Dudek also recommends removing any habitat (i.e. trees) outside of the breeding bird season. As a result, no significant impacts to nesting birds would occur.

Sensitive Natural Communities

No sensitive natural communities occur on the project site; therefore, no potential impacts to sensitive natural communities would occur with project implementation.

Jurisdictional Waters

Due to the highly disturbed nature of the project site, no potentially jurisdictional wetlands or waters are present. The proposed emergency access road would parallel an existing roadway at the top of the bank of Hinebaugh creek. Although no work is proposed within the creek itself, this feature is likely a jurisdictional feature and impacts would be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the CDFW. Indirect effects may occur to Hinebaugh Creek in the form of sedimentation or runoff from construction activities entering the creek. To prevent impacts to Hinebaugh Creek, Dudek recommends appropriate storm water best management practices (BMPs), such as use of straw wattles and other sediment catchment devices, be used adjacent to Hinebaugh Creek during construction. Additionally, if any trees along the bank of the creek require trimming or removal, this would constitute an impact and would be regulated by the CDFW under Section 1602 of the



9810 9 July 2017

California Fish and Game Code; therefore, Dudek recommends obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW prior to any tree trimming or removal.

Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites

The project site does not function as a wildlife corridor and does not support any wildlife nursery sites. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts to these resources.

City of Rohnert Park Tree Ordinance

The Rohnert Park Code of Ordinances, Title 17, Chapter 17.15 provides regulation for development around trees within the city of Rohnert Park. If any trees on the periphery of the project site are to be removed or trimmed, an application for a tree removal permit should be submitted to the City. Tree replacement shall occur either by depositing an in-lieu fee or by planting an equivalent number of new trees.

Other Recommendations

In addition, Dudek recommends avoiding the use of any invasive, non-native plant species rated as “high” or “moderate” by the California Invasive Plant Council’s Invasive Plant Inventory (Cal-IPC 2017) for future landscaping of the site.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the content of this letter report, please contact me at 916.835.9671 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

_______________________ Laura Burris Biologist

Att.: Figures Figure 1 – Regional Map Figure 2 – Site and Vicinity Figure 3 – CNDDB 5-Mile Radius Map Att. 1 – Representative Site Photographs Att. 2 – Vascular Plant Species Observed Onsite Att. 3 – Table of Potentially Occurring Species



9810 10 July 2017

REFERENCES CITED

AOU (American Ornithologists’ Union). 2015. Checklist of North and Middle American Birds (7th Edition and Supplements). http://checklist.aou.org/taxa/.

Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council). 2017. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2010. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations: Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form. September 2010. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_comm_list.asp.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2017. RareFind 5. California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed June 2017. https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society. Accessed June 2017. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.

Crother, B.I. 2012. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding, edited by J.J. Moriarty. 7th ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles; Herpetological Circular no. 39. August 2012. http://home.gwu.edu/~rpyron/publications/ Crother_et_al_2012.pdf.

Dechant, J.A., M.L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L.D. Igl, C.M. Goldade, P.A. Rabie, and B.R. Euliss. 2002. “Effects of Management Practices on Grassland Birds: Burrowing Owl.” USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. January 1, 2002.

Gervais, J.A., D.K. Rosenberg, and L.A. Comrack. 2008. “Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia).” In California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California, edited by W.D. Shuford and T. Gardali, 218–226. Studies of Western Birds no. 1. California: Western Field Ornithologists (Camarillo), and California Department of Fish and Game (Sacramento). February 4, 2008. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/ nongame/ssc/birds.html.

Haug, E.A., B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. “The Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia).” In The Birds of North America, edited by A. Poole and F. Gill. Philadelphia,

http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/



9810 11 July 2017

Pennsylvania: The Academy of Natural Sciences, and Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

HistoricAerials.com. 2017. Accessed March 8, 2017. https://www.historicaerials.com/.

Jepson Flora Project. 2017. Jepson eFlora. Berkeley, California: University of California. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html.

Lantz, S. J., H. Smith, and D.A. Keinath. 2004. Species Assessment for Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) in Wyoming. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior and Bureau of Land Management.

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. Revised and Expanded. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

NABA (North American Butterfly Association). 2001. “Checklist of North American Butterflies Occurring North of Mexico.” Adapted from North American Butterfly Association (NABA) Checklist and English Names of North American Butterflies, eds. B. Cassie, J. Glassberg, A. Swengel, and G. Tudor. 2nd ed. Morristown, New Jersey: NABA. http://www.naba.org/pubs/enames2.html.

Sawyer, J., T. Keeler-Wolf., and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2nd ed. California Native Plant Society.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2017a. “California.” State PLANTS Checklist. http://plants.usda.gov/dl_state.html.

USDA. 2017b. Web Soil Survey. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2017. Critical Habitat and Occurrence Data. Accessed June 2017. http://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap= 9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8dbfb77.

Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder, eds. 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 3rd ed. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990. California’s Wildlife: Volume III. Mammals. Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game.

ATTACHMENT 1

Representative Site Photographs

Attachment 1 Representative Site Photographs

9810 1 July 2017

Photo 1: View of disturbed grassland habitat, facing east (April 28, 2017).

Photo 2: View of disturbed grassland and developed areas, facing southeast (April 28, 2017).

ATTACHMENT 2

Vascular Plant Species Observed Onsite

Attachment 2 List of Vascular Species Observed Onsite

9810 1 July 2017

MONOCOTS

POACEAE—Grass Family

* Phalaris aquatica—Harding grass swards

* Festuca perennis—perennial rye grass

EUDICOTS

APIACEAE—Carrot Family

* Foeniculum vulgare—fennel

ASTERACEAE—Sunflower Family

* Helminthotheca echioides—bristly oxtongue

* Lactuca serriola—prickly lettuce

BRASSICACEAE—Mustard Family

* Brassica nigra—black mustard

* Raphanus sativus—cultivated radish

CONVOLVULACEAE—Morning-glory Family

* Convolvulus arvensis—field bindweed

FABACEAE—Legume Family

* Vicia sativa—garden vetch

GERANIACEAE—Geranium Family

* Erodium cicutarium—redstem stork's bill

* Erodium moschatum—musky stork's bill

MALVACEAE—Mallow Family

* Malva parviflora—cheeseweed mallow

PLANTAGINACEAE—Plantain Family

* Plantago lanceolata—narrowleaf plantain

POLYGONACEAE—Buckwheat Family

* Rumex crispus—curly dock

RUBIACEAE—Madder Family

Galium aparine—stickywilly

ATTACHMENT 3

Table of Potentially Occurring Special-status

Species

Attachment 3 Potentially Occuring Special-Status Plant Species

9810 1 July 2017

Scientific Name Common Name Status

(Federal/State/CRPR)

Primary Habitat Associations/ Life

Form/ Blooming Period/ Elevation

Range (feet)

Potential to Occur

Allium

peninsulare var.

franciscanum

Franciscan

onion

None/None/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, valley and

foothill grassland; clay, volcanic, often

serpentinite/perennial bulbiferous

herb/May–June/171–1,001

Not expected to occur. The site is

outside of the species’ known elevation

range.

Alopecurus

aequalis var.

sonomensis

Sonoma

alopecurus

FE/None/1B.1 Marshes and swamps (freshwater),

riparian scrub/perennial herb/May–

July/16–1,198

Not expected to occur. No suitable

wetland habitat present.

Amorpha

californica var.

napensis

Napa false

indigo

None/None/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest (openings),

chaparral, cismontane

woodland/perennial deciduous

shrub/Apr–July/394–6,562



range and there is no suitable chaparral

or forest habitat present.

Amsinckia

lunaris

bent-flowered

fiddleneck

None/None/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane

woodland, valley and foothill

grassland/annual herb/Mar–June/10–

1,640

Low Potential to occur. The grassland

onsite provide marginally suitable

habitat for this species; however, it is

highly disturbed.

Arctostaphylos

densiflora

Vine Hill

manzanita

None/CE/1B.1 Chaparral (acid marine

sand)/perennial evergreen

shrub/Feb–Apr/164–394




habitat present.

Arctostaphylos

stanfordiana

ssp. decumbens

Rincon Ridge

manzanita

None/None/1B.1 Chaparral (rhyolitic), cismontane

woodland/perennial evergreen

shrub/Feb–Apr (May)/246–1,214




or woodland habitat present.

Astragalus

claranus

Clara Hunt's

milk-vetch

FE/CT/1B.1 Chaparral (openings), cismontane

woodland, valley and foothill

grassland; serpentinite or volcanic,

rocky, clay/annual herb/Mar–

May/246–902



range and there are no suitable soils

present.


9810 2 July 2017





Range (feet)

Potential to Occur

Astragalus tener

var. tener

alkali milk-vetch None/None/1B.2 Playas, valley and foothill grassland

(adobe clay), vernal pools;

alkaline/annual herb/Mar–June/3–

197


mesic or vernal pool habitat present.

Balsamorhiza

macrolepis

big-scale

balsamroot

None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,

valley and foothill grassland;

sometimes serpentinite/perennial

herb/Mar–June/295–5,102



range and there are not suitable soils

present.

Blennosperma

bakeri

Sonoma

sunshine

FE/CE/1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland (mesic),

vernal pools/annual herb/Mar–

May/33–361


mesic or vernal pool habitat present.

Brodiaea

leptandra

narrow-

anthered

brodiaea

None/None/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral,

cismontane woodland, lower

montane coniferous forest, valley and

foothill grassland; volcanic/perennial

bulbiferous herb/May–July/361–3,002



range.

Calamagrostis

crassiglumis

Thurber's reed

grass

None/None/2B.1 Coastal scrub (mesic), marshes and

swamps (freshwater)/perennial

rhizomatous herb/May–Aug/33–197


mesic or wetland habitat present.

California

macrophylla

round-leaved

filaree

None/None/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, valley and

foothill grassland; clay/annual

herb/Mar–May/49–3,937




highly disturbed.

Campanula

californica

swamp harebell None/None/1B.2 Bogs and fens, closed-cone coniferous

forest, coastal prairie, meadows and

seeps, marshes and swamps

(freshwater), north coast coniferous

forest; mesic/perennial rhizomatous

herb/June–Oct/3–1,329




9810 3 July 2017





Range (feet)

Potential to Occur

Castilleja

uliginosa

Pitkin Marsh

paintbrush

None/CE/1A Marshes and swamps

(freshwater)/perennial herb

(hemiparasitic)/June–July/787–787



range and there is no suitable wetland

habitat present.

Ceanothus

confusus

Rincon Ridge

ceanothus

None/None/1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest,

chaparral, cismontane woodland;

volcanic or serpentinite/perennial

evergreen shrub/Feb–June/246–3,494



range and there is no suitable scrub or

forest habitat present.

Ceanothus

divergens

Calistoga

ceanothus

None/None/1B.2 Chaparral (serpentinite or volcanic,

rocky)/perennial evergreen

shrub/Feb–Apr/558–3,117




habitat present.

Ceanothus

foliosus var.

vineatus

Vine Hill

ceanothus

None/None/1B.1 Chaparral/perennial evergreen

shrub/Mar–May/148–1,001


chaparral habitat present.

Ceanothus

masonii

Mason's

ceanothus

None/CR/1B.2 Chaparral (openings, rocky,

serpentinite)/perennial evergreen

shrub/Mar–Apr/755–1,640




habitat present.

Ceanothus

purpureus

holly-leaved

ceanothus

None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland;

volcanic, rocky/perennial evergreen

shrub/Feb–June/394–2,100





Ceanothus

sonomensis

Sonoma

ceanothus

None/None/1B.2 Chaparral (sandy, serpentinite, or

volcanic)/perennial evergreen

shrub/Feb–Apr/705–2,625




habitat present.


9810 4 July 2017





Range (feet)

Potential to Occur

Centromadia

parryi ssp. parryi

pappose

tarplant

None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows

and seeps, marshes and swamps

(coastal salt), valley and foothill

grassland (vernally mesic); often

alkaline/annual herb/May–Nov/0–

1,378


vernally mesic habitat present.

Chloropyron

maritimum ssp.

palustre

Point Reyes

bird's-beak

None/None/1B.2 Marshes and swamps (coastal

salt)/annual herb

(hemiparasitic)/June–Oct/0–33


coastal salt marsh habitat present.

Chloropyron

molle ssp. molle

soft bird's-beak FE/CR/1B.2 Marshes and swamps (coastal

salt)/annual herb

(hemiparasitic)/July–Nov/0–10


coastal salt marsh habitat present.

Chorizanthe

valida

Sonoma

spineflower

FE/CE/1B.1 Coastal prairie (sandy)/annual

herb/June–Aug/33–1,001


coastal prairie habitat present.

Cirsium

andrewsii

Franciscan

thistle

None/None/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, coastal

bluff scrub, coastal prairie, coastal

scrub; mesic, sometimes

serpentinite/perennial herb/Mar–

July/0–492


habitat present.

Clarkia

imbricata

Vine Hill clarkia FE/CE/1B.1 Chaparral, valley and foothill

grassland; acidic sandy loam/annual

herb/June–Aug/164–246



range.

Cuscuta

obtusiflora var.

glandulosa

Peruvian dodder None/None/2B.2 Marshes and swamps

(freshwater)/annual vine

(parasitic)/July–Oct/49–919


swamp habitat present.


9810 5 July 2017





Range (feet)

Potential to Occur

Delphinium

bakeri

Baker's larkspur FE/CE/1B.1 Broadleafed upland forest, coastal

scrub, valley and foothill grassland;

decomposed shale, often

mesic/perennial herb/Mar–May/262–

1,001



range.

Delphinium

luteum

golden larkspur FE/CR/1B.1 Chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal

scrub; rocky/perennial herb/Mar–

May/0–328


coastal or scrub habitat present.

Downingia

pusilla

dwarf

downingia

None/None/2B.2 Valley and foothill grassland (mesic),

vernal pools/annual herb/Mar–

May/3–1,460


vernal pool or mesic habitat present

Eriogonum

luteolum var.

caninum

Tiburon

buckwheat


coastal prairie, valley and foothill

grassland; serpentinite, sandy to

gravelly/annual herb/May–Sep/0–

2,297


serpentine soils present

Fritillaria

lanceolata var.

tristulis

Marin checker

lily

None/None/1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie,

coastal scrub/perennial bulbiferous

herb/Feb–May/49–492


coastal habitat present.

Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary None/None/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie,

coastal scrub, valley and foothill

grassland; often

serpentinite/perennial bulbiferous

herb/Feb–Apr/10–1,345



Gilia capitata

ssp. tomentosa

woolly-headed

gilia

None/None/1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill

grassland; serpentinite, rocky,

outcrops/annual herb/May–July/33–

722


rocky serpentine soils present


9810 6 July 2017





Range (feet)

Potential to Occur

Hemizonia

congesta ssp.

congesta

congested-

headed hayfield

tarplant

None/None/1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland;

sometimes roadsides/annual

herb/Apr–Nov/66–1,837




highly disturbed.

Hesperolinon

congestum

Marin western

flax

FT/CT/1B.1 Chaparral, valley and foothill

grassland; serpentinite/annual

herb/Apr–July/16–1214



Horkelia

tenuiloba

thin-lobed

horkelia

None/None/1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral,

valley and foothill grassland; mesic

openings, sandy/perennial herb/May–

July (Aug)/164–1,640



range and no suitable mesic habitat is

present.

Lasthenia burkei Burke's

goldfields

FE/CE/1B.1 Meadows and seeps (mesic), vernal

pools/annual herb/Apr–June/49–

1,969


mesic habitat present.

Lasthenia

californica ssp.

bakeri

Baker's

goldfields

None/None/1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest

(openings), coastal scrub, meadows

and seeps, marshes and

swamps/perennial herb/Apr–

Oct/197–1,706




habitat present.

Lasthenia

conjugens

Contra Costa

goldfields

FE/None/1B.1 Cismontane woodland, playas

(alkaline), valley and foothill

grassland, vernal pools; mesic/annual

herb/Mar–June/0–1,542


vernal pool or other mesic habitat

present

Layia

septentrionalis

Colusa layia None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland,

valley and foothill grassland; sandy,

serpentinite/annual herb/Apr–

May/328–3,593



range.

Legenere limosa legenere None/None/1B.1 Vernal pools/annual herb/Apr–

June/3–2,887


vernal pool habitat present.


9810 7 July 2017





Range (feet)

Potential to Occur

Leptosiphon

jepsonii

Jepson's

leptosiphon

None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland;

usually volcanic/annual herb/Mar–

May/328–1,640





Lessingia

hololeuca

woolly-headed

lessingia

None/None/3 Broadleafed upland forest, coastal

scrub, lower montane coniferous

forest, valley and foothill grassland;

clay, serpentinite/annual herb/June–

Oct/49–1,001



Lilium

pardalinum ssp.

pitkinense

Pitkin Marsh lily FE/CE/1B.1 Cismontane woodland, meadows and

seeps, marshes and swamps

(freshwater); mesic, sandy/perennial

bulbiferous herb/June–July/115–213


mesic habitat present.

Limnanthes

vinculans

Sebastopol

meadowfoam

FE/CE/1B.1 Meadows and seeps, valley and

foothill grassland, vernal pools;

vernally mesic/annual herb/Apr–

May/49–1,001


vernal pool habitat present

Microseris

paludosa

marsh

microseris

None/None/1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest,

cismontane woodland, coastal scrub,

valley and foothill grassland/perennial

herb/Apr–June (July)/16–1,165




highly disturbed.

Navarretia

leucocephala

ssp. bakeri

Baker's

navarretia

None/None/1B.1 Cismontane woodland, lower

montane coniferous forest, meadows

and seeps, valley and foothill

grassland, vernal pools; mesic/annual

herb/Apr–July/16–5,709


vernal pool habitat present

Navarretia

leucocephala

ssp. plieantha

many-flowered

navarretia

FE/CE/1B.2 Vernal pools (volcanic ash

flow)/annual herb/May–June/98–

3,117


vernal pool habitat present.


9810 8 July 2017





Range (feet)

Potential to Occur

Penstemon

newberryi var.

sonomensis

Sonoma

beardtongue

None/None/1B.3 Chaparral (rocky)/perennial herb/Apr–

Aug/2,297–4,495




habitat present.

Plagiobothrys

mollis var.

vestitus

Petaluma

popcornflower

None/None/1A Marshes and swamps (coastal salt),

valley and foothill grassland

(mesic)/perennial herb/June–July/33–

164


mesic or wetland habitat present.

Pleuropogon

hooverianus

North Coast

semaphore

grass

None/CT/1B.1 Broadleafed upland forest, meadows

and seeps, north coast coniferous

forest; open areas, mesic/perennial

rhizomatous herb/Apr–June/33–2,201


forest or wetland habitat present.

Potentilla

uliginosa

Cunningham

Marsh

cinquefoil

None/None/1A Marshes and swamps; freshwater,

permanent oligotrophic

wetlands/perennial herb/May–

Aug/98–131



Rhynchospora

alba

white beaked-

rush

None/None/2B.2 Bogs and fens, meadows and seeps,

marshes and swamps

(freshwater)/perennial rhizomatous

herb/July–Aug/197–6,693




habitat present.

Rhynchospora

californica

California

beaked-rush

None/None/1B.1 Bogs and fens, lower montane

coniferous forest, meadows and seeps

(seeps), marshes and swamps


herb/May–July/148–3,314


wetland or forest habitat present.


9810 9 July 2017





Range (feet)

Potential to Occur

Rhynchospora

capitellata

brownish

beaked-rush

None/None/2B.2 Lower montane coniferous forest,

meadows and seeps, marshes and

swamps, upper montane coniferous

forest; mesic/perennial herb/July–

Aug/148–6,562


wetland or forest habitat present.

Rhynchospora

globularis

round-headed

beaked-rush

None/None/2B.1 Marshes and swamps


herb/July–Aug/148–197



Sidalcea

calycosa ssp.

rhizomata

Point Reyes

checkerbloom

None/None/1B.2 Marshes and swamps (freshwater,

near coast)/perennial rhizomatous

herb/Apr–Sep/10–246



Sidalcea

oregana ssp.

valida

Kenwood Marsh

checkerbloom

FE/CE/1B.1 Marshes and swamps


herb/June–Sep/377–492




habitat present.

Trifolium

amoenum

two-fork clover FE/None/1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill

grassland (sometimes

serpentinite)/annual herb/Apr–

June/16–1,362


serpentine soils present.

Trifolium

buckwestiorum

Santa Cruz

clover

None/None/1B.1 Broadleafed upland forest,

cismontane woodland, coastal prairie;

gravelly, margins/annual herb/Apr–

Oct/344–2,001



range and there is no suitable forest or

coastal prairie habitat present.

Trifolium

hydrophilum

saline clover None/None/1B.2 Marshes and swamps, valley and

foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline),

vernal pools/annual herb/Apr–

June/0–984


mesic habitat or alkaline soils present.


9810 10 July 2017





Range (feet)

Potential to Occur

Triphysaria

floribunda

San Francisco

owl's-clover

None/None/1B.2 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley

and foothill grassland; usually

serpentinite/annual herb/Apr–

June/33–525


serpentine soils present.

Triquetrella

californica

coastal

triquetrella

None/None/1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub;

soil/moss/N.A./33–328


coastal habitat present.

Viburnum

ellipticum

oval-leaved

viburnum


lower montane coniferous

forest/perennial deciduous

shrub/May–June/705–4,593




or forest habitat present.

Attachment 3 Potentially Occuring Special-Status Wildlife Species

9810 1 July 2017


(Federal/State) Habitat Potential to Occur

Amphibians

Ambystoma

californiense

California tiger

salamander

FT/ST, WL Annual grassland, valley–foothill hardwood,

and valley–foothill riparian habitats; vernal

pools, other ephemeral pools, and

(uncommonly) along stream courses and man-

made pools if predatory fishes are absent.

Low potential to occur. Hinebaugh

Creek provides marginally suitable

breeding habitat for this species. The

disturbed habitat provides marginally

suitable upland and dispersal habitat

for this species.

Dicamptodon

ensatus

California giant

salamander

None/SSC Known from wet coastal forests and chaparral

near streams and seeps from Mendocino Co.

south to Monterey Co. and east to Napa Co.

Aquatic larvae found in cold, clear streams,

occasionally in lakes and ponds. Adults known

from wet forests under rocks and logs near

streams and lakes.


habitat present.

Rana boylii foothill yellow-

legged frog

None/SSC Rocky streams and rivers with open banks in

forest, chaparral, and woodland.


habitat present.

Rana draytonii California red-

legged frog

FT/SSC Lowland streams, wetlands, riparian

woodlands, livestock ponds; dense, shrubby or

emergent habitat associated with deep, still or

slow-moving water; uses adjacent uplands.

Low potential to occur. Hinebaugh

Creek, located directly south of the

project site may provide potentially

suitable aquatic habitat for this species.

Thus, the project site may provide

marginally suitable overland migration

or aestivation habitat for this species.


9810 2 July 2017



Taricha rivularis red-bellied

newt

None/SSC Redwood forests (and sometimes other forest

types) along coastal drainages from Humboldt

County south to Sonoma County, inland to Lake

County. Lives in terrestrial habitats, juveniles

generally underground, adults active at surface

in moist environments. Will migrate over 1 km

to breed, typically in streams with moderate

flow and clean rocky substrate.


redwood forest habitat present.

Reptiles

Actinemys

marmorata

western pond

turtle

None/SSC Slow-moving permanent or intermittent

streams, ponds, small lakes, and reservoirs with

emergent basking sites; adjacent uplands used

for nesting and during winter.

Moderate potential to occur.

Potentially suitable nesting habitat

occurs within the project site. However,

the site is highly disturbed and the

likelihood of this species using it is

limited. This species has been

previously documented in Hinebaugh

Creek, directly adjacent to the project

site.

Birds

Agelaius tricolor

(nesting colony)

tricolored

blackbird

BCC/PSE, SSC Nests near freshwater, emergent wetland with

cattails or tules, but also in Himalayan

blackberry; forages in grasslands, woodland,

and agriculture.


nesting habitat present.


9810 3 July 2017



Ammodramus

savannarum

(nesting)

grasshopper

sparrow

None/SSC Nests and forages in moderately open

grassland with tall forbs or scattered shrubs

used for perches

Low potential to occur. The disturbed

habitat may provide very marginal

foraging habitat for this species;

however, it is limited in size and

isolated from other open grassland

areas.

Aquila

chrysaetos

(nesting &

wintering)

golden eagle BCC/FP, WL Nests and winters in hilly, open/semi-open

areas, including shrublands, grasslands,

pastures, riparian areas, mountainous canyon

land, open desert rimrock terrain; nests in large

trees and on cliffs in open areas and forages in

open habitats.



Athene

cunicularia

(burrow sites &

some wintering

sites)

burrowing owl BCC/SSC Nests and forages in grassland, open scrub, and

agriculture, particularly with ground squirrel

burrows.

Low potential to occur. The disturbed

habitat may provide potentially

suitable habitat for this species if

suitable burrows are present. However,

the site is small and isolated from other

suitable foraging habitat.

Buteo regalis

(wintering)

ferruginous

hawk

BCC/WL Winters and forages in open, dry country,

grasslands, open fields, agriculture.


foraging habitat present.

Buteo swainsoni

(nesting)

Swainson's

hawk

BCC/ST Nests in open woodland and savanna, riparian,

and in isolated large trees; forages in nearby

grasslands and agricultural areas such as wheat

and alfalfa fields and pasture.

Not expected to occur. The project site

is small and isolated and does not

contain suitable nesting habitat for this

species.


9810 4 July 2017



Coccyzus

americanus

occidentalis

(nesting)

western yellow-

billed cuckoo

FT, BCC/SE Nests in dense, wide riparian woodlands and

forest with well-developed understories.



Elanus leucurus

(nesting)

white-tailed kite None/FP Nests in woodland, riparian, and individual

trees near open lands; forages opportunistically

in grassland, meadows, scrubs, agriculture,

emergent wetland, savanna, and disturbed

lands.

Low potential to occur. The project site

is small and isolated and does not

contain suitable nesting habitat for this

species.

Eremophila

alpestris actia

California

horned lark

None/WL Nests and forages in grasslands, disturbed

lands, agriculture, and beaches; nests in alpine

fell fields of the Sierra Nevada.


is outside the geographic range for

nesting and no suitable nesting habitat

present.

Geothlypis

trichas sinuosa

saltmarsh

common

yellowthroat

BCC/SSC Nests and forages in emergent wetlands

including woody swamp, brackish marsh, and

freshwater marsh.


is outside the geographic range of this

species and there is no suitable habitat

present.

Laterallus

jamaicensis

coturniculus

California black

rail

BCC/ST, FP Tidal marshes, shallow freshwater margins, wet

meadows, and flooded grassy habitat; suitable

habitats are often supplied by canal leakage in

Sierra Nevada foothill populations.




present.

Melospiza

melodia

samuelis

San Pablo song

sparrow

BCC/SSC Nests and forages in tidal and muted tidal

saltmarsh.




present.

Rallus obsoletus

obsoletus

Ridgway’s rail None/None Coastal salt or brackish marshes. Not expected to occur. The project site



present.


9810 5 July 2017



Riparia riparia

(nesting)

bank swallow None/ST Nests in riparian, lacustrine, and coastal areas

with vertical banks, bluffs, and cliffs with sandy

soils; open country and water during migration.


habitat present.

Fishes

Lavinia

symmetricus ssp.

2

Tomales roach None/SSC Tributaries to Tomales Bay. Not expected to occur. The project site

is outside the known geographic range

of this species and no suitable aquatic

habitat present.

Oncorhynchus

kisutch

coho salmon -

central

California coast

ESU

FE/SE Streams and small freshwater tributaries during

first half of life cycle and estuarine and marine

waters of the Pacific Ocean during the second

half of life cycle. Spawns in small streams with

stable gravel substrates.


aquatic habitat present.

steelhead -

central

California coast

DPS

FT/None Coastal basins from Redwood Creek south to

the Gualala River, inclusive; does not include

summer-run steelhead.



steelhead -

Central Valley

DPS






steelhead -

northern

California DPS






summer-run

steelhead trout

None/SSC Coastal basins from Redwood Creek south to





Pogonichthys

macrolepidotus

Sacramento

splittail

None/SSC Endemic to the lakes and rivers of the Central

Valley, but now confined to the Delta, Suisun

Bay, and associated marshes.




9810 6 July 2017



Spirinchus

thaleichthys

longfin smelt FC/ST, SSC Aquatic, estuary. Not expected to occur. No suitable


Mammals

Antrozous

pallidus

pallid bat None/SSC Grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, forests;

most common in open, dry habitats with rocky

outcrops for roosting, but also roosts in man-

made structures and trees.


roosting or foraging habitat present.

Corynorhinus

townsendii

Townsend's big-

eared bat

None/SSC Mesic habitats characterized by coniferous and

deciduous forests and riparian habitat, but also

xeric areas; roosts in limestone caves and lava

tubes, man-made structures, and tunnels.


roosting or foraging habitat present.

Lasiurus

blossevillii

western red bat None/SSC Forest, woodland, riparian, mesquite bosque,

and orchards, including fig, apricot, peach,

pear, almond, walnut, and orange; roosts in

tree canopy.


habitat present.

Reithrodontomys

raviventris

salt-marsh

harvest mouse

FE/SE, FP Saline emergent wetlands, preference for

pickleweed saline emergent wetlands; also

uses adjacent grasslands.


saltmarsh habitat present.

Taxidea taxus American

badger

None/SSC Dry, open, treeless areas; grasslands, coastal

scrub, agriculture, and pastures, especially with

friable soils.


burrow or den habitat present.

Invertebrates

Syncaris pacifica California

freshwater

shrimp

FE/SE Endemic to Marin, Napa, and Sonoma

Counties; found in low-elevation, low-gradient

streams where riparian cover is moderate to

heavy.



APPENDIX C Traffic Impact Study

Balancing Functionality and Livability since 1995w-trans.com

TRAFFIC ENGINEERINGTRANSPORTATION PLANNING

250 Qty.

April 4, 2017

Prepared for the City of Rohnert Park

Submitted byW-Trans

Traffic Impact Study forThe Fairfield Inn & Suites Project

i Traffic Impact Study for The Fairfield Inn & Suites Project April 4, 2017

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Transportation Setting ............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Capacity Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Access and Circulation .......................................................................................................................................................... 18

Alternative Modes .................................................................................................................................................................. 19

Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 20

Study Participants and References ................................................................................................................................... 21

Figures 1. Study Area and Existing Lane Configurations .................................................................................................................. 3 2. Existing Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 3. Baseline Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 4. Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 5. Project Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................................................................... 15

Tables 1. Intersection Level of Service Criteria ................................................................................................................................... 8 2. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................................................... 9 3. Baseline Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................................................ 12 4. Trip Generation Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 5. Trip Distribution Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................. 14 6. Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ....................................................... 16 7. Baseline and Baseline plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................... 17

Appendices A. Intersection Level of Service Calculations

1 Traffic Impact Study for The Fairfield Inn & Suites Project April 4, 2017

Executive Summary

The proposed project includes a new 100-room hotel on a currently vacant site located at 405 Martin Avenue, near the southwestern corner of the Martin Avenue/Dowdell Avenue intersection.

Peak hour traffic conditions at six nearby intersections were evaluated to determine the potential impacts associated with development of the project. Under existing conditions, as well as baseline conditions, which includes the development of nearby projects that are under construction or undergoing City entitlement review, all six intersections are or are expected to be operating acceptably except for Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway. This intersection is operating at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour, which exceeds the LOS C standard set by the City’s General Plan. With the addition of project-generated trips, all study intersections are expected to operate acceptably except Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which is anticipated to continue operating at the same unacceptable level of service during the p.m. peak hour. Since level of service at Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway is not being further reduced by the proposed project, the impacts are considered to be less-than-significant.

The anticipated trip generation of the project was compared to the trip generation potential associated with the site’s existing C-R zoning designation, which envisions retail-type uses as assumed in prior environmental analyses including the Stadium Area Master Plan (SAMP) Draft Environmental Impact Report. The proposed hotel would produce fewer daily and p.m. peak hour trips than typical C-R retail uses. Trips during the a.m. peak hour would be somewhat higher, though would not be expected to cause any impacts beyond those identified in the more critical p.m. peak hour analysis.

Continuous pedestrian facilities exist beyond the project site, though the project should also be conditioned to include sidewalks along all public street frontages, including the extension of Martin Avenue bordering the project site. Transit access to the site would be adequate as long as the onsite sidewalk network is complete. The project should provide a minimum of seven bicycle parking spaces.

2 Traffic Impact Study for The Fairfield Inn & Suites Project

April 4, 2017

Introduction

This report presents an analysis of the potential traffic impacts that would be associated with development of a proposed 100-room hotel to be located at 405 Martin Avenue in the City of Rohnert Park. The traffic study was completed in accordance with the criteria established by the City of Rohnert Park, 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 proposed project includes the construction of a 100-room hotel on a currently vacant site located southwest of the Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue intersection, just east of the Stadium Area Master Plan area. The project access would be via a driveway shared with Ashley Furniture that forms the south leg of the Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue intersection. The project site is shown in Figure 1.

Project Site

Comm

erce Blvd

Dow

dell

Ave

Rohnert Park

Redwood Dr

Carlson Ct

Golf Course Dr W

Martin Ave

M

ar tin Ave

Laba

th A

ve

Business Park Dr

Dow

dell

Ave

Laba

th A

ve

Expressway

101

1

2 3 4

56

BL

BL

BL

Business Park Dr

Redwood Dr

1

Martin Ave

Martin AveExtension

Labath Ave

2

Dowdell Ave

Martin AveExtension Martin Ave

3

Redw

ood D

r

Martin Ave

4

BL BL

BL BL

Labath Ave

ExpresswayRohnert Park

5

BL

BL

BL BL

BL

BL

BLBLRohnert ParkExpressway

Redwood Dr

6

Figure 1 – Study Area and Existing Lane ConfigurationsTraffic Impact Study for the Fairfield Inn & Suites

rpa907-61.ai 4/17

North

Not to Scale

LEGEND

Future StreetStudy Intersection


April 4, 2017

Transportation Setting

Operational Analysis

Study Area and Periods

The study area consists of the following intersections:

1. Redwood Drive/Business Park Drive 2. Labath Avenue/Martin Avenue 3. Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue 4. Redwood Drive/Martin Avenue 5. Labath Avenue/Rohnert Park Expressway 6. Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway

Operating conditions during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods were evaluated to capture 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

Redwood Drive/Business Park Drive is a signalized “tee” intersection with protected left-turn phasing on the northbound approach. The eastbound approach includes a right-turn overlap signal phase. A marked crosswalk is provided across the west leg of the intersection.

Labath Avenue/Martin Avenue is an unsignalized “tee” intersection with stop controls on the terminating eastbound approach.

Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue currently serves as a through street for vehicles traveling from westbound Martin Avenue to northbound Dowdell Avenue. The southern leg is a driveway serving Ashley Furniture. The proposed “Residences at Five Creek” project would extend Martin Avenue to Labath Avenue, adding a new western leg at the intersection, resulting in a four-legged, all-way stop-controlled intersection at Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue.

Redwood Drive/Martin Avenue is a four-legged signalized intersection with protected left-turn phasing on the northbound and southbound Redwood Drive approaches. The eastbound Martin Avenue approach includes a right-turn overlap signal phase. Marked crosswalks and pedestrian phasing are provided at each leg of the intersection.

Labath Avenue/Rohnert Park Expressway is a signalized, four-legged intersection, with protected left-turn phasing on all approaches, and right-turn overlap signal phases on the eastbound and westbound approaches. Crosswalks with pedestrian phasing are present on all legs of the intersection.

Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway is a four-legged signalized intersection with protected left-turn phasing on all approaches. The northbound and westbound approaches include right-turn overlap signal phases. Marked crosswalks and pedestrian phasing are provided at each leg.

The locations of the study intersections and the existing lane configurations and controls are shown in Figure 1.


Alternative Modes


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, obstacles, and barriers can be found along some or 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 safety concerns in those locations where appropriate pedestrian infrastructure would address potential conflict points.

Continuous sidewalk coverage is provided along Martin Avenue, which currently terminates at the northwestern corner of the project site. Sidewalks also exist on the west side of Labath Avenue, north of the project site. On the east side of Labath Avenue there are no sidewalks, apart from a small section spanning 360 feet adjacent to a parking lot on the northwest corner of the project site. A pedestrian crosswalk exists on the south leg of the intersection of Dowdell Avenue/Carlson Court. Though there is only one crosswalk, the intersections of Dowdell Avenue/Carlson Court, Labath Avenue/Carlson Court, and Labath Avenue/Martin Avenue have curb ramps at each leg. Continuous sidewalk is also provided on the west side of Redwood Drive, bordering the existing Costco store northeast of the project site, which connects to Martin Avenue.

Bicycle Facilities

The Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation (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.

In the project area, Class II bike lanes exist on Dowdell Avenue, as well as along Redwood Drive and Rohnert Park Expressway. The Santa Rosa De Laguna Trail runs along the southern boundary of the site which extends from the western City limits to Redwood Drive. There are no other existing bicycle facilities present within the study area. However, Class II bike lanes are planned for both Labath Avenue and Martin Avenue, and the City is currently considering options to fill a short gap in the bike lane system on Redwood Drive near Martin Avenue.

Transit Facilities

Sonoma County Transit (SCT) provides regional transit service between Rohnert Park and surrounding Sonoma County communities. SCT Route 44 provides service to the project area and has four stops on Labath Avenue. One stop northbound and one southbound are located on Labath Avenue near the Hinebaugh Creek trailhead, southwest of the project site, and across from North Bay Industries, which is northwest of the project site.

Route 44 operates Monday through Friday with approximately one-hour headways between 5:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. Weekend service for Route 44 does not operate within the project area.


April 4, 2017

Two to three bicycles can be carried on most SCT buses. Bike rack space is on a first come, first served basis. Additional bicycles are allowed on SCT 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. SCT Paratransit is designed to serve the needs of individuals with disabilities within Rohnert Park and Sonoma County.


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, 2010. 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.

Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue was analyzed using the “All-Way Stop-Controlled” Intersection methodology from the HCM for all “plus Project” scenarios. This methodology evaluates delay for each approach based on turning movements, opposing and conflicting traffic volumes, and the number of lanes. Average vehicle delay is computed for the intersection as a whole, and is then related to a Level of Service.

The study intersections that are 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.

The ranges of delay associated with the various levels of service are indicated in Table 1.


April 4, 2017

Table 1 – Intersection Level of Service Criteria

LOS Two-Way Stop-Controlled All-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. Upon stopping, drivers are immediately able to proceed.

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 15 seconds. Drivers may wait for one or two vehicles to clear the intersection before proceeding from a stop.

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 15 to 25 seconds. Drivers will enter a queue of one or two vehicles on the same approach, and wait for vehicle to clear from one or more approaches prior to entering the intersection.

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 25 to 35 seconds. Queues of more than two vehicles are encountered on one or more approaches.

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 35 to 50 seconds. Longer queues are encountered on more than one approach to the intersection.

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 50 seconds. Drivers enter long queues on all approaches.

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, 2010

City of Rohnert Park

The applied thresholds of significance for intersection impacts are based on those included in Policy TR-1 of the Rohnert Park 2020 General Plan, which stipulates that LOS C is the minimum acceptable standard. Policy TR-1 also indicates that intersections operating at LOS D or lower at the time a development application is submitted are allowable, so long as the development results in no further LOS reduction, and provided that no feasible improvements exist to improve the LOS.

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 June 2016.

Intersection Levels of Service

Under existing conditions, all study intersections are operating acceptably except Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which operates at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. A summary of the existing intersection level of


service calculations is contained in Table 2, the existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2, and copies of the Level of Service calculations are provided in Appendix A.

Table 2 – Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service


AM Peak PM Peak

Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 6.0 A 6.4 A

2. Labath Ave/Martin Ave 2.9 A 2.7 A

Eastbound (Martin Ave) approach 9.3 A 10.4 B

Westbound (Martin Ave) approach 2.7 A 2.7 A

3. Dowdell Ave/Martin Ave N/A N/A N/A N/A

4. Redwood Dr/Martin Ave 8.4 A 13.0 B

5. Labath Ave/Rohnert Park Exp 18.9 B 24.6 C

6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Exp 32.9 C 45.9 D

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; Bold text = deficient operation

Baseline Conditions

Baseline operating conditions were developed to include trips from approved projects in the area including:

“The Reserve,” north of the project site, includes plans for 84 apartment units “The Residences at Five Creek,” located just north of the project site, includes 135 apartment units, 34,000

square feet of retail space, a 132-room hotel, and 0.65-acre park New buildings for City of Rohnert Park Public Safety and Public Works institutional uses, neighboring the west

side of the proposed project, located just south of the Five Creek project

Upon the construction of the proposed “Residences at Five Creek” and the proposed Fairfield Inn project, Martin Avenue will be extended westward to Labath Avenue. With the extension of Martin Avenue, the intersection of Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue will be reconfigured to an all-way stop controlled intersection.

Additionally, in order to accommodate planned bike facilities on Martin Avenue and to fill a short gap in the adjacent bike lane network on Redwood Drive, a new configuration of the Redwood Drive/Martin Avenue intersection was determined to be necessary. As it currently exists, the south leg of Redwood Drive/Martin Avenue has two northbound left turn lanes, which requires two eastbound travel lanes on Martin Avenue. This configuration does not provide sufficient width to accommodate continuous bike lanes on Martin Avenue and Redwood Drive. The new intersection configuration would eliminate one of the two left-turn lanes on the northbound approach at Redwood Drive/Martin Avenue and adjust the signal phasing to accommodate a longer green time to serve the northbound left-turn movement. The new configurations of both Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue and Redwood Drive/Martin Avenue are explained in greater detail in the Draft Bike Lane Assessment for Redwood Drive and Martin Avenue, February 2017, produced for the City of Rohnert Park by W-Trans. These new configurations were assumed to be in place in the Baseline conditions of this analysis.

Under these conditions, all study intersections are expected to operate acceptably, except Redwood Drive/ Rohnert Park Expressway, which would continue to operate unacceptably at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. These results are summarized in Table 3 and Baseline volumes are shown in Figure 3.

Project Site

Comm

erce Blvd

Dow

dell

Ave

Rohnert Park

Redwood Dr

Carlson Ct

Golf Course Dr W

Martin Ave

M

ar tin Ave

Laba

th A

ve

Business Park Dr

Dow

dell

Ave

Laba

th A

ve

Expressway

101

1

2 3 4

56

138(

71)

128(

409)

(158)71(33) 7

(35)

15

(379

)115

6/161

5 (1

)63

(219

)

(5) 4(71)33

(45)

81

(880

)142

6/162

70(124)0 (1)

0 (4

)42

(66)

(2)0

(0)0

6/163

9 (

36)

144(

569)

2 (

7)

(68) 23(0) 0

(219)144

(365

)103

(370

)143

(6)

6

1(6)1(1)1(9)

6/164

24(7

6)20

(60)

77(1

72)

(51) 58(502)260

(72)47 (84)

26(2

4)28

(88)

32

144(92)154(421)28 (139)

6/165

46 (

214)

60 (

188)

169(

417)

(151) 42(799)351

(78) 57

(71)

41

(164

) 49

(373

)144

163(431)420(603)216(295)

6/166

Figure 2 – Existing Traffic VolumesTraffic Impact Study for the Fairfield Inn & Suites

rpa907-61.ai 4/17

LEGEND

Future Streetxx AM Peak Hour Volume

(xx) PM Peak Hour Volume

Study Intersection

North

Not to Scale

Project Site

Comm

erce Blvd

Dow

dell

Ave

Rohnert Park

Redwood Dr

Carlson Ct

Golf Course Dr W

Martin Ave

M

ar tin Ave

Laba

th A

ve

Business Park Dr

Dow

dell

Ave

Laba

th A

ve

Expressway

101

1

2 3 4

56

155(

113)

149(

425)

(190)106(33) 7

(35)

15

(401

)126

17

(2)

75(2

29)

2 (2

)

(7) 5(2) 2

(71)33

(45)

81

(100

)150

(9)

7

0(3)1(2)6(11)

2

3 (1

)1

(4)

91(1

04)

(3) 1(65)32

(0) 0 (0)0

(2)1

(0)1

88(179)59(48)1 (1)

3

30 (

52)

144(

569)

2 (

7)

(90) 34(0) 0

(300)184

(452

)158

(370

)143

(6)

6

1(6)1(1)1(9)

4

33(8

6)26

(67)

80(1

75)

(62) 65(502)260

(72) 47 (84)

26(3

1)33

(88)

32

148(95)154(421)28 (139)

5

46 (

214)

82 (

213)

217(

473)

(151) 42(802)354

(78) 57

(71)

41

(191

) 67

(373

)144

201(491)424(606)216(295)

6

Figure 3 – Baseline Traffic VolumesTraffic Impact Study for the Fairfield Inn & Suites

rpa907-61.ai 4/17

LEGEND



Study Intersection

North

Not to Scale


April 4, 2017

Table 3 – Baseline Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service


AM Peak PM Peak

Delay LOS Delay LOS

1. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 6.4 A 6.8 A

2. Labath Ave/Martin Ave 3.0 A 3.0 A

Eastbound (Martin Ave) approach 9.8 A 11.0 B

Westbound (Martin Ave) approach 13.2 B 14.0 B

3. Dowdell Ave/Martin Ave 8.6 A 9.2 A

4. Redwood Dr/Martin Ave 10.1 A 18.6 B

5. Labath Ave/Rohnert Park Exp 19.3 B 25.4 C

6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Exp 34.2 C 46.9 D

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; Bold text = deficient operation

Project Description

The proposed project is a 100-room hotel on a currently vacant parcel, located to the west of the intersection of Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue. The proposed project site plan is shown in Figure 4.

Trip Generation

The anticipated trip generation for the proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites project was estimated using standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 for “Hotel” (ITE LU 310). For comparison purposes, the trip generation that would be anticipated for the site if it were developed with retail-type uses consistent with the existing Regional Commercial (C-R) zoning was determined using rates for “Specialty Retail” (ITE LU 826). If the site were developed in compliance with the existing zoning, approximately 31,500 square feet of commercial retail space could be built.

The project is expected to generate an average of 817 trips per day, including 51 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 60 during the p.m. peak hour. With the existing C-R zoning designation, the site would be expected to generate 1,397 trips per day on average, with 30 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 85 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The proposed hotel would generate fewer daily trips and p.m. peak hour, and 23 more trips during the a.m. peak hour. The expected trip generation potential for the proposed project as well as potential trips with the existing zoning designation is indicated in Table 4.

Table 4 – Trip Generation Summary

Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out

Proposed Project

Hotel 100 rms 8.17 817 0.53 53 31 22 0.60 60 31 29

Existing C-R Zoning

Retail 31.5 ksf 44.32 1,397 0.96 30 19 11 2.71 85 38 47

Note: rms = rooms; ksf = 1,000 square feet

Figure 4 – Site PlanTraffic Impact Study for the Fairfield Inn & Suites

rpa907-61.ai 4/17

North

Not to Scale


April 4, 2017

Since future conditions in the study area have been evaluated in the SAMP DEIR with higher trip generation assumptions for the project site during the critical p.m. peak hour (which encounters more traffic congestion than the a.m. peak hour in the study area), the “future conditions” analysis provided in the SAMP DEIR can reasonably be expected to reflect conditions with the project as currently proposed, so an evaluation of future conditions was not included in this report.

Trip Distribution

The pattern used to allocate new project trips to the street network was based on distributions used in the SAMP and previous traffic studies conducted for projects in the area. The applied distribution assumptions and resulting trips are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 – Trip Distribution Assumptions

Route Percent Daily Trips AM Trips PM Trips

Redwood Dr north of Business Park Dr 32% 261 17 19

Labath Ave north of Martin Ave 6% 49 3 4

Martin Ave west of Labath Ave 2% 16 1 1

Rohnert Park Exp west of Labath Ave 6% 49 3 4

Labath Ave south of Rohnert Park Exp 4% 33 2 2

Redwood Dr south of Rohnert Park Exp 15% 123 8 9

Rohnert Park Exp east of Redwood Dr 35% 286 19 21

TOTAL 100% 817 53 60

Intersection Operation

Existing plus Project Conditions

Upon adding project-related traffic to the Existing volumes, all the study intersections are expected to operate acceptably except Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which is expected to continue operating at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 5, and the resulting levels of service are summarized in Table 6.

Project Site

Comm

erce Blvd

Dow

dell

Ave

Rohnert Park

Redwood Dr

Carlson Ct

Golf Course Dr W

Martin Ave

M

ar tin Ave

Laba

th A

ve

Business Park Dr

Dow

dell

Ave

Laba

th A

ve

Expressway

101

1

2 3 4

56

2(2)

7(7)

(2)2(0)0 (0

)0(7

)5

10(

0)0(

0)1(

1)

(0)0(1)1(0)0 (0

)0(1

)0(3

)3

1(1)0(1)2(3)

2

0(0)

3(3)

0(0)

(0)0(0)0(5)5 (4

) 3

(3)

2(2

1)16

0 (0)0 (0)23(23)

3

7(7)

0(0)

0(0)

(7) 5(0) 0

(15)11 (16)

16(0

) 0

(0)

0

0(0)0(0)0(0)

4

1(2)

1(1)

0(0)

(0)0(0)0(0)0 (0

)0(1

)1(0

)0

0(0)0(0)0(0)

5

0(0)

3(4)

8(10

)

(0)0(0)0(0)0 (0

)0(5

)5(0

)0

11(11)0 (0)0 (0)

6

Figure 5 – Project Traffic VolumesTraffic Impact Study for the Fairfield Inn & Suites

rpa907-61.ai 4/17

LEGEND



Study Intersection

North

Not to Scale


April 4, 2017

Table 6 – Existing and Existing plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service


Existing Conditions Existing plus Project

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak


1. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 6.0 A 6.4 A 6.0 A 6.4 A

2. Labath Ave/Martin Ave 2.9 A 2.7 A 2.9 A 2.7 A

Eastbound (Martin Ave) approach 9.3 A 10.4 B 9.3 A 10.4 B

Westbound (Martin Ave) approach 2.7 A 2.7 A 2.7 A 2.7 A

3. Dowdell Ave/Martin Ave* N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.0 A 3.6 A

4. Redwood Dr/Martin Ave 8.4 A 13.0 B 8.6 A 13.5 B

5. Labath Ave/Rohnert Park Exp 18.9 B 24.6 C 19.0 B 24.7 C

6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Exp 32.9 C 45.9 D 33.1 C 46.1 D

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; Bold text = deficient operation; *plus project scenario assumes all-way stop controls (see Site Access section for details on intersection configuration)

Finding – The study intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably upon the addition of project-generated traffic, except for the intersection of Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway, which would continue operating unacceptably at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. Since project-generated trips do not cause further reductions in levels of service at this intersection, the impact would be less-than-significant.

Baseline plus Project Conditions

With project-related traffic added to Baseline volumes, all study intersections are expected to operate acceptably, except Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway which would continue to operate at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. These results are summarized in Table 7.


Table 7 – Baseline and Baseline plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service


Baseline Conditions Baseline plus Project

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak


1. Redwood Dr/Business Park Dr 6.4 A 6.8 A 6.4 A 6.8 A

2. Labath Ave/Martin Ave 3.0 A 3.0 A 3.1 A 3.2 A

Eastbound (Martin Ave) approach 9.8 A 11.0 B 9.8 A 11.1 B

Westbound (Martin Ave) approach 13.2 B 14.0 B 13.4 B 14.2 B

3. Dowdell Ave/Martin Ave* 8.6 A 9.2 A 8.6 A 9.3 A

4. Redwood Dr/Martin Ave** 10.1 A 18.6 B 10.3 B 19.4 B

5. Labath Ave/Rohnert Park Exp 19.3 B 25.4 C 19.4 B 25.5 C

6. Redwood Dr/Rohnert Park Exp 34.2 C 46.9 D 34.4 C 47.1 D

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; Bold text = deficient operation; *plus project scenario assumes all-way stop controls (see Site Access section for details on intersection configuration); ** intersection modified to include single left-turn lane as identified in the Draft Bike Lane Assessment for Redwood Drive and Martin Avenue, W-Trans, February 2017

Finding – The study intersections are expected to operate acceptably with the addition of project-generated trips, except Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway which would continue operating at an unacceptable level of service during the p.m. peak hour. This intersection would remain at the same LOS upon the addition of project-generated traffic, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.


April 4, 2017

Access and Circulation

Site Access and Sight Distance

The site would be accessed via a new driveway located at the northwest corner of the existing parking lot of Ashley Furniture Store, accessing the south leg at the intersection of Dowdell Avenue/Martin Avenue. There are no anticipated conflicts with the planned access points of the Five Creek development or with the planned access point being located within an existing parking lot. Further, there are no barriers to the lines of sight for entering and exiting vehicles. However, any new landscaping should be installed to ensure that plantings at the project driveway do not exceed three feet in height to maximize sight lines.

Onsite Circulation

Onsite circulation would consist of a conventional parking lot around the entire periphery of the hotel, consistent with the circulation system found at many suburban hotels. Vehicular access to the hotel would interface with the Ashley Furniture store’s parking lot just south of Martin Avenue. Given the relatively low traffic volumes associated with the hotel and furniture store uses, no adverse conflicts or queuing issues would be expected to occur.

Finding – There are no anticipated conflicts with the planned access points of the Five Creek development and the proposed project. Sight distance is also adequate as there are no barriers to the lines of sight for entering and exiting vehicles.

Recommendation – Any new landscaping should be installed in such a way as to ensure that plantings at the project driveway do not exceed three feet in height to maximize sight lines.


Alternative Modes


Given the proximity of adjacent shopping centers, residential neighborhoods, and recreational facilities near the project site, it is reasonable to assume that some project residents, patrons, and employees would want to walk, bicycle, and/or use transit to reach the site. Pedestrian facilities are provided on streets beyond the project site; however, it is not clear on the project site plan if sidewalks would be provided along the project site’s frontage, or how pedestrians would connect to these sidewalks from the hotel lobby area.

Finding – Beyond the project site, continuous pedestrian facilities exist and are adequate to accommodate pedestrian travel.

Recommendation – The project should include sidewalks along the project frontage on Martin Avenue (if not already constructed by the Residences at Five Creek project) and provide pedestrian connections from the project site to the adjacent sidewalk network.

Bicycle Facilities

Existing bicycle facilities, including Class II bike lanes on Dowell Avenue, the Hinebaugh Creek trail, and Redwood Drive as well as the proposed Class II lanes on Labath Avenue and Martin Avenue, would provide bicycle access to the project site. The proposed site plan currently plans for the provision of bicycle parking on-site. However, it does not indicate how many spaces are being provided. Chapter 17.16.140 of Rohnert Park’s Municipal Code stipulates the number of bicycle parking spaces required for new development. The code requires one bicycle space for every 15 off-street vehicle parking spaces for commercial uses. The proposed project includes 104 vehicle parking spaces which equates to a bicycle parking requirement of seven spaces.

Finding – Bicycle facilities serving the project site are adequate.

Recommendation – The proposed project should provide at least seven bicycle parking spaces to meet the City’s code.

Transit

Existing transit routes are adequate to accommodate project-generated transit trips. Existing stops are within acceptable walking distance of the site.

Finding – Transit facilities serving the project site are adequate.


April 4, 2017

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 817 daily trips, including 53 trips in the a.m. peak hour and 60 trips during the p.m. peak hour.

Compared to the trip generation potential of the project site for retail uses under the existing C-R zoning designation, the proposed Fairfield Inn & Suites would result in slightly more a.m. peak hour trips, but substantially fewer p.m. peak hour and daily trips. The difference in a.m. trips is not expected to cause any impacts beyond those identified in the more critical p.m. peak hour analysis.

The study intersections are projected to continue to operate acceptably upon the addition of project-generated trips under existing and baseline volumes, except for Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway.

The intersection of Redwood Drive/Rohnert Park Expressway is expected to operate unacceptably at LOS D during the p.m. peak hour under existing and baseline conditions. With the addition of project-generated trips, this intersection would continue operating at the same level of service, which is considered to be a less-than-significant impact.

Access to the site is anticipated to function acceptably.

Beyond the project site, continuous pedestrian facilities exist and are adequate to accommodate pedestrian travel though it is unclear whether sidewalks are proposed to be provided along the project frontage along the Martin Avenue extension.

Bicycle and transit facilities serving the project site are adequate.

Recommendations

The project site plan should include sidewalks along the Martin Avenue street frontage (if not already constructed by the Residences at Five Creek project), including a sidewalk connection between the project site near the hotel lobby area and the sidewalk on Martin Avenue.

The proposed project should provide a minimum of seven bicycle parking spaces.

Any new landscaping at the project driveways should be planted and maintained such that it does not exceed three feet in height to maximize clear sight lines.


Study Participants and References

Study Participants

Principal in Charge Zack Matley, AICP Assistant Planner Shannon Baker Graphics Hannah Yung Editing/Formatting Angela McCoy Report Review Dalene J. Whitlock, PE, PTOE

References

Design Information Bulletin Number 89: Class IV Bikeway Guidance (Separated Bikeways/Cycle Tracks), California Department of Transportation, 2015

Draft Bike Lane Assessment for Redwood Drive and Martin Avenue, W-Trans, 2017 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010 Highway Design Manual, 6th Edition, California Department of Transportation, 2012 Our Place …Rohnert Park 2020: a Plan for the Future – City of Rohnert Park General Plan, 6th Edition, Dyett & Bhatia,

2014 Rohnert Park, California Municipal Code, Municipal Code Corporation, 2017 Sonoma County Transit, http://sctransit.com/ Stadium Area Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Rohnert Park, 2007 Stadium Area Master Plan, City of Rohnert Park, 2008, amended in 2013 Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2012

RPA907-61

A Traffic Impact Study for The Fairfield Inn & Suites Project April 2017

Appendix A

Intersection Level of Service Calculations

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 9

Rep

ort

AM E

xistin

gW

-Tra

ns

Move

ment

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

717

1511

512

813

8Fu

ture V

olume

(veh

/h)71

715

115

128

138

Numb

er7

145

26

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

815

1713

114

514

5Ad

j No.

of La

nes

11

12

20

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

8Pe

rcent

Heav

y Veh

, %2

22

22

2Ca

p, ve

h/h13

814

928

1658

400

358

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.08

0.08

0.02

0.47

0.23

0.23

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

1583

1774

3632

1863

1583

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

815

1713

114

514

5Gr

p Sat

Flow(

s),ve

h/h/ln

1774

1583

1774

1770

1770

1583

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s0.8

0.10.2

0.41.2

1.4Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

0.80.1

0.20.4

1.21.4

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h13

814

928

1658

400

358

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.59

0.03

0.60

0.08

0.36

0.41

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h32

1928

9814

0812

039

4214

3770

HCM

Plato

on R

atio

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Upstr

eam

Filter

(I)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Un

iform

Dela

y (d)

, s/ve

h7.9

7.38.6

2.65.8

5.8Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh1.5

0.07.5

0.00.2

0.3Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h0.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln

0.40.0

0.10.2

0.60.6

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

9.37.3

16.1

2.66.0

6.1Ln

Grp L

OSA

AB

AA

AAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h86

148

290

Appr

oach

Dela

y, s/v

eh9.2

4.16.0

Appr

oach

LOS

AA

A

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs2

45

6Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s12

.35.4

4.38.0

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.04.0

4.04.0

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s60

.032

.014

.042

.0Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s

2.42.8

2.23.4

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s1.2

0.00.0

1.2

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay6.0

HCM

2010

LOS

A

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tPM

Exis

ting

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

158

3335

379

409

71Fu

ture V

olume

(veh

/h)15

833

3537

940

971

Numb

er7

145

26

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

174

3338

416

449

66Ad

j No.

of La

nes

11

12

20

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

1Pe

rcent

Heav

y Veh

, %2

22

22

2Ca

p, ve

h/h24

026

658

1850

988

144

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.14

0.14

0.03

0.52

0.32

0.32

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

1583

1774

3632

3192

453

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

174

3338

416

255

260

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln17

7415

8317

7417

7017

7017

83Q

Serve

(g_s

), s

2.20.4

0.51.5

2.72.7

Cycle

Q C

lear(g

_c),

s2.2

0.40.5

1.52.7

2.7Pr

op In

Lane

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.25

Lane

Grp

Cap

(c), v

eh/h

240

266

5818

5056

456

8V/

C Ra

tio(X

)0.7

30.1

20.6

50.2

20.4

50.4

6Av

ail C

ap(c_

a), v

eh/h

2428

2218

1062

9080

3178

3202

HCM

Plato

on R

atio

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Upstr

eam

Filter

(I)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Un

iform

Dela

y (d)

, s/ve

h9.7

8.311

.23.0

6.36.3

Incr D

elay (

d2),

s/veh

1.60.1

4.60.0

0.20.2

Initia

l Q D

elay(d

3),s/

veh

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

%ile

Bac

kOfQ

(50%

),veh

/ln1.2

0.40.3

0.71.3

1.3Ln

Grp D

elay(d

),s/ve

h11

.38.3

15.7

3.06.5

6.6Ln

Grp L

OSB

AB

AA

AAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h20

745

451

5Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

10.8

4.16.6

Appr

oach

LOS

BA

A

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs2

45

6Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s16

.27.2

4.811

.5Ch

ange

Per

iod (Y

+Rc),

s4.0

4.04.0

4.0Ma

x Gre

en S

etting

(Gma

x), s

60.0

32.0

14.0

42.0

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s3.5

4.22.5

4.7Gr

een E

xt Tim

e (p_

c), s

2.80.1

0.02.8

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay6.4

HCM

2010

LOS

A

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 9

Rep

ort

AM E

xistin

gW

-Tra

ns

Inter

secti

onInt

Dela

y, s/v

eh2.9

Move

ment

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

433

8114

263

5Fu

ture V

ol, ve

h/h4

3381

142

635

Confl

icting

Ped

s, #/h

r0

00

00

0Si

gn C

ontro

l St

opSt

opFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeRT

Cha

nneli

zed

-No

ne-

None

-No

neSt

orag

e Len

gth0

--

--

-Ve

h in M

edian

Stor

age,

#0

--

00

-Gr

ade,

%0

--

00

-Pe

ak H

our F

actor

8080

8080

8080

Heav

y Veh

icles

, %2

22

22

2Mv

mt F

low5

4110

117

879

6

Major

/Mino

rMi

nor2

Major

1Ma

jor2

Confl

icting

Flow

All

462

8285

0-

0

S

tage 1

82-

--

--

Stag

e 238

0-

--

--

Critic

al Hd

wy6.4

26.2

24.1

2-

--

Critic

al Hd

wy S

tg 1

5.42

--

--

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

Stg

25.4

2-

--

--

Follo

w-up

Hdw

y3.5

183.3

182.2

18-

--

Pot C

ap-1

Man

euve

r55

897

815

12-

--

Stag

e 194

1-

--

--

Stag

e 269

1-

--

--

Plato

on bl

ocke

d, %

--

-Mo

v Cap

-1 M

aneu

ver

517

978

1512

--

-Mo

v Cap

-2 M

aneu

ver

517

--

--

-

S

tage 1

941

--

--

-

S

tage 2

640

--

--

-

Appr

oach

EBNB

SBHC

M Co

ntrol

Delay

, s9.3

2.70

HCM

LOS

A

Mino

r Lan

e/Majo

r Mvm

tNB

LNB

TEBL

n1SB

TSB

RCa

pacit

y (ve

h/h)

1512

-89

2-

-HC

M La

ne V

/C R

atio

0.067

-0.0

52-

-HC

M Co

ntrol

Delay

(s)

7.60

9.3-

-HC

M La

ne LO

SA

AA

--

HCM

95th

%tile

Q(ve

h)0.2

-0.2

--

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tPM

Exis

ting

W-T

rans

Inter

secti

onInt

Dela

y, s/v

eh2.7

Move

ment

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

571

4588

219

1Fu

ture V

ol, ve

h/h5

7145

8821

91

Confl

icting

Ped

s, #/h

r0

00

00

0Si

gn C

ontro

l St

opSt

opFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeRT

Cha

nneli

zed

-No

ne-

None

-No

neSt

orag

e Len

gth0

--

--

-Ve

h in M

edian

Stor

age,

#0

--

00

-Gr

ade,

%0

--

00

-Pe

ak H

our F

actor

8686

8686

8686

Heav

y Veh

icles

, %2

22

22

2Mv

mt F

low6

8352

102

255

1

Major

/Mino

rMi

nor2

Major

1Ma

jor2

Confl

icting

Flow

All

462

255

256

0-

0

S

tage 1

255

--

--

-

S

tage 2

207

--

--

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

6.42

6.22

4.12

--

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

Stg

15.4

2-

--

--

Critic

al Hd

wy S

tg 2

5.42

--

--

-Fo

llow-

up H

dwy

3.518

3.318

2.218

--

-Po

t Cap

-1 M

aneu

ver

558

784

1309

--

-

S

tage 1

788

--

--

-

S

tage 2

828

--

--

-Pl

atoon

bloc

ked,

%-

--

Mov C

ap-1

Man

euve

r53

578

413

09-

--

Mov C

ap-2

Man

euve

r53

5-

--

--

Stag

e 178

8-

--

--

Stag

e 279

3-

--

--

Appr

oach

EBNB

SBHC

M Co

ntrol

Delay

, s10

.42.7

0HC

M LO

SB

Mino

r Lan

e/Majo

r Mvm

tNB

LNB

TEBL

n1SB

TSB

RCa

pacit

y (ve

h/h)

1309

-76

1-

-HC

M La

ne V

/C R

atio

0.04

-0.1

16-

-HC

M Co

ntrol

Delay

(s)

7.90

10.4

--

HCM

Lane

LOS

AA

B-

-HC

M 95

th %

tile Q

(veh)

0.1-

0.4-

-

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 9

Rep

ort

AM E

xistin

gW

-Tra

ns

Inter

secti

onInt

Dela

y, s/v

eh2.8

Move

ment

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

070

00

420

Futur

e Vol,

veh/h

070

00

420

Confl

icting

Ped

s, #/h

r0

00

00

0Si

gn C

ontro

l Fr

eeFr

eeSt

opSt

opFr

eeFr

eeRT

Cha

nneli

zed

-No

ne-

None

-No

neSt

orag

e Len

gth0

--

--

-Ve

h in M

edian

Stor

age,

#0

-0

--

0Gr

ade,

%0

-0

--

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

9090

9090

9090

Heav

y Veh

icles

, %2

22

22

2Mv

mt F

low0

780

047

0

Major

/Mino

rMa

jor2

Mino

r1Ma

jor1

Confl

icting

Flow

All

0-

171

078

0

S

tage 1

--

93-

--

Stag

e 2-

-78

--

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

4.12

-6.5

26.2

24.1

2-

Critic

al Hd

wy S

tg 1

--

5.52

--

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

Stg

2-

--

--

-Fo

llow-

up H

dwy

2.218

-4.0

183.3

182.2

18-

Pot C

ap-1

Man

euve

r-

-72

2-

1520

-

S

tage 1

--

818

--

-

S

tage 2

--

--

--

Plato

on bl

ocke

d, %

--

Mov C

ap-1

Man

euve

r-

-0

-15

20-

Mov C

ap-2

Man

euve

r-

-0

--

-

S

tage 1

--

0-

--

Stag

e 2-

-0

--

-

Appr

oach

WB

NBSB

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay, s

00

7.4HC

M LO

SA

Mino

r Lan

e/Majo

r Mvm

tNB

Ln1

WBL

WBR

SBL

SBT

Capa

city (

veh/h

)-

--

1520

-HC

M La

ne V

/C R

atio

--

-0.0

31-

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay (s

)0

0-

7.40

HCM

Lane

LOS

AA

-A

AHC

M 95

th %

tile Q

(veh)

--

-0.1

-

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tPM

Exis

ting

W-T

rans

Inter

secti

onInt

Dela

y, s/v

eh2.6

Move

ment

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

112

42

066

4Fu

ture V

ol, ve

h/h1

124

20

664

Confl

icting

Ped

s, #/h

r0

00

00

0Si

gn C

ontro

l Fr

eeFr

eeSt

opSt

opFr

eeFr

eeRT

Cha

nneli

zed

-No

ne-

None

-No

neSt

orag

e Len

gth0

--

--

-Ve

h in M

edian

Stor

age,

#0

-0

--

0Gr

ade,

%0

-0

--

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

9090

9090

9090

Heav

y Veh

icles

, %2

22

22

2Mv

mt F

low1

138

20

734

Major

/Mino

rMa

jor2

Mino

r1Ma

jor1

Confl

icting

Flow

All

4-

291

413

80

Stag

e 1-

-15

1-

--

Stag

e 2-

-14

0-

--

Critic

al Hd

wy4.1

2-

6.52

6.22

4.12

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

Stg

1-

-5.5

2-

--

Critic

al Hd

wy S

tg 2

--

--

--

Follo

w-up

Hdw

y2.2

18-

4.018

3.318

2.218

-Po

t Cap

-1 M

aneu

ver

1618

-61

910

8014

46-

Stag

e 1-

-77

2-

--

Stag

e 2-

--

--

-Pl

atoon

bloc

ked,

%-

-Mo

v Cap

-1 M

aneu

ver

1618

-0

1080

1446

-Mo

v Cap

-2 M

aneu

ver

--

0-

--

Stag

e 1-

-0

--

-

S

tage 2

--

0-

--

Appr

oach

WB

NBSB

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay, s

0.17.2

HCM

LOS

-

Mino

r Lan

e/Majo

r Mvm

tNB

Ln1

WBL

WBR

SBL

SBT

Capa

city (

veh/h

)-

1618

-14

46-

HCM

Lane

V/C

Rati

o-

0.001

-0.0

51-

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay (s

)-

7.2-

7.60

HCM

Lane

LOS

-A

-A

AHC

M 95

th %

tile Q

(veh)

-0

-0.2

-

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 9

Rep

ort

AM E

xistin

gW

-Tra

ns

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

230

114

11

110

314

36

214

49

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

230

114

11

110

314

36

214

49

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)0.9

90.9

90.9

91.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

00.9

9Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

260

951

10

114

159

12

160

9Ad

j No.

of La

nes

01

10

10

22

01

20

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

0Pe

rcent

Heav

y Veh

, %2

22

22

22

22

22

2Ca

p, ve

h/h49

20

404

283

175

037

611

287

770

339

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.15

0.00

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.00

0.11

0.31

0.31

0.00

0.21

0.21

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1398

015

7146

311

920

3442

3605

2317

7434

0719

0Gr

p Volu

me(v)

, veh

/h26

095

20

011

478

822

8386

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln13

980

1571

1654

00

1721

1770

1859

1774

1770

1828

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s0.4

0.01.2

0.00.0

0.00.8

0.80.8

0.01.0

1.0Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

0.40.0

1.20.0

0.00.0

0.80.8

0.80.0

1.01.0

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

00.5

00.0

01.0

00.0

11.0

00.1

0La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h49

20

404

458

00

376

554

582

736

537

7V/

C Ra

tio(X

)0.0

50.0

00.2

40.0

00.0

00.0

00.3

00.1

40.1

40.2

80.2

30.2

3Av

ail C

ap(c_

a), v

eh/h

2260

023

9423

840

026

7227

8329

2381

222

1922

92HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

1.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh

9.30.0

7.49.2

0.00.0

10.3

6.26.2

12.5

8.38.3

Incr D

elay (

d2),

s/veh

0.00.0

0.30.0

0.00.0

0.40.1

0.120

.50.3

0.3Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h0.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln

0.20.0

0.60.0

0.00.0

0.40.4

0.40.1

0.50.5

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

9.40.0

7.79.2

0.00.0

10.8

6.36.3

32.9

8.68.6

LnGr

p LOS

AA

AB

AA

CA

AAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h12

12

274

171

Appr

oach

Dela

y, s/v

eh8.1

9.28.2

8.9Ap

proa

ch LO

SA

AA

A

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

24

56

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s4.6

12.4

8.27.2

9.78.2

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.54.5

4.54.5

4.54.5

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s11

.539

.535

.519

.531

.535

.5Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s

2.02.8

3.22.8

3.02.0

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s0.0

1.80.4

0.31.7

0.4

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay8.4

HCM

2010

LOS

A

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tPM

Exis

ting

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

680

219

91

636

537

06

756

936

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

680

219

91

636

537

06

756

936

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)0.9

90.9

90.9

90.9

91.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

760

211

101

640

641

11

863

239

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s0

11

01

02

20

12

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

429

057

823

845

8861

318

635

1911

7572

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.19

0.00

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.18

0.51

0.51

0.01

0.35

0.35

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1465

015

7162

123

746

834

4236

229

1774

3386

209

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

760

211

170

040

620

121

18

330

341

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln14

650

1571

1326

00

1721

1770

1861

1774

1770

1825

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s0.0

0.04.6

0.00.0

0.05.2

2.92.9

0.27.0

7.1Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

1.70.0

4.61.7

0.00.0

5.22.9

2.90.2

7.07.1

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

00.5

90.3

51.0

00.0

01.0

00.1

1La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h42

90

578

371

00

613

910

958

1961

463

3V/

C Ra

tio(X

)0.1

80.0

00.3

70.0

50.0

00.0

00.6

60.2

20.2

20.4

30.5

40.5

4Av

ail C

ap(c_

a), v

eh/h

1009

012

3291

70

016

4419

7320

7520

713

3413

76HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

1.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh

16.2

0.010

.915

.70.0

0.018

.06.3

6.323

.212

.312

.3Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh0.2

0.00.4

0.10.0

0.01.2

0.10.1

14.7

0.70.7

Initia

l Q D

elay(d

3),s/

veh

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

%ile

Bac

kOfQ

(50%

),veh

/ln0.8

0.02.0

0.20.0

0.02.5

1.41.5

0.23.5

3.6Ln

Grp D

elay(d

),s/ve

h16

.40.0

11.3

15.7

0.00.0

19.3

6.46.4

37.8

13.1

13.1

LnGr

p LOS

BB

BB

AA

DB

BAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h28

717

818

679

Appr

oach

Dela

y, s/v

eh12

.715

.712

.813

.4Ap

proa

ch LO

SB

BB

B

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

24

56

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s5.0

28.7

13.4

12.9

20.8

13.4

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.54.5

4.54.5

4.54.5

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s5.5

52.5

28.5

22.5

35.5

28.5

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s2.2

4.96.6

7.29.1

3.7Gr

een E

xt Tim

e (p_

c), s

0.07.4

1.21.2

6.71.2

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay13

.0HC

M 20

10 LO

SB

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 9

Rep

ort

AM E

xistin

gW

-Tra

ns

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

5826

047

2815

414

426

2832

7720

24Fu

ture V

olume

(veh

/h)58

260

4728

154

144

2628

3277

2024

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

30

01

11

00

01

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

6830

630

3318

114

431

3329

9124

22Ad

j No.

of La

nes

12

12

21

21

12

10

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

5Pe

rcent

Heav

y Veh

, %2

22

22

22

22

22

2Ca

p, ve

h/h20

310

3258

526

890

462

928

536

530

848

923

021

1Ar

rive O

n Gre

en0.1

10.2

90.2

90.0

80.2

60.2

60.0

80.2

00.2

00.1

40.2

60.2

6Sa

t Flow

, veh

/h17

7435

3915

7034

4235

3915

8035

4818

6315

7134

4289

482

0Gr

p Volu

me(v)

, veh

/h68

306

3033

181

144

3133

2991

046

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln17

7417

7015

7017

2117

7015

8017

7418

6315

7117

210

1714

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s2.2

4.10.7

0.52.4

3.70.5

0.90.9

1.40.0

1.2Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

2.24.1

0.70.5

2.43.7

0.50.9

0.91.4

0.01.2

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

00.4

8La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h20

310

3258

526

890

462

928

536

530

848

90

442

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.33

0.30

0.05

0.12

0.20

0.23

0.11

0.09

0.09

0.19

0.00

0.10

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h40

820

1810

2367

919

0110

7475

812

3610

4384

80

1194

HCM

Plato

on R

atio

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Upstr

eam

Filter

(I)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

00.0

01.0

0Un

iform

Dela

y (d)

, s/ve

h25.8

16.9

12.3

26.3

17.8

12.2

26.2

20.3

20.3

23.2

0.017

.4Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh1.0

0.60.1

0.20.4

0.70.2

0.20.3

0.30.0

0.2Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h2.4

0.00.0

0.10.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln1

.62.1

0.30.3

1.31.8

0.30.5

0.40.7

0.00.6

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

29.1

17.4

12.5

26.6

18.2

12.9

26.4

20.5

20.5

23.5

0.017

.6Ln

Grp L

OSC

BB

CB

BC

CC

CB

Appr

oach

Vol,

veh/h

404

358

9313

7Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

19.0

16.9

22.5

21.5

Appr

oach

LOS

BB

CC

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s12.6

16.6

8.723

.08.9

20.3

10.8

20.8

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.04.6

4.05.3

4.04.6

4.05.3

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s15

.040

.412

.034

.713

.042

.414

.032

.7Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s3.4

2.92.5

6.12.5

3.24.2

5.7Gr

een E

xt Tim

e (p_

c), s

0.21.0

0.09.5

0.01.1

0.19.3

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay18

.9HC

M 20

10 LO

SB

Notes

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tPM

Exis

ting

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

5150

272

139

421

9284

2488

172

6076

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

5150

272

139

421

9284

2488

172

6076

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

30

01

11

00

01

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

00.9

9Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

5957

759

160

484

8297

7660

198

6981

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

21

22

12

11

21

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

167

1202

743

459

1350

818

469

313

264

467

134

157

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.09

0.34

0.34

0.13

0.38

0.38

0.13

0.17

0.17

0.14

0.17

0.17

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

3539

1572

3442

3539

1581

3548

1863

1569

3442

779

915

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

5957

759

160

484

8297

7660

198

015

0Gr

p Sat

Flow(

s),ve

h/h/ln

1774

1770

1572

1721

1770

1581

1774

1863

1569

1721

016

94Q

Serve

(g_s

), s

2.510

.31.7

3.47.9

2.12.0

2.82.6

4.20.0

6.5Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

2.510

.31.7

3.47.9

2.12.0

2.82.6

4.20.0

6.5Pr

op In

Lane

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.54

Lane

Grp

Cap

(c), v

eh/h

167

1202

743

459

1350

818

469

313

264

467

029

1V/

C Ra

tio(X

)0.3

50.4

80.0

80.3

50.3

60.1

00.2

10.2

40.2

30.4

20.0

00.5

1Av

ail C

ap(c_

a), v

eh/h

266

1488

870

558

1532

899

531

962

810

601

091

7HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

1.00

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh3

4.720

.911

.731

.717

.89.9

31.1

29.0

28.9

31.9

0.030

.2Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh1.3

1.10.2

0.50.6

0.20.2

0.80.9

0.90.0

3.0Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h3.6

0.00.0

0.10.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.10.0

0.0%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln1

.85.2

0.71.7

4.01.1

1.01.5

1.22.1

0.03.3

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

39.6

22.0

11.8

32.2

18.4

10.1

31.4

29.9

29.9

32.8

0.033

.2Ln

Grp L

OSD

CB

CB

BC

CC

CC

Appr

oach

Vol,

veh/h

695

726

233

348

Appr

oach

Dela

y, s/v

eh22

.620

.530

.533

.0Ap

proa

ch LO

SC

CC

C

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s14.9

18.1

14.7

32.5

14.6

18.4

11.3

35.9

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.04.6

4.05.3

4.04.6

4.05.3

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s14

.041

.413

.033

.712

.043

.412

.034

.7Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s6.2

4.85.4

12.3

4.08.5

4.59.9

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s0.5

3.20.3

14.8

0.13.2

0.116

.5

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay24

.6HC

M 20

10 LO

SC

Notes

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 9

Rep

ort

AM E

xistin

gW

-Tra

ns

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

4235

157

216

420

163

4149

144

169

6046

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

4235

157

216

420

163

4149

144

169

6046

Numb

er5

212

16

163

818

74

14Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

04

03

102

12

10

51

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

00.9

81.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

4940

858

251

488

174

4857

116

197

7043

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

31

22

11

21

21

1Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

124

3000

927

307

2112

1074

124

411

317

275

248

201

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.07

0.60

0.60

0.13

0.92

0.92

0.07

0.11

0.11

0.08

0.13

0.13

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

5085

1581

3442

3539

1560

1774

3539

1550

3442

1863

1583

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

4940

858

251

488

174

4857

116

197

7043

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln17

7416

9515

8117

2117

7015

6017

7417

7015

5017

2118

6315

83Q

Serve

(g_s

), s

4.05.3

2.310

.72.1

1.33.9

2.29.7

8.45.1

3.7Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

4.05.3

2.310

.72.1

1.33.9

2.29.7

8.45.1

3.7Pr

op In

Lane

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Lane

Grp

Cap

(c), v

eh/h

124

3000

927

307

2112

1074

124

411

317

275

248

201

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.40

0.14

0.06

0.82

0.23

0.16

0.39

0.14

0.37

0.72

0.28

0.21

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h26

030

2694

145

921

6610

8114

210

3859

259

772

061

2HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.5

01.5

01.5

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

0.99

0.99

0.99

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.99

0.99

0.99

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh6

6.814

.013

.564

.04.4

2.166

.959

.751

.767

.359

.258

.9Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh0.8

0.10.1

4.20.3

0.30.7

0.10.3

3.40.2

0.2Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h0.0

0.00.0

3.80.2

0.00.8

0.20.1

0.04.1

0.2%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln2

.02.8

1.15.7

2.51.1

2.11.2

4.44.1

3.81.8

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

67.5

14.1

13.6

72.0

4.92.4

68.4

59.9

52.1

70.8

63.5

59.3

LnGr

p LOS

EB

BE

AA

EE

DE

EE

Appr

oach

Vol,

veh/h

515

913

221

310

Appr

oach

Dela

y, s/v

eh19

.222

.957

.667

.5Ap

proa

ch LO

SB

CE

E

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s17.0

94.6

14.4

24.1

14.4

97.1

16.0

22.5

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.05.3

4.05.3

4.0* 5

.34.0

5.3Ma

x Gre

en S

etting

(Gma

x), s

20.0

41.4

12.0

58.0

22.0

* 40

26.0

44.0

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s12

.77.3

5.97.1

6.04.1

10.4

11.7

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s0.3

2.20.0

0.50.0

2.20.5

0.5

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay32

.9HC

M 20

10 LO

SC

Notes

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tPM

Exis

ting

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

151

799

7829

560

343

171

164

373

417

188

214

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

151

799

7829

560

343

171

164

373

417

188

214

Numb

er5

212

16

163

818

74

14Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

04

03

102

12

10

51

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

81.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

157

832

7430

762

843

474

171

343

434

196

214

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

31

22

11

21

21

1Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

179

1956

605

361

1353

828

136

865

385

490

582

492

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.10

0.39

0.39

0.15

0.58

0.58

0.08

0.24

0.24

0.14

0.31

0.31

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

5085

1580

3442

3539

1557

1774

3539

1568

3442

1863

1583

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

157

832

7430

762

843

474

171

343

434

196

214

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln17

7416

9515

8017

2117

7015

5717

7417

7015

6817

2118

6315

83Q

Serve

(g_s

), s

13.1

18.0

4.513

.115

.122

.96.0

5.831

.818

.612

.216

.2Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

13.1

18.0

4.513

.115

.122

.96.0

5.831

.818

.612

.216

.2Pr

op In

Lane

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Lane

Grp

Cap

(c), v

eh/h

179

1956

605

361

1353

828

136

865

385

490

582

492

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.88

0.43

0.12

0.85

0.46

0.52

0.54

0.20

0.89

0.89

0.34

0.44

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h26

019

7161

245

913

7883

214

210

3846

059

772

061

2HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.5

01.5

01.5

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

0.87

0.87

0.87

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.87

0.87

0.87

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh6

6.534

.230

.062

.323

.815

.466

.945

.154

.863

.140

.241

.4Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh13

.80.6

0.49.8

1.12.4

1.90.0

15.4

11.6

0.10.2

Initia

l Q D

elay(d

3),s/

veh

0.00.1

0.03.4

0.70.1

0.90.0

0.40.0

0.80.1

%ile

Bac

kOfQ

(50%

),veh

/ln7.1

8.82.0

7.19.0

10.9

3.23.0

15.6

9.67.3

7.3Ln

Grp D

elay(d

),s/ve

h80

.334

.830

.375

.425

.617

.969

.645

.270

.774

.741

.141

.6Ln

Grp L

OSF

CC

EC

BE

DE

ED

DAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h10

6313

6958

884

4Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

41.2

34.4

63.2

58.5

Appr

oach

LOS

DC

EE

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s19.3

63.5

15.5

51.7

19.1

63.7

25.3

41.9

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.05.3

4.05.3

4.0* 5

.34.0

5.3Ma

x Gre

en S

etting

(Gma

x), s

20.0

41.4

12.0

58.0

22.0

* 40

26.0

44.0

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s15

.120

.08.0

18.2

15.1

24.9

20.6

33.8

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s0.3

4.00.0

1.60.0

3.80.8

1.4

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay45

.9HC

M 20

10 LO

SD

Notes

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

AM B

aseli

neW

-Tra

ns

Move

ment

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

106

715

126

149

155

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

106

715

126

149

155

Numb

er7

145

26

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

120

517

143

169

164

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

11

22

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.88

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

181

187

2816

7143

138

6Ar

rive O

n Gre

en0.1

00.1

00.0

20.4

70.2

40.2

4Sa

t Flow

, veh

/h17

7415

8317

7436

3218

6315

83Gr

p Volu

me(v)

, veh

/h12

05

1714

316

916

4Gr

p Sat

Flow(

s),ve

h/h/ln

1774

1583

1774

1770

1770

1583

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s1.2

0.10.2

0.41.5

1.6Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

1.20.1

0.20.4

1.51.6

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h18

118

728

1671

431

386

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.66

0.03

0.61

0.09

0.39

0.43

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h30

2127

2113

2211

301

3955

3539

HCM

Plato

on R

atio

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Upstr

eam

Filter

(I)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Un

iform

Dela

y (d)

, s/ve

h8.1

7.39.2

2.75.9

6.0Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh1.5

0.07.6

0.00.2

0.3Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h0.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln

0.60.0

0.10.2

0.70.7

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

9.77.4

16.8

2.76.2

6.3Ln

Grp L

OSA

AB

AA

AAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h12

516

033

3Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

9.64.2

6.2Ap

proa

ch LO

SA

AA

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs2

45

6Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s12

.95.9

4.38.6

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.04.0

4.04.0

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s60

.032

.014

.042

.0Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s

2.43.2

2.23.6

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s1.4

0.00.0

1.4

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay6.4

HCM

2010

LOS

A

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

PM B

aseli

neW

-Tra

ns

Move

ment

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

190

3335

401

425

113

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

190

3335

401

425

113

Numb

er7

145

26

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

209

3338

441

467

112

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

11

22

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.91

0.91

0.91

0.91

0.91

0.91

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

283

304

5818

5594

622

6Ar

rive O

n Gre

en0.1

60.1

60.0

30.5

20.3

30.3

3Sa

t Flow

, veh

/h17

7415

8317

7436

3229

3067

6Gr

p Volu

me(v)

, veh

/h20

933

3844

129

028

9Gr

p Sat

Flow(

s),ve

h/h/ln

1774

1583

1774

1770

1770

1743

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s2.8

0.40.5

1.73.3

3.3Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

2.80.4

0.51.7

3.33.3

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

01.0

00.3

9La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h28

330

458

1855

590

582

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.74

0.11

0.66

0.24

0.49

0.50

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h22

4520

5598

283

9929

4028

96HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh

10.1

8.412

.13.3

6.76.7

Incr D

elay (

d2),

s/veh

1.40.1

4.70.0

0.20.2

Initia

l Q D

elay(d

3),s/

veh

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

%ile

Bac

kOfQ

(50%

),veh

/ln1.5

0.40.3

0.81.7

1.6Ln

Grp D

elay(d

),s/ve

h11

.68.5

16.8

3.37.0

7.0Ln

Grp L

OSB

AB

AA

AAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h24

247

957

9Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

11.1

4.47.0

Appr

oach

LOS

BA

A

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs2

45

6Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s17

.38.0

4.812

.4Ch

ange

Per

iod (Y

+Rc),

s4.0

4.04.0

4.0Ma

x Gre

en S

etting

(Gma

x), s

60.0

32.0

14.0

42.0

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s3.7

4.82.5

5.3Gr

een E

xt Tim

e (p_

c), s

3.10.1

0.03.1

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay6.8

HCM

2010

LOS

A

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

AM B

aseli

neW

-Tra

ns

Inter

secti

onInt

Dela

y, s/v

eh3

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

52

336

11

8115

07

275

7Fu

ture V

ol, ve

h/h5

233

61

181

150

72

757

Confl

icting

Ped

s, #/h

r0

00

00

00

00

00

0Si

gn C

ontro

l St

opSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeRT

Cha

nneli

zed

--

None

--

None

--

None

--

None

Stor

age L

ength

--

--

--

--

--

--

Veh i

n Med

ian S

torag

e, #

-0

--

0-

-0

--

0-

Grad

e, %

-0

--

0-

-0

--

0-

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor80

9280

9292

9280

8092

9280

80He

avy V

ehicl

es, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Mvmt

Flow

62

417

11

101

188

82

949

Major

/Mino

rMi

nor2

Mino

r1Ma

jor1

Major

2Co

nflict

ing F

low A

ll49

750

098

518

501

191

103

00

195

00

Stag

e 110

210

2-

394

394

--

--

--

-

S

tage 2

395

398

-12

410

7-

--

--

--

Critic

al Hd

wy7.1

26.5

26.2

27.1

26.5

26.2

24.1

2-

-4.1

2-

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

Stg

16.1

25.5

2-

6.12

5.52

--

--

--

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

Stg

26.1

25.5

2-

6.12

5.52

--

--

--

-Fo

llow-

up H

dwy

3.518

4.018

3.318

3.518

4.018

3.318

2.218

--

2.218

--

Pot C

ap-1

Man

euve

r48

347

395

846

847

285

114

89-

-13

78-

-

S

tage 1

904

811

-63

160

5-

--

--

--

Stag

e 263

060

3-

880

807

--

--

--

-Pl

atoon

bloc

ked,

%-

--

-Mo

v Cap

-1 M

aneu

ver

453

436

958

420

435

851

1489

--

1378

--

Mov C

ap-2

Man

euve

r45

343

6-

420

435

--

--

--

-

S

tage 1

835

809

-58

355

9-

--

--

--

Stag

e 258

055

7-

838

805

--

--

--

-

Appr

oach

EBW

BNB

SBHC

M Co

ntrol

Delay

, s9.8

13.2

2.60.2

HCM

LOS

AB

Mino

r Lan

e/Majo

r Mvm

tNB

LNB

TNB

REB

Ln1W

BLn1

SBL

SBT

SBR

Capa

city (

veh/h

)14

89-

-80

345

013

78-

-HC

M La

ne V

/C R

atio

0.068

--

0.062

0.019

0.002

--

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay (s

)7.6

0-

9.813

.27.6

0-

HCM

Lane

LOS

AA

-A

BA

A-

HCM

95th

%tile

Q(ve

h)0.2

--

0.20.1

0-

-

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

PM B

aseli

neW

-Tra

ns

Inter

secti

onInt

Dela

y, s/v

eh3

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

72

7111

23

4510

09

222

92

Futur

e Vol,

veh/h

72

7111

23

4510

09

222

92

Confl

icting

Ped

s, #/h

r0

00

00

00

00

00

0Si

gn C

ontro

l St

opSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeRT

Cha

nneli

zed

--

None

--

None

--

None

--

None

Stor

age L

ength

--

--

--

--

--

--

Veh i

n Med

ian S

torag

e, #

-0

--

0-

-0

--

0-

Grad

e, %

-0

--

0-

-0

--

0-

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor80

9280

9292

9280

8092

9280

80He

avy V

ehicl

es, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Mvmt

Flow

92

8912

23

5612

510

228

63

Major

/Mino

rMi

nor2

Mino

r1Ma

jor1

Major

2Co

nflict

ing F

low A

ll53

753

928

857

953

513

028

90

013

50

0

S

tage 1

292

292

-24

224

2-

--

--

--

Stag

e 224

524

7-

337

293

--

--

--

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

7.12

6.52

6.22

7.12

6.52

6.22

4.12

--

4.12

--

Critic

al Hd

wy S

tg 1

6.12

5.52

-6.1

25.5

2-

--

--

--

Critic

al Hd

wy S

tg 2

6.12

5.52

-6.1

25.5

2-

--

--

--

Follo

w-up

Hdw

y3.5

184.0

183.3

183.5

184.0

183.3

182.2

18-

-2.2

18-

-Po

t Cap

-1 M

aneu

ver

455

449

751

426

452

920

1273

--

1449

--

Stag

e 171

667

1-

762

705

--

--

--

-

S

tage 2

759

702

-67

767

0-

--

--

--

Plato

on bl

ocke

d, %

--

--

Mov C

ap-1

Man

euve

r43

442

775

136

042

992

012

73-

-14

49-

-Mo

v Cap

-2 M

aneu

ver

434

427

-36

042

9-

--

--

--

Stag

e 168

267

0-

725

671

--

--

--

-

S

tage 2

718

668

-59

466

9-

--

--

--

Appr

oach

EBW

BNB

SBHC

M Co

ntrol

Delay

, s11

142.3

0.1HC

M LO

SB

B

Mino

r Lan

e/Majo

r Mvm

tNB

LNB

TNB

REB

Ln1W

BLn1

SBL

SBT

SBR

Capa

city (

veh/h

)12

73-

-69

541

614

49-

-HC

M La

ne V

/C R

atio

0.044

--

0.143

0.042

0.002

--

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay (s

)8

0-

1114

7.50

-HC

M La

ne LO

SA

A-

BB

AA

-HC

M 95

th %

tile Q

(veh)

0.1-

-0.5

0.10

--

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

AM B

aseli

neW

-Tra

ns

Inter

secti

onInt

erse

ction

Dela

y, s/v

eh8.6

Inter

secti

on LO

SA

Move

ment

EBU

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBU

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBU

NBL

NBT

NBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

01

320

01

5988

01

11

Futur

e Vol,

veh/h

01

320

01

5988

01

11

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

00.9

20.9

00.9

20.9

20.9

00.9

0He

avy V

ehicl

es, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Mvmt

Flow

01

350

01

6498

01

11

Numb

er of

Lane

s0

01

00

11

00

01

0

Appr

oach

EBW

BNB

Oppo

sing A

ppro

ach

WB

EBSB

Oppo

sing L

anes

21

2Co

nflict

ing A

ppro

ach L

eftSB

NBEB

Confl

icting

Lane

s Left

21

1Co

nflict

ing A

ppro

ach R

ight

NBSB

WB

Confl

icting

Lane

s Righ

t1

22

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay8.3

8.38.1

HCM

LOS

AA

A

Lane

NBLn

1EB

Ln1

WBL

n1W

BLn2

SBLn

1SB

Ln2

Vol L

eft, %

33%

3%10

0%0%

100%

0%Vo

l Thr

u, %

33%

97%

0%40

%0%

25%

Vol R

ight, %

33%

0%0%

60%

0%75

%Si

gn C

ontro

lSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opTr

affic

Vol b

y Lan

e3

331

147

914

LT V

ol1

11

091

0Th

roug

h Vol

132

059

01

RT V

ol1

00

880

3La

ne F

low R

ate3

361

162

101

4Ge

ometr

y Grp

66

77

77

Degr

ee of

Util

(X)

0.005

0.05

0.002

0.20.1

550.0

05De

partu

re H

eadw

ay (H

d)5.0

185.0

275.3

764.4

555.5

064.4

77Co

nver

genc

e, Y/

NYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sCa

p71

571

566

880

865

380

1Se

rvice

Tim

e3.0

373.0

433.0

872.1

663.2

222.1

93HC

M La

ne V

/C R

atio

0.004

0.05

0.001

0.20.1

550.0

05HC

M Co

ntrol

Delay

8.18.3

8.18.3

9.27.2

HCM

Lane

LOS

AA

AA

AA

HCM

95th-

tile Q

00.2

00.7

0.50

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

AM B

aseli

neW

-Tra

ns

Inter

secti

onInt

erse

ction

Dela

y, s/v

ehInt

erse

ction

LOS

Move

ment

SBU

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

091

13

Futur

e Vol,

veh/h

091

13

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.9

20.9

00.9

00.9

2He

avy V

ehicl

es, %

22

22

Mvmt

Flow

010

11

3Nu

mber

of La

nes

01

10

Appr

oach

SBOp

posin

g App

roac

hNB

Oppo

sing L

anes

1Co

nflict

ing A

ppro

ach L

eftW

BCo

nflict

ing La

nes L

eft2

Confl

icting

App

roac

h Righ

tEB

Confl

icting

Lane

s Righ

t1

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay9.1

HCM

LOS

A

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

PM B

aseli

neW

-Tra

ns

Inter

secti

onInt

erse

ction

Dela

y, s/v

eh9.2

Inter

secti

on LO

SA

Move

ment

EBU

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBU

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBU

NBL

NBT

NBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

03

650

01

4817

90

02

0Fu

ture V

ol, ve

h/h0

365

00

148

179

00

20

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

00.9

20.9

00.9

20.9

20.9

00.9

0He

avy V

ehicl

es, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Mvmt

Flow

03

710

01

5219

90

02

0Nu

mber

of La

nes

00

10

01

10

00

10

Appr

oach

EBW

BNB

Oppo

sing A

ppro

ach

WB

EBSB

Oppo

sing L

anes

21

2Co

nflict

ing A

ppro

ach L

eftSB

NBEB

Confl

icting

Lane

s Left

21

1Co

nflict

ing A

ppro

ach R

ight

NBSB

WB

Confl

icting

Lane

s Righ

t1

22

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay8.8

9.18.5

HCM

LOS

AA

A

Lane

NBLn

1EB

Ln1

WBL

n1W

BLn2

SBLn

1SB

Ln2

Vol L

eft, %

0%4%

100%

0%10

0%0%

Vol T

hru,

%10

0%96

%0%

21%

0%80

%Vo

l Righ

t, %0%

0%0%

79%

0%20

%Si

gn C

ontro

lSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opTr

affic

Vol b

y Lan

e2

681

227

104

5LT

Vol

03

10

104

0Th

roug

h Vol

265

048

04

RT V

ol0

00

179

01

Lane

Flow

Rate

274

125

111

66

Geom

etry G

rp6

67

77

7De

gree

of U

til (X

)0.0

030.1

060.0

020.3

080.1

860.0

08De

partu

re H

eadw

ay (H

d)5.4

875.1

825.4

724.4

165.7

945.1

5Co

nver

genc

e, Y/

NYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sCa

p65

169

365

681

661

969

5Se

rvice

Tim

e3.5

283.2

093.1

892.1

333.5

252.8

82HC

M La

ne V

/C R

atio

0.003

0.107

0.002

0.308

0.187

0.009

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay8.5

8.88.2

9.19.9

7.9HC

M La

ne LO

SA

AA

AA

AHC

M 95

th-tile

Q0

0.40

1.30.7

0

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

PM B

aseli

neW

-Tra

ns

Inter

secti

onInt

erse

ction

Dela

y, s/v

ehInt

erse

ction

LOS

Move

ment

SBU

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

010

44

1Fu

ture V

ol, ve

h/h0

104

41

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.9

20.9

00.9

00.9

2He

avy V

ehicl

es, %

22

22

Mvmt

Flow

011

64

1Nu

mber

of La

nes

01

10

Appr

oach

SBOp

posin

g App

roac

hNB

Oppo

sing L

anes

1Co

nflict

ing A

ppro

ach L

eftW

BCo

nflict

ing La

nes L

eft2

Confl

icting

App

roac

h Righ

tEB

Confl

icting

Lane

s Righ

t1

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay9.8

HCM

LOS

A

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

AM B

aseli

neW

-Tra

ns

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

340

184

11

115

814

36

214

430

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

340

184

11

115

814

36

214

430

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)0.9

90.9

90.9

91.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

00.9

9Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

380

172

11

017

615

91

216

032

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s0

11

01

01

20

12

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

507

049

628

019

60

244

1209

86

592

116

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.18

0.00

0.18

0.18

0.18

0.00

0.14

0.34

0.34

0.00

0.20

0.20

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1400

015

7048

811

060

1774

3605

2317

7429

4657

6Gr

p Volu

me(v)

, veh

/h38

017

22

00

176

7882

295

97Gr

p Sat

Flow(

s),ve

h/h/ln

1400

015

7015

940

017

7417

7018

5917

7417

7017

53Q

Serve

(g_s

), s

0.60.0

2.30.0

0.00.0

2.60.9

0.90.0

1.31.3

Cycle

Q C

lear(g

_c),

s0.6

0.02.3

0.00.0

0.02.6

0.90.9

0.01.3

1.3Pr

op In

Lane

1.00

1.00

0.50

0.00

1.00

0.01

1.00

0.33

Lane

Grp

Cap

(c), v

eh/h

507

049

647

60

024

459

462

36

355

352

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.07

0.00

0.35

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.72

0.13

0.13

0.31

0.27

0.28

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h15

630

1682

1580

00

3164

4794

5035

318

1956

1937

HCM

Plato

on R

atio

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Upstr

eam

Filter

(I)1.0

00.0

01.0

01.0

00.0

00.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Un

iform

Dela

y (d)

, s/ve

h9.7

0.07.3

9.40.0

0.011

.56.4

6.413

.99.4

9.4Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh0.1

0.00.4

0.00.0

0.04.0

0.10.1

25.8

0.40.4

Initia

l Q D

elay(d

3),s/

veh

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

%ile

Bac

kOfQ

(50%

),veh

/ln0.3

0.01.1

0.00.0

0.01.5

0.40.4

0.10.6

0.7Ln

Grp D

elay(d

),s/ve

h9.7

0.07.8

9.40.0

0.015

.56.5

6.539

.79.8

9.8Ln

Grp L

OSA

AA

BA

AD

AA

Appr

oach

Vol,

veh/h

210

233

619

4Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

8.19.4

11.3

10.1

Appr

oach

LOS

AA

BB

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

24

56

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s4.6

13.8

9.48.3

10.1

9.4Ch

ange

Per

iod (Y

+Rc),

s4.5

4.54.5

4.54.5

4.5Ma

x Gre

en S

etting

(Gma

x), s5.0

75.5

26.0

49.7

30.8

26.0

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s2.02.9

4.34.6

3.32.0

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s0.0

2.00.7

0.51.9

0.8

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay10

.1HC

M 20

10 LO

SB

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

PM B

aseli

neW

-Tra

ns

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

900

300

91

645

237

06

756

952

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

900

300

91

645

237

06

756

952

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)0.9

90.9

91.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

9Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

100

030

110

16

502

411

18

632

57Ad

j No.

of La

nes

01

10

10

12

01

20

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

0Pe

rcent

Heav

y Veh

, %2

22

22

22

22

22

2Ca

p, ve

h/h38

60

804

186

3374

569

2183

518

959

86Ar

rive O

n Gre

en0.1

90.0

00.1

90.1

90.1

90.1

90.3

20.6

00.6

00.0

10.2

90.2

9Sa

t Flow

, veh

/h14

900

1571

540

177

391

1774

3622

917

7432

8229

6Gr

p Volu

me(v)

, veh

/h10

00

301

170

050

220

121

18

340

349

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln14

900

1571

1109

00

1774

1770

1861

1774

1770

1808

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s0.0

0.07.9

0.00.0

0.018

.23.5

3.50.3

11.5

11.5

Cycle

Q C

lear(g

_c),

s3.3

0.07.9

3.30.0

0.018

.23.5

3.50.3

11.5

11.5

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

00.5

90.3

51.0

00.0

01.0

00.1

6La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h38

60

804

293

00

569

1067

1122

1851

752

8V/

C Ra

tio(X

)0.2

60.0

00.3

70.0

60.0

00.0

00.8

80.1

90.1

90.4

40.6

60.6

6Av

ail C

ap(c_

a), v

eh/h

657

011

0953

30

012

9719

6520

6613

080

181

9HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

1.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh2

3.70.0

10.1

22.6

0.00.0

21.9

6.06.1

33.5

21.1

21.1

Incr D

elay (

d2),

s/veh

0.40.0

0.30.1

0.00.0

4.70.1

0.115

.61.4

1.4Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h0.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln1

.60.0

3.40.3

0.00.0

9.71.7

1.80.2

5.85.9

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

24.1

0.010

.422

.70.0

0.026

.56.1

6.149

.022

.522

.5Ln

Grp L

OSC

BC

CA

AD

CC

Appr

oach

Vol,

veh/h

401

1791

469

7Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

13.8

22.7

17.3

22.8

Appr

oach

LOS

BC

BC

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

24

56

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s5.2

45.5

17.3

26.3

24.4

17.3

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.54.5

4.54.5

4.54.5

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s5.075

.526

.049

.730

.826

.0Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s2.3

5.59.9

20.2

13.5

5.3Gr

een E

xt Tim

e (p_

c), s

0.07.7

1.61.6

6.01.7

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay18

.6HC

M 20

10 LO

SB

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

AM B

aseli

neW

-Tra

ns

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

6526

047

2815

414

826

3332

8026

33Fu

ture V

olume

(veh

/h)65

260

4728

154

148

2633

3280

2633

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

30

01

11

00

01

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

7630

630

3318

114

931

3929

9431

33Ad

j No.

of La

nes

12

12

21

21

12

10

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

5Pe

rcent

Heav

y Veh

, %2

22

22

22

22

22

2Ca

p, ve

h/h21

210

4559

026

689

762

628

336

931

149

021

522

9Ar

rive O

n Gre

en0.1

20.2

90.2

90.0

80.2

50.2

50.0

80.2

00.2

00.1

40.2

60.2

6Sa

t Flow

, veh

/h17

7435

3915

7034

4235

3915

8035

4818

6315

7134

4282

587

8Gr

p Volu

me(v)

, veh

/h76

306

3033

181

149

3139

2994

064

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln17

7417

7015

7017

2117

7015

8017

7418

6315

7117

210

1703

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s2.5

4.20.8

0.62.5

3.90.5

1.10.9

1.50.0

1.8Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

2.54.2

0.80.6

2.53.9

0.51.1

0.91.5

0.01.8

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

00.5

2La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h21

210

4559

026

689

762

628

336

931

149

00

444

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.36

0.29

0.05

0.12

0.20

0.24

0.11

0.11

0.09

0.19

0.00

0.14

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h40

019

7710

0466

518

6310

5774

212

1110

2283

10

1162

HCM

Plato

on R

atio

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Upstr

eam

Filter

(I)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

00.0

01.0

0Un

iform

Dela

y (d)

, s/ve

h26.2

17.0

12.5

26.9

18.3

12.6

26.8

20.6

20.6

23.6

0.017

.8Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh1.0

0.60.1

0.20.4

0.70.2

0.30.3

0.30.0

0.3Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h2.2

0.00.0

0.10.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln1

.72.1

0.30.3

1.31.9

0.30.6

0.40.8

0.00.9

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

29.4

17.6

12.6

27.2

18.7

13.3

27.0

20.9

20.8

23.9

0.018

.1Ln

Grp L

OSC

BB

CB

BC

CC

CB

Appr

oach

Vol,

veh/h

412

363

9915

8Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

19.4

17.3

22.8

21.6

Appr

oach

LOS

BB

CC

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s12.8

17.0

8.823

.69.0

20.8

11.3

21.0

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.04.6

4.05.3

4.04.6

4.05.3

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s15

.040

.412

.034

.713

.042

.414

.032

.7Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s3.5

3.12.6

6.22.5

3.84.5

5.9Gr

een E

xt Tim

e (p_

c), s

0.31.3

0.09.6

0.01.3

0.19.3

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay19

.3HC

M 20

10 LO

SB

Notes

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

PM B

aseli

neW

-Tra

ns

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

6250

272

139

421

9584

3188

175

6786

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

6250

272

139

421

9584

3188

175

6786

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

30

01

11

00

01

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

00.9

9Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

7157

759

160

484

8597

7864

201

7793

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

21

22

12

11

21

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

178

1189

735

453

1304

794

463

334

282

461

140

169

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.10

0.34

0.34

0.13

0.37

0.37

0.13

0.18

0.18

0.13

0.18

0.18

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

3539

1572

3442

3539

1581

3548

1863

1570

3442

766

926

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

7157

759

160

484

8597

7864

201

017

0Gr

p Sat

Flow(

s),ve

h/h/ln

1774

1770

1572

1721

1770

1581

1774

1863

1570

1721

016

92Q

Serve

(g_s

), s

3.110

.51.7

3.58.2

2.32.0

2.92.8

4.40.0

7.4Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

3.110

.51.7

3.58.2

2.32.0

2.92.8

4.40.0

7.4Pr

op In

Lane

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.55

Lane

Grp

Cap

(c), v

eh/h

178

1189

735

453

1304

794

463

334

282

461

030

9V/

C Ra

tio(X

)0.4

00.4

90.0

80.3

50.3

70.1

10.2

10.2

30.2

30.4

40.0

00.5

5Av

ail C

ap(c_

a), v

eh/h

261

1464

857

549

1507

885

523

947

798

591

090

1HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

1.00

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh3

4.921

.512

.132

.318

.910

.731

.828

.728

.732

.60.0

30.3

Incr D

elay (

d2),

s/veh

1.41.1

0.20.5

0.60.2

0.20.8

0.90.9

0.03.2

Initia

l Q D

elay(d

3),s/

veh

3.40.0

0.00.1

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.1

0.00.0

%ile

Bac

kOfQ

(50%

),veh

/ln2.1

5.30.8

1.74.1

1.21.0

1.61.3

2.20.0

3.7Ln

Grp D

elay(d

),s/ve

h39

.822

.612

.232

.819

.511

.032

.029

.529

.633

.60.0

33.6

LnGr

p LOS

DC

BC

BB

CC

CC

CAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h70

772

923

937

1Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

23.5

21.4

30.5

33.6

Appr

oach

LOS

CC

CC

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s14.9

19.3

14.7

32.6

14.7

19.5

12.0

35.3

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.04.6

4.05.3

4.04.6

4.05.3

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s14

.041

.413

.033

.712

.043

.412

.034

.7Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s6.4

4.95.5

12.5

4.09.4

5.110

.2Gr

een E

xt Tim

e (p_

c), s

0.63.5

0.314

.70.1

3.50.1

16.4

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay25

.4HC

M 20

10 LO

SC

Notes

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

AM B

aseli

neW

-Tra

ns

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

4235

457

216

424

201

4167

144

217

8246

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

4235

457

216

424

201

4167

144

217

8246

Numb

er5

212

16

163

818

74

14Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

04

03

102

12

10

51

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

00.9

81.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

4941

258

251

493

218

4878

116

252

9543

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

31

22

11

21

21

1Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

124

2948

911

307

2077

1073

124

413

318

309

268

218

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.07

0.58

0.58

0.13

0.90

0.90

0.07

0.12

0.12

0.09

0.14

0.14

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

5085

1581

3442

3539

1560

1774

3539

1550

3442

1863

1583

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

4941

258

251

493

218

4878

116

252

9543

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln17

7416

9515

8117

2117

7015

6017

7417

7015

5017

2118

6315

83Q

Serve

(g_s

), s

4.05.5

2.410

.72.6

2.03.9

3.09.7

10.8

7.03.6

Cycle

Q C

lear(g

_c),

s4.0

5.52.4

10.7

2.62.0

3.93.0

9.710

.87.0

3.6Pr

op In

Lane

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Lane

Grp

Cap

(c), v

eh/h

124

2948

911

307

2077

1073

124

413

318

309

268

218

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.40

0.14

0.06

0.82

0.24

0.20

0.39

0.19

0.36

0.82

0.35

0.20

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h26

029

7492

445

921

2910

8014

210

3859

259

772

061

2HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.5

01.5

01.5

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

0.99

0.99

0.99

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.98

0.98

0.98

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh6

6.814

.714

.264

.04.9

2.466

.960

.051

.667

.158

.657

.5Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh0.8

0.10.1

4.20.3

0.40.7

0.10.3

5.20.3

0.2Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h0.0

0.00.0

3.80.2

0.00.8

0.20.1

0.03.9

0.2%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln2

.02.9

1.15.7

2.71.4

2.11.6

4.45.4

4.71.8

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

67.5

14.8

14.3

72.0

5.42.8

68.4

60.3

52.0

72.2

62.8

57.9

LnGr

p LOS

EB

BE

AA

EE

DE

EE

Appr

oach

Vol,

veh/h

519

962

242

390

Appr

oach

Dela

y, s/v

eh19

.722

.257

.968

.4Ap

proa

ch LO

SB

CE

E

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s17.0

93.0

14.4

25.6

14.4

95.5

17.5

22.6

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.05.3

4.05.3

4.0* 5

.34.0

5.3Ma

x Gre

en S

etting

(Gma

x), s

20.0

41.4

12.0

58.0

22.0

* 40

26.0

44.0

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s12

.77.5

5.99.0

6.04.6

12.8

11.7

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s0.3

2.20.0

0.60.0

2.20.7

0.6

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay34

.2HC

M 20

10 LO

SC

Notes

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

PM B

aseli

neW

-Tra

ns

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

151

802

7829

560

649

171

191

373

473

213

214

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

151

802

7829

560

649

171

191

373

473

213

214

Numb

er5

212

16

163

818

74

14Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

04

03

102

12

10

51

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

81.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

157

835

7430

763

149

674

199

343

493

222

214

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

31

22

11

21

21

1Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

179

1875

580

361

1301

828

136

867

386

543

612

517

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.10

0.37

0.37

0.15

0.56

0.56

0.08

0.24

0.24

0.16

0.33

0.33

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

5085

1579

3442

3539

1557

1774

3539

1568

3442

1863

1583

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

157

835

7430

763

149

674

199

343

493

222

214

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln17

7416

9515

7917

2117

7015

5717

7417

7015

6817

2118

6315

83Q

Serve

(g_s

), s

13.1

18.5

4.613

.116

.130

.16.0

6.831

.721

.113

.715

.8Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

13.1

18.5

4.613

.116

.130

.16.0

6.831

.721

.113

.715

.8Pr

op In

Lane

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Lane

Grp

Cap

(c), v

eh/h

179

1875

580

361

1301

828

136

867

386

543

612

517

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.88

0.45

0.13

0.85

0.49

0.60

0.54

0.23

0.89

0.91

0.36

0.41

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h26

018

8958

745

913

2083

114

210

3846

059

772

061

2HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.5

01.5

01.5

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

0.87

0.87

0.87

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.80

0.80

0.80

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh6

6.536

.031

.562

.325

.617

.166

.945

.454

.762

.139

.039

.5Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh13

.70.7

0.49.8

1.33.2

1.90.0

15.2

14.1

0.10.2

Initia

l Q D

elay(d

3),s/

veh

0.00.1

0.03.4

0.80.1

0.90.0

0.40.0

0.80.0

%ile

Bac

kOfQ

(50%

),veh

/ln7.1

9.12.1

7.19.4

14.2

3.23.5

15.6

11.1

8.17.1

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

80.3

36.7

31.9

75.4

27.8

20.4

69.6

45.5

70.4

76.1

39.9

39.7

LnGr

p LOS

FD

CE

CC

ED

EE

DD

Appr

oach

Vol,

veh/h

1066

1434

616

929

Appr

oach

Dela

y, s/v

eh42

.835

.462

.359

.1Ap

proa

ch LO

SD

DE

E

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s19.3

61.0

15.5

54.2

19.1

61.3

27.7

41.9

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.05.3

4.05.3

4.0* 5

.34.0

5.3Ma

x Gre

en S

etting

(Gma

x), s

20.0

41.4

12.0

58.0

22.0

* 40

26.0

44.0

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s15

.120

.58.0

17.8

15.1

32.1

23.1

33.7

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s0.3

4.10.0

1.80.0

3.00.6

1.5

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay46

.9HC

M 20

10 LO

SD

Notes

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tAM

Exis

ting +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

737

1512

013

514

0Fu

ture V

olume

(veh

/h)73

715

120

135

140

Numb

er7

145

26

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

835

1713

615

314

7Ad

j No.

of La

nes

11

12

20

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

80.8

8Pe

rcent

Heav

y Veh

, %2

22

22

2Ca

p, ve

h/h14

115

128

1667

408

364

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.08

0.08

0.02

0.47

0.23

0.23

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

1583

1774

3632

1865

1581

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

835

1713

615

314

7Gr

p Sat

Flow(

s),ve

h/h/ln

1774

1583

1774

1770

1770

1584

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s0.8

0.10.2

0.41.3

1.4Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

0.80.1

0.20.4

1.31.4

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h14

115

128

1667

407

365

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.59

0.03

0.60

0.08

0.37

0.40

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h31

9128

7313

9611

937

4178

3739

HCM

Plato

on R

atio

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Upstr

eam

Filter

(I)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Un

iform

Dela

y (d)

, s/ve

h7.9

7.38.7

2.65.8

5.8Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh1.5

0.07.5

0.00.2

0.3Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h0.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln

0.40.0

0.10.2

0.60.6

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

9.47.3

16.2

2.66.0

6.1Ln

Grp L

OSA

AB

AA

AAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h88

153

300

Appr

oach

Dela

y, s/v

eh9.3

4.16.0

Appr

oach

LOS

AA

A

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs2

45

6Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s12

.45.4

4.38.1

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.04.0

4.04.0

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s60

.032

.014

.042

.0Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s

2.42.8

2.23.4

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s1.2

0.00.0

1.2

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay6.0

HCM

2010

LOS

A

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tPM

Exis

ting +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

160

3335

386

416

73Fu

ture V

olume

(veh

/h)16

033

3538

641

673

Numb

er7

145

26

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

176

3338

424

457

68Ad

j No.

of La

nes

11

12

20

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

10.9

1Pe

rcent

Heav

y Veh

, %2

22

22

2Ca

p, ve

h/h24

226

858

1855

996

147

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.14

0.14

0.03

0.52

0.32

0.32

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

1583

1774

3632

3187

458

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

176

3338

424

260

265

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln17

7415

8317

7417

7017

7017

82Q

Serve

(g_s

), s

2.20.4

0.51.5

2.82.8

Cycle

Q C

lear(g

_c),

s2.2

0.40.5

1.52.8

2.8Pr

op In

Lane

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.26

Lane

Grp

Cap

(c), v

eh/h

242

268

5818

5557

057

4V/

C Ra

tio(X

)0.7

30.1

20.6

50.2

30.4

60.4

6Av

ail C

ap(c_

a), v

eh/h

2406

2199

1053

9001

3150

3172

HCM

Plato

on R

atio

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Upstr

eam

Filter

(I)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Un

iform

Dela

y (d)

, s/ve

h9.8

8.311

.33.0

6.46.4

Incr D

elay (

d2),

s/veh

1.60.1

4.60.0

0.20.2

Initia

l Q D

elay(d

3),s/

veh

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

%ile

Bac

kOfQ

(50%

),veh

/ln1.2

0.40.3

0.71.3

1.4Ln

Grp D

elay(d

),s/ve

h11

.38.4

15.9

3.16.6

6.6Ln

Grp L

OSB

AB

AA

AAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h20

946

252

5Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

10.9

4.16.6

Appr

oach

LOS

BA

A

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs2

45

6Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s16

.47.2

4.811

.6Ch

ange

Per

iod (Y

+Rc),

s4.0

4.04.0

4.0Ma

x Gre

en S

etting

(Gma

x), s

60.0

32.0

14.0

42.0

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s3.5

4.22.5

4.8Gr

een E

xt Tim

e (p_

c), s

2.80.1

0.02.8

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay6.4

HCM

2010

LOS

A

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tAM

Exis

ting +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Inter

secti

onInt

Dela

y, s/v

eh2.9

Move

ment

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

433

8114

263

5Fu

ture V

ol, ve

h/h4

3381

142

635

Confl

icting

Ped

s, #/h

r0

00

00

0Si

gn C

ontro

l St

opSt

opFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeRT

Cha

nneli

zed

-No

ne-

None

-No

neSt

orag

e Len

gth0

--

--

-Ve

h in M

edian

Stor

age,

#0

--

00

-Gr

ade,

%0

--

00

-Pe

ak H

our F

actor

8080

8080

8080

Heav

y Veh

icles

, %2

22

22

2Mv

mt F

low5

4110

117

879

6

Major

/Mino

rMi

nor2

Major

1Ma

jor2

Confl

icting

Flow

All

462

8285

0-

0

S

tage 1

82-

--

--

Stag

e 238

0-

--

--

Critic

al Hd

wy6.4

26.2

24.1

2-

--

Critic

al Hd

wy S

tg 1

5.42

--

--

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

Stg

25.4

2-

--

--

Follo

w-up

Hdw

y3.5

183.3

182.2

18-

--

Pot C

ap-1

Man

euve

r55

897

815

12-

--

Stag

e 194

1-

--

--

Stag

e 269

1-

--

--

Plato

on bl

ocke

d, %

--

-Mo

v Cap

-1 M

aneu

ver

517

978

1512

--

-Mo

v Cap

-2 M

aneu

ver

517

--

--

-

S

tage 1

941

--

--

-

S

tage 2

640

--

--

-

Appr

oach

EBNB

SBHC

M Co

ntrol

Delay

, s9.3

2.70

HCM

LOS

A

Mino

r Lan

e/Majo

r Mvm

tNB

LNB

TEBL

n1SB

TSB

RCa

pacit

y (ve

h/h)

1512

-89

2-

-HC

M La

ne V

/C R

atio

0.067

-0.0

52-

-HC

M Co

ntrol

Delay

(s)

7.60

9.3-

-HC

M La

ne LO

SA

AA

--

HCM

95th

%tile

Q(ve

h)0.2

-0.2

--

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tPM

Exis

ting +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Inter

secti

onInt

Dela

y, s/v

eh2.7

Move

ment

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

571

4588

219

1Fu

ture V

ol, ve

h/h5

7145

8821

91

Confl

icting

Ped

s, #/h

r0

00

00

0Si

gn C

ontro

l St

opSt

opFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeRT

Cha

nneli

zed

-No

ne-

None

-No

neSt

orag

e Len

gth0

--

--

-Ve

h in M

edian

Stor

age,

#0

--

00

-Gr

ade,

%0

--

00

-Pe

ak H

our F

actor

8686

8686

8686

Heav

y Veh

icles

, %2

22

22

2Mv

mt F

low6

8352

102

255

1

Major

/Mino

rMi

nor2

Major

1Ma

jor2

Confl

icting

Flow

All

462

255

256

0-

0

S

tage 1

255

--

--

-

S

tage 2

207

--

--

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

7.12

6.22

4.12

--

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

Stg

16.1

2-

--

--

Critic

al Hd

wy S

tg 2

6.12

--

--

-Fo

llow-

up H

dwy

3.518

3.318

2.218

--

-Po

t Cap

-1 M

aneu

ver

510

784

1309

--

-

S

tage 1

749

--

--

-

S

tage 2

795

--

--

-Pl

atoon

bloc

ked,

%-

--

Mov C

ap-1

Man

euve

r49

478

413

09-

--

Mov C

ap-2

Man

euve

r49

4-

--

--

Stag

e 171

8-

--

--

Stag

e 276

2-

--

--

Appr

oach

EBNB

SBHC

M Co

ntrol

Delay

, s10

.42.7

0HC

M LO

SB

Mino

r Lan

e/Majo

r Mvm

tNB

LNB

TEBL

n1SB

TSB

RCa

pacit

y (ve

h/h)

1309

-75

5-

-HC

M La

ne V

/C R

atio

0.04

-0.1

17-

-HC

M Co

ntrol

Delay

(s)

7.90

10.4

--

HCM

Lane

LOS

AA

B-

-HC

M 95

th %

tile Q

(veh)

0.1-

0.4-

-

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tAM

Exis

ting +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Inter

secti

onInt

Dela

y, s/v

eh4

Move

ment

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

2370

216

423

Futur

e Vol,

veh/h

2370

216

423

Confl

icting

Ped

s, #/h

r0

00

00

0Si

gn C

ontro

l Fr

eeFr

eeSt

opSt

opFr

eeFr

eeRT

Cha

nneli

zed

-No

ne-

None

-No

neSt

orag

e Len

gth0

--

--

-Ve

h in M

edian

Stor

age,

#0

-0

--

0Gr

ade,

%0

-0

--

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

9090

9090

9090

Heav

y Veh

icles

, %2

22

22

2Mv

mt F

low26

782

1847

3

Major

/Mino

rMa

jor2

Mino

r1Ma

jor1

Confl

icting

Flow

All

3-

226

378

0

S

tage 1

--

97-

--

Stag

e 2-

-12

9-

--

Critic

al Hd

wy4.1

2-

6.52

6.22

4.12

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

Stg

1-

-5.5

2-

--

Critic

al Hd

wy S

tg 2

--

--

--

Follo

w-up

Hdw

y2.2

18-

4.018

3.318

2.218

-Po

t Cap

-1 M

aneu

ver

1619

-67

310

8115

20-

Stag

e 1-

-81

5-

--

Stag

e 2-

--

--

-Pl

atoon

bloc

ked,

%-

-Mo

v Cap

-1 M

aneu

ver

1619

-0

1081

1520

-Mo

v Cap

-2 M

aneu

ver

--

0-

--

Stag

e 1-

-0

--

-

S

tage 2

--

0-

--

Appr

oach

WB

NBSB

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay, s

1.88.4

6.9HC

M LO

SA

Mino

r Lan

e/Majo

r Mvm

tNB

Ln1

WBL

WBR

SBL

SBT

Capa

city (

veh/h

)10

8116

19-

1520

-HC

M La

ne V

/C R

atio

0.019

0.016

-0.0

31-

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay (s

)8.4

7.3-

7.40

HCM

Lane

LOS

AA

-A

AHC

M 95

th %

tile Q

(veh)

0.10

-0.1

-

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tPM

Exis

ting +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Inter

secti

onInt

Dela

y, s/v

eh3.6

Move

ment

WBL

WBR

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

2412

45

2166

7Fu

ture V

ol, ve

h/h24

124

521

667

Confl

icting

Ped

s, #/h

r0

00

00

0Si

gn C

ontro

l Fr

eeFr

eeSt

opSt

opFr

eeFr

eeRT

Cha

nneli

zed

-No

ne-

None

-No

neSt

orag

e Len

gth0

--

--

-Ve

h in M

edian

Stor

age,

#0

-0

--

0Gr

ade,

%0

-0

--

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

9090

9090

9090

Heav

y Veh

icles

, %2

22

22

2Mv

mt F

low27

138

623

738

Major

/Mino

rMa

jor2

Mino

r1Ma

jor1

Confl

icting

Flow

All

8-

345

813

80

Stag

e 1-

-15

4-

--

Stag

e 2-

-19

1-

--

Critic

al Hd

wy4.1

2-

6.52

6.22

4.12

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

Stg

1-

-5.5

2-

--

Critic

al Hd

wy S

tg 2

--

--

--

Follo

w-up

Hdw

y2.2

18-

4.018

3.318

2.218

-Po

t Cap

-1 M

aneu

ver

1612

-57

810

7414

46-

Stag

e 1-

-77

0-

--

Stag

e 2-

--

--

-Pl

atoon

bloc

ked,

%-

-Mo

v Cap

-1 M

aneu

ver

1612

-0

1074

1446

-Mo

v Cap

-2 M

aneu

ver

--

0-

--

Stag

e 1-

-0

--

-

S

tage 2

--

0-

--

Appr

oach

WB

NBSB

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay, s

1.28.4

6.9HC

M LO

SA

Mino

r Lan

e/Majo

r Mvm

tNB

Ln1

WBL

WBR

SBL

SBT

Capa

city (

veh/h

)10

7416

12-

1446

-HC

M La

ne V

/C R

atio

0.027

0.017

-0.0

51-

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay (s

)8.4

7.3-

7.60

HCM

Lane

LOS

AA

-A

AHC

M 95

th %

tile Q

(veh)

0.10.1

-0.2

-

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tAM

Exis

ting +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

280

125

11

111

914

36

214

416

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

280

125

11

111

914

36

214

416

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)0.9

90.9

90.9

91.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

00.9

9Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

310

107

11

013

215

91

216

017

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s0

11

01

02

20

12

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

495

043

028

218

10

408

1152

77

658

69Ar

rive O

n Gre

en0.1

50.0

00.1

50.1

50.1

50.0

00.1

20.3

20.3

20.0

00.2

00.2

0Sa

t Flow

, veh

/h13

990

1571

472

1172

034

4236

0523

1774

3231

339

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

310

107

20

013

278

822

8790

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln13

990

1571

1643

00

1721

1770

1859

1774

1770

1800

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s0.5

0.01.4

0.00.0

0.00.9

0.80.8

0.01.1

1.1Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

0.50.0

1.40.0

0.00.0

0.90.8

0.80.0

1.11.1

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

00.5

00.0

01.0

00.0

11.0

00.1

9La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h49

50

430

463

00

408

565

594

736

136

7V/

C Ra

tio(X

)0.0

60.0

00.2

50.0

00.0

00.0

00.3

20.1

40.1

40.2

90.2

40.2

5Av

ail C

ap(c_

a), v

eh/h

2201

023

4923

090

026

0127

0928

4579

121

6021

97HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

1.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh

9.40.0

7.39.2

0.00.0

10.4

6.26.2

12.8

8.68.6

Incr D

elay (

d2),

s/veh

0.10.0

0.30.0

0.00.0

0.50.1

0.121

.70.3

0.3Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h0.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln

0.20.0

0.60.0

0.00.0

0.40.4

0.40.1

0.50.6

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

9.50.0

7.69.2

0.00.0

10.9

6.46.4

34.6

8.99.0

LnGr

p LOS

AA

AB

AA

CA

AAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h13

82

292

179

Appr

oach

Dela

y, s/v

eh8.0

9.28.4

9.2Ap

proa

ch LO

SA

AA

A

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

24

56

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s4.6

12.7

8.57.6

9.88.5

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.54.5

4.54.5

4.54.5

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s11

.539

.535

.519

.531

.535

.5Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s

2.02.8

3.42.9

3.12.0

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s0.0

1.90.5

0.31.8

0.5

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay8.6

HCM

2010

LOS

A

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tPM

Exis

ting +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

750

234

91

638

137

06

756

943

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

750

234

91

638

137

06

756

943

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)0.9

90.9

90.9

90.9

91.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

830

228

101

642

341

11

863

247

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s0

11

01

02

20

12

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

435

059

523

744

8962

618

695

1911

5186

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.20

0.00

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.18

0.52

0.52

0.01

0.34

0.34

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1468

015

7160

822

545

434

4236

229

1774

3339

248

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

830

228

170

042

320

121

18

335

344

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln14

690

1571

1287

00

1721

1770

1861

1774

1770

1818

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s0.0

0.05.1

0.00.0

0.05.6

3.03.0

0.27.4

7.4Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

1.90.0

5.11.9

0.00.0

5.63.0

3.00.2

7.47.4

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

00.5

90.3

51.0

00.0

01.0

00.1

4La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h43

50

595

369

00

626

913

960

1961

062

7V/

C Ra

tio(X

)0.1

90.0

00.3

80.0

50.0

00.0

00.6

80.2

20.2

20.4

30.5

50.5

5Av

ail C

ap(c_

a), v

eh/h

980

012

0987

60

015

9319

1120

1020

112

9213

27HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

1.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh

16.5

0.011

.015

.90.0

0.018

.56.4

6.423

.912

.912

.9Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh0.2

0.00.4

0.10.0

0.01.3

0.10.1

14.7

0.80.8

Initia

l Q D

elay(d

3),s/

veh

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

%ile

Bac

kOfQ

(50%

),veh

/ln0.9

0.02.2

0.20.0

0.02.8

1.51.6

0.23.8

3.9Ln

Grp D

elay(d

),s/ve

h16

.70.0

11.4

15.9

0.00.0

19.8

6.56.5

38.6

13.6

13.6

LnGr

p LOS

BB

BB

AA

DB

BAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h31

117

835

687

Appr

oach

Dela

y, s/v

eh12

.815

.913

.313

.9Ap

proa

ch LO

SB

BB

B

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

24

56

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s5.0

29.6

14.0

13.3

21.3

14.0

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.54.5

4.54.5

4.54.5

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s5.5

52.5

28.5

22.5

35.5

28.5

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s2.2

5.07.1

7.69.4

3.9Gr

een E

xt Tim

e (p_

c), s

0.07.5

1.31.3

6.81.3

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay13

.5HC

M 20

10 LO

SB

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tAM

Exis

ting +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

6026

047

2815

414

426

2932

7721

25Fu

ture V

olume

(veh

/h)60

260

4728

154

144

2629

3277

2125

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

30

01

11

00

01

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

7130

630

3318

114

431

3429

9125

23Ad

j No.

of La

nes

12

12

21

21

12

10

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

5Pe

rcent

Heav

y Veh

, %2

22

22

22

22

22

2Ca

p, ve

h/h20

710

3658

726

790

062

728

436

530

848

823

021

2Ar

rive O

n Gre

en0.1

10.2

90.2

90.0

80.2

50.2

50.0

80.2

00.2

00.1

40.2

60.2

6Sa

t Flow

, veh

/h17

7435

3915

7034

4235

3915

8035

4818

6315

7134

4289

282

1Gr

p Volu

me(v)

, veh

/h71

306

3033

181

144

3134

2991

048

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln17

7417

7015

7017

2117

7015

8017

7418

6315

7117

210

1713

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s2.3

4.10.7

0.52.5

3.70.5

0.90.9

1.40.0

1.3Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

2.34.1

0.70.5

2.53.7

0.50.9

0.91.4

0.01.3

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

00.4

8La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h20

710

3658

726

790

062

728

436

530

848

80

442

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.34

0.30

0.05

0.12

0.20

0.23

0.11

0.09

0.09

0.19

0.00

0.11

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h40

620

0910

1967

618

9410

7075

512

3110

3984

50

1189

HCM

Plato

on R

atio

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Upstr

eam

Filter

(I)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

00.0

01.0

0Un

iform

Dela

y (d)

, s/ve

h25.9

16.9

12.3

26.4

18.0

12.3

26.3

20.3

20.3

23.3

0.017

.5Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh1.0

0.60.1

0.20.4

0.70.2

0.20.3

0.30.0

0.2Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h2.3

0.00.0

0.10.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln1

.62.1

0.30.3

1.31.8

0.30.5

0.40.7

0.00.6

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

29.1

17.4

12.5

26.7

18.4

13.0

26.5

20.6

20.6

23.6

0.017

.7Ln

Grp L

OSC

BB

CB

BC

CC

CB

Appr

oach

Vol,

veh/h

407

358

9413

9Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

19.1

17.0

22.5

21.5

Appr

oach

LOS

BB

CC

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s12.7

16.6

8.723

.18.9

20.4

11.0

20.8

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.04.6

4.05.3

4.04.6

4.05.3

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s15

.040

.412

.034

.713

.042

.414

.032

.7Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s3.4

2.92.5

6.12.5

3.34.3

5.7Gr

een E

xt Tim

e (p_

c), s

0.21.1

0.09.5

0.01.1

0.19.3

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay19

.0HC

M 20

10 LO

SB

Notes

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tPM

Exis

ting +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

5350

272

139

421

9284

2588

172

6178

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

5350

272

139

421

9284

2588

172

6178

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

30

01

11

00

01

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

00.9

9Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

6157

759

160

484

8297

7660

198

7084

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

21

22

12

11

21

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

169

1201

742

458

1342

814

468

316

266

466

133

160

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.09

0.34

0.34

0.13

0.38

0.38

0.13

0.17

0.17

0.14

0.17

0.17

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

3539

1572

3442

3539

1581

3548

1863

1569

3442

769

923

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

6157

759

160

484

8297

7660

198

015

4Gr

p Sat

Flow(

s),ve

h/h/ln

1774

1770

1572

1721

1770

1581

1774

1863

1569

1721

016

92Q

Serve

(g_s

), s

2.610

.31.7

3.47.9

2.12.0

2.82.7

4.20.0

6.6Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

2.610

.31.7

3.47.9

2.12.0

2.82.7

4.20.0

6.6Pr

op In

Lane

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.55

Lane

Grp

Cap

(c), v

eh/h

169

1201

742

458

1342

814

468

316

266

466

029

3V/

C Ra

tio(X

)0.3

60.4

80.0

80.3

50.3

60.1

00.2

10.2

40.2

30.4

20.0

00.5

2Av

ail C

ap(c_

a), v

eh/h

265

1485

869

557

1529

897

530

960

809

600

091

4HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

1.00

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh3

4.721

.011

.731

.818

.010

.131

.229

.028

.932

.00.0

30.3

Incr D

elay (

d2),

s/veh

1.31.1

0.20.5

0.60.2

0.20.8

0.90.9

0.03.1

Initia

l Q D

elay(d

3),s/

veh

3.60.0

0.00.1

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.1

0.00.0

%ile

Bac

kOfQ

(50%

),veh

/ln1.8

5.20.7

1.74.0

1.11.0

1.51.2

2.10.0

3.4Ln

Grp D

elay(d

),s/ve

h39

.522

.111

.932

.318

.610

.331

.429

.829

.832

.90.0

33.4

LnGr

p LOS

DC

BC

BB

CC

CC

CAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h69

772

623

335

2Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

22.8

20.7

30.5

33.1

Appr

oach

LOS

CC

CC

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s14.9

18.3

14.7

32.5

14.6

18.5

11.4

35.8

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.04.6

4.05.3

4.04.6

4.05.3

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s14

.041

.413

.033

.712

.043

.412

.034

.7Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s6.2

4.85.4

12.3

4.08.6

4.69.9

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s0.5

3.20.3

14.8

0.13.2

0.116

.5

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay24

.7HC

M 20

10 LO

SC

Notes

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tAM

Exis

ting +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

4235

157

216

420

174

4154

144

177

6346

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

4235

157

216

420

174

4154

144

177

6346

Numb

er5

212

16

163

818

74

14Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

04

03

102

12

10

51

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

00.9

81.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

4940

858

251

488

186

4863

116

206

7343

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

31

22

11

21

21

1Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

124

3000

927

307

2111

1074

124

412

317

275

249

202

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.07

0.59

0.59

0.13

0.92

0.92

0.07

0.11

0.11

0.08

0.13

0.13

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

5085

1581

3442

3539

1560

1774

3539

1550

3442

1863

1583

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

4940

858

251

488

186

4863

116

206

7343

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln17

7416

9515

8117

2117

7015

6017

7417

7015

5017

2118

6315

83Q

Serve

(g_s

), s

4.05.3

2.310

.72.1

1.43.9

2.49.7

8.85.4

3.7Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

4.05.3

2.310

.72.1

1.43.9

2.49.7

8.85.4

3.7Pr

op In

Lane

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Lane

Grp

Cap

(c), v

eh/h

124

3000

927

307

2111

1074

124

412

317

275

249

202

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.40

0.14

0.06

0.82

0.23

0.17

0.39

0.15

0.37

0.75

0.29

0.21

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h26

030

2694

145

921

6510

8114

210

3859

259

772

061

2HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.5

01.5

01.5

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

0.99

0.99

0.99

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.99

0.99

0.99

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh6

6.814

.013

.564

.04.4

2.166

.959

.851

.767

.559

.358

.9Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh0.8

0.10.1

4.20.3

0.40.7

0.10.3

4.00.2

0.2Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h0.0

0.00.0

3.80.2

0.00.8

0.20.1

0.04.1

0.2%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln2

.02.8

1.15.7

2.51.2

2.11.4

4.44.3

3.91.8

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

67.5

14.1

13.6

72.0

4.92.5

68.4

60.0

52.0

71.5

63.6

59.3

LnGr

p LOS

EB

BE

AA

EE

DE

EE

Appr

oach

Vol,

veh/h

515

925

227

322

Appr

oach

Dela

y, s/v

eh19

.222

.657

.768

.1Ap

proa

ch LO

SB

CE

E

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s17.0

94.5

14.4

24.1

14.4

97.1

16.0

22.5

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.05.3

4.05.3

4.0* 5

.34.0

5.3Ma

x Gre

en S

etting

(Gma

x), s

20.0

41.4

12.0

58.0

22.0

* 40

26.0

44.0

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s12

.77.3

5.97.4

6.04.1

10.8

11.7

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s0.3

2.20.0

0.50.0

2.20.6

0.5

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay33

.1HC

M 20

10 LO

SC

Notes

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sy

nchr

o 9 R

epor

tPM

Exis

ting +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

151

799

7829

560

344

271

169

373

427

192

214

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

151

799

7829

560

344

271

169

373

427

192

214

Numb

er5

212

16

163

818

74

14Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

04

03

102

12

10

51

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

81.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

157

832

7430

762

844

574

176

343

445

200

214

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

31

22

11

21

21

1Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

179

1940

601

361

1343

828

136

865

385

500

588

496

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.10

0.38

0.38

0.15

0.58

0.58

0.08

0.24

0.24

0.15

0.31

0.31

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

5085

1580

3442

3539

1557

1774

3539

1568

3442

1863

1583

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

157

832

7430

762

844

574

176

343

445

200

214

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln17

7416

9515

8017

2117

7015

5717

7417

7015

6817

2118

6315

83Q

Serve

(g_s

), s

13.1

18.1

4.513

.115

.324

.16.0

5.931

.819

.012

.416

.1Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

13.1

18.1

4.513

.115

.324

.16.0

5.931

.819

.012

.416

.1Pr

op In

Lane

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Lane

Grp

Cap

(c), v

eh/h

179

1940

601

361

1343

828

136

865

385

500

588

496

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.88

0.43

0.12

0.85

0.47

0.54

0.54

0.20

0.89

0.89

0.34

0.43

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h26

019

5660

745

913

6783

214

210

3846

059

772

061

2HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.5

01.5

01.5

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

0.87

0.87

0.87

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.84

0.84

0.84

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh6

6.534

.530

.362

.324

.115

.766

.945

.254

.862

.939

.941

.0Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh13

.80.6

0.49.8

1.22.5

1.90.0

15.4

11.9

0.10.2

Initia

l Q D

elay(d

3),s/

veh

0.00.1

0.03.4

0.70.1

0.90.0

0.40.0

0.80.1

%ile

Bac

kOfQ

(50%

),veh

/ln7.1

8.92.1

7.19.1

11.4

3.23.1

15.6

9.97.4

7.2Ln

Grp D

elay(d

),s/ve

h80

.335

.230

.675

.426

.018

.369

.645

.370

.674

.840

.841

.2Ln

Grp L

OSF

DC

EC

BE

DE

ED

DAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h10

6313

8059

385

9Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

41.5

34.5

63.0

58.5

Appr

oach

LOS

DC

EE

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s19.3

63.0

15.5

52.2

19.1

63.2

25.8

41.9

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.05.3

4.05.3

4.0* 5

.34.0

5.3Ma

x Gre

en S

etting

(Gma

x), s

20.0

41.4

12.0

58.0

22.0

* 40

26.0

44.0

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s15

.120

.18.0

18.1

15.1

26.1

21.0

33.8

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s0.3

4.00.0

1.70.0

3.70.8

1.4

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay46

.1HC

M 20

10 LO

SD

Notes

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

AM B

aseli

ne +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

108

715

131

156

157

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

108

715

131

156

157

Numb

er7

145

26

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

123

517

149

177

166

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

11

22

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.88

0.88

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

184

189

2816

8044

338

9Ar

rive O

n Gre

en0.1

00.1

00.0

20.4

70.2

50.2

5Sa

t Flow

, veh

/h17

7415

8317

7436

3218

7815

70Gr

p Volu

me(v)

, veh

/h12

35

1714

917

516

8Gr

p Sat

Flow(

s),ve

h/h/ln

1774

1583

1774

1770

1770

1586

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s1.3

0.10.2

0.41.6

1.7Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

1.30.1

0.20.4

1.61.7

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

9La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h18

418

928

1680

439

393

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.67

0.03

0.61

0.09

0.40

0.43

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h29

9326

9713

1011

198

3919

3512

HCM

Plato

on R

atio

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Upstr

eam

Filter

(I)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Un

iform

Dela

y (d)

, s/ve

h8.2

7.49.3

2.76.0

6.0Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh1.6

0.07.6

0.00.2

0.3Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h0.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln

0.70.0

0.10.2

0.80.7

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

9.87.4

16.9

2.76.2

6.3Ln

Grp L

OSA

AB

AA

AAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h12

816

634

3Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

9.74.2

6.2Ap

proa

ch LO

SA

AA

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs2

45

6Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s13

.06.0

4.38.7

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.04.0

4.04.0

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s60

.032

.014

.042

.0Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s

2.43.3

2.23.7

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s1.4

0.00.0

1.4

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay6.4

HCM

2010

LOS

A

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

PM B

aseli

ne +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBR

NBL

NBT

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

193

3335

408

432

116

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

193

3335

408

432

116

Numb

er7

145

26

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

212

3338

448

475

115

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

11

22

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.91

0.91

0.91

0.91

0.91

0.91

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

286

307

5718

6095

322

9Ar

rive O

n Gre

en0.1

60.1

60.0

30.5

30.3

40.3

4Sa

t Flow

, veh

/h17

7415

8317

7436

3229

2468

1Gr

p Volu

me(v)

, veh

/h21

233

3844

829

629

4Gr

p Sat

Flow(

s),ve

h/h/ln

1774

1583

1774

1770

1770

1743

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s2.9

0.40.5

1.83.4

3.4Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

2.90.4

0.51.8

3.43.4

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

01.0

00.3

9La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h28

630

757

1860

596

587

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.74

0.11

0.66

0.24

0.50

0.50

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h22

2220

3497

283

1229

0928

65HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh

10.2

8.512

.23.3

6.86.8

Incr D

elay (

d2),

s/veh

1.40.1

4.70.0

0.20.2

Initia

l Q D

elay(d

3),s/

veh

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

%ile

Bac

kOfQ

(50%

),veh

/ln1.5

0.40.3

0.81.7

1.7Ln

Grp D

elay(d

),s/ve

h11

.68.5

17.0

3.37.0

7.0Ln

Grp L

OSB

AB

AA

AAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h24

548

659

0Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

11.2

4.47.0

Appr

oach

LOS

BA

A

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs2

45

6Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s17

.48.1

4.812

.6Ch

ange

Per

iod (Y

+Rc),

s4.0

4.04.0

4.0Ma

x Gre

en S

etting

(Gma

x), s

60.0

32.0

14.0

42.0

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s3.8

4.92.5

5.4Gr

een E

xt Tim

e (p_

c), s

3.20.1

0.03.2

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay6.8

HCM

2010

LOS

A

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

AM B

aseli

ne +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Inter

secti

onInt

Dela

y, s/v

eh3.1

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

52

338

21

8115

010

375

7Fu

ture V

ol, ve

h/h5

233

82

181

150

103

757

Confl

icting

Ped

s, #/h

r0

00

00

00

00

00

0Si

gn C

ontro

l St

opSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeRT

Cha

nneli

zed

--

None

--

None

--

None

--

None

Stor

age L

ength

--

--

--

--

--

--

Veh i

n Med

ian S

torag

e, #

-0

--

0-

-0

--

0-

Grad

e, %

-0

--

0-

-0

--

0-

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor80

9280

9292

9280

8092

9280

80He

avy V

ehicl

es, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Mvmt

Flow

62

419

21

101

188

113

949

Major

/Mino

rMi

nor2

Mino

r1Ma

jor1

Major

2Co

nflict

ing F

low A

ll50

250

698

521

504

193

103

00

198

00

Stag

e 110

510

5-

395

395

--

--

--

-

S

tage 2

397

401

-12

610

9-

--

--

--

Critic

al Hd

wy7.1

26.5

26.2

27.1

26.5

26.2

24.1

2-

-4.1

2-

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

Stg

16.1

25.5

2-

6.12

5.52

--

--

--

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

Stg

26.1

25.5

2-

6.12

5.52

--

--

--

-Fo

llow-

up H

dwy

3.518

4.018

3.318

3.518

4.018

3.318

2.218

--

2.218

--

Pot C

ap-1

Man

euve

r48

046

995

846

647

084

914

89-

-13

75-

-

S

tage 1

901

808

-63

060

5-

--

--

--

Stag

e 262

960

1-

878

805

--

--

--

-Pl

atoon

bloc

ked,

%-

--

-Mo

v Cap

-1 M

aneu

ver

449

432

958

418

433

849

1489

--

1375

--

Mov C

ap-2

Man

euve

r44

943

2-

418

433

--

--

--

-

S

tage 1

833

806

-58

255

9-

--

--

--

Stag

e 257

855

5-

836

803

--

--

--

-

Appr

oach

EBW

BNB

SBHC

M Co

ntrol

Delay

, s9.8

13.4

2.60.2

HCM

LOS

AB

Mino

r Lan

e/Majo

r Mvm

tNB

LNB

TNB

REB

Ln1W

BLn1

SBL

SBT

SBR

Capa

city (

veh/h

)14

89-

-80

144

113

75-

-HC

M La

ne V

/C R

atio

0.068

--

0.062

0.027

0.002

--

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay (s

)7.6

0-

9.813

.47.6

0-

HCM

Lane

LOS

AA

-A

BA

A-

HCM

95th

%tile

Q(ve

h)0.2

--

0.20.1

0-

-

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

PM B

aseli

ne +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Inter

secti

onInt

Dela

y, s/v

eh3.2

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

73

7114

34

4510

012

222

92

Futur

e Vol,

veh/h

73

7114

34

4510

012

222

92

Confl

icting

Ped

s, #/h

r0

00

00

00

00

00

0Si

gn C

ontro

l St

opSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeFr

eeRT

Cha

nneli

zed

--

None

--

None

--

None

--

None

Stor

age L

ength

--

--

--

--

--

--

Veh i

n Med

ian S

torag

e, #

-0

--

0-

-0

--

0-

Grad

e, %

-0

--

0-

-0

--

0-

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor80

9280

9292

9280

8092

9280

80He

avy V

ehicl

es, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Mvmt

Flow

93

8915

34

5612

513

228

63

Major

/Mino

rMi

nor2

Mino

r1Ma

jor1

Major

2Co

nflict

ing F

low A

ll54

054

328

858

253

713

228

90

013

80

0

S

tage 1

292

292

-24

424

4-

--

--

--

Stag

e 224

825

1-

338

293

--

--

--

-Cr

itical

Hdwy

7.12

6.52

6.22

7.12

6.52

6.22

4.12

--

4.12

--

Critic

al Hd

wy S

tg 1

6.12

5.52

-6.1

25.5

2-

--

--

--

Critic

al Hd

wy S

tg 2

6.12

5.52

-6.1

25.5

2-

--

--

--

Follo

w-up

Hdw

y3.5

184.0

183.3

183.5

184.0

183.3

182.2

18-

-2.2

18-

-Po

t Cap

-1 M

aneu

ver

453

447

751

424

450

917

1273

--

1446

--

Stag

e 171

667

1-

760

704

--

--

--

-

S

tage 2

756

699

-67

667

0-

--

--

--

Plato

on bl

ocke

d, %

--

--

Mov C

ap-1

Man

euve

r43

142

575

135

842

891

712

73-

-14

46-

-Mo

v Cap

-2 M

aneu

ver

431

425

-35

842

8-

--

--

--

Stag

e 168

267

0-

724

670

--

--

--

-

S

tage 2

713

665

-59

266

9-

--

--

--

Appr

oach

EBW

BNB

SBHC

M Co

ntrol

Delay

, s11

.114

.22.3

0.1HC

M LO

SB

B

Mino

r Lan

e/Majo

r Mvm

tNB

LNB

TNB

REB

Ln1W

BLn1

SBL

SBT

SBR

Capa

city (

veh/h

)12

73-

-68

941

614

46-

-HC

M La

ne V

/C R

atio

0.044

--

0.146

0.055

0.002

--

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay (s

)8

0-

11.1

14.2

7.50

-HC

M La

ne LO

SA

A-

BB

AA

-HC

M 95

th %

tile Q

(veh)

0.1-

-0.5

0.20

--

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

AM B

aseli

ne +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Inter

secti

onInt

erse

ction

Dela

y, s/v

eh8.6

Inter

secti

on LO

SA

Move

ment

EBU

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBU

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBU

NBL

NBT

NBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

01

325

023

5988

03

216

Futur

e Vol,

veh/h

01

325

023

5988

03

216

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

00.9

20.9

00.9

20.9

20.9

00.9

0He

avy V

ehicl

es, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Mvmt

Flow

01

355

026

6498

03

218

Numb

er of

Lane

s0

01

00

11

00

01

0

Appr

oach

EBW

BNB

Oppo

sing A

ppro

ach

WB

EBSB

Oppo

sing L

anes

21

2Co

nflict

ing A

ppro

ach L

eftSB

NBEB

Confl

icting

Lane

s Left

21

1Co

nflict

ing A

ppro

ach R

ight

NBSB

WB

Confl

icting

Lane

s Righ

t1

22

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay8.4

8.48

HCM

LOS

AA

A

Lane

NBLn

1EB

Ln1

WBL

n1W

BLn2

SBLn

1SB

Ln2

Vol L

eft, %

14%

3%10

0%0%

100%

0%Vo

l Thr

u, %

10%

84%

0%40

%0%

50%

Vol R

ight, %

76%

13%

0%60

%0%

50%

Sign

Con

trol

Stop

Stop

Stop

Stop

Stop

Stop

Traff

ic Vo

l by L

ane

2138

2314

791

6LT

Vol

31

230

910

Thro

ugh V

ol2

320

590

3RT

Vol

165

088

03

Lane

Flow

Rate

2341

2616

210

17

Geom

etry G

rp6

67

77

7De

gree

of U

til (X

)0.0

310.0

580.0

390.2

030.1

570.0

09De

partu

re H

eadw

ay (H

d)4.8

015.0

365.4

394.5

185.6

034.7

49Co

nver

genc

e, Y/

NYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sCa

p74

671

366

179

764

275

5Se

rvice

Tim

e2.8

263.0

553.1

532.2

313.3

242.4

7HC

M La

ne V

/C R

atio

0.031

0.058

0.039

0.203

0.157

0.009

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay8

8.48.4

8.49.4

7.5HC

M La

ne LO

SA

AA

AA

AHC

M 95

th-tile

Q0.1

0.20.1

0.80.6

0

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

AM B

aseli

ne +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Inter

secti

onInt

erse

ction

Dela

y, s/v

ehInt

erse

ction

LOS

Move

ment

SBU

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

091

33

Futur

e Vol,

veh/h

091

33

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.9

20.9

00.9

00.9

2He

avy V

ehicl

es, %

22

22

Mvmt

Flow

010

13

3Nu

mber

of La

nes

01

10

Appr

oach

SBOp

posin

g App

roac

hNB

Oppo

sing L

anes

1Co

nflict

ing A

ppro

ach L

eftW

BCo

nflict

ing La

nes L

eft2

Confl

icting

App

roac

h Righ

tEB

Confl

icting

Lane

s Righ

t1

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay9.3

HCM

LOS

A

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

PM B

aseli

ne +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Inter

secti

onInt

erse

ction

Dela

y, s/v

eh9.3

Inter

secti

on LO

SA

Move

ment

EBU

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBU

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBU

NBL

NBT

NBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

03

655

024

4817

90

45

21Fu

ture V

ol, ve

h/h0

365

50

2448

179

04

521

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

20.9

00.9

20.9

00.9

20.9

20.9

00.9

0He

avy V

ehicl

es, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Mvmt

Flow

03

715

027

5219

90

46

23Nu

mber

of La

nes

00

10

01

10

00

10

Appr

oach

EBW

BNB

Oppo

sing A

ppro

ach

WB

EBSB

Oppo

sing L

anes

21

2Co

nflict

ing A

ppro

ach L

eftSB

NBEB

Confl

icting

Lane

s Left

21

1Co

nflict

ing A

ppro

ach R

ight

NBSB

WB

Confl

icting

Lane

s Righ

t1

22

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay9

9.28.5

HCM

LOS

AA

A

Lane

NBLn

1EB

Ln1

WBL

n1W

BLn2

SBLn

1SB

Ln2

Vol L

eft, %

13%

4%10

0%0%

100%

0%Vo

l Thr

u, %

17%

89%

0%21

%0%

88%

Vol R

ight, %

70%

7%0%

79%

0%12

%Si

gn C

ontro

lSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opSt

opTr

affic

Vol b

y Lan

e30

7324

227

104

8LT

Vol

43

240

104

0Th

roug

h Vol

565

048

07

RT V

ol21

50

179

01

Lane

Flow

Rate

3379

2725

111

69

Geom

etry G

rp6

67

77

7De

gree

of U

til (X

)0.0

480.1

160.0

410.3

150.1

90.0

13De

partu

re H

eadw

ay (H

d)5.1

755.2

685.5

714.5

155.9

135.3

21Co

nver

genc

e, Y/

NYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

sCa

p68

967

964

379

660

767

1Se

rvice

Tim

e3.2

263.3

073.2

992.2

423.6

553.0

64HC

M La

ne V

/C R

atio

0.048

0.116

0.042

0.315

0.191

0.013

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay8.5

98.5

9.310

8.1HC

M La

ne LO

SA

AA

AA

AHC

M 95

th-tile

Q0.2

0.40.1

1.40.7

0

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

PM B

aseli

ne +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Inter

secti

onInt

erse

ction

Dela

y, s/v

ehInt

erse

ction

LOS

Move

ment

SBU

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Vol, v

eh/h

010

47

1Fu

ture V

ol, ve

h/h0

104

71

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.9

20.9

00.9

00.9

2He

avy V

ehicl

es, %

22

22

Mvmt

Flow

011

68

1Nu

mber

of La

nes

01

10

Appr

oach

SBOp

posin

g App

roac

hNB

Oppo

sing L

anes

1Co

nflict

ing A

ppro

ach L

eftW

BCo

nflict

ing La

nes L

eft2

Confl

icting

App

roac

h Righ

tEB

Confl

icting

Lane

s Righ

t1

HCM

Contr

ol De

lay9.9

HCM

LOS

A

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

AM B

aseli

ne +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

390

195

11

117

414

36

214

437

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

390

195

11

117

414

36

214

437

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)0.9

90.9

90.9

91.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

00.9

9Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

430

185

11

019

315

91

216

040

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s0

11

01

01

20

12

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0.90

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

507

053

127

820

10

268

1258

86

565

137

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.19

0.00

0.19

0.19

0.19

0.00

0.15

0.35

0.35

0.00

0.20

0.20

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1401

015

7149

810

800

1774

3606

2317

7428

1768

5Gr

p Volu

me(v)

, veh

/h43

018

52

00

193

7882

299

101

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln14

010

1571

1579

00

1774

1770

1859

1774

1770

1732

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s0.7

0.02.6

0.00.0

0.03.0

0.90.9

0.01.4

1.4Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

0.70.0

2.60.0

0.00.0

3.00.9

0.90.0

1.41.4

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

00.5

00.0

01.0

00.0

11.0

00.4

0La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h50

70

531

478

00

268

618

649

635

534

8V/

C Ra

tio(X

)0.0

80.0

00.3

50.0

00.0

00.0

00.7

20.1

30.1

30.3

30.2

80.2

9Av

ail C

ap(c_

a), v

eh/h

1493

016

3815

000

030

2045

7648

0730

418

6718

27HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

1.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh1

0.00.0

7.39.7

0.00.0

11.8

6.56.5

14.5

9.99.9

Incr D

elay (

d2),

s/veh

0.10.0

0.40.0

0.00.0

3.60.1

0.128

.70.4

0.5Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h0.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln0

.30.0

1.20.0

0.00.0

1.70.4

0.40.1

0.70.7

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

10.0

0.07.7

9.70.0

0.015

.46.6

6.643

.210

.310

.4Ln

Grp L

OSB

AA

BA

AD

BB

Appr

oach

Vol,

veh/h

228

235

320

2Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

8.19.7

11.4

10.7

Appr

oach

LOS

AA

BB

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

24

56

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s4.6

14.7

9.98.9

10.4

9.9Ch

ange

Per

iod (Y

+Rc),

s4.5

4.54.5

4.54.5

4.5Ma

x Gre

en S

etting

(Gma

x), s5.0

75.5

26.0

49.7

30.8

26.0

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s2.02.9

4.65.0

3.42.0

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s0.0

2.10.8

0.51.9

0.8

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay10

.3HC

M 20

10 LO

SB

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

PM B

aseli

ne +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

970

315

91

646

837

06

756

959

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

970

315

91

646

837

06

756

959

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

00

00

00

00

00

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)0.9

90.9

91.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

9Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

108

031

810

16

520

411

18

632

65Ad

j No.

of La

nes

01

10

10

12

01

20

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

00.9

0Pe

rcent

Heav

y Veh

, %2

22

22

22

22

22

2Ca

p, ve

h/h38

80

823

181

3272

585

2203

518

936

96Ar

rive O

n Gre

en0.1

90.0

00.1

90.1

90.1

90.1

90.3

30.6

10.6

10.0

10.2

90.2

9Sa

t Flow

, veh

/h14

960

1571

523

168

377

1774

3622

917

7432

3833

3Gr

p Volu

me(v)

, veh

/h10

80

318

170

052

020

121

18

345

352

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln14

960

1571

1068

00

1774

1770

1861

1774

1770

1801

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s0.0

0.08.6

0.00.0

0.019

.73.6

3.60.3

12.2

12.3

Cycle

Q C

lear(g

_c),

s3.8

0.08.6

3.80.0

0.019

.73.6

3.60.3

12.2

12.3

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

00.5

90.3

51.0

00.0

01.0

00.1

8La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h38

80

823

285

00

585

1076

1132

1851

152

0V/

C Ra

tio(X

)0.2

80.0

00.3

90.0

60.0

00.0

00.8

90.1

90.1

90.4

40.6

70.6

8Av

ail C

ap(c_

a), v

eh/h

631

010

9749

90

012

4118

8119

7812

576

778

1HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

1.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh2

4.70.0

10.2

23.5

0.00.0

22.6

6.16.1

35.0

22.3

22.3

Incr D

elay (

d2),

s/veh

0.40.0

0.30.1

0.00.0

4.90.1

0.115

.71.6

1.5Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h0.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln1

.90.0

3.80.3

0.00.0

10.5

1.81.8

0.26.2

6.3Ln

Grp D

elay(d

),s/ve

h25

.10.0

10.5

23.6

0.00.0

27.5

6.26.2

50.7

23.9

23.9

LnGr

p LOS

CB

CC

AA

DC

CAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h42

617

932

705

Appr

oach

Dela

y, s/v

eh14

.223

.618

.124

.2Ap

proa

ch LO

SB

CB

C

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

24

56

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s5.2

47.7

18.1

27.9

25.0

18.1

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.54.5

4.54.5

4.54.5

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s5.075

.526

.049

.730

.826

.0Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s2.3

5.610

.621

.714

.35.8

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s0.0

7.81.7

1.75.9

1.8

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay19

.4HC

M 20

10 LO

SB

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

AM B

aseli

ne +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

6726

047

2815

414

826

3432

8027

34Fu

ture V

olume

(veh

/h)67

260

4728

154

148

2634

3280

2734

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

30

01

11

00

01

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

7930

630

3318

114

931

4029

9432

34Ad

j No.

of La

nes

12

12

21

21

12

10

Peak

Hou

r Fac

tor0.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

50.8

5Pe

rcent

Heav

y Veh

, %2

22

22

22

22

22

2Ca

p, ve

h/h21

610

5059

226

689

562

528

336

931

148

921

522

9Ar

rive O

n Gre

en0.1

20.3

00.3

00.0

80.2

50.2

50.0

80.2

00.2

00.1

40.2

60.2

6Sa

t Flow

, veh

/h17

7435

3915

7034

4235

3915

8035

4818

6315

7134

4282

687

7Gr

p Volu

me(v)

, veh

/h79

306

3033

181

149

3140

2994

066

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln17

7417

7015

7017

2117

7015

8017

7418

6315

7117

210

1703

Q Se

rve(g

_s),

s2.6

4.20.8

0.62.5

3.90.5

1.10.9

1.50.0

1.9Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

2.64.2

0.80.6

2.53.9

0.51.1

0.91.5

0.01.9

Prop

In La

ne1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

00.5

2La

ne G

rp C

ap(c)

, veh

/h21

610

5059

226

689

562

528

336

931

148

90

444

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.37

0.29

0.05

0.12

0.20

0.24

0.11

0.11

0.09

0.19

0.00

0.15

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h39

819

7010

0166

218

5610

5374

012

0710

1882

80

1158

HCM

Plato

on R

atio

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Upstr

eam

Filter

(I)1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

00.0

01.0

0Un

iform

Dela

y (d)

, s/ve

h26.2

17.0

12.5

27.0

18.4

12.7

26.9

20.7

20.6

23.7

0.017

.9Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh1.0

0.60.1

0.20.4

0.70.2

0.30.3

0.30.0

0.3Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h2.2

0.00.0

0.10.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln1

.82.1

0.30.3

1.31.9

0.30.6

0.40.8

0.00.9

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

29.5

17.6

12.6

27.3

18.8

13.4

27.1

21.0

20.9

24.0

0.018

.2Ln

Grp L

OSC

BB

CB

BC

CC

CB

Appr

oach

Vol,

veh/h

415

363

100

160

Appr

oach

Dela

y, s/v

eh19

.517

.422

.821

.7Ap

proa

ch LO

SB

BC

C

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s12.8

17.0

8.823

.79.0

20.9

11.5

21.0

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.04.6

4.05.3

4.04.6

4.05.3

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s15

.040

.412

.034

.713

.042

.414

.032

.7Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s3.5

3.12.6

6.22.5

3.94.6

5.9Gr

een E

xt Tim

e (p_

c), s

0.31.4

0.09.6

0.01.4

0.19.3

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay19

.4HC

M 20

10 LO

SB

Notes

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

PM B

aseli

ne +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

6450

272

139

421

9584

3288

175

6888

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

6450

272

139

421

9584

3288

175

6888

Numb

er7

414

38

185

212

16

16Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

30

01

11

00

01

00

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

00.9

9Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1900

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

7457

759

160

484

8597

7864

201

7895

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

21

22

12

11

21

0Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

0.87

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

181

1187

734

452

1296

790

463

337

284

459

141

171

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.10

0.33

0.33

0.13

0.37

0.37

0.13

0.18

0.18

0.13

0.18

0.18

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

3539

1572

3442

3539

1581

3548

1863

1570

3442

763

929

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

7457

759

160

484

8597

7864

201

017

3Gr

p Sat

Flow(

s),ve

h/h/ln

1774

1770

1572

1721

1770

1581

1774

1863

1570

1721

016

92Q

Serve

(g_s

), s

3.210

.61.7

3.58.2

2.32.0

2.92.8

4.40.0

7.6Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

3.210

.61.7

3.58.2

2.32.0

2.92.8

4.40.0

7.6Pr

op In

Lane

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.55

Lane

Grp

Cap

(c), v

eh/h

181

1187

734

452

1296

790

463

337

284

459

031

2V/

C Ra

tio(X

)0.4

10.4

90.0

80.3

50.3

70.1

10.2

10.2

30.2

30.4

40.0

00.5

5Av

ail C

ap(c_

a), v

eh/h

261

1460

855

548

1504

883

521

944

796

590

089

9HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

1.00

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh3

5.021

.612

.132

.419

.110

.931

.828

.728

.632

.70.0

30.4

Incr D

elay (

d2),

s/veh

1.51.1

0.20.5

0.60.2

0.20.7

0.80.9

0.03.3

Initia

l Q D

elay(d

3),s/

veh

3.40.0

0.00.1

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.1

0.00.0

%ile

Bac

kOfQ

(50%

),veh

/ln2.1

5.30.8

1.74.1

1.21.0

1.61.3

2.20.0

3.9Ln

Grp D

elay(d

),s/ve

h39

.822

.712

.333

.019

.711

.132

.129

.429

.533

.70.0

33.6

LnGr

p LOS

DC

BC

BB

CC

CC

CAp

proa

ch V

ol, ve

h/h71

072

923

937

4Ap

proa

ch D

elay,

s/veh

23.7

21.6

30.5

33.6

Appr

oach

LOS

CC

CC

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s14.9

19.5

14.7

32.6

14.7

19.7

12.1

35.2

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.04.6

4.05.3

4.04.6

4.05.3

Max G

reen

Sett

ing (G

max),

s14

.041

.413

.033

.712

.043

.412

.034

.7Ma

x Q C

lear T

ime (

g_c+

I1), s6.4

4.95.5

12.6

4.09.6

5.210

.2Gr

een E

xt Tim

e (p_

c), s

0.63.6

0.314

.70.1

3.50.1

16.4

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay25

.5HC

M 20

10 LO

SC

Notes

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

AM B

aseli

ne +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

4235

457

216

424

212

4171

144

225

8546

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

4235

457

216

424

212

4171

144

225

8546

Numb

er5

212

16

163

818

74

14Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

04

03

102

12

10

51

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

91.0

00.9

81.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

4941

258

251

493

231

4883

116

262

9943

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

31

22

11

21

21

1Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

124

2933

907

307

2066

1073

124

414

318

319

273

222

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.07

0.58

0.58

0.13

0.90

0.90

0.07

0.12

0.12

0.09

0.14

0.14

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

5085

1581

3442

3539

1560

1774

3539

1550

3442

1863

1583

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

4941

258

251

493

231

4883

116

262

9943

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln17

7416

9515

8117

2117

7015

6017

7417

7015

5017

2118

6315

83Q

Serve

(g_s

), s

4.05.5

2.410

.72.7

2.23.9

3.29.7

11.2

7.33.6

Cycle

Q C

lear(g

_c),

s4.0

5.52.4

10.7

2.72.2

3.93.2

9.711

.27.3

3.6Pr

op In

Lane

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Lane

Grp

Cap

(c), v

eh/h

124

2933

907

307

2066

1073

124

414

318

319

273

222

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.40

0.14

0.06

0.82

0.24

0.22

0.39

0.20

0.36

0.82

0.36

0.19

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h26

029

5892

045

921

1810

8014

210

3859

259

772

061

2HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.5

01.5

01.5

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

0.99

0.99

0.99

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.98

0.98

0.98

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh6

6.814

.914

.464

.05.1

2.566

.960

.051

.666

.858

.357

.1Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh0.8

0.10.1

4.20.3

0.50.7

0.10.3

5.20.3

0.2Ini

tial Q

Dela

y(d3)

,s/ve

h0.0

0.00.0

3.80.2

0.00.8

0.20.1

0.03.8

0.2%

ile B

ackO

fQ(5

0%),v

eh/ln2

.02.9

1.15.7

2.71.5

2.11.7

4.45.6

4.91.8

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

67.5

15.0

14.5

72.0

5.63.0

68.4

60.3

52.0

72.0

62.4

57.4

LnGr

p LOS

EB

BE

AA

EE

DE

EE

Appr

oach

Vol,

veh/h

519

975

247

404

Appr

oach

Dela

y, s/v

eh19

.922

.158

.068

.1Ap

proa

ch LO

SB

CE

E

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s17.0

92.6

14.4

26.1

14.4

95.1

17.9

22.6

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.05.3

4.05.3

4.0* 5

.34.0

5.3Ma

x Gre

en S

etting

(Gma

x), s

20.0

41.4

12.0

58.0

22.0

* 40

26.0

44.0

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s12

.77.5

5.99.3

6.04.7

13.2

11.7

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s0.3

2.30.0

0.70.0

2.30.7

0.7

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay34

.4HC

M 20

10 LO

SC

Notes

03/14

/2017

The F

airfie

ld Inn

& S

uites

Sync

hro 8

Rep

ort

PM B

aseli

ne +

Pro

ject

W-T

rans

Move

ment

EBL

EBT

EBR

WBL

WBT

WBR

NBL

NBT

NBR

SBL

SBT

SBR

Lane

Con

figur

ation

sTr

affic

Volum

e (ve

h/h)

151

802

7829

560

650

271

196

373

483

218

214

Futur

e Volu

me (v

eh/h)

151

802

7829

560

650

271

196

373

483

218

214

Numb

er5

212

16

163

818

74

14Ini

tial Q

(Qb)

, veh

04

03

102

12

10

51

Ped-

Bike

Adj(

A_pb

T)1.0

01.0

01.0

00.9

81.0

00.9

91.0

01.0

0Pa

rking

Bus

, Adj

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Adj S

at Flo

w, ve

h/h/ln

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

1863

Adj F

low R

ate, v

eh/h

157

835

7430

763

150

874

204

343

503

227

214

Adj N

o. of

Lane

s1

31

22

11

21

21

1Pe

ak H

our F

actor

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

0.96

Perce

nt He

avy V

eh, %

22

22

22

22

22

22

Cap,

veh/h

179

1863

576

361

1292

827

136

867

386

552

616

521

Arriv

e On G

reen

0.10

0.37

0.37

0.15

0.56

0.56

0.08

0.24

0.24

0.16

0.33

0.33

Sat F

low, v

eh/h

1774

5085

1579

3442

3539

1557

1774

3539

1568

3442

1863

1583

Grp V

olume

(v), v

eh/h

157

835

7430

763

150

874

204

343

503

227

214

Grp S

at Flo

w(s),

veh/h

/ln17

7416

9515

7917

2117

7015

5717

7417

7015

6817

2118

6315

83Q

Serve

(g_s

), s

13.1

18.6

4.713

.116

.231

.76.0

6.931

.721

.614

.015

.7Cy

cle Q

Clea

r(g_c

), s

13.1

18.6

4.713

.116

.231

.76.0

6.931

.721

.614

.015

.7Pr

op In

Lane

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Lane

Grp

Cap

(c), v

eh/h

179

1863

576

361

1292

827

136

867

386

552

616

521

V/C

Ratio

(X)

0.88

0.45

0.13

0.85

0.49

0.61

0.54

0.24

0.89

0.91

0.37

0.41

Avail

Cap

(c_a)

, veh

/h26

018

7658

345

913

1183

114

210

3846

059

772

061

2HC

M Pl

atoon

Rati

o1.0

01.0

01.0

01.5

01.5

01.5

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

01.0

0Up

strea

m Fil

ter(I)

0.87

0.87

0.87

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.79

0.79

0.79

Unifo

rm D

elay (

d), s

/veh6

6.536

.331

.862

.325

.917

.566

.945

.554

.761

.938

.839

.2Inc

r Dela

y (d2

), s/v

eh13

.80.7

0.49.8

1.33.4

1.90.1

15.2

14.5

0.10.2

Initia

l Q D

elay(d

3),s/

veh

0.00.1

0.03.4

0.80.1

0.90.1

0.40.0

0.80.0

%ile

Bac

kOfQ

(50%

),veh

/ln7.1

9.22.1

7.19.5

14.8

3.23.6

15.6

11.4

8.37.1

LnGr

p Dela

y(d),s

/veh

80.3

37.0

32.2

75.4

28.1

21.0

69.6

45.6

70.4

76.4

39.7

39.4

LnGr

p LOS

FD

CE

CC

ED

EE

DD

Appr

oach

Vol,

veh/h

1066

1446

621

944

Appr

oach

Dela

y, s/v

eh43

.035

.762

.159

.2Ap

proa

ch LO

SD

DE

E

Timer

12

34

56

78

Assig

ned P

hs1

23

45

67

8Ph

s Dur

ation

(G+Y

+Rc),

s19.3

60.6

15.5

54.6

19.1

60.9

28.1

42.0

Chan

ge P

eriod

(Y+R

c), s

4.05.3

4.05.3

4.0* 5

.34.0

5.3Ma

x Gre

en S

etting

(Gma

x), s

20.0

41.4

12.0

58.0

22.0

* 40

26.0

44.0

Max Q

Clea

r Tim

e (g_

c+I1)

, s15

.120

.68.0

17.7

15.1

33.7

23.6

33.7

Gree

n Ext

Time (

p_c),

s0.3

4.10.0

1.80.0

2.60.5

1.6

Inter

secti

on S

umma

ryHC

M 20

10 C

trl De

lay47

.1HC

M 20

10 LO

SD

Notes